MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

April 7, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 7, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Carlos Suarez, Calvary Baptist Church

Commissioner Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board recently moved forward with purchase of the historic Pritchard House in Titusville; he understands there is a grant cycle for historic structures; and the County needs to submit an application by May 30, 2005. He stated it would be advantageous to authorize staff to proceed on the grant; and they can use the purchase price and the $50,000 as a match. He stated they may need a consultant; and they can draw from the $50,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize staff to proceed with application for a grant for historic structures for the Pritchard House, using the purchase price and the $50,000 from commercial paper loan as a match; and approve drawing from the $50,000 for a consultant, if needed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to appoint Paula Jaruse to the Dangerous Dog Hearing Council replacing Donna Miner; and Robert Preikschat to the MPO Citizens Advisory Council as primary instead of alternate and Bruce Weschler as alternate instead of primary.

Maureen Rupe, president of the Partnership for Sustainable Future, stated tonight the Board will be appointing several people to advisory board positions; and Commissioner Voltz chose Bruce Weschler as her appointee, one of the most outspoken individuals. Commissioner Voltz stated she did not; he is on the MPO CAC, and will go from primary to alternate. Ms. Rupe inquired when he will be appointed to another committee; with Commissioner Voltz responding she does not know. Ms. Rupe apologized; and stated she was told he was going to be appointed tonight.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Paula Jaruse to the Animal Enforcement Dangerous Dog Hearing Council with term expiring December 31, 2005; and Robert Preikschat to the MPO Citizens Advisory Board as primary appointee and Bruce Weschler as alternate. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is having computer problems with emails. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is too. Commissioner Voltz stated they cannot even communicate with the State or respond to constituents. She stated no email is going out; and she would like to know when it is going to be fixed.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the consultant has come back with a recommendation for a platform for the email. Commissioner Voltz stated she has been hearing that for a couple of months. Ms. Busacca stated staff is moving forward to see about getting the bid off the State bid; they will be coming to the Board April 26, 2005 to actually spend the money; and then it will be a matter of putting it together, which will take a month or two. She stated she can request Mr. Whitten provide specific information tomorrow.

Commissioner Voltz stated it is frustrating when she is trying to answer email, and they come back three days later saying the time has expired. She stated she forgets who she has responded to and whose emails have gone through; it is very frustrating; and they cannot do business like that.

Commissioner Voltz stated she has three items she wants to table, V.A.2, V.A.7 , and V.B.23.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if anyone is present to speak to those items; and no response was heard.

Item V.A.2. (Z0410303) Micco Farm and Grove, Inc.?s request for change from GU and AU to RR-1 on 760? acres located o the south side of Micco Road, west of Bird Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Item V.A.7. (Z0502303) MICCO, LLC?s request for change from GU and AU to RR-1 on 32.244 acres located on the west side of Iris Lane, west of Honeysuckle Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Item V.B.23. (SPE50301) Indian River No. 1 Developers, LLC, LKC Corporation and Indian River No. 2 Developers, LLC's request for an amendment to the PDP in a PUD zone on 26? acres located on both side of Highway A1A, and north and south of Aquarina Boulevard,
also containing property located along the river?s edge, which was recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Board for approval of change to Stage 3, Tract 1, Unit 2, to 1 acre commercial designation with a 10,000 square-foot building; and 2.22 acres to transfer 25 low-rise residential units; change to Stage 3, Tract 1, Unit 1, to 3 acres of open space designation
on golf clubhouse; and transfer to Stage 5, Tract 1, on 5.93 acres of 60 residential units with a maximum height of 35 feet; denial of change to Stage 4, Tracts V and VIII, to remove 2 acres of open space designation; and change to Stage 2, Tract A, to go from 3.02 acres of active recreation to 2.31 acres of active recreation and 0.71 acre to transfer (5) low-rise single-family residential units.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Items V.A.2, V.A.7, and V.B.23 to May 5, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to table Item V.A.3.

Item V.A.3. (Z0411401) Suntree Community Developers, Inc.?s request for change from PUD to RP with a Binding Development Plan stipulating to no commercial uses on 5.28 acres located on the east side of Holiday Springs Road, south of Viera Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a Binding Development Plan.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item V.A.3 to the May 5, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated she will be bringing an item to the Board on April 12, 2005 regarding Home Depot that is slated to come to Wickham Road; there are some problems with Wickham Road in terms of concurrency; the City of Melbourne and the County use different formulas; and they are going to bring the item back for discussion.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if they will get information on it; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson stated she went to Tallahassee last week; her son was in the page program; it was very successful; and he served for two days. She stated there were a lot of issues; Legislative Day for Florida Association of Counties was Wednesday; she also spent part
of Thursday there; Lobbyist John Thrasher was successful in getting an appointment to meet with the Transportation Secretary; and she had a very optimistic conversation regarding
transportation needs for the area, specifically the Pineda Extension. She distributed a list of bills that have the potential to do the most harm to counties in the opinion of the Florida Association of Counties; and stated almost every item is sponsored by one of the County?s legislators. Commissioner Colon stated from their perspective some of the bills may not be that bad; some have fallen off the list; there is one on impact fees and one on cap-it; and she heard that growth management may be done. Commissioner Carlson stated there is an article in the Tampa Tribune that was emailed through the lobbyist to all the Commissioners advising that Senate President Tom Lee from Brandon said growth management is dead. She stated growth management was the Governor?s top priority this year, but things were introduced too late in the session; and it was going to cost too much to deal with all the infrastructure needs of the counties. She stated the Commissioners can review the bills; and if there are any questions, Florida Association of Counties has updates. She stated Ms. Busacca will try to get something to them to show the actual impact to the County of any of the bills and the status of each.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Carlson is not in favor of House Bill 47, the cap-it limitation for charter counties. Commissioner Carlson stated it is the Florida Association of Counties list, not hers.

Commissioner Colon stated the list was just outlining the priorities and bills that will be detrimental to counties; most of the bills are sponsored by the Brevard Delegation; and it would have been good to have had the list at the workshop. Commissioner Carlson stated many of the legislators were at the workshop; they did not give the Board a heads-up on the bills; and now the Board has to deal with Mr. Thrasher to help. She stated there is not a lot of support for some of the ones that have a severe impact to counties; and she is hoping those go away. She stated they will get an update as the session goes on.

Commissioner Colon stated there was a terrible tragedy yesterday at Wickham Park; it involved an employee; and she would like to observe a moment of silence.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has a report on House Bill 47, which is the limitation that counties could impose; it is one that he favors; and it is the 3% capit that the constituents voted on in 1996. He stated he happens to like it; it holds counties accountable; he believes out of 67 counties, 17 are charter counties; and as a charter county they have more flexibility as well as more responsibility to insure that what is done is in the best interest of the constituents. He stated he is bringing it to the Board?s attention in the hope he can get agreement of the Board to write a letter supporting House Bill 47. He stated he sent a letter as an individual to
Representative Needelman in support; but he would appreciate the Board considering this. He stated if the Board is not comfortable, having not reviewed it, it can consider it at the end of the
meeting. He stated it supports the will of the people; in 1996, 85% of the people voted to cap property taxes at 3%; and he thinks it is a good bill. He stated he does not always agree with Florida Association of Counties; and this is one of those situations.

Commissioner Voltz stated she would prefer to talk about this at the end of the meeting.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is a short video that goes with the resolution. Paulette Davidson, Chair of the Volunteer Management Team for Brevard County Government, stated she represents all of the different County volunteer programs.

Commissioner Colon read aloud the resolution proclaiming April 17 through April 23, 2005 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution proclaiming April 17 through April 23, 2005 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Davidson presented a video advising over 915,000 volunteer hours were reported by Brevard County Volunteer Programs and Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week will be celebrated in April 2005, elaborating on each volunteer program, and thanking all volunteers. She requested all volunteers stand; and they received a round of applause in appreciation. Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Ms. Davidson who advised a reception is being held in Building A. Chairman Pritchard expressed appreciation to the volunteers for all that they do.

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to get a staff report on affordable housing to show where the County is and what it is doing in terms of affordable housing; he was thumbing through the real estate ads on Sunday, and was shocked to find there was not a single new home for under $160,000; and the majority of them were in the $200,000 range, with many $1 million. He stated it makes him question how they can comply with the Comprehensive Plan Element, which talks about affordable housing; the goal is to provide adequate and affordable housing in suitable residential environments to meet the public?s physical and social needs; objective 1, is that the County should act within its authority to substantially increase the supply of affordable housing through housing implementation or other programs; and Policy 1.1 is that
a dwelling unit is considered to be affordable when a household spends no more than 30% of its gross income on housing costs. He stated he contacted Space Coast Credit Union to come up with a rule of thumb; he had been told that usually the rule of thumb was one and one-half times
the annual gross income as to what type of house one could afford, less a 20% down payment; he came up with a couple, a firefighter and a teacher who saved a down payment, monthly debt of $1,000, and a gross income of $75,000; and using the formulas that were provided to him, he was shocked to find they could afford a mortgage of approximately $300,000. He stated one and one-half times gross income would be $140,000 to $160,000; but what used to be 30% in the Comprehensive Plan has now risen to 65% with the lenders in terms of debt to income ratio. He stated he wants to make sure they are not pricing people out of the home ownership business; and read from an article concerning Palm Beach County, which is the nation?s tenth highest housing market. He read, "The housing crunch could turn into a drag on the economy of Palm Beach, which has long enjoyed strong growth. Soaring housing prices have claimed at least one small company that moved to Georgia because of housing costs here." He stated the question becomes what is affordable; if an average couple with a gross income of $75,000 can afford a $300,000 mortgage, then the impact fees are not pricing people out of home ownership; but he would like to be sure about that. He stated he would like to ask staff for a report telling what effect this is having; and a lot has to do with calls he has been getting. He stated one developer in Palm Bay claims he cannot afford to build a 1,500 square-foot home and sell the home for less than $200,000; that is his threshold; and if the County goes to the 100% impact fee on transportation, there will be a little over $10,000 in impact fees. He stated the affordability of materials has driven the price of construction out of sight added to the impact fees; he does not want to price people out of the home ownership market; and he wants to know more. He stated he brought a real estate book, which he thumbed through; he went through every page and came up with less than a dozen homes, existing as well as new, that were under $160,000; and it appears that threshold is far below what is considered to be affordable. He stated he would like to get back a report with a realistic number of what is considered affordable; and stated the Board may have to change the Element in the Comprehensive Plan on affordable housing.

Commissioner Colon stated she thought that was a dead horse; and inquired if Chairman Pritchard wants to see how it correlates.

Chairman Pritchard stated the only reason he is mentioning it is because he had a couple of people say the impact fee is killing them, so he started looking into it to see what it is really doing; in the higher end homes if someone is paying a $10,000 impact fee on a $500,000 home, that is not much; however, if they are paying $10,000 on a $160,000 home, that becomes a significant part of their mortgage. He stated it seems as if the qualifications for people for home ownership are a lot better than what he thought in terms of what people can afford to borrow.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has a framed resolution for the coach and each cheerleader will receive an individual resolution. He read aloud a resolution congratulating Merritt Island High School Cheerleaders for their outstanding talent, dedication, and commitment in receiving the 2005 American Open National Cheerleading Championship.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Merritt Island High School Cheerleaders for bringing home to Merritt Island High School, and Brevard County, the 2005 American Open National Cheerleading Championship. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The Merritt Island High School Cheerleaders performed a cheer. Chairman Pritchard presented the Resolution to the group and Coach Cissy Shipley.

Chairman Pritchard read aloud a resolution congratulating Audubon Elementary School on its 40th anniversary of continuous education. He advised he will be presenting the resolution at a luncheon tomorrow.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Audubon Elementary School on its 40th anniversary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution recognizing the accomplishments of The Thunderbolts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Laura Melnick stated the group has done a great job. One of the team members advised of the team?s development of a website to help people plan for hurricane evacuation; and stated the presentation the Board is about to see has been given to the Brevard EOC, the Brevard County Department of Exceptional Education, and Space Coast Chapter of the American Red Cross; and all three organizations were pleased with the level of detail and thought the team put into the website. He stated the website will be incorporated into the EOC website. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the age range of the group; with Ms. Melnick responding fourth, fifth, and sixth graders, nine to twelve years old. The Thunderbolts presented a skit concerning the dangers of hurricanes and preparing for hurricanes.

Chairman Carlson stated she appreciates all the group has done to provide information; and inquired if they want to talk about the robot. Ms. Melnick stated the skit is 25% of the score; but
they also had to build an autonomous robot. She stated the robot has to do nine tasks designed around helping people with special needs; and the group was the first to ever earn two perfect scores in competition. She introduced Sue Hoyt who is the teacher-sponsor as well as being Tyler Hoyt?s mother. Ms. Hoyt stated Ms. Melnick has been an inspiration to the group; the group learned two programming languages; two years ago they were first in the State and second in the nation in robotic design; and this year they were second because the judges could not believe they did the website. She stated the group goes to a school for science; they know how to do websites; they learned another programming language to do it; and they could not have done it without Ms. Melnick?s help. She stated they appreciate the recognition; but The Thunderbolts are not done, and will keep going.

Chairman Pritchard presented the Resolution to the group. Ms. Melnick advised the website is a real website with valid information for hurricane shelters in the County. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there would be a problem linking the website to a County website; with Ms. Melnick responding they would love it. Commissioner Voltz stated she will link it to her website. Commissioner Carlson stated it is great that Ms. Melnick takes time out of her work schedule to help this group; it is a great asset in the community; and she hopes others are inspired to help.

Commissioner Carlson stated Boy Scout Troop 300 happens to be the troop her son is part of; and read aloud a resolution congratulating Troop 300 on its 50th anniversary.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution congratulating Boy Scout Troop 300 on its 50th anniversary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Jim Stratford who expressed appreciation to the Board for supporting scouting.

Chairman Pritchard read aloud a resolution congratulating The Island Dancers of Merritt Island High School; and displayed a newspaper clipping concerning the group.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating The Island Dancers of Merritt Island High School for winning the 2005 State Varsity Dance Team Championship and 2005 National Varsity Dance Team Championship. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard presented the Resolution to the group and Coach Kristi Irby. The group performed a kickline.

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming April 2005 as National Donate Life Month.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming April 2005 as National Donate Life Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Carol Rumsey of the Translife Organization. Ms. Rumsey thanked Commissioner Carlson for bringing the issue to the attention of Brevard County citizens. She stated organ donations in Central Florida saved 371 lives last year; it was a remarkable increase of 82 lifesaving gifts over the previous year; and it was an all time record achievement for the community. She stated it is only possible when a whole community participates, so they are grateful to everyone who helped spread the word, including local schools, places of worship, workplace partners for life, community hospitals, and donors and donor families. She stated the great news is tempered by the growing list of people who need organ donations; and encouraged the citizens to do three things: (1) learn the facts about donation, (2) talk about it with families, friends, and coworkers, and (3) include the decision to donate life on your Florida Driver?s license. She stated Translife can provide donor cards, posters, brochures, or any materials that are needed to put on a campaign. She encouraged the Brevard business community to follow the lead of HealthFirst Hospital, which signed on to the National Workplace Partnership for Life. She stated these are companies that are actively educating their employees about giving blood, joining a marrow registry, and becoming an organ and tissue donor. She thanked the Board for recognizing National Donate Life Month; stated they wear green wristbands during April; and she brought one for each Commissioner. Commissioner Carlson stated the local partners she has listed are Coastal Health Systems, HealthFirst, Inc., Parrish Medical Center, Cape Canaveral Hospital, Holmes Regional Medical Center, Palm Bay Community Hospital, and Wuesthoff Medical Center. She stated she is not familiar with the business or faith-based folks that have been working with Ms. Rumsey. Ms. Rumsey stated during National Donor Sabbath, they are fortunate to have participation by the entire faith community; and it is a special time each year to bring attention to organ and tissue donation. She stated across the United States there are 11,000 business partners so it is a great program.

Commissioner Voltz stated one of her best friends had a double lung transplant six months ago; and she is doing wonderful.

Chairman Pritchard stated he heard the blood banks have run out of type O blood; and encouraged everyone to donate. He stated the organ donor programs are great; and he has been on the list to be an organ donor and marrow donor for years.

ITEMS TABLED OR WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA (CONTINUED)

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated there are a number of tabled and withdrawn items in addition to the ones already tabled, which were V.A.2, V.A.3, V.A.7, and V.B.23. He stated there is a recommendation to table V.B.16.

