MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

May 9, 2006

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 9, 2006 at 9:00 a.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, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Reverend Paul Young, Gloria Dei Episcopal Church, Cocoa, Florida.

 

 

Commissioner Ron Pritchard led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Escrow Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers and SunTrust Bank for the general re-evaluation report for the Mid Reach of the Shore Protection Project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Maritime Hammock at Aquarina, subject to minor changes, if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for all appropriate jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Subdivision Infrastructure Contract with The Viera Company to insure satisfactory completion of improvements for Wyndham at Duran Subdivision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive Section 62-102, Code of Ordinances, which states that only two stems may be located adjacent to each other, to allow three stems side-by-side, as requested by William Graham.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive Section 62-102 for the separation distance between flag stems to allow three stems side-by-side for Sherri and William Yehnert, contingent upon the applicant entering into a cross access agreement so that one driveway will intersect with Windover Way.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan with Darroll W. Higginbotham and Paula Rae Higginbotham for property located north of the western terminus of Eola Avenue, and .95 mile west of its intersection with N. Carpenter Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan with Ballybunion Land Partners, L.L.C. for property lying 175 feet west of the western terminus of Lion Lane.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan with Mark and Karen Miner, Trustees/KGK Partners, L.L.C. for property located on the south side of King Street, 525 feet west of Lake View Boulevard.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan with Charles T. Pischock & Summit View Golf Club, Inc./ Paul R. Rufo for property located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, 2.25 miles south of Valkaria Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to solicit proposals for continuing consultant services to update the EAR, prepare Small Area Studies, and review the Future Land Use Map for right-sizing; appoint Ed Washburn, Tad Calkins, Rick Enos, and Robin Sobrino or designees to the Selection Committee, and Scott Knox, Rick Enos, and Robin Sobrino to the Negotiating Committee; and authorize the Chair to execute the agreement with the selected firm.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service for reimbursement of costs to repair the failed culvert on Sisson Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid repair or replacement of coiling doors at Melbourne Transfer Station load-out tunnel area, which were damaged in the 2004 hurricane season; and authorize award of the bid to the lowest qualified responsible bidder.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution and execute an Easement conveying 15 feet to Florida Power & Light Company for service to the Detention Center Expansion area.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Sidewalk, Drainage, and Public Utility Easements from Timothy Apwisch, Joinder in Dedication of Sidewalk, Drainage and Public Utility Easement from KSJ Communications, Inc.; Sidewalk, Drainage and Public Utility Easement from James D. and Karen C. Griffin; Joinder in Dedication from Coastal Bank; and Sidewalk, Drainage, and Public Utility Easements from Michael A. DiChristopher, as Trustee, Fatima Phillips, Michael E. Springman, Herbert and Concetta Ramsey, and Anthony Wolfe along North Banana River Drive in the vicinity of Kelly Park; and waive Phase I Environmental Assessment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Clerk to the Board to mail copies of the Local Option Gas Tax percentage allocations to each municipality for review; and that the Board would conduct a final review of the allocations at its July 11, 2006 meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. for County Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Trust Fund; and authorize the Chair to execute any changes of amendments to the budget or contracts with approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. for $261,017 to provide juvenile assessment services; and authorize the Chair to execute future amendments and annual renewals, contingent upon approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interagency Agreement with the Juvenile Judge, State Attorney, Department of Juvenile Justice, Clerk, Public  Defender, Juvenile Court Alternative Sanctions, School Board, Community Based

 

 

 

Care of Brevard, Crosswinds Youth Services, Sheriff’s Office, Cocoa Beach Police Department, Cocoa Police Department, Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, Indialantic Police Department, Melbourne Airport Police Department, Melbourne Beach Police Department, Melbourne Police Department, Melbourne Village Police Department, Palm Bay Police Department, Rockledge Police Department, Satellite Beach Police Department, Titusville Police Department, and West Melbourne Police Department for utilization of the Juvenile Assessment Center.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                     for Agreement.)

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of the Audit Report for the Housing Authority of Brevard County for the year that ended March 31, 2005.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve reclassification of one vacant three-quarter time Youth Program Coordinator (Staff Specialist III) (PCN 2593) and one vacant three-quarter time Recreation Aide (PCN 8051) permanent positions into a full-time permanent Recreation Program Coordinator I position.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution establishing an annual licensing fee to support a child care licensing and enforcement program; and execute an Agreement with the Department of Health and Environmental Health Services Division to implement the program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Access and Enhancement Agreement with Sprint Nextel, Inc. for installation of in-building amplifier system at the Emergency Operations Center.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

                          

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive development review fees for the East Coast Zoological Society of Florida to renovate the café, pavilion, quarantine, and paws-on facilities at the Brevard Zoo and for future projections.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolutions congratulating retiring teachers Robert Russell, Frances Nolan, Mary Kenney, Susan Beverly, Mary Stromire, Geraldine Stuchell, Lynn Coleman, Frank Pambello, Robert Champaigne, Elizabeth  Cooke,  Susan   Champaign,   Patricia   Tanner, Laurenzia  Lewis,  Kathleen  Chreist,

Michele Madsen, John Bonggren, Kay Adams, and Bernard Coveney.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approved the Bills and Budget Changes as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chief William Farmer, Fire Rescue, advised the County currently has expended approximately $130,000, which includes salaries for staff, foam, and extra supplies; it is now under a unified command system, which is part of an instant command structure; the Division of Forestry and Brevard County are duly in charge of the fire; and the County is the responsible party and the Division of Forestry gets to leave once the fire is over.  He stated staff is concentrating its efforts in the area of Veronica Estates, which is off of Grissom Road, Friday Road, Areca Road, Florida Avenue, and Date Palm; it is also supplying water for federal agencies deeper into the marshlands; lines will be put around The Great Outdoors; and there have been three staff meetings with The Great Outdoors personnel.  He advised the firefighters and deputies are getting well deserved thanks for their efforts; and expressed appreciation to County staff for their support also.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution establishing fee rate for firework application review, processing, permitting, and inspections.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Commissioner Pritchard advised Sunday is Mother’s Day; and wished all the mothers a happy Mother’s Day.

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised there was an article in the Orlando Sentinel talking about Central Florida’s allocated money available for storm victims and how it was spent; Brevard County spent 100% of the money available, $11,690,000 on storm victims; and it is extraordinary and fantastic.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is having a problem with folks that have patios and pools, and want to replace their enclosures; they cannot because they are either encroaching on the 25-foot shoreline protection buffer, easement, etc.; the slab is there; and putting up a screen wall does not change the permeability of the ground, yet it triggers Office of Natural Resources Management to deny the permit because of the concrete slab, which may have been there for two years.  He noted it would require someone to do an engineered retention plan and other expensive things to not only engineer, but also construct; it does not make any sense to him considering it is already there; if someone is going to build a new house or new pool, he can see this; but when the slab has been there for 20 years it does not make any sense.  He stated the Board needs to address the issue perhaps at the next zoning meeting if it is appropriate; and eliminate this requirement on existing pool decks and whatever else.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff can provide a report to the Board and put it on the agenda for the next zoning meeting.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has been at the staging center at Burton Smith Park several times over the past few days; what is going on out there is extraordinary; there has been cooperation with various agencies; food and supplies have been donated and contributed; and it has been awesome.  He noted the County is under a unified command system; in the span of three days, $8,450 was collected and used in a variety of ways; and recognized various individuals  for  their  efforts  and  support.  He  stated businesses contributed ice, food, coolers,

 

 

REPORT, RE:  STAGING CENTER AT BURTON SMITH PARK

 

and paper products; the response from the community has been phenomenal; and expressed appreciation to the community.

 

Chair Voltz thanked Commissioner Pritchard for his leadership.

 

 

Anastasia Hawkins Smith, representing Cocoa Village Historic Playhouse, expressed appreciation to the Board for its support through the County grant funds; stated it has been a recipient for the 16 years she has been serving; it could not operate its productions without the Board’s help; and it has had its best season ever, including wonderful performers and audiences.  She advised of various shows, including Grease, Swing, and Alice in Wonderland.  She introduced Jeremy Phelps, one of the technical directors at the Playhouse.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised of a request by Ron Morgan, Chairman of Project Fight Back, to televise; stated Project Fight Back is a public forum to stop crime against elders; and Mr. Morgan is requesting the forum be televised on Space Coast Government Television (SCGTV) on Thursday, May 25, 2006. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Space Coast Government Television (SCGTV) to televise Project Fight Back, a public forum to stop crime against elders, on May 25, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated after the September 11^th incident, she has talked to the Board about different rallies in the community; the whole Nation was united and supportive after such an event; but as time went by, the flags and yellow ribbons were not as present as they once were; Brevard County has a responsibility and duty to make sure the troops see the support; and Americans need to show their support.  She stated it would probably be good to have a letter of appreciation from the Board to those individuals who provided contributions and their support at the staging center at F. Burton Smith Park.

