February 7, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 7, 2002, at 5:38 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley

The Invocation was given by Commissioner O'Brien.

Commissioner Carlson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE SPECIAL MEETING, RE: VILLAGER CONDOMINIUM

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised a request has been received from the Villager Condominium to have a special meeting to address their appeal of the shoreline hardening denial by the Natural Resources Management staff. She stated they wish to bring experts in, but the experts are unable to attend the next two regularly scheduled Board meetings; and if the Board would like to hold this special meeting, staff can coordinate it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should do this.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to be sure its consultant can be present at the same time.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize staff to schedule a special meeting with the Villager Condominium owners to discuss denial of shoreline hardening. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING BILL GIERS AND DORI ANDERSON

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution recognizing Bill Giers for his selection by the International Olympic Committee to be a member of the 2002 Winter Sports Massage Team and commending Mr. Giers and Dori Anderson, his organizer, as Space Coast Ambassadors for Tourism and Sports.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending Bill Giers and Dori Anderson as Space Coast Ambassadors for Tourism and Sports. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Bill Giers expressed appreciation to the Board; read aloud the Olympic Creed; and advised their mission is to use his appointment to the 2002 Winter Sports Massage Team as an opportunity to spread the word about the Florida Space Coast. He advised of his experience, prior selection for the Sports Massage Team, and desire to help tourism and business in the County as well as supporting the American spirit.

Dori Anderson advised of her background, surviving a recent car accident, and surviving terrorism in Iran. She stated she is volunteering to help Mr. Giers organize and fund the event not only to be a neighbor helping neighbor, but to give back for surviving her injuries and to help raise awareness of the benefits of massage. She commented on freedom, patriotism, spreading the message, encouraging tourism for the County, and goal to share information. She requested all private citizens and businesses to donate what they can; advised of donations of a van, money for gas, food coupons, and complimentary hotel rooms; and stated they still need more cash to pay for the hotel in Salt Lake City. She advised of plans to set up a mini-tourism council in Salt Lake City; and advised anyone interesting in donating may do so at any Wachovia Bank in the name of "Bringing Brevard to the Olympics."

Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mr. Giers and Ms. Anderson.

DISCUSSION, RE: USE OF SELF-INSURANCE FUND EQUITY

Commissioner O'Brien stated he got a note from Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten concerning distribution of $1.8 million self-insurance fund equity; there is a proposed formula for distribution based on the non-general fund percentage contribution to the self-insurance program; and the distribution is to be done during the first quarter supplemental budget. He inquired rather than turning the $1.8 million over to certain departments according to how much they paid in, if it was put back into the self-insurance fund equity, could charges for health insurance to employees and retirees be lowered.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can request a report on that.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide a report clarifying the distribution of the $1.8 million self-insurance fund equity and advising whether the option is available to use those funds to lower health insurance payments by employees and retirees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: REGIONAL WATER ISSUES

Commissioner Higgs stated last week she was invited by Chairman Crotty of Orange County to attend the regional water supply conference and summit; there was a discussion by the St. Johns River Water Management District concerning regional water sources; and discussion will be coming up on surface water from Brevard County being used by Orange County as well as the potential for a desalinization plant at the Port. She stated if she is invited back, she will inform the Board of those discussions.

Chairman Scarborough stated when he first got on the Board the discussion was about going to Osceola County to get water, but the world has changed.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is ironic that the regional perspective was not there a few years ago when Brevard County needed some water; but the County has to recognize that Cocoa has wellfields in Orange County; and whether the Board likes it or not, the County will be involved in the regional discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he was Chairman of the Brevard County Water Supply Board; and requested staff notify all members of that Board concerning these issues.

RESOLUTION, RE: THANK A VET DAY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution declaring February 24, 2002 as Thank a Vet Day.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt a Resolution declaring February 24, 2002 as Thank a Vet Day and encouraging all citizens to express their gratitude to all veterans who made sacrifices for our country. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien advised his father was in the Army for 33 years; his brother was a veteran of the Korean Conflict; and commented on life in the military. He recommended parents encourage their children to join the military; and stated it teaches self discipline, duty, honor, and love of country.

DISCUSSION, RE: REDISTRICTING

Chairman Scarborough stated Representative Randy Ball is present to report to the Board on the redistricting process; and this is very important to the people of the County.

Representative Randy Ball stated the biggest thing in redistricting is to balance out the districts; the House districts have gone from 107,000 to 133,000; the Senate districts are up to approximately 400,000; and the Congressional districts are going to 636,000 citizens. He stated the districts have to be consecutively numbered; and they have to be contiguous, although there is one district that is connected only by ocean water, and the court said that was okay. He stated districts cannot be drawn for racial reasons, although it is possible to come up with one for neutral reasons such as one district in Orlando that is Hispanic. He stated he attended 23 of the 24 public hearings on redistricting; everyone said what the courts have said, that incumbency may be honored and lines drawn to keep an incumbent in his district; they did not want lines drawn for political ambitions; but they did not want to cut any of their delegation out of the district. He noted the current State plan cuts 14 representatives out of their districts; it is not possible to make everyone happy; and that may be corrected later. He stated if someone believes one party platform to be the best, it is possible to draw a plan that favors that party; which is legal; but it does not play well in the press. He advised the Statewide plan has come out of his Committee, but is not law yet; and if asked whether it has any political line drawing, he would neither confirm nor deny. He stated the courts do honor communities of interest; in the debate over Congressional District 15, they are saying there is an industrial community of interest in the space industry; people do not want North Brevard to be lopped off and have two representatives in Congress with only a fragment of the Space Coast; so they are hearing a lot about communities of interest. He stated there is talk about agricultural communities of interest, rural communities of interest, and beachside communities of interest.

Chairman Scarborough requested Representative Ball identify the districts by name. Representative Ball stated District 32 is Bob Allen; District 29 is his district, District 30 is Representative Needelman, and District 31 is Representative Haridopolos; and commented on restoring compactness to District 32 at the expense of District 29 which goes from Mims to the St. Lucie line. He noted in Indian River County Stan Mayfield is Representative. He stated they had to honor the population requirements; the courts will allow House districts to be approximately 10% off; if a differential is taken from the smallest district to the largest and divided by 133,000, but it cannot be more than 10%; and the Statewide plan is below 3% in deviation, which is good. He stated one of the driving criteria Representative Needelman insisted on was to repair Palm Bay; Palm Bay had three representatives; under the plan, it will have only two. He stated he is often asked if the plan gets through the House and is overturned by the courts, what will happen.

Commissioner Higgs requested Representative Ball explain where Representative Haridopolos' District was and where it is under the plan. Representative Ball responded he did not bring a current map, but believes it was predominantly on the beachside. Commissioner Higgs stated it went to the Indian River County line; with Representative Ball responding that is correct, and Representative Haridopolos has lost that and picked up some of Melbourne, so his district has shrunken a little. Commissioner Higgs stated Representative Haridopolos also picked up part of the south mainland; that was Howard Futch's district; and he picked up parts of Micco as well as the South Beaches. Representative Ball stated Micco and Barefoot Bay are now in an Indian River County District; and that is all that was taken by another county. He stated in two weeks the Council will review the plan and there will be some changes; commented on efforts to get a stable plan; and advised the lines are tense. He stated one more change in the area may result in things falling apart in a ripple effect across the State; and that is the difficulty in trying to redistrict.

Commissioner Higgs stated following up on the Micco/Barefoot Bay issue, that appears to be fairly unique; and that is the only part of Brevard County that is being cut off into an Indian River County District. Chairman Scarborough stated it means they will never have representation from there unless something strange happens. Commissioner Higgs advised that area of the County has a different area code; and this will make them more isolated from the community the Board represents.

Commissioner O'Brien requested Representative Ball show his district; with Representative Ball advising his district is the one shown in purple on the map, going all the way from Mims down. Representative Ball noted the old District 29 will elect the representative in the proposed district as the population is all from Rockledge north; and in the south are orange groves and cows. Commissioner O'Brien advised it is mostly Titusville/Port St. John/Cocoa; with Chairman Scarborough noting it also goes over to the beach. Representative Ball stated it is a strange looking district; he is not happy with it; and he is still hoping there will be some change.

Commissioner Carlson stated it seems as though Representative Ball has lost the most. Representative Ball stated he stayed out of this as Chairman of the Committee; he tried to facilitate it; and he heard initially he would have to go up in Volusia County a bit to keep his district compact, which he did not mind as much; but when the plan came out, it was 40,000 people short, so they had to look for another area. He noted he is leaving office; there were a bunch of incumbents who tried to do it their way; and it is going to turn out all right. He stated this was the only thing he did not like, but he can live with it as North Brevard will elect the representative; his successor may have a difficult time with that district; but Representative Allen also had a difficult time because his existing district goes all the way to Orlando and down to St. Lucie County; so there has been an exchange of one odd looking ink blot for another.