Item V.B.16. (Z0503106) First Equity Development Group, Inc.?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 430 acres located on the east side of US 1, lying between St. Johns Road and Huntington Avenue, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the April 11, 2005 Planning and Zoning and May 5, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meetings, with reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item V.B.16 to the April 11, 2005 Planning and Zoning and May 5, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meetings with reprocessing fee required. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos stated Items V.A.5, V.A.8, V.B.2, V.B.3, V.B.4, V.B.7, and V.B.20 have been withdrawn.

Item V.A.5. (Z0309107) Richard J. and Patricia A. Connolly, Peter Vander Haeghen, and Peter F. and Kristine A. Woldanski?s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (03S.11) to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 12 to Community Commercial; and change from RU-1-13 and RU-2-10 to BU-1 on 1.8 acres located on the east side of US 1, north of the terminus of Indian River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Local Planning Agency and the Planning and Zoning Board, and withdrawn by the applicants.

Item V.A.8. (Z0501101) Karen A. Bell, Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles H. Bell?s request for change from RU-1-13 and BU-1 to RU-2-10 with removal of the existing Binding Site Plan on 6.12 acres located on the east side of US 1, north of Indian River Drive, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board, and withdrawn by the applicant.

Item V.B.2. (Z0503202) Space Coast Habitat for Humanity, Inc.?s request for change from GU to RU-1-11 on 0.25 acre located on the south side of Fanning Road, east of Range Road, which was withdrawn by the applicant.

Item V.B.3. (Z0503203) Elebar, Inc.?s request for a Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zone on 1.21 acres located on the west side of South Plumosa Street, south of SR 520, which was withdrawn by the applicant.

Item V.B.4. (Z0503301) Grant Abell?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.36 acres located north of Parsley Avenue, east of Weber Road, which was withdrawn as property was confirmed to be a nonconforming lot of record.

Item V.B.7. (Z0503304) Brinson N. and Pamela Jordan?s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 9.69 acres located on the southwest corner of Ramblebrook Street and Oakenshaw Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Item V.B.20. (Z0502203) Wasim Niazi?s request for change from IU to PUD on 13.03 acres located on the south side of Cone Road, east of Kemp Street, south of Cone Road, which was withdrawn by applicant.

Item V.B.21. (Z0502302) Barefoot Bay, LLC?s request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 55.232 acres located west of Ron Beatty Boulevard, and north of Micco Road, which was withdrawn by applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept withdrawal of Items V.A.5, V.A.8, V.B.2, V.B.3, V.B.4, V.B.7, V.B.20, and V.B.21. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider items tabled by the Board of County Commissioners at its meetings of October 2, 2003, December 4, 2003, May 20, 2004, August 5, 2004, August 24, 2004, October 4, 2004, October 19, 2004, October 26, 2004, November 4, 2004, December 2, 2004, February 3, 2005, and March 3, 2005, as follows:

Item V.A.1. (Z0407103) Ben H. Sims, Darlyne S. Smith, and Carolyn I. Henderson?s request for a change from AU to SR with a Binding Development Plan on 66 acres located on the north side of Jay Jay Road, east of US 1, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are some materials in the front; and recommended anyone with an interest in the item come forward so they can hear what the applicant is saying. He stated he would also like to ask if those coming up have received a copy of the binding development plan because he would like to know the speakers? thoughts on that.

Chairman Pritchard advised of the time constraints.

Brad Smith, president of Brad Smith Associates, Landscape Architects and Planners, pointed out on the map US 1 and the parcel lying east of US 1 and north of Jay Jay Road. He stated the underlying land use is Residential 2; and pointed out the planned industrial park to the east. He stated one of the things that came up in the meeting with staff is the idea of residential land use in the area and living, working, and playing with major employment centers in the future with
the industrial zoning. He stated there are also Brevard Community College and Parrish Medical Center to the south, which are major employment centers. Mr. Smith stated the Chain of Lakes Recreation Area, which is proposed for annexation into the City of Titusville is in the area. He stated the existing zoning is AU; and there is also TR-2, RRMH-1, RU-2-10, and PIP; they range from one acre lots to two and a half acre lots; TR-2 is a minimum half-acre lot size; and to the east is BU-1 and ten units to the acre with RU-2-10. He stated it is important to the client to do a good job of public involvement; there was an effort to gather input and suggestions from residents throughout North Brevard County through meetings with the Mims Community Association; there were two neighborhood meetings; they have gone door-to-door to over 450 homes; and they held 25 meetings with business owners and community leaders. He stated the last exhibit shows the proposed design of the subdivision superimposed with the Chain of Lakes Park; they used the County?s Open Space Subdivision Ordinance; and they are excited about the design possibilities the Ordinance offers. He stated the property is an old citrus grove; they are concerned about buffering as are the neighbors; and the Open Space Ordinance allows them to enhance compatibility with the community, work with the existing natural site features, and provide increased buffering. He stated they held seven meetings with staff to refine the proposed design; and as a result of the public involvement process and staff coordination, the design now provides a reduction of 30 units from the allowable two per acre down to 107 units per the developer?s agreement. He stated this will reduce traffic on Jay Jay Road and will increase the amount of landscaped area provided; they have an increase in open space; and they began with 25%, moved to 35%, and now are up to over 50% open space, which is significant including the conservation easements at the rear of a large portion of the lots. He stated there is one minor issue in the developer?s agreement, the minimum lot size should be 60 feet rather than 65 feet; that was an area where they continue to provide the open space to provide over 51% open space; and they made that change to the lot size. He stated they provided a 90-foot buffer on the north side of the property and an 80-foot buffer on the east side; the binding development plan says 80 feet plus or minus; but he wants to clarify that it will be a minimum of 80 feet.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they are taking out the plus and minus and saying 90 and 80 will be the numbers. Mr. Smith stated those will be the minimum amount; and as part of the landscape buffer, they have restricted the lots closest to the property lines to include a 36-foot conservation easement. He stated they have stayed away from all the wetlands onsite; they provided a large park area; and there is contiguous open space from the park along the edge of the lot rather than the typical subdivision where the backs of the homes face the lakes. He stated they have usable open space; they have a corridor through the wetlands that continues down to some of the natural features in the Chain of Lakes area; and staff wanted to keep that corridor open to come down to the babbling brook, so that has been provided. He stated there is a minimum of 100 feet plus 36 feet on either side, so there is plenty of open space; there is a walkway from one village to the other and around the lake; and they are pleased with the way it has worked out, particularly the buffering with the neighbors, because that was a big concern. He stated another thing the neighbors were concerned about was wells in the area and draw down of the surficial aquifer; they are obtaining sewer and water from the City of Titusville, so they will not have any wells in the area; and they are providing a central irrigation system and eliminating wells on individual lots.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he noticed they do not allow the utilization of individual irrigation; and inquired if they have provided that they will use the lakes. Mr. Smith responded yes, they will have a central irrigation system that will supply water to all the individual lots. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is in the agreement; with Mr. Smith responding he can include that. Commissioner Scarborough stated the other problem is as they draw the potable water of the City of Titusville for irrigation, it will put demands on the system; with Mr. Smith advising they are not going to use City water for irrigation. Commissioner Scarborough requested that be added to the agreement; with Mr. Smith agreeing.

Mr. Smith stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial; but things have come a long way in six months; they have gotten a lot of good input from the public; and they have worked for months to achieve a workable solution. He requested approval of the zoning request; and stated they and the 227 folks who signed petitions in support of the project believe it will be an outstanding residential community. He submitted letters and petitions that were gathered as part of the public involvement process. He stated all they need is a good name; one suggestion was Oliver Point; and any help the Board can provide would be great.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the word for width of lot is misspelled; and there are some other typos that need work. Mr. Smith stated they will clean that up.

Jenny Scragg stated GEN Development had meetings; the neighbors had questions; and they did work all the problems out. She stated she questioned the buffer zone, but they took out "plus or minus." She stated they are all on wells; and they have agreed not to use wells but use irrigation from the lakes; and a lot of them were concerned about the drainage. She stated there is a lot of runoff from Jay Jay Road; but she did not see in the binding development plan that they are going to take care of their own water where it will not flood others.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the water will be contained onsite in the lakes. Mr. Smith stated part of the St. Johns River Water Management District requirements are not to have more water leaving the site after development. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they will provide for internal capture of the water; with Mr. Smith responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated that will also help maintain the wells because there is less opportunity for the lagoon to come in and intrude with salt water.

Ms. Scragg advised they all have shallow wells. Commissioner Scarborough stated he knows that. Ms. Scragg stated they worked with the people; and she agrees with the development plan. She pointed out where she lives on Jay Jay Road; and stated they are used to having privacy and at least they still will have some privacy.

Steve Jack, president of the Mims Community Group, stated he has a problem with the development; things have been changed all through the meetings; they agreed on 7,500 square-foot lots; the people did not even really want to go that low; and now they are getting down to 6,000 square feet.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will table the item because there are a lot of people who had an interest in this who are not here tonight because they assumed certain things were going to be there.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item V.A.1 to the May 5, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is a lot of people do not attend meetings because things have been worked out; and there are problems if things change dramatically.

Item V.A.4. (Z0405503) Babcock, LLC?s request for change from GU to AU on 2,183? acres located west of Babcock Street and south of McGill Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a Binding Development Plan, offering a $2,800 per unit school contribution.

Chairman Pritchard stated the only card was submitted by the applicant; and it was recommended for approval with a binding development plan that offered $2,800 per unit school contribution, which will be stricken.

Edward Tietig stated it is a moot point now; he spoke to Planner Ryan Rusnak about it; and because the Impact Fee Ordinance was passed, it does not apply anymore.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the item involves an area in the small area plan that the Board is looking at on Tuesday. Planner Todd Corwin stated the proposed outline for the small area study includes two options; option one is those properties west of I-95; and this property is within the outline of the proposed area for inclusion in the small area study. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Colon wants to go forward with this since the Board will be discussing it on Tuesday; and advised Commissioner Voltz tabled items that would impact the small area plan discussion. Commissioner Colon stated this is unique; it has been sitting up there forever; and they had a meeting yesterday with all the groups. She stated there were approximately 20 groups; and there were three landowners at the meeting as well as the County and the City. She stated Mr. Tietig was not invited; with Mr. Tietig advising a representative met with Commissioner Voltz. Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Voltz is District 3; and Mr. Tietig is in District 5, which is her District. Commissioner Colon stated this is the perfect time to look at the bigger picture; there are a lot of people who have come to rezone properties in this particular area; and the other landowners are receptive to be part of the plan. She stated the Board is going to need Mr. Tietig?s help to get some of the things it is looking at; it is trying to look at the capacity of Babcock Street; those numbers are starting to get low; and she does not have a problem with this rezoning, which is compatible with Deer Run at one unit per two and a half acres. She stated she does not think they need to delay; but she would like to have Mr. Tietig?s word that he will be part of the planning. Mr. Tietig stated he initiated coming to Commissioner Colon?s office; she indicated he would be part of the team; and they attended
Commissioner Voltz?s meeting. Commissioner Colon stated she just wants to be sure it is on the record because what was said behind the scenes does not matter. Mr. Tietig stated on March 3, when Mr. Torpy was at the meeting, the Board rezoned 920 acres to the west of this property; it abuts his western boundary; so they now have AU to the north and the west. Commissioner Colon stated she does not have a problem with this; Mr. Torpy and Mr. Stewart were also in attendance at the meeting; and Mr. Tietig is already on the record that he will be part of the planning process. She stated she is tired of it coming to the Board piecemeal; she wants to look at the entire thing; and just because the Board authorizes this rezoning, once the permits start going is when they start getting to the nitty gritty with the site plan and so forth; so she does not have a problem approving this one because they have already done it to the north and west of it.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.A.4 as recommended by the P&Z Board, but without the $2,800 contribution. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz stated at this point she is not looking at doing a small area study because they are working with the large landowners to do a master plan of the entire area, which probably would involve staff on a different level; rather than staff doing all the work, it would be everyone involved together; and that is why she tabled some of the other items today so they can see what is going on down there and get a staff perspective with what is going to be happening with Micco Road. She stated they can publicly advertise the meeting so they can do this together. She stated what happens in District 5 affects District 3 and vice versa; and it may be better to advertise the meeting and have it at the senior center.

Commissioner Colon stated there is a problem with that too; she still wants to go forward with a study on her area; and the reason is because there is so much that it is going to have to be combined. She stated a lot of meetings are taking place in both Districts, but they are staying more focused; they had two meetings already; and they are not there yet, but they have a good idea what they need to see out there. She stated she is afraid that if it is combined, it will go all over the place; and she wants to focus on what is happening in District 5 and then combine. She stated they still need a study plan because she needs to know the capacity of Babcock Street, where the schools are going to go, where the fire station will be, and who will be servicing it. She stated there is so much to be asked before they are combined; but the ultimate goal is to look at District 3 and District 5 and the bigger picture.

Commissioner Carlson stated she knows they want to combine it; Commissioner Colon wants a study, but Commissioner Voltz does not; but zoning is the time to apply conditions and binding development plans. She stated they are now able to build whatever they want to build on AU because of the Board?s action. Commissioner Colon stated the beauty is that everyone knows; they do not have any site plans or anything; the meetings have caused everyone to hit the brakes; and they are doing it voluntarily. She stated she appreciates that; they want to be part of what the recommendations are going to be from the County regarding what it wants to see out there; and her example is she does not want someone who needs to buy a gallon of milk to
get on Babcock Street and go to Malabar Road because that is ridiculous. Commissioner Colon stated that is not planning; and they offered to look at the entire area. She stated they do not want an entire bedroom community; they are looking at where there will be areas of industrial and commercial; they are looking at the entire area; and the landowners are extremely receptive, which is a blessing. She stated that is why this is so unique; it is why she would allow this; but each of them knows that this does not allow them to build all those units. She stated they just want to make sure everything is zoned AU at one unit per two and one-half acres; and they will take it to the next level from there.

The meeting recessed at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened at 7:31 p.m.

Item V.A.6. (Z0501202) Housing Authority of Brevard County, Florida?s request for change from RU-2-15 and BU-1 to PUD on 17.59 acres located on the south side of Citrus Boulevard, west of North Courtenay Parkway, also having frontage on both sides of Minna Lane, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this got to be a technical thing, and he is not sure where it stands; and suggested Attorney Knox comment. County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is a zoning request tonight; that is what the Board is looking at; the Housing Authority has to come before the Board and prove that it is in compliance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and that means not only the land use policies and issues and environmental issues and things like that, but it also means the housing issues. He stated it is like any other zoning case; the Board will make its decision on the evidence it hears; and the issue of PILT and agreements that are being worked on with the Housing Authority are not relevant tonight.

Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams stated she provided a status report relating to the concerns the Department had about affordable housing; the project as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan would make or expand the low-rental housing; and with an agreement, they would insure there would not be a reduction for the low and very low-income families within the County. She stated the agreement is pending and unsigned; it is currently with the disclosure counsel; and the Housing Authority has agreed to and provided its plans that would outline the expansion and replacement of the housing that is being reduced.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board takes action, would it be appropriate to approve contingent upon the agreement. Attorney Knox inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is referring to the binding development agreement; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, the agreement Ms. Williams was referring to. Attorney Knox advised typically the Board has a binding development plan that comes before it that takes care of the issues that the Board is concerned about; what it has now is problematic; and it is really an agreement to agree more than anything else. He stated to the extent that the Board has an agreement to agree, it is not imposing any conditions as part of the rezoning; and typically it approves with conditions attached that are implemented right away as opposed to doing something in the future. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board approves things contingent upon a binding
development agreement coming back and being recorded; Ms. Williams referred to a particular agreement; and once that is met, that problem is resolved. Attorney Knox advised the agreement is not solidified yet, if he understands correctly. Ms. Williams advised that is correct; it is still with the disclosure counsel; and they understand the parameters to which the Housing Authority agreed. She stated they have agreed that the units taken off will be put out throughout the County; they have agreed to everything the County had concerns about; so that has been done, but they do not have it signed off and in writing in an acceptable format. Attorney Knox stated if the Authority is going to say tonight that it will agree to those conditions, not withstanding what disclosure counsel has to say about it, it may be possible to do something about it. Commissioner Scarborough stated that may be where they need to go.

Chairman Pritchard stated staff comments say "they intend" or "they plan" but there is nothing affirmative beyond that; and that is something that the Board is most interested in seeing happen.

Doug Robertson, representing the Housing Authority of Brevard County, stated with him this evening are Ron Sellers who is CEO of the Housing Authority of Brevard County; and their request is for a PUD zoning classification that would allow Island Horizons Independent Living Facility (ILF). He stated they have given their presentation on several occasions; and he will spare the Board tonight. He stated this particular project has met all of the PUD zoning requirements, which are extensive, as well as the ILF zoning requirements, which are even more extensive; and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the project. He stated they had many meetings with staff; and before the presentation is over, he hopes they will convince the Board there is an agreement that is being pursued.

