MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

 

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 19, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida met in special session on November 19, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Mary Bolin, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Chuck Nelson, Trudie Infantini, and Andy Anderson, County Manager Howard Tipton, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT, RE:  CITIZEN REQUEST WITHDRAWL ALICYN TAFT FOR ANN AND
     DENIS DILLION/ABATEMENT OF EXISTING LIEN AND ACCRUED FINES TO
     DATE ON PROPERTY AT 9265 HIGHWAY A1A, MELBOURNE BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager , stated it is requested that Item VI.A be tabled; and he is not sure when it will be coming before the Board again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated this may be done procedurally, but he does not know if the Board needs to continue to table it as much as when its ready it can come back; and he does not think there is any public hearing associated with it, so to just withdraw it and whenever it is ready to come back it will come back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin stated it will be withdrawn and it will be presented when the applicant wants it to come back to the Board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT, RE:  SOUTH ATLANTIC MARINE FISHERIES COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he went to the South Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council meeting in Cape Canaveral and he took with him the Resolution on the Snapper Closure.  He mentioned that it is political at this point and individuals may have seen the Apalachicola area where oysters were talked about not being able to be harvested and over-turned by the administration; there will be some additional studies done; and he is hopeful that they will take the same approach as Brevard County has; and he will be sending copies of that Resolution to the Federal and State Representatives to continue the effort.  He mentioned there were a lot of people in attendance that have a scientific background who gave testimonies of the current numbers in front of the Fisheries Commission and they do not necessarily add up; and it would be terrible to see the waterfront in effect shut down as a result of this issue.  He stated he appreciated all the individuals supporting the Snapper Closure issue and he knows the individuals in the fishing and marine industries appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT, RE:  CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TOM
     JENKINS                                                                                                                          

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin stated she has a change of her appointment to the Charter Review Commission, Tommy Redmond is unable to continue; she has appointed Tom Jenkins; and he will be representing District 4 at tonight’s meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT, RE:  LONG-TERM CARE SYMPOSIUM

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin mentioned she was a guest speaker at the Long-Term Care Symposium last night; it was a wonderful event for all of the people who take care of the senior citizens; and she stated thanks to Dr. John Potomski for allowing her to be a speaker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLUTION, RE:  AMENDING RULES AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE
     SAVANNAHS, THE HABITAT, AND SPESSARD HOLLAND GOLF COURSES        

 

 

 

 

 

Hal Neely stated sent a letter to Commissioner Nelson and he hopes everybody got a copy of it; his concern is the proposal to raise the fees for the volunteers that perform services at different golf courses; and he cannot speak for Spessard Holland or The Habitat, but he can tell the situation at the Savannahs.  He mentioned the Savannahs are very fortunate in the fact they have some very professional and qualified people working there; their interests are not so much in the free golf, that is actually not free, but in maintaining and providing a quality golf course; he thinks if the records of the past five years are looked at, it would be found that the golf course has improved drastically and immeasurably, which is because of the dedicated volunteers at the Savannahs golf course; and he thinks it is a bad time to impose these fees.  He mentioned because of the short timeframe given for this issue, there has been not much time to do a real analysis, but if it the contributions people have made are looked at it will far out weigh the small amount of revenue from these fees.  He stated there are many areas volunteers have contributed to the program like bringing their own equipment to pick up balls; he thinks Savannahs is unique in the fact that there is a range included in the green fees that individuals pay; and that creates a lot of work, especially since at the driving range balls are hit into the water, with the balls having to be retrieved.  He stated he does know if this would impact the quality of the golf course; he is homeowner at Savannahs; he knows what it means to the community; he would like to see it continue as it is; and he is afraid if this is done there will be gradual things that will be diminished and changed.  He advised the Board to give this subject plenty of consideration and he would like to see both sides of the subject and how much it saves the County, with an analysis, before a decision is made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charlie Redd stated his thanks for allowing him to speak today; and as Mr. Neely mentioned, there has not been a real chance to make better comparisons than what is available now.  He mentioned he lives in Cocoa and is not one of the elite that live at The Savannahs; it matters to him because he would not be able to play golf if he had to pay the rates that are in place now; and that is one of the reasons he volunteers and has done so for more than 10 years.  He stated over the years the program has changed using different methods like a punch card, which the new Director of Golf, Jeff Whitehead, has put a plan in place to do away with the punch cards that have been earned  while  volunteering  time.   He  stated  he  received a letter saying that the punch cards would not be able to be used, even though they have been earned, after the first of the year, which is an unfair way; and he even went as far as trying to get rid of their golf-pro, who has done an excellent job with getting The Savannahs as one of the best courses in the County.  Mr. Redd stated the guys that go out there fill their divots in; if a person does not know golf it may not be understood what he is speaking of; but when a person takes a swipe at the ball and a divot is taken out of the fairway, the volunteers fill those divots in.  He mentioned the impact it would have by raising this fee of $5 would bring in a projected $50,000; he finds it interesting that nobody has taken the time for what the County has saved every year; what if there was a minimum wage pay for volunteers; and nobody has bothered to figure out what that savings would be to the County.  He mentioned the record breaking revenue for The Savannahs last month in October; and inquired why make this change when something has worked so well and the revenues are increasing.  He stated he has passed out a letter to each Commissioner and hopes the points he made will be taken into consideration; one thing that can be done is make an amendment to this for the ones that have been volunteering for years to grandfather them in; and let the new people be affected by paying the $5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don Lusk, Parks and Recreation Director, stated a memo has been provided based on conversation from Tuesday; one of the challenges about being in Parks and Recreation is he cannot find anything that he can do that he will not find somebody that will be mad at him; he has had other jobs in County Government where sometimes it can be figured out how to do that; but in Parks and Recreation he has not been very successful in doing that; in golf there is a very active Advisory Board that has been used heavily to get where they are today; there is no group that specifically represents volunteers; he does not want anybody to think that volunteers are not important, because they are important; and they are very different volunteers than seen in a library, because golf is one of the few places able to benefit that has a direct economic impact on the peoples ability to play.  He stated volunteers were heavily looked at when going through the Advisory Board process; the $5 seen in the fee resolution came from the fact that for a long time it was staff and of people associated with golf courses can pay to play the course, with the idea that it is beneficial for them to play the course since they are involved in managing and maintaining the course, so the $5 came because that is what is charged for those kinds of folks who support golf courses.  He stated options have been offered in terms if there is no change wanted in how to treat volunteers; there is a cost in the memo that was done in relation to how much revenue was lost if it was not done at all; yesterday a $3 fee was thrown together and he can tell the Board that was just a $10,000 revenue loss; the breakdown in this memo was provided also, of the $196,000 in revenue based on each of these areas; he can give the Board choices if that is what is needed today; the goal is to continue to raise the revenue for the golf courses to make them as self-sufficient as possible; they will never be self-sufficient probably on the bond side, but on the operating side of running a golf course that has always been a goal to make that be a cost born on the folks that are playing the courses.  He inquired if he should continue to say all that he has to say or do the Commissioners want to weigh in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated having dealt with the issue himself for years, what is not showing here is the fiscal impact, as Mr. Redd indicated, as to what the value is of what the volunteers do for the County; probably the biggest difference between the $5 that employees are charged, or the concession folks, is that they are also being compensated in their job; with these folks it is a little bit different relationship because they are not making any money to perform their job, they are actually doing a job and for that they are able to play golf; and in going through the transition where there have been limits placed on it; and that was the first transition, with the punch-cards going back long before he ever got there with the first golf course Spessard Holland.  Commissioner Nelson stated he is inclined given where the economy is in the difference of this program, because he is going to support some fee increases later in this discussion; but in this particular instance he thinks there is a value from the volunteers; and there is no need to change that this year, when the economy starts getting a little bit better it can be looked at again.  He stated he thinks the grandfathering concept which is, as they phase out of this program it can be changed, but to cut it off in the middle will end up with three different levels of folks that will be impacted.  He stated he is going to make a motion that the Board not change the volunteer program this year, to allow the golf folks to work with the volunteers; he understands that because of the timing there was not an opportunity to pull the volunteers together and come up with a program; and he thinks there is beneficial value of hundreds of thousands of dollars for what they are doing for the Board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated an amendment maybe, but he does not know if the Board will be acceptable to it; even though it is volunteer time, there is a value when they play golf; the average round costs $25 in the summer and $35 in the winter; they work six to six and one-half hours to get unlimited rounds of golf; and there has to be an equivalent hour-to-round thing somehow.  He stated if he went out there for one day then he could play six days without paying a cent; and that would add up to several hundred dollars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson mentioned that is the prime-time rate, often during the winter they cannot play prime-time, so that is not an equivalent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he does not know what the rate is, but right now if they work six hours maybe they get two or three rounds; and there has to be some limit and it should not be unlimited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated if that is what wants to be done then let us go to straight paying these guys the going rate.  Commissioner Anderson stated that is not going to be done; but they are using up tee-time that somebody would pay for.  Commissioner Nelson mentioned he is not arguing with Commissioner Anderson and will tell of an explanation; the explanation is that the closer this gets to an employment circumstance, then the Board will be faced with having to file 1099’s, and it will change the whole concept; and that is why it has been done this way, because the closer it is made to a payment for services, then the Board is going to put in a position to have to start filing forms; and this will create a new issue for the volunteers.  Commissioner Anderson mentioned he does understand that and he knows there are volunteers that put in a lot more hours and get the same benefit as the person doing the bare minimum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is inclined to agree with Commissioner Anderson on this; she does appreciate the fact that individuals volunteer and they go around and work the course; but they are the only volunteers that gets something back; there are people that volunteer at the shelter, children’s home society, but do they get to take home a child or pet to take care of at home.  She stated there is a $25 or $35 round of golf and it does use up tee times and there is a cost to playing golf; it is a huge luxury; it could be limited to every six hours with maybe one round of golf; she is not for unlimited play; and that is why she did support going forward the $5 fee for playing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he has a little concern and that is just because he volunteers at a lot of different organizations like all of them do; one of the things that he notices in the organizations that he volunteers for is they ask for his time and money; he does not usually get a whole lot of value back, only in the self satisfaction area; and inquired why are individuals volunteering, are they volunteering because they want the County to have nice golf courses, take some ownership in those golf courses, and be proud of them, or is the individual volunteering because there is a discount on playing golf.  He states if the individual is doing it just to get a discount on playing golf then he is not sure the individual is really giving for the right reasons; and he does not know that and is not sure that maybe playing for free takes away from the real meaning of volunteering.  He inquired how much is that benefit worth, 75 percent off when an individual golf’s; stated staff could not be hired to have that may people working; he does understand the value of volunteers; he thinks the volunteers get a benefit and they use it; but at some point these clubs have to be self sufficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he thinks they are closer to being self sufficient because of the volunteer program as it is structured, as apposed to the revenue being able to generated from them; he thinks there will be a cause and effect as volunteers start to be lost; paying to provide to get the services will have the opposite impact, because this is revenue that is not seen; if there are not volunteers they are not going to be paying to play, so the revenue is not going to be seen that is projected on the rounds played; but the expense will be seen as having to go fill the divots or taking care of other aspects of the golf course.  He stated this is not Toys for Tots when talking about volunteers, it is not along the lines of the United Way; there is no big savings on the golf course groups out there; and these are folks that are in their retirement years, providing a recreational program that allows them to continue to be active, as well as to provide a benefit than more out touristic donation of time for United Way’s type functions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher mentioned it is time and money, because the other side of that is they not only ask for time but a commitment to be on a particular board, financially give, and do stuff; and his real question to the gentlemen at the golf courses is are they doing it for the benefit of playing golf or is he or she doing it because they care about the golf course and money.                                  