Commissioner Colon inquired who is in Palm Bay; with Representative Ball responding under the proposed plan it would be Representative Needelman and Representative Haridopolos. Commissioner Colon stated they lost Representative Allen; with Representative Ball advising that is correct.

Representative Ball stated he was asked what are the potentials that this will not come to agreement; he thinks the Florida House and Senate will have a plan; it cannot be vetoed by the Governor; and if it is held invalid by the Florida Supreme Court, the Legislature will meet again in special session for 15 days. He advised ten years ago, it was necessary to come back five times for special sessions extending over six months; and even then most of the Florida legislative plan was upheld, although not the congressional plan. He stated if the courts invalidate, they will go back in session; but the plans will get out. He stated they are constitutional; a team of lawyers is reviewing them; and if they are not, they will come back for 15 days. He stated whether they will get a congressional plan out is a different story because there are strong differences between the House and Senate over the congressional plan now; and if they do not come to an agreement, he will not be overly surprised; but if they do, the Governor can veto that plan and send it back. He stated once it gets by the Governor or if they do not reach a plan, the federal courts will decide; and the big thing is to have all three plans by July because candidates have to know.

Chairman Scarborough stated Representative Ball said the courts do something and then they come back; but the courts do not actually draw the lines and the legislature could come back with a response to the court. Representative Ball stated if time wears on, there is a point at which the court does have to draw the lines.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what are the pros and cons of having two representatives for the County. Representative Ball stated what he is hearing from those who are vocal is that they would not want to divide the County; District 15 has to lose approximately 80,000; it is current Brevard, Indian River, Osceola, and Polk counties; and the Congressman would like to leave intact the two coastal counties, which would not fragment the space representation. He stated on the other side, if it is possible to get enough of the Space Coast in two different districts, then there would be the attention of two representatives; and the question is whether that can be done. He stated the current Speaker of the House would like to have North Brevard in his district because he is running for Congress; he would be a good proponent for space; but districts should not be drawn assuming a certain player because someone else may win the seat.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has heard discussion that some people will be drawn out of their districts and will be able to run in another district, even though they are term-limited; and inquired if that is under legal scrutiny; with Representative Ball responding he does not know, but was asked about that. He noted he does not live in his district under the redistricting because he lives in Mims; so the question is could he run against Bob Allen; and he does not think so, and has not heard of anyone planning on doing that. Commissioner Higgs stated she has seen some discussion in the press, and wondered if it had been deemed legal. Representative Ball stated he does not know the answer; he does not think someone could do that; but that may be the issue that some are getting ready to sue over. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the other members of the Delegation are happy with the redistricting plan; with Representative Ball responding the plan is a consensus; Representatives Negron and Harrell still do not like what they got, but there is consensus.

Commissioner Colon expressed appreciation to Representative Ball for the drug court funding; stated it is premature to get excited, but the Governor has it in his budget; and there were only two counties that she saw there. Representative Ball advised it was Brevard and Pinellas Counties. Commissioner Colon stated she is hopeful; the Board is trying to help with drug court; and advised of a visit to Broward County. Representative Ball stated they are going to try to restore drug court if they can; his budget allocation is a continuation budget with no increase; and advised of a proposal to put money from prison inmate substance abuse into diversionary programs such as drug court. He stated no one likes the idea of cutting the substance abuse education to prison inmates; but if it is necessary to prioritize, he would rather have it on the diversionary and transitional programs for those who are getting out, rather than the ones in prison.

Chairman Scarborough thanked Representative Ball for his presentation; and stated it helps the Board understand a lot.

APPOINTMENT, RE: BREVARD COUNTY COMMISSION ON STATUS OF WOMEN

Chairman Scarborough requested a motion to appoint Sheila China to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint Sheila China to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women, with term to expire June 30, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING NORTH BREVARD HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a resolution commending the North Brevard Historical Society, which will be presented later.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending the Historical Society of North Brevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS FROM OCTOBER 1, AND NOVEMBER 5, 2001

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider tabled items from October 1, and November 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Agendas, as follows:

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised Tabled Items 1 through 4 have been withdrawn.

Item 1. (Z0110301) Henry K. and Grazyna Podsiedlik's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial to residential and from GU, BU-1 and TR-1 to RVP on 5.58 acres on the west side of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board. Item withdrawn by applicant.

Item 2. (Z0110401) State of Florida Department of Transportation's request for a CUP for Towers and Antennas in an AU zone on 0.07± acre located on the northwest portion of intersection of I-95 and Wickham Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board. Item withdrawn by applicant.

Item 3. (Z0111201) Michael Blasky's request for CUP for Towers and Antennas on BU-2 property located on 0.947 acre located on the south side of Orange Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board. Item withdrawn by applicant.

Item 4. (Z0111301) Donna Lynn Dorough Bashford, Trustee's request for change from TU-1 and ROU for Aquaculture-Case II on 0.37 acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval. Item withdrawn by applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JANUARY 7, 2002
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its January 7, 2002 meeting, as follows:

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are any tabled items or any other items that have been withdrawn. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated there are six items recommended to be tabled, Items II.B.1, II.B.2, II.B.4, II.B.10, II.B.13, and II.B.15.

Item 1. (Z0201501) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by The County Line of Brevard, Inc. to remove a CUP for Permanent Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises in a BU-1 zone, retaining the CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption on 2.71 acres located at the northeast corner of I-95 and U.S. 192, which was recommended for tabling to February 11, 2002 by the P&Z Board, at the direction of the County Attorney to ensure due process through Code Enforcement procedures.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 1 to February 11, 2002 P&Z meeting and March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0201101) Thomas O. Bigelow, (Jr.) and Betty L. Bigelow, Trustees' request for change from GU to AU on 10 acres located at the southwest corner of Blounts Ridge Road and Patty Lane, which was recommended for tabling to February 11, 2002 by the P&Z Board, to allow for the School Board to address capacity issues, or for applicant to see if buyer is amenable to limiting total build out potential of the property to a maximum of two units, with no reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 2 to February 11, 2002 P&Z meeting and March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0201103) L. Clayton Human and Jerry Michael Hanna's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2 acres located on the south side of Foggy Bottom Lane, which was recommended for tabling to February 11, 2002 by the P&Z Board, to allow for the School Board to address capacity issues, with no reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 4 to February 11, 2002 P&Z meeting and March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. (Z0201203) Robin K. Squires and Missileland Development Corp.'s request for change from RU-1-9 and BU-2 to RU-2-15 with a CUP for a Residential/ Recreational marina, and removing the existing CUP for a Marina and the BDP on Lots 48, 49, and 50, and removing the Specific Use for boat storage, boat repair, and marine-related uses only, and all BU-1 uses with conditions regarding buffers on Lots 1 and 2 on 2.96± acres located on the west and east sides of South Banana River Drive, which was recommended for tabling to February 11, 2002 by the P&Z Board to allow for the School Board to address capacity issues, with no reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 2 to February 11, 2002 P&Z meeting and March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. (Z0201303) Certified Building Corp.'s request for change from GU to SR on 1.21 acres located on the west side of A1A, south of Mar-Len Drive, which was recommended for tabling to February 11, 2002 by the P&Z Board to allow for the School Board to address capacity issues, with no reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 13 to February 11, 2002 P&Z meeting and March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. (Z0201305) Reitano Enterprises, Inc.'s request for a CUP for a Convenience Store with Gasoline Sales in a BU-1-A zone and removal of an existing BSP on 1.26 acres located on the east side of Babcock Street, which was recommended for tabling to February 11, 2002 by the P&Z Board at the request of the applicant to address wetland issues.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 15 to February 11, 2002 P&Z meeting and March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0201102) Major T. and Theresa M. Morgan's request for change from GU to AU on 2.16 acres located on the west side of Shawnee Place, approximately 130 feet south of Canton Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 3 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0201104) Kevin S. Woodruff's request for change from GU to AU on 1.01 acres located on the north side of Caraway Street, approximately 148 feet west of Cherokee Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Kevin Woodruff stated he is requesting a zoning change to AU; he currently rents out the property; and his tenants have goats on the property that they are using for a 4-H program. He advised the family is home schooling their children and the animals are part of the curriculum.

Susan Martin stated she is the next door neighbor to the party in question; and the Board should have a copy of the letter she wrote. She stated the goats were brought onto the property although the property was not zoned for agriculture; she understands there are children involved; she has pets and children herself, and would never take a pet away from a child; and she is not asking the Board to deny the right to have the goats. She stated she has difficulties with easterly winds; it is a very offensive odor; and she is asking that no other farm animals be allowed on the property so she will be able to use her yard.

Shannon Burdeshaw stated she currently resides on the property in question; she has five children; and four of them are of 4-H age. She stated they have been in 4-H for the past five years; and her two eldest daughters have prepared a statement.