Ron Sellers, CEO of the Housing Authority of Brevard County, stated a lot of activity has taken place since last month?s meeting; and expressed thanks to staff, to Ms. Williams? office, and to counsel and staff on both sides who have extended considerable hours to work the issues that were being discussed in the proposed agreements. He stated there are things that they have specifically agreed to in writing; there will be no development of Lot 19 on Hurwood Boulevard; the residents were concerned about that last time; Minna Lane is only to be used for emergency access; and in the proposed plan there is a siren-activated gate at the end of that for emergency access only. He stated there will be at least one-for-one replacement of the units being proposed to be demolished; and those units will be for individuals making 50% or less of median income. He stated the development is meant to add additional affordable housing and address housing needs for individuals at 50% or below of the area median income; even though the HUD standard is 80%, they are reaching down even lower to expand affordable housing for those individuals at 50% or less. He stated the proposed development addresses two of the critical needs in the Comprehensive Plan, which are affordable housing for the elderly and special needs housing. He stated Martha Kirby is the Chairman of the Housing Authority of Brevard County; and she will speak to the Board.

Martha Kirby, Chairman of the Housing Authority of Brevard County, stated she was appointed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2003; and it is her great honor to serve; but as an advocate for the
Housing Authority of Brevard County, she is representing not only the Authority but the many
residents. Ms. Kirby stated she is asking for the support of all of the County Commissioners tonight because this is an important project; they are trying to provide safe and adequate housing for all residents; the amount of space they have to live in is small; and they are trying to provide a safe environment. She stated she has directed the CEO, staff, and council to work cooperatively with the County to alleviate any concerns with this project; and she hopes the Board will give them support tonight.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Kirby has reviewed the staff report; with Ms. Kirby responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the report says, "Island Horizon project will expand availability for low-income rental housing option for elderly, but without an agreement will reduce housing for the very low and low-income families within Brevard County"; he does not think they are differing with the concept for the elderly, but it is for the low income; and comments should be directed to that area. Ms. Kirby stated Michael Syme will address those concerns.

Attorney Michael Syme of the law firm of Cohen and Grigsby, representing the Housing Authority of Brevard County, stated they are here to seek approval of the zoning change; without unconditional approval this evening, their tax credit application will fail; and if that fails, Island Horizons will be put to bed. He stated they will lose approximately $1 million that they have already spent in predevelopment work; they will lose the $4.9 million in tax credit equity that they submitted a request for; it will stop a $30? million first phase from going forward; and it will most likely stop the entire project, which is $115 million of new development. He stated they will have failed in their mission to provide decent, safe, and sanitary affordable housing in Brevard County; and that is something they do not want to see happen. He stated the development follows the County?s Comprehensive Plan; and it goes far beyond HUD?s minimum requirements. He stated they are providing a variety of housing types at a variety of prices at no reduction of affordable housing; and they are now increasing the total number of housing for the very poor and very low income. He stated they have a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation; they have been clear that Minna Lane will not be used for through traffic, but only for emergency vehicle access; and they have been clear there will be no building on Lot 19. He stated they have been working with Ms. Williams and her staff; they have met probably four or five times in the last 30 days; and they have made it absolutely clear what they are looking to achieve and insure under the Comprehensive Plan. He stated they have provided two agreements and one letter; the letter provides written assurance from the Authority that it will have one-for-one replacement for every public housing unit removed; and more importantly, it assures those one-for-one replacement housing units will be reserved for the very very poor. He stated those units, as stated in writing to the County at Ms. Williams? request, will be reserved for those people earning 50% or less than the area?s median income; and it is important to them to work cooperatively with the County and have alleviated any concerns. He stated a month ago, after meeting with Ms. Williams, they prepared three agreements to alleviate all concerns; they delivered them to the County; and he understands they are now with the disclosure counsel. He stated the disclosure counsel has not finished his review, and they have not gotten comments back; if they get comments, they will agree to everything they already agreed to with Ms. Williams to make sure they cover everything staff requested and
everything in the Comprehensive Plan; Ms. Williams has made it clear what the County is
looking for; and they have made it clear that they will agree. Mr. Syme stated they have been told that by their CEO; and they have been told to do that by the Chairman so they will be sure to accommodate any concerns the Board has. He stated in the event a later issue comes up, they still have to come to the County for engineering and site plan approval; and at any time the County has the opportunity to bring them back and make sure they are doing what they pledged to do. He stated their concern is to get unconditional approval tonight so they can go forward with the tax credit application, bring the money in, and make sure this goes forward. He stated unfortunately they have a limited time frame to correct that application and make sure they see the zoning approval is in order; they are ready to go; the developer is ready to go; and they are present to answer any questions or address any concerns the Board may have.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Syme agrees with the staff comment that without the agreement, this will reduce housing for the very low and low-income families of the County, or is that statement in error. Mr. Syme responded that statement could have been correct, but is not; the reason he says that is because their plans are set so they will not reduce housing for the very low income; they are pledging to do one-for-one replacement and make sure that is for the very low income; and more importantly they have stated that is what they are going to do, and they are bound by their word. He stated a written contract is not necessary; an oral contract is binding on them; and more importantly, they have provided that assurance in writing already from the Authority to County staff. He stated eventually there will be a signed contract by both setting that out; but the County already has a letter setting that out and giving their pledge, which is an enforceable document. He stated they will be held to it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is this relates to the Comprehensive Plan; everything meets some requirements; but it is the things that are not met that the Board needs to address its attention to; and this is part of what it needs to address. He stated the question is whether the Board normally takes oral promises when it does approvals; and the answer is no, it takes binding development plans and things that have more strength legally. He stated he is trying to reach for something to help; but Mr. Syme is not helping. Mr. Syme stated they have provided a written letter pledging that, a draft binding development agreement, and draft binding letter agreement as well as the letter pledging it; but they cannot move forward until they hear from the County?s counsel. He stated they provided everything on March 7, 2005. Commissioner Scarborough stated they are saying that they will do it after the disclosure counsel comes back; and inquired if that puts Attorney Knox in a dilemma. Attorney Knox responded if the Board is satisfied with the conditions they have laid out and wants to agree to those conditions, and they want to make that part of a binding development plan, the Board could approve it subject to a binding development plan coming back with the conditions. Mr. Syme stated if the Board approves it subject to the binding development plan, that contingency will end the tax credit application. He stated they went back after the last meeting to the State and asked if they had conditional zoning approval, would it harm their application; and the answer was it would throw the application out. Commissioner Carlson stated that does not make sense. Mr. Syme stated if the Board says it is giving zoning approval and that zoning approval requires them to be bound by their letter of March 7, 2005, that is fine; and he believes the letter covered everything that Ms. Williams asked them to do. Attorney Knox stated the Board can say the representations Mr. Syme made tonight would be conditions of approval; and they would be
memorialized in a binding development plan, but it would not be contingent on that happening.
Attorney Knox stated it would come back for recording at some later date; but those conditions would be imposed tonight as part of the approval. Mr. Syme stated that would be acceptable. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the letter Ms. Williams received adequately addresses her concerns; with Ms. Williams responding yes, it does. Ms. Williams stated the letter they received outlines the fact that those units are being reduced and that they are being replaced; currently the Housing Authority provides for 50% and below of the median income; and they would continue to provide that and would replace the units they are taking out, one-for-one. She stated they are saying they are addressing their concerns about the families who would be displaced and homeless; ultimately the County would be responsible; so yes, it does address the concerns. Commissioner Scarborough stated the letter would be part of the approval. Attorney Knox stated it is not a letter per se that the Board is going to be saying are the conditions because it is not clear; but the Board will be saying the conditions that Mr. Syme represented tonight that they will abide by will be imposed as part of the approval.

Michael Johnson, president of the Baxley Manor Resident Council, stated contrary to what some people have been told, the people who live at Baxley Manor have done only one of two things wrong; they have either gotten old or they became disabled and handicapped; and there are no criminals or anything like that housed there. He stated their problems come from the outside because anybody can walk in; with the new development, they will have a secure safe place, which is all anybody could ever ask for; and it will be a decent sized place. He stated they looked at one of the units; normally he is on a motorized scooter; he has to park in the hallway and hold onto the walls to get into his home now; and that is not good. He submitted a petition signed by a majority of the residents of Baxley Manor showing their support for Island Horizons.

Donna Ritchley, Chairman of the Brevard County Resident Advisory Board, stated the consensus is that this is needed; they know it is going to happen; it has to happen or they will all be homeless; and the question is when is it going to happen. She stated if they keep delaying it, the price of everything is going to go up, and they will lose the tax credit. She stated this is a multimillion dollar project; it will not give a good tax base back to the County; the County will not get the impact fees it would from a condominium; but they are not asking for anything special. She advised she attends many meetings; she went to one the other night where they were discussing with the people who live in the duplexes that are going to be displaced; they are going to completely refurbished housing; it is going to be beautiful; they are not going to be packed in like sardines like they are now; they will not have sewage problems like they do now; and life is getting better a little bit at a time for everyone involved. She stated they have been guaranteed they will be one-on-one; if the rent has been paid, the individual will be moving; and the buildings will be done before the move so there will be no double moves or concern about where they are going to live. She stated there are 200 people at home now glued to their television sets watching what the Board is saying; little old ladies are crying because they have a choice of moving or going to a nursing home soon; and there will be a way of taking care of people at the new place. She stated they are not going to have to go to a nursing home and lose all their friends; almost monthly someone goes to a nursing home or dies; no one can go visit them because they do not have cars; and they lose their friends and lose their will to
live. Ms. Ritchley stated the Commissioners have been in their rooms; they know how they are living; and pleaded with the Board to pass this tonight.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not want the audience to think the Board has been acting in a nasty bureaucratic fashion; they had quite a problem getting this issue resolved; and it is still not fully resolved; but they are at a point where they need to move forward. He stated they cannot hold the project hostage; the people who live there deserve better; and he has visited the site and been in one of the rooms. He stated it was not built for what it is being used for; it was built as a weekly accommodation for workers when Kennedy Space Center was first begun; and it was literally a motel. He stated the new development is beautiful, but they are still having problems; and they have gone over those problems many times. He stated he, Ms. Williams, and the legal staff are tired of the problems; they need to resolve the issues in a spirit of cooperation; and when they ask for something, they need to get it. He stated he is a little concerned because there was a meeting recently where there was supposedly an exchange of public documents and they were not available; and then they happened to hear that the applicant had been speaking to a document shredding company. He stated he is a little concerned; when the Board asks for documents, it expects to get them; and he wants to assure the public that the Board is doing all that it can to insure that it will get what it is agreeing upon. He inquired if the Board moves tonight on this item with the quasi-conditions they are talking about that are not really conditions because of what the attorney has said, that unless it is an unconditional approval, the tax credit application would be denied, would it give the Board the opportunity to resolve the minor issues but still move forward on the zoning issue. Ms. Williams stated staff has put in a lot of time and effort to move this forward in the direction they know would be in the best interest of the residents of Brevard County; and she would have to look at counsel to advise if there would be something in place that would be binding so they can insure the move they make is not detrimental to the future of public housing. Attorney Knox stated the Board can impose hard and fast conditions consistent with what Mr. Syme presented; and recommended the Board have Mr. Syme repeat what he committed to do. He stated it can move to approve with the conditions attached.

Mr. Syme stated they provided a letter on March 7, 2005 setting forth everything they intend to do; that included one-for-one replacement of every public housing unit that comes down; and the one-for-one replacement would be committed to being at 50% or less of the area median income to serve the very poor. He stated that is what they committed to in the letter; that is what they will commit to today; and they will commit to it in writing as soon as they have a document. Ms. Williams requested Mr. Syme expand on the one-for-one replacement to insure that of the 764 family units that serve families at or below 50%, they plan to demolish 115 units and replace those units; with Mr. Syme responding one-for-one, every one of them.

Chairman Pritchard passed the gavel to Vice Chair Voltz.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.A.6 with conditions represented by Michael Syme at the meeting, one-for-one replacement of every public housing unit being removed (115 units of the 764 family units) and serving 50% or less median income level. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chair Voltz passed the gavel to Chairman Pritchard.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting on March 7, 2005, as follows:

Item V.B.1. (Z0503201) Walter H. (Jr.) and Debra Ingham J and BFLP, Ltd.?s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 0.37 acre located on the north side of Wilson Avenue, east of North Atlantic Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.B.1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.5. (Z0503302) Bentley House, Inc.?s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 and removal of an existing CUP for an Adult Congregate Living Facility on 4.53 acres located on the south side of Eber Road, west of Dairy Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.B.5 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated when she was briefed, there was a question about compatibility and EU-2 was discussed. Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated EU-2 would be most exactly compatible but he does not feel that RU-1-11 is not compatible.

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

Item V.B.6. (Z0503303) Radames & Magdalia Maldonado, Gary M. & Barbara R. Silver and George V. McBean?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 20 acres located on the north side of Sand Point Road, west of Brabrook Road, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Mr. Enos stated this is an application from AU to RR-1 on a 20-acre parcel located on the north side of Sand Point Road; and the P&Z Board recommended denial due to the character of the surrounding area.

Radames Maldonado stated he and several others own the parcel in question; their intent is to develop a single-family residential subdivision some time in the future; it is in the preliminary stages; and the intent is to first get the rezoning before proceeding with site planning. He stated they were denied last month by a 6 to 5 vote; the issue was water drainage on the property; and he proposes whether they develop under the current AU zoning or under proposed RR-1, they will have to deal with the drainage issue during site plan approval. He stated at that time, if they are unable to address that issue, it could be denied at that point.

Ray McIlravey stated they have a water problem in this area; it is definitely under water; he has a retention pond in his backyard; he has water on both sides of his backyard; there have been some good downpours; and they are getting it now. He stated the water has to be coming from the property in question; with the higher elevation of the property being built, his water problem will be awful; and they do not need another Deer Run. He stated many people on Baybrook Avenue have more than two acres; and in the back are bigger parcels. He stated he moved to Grant to be in a rural area; and he does not know if the Board is aware of it or not, but Grant has suspected sinkholes. He advised there was an article in the newspaper on March 4, 2005; and submitted a copy of the article.

Chairman Pritchard stated the article says suspected sinkholes.

Alfred Jodoin stated his biggest concern is the water; he lives next door to Mr. McIlravey; and they have a massive amount of water when it rains. He stated the biggest portion of it comes from the back; the applicant says he will develop two and one-half acres per unit; there still will be water; but if they develop one unit per acre, there will be 20 units there and 20 piles of dirt pushing the water someplace. He stated he has fears about the water coming into his yard; and inquired where would he go. He stated he moved here in 1995; they built the home to be secluded; and he does not know what is going to happen to his backyard if this is allowed and these homes are built back there.

Patrick Bryan stated the property in question is part of his neighborhood; and there are a number of concerns. He stated the water concern is very real; and the article about sinkholes is about his property. He stated as someone who has an education in hydrogeology, that is a low area; it is a very wet area; and in terms of the sinkholes being suspect since the article came out, he has been in touch with Robert Baker of Baker Associates, a hydrogeologist from Orlando who confirms there is karst activity in that area; there is a reason why Grant is wet; and it is called the Upper St. Johns Karst Region. He stated they are not the type of sinkholes one normally sees; but it is an area of subsidence; and when it rains, it gets wet. He stated the more houses are put on there, the more the water has to go somewhere; and the less houses there are, the less one has to deal with that. He stated this is an interior area in the sense that it is not served by Brabrook Avenue, Pinesap Avenue, Berry Road, or Grant Road; Sand Point is listed as a road, but at this point it is nothing more than 50 yards of shell and then it disappears; so there is no way to get in and out of this area. He stated they are talking about impact to all the people who live along Pinesap, Brabrook, and Grant Roads; and everybody that he has talked to who lives there is opposed to this because it changes the character of the area. He stated there is always a lot of talk about the property rights; and inquired what about the property rights of people who live there and have to deal with the effects of change. He stated the requested zoning is high density; and it could lead to more zoning changes.

Heather Leach stated all the property in the area is agricultural at four acres plus; and it should be kept that way. She stated RR-1 is not in keeping with the area; one home is on five acres; and the area should stay that way. Ms. Leach stated no notice was posted; and many residents will be affected if this is allowed. She requested those against the zoning to stand; and a group of six or seven people stood.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is a lot of RR-1 in the general vicinity; advised of the zoning on nearby parcels; and stated he does not know if some of the parcels are owned by one person. Discussion ensued on ownership patterns, platted character, and nonconforming lots. Chairman Pritchard stated there is an issue of compatibility with neighbors; and it does not meet with the platted area to the left. Mr. Enos advised RR-1 is compatible with AU at one acre in lot size. Chairman Pritchard stated Grant and Valkaria are interested in becoming a city; they do not want to be annexed; incorporation is a two-year process; and it may never happen.

