MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

September 15, 2005

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on September 15, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn, and Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Chairman Ron Pritchard.

 

 

Commissioner Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn advised of a letter sent by the County Manager to the Mayor of the City of Palm Bay regarding efforts on the joint planning agreement (JPA); stated the first page lists bullets the staff of the City and County have been able to agree to; and if the Board wishes to provide policy direction, that is fine, or he can bring it back on September 27, 2005 for the Board to review it.  He stated the County has driveway permits as a development order in the Agreement; and looks at driveway permits with respect to concurrency issues; but the City does not feel that the driveway permits are development orders and does not want them listed in the Agreement.  He stated the second is the distinction between municipal and utility services; that can be ironed out with a better definition; it is to better define emergency services; and it can be worked out.  He stated the inclusion of an I-95 interchange for the Palm Bay Parkway is next; the City would like support of a specific location; currently the location for another interchange is at Micco Road; and the Board would need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow the change.  He stated that direction would probably need to begin with the MPO and be channeled in that fashion; and recommended it not be in the JPA.  He stated the City would like for the County to provide a 200-foot right-of-way reservation for the affected property for the Palm Bay Parkway that is not in the unincorporated area; the City is working hard within the City limits to do that; the County needs to ascertain from a legal aspect how that reservation works with respect to putting it on a map and then requiring people to develop with the 200-foot right-of-way shown or reserved; and they can probably work out that issue.  He stated one sticking point is that the City wants to return the maintenance responsibilities of Malabar Road back to the County; the City also wants a commitment of impact fees that the County collects to be allocated toward an assessment area for projects by the City within the City; the City collects its own impact fees; he does not see a problem with it; but it should be mutually agreeable if it is done.  He stated the last item is the City does not have compensatory storage requirements in its floodplain mitigation Ordinances; but the County would like to have that in there.  He stated that means if a floodplain is filled, storage needs to be provided someplace else; they worked hard to come to an agreement on most of the issues; however, these are the ones where policy

REPORT, RE:  JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF PALM BAY  (CONTINUED)

 

direction is needed to go back to the City staff to say how the County feels, and work more on the issues. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the joint planning review areas; with Mr. Washburn responding those areas have been worked out and there are maps. 

 

Discussion ensued on the joint planning review areas, conceptual eligibility of unincorporated portions of the review areas, driveway permits on County-maintained roadways, maintenance responsibility of Malabar Road, Task Force, and concurrency.         

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the JPA will be coming back to the Board; with Mr. Washburn responding yes, but at this point he needs Board direction.  He stated he wants to know whether the Board wants to take back Malabar Road; if it does not, then he needs to advise the City of that at the staff level before bringing the whole document back to the Board because if it is a point on which they cannot agree, Palm Bay staff will need to return to its Council to find out what it wants to do about it. 

 

Discussion resumed on Malabar Road, Task Force, compromise, need for more discussion, not putting obstacles in the JPA, and cooperation from both sides.   

 

Commissioner Carlson suggested the City Manager come forward to the Task Force.  Commissioner Colon stated the City Manager is representing the League of Cities; and he is the only one from Palm Bay. 

 

Discussion ensued on getting additional explanation from an appointed person, the 51% rule, maps, developing JPA on those points where both parties agree, and JPA with City of Titusville.

 

 

 

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones advised the Cullen-Webber v. Brevard County trial will be on September 27, 2005, concerning a Binding Development Plan for New Leash on Life Shelter and an injunction bringing them from 75 dogs to four dogs.  She requested the Board appoint Zoning Manager Rick Enos as its party representative.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to appoint Zoning Manager Rick Enos to serve as the County’s representative at the Cullen-Webber trial concerning the New Leash on Life Shelter.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised the final master plan meeting will be on Monday, September 19, 2005 at the South Mainland Community Center at 6:30 p.m.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised of an article in Florida TODAY indicating Brevard Crossings DRI site had been sold and the new owners planned a mixed use development of residential, retail, and offices; stated the change in development plans could effect the timing and scale of improvements to SR 524; and it may have ramifications on the timing and intensity of residential development on the Hagen-Nicholson property.  Chairman Pritchard advised right now it is speculation.