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she attended a homeowners association meeting where the citizens of the south end of the County are extremely upset in regard to the Palm Bay Parkway; they do not know what the County has been doing concerning contributing to the Parkway or what the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been going through regarding the delays of the Parkway; the citizens will be attending the MPO meeting this Thursday wanting to ask a lot of questions; and there needs to be detail of where the dollars are, what has been done, where the County and MPO are on the issue, and where do they go from here.

Commissioner Colon stated Finance Director Steve Burdett met with her and has been meeting with the Commissioners concerning the Cody Study; and she encouraged him to meet with the County Manager and Human Resources Director so staff has an opportunity to share their side in regard to the criticism of the Cody Study.  She advised the Board respects and loves its staff and wanted to have a way of being able to let them know that it appreciates them and does not want to lose all the wonderful people it has working for the County.

Chair Voltz advised she was in Barefoot Bay on Saturday looking at the homes that have tons of dirt in them; it was incredible; the dirt has ruined the carpeting; and there are also health issues.  She stated she asked Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon to look at testing some of the dirt; and he believes for about $5,000 that soil samples could be conducted.

 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon stated he discussed the issue with Agriculture and Extension Services Director James Fletcher; Mr. Fletcher made some recommendations as far as what kind of agricultural operations could have been there in the past; it would help narrow in on what types of testing to do; and with Mr. Fletcher’s help, he is going to come up with a testing mechanism and proceed with contacting a geotechnical firm.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is there a way to seek an injunction for a public nuisance based on the physical damages that it is causing residents; stated it may be worthwhile to ask the County Attorney to look into that; and if the health issue is there it escalates in magnitude.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve $5,000 from Contingency to conduct soil samples at the Crystal Bay Sebastian Beach and Tennis Club construction site; and direct the County Attorney to review what else the County can do.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Emergency Management Director Bob Lay advised of the Governor’s Executive Order, which starts opening the door for the County to start filing for reimbursement; currently the County does not have the authority for any reimbursement; the fire complexes that are being established will be the basis for the mechanism for reimbursement; and the County asked that all the agencies that are involved to capture their costs.  He noted it will be somewhat retroactive so the County will be able to capture costs back to the beginning of the fire event; he talked to State officials on Friday and last night; they are leaning forward with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and as soon it feels it has reached a certain threshold point then it is going to ask for a declaration for a fire suppression grant from FEMA.

 

Diane MacEntee, Executive Director for Children’s Advocacy Center, expressed appreciation to the Board for the Proclamation last month concerning National Child Abuse Prevention Month; and advised the Center is celebrating its 10^th Anniversary in Brevard County.  She advised on the Children’s Advocacy Center’s primary mission, which is to intervene and investigate the most egregious cases of child abuse found in Brevard County.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Center does so much in the community and the Board cannot thank the Center enough.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she would like to see on the front page of the Agenda exactly what the Board’s policy reflects as far as the time for the general public to speak; the Agenda presently says everyone can speak for five minutes, but that is not the case; and it is supposed to be three minutes under Public Comments. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve textual amendment to the Board Meeting Agenda on Page 1 to add, “three minutes, and to” in the second paragraph; “It is the responsibility of the Chair to determine the amount of time that will be allotted to speakers on any agenda item for which a time limit has not been established by the County Commission, including agenda items removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion by a member of the public.”; and “It is the objective of the Board to conduct business in a manner that facilitates and encourages the presentation of diverse views while maintaining civility during all Board proceedings.”  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chair Voltz recognized County staff Gwen Heller, Land Acquisition; stated Susan Kennedy sent an email desiring to commend Ms. Heller for outstanding customer service; and several times over the past months Ms. Heller assisted her to decipher regulations that would apply to her client’s properties in unincorporated Brevard County.  Chair Voltz stated it is always refreshing to see that staff has such great attitudes, even under a lot of pressure and heavy workloads.  She expressed appreciation to Ms. Heller for her outstanding efforts.

 

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 2006 as Older Americans Month.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 2006 as Older Americans Month in Brevard County and authorize two public safety announcements on Space Coast Government Television highlighting intergenerational relationships.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to a representative of Brevard Commission on Aging.

 

The representative of Brevard Commission on Aging expressed appreciation to the Board for the Proclamation; and introduced Tammy Harris, also representing Brevard Commission on Aging.  Ms. Harris presented public safety announcements to the Board and audience, showing seniors and youth working together to prevent crime and increase awareness.

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca presented the Government Finance Officers Association’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the Budget Office comprised of Director Dennis Rogero, Assistant Director Elizabeth Swanke, Budget Analysts Paul Bessler, Stacey Claridge, Karen Drada, Jim Earnest, Sean Meshberger, and Neale Swayne, Special Projects Coordinator Pam Wallace, and Administrative Assistant Rhonda Schroeder. 

 

Budget Director Dennis Rogero expressed appreciation to the Board, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten; and recognized the staff of the Budget Office.

 

The Board acknowledged presentation of the Government Finance Officers Association’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Brevard County and the Budget Office.

 

 

Chair Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 10, 2006 as Lupus Awareness Day.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 10, 2006 as Lupus Awareness Day and encouraging the community at-large to recognize the significance and need for education, funding for research, and empathy for the victims and families of this disease.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

A representative of the Jess Parrish Medical Foundation expressed appreciation to the Board for its decision in March 2006 to allow the Foundation to acquire the Dunn House property; and stated it has helped bring together a lot of very diverse interests for the public and seniors as well, and to establish another best practice which will be a national model for environmental improvements, health care, and recreation.  She advised the Foundation is applying for a $350,000 grant from the Florida Department of State’s Bureau of Historic Preservation through its special categories grant application; and the funding will be to restore the Taylor Dunn House.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution supporting the Jess Parrish Medical Foundation’s grant application for a Florida Department of State’s Bureau of Historic Preservation grant.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution supporting the Jess Parrish Medical Foundation’s grant application for a Florida Department  of  State’s  Bureau  of  Historic  Preservation  grant  in  the sum of $350,000 for the

restoration of the historic Mims, Florida, “Dunn House.”  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to the representative of the Jess Parrish Medical Foundation.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution proclaiming Correctional Officers Appreciation Week.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the week of May 8 through 14, 2006 as Correctional Officers Appreciation Week and encouraging all citizens to recognize the demanding and unselfish commitments made by Brevard’s Corrections Deputies.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to the Brevard County Correctional Officers present.

 

A representative of the Sheriff’s Office expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution and its support.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the projected impact for the remainder of this fiscal year is approximately $13,000, which will be absorbed through non-General Fund revenues; the impact for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is approximately $43,000 funded from charges for service and Fines and Forfeiture; when the County puts a position in whose salary is based upon their locating fines and forfeitures it would tend to make the enforcement officer perhaps a little aggressive; and if they do not bring in enough money, their position might go away. 

 

Code Enforcement Officer Bobby Bowen advised this is a support staff position and a unit within the Code Enforcement Division that supports all those regulatory and enforcement agencies within  Brevard  County  who  are  bringing  cases before the Special Magistrate; two individuals

 

 

currently are preparing all those cases, which last year were almost 1,200 cases; a considerable amount of overtime is taking place; and he has been looking at this position for a considerable period of time.  He advised this is not a field position and is an administrative support position, which is needed; and he should have asked for it last year.

 

Discussed ensued concerning the 220 funded vacant positions, General Fund, and Fines and Forfeitures.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated as the Board gets into the budget discussion this year it will provide an opportunity to discuss funded vacant positions.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the information will be provided at the Budget Workshop scheduled for July 18, 2006.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the County has positions it has to fill because of the problems it is having with getting its work product out; since it has about $4.6 million it could probably find $13,000 for this year and $43,000 for next year; and he is willing to discuss the $43,000 next year and the $13,000 should come out of at least one of the positions that has been vacant for 1,000 days.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to approve a Special Projects Coordinator I position to assist Code Enforcement Process staff for Special Magistrate hearings.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve a Special Projects Coordinator I position to assist Code Enforcement Process staff for Special Magistrate hearings; and approve funding in the amount of $13,000 from the Fines and Forfeitures; and $43,000 for the following year be integrated into the discussion of unfilled positions.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is going to vote against the motion as he believes the $13,000 could come out of an existing funded position that has been vacant for “x” number of days.

