MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

December 1, 2005

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on December 1, 2005, at 5:30 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 Christine Lepore.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Eric Wright, Zion Christian Church, Palm Bay, Florida.

 

 

Commissioner Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard announced the dates and routes of the Merritt Island, Cocoa-Rockledge, and Cocoa Beach Christmas parades; and advised of the ABATE event.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated a credit union has spent $46.80 to send him a monthly statement over the past 13 years to advise he has $5.03 in his account.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired when will the Board get revisions about storage units, taking them out of BU-2 zoning. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised staff will be bringing legislative intent to the Board at the first meeting in January 2006.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson requested the Board reappoint her to the St. Johns River Alliance.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to reappoint Commissioner Susan Carlson to the St. Johns River Alliance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised the St. Johns River Alliance film premiere is at the Zoo on Saturday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Colon advised of the dates and routes of the Palm Bay and Melbourne holiday parades.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised at the last meeting the Chair forgot his name, so he is wearing a name tag tonight so the Chair will remember his name.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz invited everyone to an Open House at her office on December 14, 2005 from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated Mr. Enos indicated it would easier if he did the Zoning Agendas; and she would have no problem with that.

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised currently it is a joint effort between his office and the Clerk; it can cause some confusion and there have been difficulties in the past; it is nothing his staff cannot do on its own; and he would hope to avoid some of that confusion and relieve the Clerk from that effort as well.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Zoning book will be going paperless soon.

 

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated Item V.B.20, Panorama Mobile Home Park, Inc., has been withdrawn; and that portion of V.B.33, Bernard Hersch, Michael Block, Roper Harding Titusville Partnership, and Debra Buchalter, lying south of Parrish Road was withdrawn. He advised that portion was tabled, and more was withdrawn, but the north portion will still be considered.

 

He stated V.B.13, V.B.15, V.B.21, V.B.27, V.B.29,, V.B.30, V.B.34, V.B.36, and V.B.37 are recommended to be tabled to February 2, 2006 and V.B.32 to March 2, 2006.

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised he did not get technical data for V.A.1. Mr. Enos advised that was requested for tabling to February 2, 2006.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.A.1 to the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.13 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.15 to the January 23, 2006 LPA meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.21 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.27 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.29 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.30 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting with reprocessing fee due. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.32 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting with reprocessing fee due. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.34 to January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting at request of applicant with reprocessing fee due. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.36 to the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.37 to the January 9, 2006 P&Z meeting and the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz advised Consent Items are those items on which there are no cards in opposition to the P&Z Board recommendation; and called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of November 7, 2005, and the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board made at its meeting on November 9, 2005, as follows:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded Carlson, to approve Item V.B.4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item V.B.8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.10 as RU-1-11 on northern portion per applicant’s legal description, and remainder to remain GU as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.12 with BDP limiting development to six lots as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.14 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.18 with BDP limiting use to 10 cows and 15 horses as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.25 with BDP limiting development to one homesite as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.26 with BDP limiting development to one duplex in addition to the existing single-family residence as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.B.35 as RU-2-15 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Jesse Carver commented on issues in Merritt Island including the car lot at the corner of SR 520 and North Tropical Trail, paving in Newfound Harbor, fundraising at traffic lights, construction on evacuation routes, and lack of pay phones at Kiwanis Island.

 

Chair Voltz requested Mr. Washburn check on the paving issue; and advised the firemen do not collect for themselves, but once a year collect for muscular dystrophy.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider items tabled from the August 4, September 1, October 6, and November 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meetings, as follows:

 

 

Loys Ward, representing the property owner, explained the request.

 

Steve Jack requested the BDP include that the applicant has agreed to not request use of the Open Space Ordinance.

 

Discussion ensued on Open Space Ordinance, clustering, and incompatibility.

 

Mr. Ward agreed to the inclusion of the provision concerning the Open Space Ordinance.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.A.2 as recommended by the P&Z Board with BDP providing there will be no request for Open Space Ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the item was recommended for denial; it is on Courtenay Parkway; the request is from BU-1 to BU-2; and they want to have miniwarehouses.

 

Commissioner Carlson advised the Board is working on inclusion of miniwarehouses in BU-1. Chair Voltz advised it will automatically be rezoned. Commissioner Carlson suggested limiting it to miniwarehouses only.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item V.A.3 with BDP limiting use to miniwarehouses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought they would be able to meet and work out a BDP; but there are differences they want to bring before the Board.

 

Thomas Kelly Mullins stated he is trying to get US 1 and Maebert Road approved for BU-1.

 

Cyril Colarchik expressed concerns about utilities and criteria for commercial clusters; and requested denial of the request.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired where is Mr. Colarchik’s home; and Mr. Colarchik pointed out his property on the map.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if both parties were able to meet; with Mr. Colarchik advising there was a meeting before the P&Z meeting.

 

Gloria Colarchik commented on lack of detailed plans, water use, access to Maebert Road, no requirement for masonry wall, and meeting with Mr. Mullins. She submitted a petition to the Board, but not the Clerk.

 

Jim Cheek commented on rural atmosphere of Mims and lack of compatibility with strip mall.

 

Cary Eide commented on rural atmosphere of the area and school bus stop; and requested if the Board approves the item, it require a 75-foot natural vegetated buffer. He requested the Board deny the item.

 

John Boelke expressed concern about access on Maebert Road, impact to his property, lack of plan, and no meeting with applicant.

 

Mr. Mullins advised of meeting in Commissioner Scarborough’s office, inability to sign contract with commercial activity without proper zoning, agreement to have no access to Maebert Road, effect of bus stop on traffic, and no clearing on property.