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Redd inquired if he may respond.  Chairman Bolin responded no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson noted he would say the answer is all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if that is the case then he hopes that a $5 fee when they play does not change their mind or their ability to give; and if they are not going to volunteer any longer because there will be a $5 fee, then they are volunteering for the wrong reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to reduce the amount of time that the volunteers play; with so many private golf courses going under, because of the lack of funding and managing a golf course is very expensive; and she imagines there will be seen increased participation of the public golf courses, because so many private golf courses have closed.  She mentioned she would like to try this for one year; she understands there is a motion on table; she does not know if it will get a second; she would like to try the fee schedule for one year, as established to see how it works; and if it does not work, then the Board can admit there was a mistake and go back and recruit all the volunteers for free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he appreciated the volunteers and if they get a benefit from doing so that is fine; at some point the Board needs to break even and make sure these things are running efficiently; do not forget the competition between the private sector, so if there are a lot of people playing for free, that hurts a business owner down the street; and that is unfair, quite frankly Brevard is one of the few counties that have golf courses.  He mentioned when he tells other Commissioners that at Florida Association of Counties, their jaw drops, so they would like to have them also.  He stated he is going to support what staff is recommending; he agrees it should be done in one year, provide data back to the Board showing if volunteerism has been lost, if it is costing additional money to maintain the courses because of this change; and inquired if there is a way to track that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lusk responded yes, there can be a way to track that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson mentioned there is some mention of the new Golf Operations Manager, Jeff Whitehead; he knows him from Palm Bay and he is not doing anything wrong; he is under a mandate to reduce its tax subsides to the golf courses; he is doing his job and he wants to publically thank him for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if the statistics for the three golf courses for one year that it was 10,068 free rounds of golf to volunteers.  Mr. Whitehead responded yes, that is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin stated she has a motion on the table, does she hear a second; she is hearing none; and the floor is open to other motions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution Amending Rules and Fee Schedule for The Savannahs Golf course in District 2, and The Habitat and Spessard Holland Golf Courses in District 3; approve staff recommendations; and directe staff to furnish a report to the Board providing the costs for the value of services furnished by the volunteers to the Golf Courses.  Motion ordered and carried; Commissioner Nelson voted nay. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if staff could provide the cost for the value of the services that the volunteers have provided; stated he believes it should be shown as well, because it is showing the loss of revenue; but they are not showing the cost to perform at that same level of service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher noted personally he does not think there can be a price tag put on the volunteers service; it is great, and he thinks they do a wonderful job; and he just does not understand why they are giving, because if they are just giving for the purpose of getting a discount on their golf, then the volunteer is giving for the wrong reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired were they voting on all of issues or just on the staff recommendations for that one issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin responded no, the whole thing.