 

Mr. Bowen stated because of personnel retiring, resigning, etc., his Department has realized a $14,000 salary savings for this year to cover that.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve a Special Projects Coordinator I position to assist Code Enforcement Process staff for Special Magistrate hearings; and approve funding in the amount of $13,000 from salary savings realized this year from personnel who have retired, resigned, etc.; and $43,000 for the following year be integrated into the discussion of unfilled positions.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the information says that by April 2006, cities will identify anticipated annexation areas within a 10-year planning horizon, i.e. expected municipal boundaries as of 2016; and inquired have they done that.  Commissioner Carlson responded no; advised that the subgroup is working on it; and it has taken a long time.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated there is a subcommittee meeting tomorrow to continue on this assignment; it is in progress; staff anticipates this facet will be completed either by May or June 2006; and staff anticipates a total completion date by the end of August 2006.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to acknowledge receipt of the Space Coast Growth Management Coalition timeline to develop methodologies to address future annexation proposals, land use compatibility issues, and the provision of services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is to address a problem the County has with folks that are building docks on property they own across the street; the problem is this is only to limit the use to waterfront subdivisions which were recorded prior to the effective date of the ordinance; one cannot always look at the future design of a subdivision to decide whether or not it could have been designed some other way; and there could be other circumstances.  He noted he does not want to limit this to subdivisions recorded prior; it should not have any limitation; one may find that in order to lay out a subdivision something like this is necessary; and he hates to see a blanket policy like this that would prohibit someone from utilizing the best of their property.

 

Chair Voltz stated she supports limiting this; if anyone else wants to come before the Board with a subdivision it should be on an individual basis; and it is something the Board does not want to send a message that it is okay to do that all over the County.

 

Attorney Philip Fougerousse, representing the Puleios, stated he brought before the Board a problem of equity and justice; the Board charged staff with the responsibility of coming up with an ordinance; and he commends staff and they provided him with a courtesy copy and solicited comments from him.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated with all the regulations the County has with certain types of mitigation, he would be concerned that it would be putting itself in a box by saying future subdivisions would not be able to utilize the same benefit that have been given to existing subdivisions; and that is his concern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated if somebody wants to do a subdivision this is not going to limit them; the Board may put language in there that says someone would have to come back on an individual basis; and right now it should be limited to those who are already built out.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support the item as he is uncomfortable with it; and the words “unity of title” rubs him the wrong way.

 

Chair Voltz inquired does the Board need to include such language; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding no, and it can structure the ordinance any way it wants to.  Chair Voltz stated the unity of title would keep the current owner with a specific parcel down the street from him when he sells the house that goes with it rather than being separated somewhere down the line.  Attorney Knox stated the County cannot do that.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired did Attorney Knox review the ordinance; with Attorney Knox responding another attorney in his Office read it, he discussed it with them, and they are having a dispute about whether or not the County should have this provision included.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to remove the item and have the County Attorney’s Office reevaluate the issue based on the comments.

 

 

Attorney Knox stated the County needs to tie the enforcement to the use of the dock.  Attorney Fougerousse stated the County cannot prevent the separation of title, but it can condition the continued use as a boat dock on the unity of title.  Attorney Knox stated that is correct and is the way the ordinance needs to read.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI of the Land Development Regulations, to allow residential boat docks, covered boat docks, or piers on vacant lots within waterfront subdivisions; and authorize the County Attorney to add and revise appropriate language in the ordinance, including dock lots and unity of title.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

The meeting recessed at 11:12 a.m. and reconvened at 11:24 a.m.

 

 

Mark Thomson, representing Pulte Homes, stated the Company has been working closely with staff; the Harbor Island site plan is a joint participation effort with the County and Pulte Homes; the problem the Company is facing is expiration of the site plan today; and the site plan has been extended administratively one time already, which was due to the protracted time it took for  the County to get the sellers of the Fortenberry parcel to agree to terms on a contract for the

 

 

EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN, RE:  HARBOR ISLAND

 

disposition for the County to acquire the parcel, and for Pulte Homes to acquire two acres within the parcel.  He advised there was a simultaneous closing; the County took 14 acres and Pulte Homes two acres; the County now has a conservation area that allows the Veterans Council to use on its eastern parcel; and there is an 11-acre stormwater pond for improved stormwater attenuation and runoff.  He stated Pulte Homes submitted an application on April 25, 2006 for extending the site plan; it has been placed on the agenda for May 16, 2006; however, the site plan expires on May 12, 2006.  He requested the Board either make a decision to extend the site plan for Harbor Island to a time certain or at the very minimum, toll the expiration of the site plan until May 16, 2006 when the item will be on the agenda under New Business.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve extension of the site plan for Harbor Island to May 16, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Bea Polk commented on the policy and time limits for individuals speaking under Public Comments, items pulled from the Consent Agenda, and other agenda items; and advised of her objections that the Chair can determine the amount of time that will be allotted to speakers on any agenda item in which a time limit has not been established by the Board.  She inquired when will the bids for Marina Park be out.

 

Joan Wheeler stated it would be a good idea to review the agreements made with the City of Titusville so the County is not hand strung with the City deciding what the CRA or staff wants to do concerning the referendum projects, instead of the citizens that are paying the bills; the Marina Park plans have been finished since last July; the citizens are waiting for the City to approve these things; and the City owns the property and will claim it wants the citizens to do what it wants done.  She noted the issue has gone on too far and too long to have to ask the City if things can be done.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a time when the City would allocate the sum of about $200,000 to the County; the County would take that money and administer certain parks; some years ago there was an agreement with the City; and the City said it was going to no longer have a parks and recreation department, and the MSTU would be taxed to residents in the City to the same extent as in the County.  He noted there was one MSTU; there are lands that are parks in the City which are owned by the City; the City as owner of the land could extract a park from that and say it does not want the County in there and get out; but it has no money to operate the parks.  He stated since it has no funding, it basically does not have a park department or park staff; the City has to look to the County and its park staff for those parks; Marina Park is more complex because the City does not own title to such Park; and it can only use it for park service.  He noted City Attorney Dwight Severs has advised the City Council it cannot be used for any commercial purpose; if something were to happen to Marina Park other than what is in the referendum it can only be changed and could be eliminated by the vote of the people again; reiterated Marina Park cannot be used for anything commercial because it would go back  to  the  State  as  lands;  and   the   State  is  not  in  the  posture  of  taking  waterfront

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

properties away from the people.  Commissioner Scarborough advised the referendum money cannot be spent for anything but what is put on the referendum, which was to put in the ball diamonds; things are in flux at this time; Marina Park may not need as much in ball fields as it previously did; and this summer the County is going to be knowing more about the design/build on A. Max Brewer Bridge.  He stated a critical element is how it impacts Sand Point Park; for him to say right now that it would be prudent with an invitation to bid as currently constructed would perhaps spend $1.4 million of taxpayers money without listening to the verdict first and getting all the information in on Sandpoint Park; the County will not be doing anything of commercial activity or any major changes unless the people choose to do it through referendum; and the County cannot, under any referendum, move the Park to a commercial activity. 

 

Nancy Bruder, representing Carriage Park, advised of problems with water in her unit on August 13, 2003, August 4, 2004, and January 26, 2005; and Pulte Homes is the builder.

 

Blair Conroy, representing Carriage Park, stated he looks forward to coming back to the Board and giving it a full report on discussions with Pulte Homes and its legal staff; a meeting was held yesterday with Pulte Homes; negotiations are taking place on a lot of different issues; and advised of timelines and commented on additional requests for extending the site plans for Harbor Island.  He stated there are about 21 days until hurricane season; and requested the Board be aware of the timelines.

 

Pat Poole stated attended the Board meeting of April 25, 2006 and thought she was going to speak about the Senior Center; the issue was scheduled for near the end of the meeting; but the item was heard in the morning instead, so she made a trip that was a waste of time.  She advised she will be speaking on Item VII.B.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 12:05 p.m. and reconvened at 1:21 p.m.