 

Chair Voltz advised of ability to plan for what is allowed in current zoning; and expressed concern about mixed message to neighbors. She recommended working with the neighbors.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on meeting in his office, notes that were taken, and different people with different concerns; and stated both sides are getting further apart and they are unable to accommodate both parties.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item V.A.4.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated if the item is tabled, will it cost the applicant to bring it back at a future date; with Mr. Enos responding yes; but if it were tabled, there would be no additional fees. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was looking for a way to resolve this with no additional cost; but it appears doubtful that it will be resolved.

 

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

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about drainage. Commissioner Pritchard stated he met with Ron Jones and others regarding drainage and alleviating potential future problems, and
they have a good plan; the project is not going to affect the plan to enhance drainage as they
will manage it onsite; and suggested going to RU-2-8. Mr. Enos advised the applicant is willing to limit the development to 160 units. Paul Lyons stated ideally what they would like is the zoning that is contiguous to the property, which is RU-2-15, with a cap of 11; and they have not finalized the number of units yet. Mr. Enos stated he had heard 150 units; but RU-2-8 would give over 150 units and RU-2-12 with a cap of 11 would give them 218 units. Mr. Lyons advised he would be happy with that.

 

Discussion ensued on flag lots and compatibility with the area.

 

Mr. Lyons advised ideally they would like RU-2-11, but if the decision of the Board is RU-2-8, they will accept that. He inquired if RU-2-8 is multifamily; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

 

Discussion continued on density, setting a precedent, integrity of the community, opportunity for affordable housing, and concerns about compatibility.

 

Mr. Lyons stated the goal is to do workforce housing; and described the planned condominium development. Denise McDonald advised they will be constrained by the wetlands, and there will be internal constraints.

 

Discussion continued on price of workforce housing, range of affordability, and median price of homes.

 

Commissioner Pritchard expressed support for RU-2-8.

 

Discussion resumed on development of trailer parks, impact on neighborhoods and infrastructure, density, and buildout of adjoining properties.

 

Ms. McDonald advised they are willing to discuss limitations. Mr. Lyons advised the bottom line is they will accept RU-2-8 that was recommended. Mr. Enos stated that would be just under 160 units. Mr. Lyons stated they will be working with the engineers on the final plan. Chair Voltz inquired about wetlands; with the applicant’s engineer responding he expects it to be developed at less than 160 units.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item V.A.5 as RU-2-8. Motion died for lack of a second.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised the neighborhood is not complaining. Mr. Lyons stated they have talked to the surrounding neighbors, who are fine with what they are requesting. He noted one neighbor who supports is present.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item V.A.5. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:15 p.m.

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of November 7, 2005, the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board made at its meeting on November 9, 2005, and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its meeting on November 10, 2005, as follows:

 

 

Attorney Phil Nohrr, representing Sawgrass Land Development Company, advised they are seeking rezoning on a total of 105 acres to RU-1-13; the property is located on the north side of the Pineda Causeway Extension; and displayed a map of the area. He stated the project will be done in two phases; and described the surrounding zoning. He stated there is a 50-foot right-of-way that is owned by the County; and it will serve as an additional buffer. He stated the rest of the property has a buffer around it of approximately 15 feet; and commented on lots that will abut the Pineda Extension and additional buffering of those lots. He commented on the County coming to them concerning compensating storage for the Pineda Extension, requesting RU-1-13 for the eagle’s nest, and eagle’s nest property not being subject to development rights until five years after eagles leave. He stated the Binding Development Plan provides the houses will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet; there will be no right of access to St. Andrews Isle; access will be to Pineda Extension; on the final plat, there will be notice of construction of the Pineda; buyers will be advised they can only rely on access from Brisbane and out to the Pineda Causeway; and they will submit a Binding Development Plan. He stated the time has come now for the property to be developed in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhoods; one of the neighbors does not want them to discharge into Tract L; that will be part of the Binding Development Plan; and described the path of the discharge. He stated Commissioner Carlson provided him with language that staff wanted as far as the agreement that is in place with A. Duda & Sons; that language is fine; and it will be part of the Binding Development Plan.

 

Lydia Lynch, Bob Rogan, and Greg Dufour commented on the Binding Development Plan, growth, drainage concerns, road access, notice on plat, buffers, flooding, and presence of gopher tortoises, burrowing owls, and other animals.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the language Mr. Nohrr referred to is, "nothing in this Binding Development Plan shall waive, supercede, or alleviate the rights or obligations in part or in whole as provided within that agreement between A. Duda & Sons, and their successors in title and Brevard County, as recorded in the public records ORB 4059/0051 on August 27, 1999 or
as subsequently amended." She stated the Agreement deals with the retention areas, the need for those areas, and the agreement that was made between Duda and the County and the applicant; and she wanted to make sure it was binding and not subject to change.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Nohrr talked about a vegetated berm on all of the lots that are on the Pineda Causeway; once construction starts, there will be people wanting a noise wall; the signs are not explicit enough; if the Board approves, the Binding Development Plan needs to have the 25-foot buffer, fifteen feet and ten feet on the backs of those properties that can be identified specifically in the BDP; and it is a vegetated berm that takes up ten feet inside the property line. She inquired about posting notices in the contract; with Mr. Nohrr responding he is talking about the contract with the ultimate consumer. She stated another issue is having sales staff understand the things that are coming in the future; and in the Binding Development Plan, she would like to include, "the extension of the Pineda Causeway, a four-lane divided highway, will be constructed adjacent to or nearby the Brisbane Manor Subdivision. Your purchase of a lot should be governed with this knowledge and understanding." She requested staff change the signs to advise the Pineda Extension will be built, giving the dates for the construction; and stated on Item 9, she would like the word "variance" to be changed to "amendment." She stated her only other concern involves the ditches and the issue of drainage; and advised the actual number of units is 183, barring environmental concerns. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about adding a comment concerning the connectivity of Brisbane Boulevard to St. Andrews Boulevard; with Commissioner Carlson responding number six is, "The only access proposed to the Brisbane Manor Subdivision will be by Brisbane Boulevard and the Pineda Causeway. There will be no future connection to St. Andrews Boulevard without further action of the County Commission."