Commissioner Voltz stated that is not relevant at this point; the request is not in line with the character of the area; and it should be at least one unit per two and one-half acres.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item V.B.6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.8. (Z0503401) Colebrooke Properties, LLC?s request for change from BU-1 to TU-2 on 0.667 acre located on the northeast corner of Wickham Road and Shoppes Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Attorney Ivan Walker, representing the applicant, stated the request is to change from BU-1 to TU-2 to make the property consistent with other zoning in the area; the properties to the north, east, and south are TU-2; and they are a member of the Wickham Road/I-95 Property Owners Association along with Burger King, the Chevron store, the Baymont Inn, and Cracker Barrel, which are all zoned TU-2. He stated the property is one-half mile from I-95; the zoning was changed from TU-2 to BU-1 on May 22, 2003 so he could have a car wash; but plans changed and he built the building for Starbucks. He stated TU-2 allows a 250-square foot sign; they are requesting a 156-square foot sign; and that is not a massive sign. He stated the current sign is 20 feet high; it is blocked by the Chevron sign for people coming off I-95; and they are seeking a higher, more visible sign on the property to generate more business from I-95.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if everyone is in favor of the rezoning; with members of the audience indicating they are opposed.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has not heard from either side, but Starbucks would like a 60-foot sign.

Attorney Kim Rezanka, Dean Mead law firm, representing The Viera Company, submitted paperwork; and stated Tom Dillon who is the property manager for the Central Viera Community
Association is also with her in opposition. She stated the Starbucks sign does not fall within the guidelines for the Central Viera Community Association; the guidelines are included in the packet she submitted; they are trying to make the area more upscale; and commented on the sizes of other signs in the area. Ms. Rezanka advised of Wickham Road?s designation as a scenic highway in terms of billboards. She stated this request is a variance in sheep?s clothing; the applicant came after the fact requesting rezoning of property with an existing building; but
the owner chose the present zoning and is not showing any hardship now for the rezoning request. She stated everything to the west is BU-1; commented on other signs in the area; and advised a 60-foot sign would not be consistent. She stated Target is zoned TU-2 and has a 35-foot sign, not a 60-foot sign. She stated the rezoning fails to meet the requirements of Section 62-1151(c); it has to meet rezoning factors of compatibility; and a large sign is not needed at this site. She stated according to Dade County v Blumenthal, it is appropriate to consider what proposed zoning is consistent with property adjacent to the property requested to be rezoned; and according to the Snyder case, just because an applicant shows the rezoning to be consistent does not mean they are entitled to that rezoning unless the status quo is not reasonable; and in this case, the status quo is reasonable.

Chairman Pritchard advised Ms. Rezanka?s time has expired; and allowed her one additional minute to complete her comments.

Ms. Rezanka stated the proposed sign is too large for this location, which would be very close to Shoppes Drive and Wickham Road; and the applicant failed to meet the burden under Section 62-1151(c); and requested the Board deny the request.

Tom Dillon, representing the Central Viera Community Association (CVCA), stated he is property manager for the CVCA as well as the Wickham Lakes Residential District Association, which is located west of the Super Target. He stated the Starbucks sign is out of scale for the area; it does not meet the Central Viera standards; and it is important to meet the criteria for that area. He stated a lot of the homes in Wickham Lakes look back to see the 60-foot Burger King sign; the larger Starbucks sign would create the same atmosphere; and that is why they are opposed to it.

Lyle Krumlauf, representing the Starbucks Coffee Company, stated he supports Mr. Walker?s request for zoning change; he was aware of the zoning when he signed the lease; however, they waited until the sore was open to request the change; and they had to wait longer because of the hurricanes. He stated the sign is important to them; it means more than an increase in economic revenue; it means a lot to their ability to give back to the community; and store manager Eileen Reid will elaborate on that.

Eileen Reid stated they expect a 48% increase with the new sign or an increase of 8 to 14 employees, which would allow them to do 40% more for the community, including Habitat for Humanity and partnering with local schools. She stated she spends one day a week on community involvement and contributes to the community. She stated Starbucks tells them on a daily basis that no is something the company does not want to hear in their vocabularies; "just
say yes" is the policy of the company; and saying yes is what makes her do her job. Ms. Reid commented on serving coffee for the School Board, the Lion?s Club, and on Easter Sunday to raise money for underprivileged children. She stated the district manager is a board member for Big Brothers/Big Sisters; she, another store manager, and two assistant managers in the area are also on the planning commission for Habitat for Humanity of South Brevard Strawberry Festival for next year; and they donate their own time to that. She stated that is the kind of
culture they are trying to instill in the younger workers; Starbucks gives them time off from work to read to the children at Quest Elementary; and giving back to the community is what they are all about. She stated the sign is not just a way to increase profits; they are adjacent to the Baymont Inn and Burger King is directly across the street; their address is Shoppes Drive; it is possible to walk from their parking area to the Baymont Inn; and the Baymont Inn set a precedent. She stated she does not think they are not in keeping with the area; she has lived in Viera for a long time; and they are giving back to the community.

Joe Winkler, representing Starbucks Coffee, on behalf of Anchor Sign stated he was asked to come down to answer any technical questions that would come about as well as provide the missing key; and he is going to give the Board an idea of what the end product will be. He submitted paperwork; and stated earlier it was stated that there is 150 square-feet of signage; right now they have a six square-foot log disc that equals approximately 30 square feet of logo; and they are asking for 150 square feet when the allowance is 250 square feet. He stated the push is not to make it an eyesore; and the pictures he submitted show the balloon test. He stated the balloon is ten feet in diameter; the proposed sign will be 12 feet in diameter; and it is not going to be overly large in square footage, but will give them the height they need to draw the traffic coming off the exit ramps. He stated he came down as technical advisor; and in the last two hours he spent with these folks, it has become clear that there is a genuine care for the community. He stated for them to continue to give the programs Ms. Reid alluded to, they have to have the traffic and the visibility.

Commissioner Colon inquired if this is how tall it is going to be; with Mr. Winkler responding yes, the balloon is proportionate to the size of the actual sign cabinet that will be on top of the pole.

Commissioner Colon inquired if she is driving down Wickham Road and looks up, is this how tall it is going to be; with Mr. Winkler responding it is the same as the Burger King sign, etc. that is all along there. Chairman Pritchard inquired how far off Wickham Road will the sign be. Mr. Winkler stated he does not know how familiar Commissioner Colon is with the location of the current sign; but the sign will be the same location with the same setback as the existing sign; and pointed out the area on the site plan. He stated the sign is at the corner of Shoppes Drive and Wickham Road; it is not in the right-of-way; it is set back within the property; and that is part of the reason that when someone comes down Wickham, because of the other signage, trees, and canopy line, they do not see the Starbucks sign until they are within 100 yards of the actual location.

Ivan Walker stated it was referenced that Starbucks changed the zoning, but he changed it for the car wash, so it was not a zoning change on the part of Starbucks. He stated according to
Planning and Zoning, they met all the requirements of TU-2, which is basically an interstate zoning designation; and they are within one-half mile of I-95. He stated the Viera Company has done a great job in the community; but it needs to be made clear this property is not part of Viera; and some of the guidelines and requirements they have been talking about do not apply to this property.

Commissioner Carlson stated changing the horse in midstream is not a good idea; right now this property is BU-1; the proximity to the Viera DRI is a major issue; and one of the advantages of the DRI in terms of sign specifications is that the DRI uses monument signs. She stated she appreciates the store manager saying how much they provide to the community; but Wal-Mart also provides a lot to the community and it has a mounted monument sign. She stated she does not see the necessity for a zoning change to put up a taller sign; it does not make sense to do that; and looking at the balloon pictures makes it obvious that the Viera Community would not appreciate it.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item V.B.8.

Chairman Pritchard stated he is not a fan of tall signs or billboards; he likes monument signs, although it makes it more of a quest to find buildings; and that is the way the Board and the County will be going eventually. He stated they will be holding all signs accountable to become more monument status; and if there is one thing he appreciates from South Florida, it is that they have done that in many communities, so he supports the motion.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has done a good job on billboards; she does not think they need to see things off of I-95; they have tried to get rid of some of the visual blight; and DOT does have placards where it says what is at a given interchange so there is that availability that Starbucks can pursue.

Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion to deny Item V.B.8. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.9. (Z0503501) Jessica and Graham McLeary?s request for change from RU-1-13 to RP with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to two units per acre on 0.37 acre located on the west side of Minton Road, south of Ellis Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.9 as recommended with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to two units per acre. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.10. (Z0503502) Spiritual Assembly of the Baha?is of Brevard County, Inc.?s request for change from AU to IN(L) on 2.63 acres located on the east side of John Rodes Boulevard, south of Aurora Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Scott Nickle, Bussen Mayer Engineering, representing the applicants in their request to rezone from AU to IN(L), stated in late July of last year his clients purchased a 2.68-acre property on
the east side of John Rodes Boulevard about 700 feet south of Aurora Road; just prior to closing on that property, they performed due diligence to insure the property could be utilized as they had intended; they went to various departments within the County and received confirmation from each of the departments including the Zoning Department that their proposed use was a compatible use under the AU zoning at that time; but on August 4, 2004 the Board approved a zoning removal of church use from the AU zoning and moved it to the IN(L) zoning designation. He stated that was unbeknownst to his clients; they closed on the property; and it was not until December 2004 when they approached the Building Department about doing some interior modifications to the proposed use that they were alerted that use was no longer permitted in AU zoning. He stated it is important to note that what is on the site right now is a 2,981 square-foot structure; it was originally a residential structure; and they want to convert it to a facility to be able to carry out meetings and learning workshops for the organization. He stated this is not a large structure; it is not going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic; the staff report references the potential for the site to be built out at a little more than 20,000 square-foot building; but that is not the intent. He stated the intent is to keep the building as is, refurbish it, and utilize it. He stated the trip generation rates that are identified in the report are based on the 22,000 square-foot building as opposed to the 2,981 square-foot building, so it greatly reduces the amount of trip generation that can be expected from this property. He stated he is sure there were concerns from residents at the P&Z Board level, so he wants to clarify that. He stated staff reviewed the application; there were no findings of deficiencies in the report; and the P&Z Board recommended approval.

Chairman Pritchard stated applicants Michael Hyde and Shahram Banapour also submitted a card; and with Mr. Hyde advising Mr. Nickle represented them.

Donna Eddleman submitted paperwork; and stated she represents the community. She stated they signed a petition; and she also submitted a map showing a circle of 500 to 700 feet where she got the signatures. She stated no one hesitated to sign it; the subject property is currently
zoned AU for single residence; on August 4, 2004 the Planning and Zoning Board updated the AU classification under permitted uses to disallow churches; the current owner stated at the
Planning and Zoning meeting on March 7, 2005 that they purchased the property at the end of July; but property records indicate differently. She stated the property sale date per the Property Appraiser?s office was listed as August of 2004; they stated they inquired prior to purchase of the property if it could be used as a church and that they were told by the Planning and Zoning office that it could; and inquired if this is true, how could it have happened. She stated reclassification and rezoning decisions do not happen overnight; the planning process must have been near completion at the time to change AU to no longer allow churches; and
inquired if the applicants inquired at all and to whom. She stated when they were asked to whom they inquired and who gave the answer, the applicants said they did not remember. She stated if they had made the proper inquiries within the organization, they would have been given information on the imminent change; the property is a rural residential home; it consists of bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, and a carport; and she and her husband purchased the property next door after many months of careful searching. She stated they knew what was on the surrounding property; the intention was to build a home in a rural family residential area and not
next door to property zoned institutional; the previous owners spent a great deal of time fixing the home before they sold it; and it was not sold as a commercial building or a church, but as a country home fitting into the rural atmosphere that exists around it. Ms. Eddleman stated the purchase price of the home in August 2004 was $273,900; and there are other places in the Melbourne area zoned to accommodate churches within this price range that are not within a rural residential community already zoned AU. She stated the current owners also stated during the March 7, 2005 Planning and Zoning meeting that there were several churches on John Rodes Boulevard; but this is incorrect as there are none. She stated they also stated there is a Buddhist Church on the north end of John Rodes Boulevard; but the Buddhists purchased unimproved property that is on Aurora Road; and it is a vacant lot adjacent to a HUD housing project. She noted it has been a vacant lot for a couple of years now. She stated they are asking the Board to respect the quality of life and the property values of the current homeowners in the area, including some long-term residents like the Andersons who have been there 36 years, the Fortenberrys for 32 years, O?Neal?s for 32 years, and the Julians for 15 years. She stated these are not short-term interests but life-long residents who are taxpaying citizens; the Zoning Board recognized by its recent amendment to the Zoning rules that a church does not belong in an AU community; it appears the subject property was purchased at the same time this ruling was passed; they are now attempting to change the zoning for their own benefit without any consideration for the current residents; and they did so after applying for a permit to add an outbuilding on the property, only to find out churches are no longer permitted in AU zoning. She stated this is a quiet community; they have 13 large breed dogs to run the acreage; they have eight-plus horses, ponds with ducks; they live in a country atmosphere; and they do so fully respecting each other and the family residential environment.

Chairman Pritchard advised Ms. Eddleman?s time has expired. Ms. Eddleman requested one minute to complete her presentation; with Chairman Pritchard allowing her to continue.

Ms. Eddleman stated they also discussed the traffic issue; the applicants do not believe there will be a traffic issue because they are not talking about that many more cars, considering there are two large developments going in; traffic is already bad enough; that will make it worse; and their concern was people stopping to turn in or pull out. She stated they have accidents there in the section between the two S curves all the time; they believe it will only get worse as a result of this rezoning; and in light of their country family atmosphere, concern for their property values, and an already stressed traffic situation, the community stands 100% against the rezoning and request the Board reject the rezoning.

Mark Rowley stated his family has owned the property he currently lives on for more than 35 years; it is a very rural area; but it is growing all the time. He stated the traffic problems that Ms. Eddleman spoke of are every day; and he personally had three close incidents where he was almost rear-ended turning into this driveway. He stated he has horses; the subject property is directly across from his property; and he opposes the church coming into that area because there are other areas where they could locate their use. He stated he understands this was a very close decision by the P&Z Board to recommend approval. He stated the residence on the
subject property was remodeled in the past two years; there was a significant amount of money spent on the remodeling for a single-family residence; and requested the Board oppose the rezoning.

Michael Hyde stated they never applied for a permit to put outbuildings on the property; they do not intend to at this time; and it is not even a consideration for the future. He stated the use of the building and grounds will not be for a church; it is for offices for the assembly, meeting rooms for committees, and perhaps a couple of training rooms or small use seminar rooms; and they do not intend it to be a large congregation place of worship. He stated the intention is to keep the house as it is; the only changes will be to make it ADA accessible for members who are handicapped; and that is to comply with federal law. He stated in terms of the traffic issue, they are a group of 50 families; they have not grown appreciably in the last 20 years; and they do not anticipate large-scale growth anytime in the foreseeable future. He stated their impact on traffic will be minimal because they meet at off-peak hours; they do not meet in the morning or evening when traffic is the heaviest; and the larger impact is going to be the development of 150 homes that will be going in across the street. He stated John Rodes Boulevard is a major artery through that area; it carries all the traffic through that area; it has developed over the years; and nothing is going to happen because they own property there. He stated when they purchased the property, they went to every department within the County to insure they were buying a piece of property that was suitable for their needs and would not impinge greatly on the neighborhood; and it was their intention to use it and keep it in a rural character because that is what is best for their community as well. He stated a previous speaker questioned whether they had done due diligence; and he can assure her that they did. He stated he spoke before the P&Z Board; and he did not recall the name of the person in the Zoning office that he spoke with. He stated they expended all the funds the community had to purchase the property; it was permitted in the classification that the Board made for that area; and staff has found no reason to deny it.

Mr. Nickle stated when the IN(L) classification was adopted and the church category was put into that classification, the language was very straightforward; it was an attempt to create a classification that was compatible with residential land uses; and the zoning report says, "the IN(L) classification permits low-intensity institutional uses, and low-intensity uses are limited in scale and impact to be compatible with residential and neighborhood commercial uses." He stated the various uses are listed; and that is what they fit into. He stated IN(L) is appropriate for this particular use.