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating portion of public utility and drainage easement in Hampton Homes, Unit Eight, as petitioned by David L. Dunn.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution vacating a portion of the rear public utility and drainage easement on Lot 495 in Hampton Homes, Unit Eight, as petitioned by David L. Dunn.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance creating Morningside Drive Road Paving MSBU.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida; creating the Morningside Drive Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit; incorporating the terms and provisions of Chapter 98, Article II, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, entitled “municipal Service Benefit Unit”, to authorize the acquisition and construction of certain capital improvements within such improvement area and the imposition of non ad valorem assessments within such improvement area; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Option 1, asphalt and soil cement in the location approved in the construction plans dated September 24, 1999, with estimated cost of construction at $36,024.98 or $4,002.78 per lot.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 26, Local Child Care Licensing Program.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 26, Businesses, to enact Child Care Licensing Regulations; specifically deleting Section 26-2, Child Care Facilities; creating Chapter 26, Article IV, entitled Child Care Facilities; creating Section 26-70, Adoption and Area Encompassed; creating Section 26-71, Additional Regulations and providing for Resolution of Conflicting Provisions; creating Section 26-72, Enforcement; Classification of Violations; creating Section 26-73, Advertising; creating Section 26-74, Substitute Child Care Providers; creating Section 26-75, Family Day Care Homes; creating Section 26-76, Family Day Care Homes and Large Family Day Care Homes; Additional Requirements; creating Section 26-77, Child Care Facilities; Additional Requirements; providing severability; providing for inclusion in the Code; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Ninth Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.9).

 

 

 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Ninth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2006, 06S.9, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these Amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Ninth Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.10).

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Tenth Small Scale Plan amendment of 2006, 06S.10, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these Amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept Quit-claim Deed from Lester Lintz, Individually and as General Partner of Pines Industrial Center, Ltd., transferring interest in a one-foot strip of land along Barnes Boulevard and Harrell Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve applicants Anselmo Baldonado, David Dingley, Todd Morley, and Paul Halpern for the Governor to make his one appointment to the Children’s Services Council of Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Finding of No Significant Impact and execute Request for Release of Funds for Cities of Rockledge, Cocoa, and Cape Canaveral Drainage Mitigation Projects.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Transportation Engineering Department Land Acquisition Section to acquire appraisals, environmental services, and surveys, and to negotiate with property owners, for acquisition of an office building and ancillary property for the Sheriff’s Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she asked that the item be placed on the agenda as it is important to get roads paved in Brevard County with the growth it has right now; when it increased the impact fee for schools everybody thought it was going to slow down growth, but it did nothing for it; what she was planning on doing today is increasing impact fees to the 100% mark; and that was her intention of putting this on the agenda.  She advised she has had a number of emails from people saying they would support a penny sales tax, but only after the County increased impact fees to 100%; eventually it will have to look at that; it is not looking at it right now; but it needs to do all it can to make sure the roads are taken care of.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there are 15 municipalities in Brevard County; and the Board needs to know where they stand.

 

Amy Tidd expressed appreciation to Chair Voltz for putting the item on the agenda and listening to the people; and advised of her support for increasing the transportation impact fees to 100%.

 

Maureen Rupe, Natural Resource Chair for the League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, advised the Chapter of the League has supported impact fees in the past; and at the last general membership meeting it voted to support implementation of 100% of the consultant’s recommended impact fees and an assessment every five years.  She stated impact fees should be adopted at 100% of the cost of the capital expenditure necessary as determined by the study; and the Board should begin a new study as costs have skyrocketed in the last few years.

 

Jim McKnight, representing City of Rockledge, stated the City has gone on record adopting Resolution No. 2006-596 calling for intergovernmental coordination to prevent overcrowding of roads and insure developers of land affecting traffic on roads make a fair share contribution to road   improvements;  the   Resolution  was  forwarded   to  each  member  of   the   Board;  and

 

 

DISCUSSION, RE:  TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES

 

encouraged the Board to increase transportation impact fees to the fullest level as outlined in the previous evaluation.  He advised this reflects the position of the Rockledge City Council and furthers its partnership as it is part of the County transportation impact fee system.

 

Jack Schluckebier, representing the City of Melbourne, stated the City is appreciative that the County is addressing the transportation issue and reviewing the options; the City Council passed a Resolution encouraging and recommending the Board increase transportation impact fees at the previous levels the consultant asked it to do; and the City wants to continue in its posture of working with the Board on the affected road projects, and matching that funding.  He stated there is a desperate need to bring those roads up to date; and the City would like to work cooperatively with the County toward getting the road problems resolved. 

 

Suzanne Valencia stated she lives in West Melbourne; and advised of her support for increasing the transportation impact fees.  She advised that Michael Myjak with Save Brevard is not present at the meeting today, but supports increasing the impact fees as such fees have been artificially suppressed for a decade, the Board should increase all impact fees for all concurrent services to the amount assessed in the study, the study should be reevaluated every few years with the fees adjusted accordingly, and it is no wonder why Brevard County voters want to see a full and just accounting of all impact fees before they agree to any new tax to cover the Board’s discretionary shortfalls in the budget.

 

Charlie Love, representing City of Cocoa, stated the public feels that developers and new residents should bear the costs of needed road improvements; developers pass the costs to prospective buyers, raising the costs of homes; and it defeats attempts to bring affordable housing within reach of teachers, police, and firemen.  He noted while new development should pay its way, everyone should sacrifice and pay their share toward improvements to transportation projects that have existed, as well as new improvements to come; a small increase in the impact tax could go hand-in-hand with the one-cent sales tax; everyone uses the roads and they would be paying their fair share, including tourists and travelers passing through the County; and it would give a continuing form of income to offset the needs.  He stated the City of Cocoa has placed its support on the one-cent sales tax with a stipulation that it be directed strictly toward transportation and drainage with no frivolous items attached.  Mr. Love expressed his concern with the affordable housing issue.

 

Mary Hillberg advised of her support for bringing the transportation impact fees up to 100% of the updated 2000 year study; she is sure the Board can discuss and come up with a reasonable work through for the affordable housing issue; and affordable housing is not $200,000 as some people have indicated; and it is much lower than that. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired is it possible or legal to look at not charging impact fees on houses less than $150,000 or $175,000 so the County can make sure affordable housing stays affordable.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox responded affirmatively, if the Board is trying to implement an affordable housing program and it is part of a policy it develops either through the Comprehensive Plan or some other mechanism.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION, RE:  TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES

 

Chair Voltz stated she does not know if that is the wishes of the Board, but she would like to see that.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated infrastructure needs, until recent decades, were funded almost entirely by government because infrastructure generally tends to serve a public purpose; times are changing; the State passed Senate Bill 360 in an effort to manage growth; and this has changed to rules of the game, if the County does not pay it does not play.  He advised of his opposition to any increase in sales tax, local option gas tax, or raising property taxes; stated what is left is impact fees; he does not like impact fees for a variety of reasons that he has explained on numerous occasions; and such fees are regressive and have limited use, and artificially inflate the cost of home ownership.  He expressed concern that the workforce may be priced out of the housing market and lose their ability to live the American dream and purchase a home.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve that the current transportation impact fee from $1,414 to $4,353 as recommended by the consultant; exemptions be for first-time homebuyers and those who qualify for low income housing; and the transportation portion of the General Fund continue to be funded at its current percent rate of the total budget. 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated not impacting the first-time homebuyers is a good part of the motion; the County also wants to be good at looking at the development community because there may be a glut of affordable housing coming in because they are not going to have to worry about impact fees; and the Board needs to makes sure it is cautious as far as how it drafts the ordinance to increase the impact fees.

 

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

 

 

Planner Steve Swanke requested the Board give staff permission to advertise the public hearing to consider the amendment to the Ordinance when the County Attorney determines it is appropriate; and the effective date would be 90 days after that point.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Ordinance adopting transportation impact fees, the advertisement be done when the County Attorney determines it is appropriate, and the effective date 90 days after that point.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating unimproved right-of-way (Trimble Road) in Indian River Groves & Gardens, as petitioned by Frances M. Baker (Kim Rezanka, Attorney).

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised the item was continued twice previously; there have been some objections raised by adjacent property owners previously, which is a private matter that does not speak to the Board in his opinion; County staff and City of Melbourne staff expressed objections; and those objections have been resolved at this point.  He stated the County received easements as were requested; they have not been recorded yet; the easement to the County has been reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office; and staff feels it is acceptable as is.  He stated if the Board is going to approve the item then the County needs to accept the easement and condition the approval on receiving a recorded copy of an easement in favor of the City of Melbourne for its utility use.

 

Attorney Kim Rezanka, representing Frances M. Baker, advised Mrs. Baker and her family have owned the property since 1956, and built a home in 1957; it is a four-acre parcel; it was originally platted in 1926 as part of the Plat of the Indian River Groves and Gardens; and they are seeking to have the 50-foot right-of-way that was reserved for the roadway to the north of Mrs. Baker’s property vacated, which is approximately 328 feet in length.  She advised the road portion sought to be vacated has never been used by the County for any purpose and has never been improved; the vacating appeared to be a simple matter, but the easements came into play; and now those issues have been resolved.  She requested the Board approve the petition to vacate.