 

Discussion ensued on further action to connect the roads, adding to the congestion on Wickham Road, connectivity through neighborhoods, public response, traffic concerns, destroying the neighborhood, prior ruling to have no connection until there is an I-95 interchange, traffic study, referencing concept plan in the BDP as Exhibit B, and clarifying the buffers.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated a 15-foot buffer that goes around the perimeter of the property is required; and the 50-foot buffer is the right-of-way between Waterford Place and Brisbane. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the setback beginning after the buffer; with Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn advising according to the Ordinance the buffer is required to remain in its natural state; it is to be maintained by the Homeowners Association; and the setback would be from the rear lot line, which is not part of the buffer.

 

Discussion ensued on the buffer. Commissioner Scarborough suggested the setback of any building within the lot begin after the 15-foot buffer. Mr. Nohrr advised that will be included in the BDP. Chair Voltz stated the total is 65 feet of vegetated buffer. Commissioner Carlson stated 50 feet is the right-of-way that will be left in a native state, along with the 15-foot buffer, and then the actual lot line will begin. Mr. Nohrr pointed out lots on the map; advised they will probably not leave the buffer in its natural state in that area; and they will probably have to have a variance. Commissioner Carlson stated that needs to be worked out in the BDP.

 

Discussion continued on the buffers, not developing eight lots, tweaking the concept plan, future problems with lots next to Pineda Extension, and reason for leaving existing vegetation intact.

 

Mr. Nohrr advised they will address this as detailed as the Board desires; and they will be looking at all the things. He stated the way the project is designed, from the lot line all the drainage will go towards the road; they will not do anything in their development to affect the drainage area; and they will add to the BDP that they will not ask for the right-of-way to be vacated.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.1 with BDP, with all comments to be included in BDP including working out buffer areas and commitment to not ask for vacating of easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing Bainbridge Developers and Fred Tucker, described the project at Fiske Boulevard and I-95, property to the north that has been annexed by the City of Rockledge and is going to C-2 commercial zoning, and location of Tuckaway Lakes Estates. He read aloud a letter from the Tuckaway Lakes Homeowners Association advising of meetings to discuss the development plan and answer questions, and indicating the Association has no further questions regarding the project; and described four other projects in the State of Florida done by Bainbridge Development Company. He stated they have agreed to construct a new sign for Tuckaway Lakes Estates; and described the concept drawing, including fencing, visual buffer, and parking. He stated the design is the "big house" concept; and described the buildings. He commented on the site plan, not needing drainage on the site, aesthetic value of the lake, no nighttime lighting on the tennis courts or swimming pool, location of the dumpster, and location of the gates. He stated the project is surrounded by roads on four sides, so it is somewhat isolated from the adjacent community; described the surrounding area; and advised ingress and egress will be onto Tuckaway. He noted they applied to FDOT to get ingress and egress to Fiske Boulevard; and that application is still pending, but does not look promising. He stated they have agreed to put a straight through lane so people going past the project into Tuckaway Lakes Estates will not have to stop for traffic making a left hand turn into the complex; coming out of Tuckaway onto Fiske Boulevard, they will provide turning lanes, as approved, so there is no traffic backing up waiting; and they will help in gating Tuckaway Lakes Estate, although there are difficulties with that as there are public streets there that would require vacating, which would require agreement of all 49 property owners.

 

Discussion ensued on acreage, number of units, concerns of the City of Rockledge, apartment complexes, density, differences between rental and condo communities, affordable housing, neighborhood commercial designation, rental complex as buffer between high commercial and Tuckaway Lakes Estates, and need for rental properties.

 

Commissioner Colon commented on an apartment complex in Palm Bay that led to additional apartment complexes, the City stopping such developments and facing court challenge, and problems being experienced by the Palm Bay Police Department.

 

Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern that the concept plan is not attached to a BDP and need for a traffic analysis. He stated they need to understand where the entrances are, what type of traffic controls there will be, and the overall traffic flow of the region; and they may be putting something together that is going to be disastrous because it is already a difficult area to traverse.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there are approximately nine items she would like to see in a binding development plan; and commented on traffic concerns, Fiske Boulevard entry, access to Tuckaway Lakes, fencing, management, need for a transportation study, growth of the Viera community, bottleneck with Stadium Parkway coming into Barnes Boulevard, local option gas tax funds allocated to Barnes Boulevard, moratorium on segment of Barnes Boulevard, and insufficient information to act on application.

 

Mr. Torpy noted staff comments show acceptable levels of service on Fiske Boulevard, which is the only road they will be coming out onto; and there has never been a County requirement for a traffic study for where people may go, such as down to Viera to shop or down Barnes to U.S. 1. He commented on moving traffic out to Fiske Boulevard, the turning issue, making the site plan part of the record, meetings with staff, and money for improvements to Barnes Boulevard or intersection improvements at time of engineering in order to get a building permit.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on an item that was tabled because the traffic survey had not come in, a development that was required to make improvements to S.R. 46, and need to know overall movement of traffic. He advised of need to know all data before he can vote favorably; and stated at this time he could only vote in the negative. Mr. Torpy stated right now the concern with the traffic study is because there are so many patterns; a traffic expert can tell how many trips they are going to generate; staff knows that; but which direction they are going to go and which route they are going to take would be conjecture. Commissioner Scarborough advised they will be accessing an already active traffic pattern, which will be impacted by new turns, etc.; and there are methodologies to understand the impact of the additional traffic and how it will impact the existing; with Mr. Torpy indicating he understands the point.

 

Mr. Torpy requested Commissioner Carlson advise of the nine items for the BDP.

 

Commissioner Colon commented on development in the Kissimmee/St. Cloud area; stated she is not interested in working out a BDP; and the only thing; she would be interested in would be a subdivision with a limited number of homes. She commented on the traffic impact.