 

Discussion ensued on SR 524 schedule, traffic study, bringing the issue back for discussion, condition of SR 524, and State pressure for County to take over SR 524.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the Supreme Court decision on Kelo v. City of New London.  Chairman Pritchard advised the Board requested the State Lobbyist request tightening of the regulations.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he requested the County Attorney prepare a similar memorandum to that of the City of Titusville.

 

 

 

Chairman Pritchard stated at the end of each meeting the County Manager ends up with a lengthy list of things to do; and requested at the next meeting the Board be given an example of the list so it has an idea of how much is being requested. 

 

Discussion ensued on previous request for list, burden on staff, lists from Department Directors, pending reports, concern about volume of work, and status of work.

 

 

 

Alicia Kilburn advised of a visit by Code Enforcement; and expressed concern about an individual taking pictures in the neighborhood and about anonymous phone calls to Code Enforcement.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she received complaints from someone concerning a neighbor taking pictures or videos; and inquired if that is legal.  Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones advised it could be considered stalking, and the individual could talk to the State Attorney about it; but it is not a Code violation.  She stated there are cases of this being a peeping Tom situation.  Commissioner Voltz stated the person was told by Code Enforcement that it was legal as long as the individual was on his or her property; but she was concerned that if there was a pedophile living next door, she would not want them taking pictures of her children.  Attorney Jones stated stalking is a pattern of behavior; generally taking a picture in ones own back yard or from a public street is not illegal; but it can cross a line to harassment or stalking. 

 

 

 

Janis Walters advised she has a copy of Roberts Rules of Order; and commented on uniform meeting procedure and duties of the Chairman.  She read aloud from Roberts Rules of Order concerning duties and decorum of a Chairman. 

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE:  ANONYMOUS CALLS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT  (CONTINUED)

 

Cary Pond stated anonymous calls to Code Enforcement is a form of harassment; and commented on the right of the person to know who is accusing him or her.  He advised of anonymous complaints about his horses by one individual; and stated anyone calling in should be required to give him or her name and address. 

 

Chairman Pritchard inquired about the record for anonymous calls by one person.  Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen stated there is a built-in protection in the Code for all enforcement agencies including Animal Services; and if they receive two anonymous complaints that are unfounded, the property is flagged, and they do not take additional anonymous complaints for one year.  Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones advised some Animal Control Services complaints go through the 911 system; Chapter 2 is mostly concerning land development; and Animal Control issues are enforced through the court system. 

 

Discussion ensued on 911 system.  Attorney Jones advised some 911 calls are confidential and others are not. 

 

 

 

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance regulating parking, locating, and storage of vehicles and equipment. 

 

Commissioner Colon requested all speakers advise if they are for or against the proposed ordinance, and if they are not, explain why not. 

Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen stated the Board, in special session on August 30, 2005, took the following actions concerning the ordinance regulating parking, locating, and storage of vehicles and equipment:  (1) remove all length, width, height, and number restrictions from the amendment; (2) establish vehicles and equipment should be within the confines of the property lines; (3) allow recreational vehicles and equipment to be located on property as long as it fits on the property and meets setbacks; (4) require all boats that are transported on trailers to be stored on trailers; (5) recreational vehicles are not to be used for residential/commercial purposes and may be used to accommodate occupants no more than 14 consecutive days in any given month; and (6) allow commercial/recreational vehicles/equipment to be visible from the front yard and for this rule commercial vehicles will be limited to pickup trucks, cargo vans, passenger vans, and trailers.  He stated the Board further continued the public hearing from August 30 to September 15, 2005 and approved abating all Code Enforcement cases dealing with the ordinance until a decision is made.  

 

Darlene Marcoux advised of conflicts in Sections B.1.c and B.2.d; and inquired in Section C.5 if a commercial boat was okay.  She stated the Board has done a great job protecting personal and property rights.