Chairman Pritchard stated the staff report references a place of worship and then says daycare center and buildings for public assemblage, and that zoning is sought to convert a single-family residence to a house of worship, administrative building, and classroom. Mr. Nickle stated there will be an administrative building to conduct meetings and educational workshops; and it is not a daycare. He stated staff listed the potential uses that could be permitted under the IN designation, but that is not what is proposed. He advised it is a very small building; and there is only so much room to do anything much different than what they are proposing. Chairman
Pritchard inquired if they are proposing to tear it down; with Mr. Nickle responding no, they are proposing to have internal renovations to comply with the type of use being proposed and to meet Fire Code and handicap access codes, etc. Chairman Pritchard inquired what would prevent them, if the zoning were approved, from demolition, reconstruction, and creating a facility with daycare center, place of worship, etc. in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Nickle stated the land area itself is small. Chairman Pritchard advised it is two and one-half acres. Mr. Nickle stated in order to meet today?s criteria to do a major expansion it would take a huge amount of resources; and they have expended all their resources just to purchase what they have now so the likelihood of that occurring is very slim and not in the foreseeable future. He stated they are just trying to find a place to conduct their meetings. Chairman Pritchard inquired if that could not be done in AU zoning; with Mr. Nickle responding no. Mr. Nickle responded originally they could before the IN classification was established; but that was removed and put into the IN classification.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to deny Item V.B.10. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.11. (Z0503101) Janendra Gautam and Harbans Sing Ranshi?s request for change from BU-1 to TU-2 and EA on 2.88 acres located on the southwest corner of SR 520 and Lake Poinsett Road, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Jan Gautam stated the request is from BU-1 to TU-2.

Harbans Singh Ranshi stated he is requesting rezoning of the property from BU-1 to TU-2; the property is southwest of SR 520 and Lake Poinsett Drive; and the request was denied by the P&Z Board on March 7, 2005 based on four to five homeowners who came to oppose. He stated after obtaining the minutes of the last P&Z Board meeting, he carefully noted the actual points the neighbors were concerned about including their lifestyle and quiet neighborhood. He
stated the first homeowner was Kim Scheerhorn; his point was that property values would decline and a multistory hotel would tower over their homes; and Mr. Scheerhorn said he would have no problem with him building a little convenience store. He stated in existing BU-1 he can develop the same type of office building; height is only allowed by the County up to 35 feet no matter whether it is BU-1 or TU-2; and he does not see any reason the property values will decline. He stated the next homeowner to oppose was Terry Greenfield; his main concern was transit people; and he was concerned about water runoff because SR 520 has been widened. He stated the current BU-1 would allow him to develop restaurants, gas stations, convenience
stores, bed and breakfasts, and bars; there would be a flow of people in the area when developed regardless. He stated as far as the widening of SR 520 and the water runoff, he is sure DOT will make sure the stormwater drainage is appropriate. He stated the last homeowner to oppose was Susan Frank; she said in that neighborhood she sleeps with her doors and windows open because it is very quiet and dark; when they bought their property they were aware it was next to a commercial lot; and their expectation was that someone would build a
convenience store. He stated she was concerned that people would be looking in her backyard; and she claimed that the site for rezoning was never posted. He stated she mentioned she had her property appraised recently and the appraisal did not comment anywhere that the neighborhood would be influenced by having a multistory hotel. He stated Ms. Frank is wrong in regard to the posting of the sign; he had the sign posted and it is still there; and as far as the appraisal is concerned, he would like to request a copy from Ms. Frank to see when it took place. He stated he is sure the Board is aware that growth is the engine to the economy; it will bring jobs to local communities; and submitted a petition from the people in the neighborhood who are in favor of the rezoning and proposed development of a hotel, as well as letters of support from businesses in the area. He stated he will be grateful if the Board approves his request.

Susan Frank submitted paperwork to the Board but not the Clerk; and stated she and her husband George reside four doors down from the subject property. She stated they have lived in the Lake Poinsett area for 19 years; they knew when they moved there that the property at the southwest corner of Lake Poinsett and SR 520 was zoned for light commercial; they thought in the worst case scenario they might be looking at a convenience store or some other type of business to eventually be developed there; but never in their wildest dreams did they imagine someone might build a multistory hotel on the property. Ms. Frank stated the property does not meet the legal requirement for tourist facilities, which is to be located within .5 mile from the interstate interchange; and allowing this property would mean a reevaluation of the ruling for all such properties along I-95 in the County. She stated the Planning and Zoning Board denied the change in zoning on March 7, 2005 by a vote of 9 to 2, citing the density is inappropriate to the surrounding area. She stated building a hotel on the subject property will increase traffic to the area and to Lake Poinsett Road in particular, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. She requested the Board look at Exhibit A, which is a diagram from GAI Consultants showing that all westbound traffic from I-95 will use Lake Poinsett Road for ingress to the property due to the installation of a median. She stated the multistory height of the proposed hotel is out of character for the area; there are almost no buildings that are more than one story in the area; and the Brevard County Sheriff?s Department is very familiar with the neighboring hotel
properties and patrols them on a daily basis. She stated during the past six months the Sheriff?s Department has made 441 visits to the five area hotels; and Exhibit B is the Sheriff?s report, which includes calls for narcotics, gambling, prostitution, sexual battery, robbery, residential and commercial burglary, civic and domestic dispute, felony, stolen property, stolen vehicle, warrant arrest, fire, and criminal mischief. She stated the Lake Poinsett area is relatively free of crime; and residents do not want to be exposed to crime and the people that these hotels attract. She stated they are representing not only their personal interests but those of the community at large; and in just a couple of hours on March 13, 2005, more than 260 signatures were obtained
from people driving up and down Lake Poinsett Road who wanted the Board to deny the zoning request. She stated they are aware that owners of the subject property have also collected signatures on a petition to support the rezoning request; but it should be noted that the signatures come from the addresses within Maplewood Mobile Home Park and mobile homes located on Friday Road. She stated those residents will not be impacted as severely as the
residents and users of Lake Poinsett Road; they interviewed some of the signers of that petition to inquire why they would support the rezoning request; and they stated they were told they should sign the petition because they should prefer another hotel to another Burger King. She stated in one case a potential signer was asked if she would prefer to have an adult bookstore on the property. She stated they are asking the Board for its help; and requested the Board uphold the denial for a change in zoning, which would force them to live in the shadow of a hotel on the property.

Terry Greenfield stated he lives on Lake Poinsett Road; and urged the Board to deny the request. He stated the P&Z Board rejected it because it did not meet the requirements for BU-1. He stated reviewing the Florida Land Use Policy, particularly Administrative Policy 3, which addresses lighting, noise levels, and traffic, they believe a motel would conflict and diminish their safety and quality of life. He stated they believe the motel on the property would conflict with Administrative Policy 4 because they would expect an increase in transient traffic; there are no motels in the immediate boundary area of the community; and it is a neighborhood community. He stated the property is very pristine; there are 20 to 25% wetlands; and it has four beautiful oak trees. He stated with a 119-room motel there would be additional traffic; and according to the traffic analysis he got from the County there have been 30 accidents there in the period from 2000 to 2004. He stated one was fatal and they were all in the area between the SR 520, Friday Road, and Lake Poinsett Road; and one last week ws a very serious accident. He stated the P&Z Board voted to recommend denial.

Doug Sphar stated he owns residential property on Lake Poinsett, approximately one mile from the project; and requested the Board sustain the recommendation of the P&Z Board to deny the applicant?s request. He stated he questions a motel in this location; the applicant?s property is a little over a half mile west of I-95 on SR 520; and motorists exiting I-95 will see the applicant?s motel as well as other motels clustered at the interchange, including one that just announced a major expansion. He stated across from the applicant?s property is a convenience store that sells gasoline several cents per gallon less than the station at the interchange; and the reason is that few motorists stray from I-95 that far west so most of the clientele is made up of local residents. He stated the applicant?s property is at the corner of SR 520 and Lake Poinsett
Road; SR 520 is being four-laned and there will be a median cut at Lake Poinsett Road, but not at the applicant?s property; for access from SR 520, motorists would have to proceed west to the first median cut and then double back, thus increasing the potential for accidents; and alternatively they will probably seek access via Lake Poinsett Road. He stated Lake Poinsett Road is a dead-end road that has a rural ambiance; homes are on acreage and some have livestock; he can hear roosters crowing in the morning at his property; and over the years the Board has supported the residents in maintaining the character of the area. He stated in the 1970?s a plumbing supply company wanted to put a warehouse in the area, and the Board said
no; and later a national chain pet store wanted to put a puppy breeding mill there, and the Board again said no. He stated one concern is that motel customers with time on their hands may decide to drive down to enjoy the lake; but there is no public access for activities such as swimming, fishing, or walking along the shoreline; there is only a bait store and beer garden with canal access to the lake; and this will probably create a situation of people roaming the
neighborhood looking for lake access where there is no public access. He stated denying this request will not deny the applicant beneficial use of the property; he will still have a full range of BU-1 enterprises to place on the property; and requested the Board deny the request.

Kim Scheerhorn stated he lives right next door to the subject property; they live in a rural residential area; it is in the St Johns River and Lake Poinsett floodplains; and they have a great deal of water standing on their property for days, weeks, and even months after it rains. He stated they do not need any additional runoff from any changes in zoning that could impact the area. He stated there are several protected species of wildlife and birds in the area; a hotel is not compatible with their way of life; they have a quiet country residential area with kids, grandkids, and seniors riding their bikes and enjoying the outdoors; there is no crime or noise; and a hotel would bring bright lights, side activities, busses and semis, and loud transients, which would diminish their privacy and security. He stated the increased traffic on the road would make it unsafe for children and residents who use the area on a regular basis; and Lake Poinsett Road is a narrow dead-end road. He stated property values on properties closest to the motel would drop; and it is not the right place for a motel since it does not meet the legal requirement for tourist facilities located within a half mile of an interstate or interchange. He inquired if the Commissioners would like a motel next to their bedroom windows. He stated he is sure the Board will make the right decision for their quiet country residential community.

Tracy Gautam stated she is in favor of the requested rezoning; not only will it provide jobs for the community, but will also benefit the County in regard to the economy. She stated she read the minutes from the March 7, 2005 meeting; everyone?s concerns have been taken into consideration; and the proposed project is not intended to run off the neighbors. She stated the homeowners must know this is a retail commercial property; at some point there is going to be something next to the residents? properties; and right now with BU-1 zoning, there can be a bed and breakfast, a restaurant and bar, or a convenience store that could be open 24 hours a day. She stated if the residents are concerned about noise, lights, and traffic, it would be the same thing with a convenience store open 24 hours a day; and she does not think it can be avoided. She stated she understands they have lived there for a very long time; however, they had to know at some point in time that someone would buy the property and make some type of
business there. She stated she lives on SR 520 just a mile west of the location; seven years ago when she moved here there was nothing but a gas station and a McDonald?s in the area; and she is happy to see growth in this area. She stated she hopes the Board considers favorably the request for rezoning.

Ernest Cziraky stated he has lived in Florida for 37 years, 17 of which in the area in question; and he has been waiting for this flower in the desert to bloom. He stated there is a super mall coming on the next road to the north, SR 524; there is the expansion of SR 520 going all the
way west; and they are getting Orlando and especially the airport people coming east. He stated they are getting the overflow from Cocoa Beach that had a disaster during the hurricane and cannot accommodate all the people; and people came west looking for accommodations. He stated he watched the Holiday Inn Express being built at SR 520 and I-95; he saw the two gentlemen who were involved in the construction and management of it; and he heard many
people who have stayed there say it is the most beautiful hotel they ever stayed at. He stated it is a hotel, not a motel; some people said they do not want a dinky little motel coming there; but it is going to be a beautiful place. He stated they already changed Lake Poinsett Road to make it even with Friday Road; and they are putting a light there so the traffic will be slowed down. He stated the people going to the hotel will be business people looking for a quality place to stay; and recommended the zoning be changed to allow the progress of it. He stated they are going to have commercial and building progress all the way up to the lake; it is expanding all the way; franchises are all looking for property there; it is an up and coming place; and progress cannot be stopped. He stated he highly recommends the applicants; he has known them for two and one-half years; and they stand behind the quality they do.

Zack Osbrach stated he owns the Einstein Montessori School, which the Board approved three years ago; it has helped hundreds of children who would not have gotten any help from Brevard County; it is a public free school; and the facility is for children with disabilities. He stated he has known Mr. Gautam for approximately one year; he supported the school and gave all the professionals, such as the speech pathologist and psychologist, rooms for half rates; and he appreciates that. He stated Mr. Gautam ran a quality motel; prior to being the director of the school for children with language-based disabilities, he was a builder and developer in Alachua County; and he did a bit of rezoning. He stated he understands it is difficult for people who live off the road to see a project coming to the road; but it is a main corridor for Orlando. He stated they four-laned the road from Cocoa to Orlando because models show that was the way to travel to this area; the hotel is being built on SR 520; it is not being built in the neighborhood; and there are plenty of precautions that are taken in the building process to build privacy walls, put in lighting, and other things so the residents are not affected. He stated the way SR 520 is being developed right now is not in the best interest of the residents, his property, or other commercial uses in the area; it is not developed in a positive light; there are bars, storage facilities, and a truck facility; and these are the kinds of businesses that cause much higher volume of use. He stated the hotel will not use peak hour traffic as much as some of these properties; it is a high end business; it will be at the entry to the City of Cocoa; and it will probably be one of the nicest things on the road. He stated he does not think the residents in the long-run will be hurt by this property; SR 520 is going to be developed; it has not developed in a positive way; but this will help it go in a positive direction.

Joan Lehnert implored the Board to deny the change in zoning; and stated it would have an impact on the residents? lifestyle on Lake Poinsett Road and on Lake Poinsett Shores. She stated many of them signed petitions and are present because they are opposed to the rezoning; and they are concerned about the traffic, people coming into their area, and the fact that there is no access to Lake Poinsett. She stated she hopes the Board will consider the comments of those who spoke before her; she has been in the County since 1957; she has
seen a lot of growth; there are other hotels in the area; they are growing; and they are changing the road at Lake Poinsett Road and SR 520. She stated she hopes the Board denies the request.

Giles Malone stated he missed his daughter?s soccer match, but he thought it was important to be present tonight; he runs the Cocoa Expo Center in the same neighborhood; and he was asked to give his opinion on the project. He stated the Cocoa Expo has over 1,000 sports teams come there every year; they generate about 25,000 athletes plus their families; and they just finished a very busy spring with 350 spring training teams. He stated they were putting teams in Palm Bay, Titusville, and Cocoa Beach; so there is a need for additional quality hotel rooms in that area. He stated when they came to him to ask about the project, he wanted to see the schematics; they are talking about an interior corridor Comfort Inn with an extended stay type marketing scheme; and at $80 to $100 a night, they are talking about attracting quality customers. He stated he does not see that some of the concerns mentioned about crime are going to be existing on this property; interior corridor hotels are a big thing in the industry; people are going to them; the Comfort Inn in Cocoa Beach is a very nice property; and the applicants have first class ideas. He stated they are good operators; he has been doing business with them for a number of years; and while he understands the concerns of the residents, there should be a way to overcome some of these concerns with landscaping, privacy fencing, and things like that; and interior corridor hotels have minimal impact to the area compared to some of the older exterior corridor hotels. He stated it will be good for the area; the need is there; they are putting a good quality project together; it is a $6 million project; and that will increase property values around that area. He stated he would like to see the Board approve the rezoning, and he would like to see the applicants work with the neighbors to come up with a plan to satisfy the concerns. He stated it can be done; they may have to alter their plans somewhat; but the Holiday Inn Express has been a good addition to the area, and has generated positive feedback.

Mr. Gautam stated he has been managing a hotel in the County for the last eight years; he has not seen a single crime in this area; he has managed various hotels; and he has not seen a single crime in his hotels.

Mr. Ranshi stated Ms. Frank mentioned getting signatures from approximately 200 houses; but there are only five houses behind his property so he wonders where the 200 houses came from. He stated the Holiday Inn is a three-story building, which is 35 feet high; it is right across the Interstate; and they are not putting 120 rooms, but just 75 rooms. He stated as far as the wetlands are concern, he is sure the EPA will not let them do anything in the wetlands, so that is not a concern. He stated they are willing to go the extra mile to work with the people in any way they can to move the project forward. He requested the Board approve the rezoning.

Chairman Pritchard stated an interior corridor hotel is a great idea; and inquired if it will have fixed windows; with Mr. Ranshi responding there will be tinted fixed windows.