 

Chair Voltz inquired about management; with Mr. Torpy advising Bainbridge Development Company owns and manages its own projects. Chair Voltz inquired if they could annex into
Rockledge and get that zoning; with Mr. Torpy responding it has been represented that they could. Chair Voltz stated representing that apartment complexes are all bad is an insult to people who cannot afford to buy homes; and they should not all be put in one category.

 

Commissioner Carlson expressed concern about where people from 250 units would go to buy food, traffic on Barnes, and timing. She commented on plans to widen Barnes Boulevard, I-95, and Stadium Parkway; higher density resulting in gridlock; need for a transportation study; annexing into the City of Rockledge; and need for apartment complexes in the community. She stated until the transportation problems are fixed in the area, she cannot support a high density piece there; and they can work out something that is lower density.

 

Commissioner Colon commented on apartment complexes, drug activity, balance in the community, transition from apartment to buying a house, and experiences of Palm Bay with apartment complexes.

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented on the community turning into Palm Beach; and inquired about the timeframe for construction of the development. Mr. Torpy responded if approved today, construction is predicted to start in summer of next year and be completed within 14 months. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when would Barnes be started and finished; with Commissioner Carlson responding it has not been determined yet. Commissioner Pritchard recommended tabling the item for a couple of months and having the transportation model come back. Mr. Torpy requested the item be tabled to the February 2006 meeting to see if he can address some of the issues; and advised he will not apologize for providing apartments for quality people in the County. Commissioner Pritchard commented on people selling their houses and being unable to afford to buy it back, taxes, and providing affordable housing.

 

Discussion ensued on apartment complexes, problems with management, incidents in the City of Palm Bay, and transitional housing.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item V.B.3, to February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested the transportation studies and technical data be submitted several weeks before the meeting; and suggested tabling to a March or April meeting. He advised the next time he will support a motion to deny because he is concerned about the dynamics of that many units.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard to table Item V.B.3 to March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the original application was for RU-1-11, which was recommended for denial; and the applicant amended the application to RR-1.

 

Darroll Higginbotham advised of ownership of property that has been his place of business for 27 years, desire to sell the property, current zoning, zoning of surrounding properties, results of environmental assessment, and request for seven units on 7.5 acres.

 

Pastor Jeremy Coppock, Deborah Gaylord, Eric Hull, Kenneth Cyphert, David Migdalski, Steve Jack, and David Craig commented on the proposed rezoning.

 

Mr. Higginbotham advised of changing his request to RR-1, talking with the 23 neighbors, resurvey of property, discrepancy at north end of property, error on original survey, wetland assessment, wetlands, and room for a road.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated this has come a long way; but he is unable to move forward tonight because the notice was not received until Monday and the property is strangely shaped so additional discussions may need to take place.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item V.B.6 to the February 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Higginbotham inquired what will happen now. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Higginbotham may call him or he will call Mr. Higginbotham; there will be some problems because of the odd shape of the property and how it can be developed; and zoning is only the first step. Mr. Higginbotham stated he has a preliminary plot plan; with Commissioner Scarborough advising that would be good to bring.

 

 

John Campbell, representing the applicant, advised of the history of the property, size of the nonconforming lot, application for SR zoning, wetland issue, and location of proposed home close to street to minimize wetland impact. He advised there is mixed zoning around the property; and if the Board denies the item, the property probably has vested interest. He stated the home will be compatible to the area.

Patricia Bayer and Henry Bayer expressed opposition to the rezoning request.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if not residential, what do Mr. and Mrs. Bayer envision on the property; with Mr. Bayer responding currently there are narrow properties there from Camp Road to Broadway; the first two are GU, then IU, then long strips of AU. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how Mr. Bayer would feel about industrial use there; with Mr. Bayer responding it would be more appropriate; there would be the same problems at their end; but the other end is industrial.

 

Mr. Campbell stated properties to the north are zoned GU; but as they were one-acre lots when GU was allowed to be one acre, they are allowed to stay. He stated the only reason they are asking for SR is to get one building site; and if the Board denies the building site, it will have taken the property because the owner will have no use on it. He stated Mr. Hafizi has owned the property for a short period of time; but he is the principal in DeMar Homes, and this home will be built for one of his subcontractors.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated a little to the north the Future Land Use Map designation is industrial; so conceivably there will be a transition unless someone from the north comes in for a land use change. He stated they are saying this should be residential as opposed to industrial; and he is not sure he is comfortable. Mr. Campbell commented on the area. Commissioner Scarborough commented on compatibility; stated the leap from residential to industrial is considered a larger leap; and by granting the request, they are setting up a situation where industrial use will have an inherent incompatibility. He inquired if Mr. Campbell is convinced this whole area should be residential; with Mr. Campbell responding the parcels have been divided since the late 1960’s into one-acre sites. Commissioner Scarborough commented on compatibility and profound change from residential to industrial; and questioned the advisability of putting people living next to a railroad track in an area that is problematic with flooding.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item V.B.7. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Pritchard, Voltz, and Colon voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.B.7 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 9:28 p.m. and reconvened at 9:41 p.m.

 

 

 

Gerald Wyles advised he is the applicant.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if anyone is opposed to the item.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the noise issue; with Mr. Wyles responding the noise issue was brought about in a complaint by Mr. Ashcroft. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a petition against the application with a number of names; the recommendation is unanimous for approval with a BDP; and inquired about the dynamics. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised there were objections from the neighborhood to the east, which was concerned about noise, what the uses would be, and possibly having holding tanks on the property. He stated the applicant advised the noise was coming from a different parcel; and the P&Z Board after recognizing the property is designated as industrial in the Comprehensive Plan, realized it had to be zoned for some industrial use; and PIP is the least intense. Commissioner Scarborough advised he does not have a BDP; with Mr. Enos responding one has not been submitted; however, the P&Z Board suggested it could be approved with a Binding Development Plan.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.B.9 with BDP addressing all issues that were addressed by the P&Z Board.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the applicant is comfortable with the motion; with Mr. Wyles responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough explained how the BDP would be developed.