 

Alyssa Marcoux expressed support for the proposed ordinance; and inquired how old one has to be to apply to be an intern for a Commissioner.  

 

Robert Holdren expressed opinions on political aspects of the proposed ordinance, lack of effectiveness in clearing up clutter, and anonymous phone calls.  He submitted a package of pictures showing Newfound Harbor Drive to the Board, but not the Clerk.   

 

Commissioner Voltz stated 90% of the things shown in the pictures are not legal  now, and will not be legal later. 

 

Don Brintle advised he spoke to the County Attorney, and does not need to address the Board.

 

Bill Cannon commented on eliminating all the guidelines from the amendment being a mistake, parking in residential areas, and not thinking of all consequences.

 

Nicki Kisner expressed agreement with Mr. Cannon; and commented on catering to one faction, ridicule of opposing views, and looking at the whole picture.  She requested the Board close loopholes upfront.

 

Harold McDonald stated it will not be detrimental to have a couple of boats or more than one vehicle; and expressed support for the revision.

 

Kandice Kaufman expressed opposition to the way the proposed ordinance was handled.  She commented on limiting number of vehicles, vehicles in her neighborhood, drainage of oil into her yard, and anonymous callers.

 

Merle Ahrens expressed support for limiting the number of vehicles, restricting front yard parking, and keeping parked vehicles hidden from view.  He commented on inability to afford a deed restricted neighborhood, one size fits all ordinance, ordinance needing work, and proactive Code enforcement.  

 

Thumper Volkmer commented on moving to the County, and need to park motor homes and boats.  He expressed support for the proposed ordinance as hammered out at the last meeting.  

 

Iva Volkmer commented on living in Maryland, objecting to being called “those people”, and support of decisions made on August 30, 2005. 

 

David Pasley commented on problems with one size fits all legislation, reaching medium point, and not allowing derelict vehicles. 

 

 

Chairman Pritchard inquired about the law on derelict vehicles.  Mr. Bowen advised there is a separate Ordinance under the Solid Waste Statutes, Section 94, that deals with junk, abandoned, and derelict vehicles. Chairman Pritchard inquired if they are currently against the law; with Mr. Bowen responding they are. 

 

Janis Walters commented on unclear items, including limiting to 14 days, removing provision requiring RV’s to be for personal offsite use, permissive language, and storage within boundary lines except when loading or unloading.  She stated if the unclear items are clarified, she has no problem with the rest of it. 

 

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.

 

Curt Lorenc commented on 14-day limit, living in RV’s, sewage in drainage canals, trespassers, incompatibility with neighborhood, zoning regulations for RV hookup, and proposed ordinance violating State law.   

 

Cary Pond commented on parking his work van, pending Code violation, hurting businesspeople, deed restricted areas, proper disposal of oil, and limiting use of personal property.

 

Attorney Jones stated the proposed ordinance does not affect commercial property; and a utility vehicle can be parked on commercial property if it is BU-1 or BU-2.  Mr. Pond stated his property is BU-1, four and one-half acres on Courtenay Parkway; and he was cited for having a trailer 19-feet long.  Attorney Jones inquired if Mr. Pond’s property abuts residential; with Mr. Pond responding no.  Attorney Jones advised Mr. Pond can park on a loading dock or wherever his site plan says there is parking; and it is allowed under Section 4.  She suggested if he has a Code violation, he should talk to Mr. Bowen tomorrow.  Mr. Pond advised he was also cited for his forklift; he owns a flooring store and needs a forklift; and he is being told it has to be parked inside.  Attorney Jones stated on some BU property it is necessary to have all business activity inside; and she would be willing to look at the particulars of Mr. Pond’s case if he will call her. 