 

 

 

VIERA DRI

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, stated one of the things that is hopeful to accomplish this morning is to give the Board the opportunity to understand the complexities and intricacies of these applications; running concurrently will be amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of a substantial deviation to the DRI, which is in the form of a modified Development Order (DO); and a series of Planned Unit Development proposals in the form of zoning, and this is one of those unique processes where the County gets to fly 35,000 feet from the ground and swoop down and actually see the details of the development, right down to the curb cut types of the sidewalk widths.  He stated the County is not necessarily looking for decisions at this time so much as the opportunity to share with the Board the many moving parts of this application; staff and the applicant intends to spend much more time with this today to go over some of those details and preparation for one more Local Planning Agency (LPA) meeting that is scheduled; the LPA did vote to approve the Comprehensive Plan and the DO at their meeting on Monday; but it did table the Planning and Development application to its next date; it is his understanding that the applicant is going to take advantage of the December 3, 2009 Board date, which will start at 3:00 p.m., to go over the Comprehensive Plan and the DO; and there is also the subsequent December 15, 2009 date to potentially go over the planning and development.  He stated in this workshop, an overview of the project is hoped to be shared with the Board to let the Board know of the issues that are still being worked on, and to receive feedback from the Board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duke Whitson, Foley and Lardner Law Firm, stated he is representing the applicant, and as Mr. Scott stated, he is asking for a list of approvals next month for 11,500 acres addition  to  the  existing Viera Development of Regional Impact (DRI); this is an unusual form of development for Brevard County with the first time a developer has attempted to develop what is called a traditional neighborhood development; it has made life complicated for the applicant and staff; it has resulted in this pile of paper that is in the notebook; of the 11,500 acres, roughly 5,200 acres will be placed in conservation and managed for wildlife protection, and that aspect of this project has created issues under current County Ordinances; and they have been working with staff for quite some time and are finally at a point for the Board’s final decision.  Mr. Whitson mentioned he wants to talk to the Board today about procedural issues with transportation, a schedule, and transportation issues in the Comprehensive Plan.  He stated red tab 1.3 of the staff report on pages 61 and 62, which is the Capital Improvements Element Amendments, with what is seen are those transportation improvements that have reached an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Brevard County staff; that is the $31.3 million in improvements that Viera Company will be required to make associated with this project; those are showing up in the Comprehensive Plan and the second place those show up are in the Development Order, which is in the green tab 2.3b in condition 92 pages 52 and 53.  He advised as Mr. Scott stated at 35,000 feet for the Comprehensive Plan the improvements will be showing up in a five-year schedule and in condition 92 the Development Order shows a lot more detail that has to do with the timing.  He stated the issue that he wanted to point out is these transportation improvements are associated with the proposed development; it is mitigating for impacts that are associated with the new development and the tensions in DRI’s when will the improvements be made; ideally the improvements are made when the cars are on the road, but the developer cannot pay for improvements until there have been some houses sold to generate the income to pay for the improvements.  He stated this schedule, as it stands now, on pages 52 and 53, has The Viera Company committing to payments on dates certain for certainty of improvements and payments that are associated with development for other of those improvements; since this proposed table has been put in writing, there have been several meetings with FDOT talking about timing; and there will be a meeting with County staff today talking about the timing of the County improvements.  He mentioned the good news is there is an agreement on $31.3 million in addition to the $9.4 million Wickham Road widening, which will be underway next month totaling $40.7 million; the timing now is the big issue and that is a significant issue on this development; this language will change and he will give the Board a revised version between now and December 3, 2009 showing the agreement reached with FDOT; on dates certain they will be writing checks to FDOT and making some other improvements associated with development of the project; and with regards to Development Order and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) having a lot of issues to discuss with Brevard staff; he thinks County Commissioners have the most fascinating job such as dealing with golf course green fees and a project of this magnitude; and there are some similarities such has some divot that needs that need to be filled in.  He stated the procedural issue that has been discussed with staff and the County Attorney’s Office has to do with waivers; the DO has conditions sprinkled throughout, which deal with issues like landscaping and the construction of private lakes, storm water, and flood plains; this is a set of conditions which comes to the Board by requests from County staff and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council recommendations that are included in the binder.  Mr. Whitson stated there are issues with recommendations in this DO, which will be requirements of the developer that are inconsistent with County Ordinances; the County Attorney was very concerned that somehow through adoption of this  DO  the  Viera  Company  would  not  be  in  effect  waiting  the  County   Ordinance requirements; the word waiver does not appear in this DO; and he has told County Attorney Scott Knox several times during the public hearing process; Viera Company is not requesting waivers in the DO; the correct place to request waivers of County Ordinance provisions is in the PUD; and Viera Company will be requesting a number of waivers in the PUD of County Ordinances.  He stated one of the main reasons a developer does a PUD is they are being put together on purpose so that all County Ordinance provisions do not apply; the County agrees to that, the developer proposes that, because there are quirks in every PUD; this project is very different because Viera Company is taking almost 50 percent of the property and setting is aside; and they are putting all of the development on the remainder of the property by clustering it into a compact urban form by reducing street widths, on-street parking, and landscaping standards to be done differently.  He stated the PUD is proposing waivers of County Ordinance provisions; there was a two-part concern from the County Attorney’s Office and from staff; one, nowhere in the PUD was the word waiver used; terms like the developments standards on landscaping shall be followed instead of the County Landscaping Ordinance; and he will blatantly request their waivers on a piece of paper, as part of the final hearing process and ask the Board to approve those waivers.  He stated the second procedural issue is the County Attorney has decided that the PUD Ordinance explicitly allows some types of waiver, but not all of the waivers are being asked for; they have agreed to disagree on that issue; but the cure to that is to ask the Board to amend the PUD Ordinance; and the County Attorney was kind to draft up an amendment to Brevard County’s PUD Ordinance that would make it very clear that the Board can approve a waiver to certain sections of the Code.  He stated he is asking the Board today to authorize its staff to finalize that PUD Ordinance language with the advertising process, so it can be seen at the first reading on December 3, 2009 at the same time the Board looks at the Comprehensive Plan, DRI, and DO; and there certainly is no need to get into the substance of that language today, because the first time the Board would see that language would be on December 3, 2009.  He stated the third issue he has is a scheduling issue; it is Viera Company’s desire to have the Comprehensive Plan, DO, and the PUD approved by the Board at the same time, which cannot happen now because the LPA had too many issues Monday night on the PUD, so that was tabled and LPA will take up the PUD again on December 7, 2009; and the Comprehensive Plan, DRI, and DO will be discussed with the Board on December 3, 2009; and the PUD will be discussed on December 15, 2009.  He mentioned at the end of the day on December 15, 2009 he hopes to have everything approved; if not, then there will not be a complete package; and they will not be able to go forward.  He stated that is where the scheduling process is, and he thinks the County staff is comfortable with that; the waiver with the ordinance will allow the first reading on the ordinance on December 3, 2009 and the second reading on December 15, 2009; if the Board is comfortable with the ordinance change and waivers requested, it can vote on this a whole bunch of times; and everyone can go and have a Merry Christmas.  He advised he would be happy to answer any questions on any of these other issues and try to fill in any divots that might be seen at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if staff can tell the Board where they are at on the PUD ordinance amendment at its request; stated maybe this can be answered by the County Attorney, because it is known that a lot of the County’s Ordinances are ambiguous and were done so purposely by past Commissioners; and it is time to fix them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, responded the County’s PUD Zoning Code is intended to be that one zoning classification; he read aloud a quote of the zoning classification, “It is only recognized that only so ingenuity, imagination, and flexibility can residential development be produced, which are in keeping with the intent of”; and it goes to speak to not being that cookie-cutter, which is typically seen in standard subdivisions; and the PUD classification is in it of itself intended to be that place where a person can get outside of the box and do these traditional neighborhood development designs that are seen in Baldwin Park and Celebration.  