 

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

 

 

 

Todd Peetz, Miller Legg and Associates, representing the applicant, stated the request is from AU to RU-2-10 with a binding development plan and providing for a 75-unit cap; and described the area and surrounding zoning. He stated there are no concurrency issues with the property; they meet the Comprehensive Plan; the staff report indicates that RU-2-8 may be more appropriate; the recommendation is for RU-2-4; and they do not have a problem with that.

 

Chair Voltz advised the property is not going to remain a driving range; and it will be developed unless the speakers wish to purchase the property.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired about a dispute that might be more of a civil matter, and whether the Board is being premature in rezoning. Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore stated the golf course leases the property; the property owner may not be interested in continuing the lease; it is the property owner’s right to use his property; and it is not a factor in the rezoning. She advised the Board can judge whether the compatibility of the request is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood; but the lease is not a land use factor and there is nothing compelling the property owner to continue the lease.

 

Billy McQueary, Tom Etter, Joe Golden, Merlin Tice, Glenn Roberts, Tom Hughes, and Bob Brenneman commented on the proposed rezoning.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Chair advised the property will change no matter what; and inquired if there is a transaction between two private parties, why does the Board have to rezone; with Attorney Lepore advising the Board does not have to rezone and can leave it as it is.

 

Discussion ensued on owner’s desire to develop the property and AU allowing only four homes.

 

Michael Coleman, Mary Jane Newman, Michael Anthony Faro, and Steve Jack commented on the proposed rezoning.

 

Mr. Peetz commented on traffic, drainage, schools, traffic study, and concept drawing showing 60 units; and advised they can do the Binding Development Plan to accommodate 60 units. He stated AU would be incompatible with the six to ten units to the acre to the west and multifamily to the east.

 

Dan Cassidy, representing Vero-Pittsburgh Partners, LLC, stated a previous speaker implied that the purchaser of the golf course had no knowledge that the driving range was not included; and read aloud from the Contract, "Buyer acknowledges that seller is retaining the parcels of land which contain the driving range which are known as parcels A14, A21, and 102. Seller agrees to lease the driving range to buyer for the price of $1 per year until such time as the seller desires to develop the driving range parcels for seller’s own purposes. Upon such occurrence, buyer may provide substitute driving range facilities for the golf course on the buyer’s property at the buyer’s expense. This condition shall survive closing." He advised this was signed six weeks prior to the transfer and was discussed many months ahead of time, so it was fully disclosed.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if it says the Board will be rezoning; with Mr. Cassidy responding it does not.

 

Discussion ensued on the number of units allowed in AU.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about one unit per acre; with Mr. Cassidy responding it is an incompatible use. Mr. Cassidy advised the future land use for the piece is RU-2-15; there is zoning to the left that is high density duplexes and townhomes; the zoning on the other side is RU-2-30, which is a high-density condominium; and across the street is a commercial facility. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the number of units in RU-2-30 and RU-2-15 and the property that is between those and the driving range; with Mr. Cassidy indicating he does not know the number of units, but the property between is the 18th hole. Mr. Cassidy advised the zoning they applied for allowed 75 units; the concept plan shows 59 units; they are fine tuning it; and the market is going to drive the number. Mr. Cassidy stated it does not lend itself to single-family.

 

Chair Voltz inquired what is the vacant piece to the west of the property; with Mr. Peetz responding it is part of the PUD, and is currently under construction. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised it is part of the PUD, and is townhouses at 84 units on the property, probably at six units per acre. Mr. Peetz advised if they go to the concept plan, it would be six to the acre.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item V.B.11 as recommended.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the recommendation is for denial; the Board had no control over the area that is PUD; and described the area with more dense development to the east and an open area being utilized for golf. He stated there is a country club and homes on lots that are larger than zoning requirements; and the Board should not default to the lowest common denominator. He commented on administrative policy compatibility, criteria, traffic, and material reduction of five percent or more in value of existing abutting lands being indicative of a problem.

 

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

 

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the applicant has amended the application to RU-2-10.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired about the number of units; with Mr. Enos responding 20 acres under RU-2-15 would be approximately 300 units, but RU-2-10 would drop it to 200 units.

 

Ted Rubbo advised of drawings showing 126 units and another for 138 units. Commissioner Colon inquired if it is 126 units on 12 acres; with Mr. Rubbo responding approximately.

 

Ted Rubbo stated the future land use for the parcel is Residential 15; and advised of the history of the rezoning request. He commented on traffic being adequate, no complaints about compatibility, workforce housing for moderate income workers, median house price versus median wage, and salaries in Brevard County. He displayed a picture of the townhome elevations; and described the property, development, and price range. He commented on compatibility, surrounding densities, areas annexed into the Cities of Rockledge and Cocoa that have been developed as residential, development that has taken place since the P&Z meeting, and making a profit.

 

Chair Voltz inquired what is the cap; with Mr. Rubbo responding a cap of eight. Mr. Enos stated RU-2-8 is available.

 

Commissioner Colon stated it is 126 units on 12 acres; and she agrees with the recommendation of the P&Z Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item V.B.19 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

 

 

Discussion ensued on the reduction from RU-2-15 to RU-2-8, incompatibility, protecting businesses from residential encroachment, what businesses are in the area, no objections from businesses, rockpits, incompatibility of BU-1 and BU-2, ability to annex into City of Rockledge, and affordable housing.

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Voltz and Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

 

Item withdrawn by applicant.

 

 

 

Discussion ensued on possibility of having spokespersons and hearing repetitive comments.

 

Tonya Williams explained the rezoning request; described the surrounding area and zonings; and advised they are not in conflict with the future land use. She stated people in the area have drainage problems; but that is not an issue on their property.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Ms. Williams lives on the property; with Ms. Williams responding yes. Ms. Williams advised they wish to have the option of selling an acre or putting it in a trust for their children.