Megan Burdeshaw stated she is thirteen years old; she would like to address the potential rezoning of the property from general use to agriculture/residential use; and it is her family's intent to support 4-H through the care and raising of livestock, specifically the goats on the property. She stated 4-H is a national program for youth from five to eighteen years of age, that gives the opportunity to participate in not only agriculture, natural resources, and livestock activities, but also activities in the fields of aerospace, food preservation, photography, and sewing; and 4-H clubs improve the community through volunteer work and by getting the youth off the streets and into a caring, cooperative environment with their peers. She stated 4-H livestock activities teach teamwork, decision-making, and communication skills in working with other 4-H members; sportsmanship, cooperation, and courtesy through the grooming and showing of animals; and value and management of money through the purchasing and caring for animals, all of which produce better leaders for tomorrow. She stated 4-H livestock projects also offer educational opportunities for youth, including a scholarship program for senior members. She noted the animals in question benefit her family not only through the production of milk and cheese, but by teaching responsibility and self esteem. She stated as home schoolers, the animals offer educational opportunities in the fields of animal sciences and economics; and during the five-year goat project, they have won many awards. She advised of the benefits of the goats to the property owners through removal of noxious weeks, clearing of old plants to allow for new growth, and fertilizing of native plants and enrichment of the soil. She stated concern has been expressed that one acre may not be enough space to adequately maintain the health and well-being of eight goats; however, according to recommendations outlined by the American Diary Goat Association, in order to house a goat in a non-confinement situation with pasture and supplemental feed, it takes approximately 15 square feet per goat. She advised of the size of the fenced area on the property and potential to raise 35 similar sized animals at approximately 350 square feet per animal. She stated it is important for her family to keep the animals not only because they are beneficial, but because they love the animals. She submitted awards she has won and pictures of the property.

Chairman Scarborough stated there was discussion on the number of goats; but the motion did not include an eight-goat limit. Mr. Enos stated there was no limit given. Chairman Scarborough inquired why there was no limit, and is it unlimited; with Mr. Enos responding there was a question as to how many goats they had on the property, and the answer was eight, but when the motion was made, there was no discussion of a limitation on the number. Chairman Scarborough stated several members mentioned eight; and inquired if there are any other limits; with Mr. Enos responding in the AU zoning classification, there are no specific limits. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there could be 12,000 goats; with Mr. Enos reiterating there is no limit.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board should take into consideration what the neighbor said; and she is confused that there is no limit.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board solved this kind of problem on South Merritt Island by issuing a CUP allowing two goats instead of rezoning. Commissioner Higgs stated in that case, they requested the CUP. Mr. Enos stated that was in the SEU zoning classification where there is a conditional use permit for goats that requires five acres; this parcel would not qualify under that conditional use permit; however, the Board can put limitations on the number of animals, if it chooses to approve this.

Chairman Scarborough inquired an acre of land will support how many goats; with Mr. Enos responding the young lady said one goat for 15 square feet, which would be approximately 3,000 goats.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired does the Board feel that limiting the number of goats is appropriate. He stated the neighbors are saying there is odor and fence damage; this is GU zoning; and inquired is it necessary to change the zoning to have the goats. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board does not change the zoning, can it allow two goats; with Mr. Enos responding no. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is necessary to change the zoning; and inquired if the Board can restrict it to two goats, and horses, pigs, cows, and snakes, etc. would not be allowed. Mr. Enos stated the Board can limit the number and the type of animals through a stipulation on the zoning; and that is what the Board did on the parcel to the east. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the applicant will agree that two goats is enough; with Mr. Woodruff responding right now the family has eight goats in the 4-H program. Ms. Burdeshaw indicated a limit of two would not be acceptable.

Chairman Scarborough stated the P&Z Board had extensive discussions about eight goats; and that is why he brought that up. Commissioner Colon suggested a compromise. Commissioner Higgs suggested a binding development plan in regard to all the AU uses; and stated there are a lot of uses allowed in AU, some less kind to the neighbor than goats. Commissioner Colon stated there are five children and a compromise would be one goat per child. Commissioner Carlson stated the compromise is an interesting issue because the property where the people in opposition to this live has the ability to have two horses and one cow; and she wonders if they have those animals on their property. Mr. Woodruff stated that is the property to the east.

Commissioner Higgs stated this is an established residential area; it does have a number of AU uses; but there are AU uses such as mobile homes, power substations, telephone exchanges, parks, playgrounds, temporary living quarters, security trailers, and other uses; and suggested the applicant and his tenant work on these.

Chairman Scarborough stated the P&Z Board had a 5-4 vote; if one person had voted the other way, the recommendation would be for denial; and there was a lot of discussion about limiting the number of goats.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the performance standards apply to agriculture uses in terms of smell, etc. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised they are not exempt under AU. Mr. Enos stated Section 62-2251 says performance standards apply to all residential/commercial/industrial uses; AU is an agriculture/residential zone; so it could be argued that the performance standards, which include odor, dust, etc., would apply.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what kind of standard is it; with Mr. Enos responding there are odor standards; they deal in terms of being able to detect certain levels of chemicals in the air; and he could not say if eight goats would break the standard or not. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a procedure for the applicant to go through to see if this is an issue of performance; and inquired if that is something staff can lead them through; with Mr. Enos responding at some expense for technical testing.

Chairman Scarborough stated there is no complaint with eight goats; there was extensive discussion to limiting it to eight goats; and if the Board does not put the limitation, there would be no limit. He stated there could be a greater problem as the number of goats increases; but he is not familiar with goats.

Commissioner Colon stated she would like to be able to support this because it should be possible to address the concerns of the neighbors and needs of the family; and suggested having a binding agreement to make sure there are no more than eight goats.

Commissioner Higgs advised of permitted uses in AU including all agriculture pursuits including packing, processing, and sale of commodities raised on the premises, raising and grazing of animals, dude ranches, fowl raising, beekeeping, plant nurseries, private golf courses, private camps, and foster and group homes of levels 1 and 2. She stated there are also permitted uses with conditions such as churches, fish camps, landscaping businesses, mobile homes, residential dwelling, power substations, private parks and playgrounds, sanitariums and convalescent homes, temporary living quarters, and tenant dwellings, as well as conditional uses. She recommended looking at Canaveral Groves in terms of the way it is developing now; stated there are a number of AU uses that are compatible in that area; but the Board should think beyond goats and decide, for instance, how it would deal with fowl raising.

Chairman Scarborough stated when there is a one-acre AU parcel, it is a residential community; the people want to have the agriculture supplementing the residential; but there becomes a point where there is a high level of incompatibility, and the incompatibility is the agriculture use itself. He stated there have been other issues in the past on this; and inquired what would staff advise if the Board does not want to follow the advice of the P&Z Board. Mr. Enos inquired if Chairman Scarborough is talking about Code amendments or this parcel in particular. Chairman Scarborough stated in fairness to the applicant, the Board needs to act with a little more dispatch than asking them to wait for a massive Code change. Mr. Enos stated the parcel to the east was permitted with AU zoning limited to two horses and one cow; and those are big animals. Chairman Scarborough stated it may be possible to make adjustments; and if someone wants goats, they may be more goats than there are cows. Mr. Enos stated from that standpoint, eight goats may be reasonable; and suggested they be kept on the east side of the property adjacent to the current agricultural parcel where the cows and horses are. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is going to rezone and count animals; and stated that is not the way to go. She suggested the Canaveral Groves Homeowners Association begin to consider all the concepts about where the County is going regarding the zoning; and suggested tabling the item to see if the Board can get some input. Chairman Scarborough suggested visiting with the staff at the Agriculture Department and the Homeowners Association, and tabling the item so he can contact people more knowledgeable in animal husbandry.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 5 to March 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0201105) Jacob Aaron Corp. and the B.D.M. Financial Corp.'s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (2S.1) to change Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and change from GU and RU-1-11 to TU-2 on 9.5 acres located on the south side of Port St. John Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are any questions for the applicant; and no response was heard.

Carmine Ferraro, representing Port St. John for Tomorrow, stated they support the rezoning; but requested an additional restriction be put on the property for adult entertainment. He stated the request is for TU-2 zoning, which is a very broad range of retail and commercial uses; and they want to go on record that there is a concern.

Doug Robertson, representing Jacob Aaron Corporation and the B.D.M. Financial Corporation, stated it has been discussed; and the owner has no objection to that limitation as he does not think adult entertainment is allowed in that zoning classification. Mr. Enos advised it would not be permitted in TU-2 classification.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the applicant is willing to agree to the limitation; with Mr. Robertson responding yes.