He stated interestingly enough though it only highlighted the subdivision section of the Code in talking about a place in the Code where there can be flexibility, which means that their hands are somewhat tied by not in the PUD zoning classification being able to have waivers to storm water provisions, signage, and landscaping; the fix quite frankly, is to add to the PUD zoning classification, those other articles, that are the spirit of the PUD zoning classification is really intended to allow a person to get flexibility from.  He mentioned what Mr. Whitson has highlighted is the Board will be seeing an amendment proposal to the PUD zoning classification itself, which actually brings the whole-ball-of-wax into the PUD; wherein right now technically it only says flexibility can be seeked in the subdivision section of the Code.  He stated he thinks it does not make any sense to not give a developer the ability to have their own signage scheme as seen in Viera; it is more of an indexing look with a definite color scheme that is more monument and less typical cacophony of signs where they are all competing with each other; they have their own landscaping look, and they do not need to be bound by the County; if they kind of have a track record if you like the way Viera looks, and they are seeking to bring that forward onto the west side; and technically they cannot do that without this amendment to the Code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the amendment would provide approval to get a waiver.  Mr. Scott responded yes, it actually enables them to get to what they are looking for.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if currently the Board has no say so over it.  Mr. Scott responded the Board’s hands are tied right now; the spirit of the PUD is to tie the hands of the Board from looking at it and making decisions; there will be no decisions made for the Board; but there will be modification of the Code so that the Board can entertain it and make decisions.  He mentioned an example that has made it challenging for both the applicant and staff’s; the applicant is proposing a sketch plan concept in its PUD, and the County has never had this before where the applicant will come to the County and say they are going to show the County how the allies are going to look, how the bulk and density is going to look; but because it is not conventional, the applicant is going to give the County sketch designs so they can go down this road together.  He noted the Code will have to be modified to recognize this thing called a sketch plan; there is no fee schedule that recognized it, there is no knowledge of how to go to work for it, and there are street design concepts that have not been seen before; this will have to be done together, because it is kind or outside-the-box and a lot of continuing negotiations are being done back and forth; and ultimately there needs to be assurance that as the developer wants to have its neighborhoods work; and the County also has licensed engineers, which have the public safety burdens placed on them just as much as the developer has in making sure that its developing and making a product that works.  Mr. Scott mentioned it is interesting to see the licensed industry in the engineering world of the private and public side having these types of negotiations to make it work; it is creating something new that the County has never seen; and staff will continue  to  work on the negotiations to bring them to the Board on December 15, 2009. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Scott stated the PUD is the details of the street and sidewalk widths, the curbing type, the massing of the buildings, the height, not parking in front of the businesses like typically seen with parking to the rear, and parking only on the secondary roads on-street parking; and technically not something that the County Code allows at this point, but is working to create that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin mentioned she thinks it is fascinating that the County has to think outside-of-the-box to go back to a traditional style of neighborhoods; and it boggles her mind.  Mr. Scott advised he is the planner and he feels the boggle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated as he understood Mr. Whitson’s request, he would like to have that Ordinance amendment heard at the December 3, 2009 meeting; and staff will need authorization to advertise and combine the legislative intent component that is normally gone through with the Ordinance presentation on December 3, 2009 in a Board action today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to authorize staff to advertise and combine legislative intent for amendments to the PUD zoning classification and to schedule the public hearing for the first reading at the December 3, 2009 Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if staff is on schedule as referred to on page 52 and 53 when these improvements are made.  Mr. Scott responded everyone is on the same page as it relates to the total contribution; he believes that The Viera Company development requests have been modeled by FDOT, with FDOT’s job to identify the significant and adverse impacts that will occur to the roadway that is outside of the DRI that occurs as a result to the DRI, and have come to terms on that price tag; and they are still working out the timing and disbursement of the funds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he wants to be clear that everybody knows that on December 3, 2009 he will not be present.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sharon Savasto stated she is here today because she has some concerns about the DO and PUD; one of things that she has seen in the DO is there is not a real form of monitoring and modeling in place; that does not show up until the beginning of Phase IV; what concerns her is the fact that FDOT put together numbers and did not do a full modeling on it; and the numbers put together appear to be the result of lower construction costs, falling right-of-ways, or property values, and when that fee was determined in today’s dollars.  She mentioned when having to look at the fair share for taxpayers to pay this and to pay the impacts for the change in traffic numbers, it will be looking  at  tomorrow’s  dollars,   which  can  be  vastly  different  than  what  it  is  today.   She stated when it comes to the modeling and monitoring, if something was put in place during Phase III and the traffic numbers actually exceed what FDOT has predicted there, then is a mechanism to pull things to a halt, re-evaluate that, and adjust those numbers as to what is going on; and to consider tying that to units built not to a timeframe five years out.  She stated FDOT is making decisions that affect the taxpayers of Brevard County;  they  are  making  mandates  that  the  taxpayers  will  have to live with; a prime example is the $5 million that is to be set aside for the right-of-way purchase of Washingtonian, added planning and design to that, when that originally was strictly for the purchase of right-of-way; that greatly dilutes that $5 million; and she does not know what the cost of design and planning is, but obviously it is going to eat into that right-of-way cost.  Ms. Savasto mentioned another item she is concerned about that came up with accessory dwelling units, whether this item has been resolved or not, but what was looked at were additional units or homes that could be added on to the property of the primary residence; those actually have a minimum standard of 1,300 square feet for those accessory dwellings, with kitchens, bathroom facilities, bedrooms, living space, and currently those densities will not count and impact fees will not be applied; and those dwellings may be leased according to the DO.  She stated that brings up an issue that was seen on the beach communities regarding short-term leases; people would come in for a month or two weeks and those communities were suffering from short-term rentals; and is an item that she feels should be addressed, because it is one of those things that if it is not done now it cannot be fixed later, it is in the DO and it has to be taken care of first.  She inquired about add-on structures or accessory dwellings could be no larger than 50 percent of the primary structure in the building Codes; and she would like to be able to get an answer sometime in the future. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Scott responded he would like to mention a memo written by Steve Swanke, Impact Fee Programs and Budget, that was used as guideline; the Local Planning Agency (LPA) when they were going over the DO on Monday, staff had identified 20 items that they wanted modifications to, and the LPA recommendation was to incorporate staffs modifications into the DO; he would also like to hear at some point Mr. Whitson’s representation on behalf of The Viera Company, as it relates to how many of those staff recommendations they are going to incorporate into the DO; and that is one of the things at the very least that will be talked about later on this afternoon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if Mr. Scott could explain what is meant by later this afternoon.  Mr. Scott responded what is hoping to be done at the end of this workshop is The Viera Company has its team assembled and is going to meet and hash out the language modification differences that staff believes are necessary; and will be continuing those negotiations.  He stated there have been a lot of meetings and this afternoon’s meeting will be another one in hoping to bring to the Board on the December 3, 2009 and 15, 2009 proposals that staff collectively supports for the Board’s consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Scott continued to explain The Viera Company wants to provide accessory dwellings as part of its neighborhood design; they wanted not to have those accessory dwelling units counted at first towards the total dwelling unit allotments Viera Company is requesting; and are also seeking to have the impact fees waived for those units.  