Commissioner Voltz stated she met with Mr. Ranshi earlier; and he mentioned something about a berm. Mr. Ranshi stated they can put a berm in the back where the adjacent property is with high trees up to 30 feet, so it will be totally camouflaged. He stated they will do excellent landscaping; and it will be very attractive. Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Ranshi indicated it was denied because he was not prepared for it to be a big issue. Mr. Ranshi advised they were
not prepared at the Planning and Zoning meeting; they thought since the Holiday Inn made such an impact on this area, they would not have any problem; and they went to the meeting without preparation. He stated that is the reason they were denied.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the hotel would probably be very nice; but one of the problems the Board needs to address, which has not been touched on to a great extent except in the staff report, is that TU-2 is a transient commercial classification intended to accommodate tourist needs and it needs to be adjacent to interstate and expressway exchanges. He stated it can be done if it is a half-mile; but this is over a half-mile at .53 mile. He stated they go into a discussion about a dedication to FDOT for right-of-way purposes; but when property is no longer there, it is no longer there; and the question becomes not whether there is a small percentage but what the guidelines say. He stated the guidelines say it should be within a half-mile of the interchange; one gentleman said it would be nice to see the whole area developed from Cocoa to Orlando; and if the Board wants to encourage that, it needs to change the rules. Chairman Pritchard stated it says "measurement from the former property corner reveals the property was located .5 mile from the right-of-way. Commissioner Scarborough stated he read that; and his comment was that they need to go beyond just the small percentages. Chairman Pritchard stated his comment was what happened to the former property corner; and inquired is that the one that was carved off for Lake Poinsett Road to align it. Commissioner Scarborough stated they are on the corner of the legal requirement; maybe they could say there was some dedication to the Florida Department of Transportation for right-of-way purposes, ignore it, and go back to something; but inquired where are they going and why are they going there. He stated if the Board wants to go there, he would suggest tabling the item and amending the entire process because there is a reason for the rules and a reason they are moving away from an interchange into a different environment. He stated personally he is not ready to change; he is ready to deny the item; and if the Board wants to come back separately and change the process, it needs to consider what and why it got to this particular point because he does not think this is what it appears to be. He stated traffic is coming off a dead-end road into the project off Lake Poinsett; he could go into different things; and it is beginning to encroach into an area. He stated there was extensive discussion about the Montessori school; it was not an easy thing; and a Montessori school and this hotel are substantially different.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item V.B.11 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated if this were to become a 7-Eleven gas station, access would still be off Lake Poinsett Road as well as SR 520; they would still have that same type of access; so I?m not too sure that the traffic is going to be any different. He stated in fact as a gas station, it might even generate more traffic.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is Chairman Pritchard is equating this to a gas station; but the rules say this has to be in a TU-2 zone, which has to be within a half-mile of a major interchange off I-95. He inquired if they are saying they are going to have all 7-Elevens
within a half-mile of I-95. Chairman Pritchard stated that is not what he is saying. Commissioner Voltz stated it would have been a half-mile if they had not taken off the corner. Commissioner Scarborough stated they can work around all of this and say yes; the question is why they did things; and the reason is because there was a desire to keep major hotels in closer proximity to I-95 and major interchanges; but if they want to move from that and have hotels all the way to Orlando, they can revisit the whole policy. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not mind revisiting it sometime down the road; but the comments say that the northeastern portion of the property was dedicated to FDOT for right-of-way purposes, which took .03 mile away. He stated it was dedicated to enhance the FDOT project so he does not think that is a critical reason to deny; what is being proposed are interior corridors, fixed windows, and landscaping; Cocoa Expo is in need of more adjacent rooms; and there is also currently a move underway to create a 4-H Ag Center at the site, which will increase usage. He stated there is not an abundance of facilities; SR 520 is a four-lane highway and a major corridor; and this would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and the corridor. He stated if anything the County needs to have things of this caliber being built on SR 520. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how far do they stop; and does Chairman Pritchard want to do away with the half-mile requirement entirely; with Chairman Pritchard responding at this point, they do not have to. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thinks they do because the fact is the land is not within a half-mile. Chairman Pritchard stated the .03 that was removed was for right-of-way so as far as he is concerned they have fallen within the half-mile; and the issue becomes whether it is an appropriate use of the property. He stated all the other issues about lighting and noise levels will have to be complied with; even if it was a 7-Eleven, there would still be lighting, traffic, and noise; and he cannot support the motion.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Voltz voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened at 9:54 p.m.

Item V.B.12. (Z0503102) Phil and Aulaire Berry?s request for change from RU-1-11 to AU on 5 acres located on the east side of Glendale Boulevard, north of Parrish Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item V.B.13. (Z0503103) Terry Lynn and Michael Carl Wade?s request for change from GU to TR-2 on 2.35 acres located on the east side of Burgess Avenue, north of Camp Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to three residential homesites.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.13 with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to three residential homesites as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.14. (Z0503104) Kevin A. Gamble?s request for change from GU to AU on 2.59 acres located on the northwest corner of Sharpie Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.14 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.15. (Z0503105) Carlos L. and Sandra J. Springfield?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 4.9 acres located on the south side of Carter Road, west of Hammock Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Carlos Springfield stated his request is to rezone 4.9 acres of 15 acres to RR-1; the 4.9 acres fronts Carter Road; and the remaining almost ten acres he would like to leave AU. He stated the requested zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; to the east of the property, the adjoining property is zoned RR-1 and has a pretty house on it; and the property that joins the back of the property that he is requesting to rezone is his property that he still owns and is choosing to leave AU. He stated to the west of the property is a 20-acre tract that is zoned RR-1; across to the north and across Carter Road diagonally is Indian River Plantation Estates, which is RR-1; however, a portion of the property that is directly across the road on the north is AU and owned by Mr. Williams who has no objections to the rezoning. He stated as a resident on Carter Road for more than 40 years in the same house, he has seen the area grow; and there is a nice trend starting there. He stated the homes in Indian River Plantation development have a deed restriction of 1,800 square feet under air; the RR-1 property to the west has deed restrictions for 2,200 square feet under air; and in order to continue the trend, he is proposing if anything is developed on the 4.9 acres he would plan a deed restriction of 2,500 square feet under air and 3,500 square feet under roof so as to not have any degradation to the neighborhood. He stated that is compatible with the area and with the Comprehensive Plan; and if anyone has questions, he will try to answer them.

Commissioner Voltz stated there are 4.9 acres so it would probably be limited to four lots; with Mr. Springfield responding it would be limited to four lots of about an acre and a quarter or an acre and an eighth.

Marlene Seymour stated she lives on Carter Road next to the property proposed for rezoning; she and her family moved to North Brevard in the early 1960?s; she went to Astronaut High School; she is a graduate of Brevard Community College; and she is currently pursuing her master?s degree from Webster University in Merritt Island. She stated she has been employed at the Kennedy Space Center for 25 years and has witnessed the changes in the community
over the past four decades. She stated she is opposed to the proposed rezoning; she attended several meetings at the Mims-Scottsmoor Library chaired by Commissioner Scarborough; some of the meetings have been standing room only; and she believes most of the area residents share her thoughts and views that they should not increase the density of zoning in the Mims area. She stated the reasons for the opposition are numerous; there is substantial evidence that suggests that allowing the increase in density will put the water supply in jeopardy; this is based on the statements made by Dick Martens of the Mims Water Treatment Plant; and not only will this increase allow more wells to tap into the water supply, but it will allow more septic systems, which could potentially impact the quality of the water supply. She stated she and her neighbors rely on their wells for their water supply; her next door neighbors had to replace their well recently; and they have experienced degradation in their water quality with the new well. She stated she cannot overemphasize the severity of her concerns over the water supply; it is such an important issue to her that she has taken time out of her busy schedule to address the Board to voice her opposition to the rezoning; and some of the surrounding neighbors have mailed letters stating their concerns and reasons for opposition. She stated the impact to the highway system has also been discussed; SR 46 is already identified as a road that needs to be widened to handle the existing traffic; it is not the only roadway experiencing increased traffic; one resident advised that it takes an average of five minutes just to get across US 1 to get to his home; and if the increase in density is allowed, it will only make the traffic conditions worse. She stated the Principal of Astronaut High School spoke at one of the meetings, informing the attendees that the school system is already at capacity and if more growth is allowed, the school system cannot accommodate the demand. She stated the last meeting she attended was on March 15; Mr. Martens was the featured speaker; and he gave an overview of the water supply in the area and also discussed what was occurring with the City of Titusville?s test wells in the north end of the County. She stated Mr. Martens indicated the Mims Water Treatment Plant could best serve the community by expanding in the areas where the water lines were already in place; he did not feel the plant should expand into areas where they were not already located; and he led her to believe that the only way to protect the water supply was to control the density of growth in the area. She stated she is not against growth and change; but the growth for the area has to be controlled and monitored; the infrastructure, utilities, roads, and schools to support growth should be in place or planned before the density increase is allowed; and these issues cannot be ignored. She stated the agricultural/residential zoning was established for a good reason; and it should remain in effect on this property. She stated she understands there are precedents already in place for the rezoning; but zoning changes are a privilege not a right. She stated this rezoning request is only one small parcel of land; but the
action to control the density has to begin somewhere; and it should begin now. Ms. Seymour stated they should all be responsible citizens and do what is best for the community, not for the individual; and denying the rezoning request should not affect Mr. Springfield?s ability to sell this property. She stated Mims is a rural community; and they would like it to remain that way.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to move to table the item; he received some letters; there was discussion about doing some other things and making some restrictions; and he would rather table than take everybody?s time because there are people waiting.

Ms. Seymour stated she has gone on the web and looked at the property; she sees a ten-acre parcel next to hers and another five acres behind that; and she is confused about which property is being rezoned.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they will be able to talk about that; Ms. Seymour will have an opportunity to come in; and Mr. Springfield will try to make some compromises and work with the neighbors. He stated he has a couple of other letters; and inquired if Mr. Springfield has time constraints. He inquired if it would be acceptable to table it to May 19 instead of May 5 as there are a lot of items coming back on May 5, 2005; with Mr. Springfield responding that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item V.B.15 to the May 19, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.17. (Z0503107) Thomas C. Wilson?s request for change from GU to AU on 1.01 acres located on the south side of Caraway Street, east of Alan Shepard Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item V.B.18. (Z0503108) Clifford L. and Jamie L. McKnight?s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 1.54 acres located north of Golden Shores Boulevard, and west of US 1, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated with rezonings from GU to RR-1, he wants to look at the area; and it appears there is a mixture there, so he does not think it is an issue.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.18 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated this is the first time he ever saw the potential as zero and the proposed is one. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is always a first time.

Item V.B.19. (Z0503109) Vero Pittsburgh Partners, LLC and Harry Lee and Laverne K. Wells? request for change from AU and BU-1 to EU-2 on 3.99 acres located on the west side of US 1, south of Latimer Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item V.B.19 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item V.B.22. (Z0502301) North Cypress Reserve, Inc.?s request for change from GU and AU with existing CUP for Mulching Facility and Air Curtain Incinerator, and existing BDP and CUP for Land Alteration with BDP to PUD with removal of all existing CUP?s and BDP?s on 353.28 acres located on the north side of Micco Road east of I-95, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Bruce Moia, representing North Cypress Reserve, stated the property is 300 acres on Micco Road just east of I-95 on the north side of the street; currently it has an existing use as a mulching facility and air curtain incinerator; and it is now considered a nonconforming use. He stated it generates approximately 900 trips per day; most of those are trucks that haul dirt in and out and debris for incinerating; currently the site is zoned AU and GU; and they are requesting PUD zoning. He stated from the aerial the Board can see that to the north, west, and east there is vacant property; and there is a single-family home a half-mile south. He stated they are proposing a 156-unit single-family development; it results in a density of one unit per two and one-quarter acres; and some of the amenities include a 5,000-foot airstrip with an aviation support facility with fuel, parking, and storage for aircraft, sales, maintenance, and a restaurant. He stated there is a 60-acre lake in the middle; it will have a dock and perimeter pedestrian walkway around the lake; and it will have a clubhouse with tennis courts and a pool, and approximately nine acres of common open space for passive recreation. He stated the lots range from 30,000 to 75,000 square feet; they are very large units; and the way the lots are configured, they would like to have an onsite hangar. He stated they are requesting a waiver to allow an accessory structure to be more than half the size of primary structure because an airplane hangar has to be bigger than 1,000 square feet. He stated they understand the Valkaria Airport Manager has no objections to the project; the site has central drainage and will discharge to the ditch to the north; and all the homes will have wells and septic systems. He noted there are no utilities in the area; and the total trips that will be generated from the site as far as traffic is 1,160 according to the staff, which is approximately 230 more than exist now; and that is conservative because of the nature of the facility. He stated it is not a traditional subdivision; there will be people who are more transient and gone for long periods of time; and as far as traffic, it will be a wash except they will be getting rid of all the trucks. He stated he does not know if any of the Commissioners have seen an airpark; Florida has the most in the country with approximately 61 airparks; most are non-precision approaches with small piston aircraft; and they estimate 75% will be single engine planes and 25% will be dual engines. He
stated the only one he has been to is the Spruce Creek one just west of Daytona; it is the largest in the world; it has approximately 1,500 homes on approximately 1,200 acres; and out of
the 1,500 homes there are approximately 400 planes on the property. Mr. Moia stated approximately a third of the people are seasonal; many of them own more than one home so they are not there that often; and when they travel, it is for long periods of time so it is a low-impact type of development. He stated there was some talk at the Planning and Zoning meeting about how many flights there might be in a day; Valkaria Airport has approximately 39 operations a day; and the development would be less than half of that, based on what they have seen at other airparks. He stated there will be 21 lots that will not have taxiway access; and from what they have seen from some of the numbers, less than 70% of the people even have airplanes at all. He stated he is present to answer questions.

Grady Hudmon stated he is the property owner who would be at the south end of the airstrip they want to put in; it would be a 5,000-foot long airstrip, 150 feet wide; and it would be adjacent to the County property that was bought under the pretense that it was environmentally sensitive land and crucial habitat. He stated he bought his property before the applicant; there are two residences at the south end; and the predominant wind is out of the south, so they will be taking off directly over his house, his daughter?s house, and his office. He stated he has put up with the dump trucks for ten years hoping that one day there would be a nice development; he put his life savings into his home; and it is zoned at one unit per five acres, ARG. He stated he knows a lot of change is coming; but he thinks this will impact him, and be financially devastating. He stated he was never notified when this was tabled and came back up; it will impact him financially tremendously because nobody wants to live at the end of an airstrip; and there will be no restrictions. He stated they will be able to land 100 planes a day because there will be no restrictions; and the County does not want to police it. He stated someday he would like to build some houses there; and he thinks this will totally devalue his property and his future plans, as well as the properties to the north. He stated Mr. Moia says there is no development there; but it will definitely impact his property because all the flights will have to take off over his property. He requested the Commissioners consider how they would feel if they had been there first; stated he has his land in keeping with the whole area; he knows it is going to develop; but he does not know what is going to end up being there. He inquired how would the Commissioners like to have their properties and homes they worked to build and pay for under the flight path; and reiterated there will be no regulations on it if the Board allows this zoning. He stated he can live with the trucks; but it will not just be small piston planes flying in. He stated he lived in Indian River County, had another property, and was devastated by two fly-in ranches that devalued his property. He stated when he sold his property, he got less than anybody in the area; he would hate to see that happen to him again; and he has rights too. He stated this rezoning is not for the good of the public; it is just for the good of the developer; and requested the Board consider that.

Mr. Moia stated before they considered doing this development, the owner met with Mr. Hudmon, advised what he wanted to do, and inquired if he had any objection; and Mr. Hudmon said no, so the applicant moved forward. He stated this is what he was told by the owner; they moved forward; the type of development was disclosed; the property value right now is probably
pretty low with a mulching facility and air curtain incinerator; and he cannot imagine that putting in multi-million dollar homes would devalue his property. Mr. Moia stated there is no basis or
proof that would happen; and on the contrary, development of the area will increase the value of Mr. Hudmon?s property, especially a development like this with multi-million dollar homes.

Mr. Hudmon inquired who is the owner. Commissioner Voltz responded Doctor Fisher. Mr. Hudmon stated Dr. Fisher has never met with him to discuss this; he called at the last moment and told him how much it would improve his property; but he informed him that he was against it, and that it would not increase the value of his property or any other property to the north or south. He stated he has a multi-million dollar home there already; and he does not expect to be run over this way. He stated they went about it the wrong way; they never approached him; and he would like to meet Dr. Fisher face-to-face and have him tell him that.

Commissioner Colon stated this would be the 62nd airpark; and she was totally shocked when she saw this because it does not just affect Mr. Hudmon, but the entire area will be affected because eventually there will be homes. She inquired what is it with the South Mainland and airports. She stated they keep having issues; she does not think this is compatible; and she is not just concerned about Mr. Hudmon but everyone because they will be flying in, and they already get complaints about people who do not care how they fly into a community. She stated they are in the process with Districts 3 and 5 trying to plan the whole area; but they never considered a private airport, which is what she calls what is proposed. She stated there is no way she can support something like this because it is going to affect thousands of lives in the area; and there are rezonings from this particular area coming left and right. She stated they might not see homes right now, but there are going to be homes that will hopefully be compatible to the rest of the area. She stated this is not something she would consider.