 

Darlene Hunt, Celia Williams, and Shaye Williams voiced objection to the rezoning request.

 

Ms. Williams stated her property is not in the Small Area Study; there must be some reason it is not included; and she has not seen the report. She requested the Small Area Study not be considered in the Board’s decision.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Small Area Plan did not include this property; he is not sure when the next study will take place; and he thinks the rezoning request is reasonable as one unit per acre is an adequate amount of property. He stated included in the study are 150 acres that are to be developed at one unit per acre. He commented on another three-quarter acre parcel that was approved in the same neighborhood, fire station, and infrastructure.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.22. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Colon vote nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item V.B.22 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Voltz voted nay.

 

 

 

Attorney Brad Bettin, representing the applicants, advised of the history and size of the property, current zoning, surrounding area, and what is on the property. He commented on the owners and zoning of other properties in the area. He stated the applicants want to rezone from AU because there is no use that can presently be made of the property with the current zoning; it is undersized and lacks width; and they are seeking SR with a Binding Development Plan to limit to one unit. He stated they were looking at two options, to rezone to a classification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which did not require variances or to seek a variance to the property’s AU deficiencies; the latter option would create a problem with precedent; and it was suggested filing for rezoning was the better alternative. He explained why SR zoning was
chosen and why they are limiting to one unit. Mr. Bettin commented on staff review, consistency with land use regulations, adequate levels of service, and no environmental issues.

 

Shaye Williams, Marjorie McCollum, Celia Williams, and Darlene Hunt voiced objection to the rezoning.

 

Mr. Bettin advised if a property has no economic use under its current zoning, the owner has to be allowed to do something with it unless the County wants to buy the property; and stated there is one unit per acre all around the property, so it is a reasonable request.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.B.23 with BDP limiting development to one unit as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the Board’s responsibility; with Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore advising the Board needs to give a zoning to the property. Commissioner Carlson inquired if this is the only zoning available to the Board; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding if the Board approved RR-1, the property would still not be usable unless the applicant also got a variance on the lot width, which would be controlled by the Board of Adjustment.

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised not all property is buildable; and advised of various reasons why property may be unbuildable.

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay.

 

 

 

Discussion ensued on whether the Board can require speakers to designate a spokesperson. Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore advised the Board can request that but they do not have to comply; however, the Board can make it clear that it will not accept repetitive comments. Discussion resumed on being sensitive to speakers, and using caution when remarks are repetitive.

 

Attorney Philip Nohrr, representing Gen Development, stated the property is 63.97 acres on the corner of Parrish and Holder Roads; they are seeking RU-1-13 zoning with a Binding Development Plan; and advised of a booklet, which includes a summary of the outreach done by the applicant, including a total of 450 meetings. He stated they have not been successful; there are 182 individuals who live within 500 feet; and they have submitted 173 signatures to the Board showing support for the project. He described the area and surrounding development; advised one unit per acre development would be incompatible; and commented on the current zoning. He stated on the RU-1-9 portion with open space, they can get 99 units; and with the AU and GU, they can get 115 units, so the difference between the 115 units versus the 188 units they are willing to limit it to in the Binding Development Plan is 73 units, or 1.1 additional units per acre. He stated the proposed zoning is RU-1-13; and advised of the surrounding zoning and density. He stated when they get to the concept plan, they will show how they tried to reach out to be compatible with the neighbors to the east; and some of it is a result of the meeting in Commissioner Scarborough’s office where a larger buffer was suggested. He commented on Holder Park and 40 acres next to it that are zoned RU-1-11, and can be developed at that density without coming before the Board; and advised of zoning to the south in the City of Titusville that is equivalent to RU-1-13. He stated to require them to come in at one unit per acre or per half-acre would constitute spot zoning; and it would be an inordinate burden that their surrounding neighbors do not have. He displayed a map showing property owners who have signed petitions in support; advised those who have not signed are not necessarily opposed; and presented the tool that was taken around to show the property owners, which shows there are two lakes. He stated they have since found out they are not going to have lakes, but will have dry retention; that is what is going to be mandated by Code because of the type of soils there; but they were not trying to mislead. He requested the discussion be on the basis of compatibility or incompatibility of the project. He stated they will make the concept plan part of the Binding Development Plan; they are going to have 50-foot buffers on Holder and Parrish Roads, with the exception of one minor spot; they will be left in their natural vegetative state; and they will do what they have to for the project to not be visible from the road. He stated it will be a gated community with water and sewer; advised of the levels of service for traffic; and noted they will make a donation to Oak Park and Mims Elementary Schools of $10,000 each for recreation equipment. He stated it is not an aquifer recharge area; the soils were analyzed by Universal Testing; and he will put those results into the record.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that report has been submitted to staff for review; with Mr. Nohrr responding he has not. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is inappropriate to ask the Board to use that as a basis of making a decision since staff has not had an opportunity to see it. Chair Voltz inquired when Mr. Nohrr got the report; with Mr. Nohrr responding yesterday. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Mr. Nohrr wishes to have it submitted, the Board will need to continue the hearing so staff can review and report to the Board; and otherwise it should be removed as part of the record. Mr. Nohrr advised there will be expert testimony on the aquifer; and he will be happy to remove the report.

 

Discussion ensued on rules of evidence, and rules of submission of information for staff review.

Mr. Nohrr advised of the provisions of the Aquifer Recharge Statute pertaining to type three aquifer recharge; and stated their plan is less than 40% impervious surface, which meets and/or exceeds all development requirements for development within the aquifer recharge area. He advised of an environmental review, which showed fourteen gopher tortoises that have respiratory disease and are not capable of being removed; and stated they will be dealt with pursuant to appropriate regulations. He stated there are no scrub jays, and the wetlands are limited to .46 acre.

 

Commissioner Scarborough cautioned the Board to be careful what it takes as expert testimony; and advised this is conjecture and hearsay on the part of Mr. Nohrr unless he has submitted the supporting information in a timely manner.