He stated he thinks it has been agreed that accessory dwelling units, as part of the neighborhood design, is helpful; there will be a service and worker components to the PUD and be self sustaining; the  internal  trip  capture  rates  to  be  as  high  as  possible; and knows that by the size accessory dwelling units tend to be affordable, which is another goal that Viera Company needs to balance the neighborhood the right fix of affordability with their housing stock.  He believes they can function as independent and self-sufficient units that will have kitchens, house small families, or a working couple; he does think that should be counted; and he wants to hear from The Viera Company that they agree to that.   He stated as far as the impact fees, it is probably best served to have some kind of percentage of that stock considered, because the impact fees are to accomplish and afford that accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, stated she would like to address Ms. Savasto inquiry about the size accessory structures; the Code does limit it to a maximum of 50 percent of the principle unit; in this case if The Viera Company is requesting to be able to have accessory structures that would likely exceed the 50 percent size, that would be part of the series of waivers that they may ultimately be packaging up for the zoning approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated with regard to the accessory buildings, she thinks they are a fantastic idea; she comes from Miami and when she first needed an apartment she went to Coral Gables and looked for a garage apartment; it was in a safe community, it had very narrow streets, and it was affordable for a college student to get into while holding down a part-time job; she keeps telling her children that when they want to look for a place to look for a garage apartment; and the children tell her there are not any.  She stated she is very happy that a lot of these old style ideas are being incorporated into the community, because it is stuff that has been lost; and it is affordable housing for young people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin mentioned she concurs with Commissioner Infantini; she thinks that it is also going to be very beneficial to the families who want to bring their parents here; and it is hard to live under the same roof, but they can live on the same lot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he likes the concept but his only caution is that the way life is today there are a lot more toys that are hung on to and parked, with every kid and adult having a car, boat, and jet-ski; the accommodations and updated concepts in terms of the ability to keep those items off the street, because it creates more problems; he is not opposing the concept but needs to work through where the County will be addressing those things, so there is not an unintended consequence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steve Swanke, Impact Fee Programs and Budget, stated in regards to the addition of the planning and design of Washingtonian, that was a recommendation from FDOT to strengthen the legal ties to mitigating for Wickham Road impacts; under the proportionate share mitigation provisions of the Florida Statutes the developer is entitled to pipeline money to one or more regionally significant improvements; and in the case of Washingtonian, they were only originally purchasing right-of-way and no construction was involved, they thought that that length was a little bit tenuous and recommended the County include the design and engineering along with the right-of-way acquisition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if those categories are included will there be State or Federal money for design of Washingtonian.  John Denninghoff, Public Works Director, advised it is built into the way to acquire the property if done in conformance with Federal standards then eligibility will be maintained; however, there has been no planning, design, and engineering preformed for the project; that would probably have to be done; and preliminary engineering analysis and feasibility studies are being done to be build into the planning, design, and engineering.  Mr. Denninghoff stated there has been no anticipation that the County would be able to secure Federal funding in the future at this point;  however,  the  acquisition  of  the  property,  if  it  is  done in conformance with the Federal standards, then it is okay to go back and rehabilitate the situation later on if the funds are secured. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if the language is incorporated it is the Board’s option whether or not the money is used from the Viera impact towards that, or put it strictly on the ground or the right-of-way.  Mr. Denninghoff responded it is his opinion that what is wanted to be done is flexibility and to see what the options will be to work towards the best result; in this particular case, securing the right-of-way he thinks is important, so that it does not get blocked off and they are prevented from being able to build the road in the future; his opinion is to do that whether Federal funds are sacrificed or not; the Federal funding will probably not come in and save the day if there is something in the way; and he thinks that trying is part of what needs to be done.  Chairman Bolin stated the unwritten rule known is that priority is to buy the right-of-way.  Mr. Denninghoff responded yes, there has to be enough engineering, study work, and survey work done to be able to ensure that they have the right right-of-way; and they are working on that now with funds that were previously allocated and under contract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is enough money for the right-of-way and design.  Mr. Denninghoff responded when the feasibility study is completed, he thinks he can answer that question; until then he does not think he can really answer that question; currently there was an estimate prepared by The Viera Company that indicated they thought $5 million would cover it; he has not formulated an opinion regarding if it is sufficient or not sufficient at this stage; and he will say that it was prepared at a time when land values were going up versus what they will be when the right-of-way is actually secured.  He stated without the feasibility study being completed, he is not sure exactly which piece of property is going to have an estimate preformed on it, so the cost can be accurately assessed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated his only concern is that the County is being asked to pick a number at this point in time; and inquired Mr. Denninghoff is saying that he is not sure, so how can that be resolved before the Board approves this.  Mr. Denninghoff responded he thinks the concept of the mitigation plan was that there were a number of projects that need to be done on the FDOT side; they were required to insist on the projects that were going to solve FDOT impacts, along with other projects that could be done with dollar values associated with those; Washingtonian is sort of what came at the end and is what is left; and this is what could be done with it if that would make sense in the long-term planning basis to try to secure that right-of-way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Whitson stated to go back to the accessory dwelling unit having a condition in the draft DO at tab 2.3b, condition 32, on page 25 of that DO; accessory dwelling units is found in the housing section of the DO; the reason it is there is the Housing Department County staff asked The Viera Company to make a commitment towards affordable housing; and that commitment is found in condition 31 and The Viera Company is going to make sure that at least 10 percent of the housing in this part of the project will be attainable and affordable to folks living in this community.  He stated accessory dwelling units is one reason and a way to do that; the second reason is going back to the old form of development like where he lives in downtown Orlando, in a subdivision that was developed in the 1920’s; he has a garage apartment that many members of his family have lived in;  and there are a variety  of issues associated  with providing those types of small units for family members, renters, college individuals, or folks who many not have enough income to rent a big fancy apartment somewhere.  Mr. Whitson stated the issues that LPA has raised already, has been revised, and they will be working it through with the staff; and it is agreed that The Viera Company will pay impact fees on these things.  He advised one other specific concern with staff is there was no cap on the accessory dwelling units, with some fear by staff that somehow there have been 29,000 accessory dwelling units built; there has been an agreement to cap the accessory dwelling units to two percent of the total residential stock; it initially proposed that accessory dwelling units not be counted as part of the density calculation; the comment from County staff the other night at LPA is it really should encourage these things by counting the traffic, not exempting them from impact fees, and restricting the total when providing affordable housing; by having one part of staff saying it needs to be done and another part of the staff saying no it does not; The Viera Company came down on the no it does not side and really restricted themselves on accessory dwelling units from what they would like to do; and they have listened to the majority of County staff and LPA and have agreed to those restrictions.  He mentioned the size issue that was brought up; the Viera Company is not proposing to build huge garages, with apartments stuck on them; the County’s current Code works for The Viera Company; and they are not proposing a waiver to Code.  He stated the transportation issues heard about Washingtonian being a north, south reliever for Brevard County’s I-95, Wickham Road, Palm Bay Parkway, and Heritage Parkway, The Viera Company is proposing to acquire a right-of-way in the same way that The Viera Company acquired right-of-way for the Pineda Extension and interchange in 1992.  