Commissioner Voltz stated there are a couple of issues; it is not quite that easy; and stated that piece of property is a plug to prevent the City of Palm Bay from coming any further south. She stated if they do not do something tonight, this area will go into the City of Palm Bay; and that is going to allow the City to go who knows where from there. She stated she asked Mr. Moia when she met with him in her office about the possibility of an easement for a roadway to hook up to the proposed new interchange; and she needs to get his input on that. Mr. Moia responded he broached the subject with the owner; he was not crazy about the idea; but if they need to discuss it further, they can; however, he was instructed not to offer that. Commissioner Voltz stated she will not approve it without that because that is going to keep traffic off West Micco and off of Babcock Street and potentially hook up to the new interchange. She stated that is the only property because east, west, north, and south of it is EEL?s property; and so they do not have any place else to go. She stated it might be a good community, but at this point she is not going to support it. She stated she can table it and they can talk about that; but it is definitely an issue. Mr. Moia stated he understands; but until he met with Commissioner Voltz he did not know there was a potential for that; and that was not existing on any map he saw so they did not know of that intention. Commissioner Voltz stated that is what they are working on. Mr. Moia stated he does not know how far off that is and whether it will ever happen. Commissioner Voltz stated it is going to happen. Mr. Moia stated he has been hearing
that for about ten years now. Commissioner Voltz stated they have to plan for the road infrastructure, traffic, and for those developments that are going in down there; and if they do
not plan now, it is going to be a mess in the future, so they have to plan right now. She stated they saw there was a private road going up the eastern part of the development; she does not know if they could do it on the western side, how they want to do it, or even if they can do it; but they need to talk about it. She stated one unit to two and one-half acres is okay; she is not crazy about the airstrip; but they can talk about that too. She stated for right now that piece is a plug as far as she is concerned; it is a vital piece for the County to prevent Palm Bay from going any further south and east; and she knows the applicant can annex into Palm Bay and do what he wants to do. Mr. Moia stated that is an option they can explore; with Commissioner Voltz responding she understands that. Commissioner Voltz stated at this point she would much rather table it; and it may end up getting denied anyway. Mr. Moia inquired if the plan was already approved to have the interchange at Micco Road, and did the State already approve
that. Commissioner Voltz stated the State did approve that, but they bought all the EEL?s properties all around it. Mr. Moia inquired if there is no way for the State to acquire that property; with Commissioner Voltz responding no. Mr. Moia stated the interchange cannot happen; with Commissioner Voltz responding that is right.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item IV.B.22.

Commissioner Colon stated she has questions. She stated Commissioner Voltz?s concerns are in regard to going to the City of Palm Bay; but the City made it perfectly clear that it has concerns about having the airstrip out there, so if they were to annex it, the City would deny it. She stated she spoke to City Manager Lee Feldman; the City believes that the kind of planning that is going on will affect it to; the County does not want it; the City does not want it; and this is something that they have not even touched the surface on. She stated she is saying she does not want it; but she can give an entire list. She stated there are FAA regulations; with Mr. Moia responding they have a permit from FAA. Commissioner Colon stated her job is to protect the neighborhood; the applicant?s job is to make money; and they are upset about the growth as it is let alone airplanes. She stated they are having a hard time dealing with what is on the road. Mr. Moia stated these developments are nestled within residential areas; they look scary at first; when they first pitched this project to him, he thought they were kidding; but they are extremely low-impact developments. Commissioner Colon inquired where is the closest one; with Mr. Moia responding Vero Beach, although Daytona might be closer. Mr. Moia noted the proposed development is a lot smaller than the one in Daytona, which is huge; and he does not even know if anyone has even heard that it exists. He stated there are 61 airparks across the State; and inquired if Commissioner Colon thinks they are all by themselves. He stated they are not; they are very frequently used for people who own planes and have more than one home so they fly between homes; they are used for some specific purpose; and the airplane use is not the major use as it is a residential community. He encouraged the Commissioners to visit an airpark; and stated he visited the one in Daytona for over an hour and did not see one airplane take off or land.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how big is the airpark in Vero Beach; with Mr. Moia responding very small, 50 lots. Chairman Pritchard inquired how big is the one in Daytona; with Mr. Moia
responding 1,500 units, the largest in the world. Mr. Moia stated this project will not be built in the City of Palm Bay. Commissioner Colon stated the City is not interested; but recommended Mr. Moia call the City and not take her word for it.

Commissioner Voltz stated her main concern is a route from Micco Road to the potential interchange; and that is the only property that is a viable option at this point. She stated the only reason she wants to table it is to possibly work it out.

Commissioner Colon stated that is Commissioner Voltz?s thing; but she is not going to make a deal. Commissioner Voltz stated they have to make deals. Commissioner Colon inquired if there was a second to the motion to table. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item V.B.22.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wants to visit an airpark; he has not been to one; and he would appreciate Mr. Moia giving him some addresses so he can see what these things look like. He stated Merritt Island has the Merritt Island Airport with an east/west runway; planes fly over Newfound Harbor and very expensive residential property; one property in particular has a 20,000 square-foot house being built; and they all know the fellow who is building that. He stated it certainly has not hurt property values there; and on the west side of the Merritt Island Airport is very dense residential. He stated he does not know how many flights go in and out; so he would not mind finding out some of these things. Mr. Moia stated he appreciates that. Chairman Pritchard stated there is a lot more to it than just airplanes overhead; he can understand that when someone lives next to Valkaria Airport, for example, and complains about airplanes, it does not make any sense; but this is a little different situation; and it needs to be looked at. He stated he will support the denial, which will put him on the affirmative side so he can always bring it back up. He stated he wants to find out more about these communities, in particular whether this is an ILS or BFR community, will it be propjets or just piston driven, and where will the flight patterns be. He stated with a predominantly southerly wind and a north/south runway, predominantly planes will be arriving and departing in a southerly direction; but the wind also can come out of the northwest for a significant part of the year; and he would like to know what effect that would have. He stated there are more questions to be answered at this point than whether or not a community like that is going to be acceptable to the surrounding communities, which to the east is mostly EEL?s properties and to the south is agricultural property with potential for development. He stated the Board needs to be cognizant of the effect it could have; but there is more to it than just saying no because there are airplanes overhead. Mr. Moia stated Chairman Pritchard is right; and they can establish flight patterns and do all sorts of things.

Commissioner Colon stated it is still going to be denied. Chairman Pritchard stated it may not be supported by Commissioner Colon. Commissioner Colon stated there is a motion and second on the floor to deny. Chairman Pritchard stated just because the Board is going to deny it tonight does not mean it will not come back. Commissioner Voltz stated that is true.

Chairman Pritchard stated it will rise like Frankenstein; and these things have a habit of doing that.

Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion to deny. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its March 10, 2005 meeting, as follows:

Item V.D.1. (NMI50301) Najjad, Inc.?s request for change from AU to SEU on 27.7 aces located on the north side of Smith Road, east of North Courtenay Parkway, which was recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for approval with Binding Development Plan limiting development to 100-foot rear setback, 50-foot front setback, 20-foot side setbacks, curbs, gutters, buried utilities, and a minimum living area of 3,000 square feet, and recommend access from Smith Road and a unanimous recommendation that the North Merritt Island Small Area Plan include all of Merritt Island north of the Barge Canal.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this item came with a unanimous recommendation for approval; and inquired if anyone is present in opposition.

Mary Hillberg stated the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association is in favor of the rezoning.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item V.D.1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the captive wildlife zoning regulations.

Lucie Knox stated she lives in Scottsmoor; they own an exotic animal farm and have a CUP; and she has been talking with Ms. Sobrino and has been instrumental in helping to redo the Ordinance. She stated she is pleased with what it has come up to be except on page 6, number 6, which is the requirement for building permits for cages. She stated Ms. Sobrino advised they would have to get a fence permit; and their problem is their cages, a lot of which are movable. She stated they build a cage out of chainlink fence, but at times they reconfigure within the area
that they are allowed to use because of the setbacks. Ms. Knox stated she is in favor of setbacks; it gives them a little area like a living room where they can rearrange periodically; but now every time she builds a new cage or moves a cage, she has to submit a certified survey to the County along with a notarized affidavit. She stated the State has certain minimum requirements on cages; the State already has the authority to say the cage has to be built of a certain gauge wire; it has to be a certain size; and it has to be able to hold the animal she plans to put in it. She stated she does not understand what the County is going to ask of her as far as the building permit; she is not building buildings; they are not concrete block; they are simply cages; and they would be within the area that is within her permitted use from the conditional
use permit she has as far as the setbacks go. She requested the Board review that part of the ordinance because it would be a hardship to pay a $35 fee every time she wants to build a new cage or move one and have to have a building permit, site survey, and all those kinds of things.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when Ms. Knox says move a cage does she mean pick it up and move it to a different location; and when she says build a cage, does she mean to build a totally new cage. Ms. Knox advised that is correct; but it would be within her area. She stated Ms. Sobrino explained the concern about maintaining the setbacks per the CUP; and she would still be within her boundaries. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Knox wants some flexibility; and inquired if there is something they can do to work within that concept. Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated the permitting was the beset assurance to make sure that any operator would be complying with the perimeter buffering requirements; the State will be inspecting the property; and in speaking with Ms. Knox and understanding their propensity to rearrange cages based on their inventory, her point is well taken. She stated the County could comfortably rely on the State to make sure the caging complies with its regulations. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is basically looking at how far back it is set from the property line; and inquired if Ms. Sobrino is concerned about a drastic increase in the number of cages; with Ms. Sobrino responding no. Ms. Sobrino stated they may require that a survey of the property indicate the perimeter buffer area; and as long as the caging is contained within that area, then there is no problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated they would get one permit that would define the property perimeters; with Ms. Sobrino responding exactly.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the difference between a cage and an enclosure; with Ms. Knox responding there is really not a difference; an enclosure is like a warm room that has to be provided for the winter, which can still be a movable shelter, but it is more of an enclosed box or small building; and the State language is there has to be a cage with an enclosure. She stated usually, depending on the size of the animal, enclosures are large doghouses to provide shelter for the animals; and if this could be clarified, it would make them more comfortable that they are complying with what the Board wants them to do under the current CUP.

Susan Canada stated she knows the Board is just concerned about the safety of the community; but there is a State Uniform Building Code that was passed in 2000 that says a building permit is not required for any enclosure for animals, such as barns, cages, and doghouses. She inquired how that relates to the proposed ordinance, who would enforce it, and who knows what is required for cages and such.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Sobrino is going to be able to answer these questions this evening; with Ms. Sobrino responding staff is looking to the State Fish and Wildlife to insure that; and the County?s regulations mirror those of the State. Commissioner Scarborough stated if these are questions that they are not going to be able to handle tonight, it would be much easier to meet with Ms. Canada, and then come back with a completed product rather than holding everyone up. Ms. Sobrino stated they are looking at Fish and Wildlife to enforce the regulations since they are Fish and Wildlife regulations and the County is just mirroring them.

Ms. Canada stated the State does not require a building permit for a cage or enclosure; but it requires mandatory sizes and certain gauge wiring. Ms. Sobrino advised the Board just addressed that and agreed that if there was a survey that was submitted that showed the perimeter buffering area, anything that took place within that compound would have the ability to be relocated and they would not go with the building permit process, but instead would just make sure the survey indicated the area within which all cages would be placed and there would be no cages beyond the designated area. Ms. Canada inquired if she understands correctly that there will be no building permits; with Ms. Sobrino responding instead they will define the area on a property-by-property basis as to where they will be allowed to maintain their cages and comply with the perimeter buffering requirements. Ms. Canada stated she noticed fostering of wildlife was removed; several people rely on temporary foster care for wild animals; a lot of times it is young animals such as a wolf hybrid or a bobcat; and there may be a need to foster overnight or for a few hours until someone can be contacted. She stated that has been removed according to page 5, and a few years ago when she addressed the Board, it was added in. She inquired who is going to enforce these items; stated Ms. Sobrino said the County?s regulations will mirror those of Fish and Wildlife, which is fine; but if Fish and Wildlife is already enforcing and knows what to inspect, she does not see why the County does not let them do it. She stated once or twice a year different counties and municipalities are invited by Fish and Wildlife to attend meetings to address any concerns; they may want to say more property or area is needed because there is concern about some of the wildlife; and all of these concerns would be addressed at the meetings where the County could give its input. She stated right now the Board is asking to do something where she cannot even get help to stop the guys that are fighting dogs; and she is concerned about who is going to enforce.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he talked to Ms. Sobrino; these are not complex issues but just consume a lot of time; and he would like to have a completed product where Ms. Canada?s concerns have been met, so he will move to table the item to May 19, 2005. He stated he will get those folks who are interested together; and it will be easier to do it that way.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing on an ordinance amending the captive wildlife zoning regulations to May 19, 2005.

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to know some of the definitions; to him a cage sounds like something that is movable while an enclosure sounds more like something that is fixed;
there could be cages in an enclosure, but that is just his definition; and he would like more explanation as to what they are talking about. Chairman Pritchard stated one of the cards was talking about Thunderhawk Big Cat Rescue and what the implications might be to that; and he would be interested in that.

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

Attorney Victor Watson stated he lives behind the Four Communities Fire Department, and he is in favor of changing the entire area to Residential 4 and adopting options 3 and 4; and he and some of the neighbors would like to see an even lower density. He stated he would like to first speak to the overall study area and then to his neighborhood, which is the Brentwood neighborhood; most of the area is presently developed as single-family residential on large lots; a few have one or two additional residences on the lot; there is one parcel, 754, that is presently under construction at ten units per acre; and he brought photos of that project that show that density is too high. He stated he also has copies of the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan map, on which he made some notes to show where some of the areas are that he will be speaking about. He stated he has a few photos of a triangular area that is undeveloped that he will be speaking to; and submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated as shown by the photograph, ten units to the acre really fills up a piece of property; and it overwhelms the adjacent single-family home. He stated four units per acre, as has been suggested will allow people to have a little flexibility if they want to have a couple of units on their property; most are long skinny properties; but those people who want to maintain one home will not be overwhelmed. He stated with regard to the Brentwood Drive neighborhood, Brentwood Drive is a small, almost single-lane road, full of potholes, and the neighborhood loves it; it is at the south end of the study area; on the east side of Brentwood Drive are single-family homes; and they are zoned EU, but most are developed at approximately one unit per acre. He stated the triangular area that he submitted photos of is on the west side of Brentwood; it is bounded by Brentwood, Indian River Drive, and Macy Drive; and Captain Macy used to be the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that area is zoned residential; but in the Comprehensive Plan it is community commercial; and it has no business being commercial because it is part of the Indian River Drive neighborhood. He requested that area be made residential. He stated another unusual issue with the area is the Four Communities Fire Department; it is an excellent neighbor; it was founded by some of the original homeowners; however, it is designated community commercial to the west and neighborhood commercial to the east; it is a public facilities type use but has a commercial designation because the Four Communities Fire Department, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation. He stated the neighbors are concerned about what might happen if it stopped being the fire station and what it might become; and if this were designated residential, the current use could continue on for the fire station and Boy Scout Troop, but if it changed, it could go to Residential/Professional or BU-1-A, which would be considered transitional zoning. He stated the Bell property is a six-acre parcel at the north end of Brentwood Drive; the front part is designated community commercial and zoned BU-1 while the east part of it is zoned residential, RU-1-7; and it is the space junkyard. Mr. Watson stated it has a Use on Review and other things that allow storage of rockets and things like that; but the use has been all but abandoned; and although there are still a few things out there, the rockets have been removed. He stated the commercial designation the property has does not fit into the neighborhood; it is a very deep parcel, deeper than any other commercial designations in the area, which are few and far between; it is too big and too deep; and the property is very beautiful and would be an excellent residential development. He stated a contract purchaser was trying to rezone the property, but was seeking ten units to the acre, which is too high a density; it is immediately adjacent to EU zoning; and four units per acre would be fair there. He requested the Board adopt options 3 and 4.