 

Mr. Nohrr advised of the presence of the consulting engineer and environmental consultant who will present the information; and it was not his intent to represent himself as an expert on environmental regulations or engineering.

 

Commissioner Colon advised the parcel on the south was removed from consideration; with Mr. Nohrr responding that is correct.

 

Discussion ensued on focusing on the northern parcel, acreage of each parcel, comparing apples to apples, and parcel with environmental issues being off the table.

 

Chair Voltz advised the southern parcel has been withdrawn.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if there has been discussion with the neighborhood; and stated the petitions were based on the 83 acres. Mr. Nohrr explained the actions at the Planning and Zoning meeting, request to table the 83-acre portion, questions about legality of tabling it and going forward with the north parcel, and withdrawing the 83 acres. Commissioner Colon stated it was just legally done because last Friday, everyone was looking at two pieces; and inquired if there has been an opportunity since Monday to address concerns about the property in question. Mr. Nohrr responded he knows of one meeting in Commissioner Scarborough’s office with Mr. Jack; and Mr. Jack is present tonight to describe it. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was not a part of the meetings; he had Laurilee Thompson and Steve Jack to hear a presentation from Mr. Nohrr and his client; and there was a good exchange of information, but no discussion to come to any amendments or BDP’s or anything like that. Mr. Nohrr advised they said they would be happy to sit down with Mr. Jack, but he was not interested in pursuing further discussion. Commissioner Scarborough stated he advised that it was best to address the Board rather than getting into discussion. Mr. Nohrr advised as they left the office, he said he would be happy to do it after that.

 

Matt Soyka, with Soyka Engineering, provided expert testimony on soil borings, exemption from Aquifer Recharge Ordinance, clay below the surface that does not allow water to penetrate, qualifying as type three aquifer, maximum pervious surface, public wells in the area, and 500-foot zone from wells.

Brad Smith, Certified Planner and Landscape Architect, presented expert testimony on density of units, proximity of open space, concept plan, existing vegetation, Open Space Ordinance, buffering, existing wetland, wildlife connectivity zone, incompatibility with one-acre areas, buildout yield of four units per acre, pedestrian linkages, open space linkages, stormwater management, working with existing stormwater and vegetation, and benefit of clustering.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Smith made a comparison with the Sherwood area; and inquired about lot size; with Mr. Smith responding 55 feet by 115 feet. Commissioner Scarborough stated the lots in the Sherwood area are just shy of being twice as large.

 

Discussion ensued on gross density, lot sizes, and lifestyle choices.

 

R. C. Kirk, Maynard Fitzgerald, Steve Jack, Steve Lay, Paula Lay, Sherryl Emmons, Ronn Miller, Debbie Day, Laurilee Thompson, Michael Myjack, Maureen Parent, and Bonita Oakley commented on the request for rezoning.

 

Jon Shepherd, Atlantic Environmental Solutions, presented expert testimony concerning environmental issues relating to the proposed development, wetlands, buffering, wildlife, scrub jay survey, tortoise survey, inability to relocate diseased tortoises, and incidental take permit.

 

Erin Lima, Maureen Rupe, Helga Fraze, Steve Jack, Roxanne Knox-Martinolich, and Mary Hillber commented on the rezoning request.

 

Mr. Nohrr advised of a meeting on November 14, 2005; stated they asked for another meeting after that, but were not granted one; and it is unfortunate they could not come together. He advised they are willing to abandon the Open Space Ordinance and go to 120 lots on RU-1-13, or a density of 1.875 per acre, which is clearly compatible.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the square footage of the lot; with Mr. Nohrr responding RU-1-13 would be a 7,500 square-foot lot, and the home would be a minimum of 1,450 square feet. Commissioner Scarborough stated Administrative Policy Number 3 talks about compatibility; criteria C talks about emerging trends and the actual development over the preceding three years; and he did not see until tonight some data on what has occurred. He commented on the average lot size and house size in the area; and stated if he looks at how compatible that is with what is emerging he is still having a profound problem. He stated the lot size is one-twelfth of what has been developed; the average house is one-third larger than what is proposed; and he cannot buy off on that without looking at some of the other elements because it is not where he thinks they need to be. He stated he does not completely comprehend the viability of some of the issues one way or the other; but they are still
a ways from being where he would be comfortable saying it is within the Administrative Policy 3.c.2. Commissioner Scarborough stated they always want to see the emergence of positive trends; there may be an ability to have smaller lots and build smaller houses; but when people are reaching for better, it means they are taking their hard-earned money and trying to make their community reach for something that is better rather than having it move backwards; and when they throw a development in there, they are throwing cold water on the dreams of people who are committed to put money into bigger homes. He inquired if Mr. Jack believes this is something that should be tabled for discussion; with Steve Jack responding no, it needs to be denied.

 

Chair Voltz noted Commissioner Scarborough would not accept the paperwork that Mr. Nohrr tried to submit because staff had not reviewed it, but yet he is accepting this.

 

Discussion ensued on accepting data.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to move for denial because he thinks they will just argue and he does not feel good.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept withdrawal of portion of Item V.B.33 lying south of Parrish Road and deny portion lying north of Parrish Road.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was mentioned earlier they could do 99 homes; then there were some rudimentary numbers and they came up with 79 without the open space concept; and inquired if there is a market for a larger home in this neighborhood.

John Genoni stated that would not work for them considering what is being built and sold in the area just south of them that has been annexed into Titusville; and to be able to run water and sewer, curb streets, and put the full gamut of improvements on 99 lots would not work.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if there is the ability to go into the City of Titusville; with Mr. Genoni responding that is an option, but they do not want to do that if they can avoid it.