He stated The Viera Company, in working with County staff, identified the need for another east-west extension to I-95 and began acquiring a right-of-way in 1992 for an interchange that is just now being constructed; that is what The Viera Company is proposing for Washingtonian; the $5 million is an estimate that The Viera Company’s folks came up with, and they are comfortable with the estimate; and the request to add planning and design to that from FDOT adds flexibility to staff and they are happy to do so.  He stated the table in condition 92 is all based on today’s dollar; in some instances that helps The Viera Company, in some instances that doesn’t help The Viera Company; the $5 million estimate for right-of-way for Washingtonian was done two years ago with peek market, housing, and land price conditions; that $5 million estimate was good using those high numbers two years ago; they have not asked to revise that number downward; and is a number that The Viera Company is comfortable with that will accomplish the acquisition on that right-of-way of Washingtonian.  He mentioned the monitoring and modeling issue in the DO has pages and pages for monitoring and modeling conditions and there is a big monitoring and modeling requirement in the year 2015 at the end of this phase; but there are interim  requirements on checking on traffic and there are specific conditions that FDOT requested addressing traffic on I-95; there are other conditions that County staff requested dealing with what will be reported as far as monitoring traffic in each biennial report The Viera Company submits, the report is submitted to the County and to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) every two years; and in those reports are monitoring and modeling information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Scott advised one of the things that County staff will be giving some detail to this afternoon will be that there will be better defined moments in time as a result to modeling and monitoring; if there is a shortage there are defined moments that they stop and say they  have  fallen short of funds and development will be suspended until it is figured out; that is, in fact, the safeguards; and is important to have the asphalt and/or right-of-way in place to take care of the development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Sphar stated she is an individual from a conservation organization that works with the applicant and staff to achieve a better product possible for Brevard County; she supports the concept that The Viera Company has with smart growth to the west in the Viera Wilderness Park, which is 5,200 acres.  She stated that huge area is subject to the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) that has been worked out by governmental agencies, County staff, and the applicant for a way to manage in perpetuity according to the HMP; as long as The Viera Company controls the majority of seats on the Viera Stewardship District Board they are going to hire an environmental professional to manage and see that the HMP is being implemented.  She mentioned once the majority of seats are lost on that Board, who knows what will happen, because they are only required to have this environmental professional as long as they hold the majority seats on that Board; if there are 5,200 acres, and it is subject to regulations by the St. John’s River Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, there will need to be somebody to overlook it and make sure it is doing well; she is extremely concerned that once the Viera Stewardship District Board is turned over to the homeowners that this property for Brevard County citizens is not going to be managed to the standards it would, as long as The Viera Company holds the majority seats on the Board; and a prime example is occurring when the homeowners took over in Viera East on the 300-acre Scrub Jay conservation area south of Crook Shank and Barnes area.  She stated the I-95 conservation area, with wetlands and uplands, has been subject to much discussion in the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report; and the DCA wanted the applicant to preserve the entire wetland/upland area; and that will probably not happen.  She mentioned the next proposal by the Planning Council was to have the Scientific Advisory Group determine the proper buffers for that area; she does not think that has passed the approval process either; now there is a passive park and she is really concerned because she does not know what is going to happen with these landscape waivers; she does not know how it is going to look; and she wishes there were some assurances that this passive park was going to be done in a manner that would protect the wetland/upland conservation areas in the ecological unit there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Sphar stated he is with an environmental group and finds himself a longtime conservationist and outdoor recreation person; this park is probably going to be home to the zoo trail; and will be home to a lot of citizens in Brevard County.  He stated eventually the Stewardship District is going to be governed by people within the community and it is not very likely that most of those people will have a background in habitat management; he has a copy of the HMP that is a very thick and complicated document, with a lot of terms and conditions associated with all of the permits; and it will be a lot for a Board like that, with people that work during the day volunteering to run for that position.  Mr. Sphar stated he passed out to each of the Board Members a piece of paper saying by crossing out one clause that says every two years report to Natural Resources Management Office; and if that office goes away, then the report will not be done.  He stated he is asking the Board to make a recommendation to have a mechanism where there is professional oversight of this property and perpetuity, because  the  citizens  want to use it in perpetuity, and it is intended in perpetuity; and he is asking the Board to consider this one little strikethrough change that the environmental group is recommending.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Scott stated the LPA did have this discussion; the notion of having throughout the life of the wilderness park having an independent professional Biologist or Ecologist as a member of that staff has not translated into a vote or recommendation from the LPA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to hear the applicant’s perspective of what the issue is.  Mr. Whitson advised the issue on the environmental professional is a DO that is binding on The Viera Company and A. Duda & Sons, Inc.; the Viera Stewardship District is a governmental unit created by the Legislature will be in existence for as long as Brevard County Government is in existence; it is designed to take care of this 5,200-acre conservation area; The Viera Company can make a commitment to the County as to what they will do as long as they are running the Stewardship District; as people populate to this area, there is a turnover requirement in the Legislation, as to when The Viera Company gives up control to the people who live there, with those people electing the Board members; and it will be up to that elected Board to decide what to do, but the Legislation requires that they take care of this area.  He stated the DO has a specific condition with a HMP that speaks to how the area must be taken care of; that future Board will have an environmental professional, which is the only way to carry out the requirements of the Statue and the management plan; he does not think The Viera Company can bind a future Board that is going to be elected by the public; and The Viera Company does not think this DO can bind that Board; and will do it as long as they can do it, but it does not seem to have a place in this DO to require that a future governmental entity to forever and ever have an environmental professional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if there is a mechanism or an ability to create so it does not impact the DO, but gives the assurance it would seeming there should not be an objection to it.  Scott Knox, County Attorney, responded the way that comes to his mind immediately is an interlocal agreement with the Stewardship District and the County that allows for that requirement, with renewal provisions that can keep going until somebody cancels it; and that provision will be part of that agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if there would be an objection to that, because The Viera Company is out of it to where there is no control over it and there is a legitimate concern that the promise is filled.  Mr. Whitson responded that is the proper mechanism and the question would be when to enter into that local interlocal agreement; stated when there is a DO that says The Viera Company is supposed to be doing it, and if The Viera Company does not do what they are supposed to do, it is kind of easy to just shut-down the development; at some point in the future the interlocal agreement can be entered into with the Stewardship District having an environmental professional; and the other mechanism is the DO itself will be forever looking over the shoulder of The Viera Company and the Stewardship District making sure they do what they are supposed to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Attorney Knox will work with staff on that question; it would be great if there was a seamless transition that continues that process, because The  Viera  Company  is doing the right thing in terms of its commitment; and the County needs to ensure that commitment continues, because otherwise it is not fulfilling what the Board is potentially approving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired how the land is being managed now.  Mr. Whitson responded it is currently owned by A. Duda & Sons, Inc.; it is being managed for agricultural purposes; it will gradually transition to The Viera Company; and it will be The Viera Company that will be putting in the streets, signs, lights, and developing the property.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if it is operating okay without having a management plan.  Mr. Whitson responded A. Duda & Sons, Inc. has a management plan today in place.  Commissioner Infantini stated she is not in favor of imposing any more restrictions; from all of the work she has done and information that she has seen from The Viera Company they have complied; she is not trying to place anymore restrictions on them personally; and she is not inclined to instruct the County Attorney to go forward.  