Mr. Ferraro inquired why this issue was not brought before the Port St. John Advisory Board; and stated the lines would be better represented by a municipal overlay that would include this area. He stated they have talked with Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey and Zoning Official Rick Enos; and they would like the lines to be redrawn to include this area. Chairman Scarborough stated that should be brought up in a different venue.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 6 as recommended; and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan", setting forth the First Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002, 02S.1, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Sections 62-501, Part XVI (E) entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner Higgs recommended including the restriction on adult entertainment; with Commissioner Carlson advising it is not a possibility. Commissioner Higgs stated some day the TU-2 could have a change; and recommended including the restriction; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is fine. Commissioner Carlson stated the applicant has indicated intent to submit a BDP limiting development of the property to a maximum of 275 hotel rooms. Mr. Enos advised that has been submitted.

Motion restated by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 6 as TU-2 with BDP and condition of no adult entertainment; and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan", setting forth the First Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002, 02S.1, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Sections 62-501, Part XVI (E) entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Attorney Eden Bentley's absence and Attorney Kim Brautigam's presence were noted at this time.

Item 7. (Z 0201106) G & D Developers, L.C.'s request for change from AU to RP on 2.5 acres located on the southeast corner of Roundtree Drive and U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is a BDP associated with this item; with Mr. Enos responding that is not on this item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 7 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Attorney Kim Brautigam's absence and Attorney Eden Bentley's presence were noted at this time.

Item 8. (Z0201201) Charles Eaton's request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zone on 0.52 acre located on the northwest corner of Hwy A1A and 35th Street, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing Charles Eaton, stated the application is for a conditional use permit to allow the service of alcoholic beverages on the applicant's property on A1A; and advised he presented the Board and Clerk with a package labeled Application for Conditional Use Permit, which he offers as his exhibit for the record. He stated this application has been before the Board before, in 1991, and then again in 1994; and the same applicant requested a conditional use permit. He stated this is a unique piece of property in that alcoholic beverages have been served there since prior to 1958, when there were no SUP's or CUP's for the regulation of alcoholic beverages. He stated today the County does have a conditional use permit for the service of alcoholic beverages; it does not distinguish between beer and wine and full liquor; this premises has been serving beer and wine for many years; and the applicant is requesting to add full liquor to the existing right to serve beer and wine. He advised if the Board denies this request, it is not going to change what is going on now; they will still have a nonconforming right to serve beer and wine; and they are also litigating that issue with the County in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, on whether or not that is a proper restriction. He stated their position is that alcoholic beverages are alcoholic beverages; that is not their opinion alone; and read from a 1988 case in Brevard County, JR Holdings, Inc. versus Brevard County as follows: "Perhaps the sale of alcoholic beverages and other activities on or in the vicinity of the petitioners' property should never have been allowed so near a residential neighborhood. Nevertheless, it was allowed, and the denial of the requested conditional use permit was arbitrary and therefore should not stand." He noted the case was decided on appeal in 1988 in Brevard County; and Judge Antoon was the presiding judge. He stated the issue was whether it was an existing adult entertainment club, which is not relevant, but it was the same situation of whether they could add full liquor to the beer and wine license. He stated they are not asking to change anything at this location; they are not asking for more seating; they are not asking for more square footage; and they are not asking for anything that would increase the impact on the land. He stated they are just asking to add liquor to the other alcoholic beverages they are already serving. He stated the staff comments, under tab 3, have either yes, NA, or policy considerations; he understands this is a tough decision; there are residents and neighborhoods around there that do not want liquor to be served; but their view may be misguided. He stated as a nonconforming use, the County has little ability to control what happens at this establishment; as a nonconforming use it does not comply with current regulations; and if the Board granted the CUP for the service of alcoholic beverages and allowed liquor to be served, then it would provide the Board with the ability to put conditions on that to control issues like the impact on the surrounding community. He stated the County could look to make sure the establishment was complying with the conditions; and if it was not, the County would have the ability to revoke the license. He stated conditional use permits are only good for three or possibly five years before they come up for review; and granting the CUP would give the Board an ability it does not have now. He stated this area of the County is not unique to liquor licenses; from SR 520 south to north of Patrick Air Force Base, there are currently 13 4-COP licenses, which allow service of full liquor; in that same area there are eight 2-COP licenses, which allow service of beer and wine; so there are 21 establishments that are fully licensed to serve alcohol between SR 520 and Patrick Air Force Base. He stated he also provided a copy of the information that comes from the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco's report. He stated conditional use permits or SUP's, which were the predecessors for granting the right to serve alcoholic beverages are not unique to this area; from his client's property not to where A1A splits, there are currently four SUP's or CUP's issued by the Board or a preceding Board for the service of alcoholic beverages; and advised they are outlined in yellow on the map. He stated the biggest argument for not granting the requested CUP is that the property is surrounded by residential properties; and pointed out residential areas on the map. He stated the four locations where there are CUP's or SUP's are substantially surrounded by residential properties; and that is the nature and characteristic of this area of the community. He stated it is a beachfront community; it is narrow; there are houses next to businesses; there is a lot of tourism in the area; and it is a very populated area. He advised under tab 5, there are blow-ups of each of the SUP/CUP properties with the names of each; and reiterated each is surrounded by predominantly residential uses. He presented photographs showing the area; and stated the area has a lot of restaurants, some of them serving liquor, a lot of condominiums and townhouses, other small businesses, and a trailer park leading down to Fisherman's Wharf. He stated it is not a residential street, but is A1A leading to Patrick Air Force Base; and described pictures showing Anthony's Motel, large power poles, condominiums, townhouses, and the high traffic area. He stated at the Planning and Zoning meeting, there were comments made by residents about the impact to their properties; and described pictures showing the views from the subject property, including shrubs and bushes, a dirt driveway, an RV, and a couple of residences. He stated the residential areas are completely shielded from his client's property and from the access; he understands that does not block noise; but it is an extremely narrow strip of land, so there is not much that is going to block the traffic noise. He stated a building to the north appears to be a residential property; but the pictures show it to be more commercial than residential, and no one is living there. He stated the next set of photographs show the west view from the property, which is the Yardley property; and there is a letter in the package from the Yardleys.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Torpy's time had expired. Mr. Torpy advised he has about five minutes more of his presentation to get on the record, and would appreciate an extension of time. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that would be part of the rebuttal time; with Chairman Scarborough advising Mr. Torpy can waive his rebuttal time and take it now if he wants to.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant an additional five minutes to the speaker. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Higgs and Colon voted nay.

Mr. Torpy stated the next photographs show the view to the south, the rear driveway of the property, the entrance coming on the south side of the building to the Yardleys' property, and the point where the driveways meet. He stated the Board has a letter from the Yardleys, which comments that JPM Industries has little regard for the people who live in the neighborhood and that the grounds are not maintained, although a lot of improvements have been done on the inside; and displayed a photograph of the Yardley property. He presented photographs showing the south view from his client's property, showing the driveway, the fence, and the front of the adjacent land. He stated there is a good argument from the standpoint of maintaining property, that his client's property is one of the best maintained in the area; that does not avoid the issue of the residences surrounding the property; but that is the condition of the whole community. He stated his clients are willing, under a conditional use permit, to comply with reasonable conditions that would assist in further buffering the people from the impact of a bar; his clients understand the concerns and difficulties; but saying no to the conditional use permit will not change that issue because they will still have a bar; and by granting the conditional use permit, there can be terms to help reduce the impact. He stated a lot of the people are saying there is going to be more traffic; some of the letters allude to people drinking hard liquor having a harder impact; but there is no evidence to support that. He stated what his client is attempting to do by serving full liquor, which is a more expensive product, is to get more revenue in the same size facility without adding more people. He stated they are not asking for more seats; but they want to add a different product line to draw a different customer demographic. He stated under the County Code there is no rationale for denying a CUP for a liquor license; the Code provides for alcoholic beverages; and it makes sense to have a full liquor license under a conditional use permit that would help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors.

George Hurt stated he lives across the street and to the south of the property; and submitted photographs and a copy of a report from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concerning alcoholic fatalities going up 4% last year to the Board. He stated he hopes the Board received his letter that explains the whole story. He stated the bar has been serving alcohol for a long time, but was not an adult entertainment establishment when it started; it was a mom and pop sandwich shop; and it sneaked into being an adult entertainment bar before regulations were established. He stated hard liquor goes into the blood faster; and commented on the potential for drunk drivers on A1A. He advised they are remote from emergency services; and it is a bad situation that worries him from a safety standpoint. He stated the fact that the bar is already there bothers a lot of the residents; even though the residents may not be tidy, they do not like drunks walking through their yards in the middle of the night and throwing beer bottles, etc. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board said a CUP is not necessary to regulate this property; and the Board can talk about that.