 

Dorene Cesa stated her property abuts the property in question; she was not informed of any new proposals to the existing status of the undeveloped part of Trimble Road; the only information she received was in January 2006 when Mrs. Baker wanted the property given to her; and as a property owner, it is her right to know and to be informed of any proposals and how it would impact her property.  She advised of her objection to the proposal.

 

Commissioner Colon advised she does not have any problems with the item.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating unimproved right-of-way (Trimble Road) in Indian River Groves & Gardens, as petitioned by Frances M. Baker (Kim Rezanka, Attorney), subject to the County receiving the recorded easement that grants a utility easement to the City of Melbourne and final approval and acceptance by the Board of the easement in favor of the County for drainage and utilities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution modifying schedule of charges for treatment and disposal of septage at Brevard County Septage Treatment Facility.

 

Utility Services Director Richard Martens advised staff’s proposal is for an alternate resolution that sets the fee for septage and restaurant service waste at $40.00 per thousand gallons.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution modifying schedule of charges for treatment and disposal of septage at Brevard County Septage Treatment Facility.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised that the savings of 50% is great and the County appreciates it. 

 

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

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 6, Subdivision I, Section 62-2117.5, Regulating Usage of Portable Temporary Storage Units (First Hearing).

 

Chair Voltz advised she has a problem with the alternative language by advisory boards and they want to allow that a maximum of 25 units per property shall be allowed during a 12-month period; and it is way too many.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated staff’s recommendations do not include some of the advisory boards recommendations.

 

Timothy Powell, President of TSP Companies, stated he is an urban planner that has been representing Wal-mart on this particular issue; he came before the Board on March 2, 2004 with the original request to be able to address an operational problem that actually Wal-mart, Home Depot, and Sears all had by putting temporary storage containers in the BU-1 zoning district; they have been working with staff ever since then to come up with wording to address that; and as to the alternative language, he participated in conversations with the Building and Construction Advisory Committee.  He noted to address the comment about the 25 units, in looking at the original language there was no maximum; one could put storage units on property if it was shielded, etc.; the Committee suggested limiting it to some type of number; and Wal-mart can put any number of units on there.  He stated if the County says strictly a seasonal storage issue they usually have somewhere between 20 and 25 units; what they sometimes do there can be anywhere from 50 to 180 units that he has seen on sites before; and 25 units was picked by the Committee.  Mr. Powell noted there was a technicality on the original wording, the

 

one 90-day stay per year; the problem was that Wal-mart normally brings in trailers sometime in October and they usually will be off the site by the second week in January; it crosses over a January 1^st deadline or problem; and if the County simply says the 12-month is non-calendar then that issue might be solved.

 

Andrew Duke, representing EZ Box Brevard, advised he agrees with Mr. Powell’s comments; stated it seems the commercial areas require screening; he does not see that the number of units that are allowed in a commercial application should necessarily be dictated by anything other than the screening requirements if they cannot be seen; and as it relates to residential areas, a portable storage unit should not exceed eight feet in width, 16 feet in length, or eight feet in height.  He stated it would have a dramatic negative impact as the boxes are not built to be stacked; he would like to see that changed if possible not to exceed a height of eight foot, six inches, which would accommodate the boxes his Company currently has in use; and it would cause an extreme hardship if it had to change the boxes out or get rid of them.  He noted concerning the 15 days maximum stay at a residential area, he would recommend 30 days.

 

Discussion ensued concerning enforcement or fines for non-compliance, penalties, Zoning Regulations, due process, Special Magistrate, and Code Enforcement issues.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated it seemed to him that the majority of the problem was residential neighborhoods; and inquired how did the County get into the commercial application and not just residential.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino responded currently the Code is completely silent on these uses; understands it was Wal-mart and Home Depot specifically who came forward to the Board and said they need some provisions in the Code to enable them to use the storage containers on a limited basis; and at that point staff was directed to initiate an ordinance; and since it is an issue in the residential areas staff felt it was important to address it in the residential areas as well.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the storage units are already regulated per Zoning Code, then why is the Board addressing it here again.  Ms. Sobrino responded the Code requires any storage to be done inside of a structure; these containers do not qualify as structures and therefore are viewed as outside storage, which is not permitted in connection with these big box retailers; and in lieu of designing their sites to include additional storage space within their building or separate storage buildings on their property, they are looking to use these as the way of storing merchandise or other things.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is currently not allowed and the County allows it on a temporary basis up to 90 days with a 30-day separation, and they meet all the requirements of setback, screening, etc. is it going to create more harm than good.

 

Commissioner Carlson responded she believes it will create a lot of Code problems; the issue started residential; and the County should keep it residential. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz inquired is it possible to do just the big boxes; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Board could do it as permitted use with conditions and put the certain conditions on with a minimum size area, minimum setback, and whatever it wanted to do.  Chair Voltz stated she would much rather do it that way than open it up to everybody. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he likes that and encouraged the Board to adopt the eight-foot, six inches for the boxes instead of the flat eight feet.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated this is the first public hearing for the ordinance and there will be a second public hearing.

 

Chair Voltz noted the Board mentioned a number of different changes, including limiting in the commercial the big boxes permitted with conditions.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired does the Board want to have multifamily put in or keep it single-family.  Chair Voltz responded she believes multifamily and single-family should be the same.  Commissioner Pritchard noted it is residential. 

 

Discussion ensued concerning multifamily setting, parking areas, recreation areas, special permits, alternative language providing for multifamily residential, emergency situations, and single-family residential areas.

 

Ms. Sobrino stated she understands the Board wants to limit it in the commercial areas to only the big box retail operations.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has some thoughts he wants to bring before the Board; requested staff not overly define and let the Commissioners further discuss the issues with staff; and perhaps it can make sure the advertisement is broad enough.

 

Ms. Sobrino stated the title of the advertisement is pretty broad; she wants to make sure any language brought back addresses the points the Board is looking for; she is perceiving the changes to be something to set forth a minimum building size, which is what a big box retailer is; therefore, the County does not want a 4,000 square-foot retail operation be treated like a big box retailer, which is probably in the order of maybe 10,000 or 15,000 square feet.  She noted perhaps the Board wants to deal with a certain minimum lot size requirement because big box normally is probably in the order of five to ten acres.

 

Attorney Knox advised the title is pretty broad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board reached consensus to approve forwarding the ordinance amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 6, Subdivision I, Section 62-2117.5, regulating usage of portable temporary storage units, to the second public hearing on May 24, 2006. 

         THAT PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK CONSTITUTES EXPANSION OF NON-

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider appeal of administrative decision for determination that proposed scope of work constitutes expansion of non-conforming use, as prohibited per Section 62-1182(B)(2).

 

Bruce Moia, representing Low Tide Investments, Inc., advised the building is located on U.S. 1 south in Micco; such building was constructed in 1926 as a residence and changed to a bar in 1950; it is approximately 1,500 square feet; and it was damaged by the hurricanes in 2004.  He stated a building permit was issued by the County to make the necessary repairs on November 2, 2005; a new permit was submitted to make an improvement; the applicant wanted to put a different roof on the structure; and based on staff’s interpretation of the Code, the permit has been on hold and will not be issued.  He noted Section 62-1182(b)(2) regulates non-conforming use; the use of a bar is a non-conforming use in the zoning; the reason the applicant is appealing the decision is because he believes the Code addresses both non-conforming uses and separately addresses non-conforming structures; and the structure is not non-conforming, but the use is.  Mr. Moia advised the Code also makes a distinction between repairs, expansions, modifications, and improvements; by putting a different roof on a structure in no way increases the use of the building; he believes the interpretation is in direct conflict with the Code; and since the structure is conforming, but the use is not, then the applicant is allowed to do the improvement.  He stated the applicant has a permit to do the repair, and instead of doing the repair, which is a flat roof and unattractive, he wants to put a nice improved roof on that is aesthetically pleasing to the community; and requested the Board clarify the interpretation.