 

Lois Lacoste advised she and her husband are victims of an anonymous complaint to Code Enforcement; and explained the circumstances of the violation.  She commented on parking away from her home, being a self-employed business owner, parking step-van at home, and size of the step-van.  She inquired what is the difference between her vehicle and a 24-foot motor home or boat, one-ton cargo or passenger van, pickup truck, or dually; and expressed opposition to anonymous complaints to Code Enforcement.  She requested step-vans be included in the proposed ordinance.  She submitted pictures and a petition signed by 45 neighbors to the Board but not the Clerk.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the step-van is one of the least egregious things he has seen; and it would be ironic to open it to an unlimited number of vehicles parked in open areas but prohibit this in an enclosed area.  Mr. Bowen stated the term step-van covers a lot of different types of vehicles of various sizes; this one is under 24 feet; but UPS also drives a step-van, so if step-van is included, it would include all vehicles that come under that definition. PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  ORDINANCE REGULATING PARKING, LOCATING, AND
     STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT  (CONTINUED)                                                           

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he voted against this because he does not think the County should allow unlimited sizes and numbers of vehicles; however, this restricts Ms. Lacoste’s vehicle, which is less egregious than larger RV’s; and inquired how can the Board handle it.  Mr. Bowen stated the same can be said about all the vehicles being discussed; some are outrageous, but others look okay; and he does not know how to do this.  He advised going by weight would be problematic.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it will be ironic if the neighbors can have umpteen large RV’s in the yard, but Ms. Lacoste cannot have one small step-van hidden behind a fence. 

 

Attorney Jones advised there is another Code Section 62-2132, which is an administrative permit for a commercial vehicle parking at a residence; it is like a conditional use permit; and right now it is limited to a single-family residential lot of two and one-half acres in size with agreement of all neighbors and other conditions.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to look at that because this vehicle cannot be seen; and the Board is saying she could park anything she wanted in front as long as it was not commercial.  Attorney Jones advised of the difficulty in providing a definition.

 

Bob Lacoste advised most people cannot afford to buy two and one-half acres; and commented on moving to the County.  He commented on checking with the Homeowners Association, additions to the property to accommodate the vehicle, choosing less restricted area, classifications of trucks, difference between his step-van and various vehicles, investment in livelihood, parking at home for security, and financial hardship. 

 

Kathy Renneisen expressed opposition to the amendments that would allow unlimited vehicles to be parked; and commented on parking abuses, breaking sewer lines, derelict vehicles, and ability to see around parked vehicles.

 

Robert Harper stated he agrees with the proposed ordinance just the way it is written.

 

Chris Milner expressed agreement with the ordinance; and commented on enforcement, property values, number of vehicles to be parked on various size properties, rural properties, and fees.  He stated enforcement should be based on complaints by those affected; and advised of the cost to attend meetings on the issue before the Board. 

 

*Commissioner Colon’s presence was noted at this time.

 

Jeff Sink commented on anonymous complaints, limiting number of days someone can stay in an RV, and lack of positive feedback from those against the proposed ordinance; and expressed support for the proposed ordinance.

 

Eric Szanyi advised of problems with Code Enforcement and his commercial property, complaints against neighbors, meeting with Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen, and unfair politics against business owners. 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the complaint against Mr. Szanyi was on commercial property; with Mr. Szanyi responding yes.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the zoning; with Mr. Szanyi advising he has zoning for an automotive garage.  Commissioner Scarborough suggested Attorney Jones work with Mr. Szanyi as well.  Attorney Jones advised Mr. Szanyi was cited for violation of his BU-1 zoning classification where RV storage is not allowed.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the proposed ordinance passes, within the parameters of the setbacks, the County is going to allow anybody to park any number of RV’s on residential property, but commercial property will be precluded; and that is inconsistent. 

 

Floyd Rippetoe stated the basic problem is this does not deal with public health or safety; the ordinance is trying to codify taste; and commented on how his East Merritt Island neighborhood resolves problems.  He commented on the proposed ordinance, double negatives, enforcement by complaint, ordinance becoming tool of harassment, and individual freedom on personal property; and recommended the Board stay with what it has. 

 

Brad Freed expressed support for the proposed ordinance as written; and commented on procedures for variances or waivers.  He advised he was a victim of an anonymous call; and recommended complaints be only from people who are affected.