Mr. Torpy stated he spoke with the County Attorney about procedures as this is a quasi-judicial procedure; he is not sure there are going to be any comments made by staff or additional evidence that has not already been placed in the record; but if there are, he would like the opportunity to respond or ask questions of staff, specifically on the issue of the CUP versus other methods of regulation. He stated Code Enforcement has some abilities, but does not have the abilities to give specific regulation of this type of activity; it is not effective; and the Board knows that. He stated conditional use permits give a lot more power; and that is all they are saying. He stated nobody wants this, but his client; but there is an opportunity to gain some regulation the County did not have before. He stated he does not know what is going to happen with the appeal on the argument that the establishment is grandfathered in to serve full liquor; if he wins, there will be full liquor, so the possibility is there; and the Board has the ability to stop that issue now and put reasonable regulations to address some of the concerns, which makes sense. He requested the Board consider the character of the neighborhood, the duration the premises has been there, and the type of complaints the citizens are making; there was only one speaker against the rezoning tonight; and there is an opportunity for the Board to do something.

Commissioner Colon commented on a January 10, 2001 newspaper article concerning requests for hard liquor at the establishment; and inquired how many times has this already been before the Board; with Mr. Enos responding it has been before the Board twice as a conditional use permit application; and the article is referring to the appeal of the Zoning Official's determination that hard alcohol would be an expansion of the existing use. Commissioner Colon inquired as a CUP is this the third time; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the CUP process adequately distinguishes between beer and wine and hard liquor; with Mr. Enos responding no. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the license says beer and wine; with Mr. Enos responding the applicant has a beer and wine license from prior to 1958, so he has a nonconforming use; it is staff's opinion, which was upheld by the Board and the courts, that adding hard liquor would be an expansion of the use; and that is why they would need a conditional use permit to add hard alcohol. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the location is nonconforming; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the BU-1 zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use designation; with Mr. Enos responding the current land use designation is residential; BU-1 is not consistent with that; however, there is a provision in the Code that says if someone had BU-1 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan was amended, then it would be considered consistent, unless the Board determined otherwise; so there was an opportunity for the Board to determine whether or not the underlying BU-1 use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is it consistent with the Plan; with Mr. Enos responding in staff's opinion, it is not, as the area is predominantly residential and BU-1 is not in character with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the business has an adult entertainment license; with Mr. Enos responding it has an active license for adult dancing establishment. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if alcohol is permitted under Section 62-4919; with Mr. Enos responding it appears it is not permitted. Mr. Enos clarified adult dancing establishment allow certain activities, which according to Section 62-4919 should not be happening where alcoholic beverages are sold, dispensed, or consumed. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if at this time the business is violating Section 62-4919. Mr. Enos stated he does not think it is now because it is a nonconforming use, so the current use is grandfathered against this provision. Mr. Enos stated the concern is to expand that and add other activities may be a violation of Section 62-4919. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is Mr. Enos' professional opinion that adding a CUP for service of hard liquor would be an expansion of the present use; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Carlson stated she asked Ms. Busacca about any outstanding Code Enforcement issues, but Ms. Busacca was not aware of any.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Enos explain his professional qualifications and educational background; with Mr. Enos responding he has a Masters Degree in urban regional planning from Florida State University and 22 years of experience, 21 years in Brevard County.

Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board is going to go to denial, in the past it has requested something from the County Attorney. Ms. Bentley stated Mr. Torpy has asked for an opportunity to respond to any information that was elicited from staff; and suggested this would be an appropriate time to do that.

Mr. Torpy stated there was reference to Code Section 62-4919; and inquired if that is the Code of Brevard County; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Mr. Torpy inquired if it was recently passed; with Mr. Enos responding no, it has been in place for quite some time. Mr. Torpy inquired if that provision prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages where an adult entertainment license is issued; with Mr. Enos responding there are four different kinds of adult entertainment licenses; and this is for adult dancing establishments. Mr. Torpy stated Mr. Enos gave the Board an opinion that this was an increase in the nonconforming use by adding liquor; and inquired if Mr. Enos has experience or education in the difference between the impact of hard liquor and beer and wine; with Mr. Enos responding he does not. Mr. Torpy inquired if Mr. Enos has read any studies that indicate that adding liquor in addition to beer and wine creates a different impact; with Mr. Enos responding he has, although he cannot say offhand what those might be. Mr. Enos advised in the past he has done some research; he saw both sides of the argument; and he has seen some indication of that. Mr. Torpy inquired has Mr. Enos done anything in preparation for his testimony today that would indicate that adding liquor to this establishment would have some additional impact on the current customers or the current site; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Torpy inquired what is Mr. Enos' opinion based on; with Mr. Enos responding it is the opinion of the Department Director and the Board, and has been upheld in court; so he is comfortable that his opinion is consistent with the other opinions. Mr. Torpy stated that is not what he is asking; Mr. Enos said it is his opinion; and inquired if Mr. Enos' opinion is based on that issued earlier by the Board and Mr. Scott; with Mr. Enos responding yes, as well as other opinions. Mr. Torpy stated Mr. Enos has been put on the spot as being the expert testifying on this; that is why he asking these questions; and he wants to know what Mr. Enos' opinion that hard alcohol creates an increase in the nonconforming use is based on. Mr. Enos stated it is his personal opinion; but he cannot give any statistical information as to why that is his opinion. Mr. Torpy stated when he came to Mr. Scott asking the County to sign off on that part of the State's application requesting a 4-COP license, Mr. Scott issued a letter stating in his opinion, it was an expansion of the nonconforming use pursuant to Code; he brought an appeal of that to the Board, which agreed with Mr. Scott that it could be because the Code never says that, but only talks about what would be an increase in a nonconforming use. He stated alcohol is not specifically discussed; but the Board agreed with Mr. Scott's opinion that the Code could be read that way, that adding alcohol could be considered an increase in the nonconforming use. He stated they requested declaratory relief action; one judge agreed; but no one has issued an opinion saying it can be read that way, and adding alcohol is an expansion. He stated that issue is now on appeals to the Fifth District Court of Appeals; and another appeal, which went to court asking the court to look at the facts of the case in the context of the Ordinance, was dismissed because the other court said it could be read that way. He stated that is what is on appeal; they have granted oral argument on that issue; and it is not a decided issue. He advised there are not two or three judges agreeing it is an increase in nonconforming uses; only one judge has said that he agrees with the Board's interpretation of the Code; the facts have to be applied to the law; and that issue is still on appeal. He stated no one can tell what the Fifth District Court of Appeals is going to say on the issue. He thanked the Board for allowing him to differ from the normal process and procedure.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has been given a copy of an adult entertainment license for the Runway Sport Restaurant; and inquired if it is accurate; with Ms. Bentley responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs stated she has been given a definition of adult dancing establishment, which says the definition is in Section 62-4902 of the Code; and inquired if that is still in effect; with Ms. Bentley responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated Section 62-4919 talks about the dispensing, permitting, and consumption of alcoholic beverages in adult dancing establishments; and inquired if that is still in place; with Ms. Bentley responding yes.

Mr. Torpy inquired if that portion of the Code that Commissioner Higgs was asking about applies in the circumstance where there is nonconforming use; with Ms. Bentley responding she has not looked at the nonconforming status of the adult entertainment activities, so cannot answer that.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Runway has an adult dancing establishment license. Mr. Torpy stated he has not looked at the license at all; it was not raised in the past; and inquired if this was one of the items provided to him based on his public records request. Planner Robin Sobrino advised staff just found this item this afternoon. Mr. Torpy inquired if it was provided through his public records request; with Ms. Sobrino responding not since he came in yesterday. Mr. Torpy requested this not be allowed in the record; stated he has made three requests of the County Commission, one as recently as yesterday; and submitted a letter from Ms. Sobrino where he asked for any and all documents in support of this hearing. Ms. Sobrino clarified she indicated to Mr. Torpy's assistant, Paulette, that staff had provided every piece of information that was available up to that moment, and that she should understand that anything that would be requested based upon inquiries by members of the Board to staff or anything that staff needed to do in order to provide the Board with additional information that might be necessary, they would not be precluded from doing. Ms. Sobrino noted that was a verbal telephone conversation after the letter was faxed from Mr. Torpy to staff.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if this would be cured by tabling the item and allowing Mr. Torpy sufficient time to review it. Ms. Bentley advised tabling would cure it, but she does not know how much time Mr. Torpy needs. Mr. Torpy inquired if it is just a copy of the license; with Commissioner O'Brien advising it is a copy of the license, which the business should be displaying in a public place. Mr. Torpy stated he has not looked to confirm what license the establishment has; but if this is accurate public record, he would say yes. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Torpy is asking that this not be made a part of the record; with Mr. Torpy responding if this is nothing more than a copy of the current record of the County, he has no objection. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a current copy issued October 8, 2001 to JPM Investment Group; and suggested taking a three-minute break for Mr. Torpy to confirm with his client this is the license. Mr. Torpy stated if the Board is saying it is a current copy, he is happy; and if that is the only reason it is being offered on the record, he is content.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial; and although the club has been serving beer and wine since the 1950's, it was grandfathered in after the Code changes in 1958, so has continued to operate under the old rules, but could not expand its uses. He stated there has never been a guarantee to the club that hard liquor would ever be allowed; and since the previous denials in 1991, 1995, and 2000, no additional businesses have opened or been constructed in that area. He stated the area is overwhelmingly residential; the applicant's location is nonconforming; the present zoning is nonconforming with the Future Land Use Plan; and alcohol service would be an expansion of the current nonconforming use. He stated granting the CUP would offer a new use when the property is already nonconforming; historically the occupants were a sandwich shop that sold some beer and wine; but now it is an adult entertainment center; and previous testimony reveals the lack of safe parking accommodations. He stated to have customers, who are possibly intoxicated, traverse four lanes of A1A would be irresponsible on the part of the Board; access to parking is inadequate and unsafe; and the added influence of the increased liquor license would increase the level of exposure of the public to a higher incidence of disturbances, noise, traffic, over-parking, and the possibility of drunk drivers in a residential area as well as on A1A. He stated emergency services in that area are below minimum, with a very long response time; and no circumstances have changed since the previous denials. He stated the CUP is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Future Land Use Plan map designation; and it fails to meet the criteria of Chapter 62-1901 of the County Code for issuance of a CUP. He stated there is adult entertainment dancing there; and to include hard liquor would not be in compliance with County Code. He stated the impact upon abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood would be significantly negative with noise, trash, public urination, parking on streets, people walking through yards and streets, slamming of car doors, radios, and a whole gamut of offensive activities; and the residents have a right to expect a reasonable amount of quiet, privacy, and security. He stated the other commercially-zoned properties are mostly nonconforming and cannot be expanded; this CUP would expand a use within a nonconforming use; and he favors denial.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants the County Attorney to come back with a finding of fact; with Commissioner O'Brien advising that is part of the motion.