 

Christopher Ferraro requested the Board deny the appeal; advised the property is zoned RU-1-7, which is Mixed Use Commercial; it grandfathers commercial buildings, but does not allow for rebuilds; and the building was, in essence, destroyed by Hurricane Jeanne in 2004.  He noted structural integrity to the walls are completely compromised; the substructure and portions of the substructure of the building are completely compromised as well; several of the walls are missing on the structure; and he does not know that he would consider it a roof repair.  He advised of existing violations prior to Hurricane Jeanne in 2005, including an illegal expansion to the building prior to repair and an illegal deck built on the property in the backyard, and an illegal dock; attached is a package from Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which corresponds that the marina that was being built on that property was illegal and should be removed; it was partially destroyed and removed in 2004 by Hurricane Jeanne, but not totally destroyed; and there is further correspondence from DEP recommending the remainder of the dock be removed, which it has not been since then.  He advised the property is also located on an aquatic preserve.

         THAT PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK CONSTITUTES EXPANSION OF NON-

 

Joseph Baggs, representing Low Tide Investments, Inc., stated they are trying to be responsible in putting a roof on the building that will survive another hurricane, provide better ventilation for the patrons of the bar, and do a better job in terms of managing rainwater runoff on the property; they do not intend to increase the use of the property; there are 40 seats; and it is as simple as that.

 

Pete Harris, representing Bo Jo’s, stated the bar needs a new roof simply for the fact that flat roofs are not practical; he lived in West Palm and every flat roof always had a problem; the owner is not trying to expand the business; and he has gathered over 1,000 signatures of people that want the bar there.  He advised such bar has been part of the community since the 1940’s.

 

Chair Voltz stated she has letters from the Little Hollywood Improvement Association and Micco Homeowners Association in support of the project; a flat roof versus the other roof does not increase the cubic square feet; the building is a part of the community and people want the 40-seat bar to be replaced; and she supports allowing the regular roof to be put on.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she has concerns about the nonconforming issue, and would uphold the staff’s decision.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated the concept of a nonconforming use is that it is allowed to stay there despite the fact that the regulations have changed over the years; there is a standard of substantially damaged, the concept being that once it reaches a 50% damage threshold then it is time for that use to be retired, and any subsequent uses to come into conformance with current regulations; and in this case, the regulations would pertain to the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan as far as the Planning and Zoning Office is concerned since this is a residential property with a commercial use on it.  She advised it is important to understand there are other avenues that would enable the applicant to put the trussed roof on the property, and that is to go through the traditional mechanisms that are in place for every property owner that if they want to improve and continue a use, and fortify that use that they get the proper zoning and land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan; that avenue has not been pursued by the applicant; instead he is trying to fortify a nonconforming use without the benefit of even attempting to address the underlying zoning and Comprehensive Plan problems; and if those issues are resolved this whole issue of whatever roof they wish to put on and any improvements on the property, they would have cart blanche to do so within the realm of all the Land Development Regulations.  Ms. Sobrino advised the County needs to apply the Code fairly to everybody that if that is their end means to make this a more fortified structure then they need to go through the process of getting the right zoning and Comprehensive Plan in place.

 

Mr. Moia stated the applicant does not believe that the way the Code is written requires him to do that; this is not about if it is a flat roof or another roof; he agrees 100% with staff saying that nonconforming uses might need to be treated a certain way; and that is not what the Code says.  He noted if the County wants that to be true then it needs to change the Code to say that; it reads, “Structures qualifying as a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, extended, or increased,  or  expanded  in  any  manner  unless  such  enlargement,  extension,  increase,   or

 

 

         THAT PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK CONSTITUTES EXPANSION OF NON-

 

expansion is specifically in conformity with the provisions of this article and do not increase the nonconformity of such use; a roof does not increase the conformity of the use; and the roof height does not exceed the Code requirement and is completely within the Code.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Moia has a point; the County should go back and look at the Code and make sure it does the interpretation, but it should not start a precedent by saying appeal what staff is saying; it is trying to apply the Code fairly; and if they want to go through the proper process the County needs to make them to do that, like it has made everybody else do until it reviews the Code and clarifies it for whatever reason.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Moia makes a good argument; and if the Code says what it says and staff is applying the Code, it should be applying what he thinks this interpretation of the Code is.  He inquired what makes it nonconforming; with Ms. Sobrino responding the fact that it is a commercial activity in a residential zoning classification.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired has it always been a commercial activity; with Mr. Moia responding since 1950, according to the Property Appraiser.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired when did it become residential that this made it nonconforming.  Mr. Moia responded it was there before the Code was there; and when the Code came into play it became nonconforming.  Ms. Sobrino advised the Zoning Code was adopted in 1958.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired is this an expansion of a nonconforming use or not based on the way the County has the Code written.  Attorney Knox responded he hates to send it back to the Board, but it is the nature of what the appeal is about; the Board has to sit as the appellate body making that decision; he has an opinion and so does staff; and everyone may not all agree.  Commissioner Carlson stated based on the County’s historical use of the nonconforming process, the Board has denied others this process before; and inquired how does that set the precedent for future scenarios.  She noted the Board is putting itself in a position where it is going to end up being potentially litigated again.  Attorney Knox stated the Board has denied appeals and then said if it goes back and changes the Code, the applicant could go forward because the County was going to change the Code.

 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon advised the applicant has a permit for the repairs; such permit has been applied for as an owner/builder; there are also State Statutes that limit the total amount and what the owner/builder can do on a commercial project; and he is assuming the applicant will also be doing an owner/builder for the roof trusses.  He stated the County needs to see that as one permit application to make sure the Florida Building Code is being followed from that perspective instead of two permits; Mr. Moia is referring to two permits; and if he wants to do the truss roof and if it is the Board’s desire to allow that, he needs to modify the existing permit and come in with the engineering change.

 

Mr. Moia stated he is trying to separate the two issues; they have already received the permit for the repairs; now they are making those repairs they have decided to make an improvement; and they applied for a separate permit in November 2005 to do the roof part.  He noted there is no value assessed to that improvement because it is not a repair; it is an improvement; there are  two  separate  issues; and  repair  has a lot of stipulations, improvements do not.  He stated

 

 

         THAT PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK CONSTITUTES EXPANSION OF NON-

 

the 50% rule goes away; the County does not need to revisit that permit; the applicant needs to get the permit he applied for; and the rule allows him to do that, as written.

 

Chair Voltz passed the gavel to Vice Chair Carlson.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the applicant’s appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s determination that the proposed replacement of a flat roof on a non-conforming commercial structure with a new trussed roof constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming use and is therefore prohibited by Section 62-1182(b)(2).  Motion did not carry.  Commissioners Voltz and Pritchard voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Colon voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to look at changing the Code so the County can clarify those points in the Code that are obviously in conflict with one another.

 

 

Vice Chair Carlson inquired if Commissioner Voltz wants to bring the issue back for discussion; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes.

 

Commissioner Scarborough suggested the Board get a staff memorandum first; and stated taking the issues first and discussing them might be easier than having staff try to second-guess where the Board wants to go.  Commissioner Voltz noted that is fine.

 

The Board did not approve the applicant’s appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s determination that the proposed replacement of a flat roof on a non-conforming commercial structure with a new trussed roof constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming use and is therefore prohibited by Section 62-1182(b)(2). 

 

 

Vice Chair Carlson passed the gavel to Chair Voltz.

Chair Voltz stated she reviewed the population being served; Lee, Polk, and Volusia Counties have the approximate population as Brevard County; she looked at the County Managers salaries and the years of experience; and Lake County has one year of experience, Martin County has zero, Seminole County has zero, and Volusia County has zero.  She noted she took those four salaries, along with the number of years they have done; the average salary is $161,339 for a county manager; she did the same thing for a county attorney; the only two that were close to 12 years, Alachua County and Lake County, the average salary is $143,900;  County Attorney Scott Knox is just about there right now; and County Manager Peggy Busacca would be raised about $10,000.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard requested Frank Abbate explain the survey and the average.