 

 

Todd Peetz, Miller Legg and Associates, representing the applicant, advised the site is on Merritt Island, just north of Chase Hammock Road; and pointed out the site on the map. He described the surrounding area; advised of meetings with residents from Joseph Court, the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, and Otter Trace Homeowners Association; and stated they addressed all issues in the Binding Development Plan. Mr. Peetz advised of the recommendation of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for approval with a cap of 24 lots; stated the BDP has 28 lots; and the reason for the 24-lot cap was to create additional drainage areas. He stated the concept plan at the time of the meeting had nine to ten acres for drainage; but the current concept drawing has in excess of 14 acres for drainage, which is more than what was recommended by the District Board, but has 28 lots. He stated they have compromised throughout the process; and advised of provisions to address various issues, including setbacks, retention, house size, maintenance of the property, and buffering.

 

Wallace McCullough, Honeycutt and Associates, provided expert testimony concerning stormwater drainage; advised of meeting with Ron Jones and Mike Powers of Stormwater Utilities and requirement to retain the 25-year storm; and stated their revised concept plan can retain the 100-year storm in its entirety, with approximately 50% excess capacity. He noted there is a mile discharge, but it is kept to a low amount.

 

Herb Solinksy, Mary Hillberg, and Christine Gardling commented on the rezoning request, expressing concerns about drainage, growth, and roads.

 

Mr. Peetz stated he will defer all drainage issues to the engineer; they are providing a buffer area; they are providing 100-foot setback; and there are no identified concurrency issues in terms of traffic. He stated they provide a lot of assurances in the Binding Development Plan.

 

Chair Voltz inquired about acreage with 24 lots versus drainage with 28 lots. Mr. McCullough stated there was never a design for 24 lots; but it was felt they could gain more stormwater area by eliminating four lots. Chair Voltz inquired about the amount of drainage at that point; with Mr. McCullough responding approximately seven acres. He stated he understands the concerns for infrastructure off-site; they talk about the County having a permit in place in six months; it will take them approximately a year to get a permit for the site, six months for the roads, and whatever it takes to build the houses, so they are a good ways away from having a complete project; and the infrastructure will likely be in place by the time they get to it. He advised of conversations with Ron Jones about Otter Trace; stated the original design of Otter Trace was low in order to keep the trees; the houses were built up so they do not flood, but the yards do; and any time it rains, it will flood as it was designed to do. He stated their finished floors will be equivalent to those in Otter Trace; they are able to hold the 100-year storm with minimal discharge and have additional capacity; so their impact on drainage would be negligible. Chair Voltz noted the applicant was before the Board in February 2005.

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised of drainage problems in Otter Trace in 1993 when there were only two houses; a lot of what was built there was built with the knowledge that it would flood; and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board recommended approval with a BDP with a cap of 24 lots to provide additional drainage. He stated the applicant has provided additional drainage; staff has worked out things they will be doing to take care of a lot of the problems they have been having; and elaborated on planned activities. Commissioner Pritchard stated they are asking for 28 lots; the original request was for 38 lots; they are proposing transitional zoning between Otter Trace and Chase Hammock Lakes; they have addressed the stormwater issue; and the road is well under capacity. He stated the request is reasonable and he would support it.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated number seven is that the water retention shall meet the 100-year storm requirements of the appropriate reviewing agencies; and inquired about quality as opposed to quantity. He stated while the County may be getting the permit, it does not necessarily have a funded project; and inquired if the applicant would agree to in the BDP that no building permits would be issued until the infrastructure is in place. Mr. Peetz inquired if the County project will start on time; with Commissioner Scarborough responding even though they have the permitting, they may not have the funding in place. Commissioner Scarborough stated the third item is the finished floor elevation; and he would be uncomfortable unless those things were specified in the BDP.

 

Discussion ensued on floor elevations, specifying things in the BDP, concurrency requirements, and funding for Lake George project.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the floor elevations; with Mr. McCullough responding the finished floors will be the same as Otter Trace; and advised how he reached the figures.

 

John Kamin, representing the owner, advised they are okay with putting a time on it; but when getting involved with multiple sources funding multiple projects, they could run into a situation where the project could be scrapped and it could be two to three years, which would be outside their time limits. Commissioner Pritchard advised the project will not be scrapped; it is a high priority for him; and he will make sure it is done as quickly as it possibly can because there are flooding issues. Mr. Kamin stated he would be comfortable putting a time limit on it, but is uncomfortable putting an indefinite date.

 

Discussion ensued on the timeline, Lake George project, conditions of development, and 100-year storm requirements of appropriate reviewing agencies.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item V.B.38 with BDP including provision that water retention shall meet the 100-year storm
requirement of the appropriate reviewing agencies, no building permits to be issued until drainage infrastructure is in place, in no event will finished floor elevations exceed those of Otter Trace, and a cap of 28 lots.

 

 

Discussion resumed on number of lots and retention.

 

Mr. Kamin stated he is comfortable waiting a year to pull building permits.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if they are retaining the 100-year storm event and the County does not perform, they still have to retain the 100-year event onsite, so there is a safety net. He inquired how small are the smallest lots; with Mr. Kamin responding it would not be any smaller than .9 acre.

 

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

 

 

 

Attorney Philip Nohrr stated they want to have outdoor storage on the property; they need BU-2 to do that; but they are limiting the uses to BU-1. He stated they have already remodeled the building up to Code; and they put in an opaque fence with landscaping. He stated the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board requested they keep the storage an additional 50 feet behind the fence; but the property is only 200 feet wide; and they would like to put additional buffering in front of the fence and not have storage within 20 feet behind the fence. He stated they have already agreed to comply with the North Merritt Island corridor standards, which are in draft form and have not been approved.

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised of the history of the property.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.B.39 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board with BDP excluding 100-foot fence setback; 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 Fifteenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2005, 05S.15, 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; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay.

 

 

Mary Hillberg, representing the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, advised the Association disapproved the rezoning; and requested the Board honor the 100-foot setback.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 2:29 a.m.

 

 

 

_____________________________________

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

(S E A L)