Commissioner Nelson stated he suggested the County is not placing it on them; they have agreed to do the right thing; once The Viera Company is gone, there is no assurance that the right thing will continue; and much of what is being asked of the Board to approve at the appropriate time is this package of things; there is a give and take through this whole process; and all he is saying is that if it is good in the first few years, why is it not good for the long-term.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson mentioned the interlocal agreement not being sure what the future Board can say that they are not going to enter into it; and he guesses it would consist of going to court.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the condition was the County is going to take care of it until a certain point of time, at which time is it going to convert entirely; stated it is not going to be managed and that is okay; inquired is that acceptable as part of this approval process, which is really what is being looked at is that at some point in time; somebody else is going to make that decision, is that okay to manage it for the purpose originally intended, up until ten years from now and at that point whatever happens, happens; he thinks for him that is a bit troubling, because it is the same with drainage systems, roads, and everything that is getting away with in commitments; and inquired can the County bail on everything that it says it is going to do today, because at that point, it may become an issue for the County or some future Board.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is not arguing that; he is wondering if the interlocal agreement can be enforced later.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is a seamless transition to the promise that was given to the community, because there are going to be homeowners who bought based on those commitments.  Commissioner Anderson stated that goes with his second point; those same homeowners vote for that future Board and if they are not holding up their end of the bargain; they vote those people out of office; and that is the true safeguard of democracy in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if there is an option that the County can have that says it could automatically rollover at the time when The Viera Company does not have the control.  Mr. Whitson responded there may be some language addressing in the interlocal agreement at the time of the rollover; and yes, he thinks it could be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the St. John’s River Water Management District (SJRWMD) requires at times when property is deeded over to them that even though it is deeded there is a Maintenance Agreement or that somebody has to maintain it.  Mr. Whitson  responded  yes, it is done in a couple of ways with one, being in a conservation easement that will be placed on the property that will have terms dealing with what is going on out there; the second, the SJRWMD permit, which may not have as many conditions as this, but may have a bunch of conditions dealing with how that property is managed.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is a protection that has not been mentioned yet.  Mr. Whitson responded the point is that the Viera Stewardship District is going to have to be complying with that permit.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that permit runs forever.  Mr. Whitson responded yes, it is an Operation and Maintenance permit that runs forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jay Decatur, Division Council for The Viera Company, stated he would like to shed some light on the overview process of the Viera Wilderness Park; it might give some folks more comfort; there have been several safeguards built; in addition to the Charter that was passed or adopted by the Florida Legislature; and several changes have been incorporated into the DO and the oversight in the management of the park.  He stated there are four key points which has overview and oversight of what happens in the Viera Wilderness Park; first,  once the Stewardship District has something to do it, it will have an improvement plan and file a Public Facilities Report with Brevard County; Brevard County will take the Public Facilities Report and it will become part of its comprehensive planning process through its evaluation and appraisal process; every few years the Stewardship District has to update its Public Facilities Report, because Brevard County is relying on it for whatever public facilities the Stewardship District is providing it has to be accounted for in the Comprehensive Plan; if at any point, Brevard County feels in that process that the Stewardship District is not discharging its obligations under its Charter, which is a special act of the Legislature, it has recourse as a report can be filed with the Florida Legislature through the local Legislative Delegation requesting changes in the Charter of the District; but more importantly, Brevard County can object to what is happening in the Wilderness Park, its not complied with the HMP; and at that point most likely, that is a default under the Viera Companies DO and there is a provision in the DO that deals with what happens if there is a failure to perform one of the conditions.  He stated the second point is something that was put in the DO that grew out of this controversy at the Regional Planning Council; that is the Natural Resources Management Office of Brevard County now plays an integrated role in review the HMP in all amendments to the HMP, as permits are adopted and development progresses, with the permits requiring any activities in the Viera Wilderness Park the permits will be assigned or held by the Stewardship District, and a copy going to the Natural Resources Management Office; and Natural Resources Management Office reviews all of the conditions or all of the changes that the HMP to accommodate that permit, in addition, the  Natural  Resources  Management  Office  now  has  the  ability  to request additional changes.  Mr. Decatur advised the third reality of involvement is the Natural Resources Management Office is going to be advised of what is going on in the park; and they will inspect the park or have some role in reviewing what is going on in the park, but with respect to the rights, which permits are obtained, Natural Resources Management Office is constantly looking at what is going on in the Viera Wilderness Park, how are these permits affecting the HMP, and how is the HMP executing its obligations under the permits.  He mentioned the next point is the biennial review process that is filed for Brevard’s Development of Region Impact (DRI) will have a section on the Viera Wilderness Park and the performance of its objectives and policies; every two years Brevard County and interested parties will receive a report, as part of the biennial report, from  a  environmental  professional  who  is  going  to  assess  the  performance  of  the Stewardship District in executing the management, policies, and practices under HMP.  He stated the forth area is every realtor agency that issues a permit that requires any mitigation or activities in the Viera Wilderness Park will have jurisdiction within the park, to make sure that those permit conditions are performed, with each governmental agency having jurisdiction and the Viera Stewardship District they will be obligated to perform those permit conditions to the extend related to activities in the park; and this will be an on-going obligation of the Stewardship District if it fails to perform any of those permit obligations, with remedies through penalties and sanctions, that those regulatory agencies including St. John’s River Water Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and maybe Department of Environmental Protection will have jurisdiction and continue to have jurisdiction.  He advised to keep all of those concerns in mind when addressing these concerns, because he thinks the concerns are legitimate and have been addressed in the DO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Scott inquired if Mr. Decatur has a copy of the DO and if he would go to page 67 where the Viera Stewardship District is; it carries through to page 71; on page 70, if Mr. Decatur could share with him where the safeguards are that he just outlined; whether it is in agencies that have jurisdictional oversight or if the biennial report shares or identifies that goals and objectives are not being met, because the paragraph on page 70 talks about this biennial report being the report shall highlight on whether or not the goals and objectives are being met; and if they are not being met the report shall identify actions necessary to met the goals with such report being provided to various agencies, but it does not say what follow-up or what teeth exists following the identification of those goals and objectives not being met.  Mr. Decatur responded he thinks the teeth in this DO as in any DO would be on page 64 the biennial reporting requirement; if the last part at the bottom is read on page 64 and the top of page 65; he read aloud, “that biennial report shall include a statement that all persons agencies listed above have been sent copies”; and can certainly add environmental groups of concern or of interest; and failure to tell them to submit the biennial report may subject the developer in DRI to temporary suspension.  Mr. Scott stated now there is timely submittal.  Mr. Decatur responded right, it has to be there.  Mr. Scott stated in that timely submittal the goals and objectives are not being met; and that is the key.