 

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responded staff took the actual salary of each of the jurisdictions that were surveyed, added them up, and divided it by the number of jurisdictions surveyed; that is what the average is; it was done across-the-board for population being served, number of employees, total budget, county manager salaries, and county attorney salaries; and it is a compilation and simple division based on the actual salaries.  He stated there was no mathematical formula in terms of when one looks at the average salary to try to do anything with making it go up or down based on the number of employees or the number of years of service; staff did not undertake any of those type calculations; and it gave the Board what the actual numbers were and the average for each of those pieces of information.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired was the survey similar to what Cody and Associates did for the other employees; with Mr. Abbate responding this survey was done internally by County staff.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired was the methodology similar; with Mr. Abbate responding he cannot say that the methodology was similar, but staff specifically talked to each jurisdiction verbally over the telephone.  Mr. Abbate advised Cody and Associates sent out a survey instrument that they responded to; they calculated these same numbers for the averages; for each position they took an average of the responses; and that became the survey average.  Commissioner Pritchard stated a decision was made by the Board to take what Cody had recommended and to implement 50%; and Option 5 is 50% adjustment based upon survey average, which takes the County Manager and County Attorney to approximately the figures Chair Voltz came up with.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she did it on an arbitrary basis like Mr. Abbate; she took the seven-county region; she looked at the average, including Brevard’s existing salaries; the region includes Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Volusia, Lake, and Polk Counties as well; and it came out to be approximately $163,000 for the County Manager, and approximately $155,000 for the County Attorney, which looks like Option 5.  She noted it sounds like a good possibility.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the number Chair Voltz mentioned of approximately $161,400 would put the County Manager in a range that makes sense by taking all the data and trying to blend it all together; he did not look at options and wanted to go directly to the numbers; and $161,400 is fine.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Cody and Associates used a formula; County staff used a methodology; he does not want to start tweaking the methodology; and what staff has done is accurate and he will accept the survey and average.  He noted he wants to stay consistent with how the County has treated other employees; the Board implemented half of the recommendation; and Option 5 is half of the adjustment.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 5, a 50% adjustment based upon survey average, for the County Manager at $161,778.33 and the County Attorney at $152,202.41, effective next pay period.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Assistant County Manager Don Lusk expressed appreciation to the Board, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and the seniors; advised on April 11, 2006 the Board approved moving the Senior Citizens Center to the Wickham Park site; it requested staff come back with the feasibility of whether the County could build the community center at the same time; and it also asked staff the question about whether it could look at the cost of strengthening the Senior Citizens Center for hurricane purposes.  He advised the numbers are estimates for discussion purposes until the County engineers the building on the site and bids it; the information package provided to the Board gives the concept site rendering and shows that the County can fit both the Community Center and Senior Citizens Center on the site; and it includes what has been of concern that has come forward in terms of buffering on the site, parking, and things of that nature, which have all been addressed.  He stated in terms of the strengthening the Senior Citizens Center, it was not designed to 170 miles per hour, which is considered strengthening; it was designed at Code, which is 130 miles per hour; he talked to Emergency Management Director Bob Lay about that concept; and he indicated if money is not an object he would recommend that everything be strengthened to 170 miles per hour if possible.  He noted being that money is an object with the referendum projects, Mr. Lay indicated if the County was going to build them eventually side-by-side with the Community Center already being designed at 170 miles per hour, he felt it was fine to build the Senior Citizens Center adjacent to it at 130 miles per hour if the County could also find the money to shutter the facility; and the approximate cost to strengthen the Senior Citizens Center would add about $1 million to the cost of building that building.

 

Pat Poole stated she is a card-carrying member of the Melbourne Senior Center; she is speaking for her many friends who were very concerned with what was happening when they saw the proposal to move to Wickham Park; there was a Senior Center in Melbourne for many years; and it was great and the people loved it.  She noted she does not mind paying for things that she approves of, but she and others never would have voted for the referendum if they had known the Senior Center was going to be proposed for Wickham Park; seniors do not want to drive or ride on a bus that distance; senior centers belong in the downtown areas where people that live close can walk; the people she has talked to would love to have a new place at their old place; and the County would not have to pay for property or leasing there as it belongs to the County and is where the Senior Center belongs.

 

Jack Masson stated originally in the referendum it was only a renovation project at the existing Senior Center building in downtown Melbourne; the total was $491,000 for renovation; however, in many renovation projects once one starts researching and finds what is underneath, it is impossible to meet that projection; and the cost from the consultant was $1 million.  He noted the cost to build a new building was about $1.2 million at that time; a manner of economy it was better to build a new building than try to renovate the building; parking was always a problem at that site; and staff looked at alternative sites, and one was Wickham Park.  He stated it was at a request of the seniors; and there was an opportunity to develop the building adjacent to the planned location of the Community Center.

 

Dick DeLauder, representing South Brevard Seniors Association, Inc., advised that the Board of Directors on March 6, 2006 unanimously approved moving to Wickham Park for three reasons; the  location  is  halfway between Marten Anderson and Palm Bay; the County already owns the

 

 

 

land and would own the building; and the Airport proposal, because of the increased cost, would have gone up to about $9 million over a period of 30 years, which was out of hand.  He stated there is space at Wickham Park for 200 parking places; there was always a problem with parking at the Henegar Center; and there is also the potential for expansion of the building at Wickham Park.  He noted if the Center is approved today it will not be completed until 2008; and the 28,000 seniors in Melbourne deserve a Center that was promised to them in 2004.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she has agreed with what Ms. Poole has said for a long time, but it is inevitable that the location for the Senior Center, because the County has no other possibilities at this point in time, is going to be Wickham Park; whether or not it builds it first, along with a community center, or what it does is still a question; staff provided a breakdown; and Page 119 talks about the Senior Center with strengthening, without strengthening, etc.  She noted the building of the Senior Center and Community Center together would save considerable money since the County does not have a lot of money; she wants to make sure it is using every dollar as efficiently and effectively as possible; the Senior Center, based on the data she received from Parks and Recreation, has about $1.2 million available in a budget; and Wickham Park in and of itself has $2.9 million, giving a total of about $4.1 million.  She stated the County is dealing with the equestrian section; it is trying to complete the equestrian area; it has been committed for a long time way ahead of the senior citizen issue coming to Wickham Park; and the seniors have been promised something, the equestrian, Wickham Park in and of itself, and all the facility changes there have been promised as well.  She advised the County has so many dollars; it has the bond issue that is out there waiting to get done; it is very apparent to her that the County needs a sizeable influx of dollars, even if it wants to do the Senior Center by itself first or at least get it done; and the strengthening provision is an important aspect, yet adds $1 million, but it is probably going to be well worth it in the long run because going back and retrofitting it later when the County actually needed it is going to be a key issue. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired does the Board want to save money here by doing the Senior Center and Community Center together, or does it want to not save money and try to do one ahead of the other, knowing that the County is not going to have the money to do either if it does not get the bonds; stated it has enough money to do the equestrian area; she does not know if the Board wants staff to come back with an analysis of how it is going to do it; but the County should try to save as much as money as it can.  She noted she is trying to base it on doing both the Senior Center and Community Center in a strengthening condition; and she came up with about $5 million or $6 million that needed to be infused into the budget for Wickham Park to do both Centers and the equestrian area.

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board should just go with the Senior Center as it does not have the money to do everything; and she is not willing to go there at this point.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the great desire to put things together to save money; he would like there to be a program; and inquired if the County gets the bond issue out there, looking at the projects that are ongoing and what needs to be done, including the $10.6 million, does it all come together. 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated staff could give the Board a more concrete layout of funds.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how does the County structure this so it can do as much in a prudent manner as possible; and if it gets the bond issue, does it still have a shortfall. 

 

Mr. Lusk responded if the County gets the bond issue it still has a shortfall.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired of how much; with Mr. Lusk responding $8 million.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many more years does the County have remaining on the referendum as a cash flow.

 

Larry Wojciechowski, representing Parks and Recreation Department, responded 14 years on the bond.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think the Board has to say no, but it may have to say later to some projects; and it would be good for Commissioner Carlson to work with Mr. Wojciechowski to see which projects are deferrable.  Commissioner Carlson stated perhaps the Board could get a list of all the improvements it wants for Wickham Park and the estimate, it can say what can be pushed out in the future; a true program management document would be helpful to let the Board know a timeline and an amount; and it can base its decision on that.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board supports the equestrian community; there is a need and the County needs to make sure it follows through on what was promised to them; the Senior Center needs a place to call home; and there have been dozens and dozens of meetings over the issue.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve building the Senior Center at Wickham Park without the Community Center and without the strengthening.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have any problem going forward with the Senior Center as long as the Board puts the caveats that the equestrian facility will not be impacted; requested a list of all the other added things that are going to go into Wickham Park based on the referendum, including what other improvements need to be made and what those costs are so the Board can make a better determination on what it is going to forego in the future; and requested it be included in the motion.

 

Chair Voltz stated the County is not going to be able to build 48 units for the equestrian facility unless they are done in a cheaper way; it only has so much money; for it to spend $20,000 a unit is absolutely absurd; and she does not want to put it in the motion.  Commissioner Carlson stated she will not be supporting the motion.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the money there to do it if the bond issue is approved by the courts without impacting any of the projects, or does the Board need to look at Exhibit 3 and decide which projects to defer.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lusk responded the County can build the Senior Center alone with no strengthening at this juncture right now.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired is it contingent on the bond issue or not.  Mr. Lusk responded the County is using excess millage and can do the Senior Citizens Center now.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are three items where contracts have been awarded, South Beach Community Center, Palm Bay Community Center, and POW/MAI Park; he assumes in some cases the contract is mobilized; and inquired would the County have to cease mobilization on any of those projects.  Mr. Lusk responded not if the Board makes the decision just to build the Senior Citizens Center alone without the strengthening.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired does it impact the zoo trail.  Mr. Lusk responded $2.4 million is what is available there and budgeted for the zoo trail. 