Joe Deen stated he and his family are in the process of building their dream home on U.S. 1, right in the subject area; he is not one to push for zoning or changes on property that he does not own; but in this case, he will give a little background. He stated in the process of building, he has been surprised by the amount of foot traffic that goes to the water?s edge; even as isolated as they are, they are getting a lot of traffic; and if they got commercial zoning and more building in that area, it would really change the peaceful environment they have right now. He stated it is very peaceful and quiet, but he has been surprised by the number of transients that come through. He stated if they had commercial zoning, there would be an increase in traffic flow; and there is an incredible amount of cars going down the two-lane highway and crossing U.S. 1 to go into any residential area or commercial businesses that would be there. He stated as far as septic tank disposal, they are even past Palm Bay; with City water in Palm Bay, one can only build to a two-thirds density on septic tanks; and those are typically quarter-acre lots. He stated in the area they are discussing it is much larger and more dense with potentially multifamily; there is no commercial sewage through there; it is strictly septic tanks; and requested the option of limiting it to four units per acre at a maximum.

Jill Rippon stated she agrees with what Victor Watson said; they want the area to stay residential; they want to have it limited to four units per acre; and requested everyone stand who is in agreement. The majority of the audience stood.

Commissioner Scarborough stated these issues evolved through some zoning requests; this has happened in Rockledge; there have been a couple in Merritt Island; but this is one where they had some zoning, but the zoning requests that were driving this were withdrawn. He stated people have stayed because they did not realize until this occurred what could happen in their neighborhood; but the future land use map was terribly inconsistent with what was built out there and what the zoning was. He stated option 1 is to do nothing; option 2 is a zoning issue; and options 3 and 4 are the viable options, which are basically doing what the community thought it had. He inquired what is wrong with doing what you think you have if what you think you have is right; and stated it is a strange scenario. He stated they found out there is a future land use map that is other than what they think they need to have.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to proceed with Options 3 and 4.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is going to request staff advertise Comprehensive Plan amendments. Commissioner Scarborough stated yes, it would be to proceed.

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

Commissioner Carlson stated the MPO next Thursday will review the staff services agreement as part of the general review process of all MPO agreements; and the arrangements between the various MPO organizations and jurisdictions they support are widely varied. She stated the Sarasota MPO, for example, operates as a wholly independent operation while the MPO for Brevard County serves in a Countywide transportation role, while at the same time providing staff services for the Board. She stated one issue in the current staff services agreement that might be changed, subject to the Board?s discussion, is the MPO staff?s placement and the County?s pay and classification system. She stated being a wholly grant funded operation, the Brevard MPO is at a compensation disadvantage compared with other MPO offices; and this disadvantage could be eliminated by changing the current services agreement so issues having to do with pay and classification, hiring, and performance reviews, would come under the purview of the MPO Executive Committee. She stated all other administrative and staff support arrangements could remain in effect in accordance with the current agreement; and what she is interested in is looking at that so when they go to the MPO, they will all be singing off the same sheet of music. She stated the MPO gets grant dollars from the federal government; if the MPO needs to have an increase in compensation or do whatever it needs to do in terms of the pay for its employees, it can do that; but she understands how that might appear if there are increases; so at a future date, the Board could look at a salary study for all employees of the County. She stated they are having a lot of turnover; and she is concerned that high-level quality employees are leaving. She stated there is a lot of competition out there for employees; it is very difficult to bring in those kinds of employees with that kind of tenure, history, and understanding of the community; and it would be a huge deficit for the County if those employees were lost. She stated the MPO has an opportunity to operate slightly differently because it is funded through the federal government and not specifically through the County; but it does provide the County with a special service.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow the MPO to take itself out of the County?s pay and classification system and go about business under its own classification.

Commissioner Voltz stated she knows in talking to Bob Kamm, this would give him a $20,000 a year pay raise; she is not sure that is in the best interest of the other department heads and directors; and if he gets another $20,000 a year, which she is not saying he does not deserve, it is not right. She stated it is not fair to the other department directors. Commissioner Carlson stated that is why a full-blown salary study is needed. Commissioner Voltz stated they do studies all the time. Commissioner Carlson stated they have only had a human resources study done just from around the cities, not around the entire State; and if the County compares itself to the State, it will find it will start losing employees. She stated the County already loses employees to other jurisdictions and to private industry; if the Board does not start fighting for improved compensation for employees it is going to lose key employees; and that is not good for the community as a whole. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees; but if they look at the firemen, they lose those every day because they do not pay enough money. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a big issue with the union and their compensation; so there will be issues
coming back to the Board. Commissioner Voltz stated to just single this one out is not the right way to go; if the Board wants to look at everybody all at the same time, she has no problem; but she does not want to single someone out like this.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she is very supportive of all staff being compensated; but there are a lot of issues here; and she would be concerned about creating the have and the have nots. She stated the MPO is not the only completely non-General Fund funded organization; the Office of Tourism is done completely from tourism tax; there are many enterprise funds; and while this would be excellent for the MPO staff, this would be creating some issues for the general staff, and may not send the message the Board wants to send. She stated there are a couple of other issues that have not yet been figured out; if the MPO staff were removed, they have asked FRS whether this would impact them being part of the retirement system; her understanding is there are a number of different ways the MPO?s are handled throughout the State; and FRS may not have an answer for that. She stated they felt it was important for staff to understand that; they did not want them to think they were under the retirement system only to find out they were not; and it would be a wonderful thing to have this staff be compensated, but there would be many other people on staff who would be concerned. She advised the salary the director has asked for would make him the second highest paid director in the County.

Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates what Ms. Busacca is saying but unfortunately if they allow one employee who is depended upon for transportation issues to slip away, the County will end up with other folks going the same route, and it may be a domino effect. She stated they need to do a full-blown Statewide study on salary compensation; but in the same sense, she would like to hear the Board?s perspective, whether it is consensus or whatever, to know that this is coming back to the MPO where it will be fully discussed. She stated she does not know what the MPO will say; but she brought it up because she thought it was an opportunity to talk about it before going to the MPO meeting, in case everyone is not there.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board does not want to air its dirty laundry at that meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he talked to Mr. Kamm, as did the rest of the Commissioners; they talked about a systemic problem in the County with wages; and each Commissioner has talked to different members of staff who are critical to the operation of the County who have offers they are not taking where they would be substantially compensated at higher levels. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Carlson; the Board needs to proceed; but he also agrees with Commissioner Voltz that to take one individual and not look at the systemic problem would be a mistake. He stated he would hope they could proceed to some extent in saying to Ms. Busacca that the Board would like to proceed with the study expeditiously so it can know it can maintain key employees in place. He stated someone who has been with the County for ten or fifteen years at the department level is more than just a competent person; that person has worked with staff, developed a spirit of camaraderie, and knows where the minefields are; and if the County loses some of these people, it will not be able to resurrect things five or seven years down the line. He stated there have been some profound
problems with road projects and how to fund them; and if the Board had someone who did not even know how to get to the road and had to be briefed, it would not be the same thing. He stated he knows the Board talks in terms of how much something is going to cost the County, but having key people on the job is the most valuable asset. He stated he does not know if this is heading where Commissioner Carlson was heading, but he would like to ask Ms. Busacca to proceed expeditiously. Chairman Pritchard advised there is a motion on the floor.

Commissioner Carlson stated the motion is to remove the MPO from the County?s pay and classification system. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would allow the MPO to proceed, but what Commissioner Voltz and Ms. Busacca are saying is that proceeding just with this may create a worse situation; it may indicate a further disparity because someone has been pulled out; and rather than solving the problem, it actually calls attention to the problem. Commissioner Carlson stated she can remove the motion if that is the way the Board wants to go. Chairman Pritchard suggested Commissioner Carlson do that because he has some comments he wants to make. Commissioner Colon stated there should be two motions; one is to allow it to go under the Executive Board; she is comfortable with that; and simultaneously there will be a second motion to do the study so the County is able to compensate. Chairman Pritchard recommended qualifying the first motion.

Commissioner Carlson stated the motion was to take the MPO out from under the pay and classification system of the County and put it under the MPO Executive Committee. Chairman Pritchard inquired if they understand the ramifications of that; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Chairman Pritchard stated they may not be part of the FRS; with Commissioner Carlson responding there are variations of that; and if they just go with the suggestion of that to the MPO, they can fully discuss it; but at least going there at that point the Board can say it has discussed it and see what the rest of the MPO members think. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is an MPO meeting next Thursday; and inquired if there is any reason the Board could not get a further report back on some of the other things. He stated he knows it is on the agenda and people want them to move rapidly; but if it is thrown to the MPO, it will assume the Board has done its homework. Commissioner Colon recommended going forward one motion at a time.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is a motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the problem with getting the full report so that when they vote they will know if there are other negatives. Chairman Pritchard stated he is not going to support the motion; with Commissioner Voltz advising neither is she. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not one way or the other; he thinks the MPO should have some autonomy in the salaries that Mr. Kamm receives; but they also need to recognize it should consider it before taking action, and that some part of the consideration is the implications. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting going directly to a salary study; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, he is still dealing with the motion. Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to bring it back around; if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting the next motion is to go to a salary study and when the Board goes to the MPO it should say it is considering this, he should know the issue is going to come up at the MPO meeting; and it is going to be discussed in regard to the service agreement. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was not going there yet; he would have loved to have the study because he knows the County may lose other good people; and inquired if there are negative ramifications if they move them out beyond. Commissioner Carlson responded there may be, but if the Board goes along with that and the study, there will be folks who are going to expect some difference in salary rates, especially if the County is far below in various classifications. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not there yet; and requested Ms. Busacca go back to the issue of possible ramifications for MPO staff by shifting them out. Ms. Busacca stated the question was whether they could continue to allow the benefits as County employees including health insurance benefits and FRS benefits and would they then have their own Human Resources policies. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff can have a report by Tuesday on that. Ms. Busacca stated if the Board understands Mr. Kamm?s intent, the only question she is not sure about is whether the Board wants to say even though they have a separate agreement, they are going to continue to say they are employees for all other purposes except for salary. Commissioner Carlson stated she had a similar question because she heard about the FRS glitch; but what Mr. Kamm told her was there were other MPO?s that fall under the FRS system, but are arranged in different ways. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is 11:00 p.m.; he is hearing about FRS and is supposed to vote; and it would be better to talk about it on Tuesday after he has more information. Ms. Busacca stated she will get as much information as they can physically gather by Tuesday. Commissioner Colon advised the MPO meeting is next Thursday; so there is enough time by then; and she is sure Mr. Kamm knows the answer better than any of them.

Commissioner Carlson withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it is going to be on the Agenda for Tuesday so the Board can discuss it; with Chairman Pritchard advising he has concerns. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they can go back to Commissioner Scarborough?s issue about the study or should they wait until Tuesday.

Chairman Pritchard stated he brought this up weeks ago about a salary study. Commissioner Colon stated so did Commissioner Scarborough. Chairman Pritchard stated he mentioned a management compensatory package, which he distributed; he thinks the Board needs to do the study; but now he is not sure the Board needs to do it statewide because it could be skewed by South Florida and some of the high density communities. He stated they need to look at it in a more realistic view as to what the County?s features are, its population, budget, and whatever; determining the value of someone and the economic benefit they should derive depends on the number of employees they supervise, the budget they are responsible for, and the education that is necessary to perform the job; and it is not whether it is a nice person. He stated the whole point is there are certain requirements that determine what someone should be paid; and
that is all part of the study. He stated the MPO has six employees; he does not know what the budget is or the educational requirements; he understands Mr. Kamm is an engineer; and inquired if an engineer is required. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Kamm is not an engineer. Chairman Pritchard stated Parks and Recreation has 400 employees; the director is paid roughly $93,000; that may be undervalued for where these directors are currently compensated; but they do not know; and that is why he is not ready to just shoot out one and then try to bump the others up correspondingly. He stated if he looks at education, number of employees, and budget, and compares MPO to Parks and Recreation, then maybe the Parks and Recreation director should be paid $140,000 a year; and it just does not stop with the department heads but trickles down to everyone. He stated that is why they need to do a full salary study for the entire population. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is in agreement with that. Chairman Pritchard stated what they have to do is decide if they are going to be in the 85th percentile; and advised of a scenario where $100 is determined to be the optimal salary, a policy decision is made to pay at the 85th percentile, and the employee gets $85. He stated a salary study would cost $50,000 to $60,000; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively. Chairman Pritchard stated it would be money well spent; and he would like to include what he gave Ms. Busacca regarding the management compensatory study.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to that degree, it needs to make sure the study looks at comparable private sector positions that the employees could potentially go into just to get an idea what the County is up against in terms of compensation. She stated it would not be that the County would pay that amount, but it is good to understand what the market is driven by and why some employees at the director level are getting requests to leave the County. She stated the employees do not want to do that because they want to continue to be public servants; they like the work and do a good job; but in the same sense, the Board needs to see that so it will understand what it is up against. She stated it is almost like being a developer or owning agricultural property and feeling the development pressures; they could make a lot more money; and as the pressure builds, it is hard to say no. She stated there comes a breaking point; and if they are not at least competitive in the market, they are going to lose anyway.

Chairman Pritchard stated he agrees; but if they are going to start talking public and private sector, they also need to compare the benefits that are associated with both sectors. Commissioner Carlson stated that has to go into the equation. Chairman Pritchard stated it becomes all the elements of employment. Commissioner Voltz stated that was one of the issues that was brought up when Mr. Abbate did a study; benefits was the number one issue with the employees; and if the Board is going to spend $70,000 for a study, it needs to be prepared to find some way to come up with the money to give people the raises. She stated it is going to have to do what the study says; and she is not prepared to spend that kind of money and not follow up with the recommendations to pay the employees. She stated she knows they need to pay the employees more; and the Board needs to come up with this is where the money is coming from and how much it is going to cost potentially.

Commissioner Colon stated she is not willing to pay that kind of money for a study; the Board can ask Human Resources to put together those numbers; and they have done it before. She inquired what is wrong with asking other counties that are similar in size, close in budget, and with the same kind of population for figures; but paying $50,000 or even $20,000 is too much. She inquired if they are focused on x amount or are they planning on doing every classification in the County; and if they are, do they have millions of dollars to compensate the employees. She stated she is just picturing the directors and trying to be able to compensate them; but to go completely down the line is ridiculous; and they have been able to try get an idea of how much their counterparts are getting paid, but not to spend that kind of money. She stated she was thrown off by those big numbers.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to make a motion according to what Commissioner Colon is suggesting, to ask Human Resources Director Frank Abbate to proceed to call other counties. He stated normally they call the similar counties in Central Florida; but it would not hurt to look a little bit up the east coast and down the west coast; and there is some compatibility with Lee County or Sarasota County. He stated they mentioned how Palm Beach has the tenth highest priced houses in the State; there will be people having to get more salary there but ending up without much more disposable income because they have to pay more to live; as a part of the study, he would want to know the level of education, the people, and how long they have been in the position; and if they get that report back and feel it is lacking, perhaps they could get additional information from Mr. Abbate and the Budget staff.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to proceed to call other similar counties and report to the Board with appropriate backup information on a salary and compensation study.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if they could include the private sector at this point. Commissioner Scarborough stated if they do that, it will probably delay the results; they could get this back and see where they need to go; some jobs do not have a similar private sector job, such as the head of the libraries; but others such as the engineering functions do. He suggested getting something back quickly so the Board will know which ones it needs to go to the private sector with. Ms. Busacca inquired if this is just intended to be for directors only; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is the best place to start.

Ms. Busacca stated the down side of staff doing this is that staff is very close to the situation so when it looks at internal inequities, that is sometimes a problem; and the second issue is that someone in the Planning and Zoning Department in Osceola County may be doing everything that Planning and Zoning is doing but it is also everything that Land Development is doing. Commissioner Scarborough stated that needs to be shown. Ms. Busacca stated it is a very time consuming issue for staff. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff could just make notations; and he knows in Orange County the County Commission has the jail so the Sheriff has a smaller budget because of it. Ms. Busacca stated they will do their best, but it is very time consuming. Commissioner Scarborough stated something quick and dirty will help the Board with the next step.

Commissioner Carlson stated if there is a price tag of $60,000 for a study, the Board needs to find out what that entails; and if it is something staff cannot do because of time constraints or staffing, then that should be delineated.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board can get a snapshot; from the snapshot, it can decide what to do; but eventually, because there will be a trickle down effect, the Board will really need to look at a pay/classification plan that encompasses all of the elements that are required for employment, and does not stop at one level. He stated they end up with too big a gap, and then they will have to make adjustments.

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

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can have this discussion on Tuesday. Commissioner Carlson stated by Tuesday it might be dead. Chairman Pritchard stated that is the problem, it may or may not go anywhere. Commissioner Voltz stated she supports it. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board should support it.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to send a letter of support.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he may support it on Tuesday, but not tonight. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board wants to bring it back on Tuesday; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if Chairman Pritchard wants to discuss it on Tuesday, he would be better prepared.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

_____________________________________

ATTEST: RONALD PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)