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the regulatory agencies have their own policies and procedures for enforcing these types of things; he is good with everything unless this Board thinks more needs to be done; but he thinks the Board should move on, because this is an amazing partnership with the environmental community and the development community to try and do the right thing and not nit-pick, because he does not want to take a chance to ruin a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Decatur stated before wearing out his welcome; in response to Mr. Scott’s question; on page 65 there is a provision on monitoring mechanism on the second sentence; the County shall not issue any permits, approvals, or provide any extensions of services if the developer fails to act in substantial compliance with this DO; the management of the Viera Wilderness Park in compliance with the HMP is a condition of this DO; if this County really believes that it is not managed in accordance to the HMP, it has the power to stop this development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he does not disagree with Mr. Decatur; he thinks the mechanisms are set in place, but up to a point; that was his question because they are doing all of the right things up to the point that the developer steps out and when that happens how does the management go beyond that; and inquired how can there not be a way to see that that continues after the developer is gone, because that again is a promise made to this community.  Mr. Decatur responded The Viera Company is not washing its hands of this area; this is currently a large part of the Cocoa Ranch the Duda family has had a commitment to this land for over 70 years; The Viera Company is committed to see this park come into existence and be managed properly; in addition, The Viera Company is going to be the most upset of any party if the Stewardship District would fail to perform its obligations under its Charter, because that DO condition continues; and there are serious problems if all of the sudden this vicinity fails to what its job is.  He mentioned if someone is looking at managing 5,000 acres into what Ms. Sphar said was in perpetuity, this is the best tool that is available today to accomplish this long-term management and provide a funding mechanism; as far as representative government, it is very important that the folks that pay taxes are represented; and he has a great deal of faith in that mechanism and it has served this country well.  He advised to keep one thing in mind, the distinction with this special district from most city deeds is that the only long-term purpose of the Stewardship District is the management of the Viera Wilderness Park; in its Charter it will not own or operate any golf courses, to the extent it builds public facilities, and the objective in the model in the past is benefit of roads built, sewer lines, water lines, and finances them; and that is what it is for and it transfers those to the local governments that will have jurisdiction.  He stated the long-term function of the Board of Supervisors in their priority will be the master of this park; he suspects that just like in city deeds that managed golf courses and the golfers take a great deal of interest in their golf course; they run for the Board of Supervisors; and typically are elected and environmentalists are going to be seen running for those seats.  He advised the folks that are going to an interest to get involved with the Stewardship District and serve on its Committees and Boards in the Viera Wilderness Park; and he understands the concern, but it is addressed in the DO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated a wonderful job is being done and this Commissioner will recognize this with a five to zero vote; he is curious if there is a way to add some language if the Stewardship District does not do its job, if St. John’s River Water Management District does not force its permit, and the County has gone through every recourse possible to make sure the land is being taken care and managed by the County using all of the resources available to them through a Binding Order or whatever; that The Viera Company would consider stepping in at that point in time if it was not being managed and the County could not handle.  Mr. Decatur responded that goes to the concept of perpetuity that is what makes this tool so ideal, because it will exist forever to the extent that  anything  can  exist  forever; The Viera Company is its corporation; it may or may not exist forever, but he hopes that is does; but it has been seen over the last few months of companies coming and going; this problem may arise 20 to 50 years from now; and the answer to the question is he guesses language would be possible, but he does not know how effective it would be.  Commissioner Fisher stated if the corporation dissolved it does not make a difference either way; and it is not anything that needs to be worried about and maybe Mr. Decatur does not feel that comfortable about tying The Viera Company to it.  Mr. Decatur stated once the Stewardship District acquires  this land and begins managing it, there is very little The Viera Company can do as a private citizen to tell the Stewardship District what to do, as it cannot tell Brevard County what to do.  Commissioner Fisher inquired right, and if the Stewardship District is not managing it and The Viera Company is still in existence, if Brevard County goes through all of the resources and things that it has to try and get the Stewardship District to manage it, and if that all fails, is there a way for The Viera Company to step in and help at that point.  Mr. Decatur responded he cannot imagine what The Viera Company could do that Brevard County could not do.  Commissioner Fisher stated he thinks the County should be going through all of those before coming back to The Viera Company; he is on The Viera Company’s side on the standpoint of that part; but he is trying to get Commissioner Nelson comfortable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin stated she would like for Attorney Knox to speak for a moment on this item and will go back to Mr. Decatur.  Attorney Knox stated as he sits here today and listens to everything, there is a very easy way to handle this; he does not think the DO as it is written necessarily does the things that Mr. Decatur thinks it does, because it covers defaults by the developer and it does not cover defaults by the Stewardship District; one way that can be addressed and made very simple is just add the Stewardship District as an applicant to this DO process, and make them part of the DO; in which case, all of these terms do not have to be changed in the least, they are part of the DO; and they can enforce against them.  Mr. Decatur advised the only problem with that is the Stewardship District would have to hold a public hearing and there is timing considerations; he is not disagreeing with Attorney Knox; and he wishes this would have been done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Whitson stated he appreciates the concerns of Commissioner Nelson and he will figure out a way to address them.  Commissioner Nelson stated he thinks all of the right things are being done, and actually, this is not a criticism of Mr. Whitson, because he thinks he has done all the right things with this; and all that is being asked is that once the developer is no longer the major player in that respect, that is continues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Whitson advised the only other issue raised was by Ms. Sphar, with the I-95 wetland, and he can address that or the Board can take a break, as it prefers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is the one she called Viera east side.  Mr. Whitson responded yes, and he will take that as a go ahead; stated the I-95 wetland has been the subject of many, many discussions; he has to say that the effort is really appreciated by the environmental community, Ms. Sphar, Mr. Sphar, and others who have made it to meetings with The Viera Company on all of these issues affecting not only this little wetland, but the 5,200-acre conservation area.  He advised The Viera Company has worked through a lot of issues; many of the changes in the Comprehensive Plan are a direct result of the focus on the language and many of the conditions on the DO are a result of the direct focus on the environmental issues; the I-95 wetland itself by his estimates, are 84 to 85 acres; it is an isolated wetland from the area to the east by I-95 and it is further being effected by the construction of the Pineda Interchange by a borrow-pit that was used during the construction of I-95; there have been cows grazing there for 70 years; and the wetlands itself it self is crossed in several locations by drainage ditches and agricultural access roads.  He stated it is a nice area but compared to the 52,000-acre conservation area it is not an area that The Viera  Company  thinks  deserves   nearly  as  much  attention  as  it  has  received;   never  the  less,  The  Viera Company has committed in this DO to not only protect this wetland in the same way that it is protecting the rest of the 52,000-acre Management Plan through the Stewardship District, but to establish a buffer that is triple the minimum of what the agencies would require, in addition the 84 to 85 acres of wetlands will be 45 to 46 acres of upland area adjacent to those that will be protected and preserved.  Mr. Whitson stated Ms. Sphar requested Monday night at the LPA meeting; that a sentence be added to condition 26, which addresses this wetland; that condition is on page 21 of the DO; she requested that a sentence be added to have The Viera Company locate passive parks adjacent to that preserved area; it was agreed upon at the LPA meeting; that will show up the next time the Board sees this; and she emailed him the next morning saying she should have asked for a specific number of acres.  He mentioned going back to how Mr. Scott started the meeting in looking at the Comprehensive Plan at 35,000 feet above this project, the DO is somewhere in the 20,000 to 25,000 feet above this project; he cannot tell how many acres of passive park there will be or where they will be; but the DO is not a place to figure that out; and they will figure that out on another day.  He stated The Viera Company has agreed in concept with Ms. Sphar’s request; and they are not to a point where he can tell her how many acres there will be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                                                                                

 

 

 

                                                                        MARY BOLIN, CHAIRMAN

 

 

 

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

 

                                                                        BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA    

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

 

 

 

 

 

          (S E A L)