Commissioner Higgs recommended the motion include tabling to allow the findings of fact to be developed. Ms. Bentley inquired to what date; with the Clerk responding March 7, 2002.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to table Item 8 to March 7, 2002 to allow the County Attorney to prepare a finding of fact. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Torpy stated Commissioner O'Brien just read a written statement; and inquired was that prepared prior to coming to the meeting; with Commissioner O'Brien responding no, and in fact, it is written on the copy of the license he got this evening.

The meeting recessed at 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m.

Item 9. (Z0201202) Akar Properties, LLC.'s request for amendment to a BDP in a BU-2 zone on 1.2± acres on the east side of Clearlake Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 9 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z0201301) Eileen K. Taylor, Trustee's request for change from SEU and BU-1-A to AU with a BDP, with removal of existing CUP for Aquaculture-Case II on 2.9± acres located on the west side of Hwy. A1A, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan to exclude landscaping business, composting, and a farmers' market, in addition to the already included exclusions.

Max Taylor stated he is the son of Eileen Taylor, and is representing her this evening; he lives on the property in question; and the Board is probably aware of his mother's proposed zoning change, which has generated intense and to some degree negative interest. He stated most, if not all, of the concerns are the result of misinformation and misunderstanding of his intent. He stated his parents bought the property in 1961 when it was a producing commercial grapefruit grove; in the years since, they have added several types of oranges, tangerines, tangelos, and key limes, and have introduced four varieties of avocado, five types of mangoes, bananas, coconuts, and macadamia nuts and a variety of other tropical fruits; and they started a nursery to propagate many of the fruits and ornamental plants. He stated before they built their home in 1968, his father introduced beehives onto the property; and the grove, nursery, and hives are on the property to this day. He stated in the 1960's he started experimenting with aquaculture with one of the first oyster growing operations in Florida; and in the 1970's his father developed and operated a hydroponics vegetable garden. He stated at the same time he was involved in commercial clamming and oystering from the dock; and in 1990, they expanded the nursery and grove and initiated a clam aquaculture nursery. He noted the plant and clam nurseries are State licensed and certified; and the grove continues to expand in size and diversity. He stated one of the major concerns expressed by people living in the area was that it will open the door for similar requests in the future and lead to the commercialization of the South Beaches. He stated while agricultural land is not a prevalent use in the area, it is a historical use; and a five and one-half acre parcel approximately a quarter-mile north of his home is currently zoned for agricultural use, and has been for years. He stated their property is unique; it is probably the only remaining piece in the area to meet the requirements for agricultural zoning; there are few properties left in the area that meet the acreage and dimensional requirements; but there are none left that enjoy long-term continuous and historical agricultural use. He stated another point that has drawn attention is what they intend to do with the property if they receive the agricultural zoning; and the answer is nothing more than they are doing now. He stated he does not know why anyone would think that they would want to spoil the solitude by developing an RV park, a fish camp, or by raising birds or animals; and they have proposed a binding development agreement to exclude every use except "all agricultural pursuits, including packing and processing, and sales of commodities raised on the premises." He noted the only commodities they could deal with are those grown on the property; and with less than two acres of usable land, they are not talking about mega-agriculture. He stated he would be allowed to keep bees and have a plant nursery; and he would also retain the right to have a conditional use permit for a guest house on the property, and already has a second kitchen; but there are no animals, RV's, fish camp, or chickens. He stated another area of concern is the potential environmental and aesthetic impact of the proposed zoning change; the staff report indicates this is consistent with land use regulations; the Comprehensive Plan promotes changes that provide for less density and development; and this proposal drops the density from a potential of three units to one unit. He stated the plan calls for saving green space; agricultural zoning would do that; and it also calls for the preservation of unique agricultural lands. Mr. Taylor stated because of the buffering of the river and ocean, this property is one of the few places in the County where one can grow tropical fruits; and the close proximity of the Sebastian Inlet provides a highly saline water that is suited to the growing of clams. He stated in terms of the impact on the surrounding community, he uses less water each day than would be used to irrigate any of his neighbor's lawns; he does not use any pesticides, herbicides, or chemicals that are used on any of the residential lawns; and because of the bees, he has to use a wax-base insecticide that is less harmful than most home-use products. He stated there are no smells, sounds, or other aesthetic impacts that would not be associated with a yard; and the restricted agricultural uses of the property are compatible and comparable to any well-tended, well-ordered neighborhood yards. He stated approximately 450 feet of undisturbed State-owned maritime hammock is between his property and the nearest neighbor to the north; another 600 feet of maritime hammock lies between the agricultural land and her neighbor to the east; and the neighbor to the south supports the change. He stated the Indian River Lagoon is to the west; and there are not a lot of people who could be affected by his continuing agricultural efforts. He stated in terms of traffic impact, he would be lucky to fill a pickup truck a week with his products as he has a very small operation. He stated the possible loss of property value is a concern; in the 40 years his family has owned and worked this property, there has never been a drop in value anywhere on the beach; and there are few who even know they are there in the woods, and after the zoning process is over, he hopes to fade back into obscurity. He stated there is a full half-mile area of commercially zoned land running along A1A in this area; the presence of dozens of commercial properties does not seem to have depressed property values; and restricted agricultural zoning buffered by 600 feet of woods will not depress property values either. He stated he has heard his family is pushing for the zoning change to get a tax break on the property; he will do whatever is legal to bring down the taxes on this land; his family has never seen the property as an investment; and if they had, they would have developed it at 30 units an acre, ten units an acre, or the present four units an acre. He stated this property has always been for his family; it is a little piece of paradise hidden on the Indian River Lagoon; but over the past 30 years, they have seen the area transform from rural to urban; and they have been forced to sell two-thirds of their property to meet the rising taxes. He stated they hope to continue the agricultural efforts to pay the taxes; and if they can bring down the developmental density on the property, the taxes should reflect that. He stated he agrees it is not fair for someone to pay their taxes; but it also is not fair that his taxes have continued to climb in spite of efforts to maintain agricultural and green space in a rapidly urbanized setting. He reiterated he will do whatever is legal to ensure they are not forced from their homes just because it has become a desirable neighborhood.

Fred Lee stated he lives approximately 600 to 700 feet south of the subject property; and he knows the property and the owners well. He stated they are nice people; they have raised agricultural products there for some time for their own use; and they also have an existing aquaculture clam farm; but the neighbors do not see it or hear anything. He stated this is the same point the Board talked about with the goats; but while it has nothing to do with goats, it has to do with the rezoning of the property. He advised of a similar issue close to this property where two years ago an owner wanted a change in zoning to consider a monkey-breeding farm; and stated the Board was wise at that time to realize this was a residential neighborhood where such use would be inconsistent. He stated directly south of the property in question is the property owned by Mr. Infantini, who two years ago requested a CUP for a beer and wine license as well as jet skis; that was objectionable to the neighbors; and the Board wisely turned down that request. He stated Mr. Taylor is already raising bees and honey and has an aquaculture business in place; and he is opposed to changing the full zoning to agriculture, which would allow a lot of different uses. He stated he has not seen any limitation on the really objectionable uses; and if the zoning is allowed to change, he is not sure how the Board can say no to the other two properties that it previously turned down, if they reapply for rezoning. He stated the neighborhood is residential; the Taylors have been there a long time; five or six years ago, the Taylors divided their property in residential lots; and there is no hardship as the Taylors are raising their crops and doing their aquaculture as they have all along. He commented on setting a precedent; and stated he did not realize an RV park would be allowed in agricultural zoning, but found out that it could allow up to ten motor homes at a time for up to 72 hours at a time. He stated there are a lot of other things that this zoning would allow that are clearly inconsistent with a residential neighborhood; and he does not think this zoning change is necessary.