 

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

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County will be dealing with rebating $25.00; it can do that for 1,000 animals which are spayed/neutered; it does not know who is going to get the $25.00 if it is really going to be an incentive or not; and administering rebates of $25.00 is probably fairly expensive.  He advised he will not be supporting the motion.

 

Animal Services and Enforcement Director Craig Engelson stated it is the County’s one opportunity this year to address the pet overpopulation; Commissioner Scarborough may be right; and he does not truly know if it is really the incentive that people need, but it is an incentive.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a good start; if it is effective then the County will do it again next year; and if it is not then it will make adjustments.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant approval of a Spay/Neuter Rebate Program, offering a $25 rebate to citizens who have their dogs or cats sterilized.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the School Board has contacted the County very interested in a piece of property, which is West Melbourne’s Rodes Park; the County is trying to build Rodes Park II, which is all the way in the back and things are coming along; the citizens of West Melbourne take their football very seriously; and if the County were to sell the Park right now it would not get what it is worth a couple of years from now. 

 

 

She stated the School Board may decide it wants to build a school three or four years from now, but if Rodes Park II is not completely finished then the County is in trouble; it is up to the County Commission to protect that and its investment; and she wanted to share with the Board the fear of the community.

 

Chair Voltz stated Commissioner Colon is right, if the County sells the property right now then it is selling it cheap; it needs to wait until the Park is completely done, then reassess the value of it, and then sell it; and she is very interested in selling the property to the School Board, but not right now.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired could the County put together an agreement that says it wants to work with the School Board in the future, it wants to sell the property at the appropriate time and have appraisals done, and then negotiate the bottom line; and stated it would be a future-type scenario.  County Attorney Scott Knox responded that would be fine.

 

Debra Thompson, representing Greater West Melbourne Athletic Association, expressed her concern regarding the sale of Rodes Park at this time; stated the sale of the Park at this time does not make any sense, including limiting the sale of the property to just the School Board; sometimes the School Board has not made good business decisions either in purchasing land; and there are other areas in the West Melbourne community where students would not have to cross a highway to go to school.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to deny request by Dr. Richard DiPatri, Superintendent of the School Board of Brevard County, that the County consider selling the existing 18-acre Max K. Rodes Park to the School Board.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Carlson voted nay.

Tracey McKay, representing Suntree Homeowners, requested an amendment to Brevard County Code, Chapter 106, regarding golf cart usage on public roadways in Suntree.  She advised the County Ordinance currently restricts the use of golf carts to people who are traveling the most direct route between the operator’s residence and the golf course or clubhouse adjoining the golf course; the Ordinance, as it is written, currently allows for a select group of private individuals’ rights and privileges on public roadways, which are not afforded to all members of the community; Viera North PUD is specifically released from this restriction in the Ordinance; and the residents are asking for the same privilege.  She stated given that the general use of golf carts has been ongoing for years, the residents ask that the Board consider any enforcement of the current Ordinance be abated until it takes final action.

 

Ernie Euler advised of his support for the item.

 

 

 

 

 

       (CONTINUED)                                                                                                                                        

Jim Parsons, President of Suntree Master Homeowners Association Board of Directors, advised of the Board of Directors’ concern about safety issues, unlicensed drivers, and increased traffic in the area; and Suntree does not need to have golf carts unless there are certain restrictions.

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised of his concern regarding safety issues; and stated he does not believe that golf carts belong on public roads.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Suntree Master Homeowners Association pays a deputy to police in the community over and above what the County provides; the County could look at the Viera provision and what the Viera PUD has been able to do; and there have not been any issues there.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired can the County be held any more accountable or suffer any type of additional liability if it allows golf course use on public roads.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox responded negatively; and advised it would fall under the heading of a planning decision by the Board of County Commissioners, so it would not be responsible for that.

 

Jack Platt, representing Suntree Homeowners, stated he wants to make clear what the homeowners are asking for; and it would include the use of golf carts on Jordan Blass Drive, from Viscaya Court to the Library.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize staff to proceed with amending Ordinance No. 98-23, Section 106-73, to allow the Suntree Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be similar to the Viera PUD in terms of the use of golf carts, including on Jordan Blass Drive, from Viscaya Court to the Library.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

Philip F. Nohrr, Esquire, representing the applicant, stated Long Pointe Café is a long-standing restaurant/bait and tackle shop on the edge of the South Beaches; and requested the Board consider amending the BU-1-A Zoning Code to allow beer and wine as a Conditional Use Permit for the Café.  He stated the applicant would like to have the opportunity to serve beer and wine along with their meals; there are not many restaurants down there; most of the people in the area would be supportive of it; but what they would not be supportive of is to a change in the zoning to BU-1, and would like the Café to stay within the BU-1-A category.  He advised restaurants right now are a permitted use with conditions in BU-1-A; the request would only be while the restaurant is open and serving meals; and the Café is not trying to expand in any way what it is doing.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson noted Attorney Nohrr is not asking for a Comprehensive Plan change or anything; with Attorney Nohrr responding negatively.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to proceed with an analysis concerning amending the BU-1-A zoning classification to allow beer and wine sales as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Long Pointe Café, Inc.; and return to the Board with legislative intent.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table request by Wasim Niazi concerning amending the Zoning Code to allow helicopters as a Conditional Use in the SEU zoning classification to the May 16, 2006 Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

       #05-1108, INVESTIGATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT UNPROFESSIONAL  

Charles Green advised of his request for abatement of fines for Case #05-1108; stated he has been living in Brevard County for over 40 years; he has been investing in real estate about 20 years; and he has owned approximately 28 properties, and owns about 12 properties now.  He noted there has been some misinformation and untruths about him.

 

Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen stated this particular case began in September 2005; there was an allegation from the neighborhood that Mr. Green had taken a single-family residence and turned it into a duplex, upstairs/downstairs; staff tried to work with Mr. Green on numerous occasions; and there were many delays and stalls.  He noted Mr. Green started visiting County Commission Offices to try to stop Code Enforcement from going further on the case, which it did not; in December 2005, Code Enforcement took the case to the Special Magistrate; Mr. Green in his testimony before the Special Magistrate indicated he had not turned this single-family residence into a duplex; and the photographs convinced the Special Magistrate that he was indeed in violation of the Code.  Mr. Bowen stated Mr. Green was found guilty and was given 60 days to come into compliance; fines started accruing on March 20, 2006; Mr. Green did not come into compliance; and he made application for a permit on April 17, 2006, well past the deadlines.  He noted Mr. Green still does not have a permit as it is currently on hold because he has not gotten the engineering drawing; he has been in non-compliance; the Special Magistrate found him guilty; and he is drawing fines.  He stated Mr. Green tried to get an extension in April 2006; and the Special Magistrate denied it.  Mr. Bowen provided photographs to the Board for its review.

 

 

 

       #05-1108, INVESTIGATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT UNPROFESSIONAL  

 

Chair Voltz stated the pictures pretty much say it all; and they are incredible.  She noted Mr. Green needs to come into compliance.  Mr. Bowen advised Mr. Green contacted his Office today to make arrangements for a time payment of $748.00; that was the enforcement cost; Mr. Green wants the fines stopped; and he had an opportunity to appeal the Special Magistrate’s decision to the Circuit Court, which he did not do.  He stated when he tried to appeal through an attorney his time had run out for any and all appeals.  Chair Voltz stated at this point Mr. Green needs to pay the fines and come into compliance.  Mr. Bowen stated Mr. Green needs to pay his enforcement cost, get his permit issued to him, put the stairs back in, make this back into a single-family residence, and have it inspected; and then the fines will stop at that point.

 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon advised the Board can take no action at this time; and staff will continue with the Code case and follow up with the Special Magistrate as appropriate.

 

Chair Voltz stated that is what the Board will do.

 

The Board took no action on the request of Charles Green for abatement of fines for Case #05-1108, investigation of Code Enforcement unprofessional practices, lack of check and balances, and abusive current policies. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:  

                                                                  __________________________________

                                                                  HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                  BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                  BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

 

            (S E A L)