 

Robert Scorah expressed support for the ordinance as written.

 

Robert Mullins commented on exclusion of wreckers and car carriers and response time to accidents; and advised if eyesores are present when people move to an area, it is none of their business, and if they do not like it, they should keep going.  He advised of a rollback vehicle parked in his yard. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how large is Mr. Mullins’ lot; with Mr. Mullins responding he had three acres, but subdivided to put his mother-in-law’s house on one and one-half acres, so now he has one and one-half acres.  He advised he has a rollback truck, two pickup trucks, and a sport-utility vehicle, his daughter has a truck, and his mother-in-law has a car; all are parked on the property; Code Enforcement suggested he get rid of some of them; and he is not.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board takes action tonight, Mr. Mullins could increase the number of vehicles in his front yard to fill the front yard; with Mr. Bowen responding yes, he could.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he could put any number of recreational vehicles, but not his commercial vehicle, which is an emergency vehicle; and that is an issue the Board needs to deal with this evening because it serves a community purpose.  Mr. Mullins advised of complaints from one individual driving through the neighborhood.   

 

Danielle Walbruehl stated cars blocking the roads will be taken care of by the proposed ordinance; and commented on deed restricted areas, more than two cars in a driveway, and lack of financial means to expand the driveway.

 

The meeting recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

Attorney Jones stated on page 4, c should be “recreational vehicles shall not be used for residential or commercial purposes”; that takes boats out of it; and it prevents people from setting up businesses in RV’s.  She suggested removing the first “not” in (2); and striking “or front or side street yard” from (4). 

 

Chairman Pritchard inquired about “residential or commercial” in the first one.  Attorney Jones stated the first one should be, “recreational vehicles shall not be used for residential or commercial purposes”; and that would prevent someone setting up shop in an RV or living in one year-round.  Chairman Pritchard stated 14 days in any given month could be 28 days if it were the end of one month and the beginning of another; and he thought the Board say any given 30-day period. 

 

Discussion ensued on “30-day period” rather than “any given month.”

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Attorney has given him some language concerning the step trucks; the chassis would be similar to one used for an RV; and requested Mr. Lacoste explain.  Mr. Lacoste advised it is a P30 motor home chassis.  Ms. Lacoste advised it is the same as a Class A or C motor home, and is a one-ton chassis.

 

Discussion ensued on weight, step-van on Class A or C chassis, problem with Code Enforcement, limiting RV’s in yards, not putting people’s livelihoods at risk, and length of vehicles.

 

Mr. Lacoste stated an RV can be 45 feet long; his vehicle is approximately 25 or 26 feet; it is called an 18-foot cargo van; the storage space behind the driver’s seat is how vans are measured by the industry; and it is an 18-foot step-van by Chevrolet’s light duty specifications.  He commented on the size and weight of RV’s and step-vans and the capacity of his driveway. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated if the County starts to go by size and the vehicle is behind a fence, Code Enforcement cannot measure it anyway; and she does not have a problem with what is behind a fence.  Mr. Lacoste advised that is what he was told by his homeowners association, which has no problem with the vehicle; stated that is why they sought that home in that neighborhood; and the 45 closest homes to his have signed off saying they have no problem with him being there.   

 

Discussion ensued on light-duty versus heavy-duty step-vans, and limiting by number of axles.

 

Attorney Jones suggested the best way to do this is to create a paragraph 8 saying, “two-axle step-vans may be parked, stored, or located on developed residentially zoned property.”  Commissioner Scarborough stated that would allow such vehicle to be parked in the front as well as the rear of a property; and inquired if there is some rationale that certain vehicles should not be parked in the front and should be enclosed.  Mr. Lacoste advised he does that as a courtesy to his neighbors; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Mr. Lacoste’s yard is an example of how it should be done. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of the Board of  County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations” of the Code of Ordinances; amending Section 62-2117, Parking, Locating and Storage of Recreational Vehicles, Recreational Equipment, Commercial Vehicles and Heavy Equipment, and Motor Vehicles and Recreational Vehicles For Sale; specifically amending Section 62-2117 (a), definitions; Section 62-2117 (b), recreational vehicles and recreational equipment; Section 62-2117 (c) commercial motor vehicles; heavy equipment; pickup trucks, passenger vans, and cargo vans, and trailers; specifically amending Section 62-2117 (d), motor vehicles and recreational vehicles for sale; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing for inclusion in the Code; and providing for an effective date, with changes as noted by the Assistant County Attorney.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised of need to address parking of certain emergency vehicles. 