Mark Shantzis stated he lives cattycorner across the street from the property, and opposes the zoning change. He stated Mr. Taylor just sold the property to the neighbor to the south, who he said was not opposed. He stated Mr. Taylor said there is commercial zoning all over the place, but it is BU-1-A, which is residential and very restricted; and it has not been successful in the area because there are not enough people to make it work. He advised people are knocking down commercial properties to build residential properties. He stated the use that Mr. Taylor talks about in terms of insecticides, etc. is not relevant to the zoning change; what he says does not mean anything to the next owner; and the zoning goes with the property. He stated if the Board allows Mr. Taylor to change his zoning, it could be legally possible for him to reduce his taxes; but it would be at the expense of everyone else. He stated as far as the five and one-half acres of agricultural property within one-quarter mile, he did not realize it was so close; and displayed a map showing property from Aquarina PUD to the Sebastian Inlet, with no agricultural zoning except the one parcel mentioned by Mr. Taylor. He stated the request is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood; and whatever agricultural pursuits Mr. Taylor is doing are either grandfathered in or he is doing them as a nonconforming use. He stated AU is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding neighborhood; and advised the Board was faxed a list of 120 names who are against this rezoning. He stated the requested rezoning would violate many things in the Comprehensive Plan; read aloud from Administrative Policy 2; and inquired if staff has evaluated the worst case impact; with Mr. Enos responding yes, that is what they do with zoning applications. Mr. Shantzis inquired if staff looked at all the 50 possible uses of the property; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Mr. Shantzis inquired if there is a copy of that he can see; with Mr. Enos responding it is the staff review. Mr. Shantzis stated as far as he can tell there is no written documentation of the worst case scenario. He stated Policy 3 says, "Compatibility with existing proposed land uses shall be a factor in determining where rezoning of any application involving a specific proposed use is being considered"; part of the criteria is whether the proposed use would cause material reduction in the value of existing abutting lands or development; and neighbors in the area believe it would.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Shantzis' time has expired. Commissioner Higgs requested he be given another minute; with the Board reaching consensus to allow the speaker additional time.

Mr. Shantzis stated the rezoning is in violation of Policy 4 as to the character of the neighborhood; Policy 6, which talks about the Future Land Use Element; the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1, Policy 1.12, Protection of the Residential Riverside Lands; and Policy 4.1, Permitted Uses and Agriculture Land Use Designation. He stated in terms of Policy 13.1, in 1997 staff wrote guidelines and determined what the future land use was for all the property surrounding the Taylor and Infantini properties; and in the findings of fact, it says that to the north, south, east, and west, the future land use is residential. He stated the rezoning is in violation of Policy 13.3, Policy 15.7, and Chapter 133, Part II, which would be triggered and would then allow people in the area to start talking about the reduction of their property values and start suing for that in the Florida State Private Property Rights Protection Act. He stated Chapter 163, Part II says that a future land use plan element designating for proposed future general distribution location extends uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industrial, agricultural and recreation; but recreation and agricultural uses are two different kinds of uses. He stated it will open the door to review of the previous zonings that were turned down; it would contradict the Board's move towards stopping aquaculture from going into residential neighborhoods; and it would allow an unlimited amount of aquaculture on the property in question.

Ms. Bentley requested Mr. Shantzis submit his map to the Clerk; and Mr. Shantzis submitted such map for the record.

Mr. Taylor stated everything has been said; staff may want to review his binding development plan and talk about the 50 additional uses; but there is a misunderstanding there as well. He stated there was some talk that they voluntarily changed to SEU several years ago; there was a requirement at that time to sell more land; so they needed to make the property into lots. He stated they had just gone through an administrative rezoning down to one unit an acre; so they went to SEU to sell off more land. He stated Mr. Shantzis commented on how this would affect the property values of abutting properties; but the abutting lands to the north are State owned, most of the property to the east is his and BU-1-A; and the one section that is not ends on A1A, so there is not going to be a lot of concern there. He stated the only private property is to the south; and there is a letter in the package from the owner in favor of his request. He stated he is trying to make sure he will have the ability to do what he wants within the narrow confines of what has historically been done on the property, in raising food and plants, and a little bit of aquaculture. He stated there is a rapid change in the complexion of the neighborhood; his kind of lifestyle seems to be falling out of favor; and he would like to make sure he gets to stay there and do what he wants to make sure he can pay the taxes. He stated he would like someone to address the binding development agreement, so his neighbors will know what he has done.

Commissioner Higgs stated she got a faxed copy of the binding development plan today; and requested Mr. Enos review what is proposed and what would be allowed under the binding development plan. Mr. Taylor noted it might be easier to just pick out the things that are left in. Mr. Enos stated staff received the most updated draft today; it was compared against the list of possible uses in an AU zone; and the permitted uses that are left are single-family detached residential dwelling, all agricultural pursuits including packing, processing, and sale of commodities raised on the premises, bee keeping, and plant nurseries. He stated under conditional uses the only remaining ones would be guesthouses, second kitchen facility, expansion of pre-existing uses, and pet kennel.

Mr. Taylor advised he is not going to have a pet kennel; and will only have one guesthouse. Mr. Enos advised the list is plural, but there would only be one guesthouse.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what all agricultural pursuits would mean; with Mr. Enos responding that generally refers to operations such as a packing house for an orange grove; and any kind of processing that would normally happen with agricultural products could happen onsite. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that would include other types of aquaculture activities. Mr. Enos responded it would; under AU zoning, aquaculture is considered agriculture; and any kind of processing that could be done in an aquaculture operation could be done in AU.

Mr. Taylor inquired about making a future change to the binding development plan; stated when it says grown on premises, it means he cannot bring any aquaculture product back onto his property once it goes into the river; and inquired if it means he cannot land clams or oysters. Mr. Enos stated it means if Mr. Taylor had an orange grove and he had a packing house for those oranges, he could not also process his neighbor's oranges. Mr. Taylor stated under aquaculture one of the big concerns was that he would be bringing the product back on, packaging them, and then taking them off to sell; and inquired if he can do that; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Taylor stated that is the clarification he was looking for.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the product cannot be brought back on the property, what was the expansion of agriculture that could be done. Mr. Enos responded it would basically involve the size of the operation; in the SEU zoning, as in any residential zoning where there is a conditional use permit for aquaculture, the conditional use permit limits the aquaculture operation, since it is an accessory use to a residence, to no more than 1,200 square feet; but by rezoning the property to AU, the aquaculture operation is no longer accessory to a residence, so it could be the only use on the site, and there would be no limit to size.

Mr. Taylor stated the aquaculture expansion he may some day consider is to bring in a hatchery if his seed supply dries up; it would be a small operation; and commented on the degrading water quality. He stated if he could not get seed from the suppliers, he would be forced to drop the aquaculture or set up a hatchery to spawn the clams and feed them; but that would be retained inside the compound in his back yard, which would be fenced.

Commissioner Higgs stated she met with the Taylors and Mr. Shantzis. She stated most of the uses are clear at this point; looking at a map of the area, it is clear that there is only one other small AU parcel, which is owned by the Richard King Mellon Foundation for conservation, not active agriculture; and when reviewing the administrative policy regarding determining compatibility, she has to look at the historical land use patterns, the development over the past three years, and the development approved over the past three years, but not yet constructed. She stated the existing zoning is overwhelmingly residential with the one exception that is in conservation; AU is not compatible with this area; and it is not consistent with the emerging or existing patterns in the surrounding development. She stated she is sympathetic to the desire to continue the lifestyle of growing fruit and keeping bees, and there is a CUP already for the clams; and inquired if there is anything that precludes continuing to grow fruit on the property. Mr. Enos responded to the extent those uses are nonconforming uses, they can continue the current agricultural operations they have. Commissioner Higgs stated even though AU should not be put on the property, there is no reason to think the continued historical uses are not grandfathered in; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 11. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING SIXTH SMALL SCALE PLAN
AMENDMENT OF 2002 (01S.6)

Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Gonzalez is here representing his client; but his desire is to continue the item.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Sixth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002 (01S.6) to April 4, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. (Z0201302) Walter A. Nelson, John D. Copanos, and John S. Copanos' request for a CUP for Land Alteration in GU and AU zones on 400± acres located west of I-95, north of Micco Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with condition that the applicant obtain a Land Hauling/Roadway Easement permit from the Public Works Department.