Attorney Jones stated if the Board wishes it could be, “tow trucks and two-axle step-vans may be parked, stored, or located on developed residentially zoned property.”  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board does that but does not go with the larger lot, it will be revisiting the Ordinance more rapidly. 

 

Discussion ensued on parking of tow trucks, terminating discussion, larger lots, sheltering from view, areas without homeowners association, and public benefit to having vehicles parked on larger lot.

 

Commissioner Scarborough suggested tow trucks and those type of vehicles be parked behind the homes so it would be buffered.  Chairman Pritchard inquired what size lot is Commissioner Scarborough looking at.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the size of lot will define what can be parked; and it should say it will be parked behind a house and behind a fence.  Chairman Pritchard stated in that case the size of lot will not matter. 

 

Discussion ensued on sizes of lots, ability to get vehicles behind opaque barriers, minimal requirements for size of lots, and importance of aesthetics.

 

Attorney Jones suggested “tow trucks may be parked, stored, or located on developed residential zoned property if the tow truck is parked behind a six-foot fence.” 

 

Commissioner Scarborough suggested it also be behind the home.  Attorney Jones suggested it could be “behind the front building line.” 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she will include that in the motion. 

 

 

Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance, with changes and additions.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.  (See page                            for Ordinance No. 05-47.) 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he voted nay because it creates unlimited parking of various vehicles in front of properties that will require the Board to revisit the issue. 

 

 

 

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not think anonymous complaints are right or fair; he understands there could be an issue with retaliation and there could be concern about that; but he still does not think that people should be allowed to hide behind anonymous complaints.  He stated he objects to people riding through neighborhoods they do not live in to find complaints; and there should be an elimination or some restriction on anonymous complaints.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she totally disagrees because there are a lot of crazy people.  She stated there is enough information built into the law that there will not be someone calling every day on their neighbors; and if someone knows the same person is calling all the time, it is not anonymous anyway.

 

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated when someone calls 911, their name, address, and telephone number are exempt from public records laws.  Chairman Pritchard stated it would be exempt from the public records law, but the County would have a record as to who made the call; with Attorney Jones responding for 911, that would be correct.  Commissioner Scarborough stated most Code Enforcement complaints do not come into 911; with Attorney Jones advising that is correct. 

 

Discussion ensued on 911 system, Code Enforcement complaints, transfer of 911 calls to Code Enforcement, and majority of complaints being anonymous.

 

Chairman Pritchard inquired how can the County restrict the complainant to being within 500 or 1,000 feet of the violation without having them divulge their address; with Attorney Jones advising the County does not do that.  Chairman Pritchard inquired how can the County be assured that someone is affected by the violation.  Commissioner Colon stated she does not support changing from anonymous complaints.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how many Commissioners support a change.  Chairman Pritchard stated apparently there is no solution to this.  Attorney Jones stated this is not the only County Code that Mr. Bowen and other County agencies enforce; and there are slumlords who will evict people who call to complain.  She advised it could be placing the most vulnerable people of giving their name and being in a position of being evicted or having the problem corrected by having big brother come to tell the owner to fix the septic tank because children are walking through sewage, which happened six weeks ago in a Code Enforcement hearing.  Chairman Pritchard stated he is not talking about health and safety issues, but parking issues; and he is looking for a way to separate the issue; but he is being told there is not a way to do that.  He stated with what has been passed tonight there may not be the same level of complaint. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

RONALD PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)