Dwight Sliger stated he is requesting a conditional use permit for a borrow pit; it is approximately a mile and a half east of Babcock Street, just north of the Sottile Canal; and it sits on approximately 400 acres in a surrounding area of borrow pits. He stated they will be servicing the homebuilders primarily in the Palm Bay area.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the CUP be approved with the condition that the applicant obtain a land hauling/roadway easement permit from Public Works Department; and inquired if Mr. Sliger is familiar with that condition. Mr. Sliger stated he heard that at the meeting, but does not know what it will entail. Commissioner Higgs stated it will require a fee; with Mr. Sliger indicating acceptance. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there will be any blasting or rock mining on this parcel; with Mr. Sliger responding no. Mr. Sliger advised they have been operating under a land alteration permit for a lake under five acres; they have already dug down as deep as they are permitted to go; and described the layers. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be her intent to have a condition that there would be no blasting on this parcel; the Sottile Canal, which abuts the property, is the responsibility of the County; and inquired as a condition of the CUP is Mr. Sliger willing to allow the County perpetual access on the easement to maintain the canal; with Mr. Sliger responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated the operating hours in the staff information indicates 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and those hours will be a part of the conditional use permit.

Mr. Sliger inquired who should he see about the easement; with Commissioner Higgs advising Mr. Sliger should contact the Public Works Director.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 12 with conditions that the applicant obtain a Land Hauling/Roadway Easement from the Public Works Department, there be no blasting or rock mining, hours of operation be from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and a perpetual access easement be provided for maintenance of the Sottile Canal. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. (Z0201304) South Palm Bay Development Corp.'s request for CUP for Land Alteration in AU and EU zones, retaining the existing BDP on 99.85 acres located on the south side of Micco Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for 90 days with condition that the applicant obtain a Land Hauling/Roadway Easement permit from the Public Works Department.

Rick Kern stated he represents South Palm Bay Development Corporation; the request is for a conditional use permit for a ten-acre land alteration permit; it is within a 100-acre site on the south side of Micco Road; and it is approximately one-half mile west of Barefoot Bay. He stated they received a land alteration permit for a five-acre pit approximately three years ago; the contractor, without the permission of the landowner, cleared outside the limits of what was approved on the land alteration permit; and this has put the project into a Code Enforcement action. He stated they have been advised by the Code Enforcement Department and the Office of Natural Resources, in order to remedy the situation, that they need to obtain a CUP from the Board for increase in the land area of the project. He stated the owner wants to clean the project up, bring the side slopes of the pit into conformance with County regulations, and restore and re-vegetate it; and in order to accomplish this, they need 90 days after the land alteration permit is approved, at which time they would be closing it down. He stated once this is done, it is the desire of the applicant to go into the subdivision approval process and turn the project into a single-family home subdivision with a one unit per acre density; and at that time the borrow pit would be converted to a lake. He stated they are agreeing to a 90-day limit, construction and operation would be during daylight hours only; and they would be limiting truck traffic to a maximum of 20 trips per day. He stated if they cannot obtain the CUP, they would have to import a massive amount of dirt, which could take a very long time during which the pit would be in a non-finished state. He stated it is his client's desire to close down the commercial operation of the pit; and he needs 90 days and the CUP to accomplish the task.

Commissioner Higgs stated the owner applied for a conditional use permit in 1998, which was denied; now there is a violation of the original five acres; and all the applicant is asking for is 90 days from tonight. Mr. Kern clarified it would be 90 days from when the land alteration permit is approved. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they would continue digging; with Mr. Kern responding they have been shut down for quite a while now. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they want 90 days from the time staff issues the permit to close this; and are they willing to stipulate they will not subdivide the 99.85 acres and request permits on additional properties associated with the 99.85 acres. Mr. Kern responded he has not posed that question to the owner of the land; but if the Board wishes to impose that condition, he would probably go along with it. Commissioner Higgs stated that would be the only way she could do this so it could be stopped, cleaned up in a suitable condition, and the operation discontinued. She stated it is possible to do five acres without a conditional use permit; and she does not want the property subdivided and have five acres after five acres. Mr. Kern stated they are willing to put that condition on that they would not be seeking any additional five-acre or less land alteration permits. Commissioner Higgs recommended including they will not subdivide the property and seek any further land alteration permits; with Mr. Kern stated that is correct, but it is their intention to do a single-family home subdivision. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands that; but she is talking about land developing borrow pit operations; and advised it will be necessary to get a permit from the Public Works Department, and in the previous application the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday were established. Mr. Kern advised that would be fine. Commissioner Higgs stated the conditions would be that this would operate 90 days after the issuance of the permit; they currently have five acres; the permit is 9.95 acres; so they need an additional 4.95 acres for 90 days only, with no extension of time. She stated the hours are 7:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; and there will be no further subdivision of the property and no additional applications for land alteration permits.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve for 90 days from issuance of Land Alteration permit with conditions applicant obtain a Land Hauling/Roadway Easement permit from the Public Works Department, hours of operation be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and no further subdivision of this property for land alteration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the value of issuing the permit will be to terminate these activities.

Item 16. (Z0201401) 600 L.C.'s request for a CUP to permit light fixtures which exceed 400 watts per bulb, and more than three luminaires per pole in a BU-2 zone on 7.43 acres, located on the south side of SR 520, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is for the Honda Dealership on SR 520; and the only thing he does not like is leaving the lights on until midnight. He inquired if the applicant will agree to a 10:00 p.m. 75% turnoff of the lights; with David Alley, Engineer for the project, responding he can bring that to the attention of the owner; and he is sure they would rather have the CUP granted with the exception for lighting. Commissioner O'Brien stated growth is coming to this but she knows area; and the lights have to be shielded so it does not leave the property. Commissioner O'Brien stated the dealership closes at 9:00 or 9:30 p.m.; there may be a special sale; and no one is going to give a ticket for having a special one night sale; but lighting should be turned off at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Alley advised he will agree to the conditions.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 16 with condition lights be cut to 75% power at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. (Z0201402) The Waelti Family Limited Partnership and Eloise Waelti's request for change from GU and PIP to PIP with an amendment to the existing BDP on 18.36 acres located on the west side of Waelti Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limiting development to a church with a minimum of a 25-foot landscape buffer along the west property line.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is a binding development plan for the church; it is her understanding it says they shall provide a 25-foot buffer along the westerly boundary of the property, which shall remain in its nature vegetative state; and inquired if the applicant spoke to the homeowners group to the west.

Jake Wise advised there was a public meeting in November, 2001; and they have also met with the all homeowners associations, which are in support. Commissioner Carlson stated they are also restricting the use of PIP to a church, fellowship hall, and related uses ancillary thereto, and shall not be used for any industrial purposes; with Mr. Wise advising that is correct. Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff confirmed there were meetings with the surrounding residential community; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JANUARY 10, 2002
MEETING OF THE NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider zoning recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its January 10, 2002 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. (NMI20101) Lutheran Retirement Campus of Merritt Island, Inc.'s request for Amendment to the Preliminary Development Plan in a PUD zone on 67± acres located on the south side of Hall Road, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District with condition of natural barrier between parking lots.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 1 with condition of natural barrier between parking lots as recommended by North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Zoning Manager's Report Zoning Official Rick Enos stated there was report to the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board that it needed to fill a vacancy.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he sent a recommendation of one person who wants to fill that seat; but no action has been taken. Mr. Enos stated they will be taking action this month.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Barbara Jagrowski, representing Citizens for Scenic Florida, stated at a meeting two weeks ago she learned about a situation that is taking place in Tallahassee; there is a stand-alone bill that is being pushed by the outdoor sign industry, similar to the amendment to the bill last year to allow the Legislature to bypass Ordinances written by counties and municipalities having to do with outdoor signs; and she is just alerting the Board to the situation.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can take action to contact the lobbyist and the Legislative Delegation. Ms. Jagrowski stated other counties and the League of Cities were not happy about this last year. Chairman Scarborough stated it is not right for the Legislature to be able to come and blight the community.

Commissioner Carlson inquired who sponsored the bill; with Ms. Jagrowski responding Senator Latvala.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested having Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca follow up in the morning with Legislative Liaison Carol Laymance; Ms. Laymance can get the exact information to each of the Commissioners by tomorrow afternoon; and not only should the Board inform the lobbyist, but it should start laying down a philosophy of how strongly it feels about this issue, and let the Legislators know it is not just about Brevard County.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Florida Association of Counties is looking into this too; and the Board needs to send whatever letter is necessary.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize sending a letter to Lobbyist Guy Spearman, the Legislative Delegation, Florida Association of Counties, and League of Cities, advising of the Board's opposition to a bill that would allow the State to bypass Ordinances written by counties and municipalities concerning outdoor advertising. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.

____________________________________
ATTEST: TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )