May 3, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 3, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Ron Meyr of Faith Lutheran Church.

Commissioner O'Brien led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETING

Commissioner Colon advised she will hold a town meeting at Gleason Park at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday to discuss the Riverside Drive project.

REPORT, RE: SCHOOL OVERCROWDING AND SAWGRASS DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Carlson advised the County received feedback from the School Board regarding rezoning of Sawgrass development and school overcrowding; and similar input was received on another item that will impact Lewis Carroll Elementary School in District 2, which has been requested for tabling. She stated County staff sent the School Board staff the Sawgrass rezoning issue to look at the 200 potential units of that one development; but after talking with School Board members, she found out they predict future growth in schools on what is built and not on future developments. She inquired if County staff sends details of new developments to the School Board; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes, as plats go in. Chairman Carlson stated she received memoranda from Anabelle Casada regarding Sawgrass that said, "Impact of already approved and active development projects. Not aware of other developments." She stated her concern is they just looked at this single development. She stated she talked with School Board Chairman Wilson who said he would bring the issue up as an agenda item for discussion at their meeting on May 8, 2001; and requested staff provide the School Board with the potential number of units from other developments already approved in the area that have not been built out, such as Sawgrass I, II, and III, Grand Haven, Pineda Crossing, and Deer Lake, to help with their discussion. Chairman Carlson requested approval for an outside planning consultant to conduct an independent review of Sawgrass South's rezoning request, specifically the compatibility issues so the Board can have an objective outside review of the issues. She inquired if that is what the Board needs to work the issue; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding the Board would need to hire a consultant to get an outside opinion. Chairman Carlson inquired how would that help the Board make a determination if the area needs to be downzoned; with Ms. Bentley responding it would give the Board more information and another expert witness testifying on the zoning issue's compatibility, etc. Chairman Carlson requested the Board authorize getting an outside consultant to review the parcel and bring back a report by May 17, 2001, which would provide the applicant and Board sufficient time to review the report.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize obtaining an outside planning consultant to conduct an independent review of the Sawgrass South rezoning request, specifically compatibility issues, and return with a report by May 17, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated the whole issue has been very interesting and educational; the Board will be interested in some of the results that come back; it is interesting the way the School Board works and how the State looks at the School Board's capacity issues; and there are some big problems in trying to keep overcrowding from occurring.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he hopes the Board recognizes it is not just Sawgrass I, II, and III, but many other areas in the County are being affected; he just received a letter from the School Board and Dr. DiPatri pointed out, ". . .also at Lewis Carroll Elementary. We are proposing to build a classroom addition to replace 12 portables at Merritt Island High School. It seems to me we are chasing our tail unless we get a better handle on the growth and how we mutually can deal with it." Commissioner O'Brien stated hopefully any consultant the Board hires will bring all developments into consideration; the Board may want to look at a broader picture of how many units are going to be built in each Commission District, as there are two or three projects in District 1, which may have phases of 20, 40, 50 and more, but the Board is looking at the short term of 20 units rather than the long term. He suggested staff begin to analyze where growth is taking place, where it will take place, and at what speed they can expect it, then work with the School Board staff on infrastructure needs. He stated the Board looks at small bites every time a plat is approved, but it does not have the big picture.

Chairman Carlson advised the letter from Dr. DiPatri says, "At the Board meeting on April 10th, a presentation of a $50 million proposal to the School Board for its consideration for the elimination of portables throughout the District was presented. Our proposal included the elimination of portables in the very schools that these new developments will impact." She inquired if that is going to be just from the two developments the County asked to get input from, and what about all the others that do not seem to be in the equation. She noted she is not sure where it is going, but at least it has some attention.

REPORT, RE: ZONING ITEMS OF APRIL 9, 2001 REQUESTED FOR TABLING

Chairman Carlson advised she has letters from the applicants to table Items 6 and 22 on the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board's Agenda of April 9, 2001. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the applicant for Item 6 requested July 10, 2001, but it is not a regular zoning meeting.

Chairman Carlson inquired if a hardship was determined; with Mr. Enos responding no, they do not want to wait until August 2, 2001, which is the next zoning meeting. Chairman Carlson stated she does not know what the Board's normal policy is, but she does not remember the Board doing that previously; and unless it has some overriding problem, she would recommend it be tabled to the zoning meeting.

Item 6. (Z0104405) Fred D. Boozer, Jr., Trustee's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 1.71± acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, opposite and north of the west end of Ruby Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, with a binding development plan limiting use to a mini-warehouse facility only, and a concept plan to include a buffer along U.S. 1.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 6 until August 2, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. (Z0104202) Harold Kurz, as Trustee's request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on 29.62 acres located on the southeast corner of Pioneer Road and Lewis Carroll Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson advised the request is to send it back to the P&Z Board for its July 9, 2001 meeting, which will come to the Board of County Commissioners on August 2, 2001.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to return Item 22 to the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired under what scenario is the item being sent back. She stated the Board has a recommendation from the P&Z Board in hand. Mr. Enos advised there is a recommendation to deny the request; however, the applicant requested the item be sent back to the P&Z Board under a different plan and reduced number of lots. He stated the recommendation of the P&Z Board on the different plan will come back to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not recall the Board doing it; and inquired if it will be re-advertised; with Mr. Enos responding it has been done in the past, but it is rare. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a problem doing it that way; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board has sent back items to the P&Z Board, but almost every time it heard the issues, then sent it back after the public hearing. Ms. Bentley stated she does not see a legal problem. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they have to advertise a new application; with Ms. Bentley responding no, but it would be advisable to state the dates of the P&Z and Board of County Commissioners meetings when the item is expected to return. Commissioner Higgs stated her concern is individuals in the neighborhood unaware that it is going back to the P&Z Board without another public notice. Mr. Enos stated there is no reason why they cannot re-advertise it. Commissioner Higgs stated the applicant should pay for the re-advertising.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the applicant is requesting the Board not hear it tonight so he can go back to the P&Z Board with a new plan of lower density; he has a right to do that; and it is only proper to afford him that opportunity. Chairman Carlson stated there is a letter requesting the dates of July 9, 2001 P&Z meeting and August 2, 2001 BCC meeting.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to return Item 22 to the P&Z Board for its meeting of July 10, 2001, to return to the Board of County Commissioners on August 2, 2001, with re-advertising to be paid for by the applicant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he met with the developers and discussed the project, and also had conversations with various individuals on this item in the last few days.

Commissioner Colon advised if anyone came to the P&Z meeting regarding this item, she wants to make sure the item is not only re-advertised, but that they be notified of the new dates.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
JANUARY 8, 2001, FEBRUARY 5, 2001, AND MARCH 5, 2001

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearings on January 8, 2001, February 5, 2001, and March 5, 2001, and tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on February 1, 2001, March 1, 2001, and April 5, 2001, as follows:

Item 5. (Z0103302) Clyde G. and Dorothy Joan Beatty's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.0 acre located south of Mount Pleasant Avenue, west of Main Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson advised of a letter requesting withdrawal of Item 5. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the applicants were able to go through an administrative process to split their two lots into slightly less than 2.5-acre lots under the existing AU classification, and do not need the rezoning.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 5.

Commissioner Scarborough advised several items in the West Canaveral Groves area were tabled; there were specific discussions about floodplain issues at that time; the Board asked for two actions: (1) the rules be uniform throughout the County and not be separate for West Canaveral Groves area; and (2) analysis of the floodplains throughout the County. He stated the dilemma is the Board has not taken action on any of the zoning items; he requested staff advise the Board if a lot is within a 10, 25, or 100-year floodplain; and inquired if the Board can use that as a means of analyzing whether it wants to approve a rezoning item or not.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the Board has been grappling with the issue of at what point in the process it would use certain policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan, whether to include it in deliberations over rezoning or during site plan review; a similar issue deals with the wetlands density and commercial and industrial development restrictions; so the same ability to use floodplain-based density restrictions in the rezoning process is available to the Board. He stated if the Board had a request for ARR, which is one unit per acre, and knew at the time of the application the property was in a 25-year floodplain that would restrict development to one unit per 2.5 acres, it would be appropriate for the Board to use the Comprehensive Plan policy at the rezoning stage of the process and not wait for the site plan review process. He noted it is appropriate to use that information, and it could possibly be used as a basis for denial.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the issue came up, they got into nonconforming lots of record, which basically could be built on; but what he is hearing is even though they have nonconforming lots of record, if they come in for rezoning, the Board can look at the floodplain that is germane to the property. Mr. Scott stated that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has tabled a number of items; the applicants may have questions for the Board of where it is going and where it is; and as the applicant comes up, he would like to have staff address where the properties lie within the different parameters. He stated if the Board starts going in one direction, it needs to be consistent throughout the evening; and as it proceeds on individual discussions, it will or will not create the rules as the evening progresses, but it must treat every applicant the same.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should hold a workshop and look at the maps drawn for the floodplains; a huge amount of the County is in the 10 and 25-year floodplains; so the Board needs to determine what the problem is, the effect it will have on property in the County, and resolve the problem. He stated it may be in the best interest of the Board to place a moratorium on further rezoning requests within the problematic areas until the problem is resolved; and inquired if the Board can do that. Ms. Bentley advised the Board can adopt a moratorium through the normal advertising procedure after a finding of necessity is made.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the last time the items were tabled, which was a couple of months ago, the Board asked staff to bring forward information on the floodplains; they did come forward and put it on the Agenda and the Board talked about something in excess of 100,000 acres of moratorium; and moving from there, the Board asked staff to do additional analysis of the nature of the properties, etc. He stated staff has given the Board the opportunity this evening to consider the items on an individual basis rather than do a moratorium until they come back with particular data; and another option is to table all the items and go back into a moratorium mode as soon as the data is prepared.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it has to be an even-handed approach, so the items should be tabled until the problem is resolved. He stated there is only one resolution, and that is to have a workshop to come up with a consensus of what the Board may want to do and what it is trying to accomplish.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not need to go with a moratorium on the items before it tonight; if it deals with the floodplain issue, ARR, nonconforming lots, and density in a consistent manner, it can move forward with the information it has and the Comprehensive Plan guidance. She stated use of those existing policies will be legitimate in their application to those items; and the guidance is there in the Comprehensive Plan if the Board is consistent in dealing with the items. Commissioner O'Brien stated the reasons the Board looked at the floodplain issue were not only for environmental protection, but also for consumer protection; and it would be difficult to say yes to one applicant for rezoning in a ten-year flood plan, and no to the next person; so perhaps the Board may want to go over how it wants to solve the problem. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a Comprehensive Plan that gives it explicit guidance regarding floodplains; if it applies those Comprehensive Plan policies and the densities, issue of nonconforming lots and other guidelines it would be consistently dealing with those items. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it would be consistently denied; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, the Board has to deal with the facts in each case, but it has guidance in the existing Comprehensive Plan.

Chairman Carlson stated the guidance is the Comprehensive Plan which states within the 25-year riverine floodplain, which is the area that is at or below the 25-year flood elevation but above the 10-year flood elevation, residential density shall be limited to not more than one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. She stated that is within the Board's purview to apply if it desires; but her question relates to the things that preceded this in terms of setting a precedent; and inquired where does that put the Board legally. Ms. Bentley advised previously at the zoning level, the Board did not have that level of detail; it has new information at this point; so when it has a clear directive from the Comprehensive Plan and information to back it up, it can proceed based on the Comprehensive Plan notwithstanding the existing ARR in the area. She stated when the Board gets on a site specific basis and there is no floodplain issue, the Board may have different questions raised, and would then move into its classic zoning analysis.

Commissioner O'Brien stated people in West Canaveral Groves do not own 2.5 acres; they are quarter-acre lots; and inquired if the Board is going to tell them it will not rezone their property and they cannot build unless they buy eight lots. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the method for dealing with nonconforming lots of record that are already platted. Ms. Busacca advised there are several ways the Board can deal with the impacts of building in the floodplain; it could require compensatory storage, or it could require the house be built on stilts. She stated one way to look at it is the density; and once the density has been established, because of nonconforming lots of record, then the Board can look at development standards. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the nonconforming lots that are already existing in the area are vested for certain kinds of development; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they have a vested right to build a unit; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct, as determined by the Board. She stated one of the options in West Canaveral Groves is that the properties were never platted, so the Board can choose to say, after saying for a number of years they were nonconforming lots of record, that because they were never platted formally, they are no longer nonconforming lots of record. She stated the implications of that may be very large; but that is an option to reconsider the definition of nonconforming lots of record. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is no formal plat; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct. Ms. Busacca stated in other areas of the County, which have nonconforming lots of record because they were platted, then the development standards are the option that would be available to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is going to deal with the items one item at a time, which it has a right to do, and set its actions on how it is going to determine floodplain issues in the future. He stated if the Board denies a rezoning request in the ten-year floodplain tonight, it would be inappropriate to approve a similar request in October; so the Board needs to be consistent. He stated the Board can table all the items until it sets a policy on floodplains, but it has tabled them quite a while ago and it does not know how long it will be; so it would be fair to deal with them tonight.

Commissioner O'Brien indicated concern about being unfair to one property owner and fair to another; and stated the Board needs to be consistent and fair to all property owners who find themselves with this problem. He stated there are other solutions, such as building a house on stilts. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Commissioners feel there should be rezoning within the ten-year floodplain. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board offers no alternative for the applicant; and one alternative could be a construction policy or rule that says if they build a structure in the floodplain, it has to be on stilts. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if one alternative is to deny the requests within the ten-year floodplain; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board needs to deal with them individually. Commissioner Scarborough inquired where would it leave the property owner if the Board denies the request; with Ms. Busacca responding the individual has zoning on the property; it is a nonconforming lot of record; and the owner can construct to the zoning that is on the property. Commissioner Higgs stated denial of the request does not take away anything. Chairman Carlson stated it does not, but the Board has not addressed the floodplain issues either. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to consider if it wants to change the building standards as a separate item from the rezoning. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to be careful because it may touch a lot of properties all over the County, and the Bert Harris Act may be in the background.

Chairman Carlson requested a legal perspective on how to handle requests for rezoning in floodplains, and whether they should be handled on a singular basis, by moratorium, etc., and which would be the best way from a Bert Harris perspective. Ms. Bentley advised the Board has pending items, several of which were tabled for a number of months; it did not have a red flag doctrine at the time the items came in; so she would recommend the Board proceed at this point or within a month or two on those items that have been tabled. She stated if the Board decides to have a workshop and go with a moratorium, it could cut off any pending applications after it advertises and proceeds with the legal requirements. Ms. Bentley advised Bert Harris is another set of issues; if the Board changes the regulations, there can be claims under the Bert Harris Act; but at this point, it has not changed any regulations.

Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern about restricting people from getting rezoning to build on their properties; and inquired if it is the Board's place to say it knows better than they do and it does not want them to build. He stated the Board is considering making all kinds of rules and regulations rather than taking a serious look at what it can do to help property owners who want to build a house or use their properties in a rightful manner. He stated the Board should not be looking at how it can deny every application, but try to facilitate the public; and there are solutions the Board can offer without stripping citizens of the use of their lands.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not have a problem with a workshop to iron out things; and inquired if staff is working on the floodplain issues; with Ms. Busacca responding staff is preparing to provide the Board with options for cost of mapping the floodplains accurately.

Commissioner Colon advised she agrees with moving forward with what the Comprehensive Plan says and also with a workshop to address the issues. She stated if the Board goes by the book, it will be fair, and the workshop is needed to address future zoning issues that will come before the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is an inherent unfairness to people who own property and want to live on the property; it is unfair to do something tonight that would give rezoning to one person and not to another; and some people cannot afford to sue the County if it denies the rezoning. He stated if the Board said no to a developer, the developer could sue; that is where the unfairness comes in; and the Board needs to look at the individuals as well as those with big wallets.

Commissioner Colon advised the properties are in District 1, so she would like to hear from Commissioner Scarborough on what he feels comfortable with, going forward or holding a workshop. Chairman Carlson inquired when will the cost analysis of a floodplain study come back to the Board; with Ms. Busacca responding next week. Commissioner Scarborough stated it may help to go forward and move on the items tonight; the Board has the option of doing something; as it approaches each item, staff can identify in what floodplain the property lies; and the applicant can comment on the issues.

Item 1. (Z0101103) 4 G's of Brevard County, Inc.'s request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1.14 acres located on the south side of Airboat Avenue, west of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the property is located in the ten-year floodplain. Commissioner Scarborough stated the write-up on the item says, "the requested one unit per acre falls within the density allowance of the 25 to 100-year floodplain." Mr. Enos advised that was done when staff did not have the new information and only had the 100-year floodplain information. He noted now they have information on the 10 and 25-year floodplains. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the information was shared with the applicant; with Mr. Enos responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Richardson knew the Board would be discussing his property being in the ten-year floodplain before this meeting; with Mr. Richardson responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not the intention of the Board to see this rezoning proceed in the ten-year floodplain; but if Mr. Richardson feels he is at a disadvantage by just learning about the information, he would table the item out of fairness.

Luke Richardson stated he agrees with Commissioner O'Brien and thinks it is unfair; he has watched people build out there and knows their properties are lower than his property, and they bring in dirt and build. He stated a guy built a huge house next to his property and did not have a problem; he was the reason why they ran power poles down the road; so it must be money. He stated there are three mobile homes on the road and people live in them.

Commissioner Colon advised she went to West Canaveral Groves; and based on what she saw, the Board would not allow the rest of the County to build under some of those conditions. She said the Board's concern is the safety of its residents; it is not trying to be mean; it is difficult to try and do the fair thing; but it has to look after Mr. Richardson's safety and the safety of all those who come to Brevard County in the future. She stated there are people living out there with no water or electricity; and it is the Board's duty to make sure it protects the community from doing that. Mr. Richardson stated he is not saying it is right to let people live out there without water, power and sewage treatment; and those should be up to certain standards.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the staff report indicates Mr. Richardson does not have a problem with the floodplain; additional information that has come in since then says it is in the ten-year floodplain; if the data was not being generated, he doubts it would have applied to anyone in Canaveral Groves; and people are building in low areas, but with the new data, the Board will be reviewing applications differently. He stated whether the Board tables the items tonight or goes through them and acts on them, it will be acting on additional data; Mr. Richardson did not have the opportunity to know that was going to occur; and in fairness to him, if he wants the item tabled, the Board owes him that. He advised Mr. Richardson nothing is being promised because it may be that everybody before had one set of rules and everybody after may have another.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 1.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what would the applicant be able to do under the existing zoning; with Mr. Enos responding because it is a nonconforming lot of record, he could build a house. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the rezoning is denied for RRMH-1, would it deny his ability to build a house; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Richardson advised he was told he could not build a house under AU and that is why he applied for rezoning. Mr. Enos stated it is a nonconforming lot of record; the current zoning would allow construction of a house, but no mobile home; and the request for RRMH-1 is to permit a mobile home on the property. Mr. Richardson stated he applied for the RRMH-1 after he was told he was not allowed to build under his current zoning.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Richardson does not need the trailer and wants to build a house; with Mr. Richardson responding he owns a mobile home and has not decided; he was told if he did not have information on his property prior to 1975, it was not good; so they sent him to look for information that was not available. He stated he does not know what that was all about. Ms. Busacca inquired if the incident is recent; with Mr. Richardson responding it was within the last six months. Ms. Busacca inquired if someone in the Zoning Office told him that; with Mr. Richardson responding yes, over the phone. Mr. Enos stated the information he has is the request was made because he wished to place a mobile home on the property.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Richardson wanted to withdraw his request at this time, could he get a refund on his fee. He stated Mr. Richardson has led him to believe he did not understand the process and made application in error but does not want to proceed, so he will make a motion to refund the fee. Mr. Richardson inquired if he can build a house under the current zoning classification; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is what he heard, but not a mobile home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to accept withdrawal of Item 1, and approve refund of the application fee to Luke Richardson. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Richardson inquired how will he get his fee back; with Ms. Busacca responding they will have to process it through Finance, which will take a few weeks.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Mr. Richardson can build a house on his property, but there is another problem that has not been resolved, and that is building in the ten-year floodplain. Chairman Carlson stated the Board has not resolved what it is going to do with all those circumstances. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if houses are allowed to be built on stilts, as he has seen one off I-95; with Ms. Busacca responding there are a number of them near Lake Poinsett. Commissioner O'Brien stated if Mr. Richardson wants to build his house higher so it does not flood, he can do that.

Chairman Carlson advised the Board will get the floodplain study back then discuss what it is going to do with the 10 and 25-year floodplains for the entire County, potentially at a workshop. She stated for the applications coming through, the Board has to deal with them fairly; and if it is not taking away development rights, it does not have to deal with Bert Harris prior to defining what it is going to do with those areas throughout the County. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board is directing staff to schedule a workshop on the floodplain issue.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to schedule a workshop to discuss the floodplain issue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0101104) Patrick M. and Martha C. Badgett's request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the south side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the property is outside of the 25-year floodplain. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if outside means higher than the 25-year floodplain; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are no reasons why it should be denied under the rules; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs recommended the applicant be allowed to speak.

Patrick Badgett advised he is willing to comply with the rules to elevate the house or add dirt or whatever. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Badgett is saying he is not interested in a mobile home; with Mr. Badgett responding if it is not a good idea, and if a mobile home will sink or cause trouble, he is not interested. He stated he did not realize until the last meeting that his property was in the wetland. Chairman Carlson stated it is in a floodplain, which is different than a wetland. Commissioner Higgs stated the report says 80% wetlands; with Chairman Carlson responding that is not always the case. Mr. Badgett inquired what will the County permit him to do there; and stated the people behind his property, as well as to the east and west, have put in mobile homes.

Natural Resources Supervisor Debbie Coles advised the correct course of action for a property owner would be to get on a list to get an informal wetland jurisdiction done by Department of Environmental Protection to get an indication, based on where he wants to put his residence, if he needs State permits as well as County permits in order to impact wetlands and build a house. She stated regarding the floodplain issue, she hears the Board saying since the property is above the 25-year floodplain, it is not going to be an issue to propose denial.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Badgett can build a house in GU; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Chairman Carlson stated the Board would not be taking away any development rights by not allowing ARR; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct.

Commissioner Higgs stated at the last meeting, the Board discussed bringing the West Canaveral Groves area into compliance with the same standards applied Countywide; she thought that meant the ARR would be abolished; and if Mr. Badgett wants to build a house, under the GU classification he could do that. She stated there is also a density standard for the 25-year floodplain that is one unit per 2.5 acres, which is the same as the AU zoning classification. Mr. Enos advised the property is above the 25-year floodplain and not in it.

Chairman Carlson advised the Comprehensive Plan says if the property is below the 100-year flood elevation, but above the 25-year flood elevation, residential density shall be limited to no more than two dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Badgett meets that requirement. Chairman Carlson stated he can build a house in GU.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue is whether the Board is not going to consider any ARR's; and if not, it needs to take formal action, such as a moratorium, because it is inappropriate to deny it now without formal action. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board discussed bringing the zoning in West Canaveral Groves into compliance with the rest of the County; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, but the Board has not done that yet. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board could give the applicant AU instead of ARR, which it wants to eliminate; with Mr. Enos responding the Board could give him AU, RRMH-1, or RR-1, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated the item has been tabled; and if the Board is not going to give ARR, it needs to be done by formal action rather than just deciding it is not going to do that. Chairman Carlson stated the Board is trying to get rid of the ARR classification, but it will continue to have those applications because it has not officially adopted anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Badgett applied for ARR before the Board discussed it; the item was tabled to do something, but it has yet to do anything with it; he is requesting ARR, and the Board prefers not to have ARR because it is an anomaly out there; however, he has certain rights to expect the process to be considered.

Chairman Carlson advised the previous applicant was asked if he wanted to build a house; he said he was told he could not build a house and needed ARR because of the lot size; then the Board told him he could withdraw his application and get his filing fee back and go build his house with the current AU zoning classification. She inquired if the Board could do the same for Mr. Badgett; with Ms. Bentley responding it could, but she is not sure Mr. Badgett will agree to AU. Commissioner Higgs stated he can build a house in GU, which is the current zoning classification on his property. Mr. Badgett inquired what is AU; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is an agricultural classification. Mr. Enos stated in addition to building a house, he could have agricultural uses on his property. Mr. Badgett stated AU would be better for him. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is going to grant him AU and refund his fee; with Chairman Carlson responding no, not if he accepts AU, but if he wants to withdraw his application, his fee could be refunded. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Badgett has a right to ARR. Chairman Carlson stated the applicant said he went through the process because he understood he had to do it, similar to the previous applicant; and now there is the issue of nonconforming lots of record. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the previous applicant and this applicant stated they wanted mobile homes; the two zonings that would permit a mobile home are RRMH-1 and ARR; so if the applicant still wants a mobile home, neither AU nor GU would work. Chairman Carlson stated if Mr. Badgett wants to build a home, he and the previous applicant would be dealt with consistently. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is lack of consistency; Mr. Richardson's property was in the ten-year floodplain, and Mr. Badgett's property is dryer; Mr. Richardson wanted RRMH-1 and Mr. Badgett requested ARR; the ARR is what the Board wants to eliminate and not RRMH-1; so Mr. Badgett's issue is a zoning classification, and Mr. Richardson's issue was where the property was within the floodplain.

Chairman Carlson advised the issue is the Board does not want to use ARR any longer; that was the choice it made when it asked staff to look into eliminating it; if Mr. Badgett wants to build a home, the existing zoning classification is sufficient; and if he wants to build a home, he can withdraw his application and receive a refund, but he could not put a trailer on the property. She stated if Mr. Badgett wants AU, he would not receive a refund of his fee, could build a house, but could not get a trailer; so he does not get a trailer unless the Board gives him ARR, which goes against what it requested staff to look into.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Badgett wants a mobile home or to build a regular home; with Mr. Badgett responding he thought he could put a mobile home on the property, but understands there are a lot of problems with that and the Board does not want that done; so he can change his plans. Chairman Carlson stated Mr. Badgett still has the wetland issue to deal with. Mr. Badgett stated he requested ARR and that is what he is here for. Commissioner Colon stated with 80% wetlands, Mr. Badgett has another hurdle; and she would support leaving the property the same way, if that is what he wishes it to be.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is setting a precedent by saying that all applications for mobile homes in the West Canaveral Groves area will be denied; and inquired what will the Board do with every lot that comes along. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board did not say no mobile homes, but it did say no ARR; and ARR has other things besides the mobile home. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what are the other things; with Mr. Enos responding ARR permits a mobile home and agriculture uses; RRMH-1 permits a mobile home without agriculture, although they can have horses; and AU permits agriculture, but only a house and no mobile home.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the minimum lot size in GU for a single family home; with Mr. Enos responding normally it is five acres, but because the area has nonconforming lots of record, it is one acre. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the only benefit of changing to AU is to get agriculture uses; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what Mr. Badgett wants; with Mr. Badgett responding ARR like he asked for to begin with.

Chairman Carlson inquired if that is because Mr. Badgett wants a mobile home; with Mr. Badgett responding that is what he applied for. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Badgett could just build a regular home, or must he have a mobile home first. She stated the problem the Board has is that ARR is an inconsistent application throughout the County. Mr. Badgett inquired if he could have a mobile home on the property while building a house, which may take a year; with Mr. Enos responding he will check on that.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the Board denying Mr. Badgett's request; with Chairman Carlson responding the Board does not have to deny it unless he wants a trailer, but it sounds like he wants a trailer so he can build a house. Commissioner O'Brien stated he first said he wanted to put a mobile home on his lot. Chairman Carlson stated he wants a mobile home to eventually build a home; and inquired if that is true; with Mr. Badgett responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs stated when the Board talked about the issues at the previous Board meeting, it talked about having West Canaveral Groves conform to the same standards as other places in the County; ARR has only been used in West Canaveral Groves; so it did not make a decision on no mobile homes, but it did say it wanted the same zoning standards, building standards, and floodplain standards that it has every place else. She stated that is why she is questioning the ARR; there are a number of other options; and inquired what does the Board want to do.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that means the Board is working to deny all ARR's; with Commissioner Higgs responding that would be consistent with its previous discussion. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board is going to do that, it needs to say any further applications for ARR in that area will be denied; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is what the Board is discussing and what it said it was going to do on Tuesday. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board needs to make that decision now; and if it is going to say no to the applicants, then it has to say no to all of them to be consistent; with Commissioner Higgs responding she agrees totally.

Commissioner Scarborough stated until the Board does something with the ARR, abolish it or have a moratorium, there has to be some rationale rather than the Board does not like the zoning classification. He stated the Board could decide to get rid of residential professional tonight as well because it is commercial in residential; and that is not the place he wants to be, so he will move to approve this item.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Commissioner Higgs brought up the issue that the Board wants to abide by its decision made on Tuesday that it did not want any more ARR's in West Canaveral Groves; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is what she assumed the Board meant. Commissioner O'Brien stated he assumes that also and agrees with Commissioner Higgs; and if it approves this Item now, it will have to approve all others. He stated if this item is denied, all others will have to be denied to abide by what the Board said on Tuesday that it wants to avoid any further ARR's in West Canaveral Groves.

Commissioner Higgs stated there may be a middle ground in saying it is the Board's intent, and direct staff specifically tonight to abolish ARR, and then make a subsequent motion on any further applications for ARR.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when Mr. Badgett applied for ARR; with Mr. Enos responding in November, 2000. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Badgett applied before the Board discussed abolishing the ARR classification; and there is something about being fair.

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

Chairman Carlson advised Mr. Badgett that the Board approved ARR for his property, so he can do what he expected to do with it. Commissioner Higgs advised there are wetland issues to deal with; and Chairman Carlson suggested Mr. Badgett talk to Ms. Coles to find out more details about the wetlands.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the most expedient means of abolishing the ARR category; with Ms. Bentley responding when the West Canaveral Groves Ordinance is amended, the Board can remove the ARR category; and once that repeal is advertised, it can stop accepting applications for ARR at that point.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to immediately advertise an ordinance to remove the ARR zoning classification.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it has to come back for a public hearing; with Chairman Carlson responding yes, but once it is advertised, the Board can justify not approving those requests.

Chairman Carlson seconded the motion, and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (0102104) Holloway Enterprises and Hosea Partners, Ltd.'s request for CUP for a treatment and recovery facility in an IU-1 zoning classification on 10 acres located on the east side of Grissom Parkway, south of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Babette Hankey, Chief Administrative Officer, Center for Drug-Free Living, Orlando, thanked the Board, County staff, Pastor Grant and elders of First Christian Church, and Canaveral Groves homeowners for meeting and working with them, visiting their programs, and inviting them to meetings to present the Center's programs. She advised on March 1, 2001, the Item was tabled so they could meet with the community and Church to discuss the concerns; and she provided the Commissioners with a notebook highlighting the different meetings and correspondence that took place throughout the last 60 days. She stated they made a presentation to the Canaveral Groves homeowners on April 19, 2001; Richard Daves, Vice President of Operations for the Center and his staff placed 20 signs throughout the community so everyone would know about the meeting; Tab 11 of the notebook has a copy of the sign; and Tab 12 is the presentation. She stated Commissioner Scarborough raised a few concerns, asked the Board to hire a person to do a compatibility and economic analysis, and gave her a police report for their juvenile facility; on April 23, 2001, she provided the Board with a copy of their analysis of the report on the juvenile facility in which there were 15 errors of allegations; and on April 24, 2001, they provided that report to the Church. She stated she received a copy of the study dated April 25, 2001; and page 7 is a conclusion that states, "In the opinion of MSCW, the case study analysis does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that a rezoning should be denied on the basis of land use and compatibility." She noted a copy of the study is in Tab 2 of the notebook. Ms. Hankey stated Commissioner Higgs mentioned scrub jay issues; they worked with Ecos Consulting; and Tim Kozusko did a brief environmental assessment of the property. She noted Mr. Kozusko is a member of the board of directors; and his report is in Tab 10. She stated he indicated scrub jays were not heard or seen on the property; the property has a lot of pines, which provide hawks with ambush sites and are generally not suitable for scrub jays; there was some evidence of gopher tortoises and perhaps some indigo snakes; and the Center plans to keep the front of the property in its natural state as a buffer, and look at partnering with volunteers who support the Environmentally-Endangered Lands Program. She stated Chairman Carlson inquired about studies they had; and they provided information on their properties and campus in Intercession City to the firm that was working with them. Ms. Hankey advised on May 1, 2001, they were notified by the Legislature that the $500,000 for the Brevard County Women's Program was funded and put into the appropriations bill. She stated Tab 1 addresses some of the offerings of the Center, which they will abide by, and the concerns of the community. She stated the phase plan will run I, III, II, IV, and V; Phase I is the Women and Children's Center; Phase III is the support services; Phase II will be the Brevard Group Treatment Home and Juvenile Program; Phase IV is the continuation of the nonresidential services for step down of Phase I; and Phase V will be executive offices. She advised Phase I should be completed by November 1, 2001, and Phase III no sooner than May 1, 2003. Ms. Hankey advised the Center will engage a landscape designer architect to create a privacy buffer around the site to give an illusion of separation from the First Christian Church; the entrance to the site may be moved to suit the Church and Center; and natural and prescribed foliage and ground cover may be used to maintain the rural concept. She stated the Center has offered to jointly discuss proper signage for the site with the Church and grant a seat on its Brevard County Board of Directors to give it an inside view of operations and a voice and vote as to what happens on the property. She stated no residential adult men will be located on the property, as delineated in the CUP application; and the site is limited to the original ten acres described in the CUP application. Ms. Hankey stated they have come a long way since the first meeting and have been able to reduce some of the concerns and fears; over the past 60 days, the Center, she, senior management, and other members of her team had the opportunity to show many residents of Brevard County the effective accountable programs that are offered throughout Central Florida; they have been able to heighten the awareness of many community efforts to reduce substance use; and she and her staff have been welcomed here and invited to be active in many community boards. She requested approval of the CUP to operate a much-needed service in Brevard County on the property; and stated by working together they can make it a win/win situation for everyone.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Hankey would be willing to change the name on the signage; with Ms. Hankey responding they talked about coming up with whatever would be appropriate because there were concerns about putting the Center there; so they would look at size, as well as changing the name to whatever would be agreed upon by both parties.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Rockledge site for youth has a security person; with Ms. Hankey responding it has two night monitors, but is a non-secured facility, so there is not a 24-hour security person. She stated Investigator Whelan was here, but got a call and had to leave; and he sits on their advisory board and wanted to comment on the program. Chairman Carlson inquired when the juvenile portion is phased in, will it have the same security or 24-hour security; with Ms. Hankey responding the Youth Brevard Group Treatment Home is not a secure facility, so they would have the same staffing ratios they are required to have under the Juvenile Justice Program; and they are looking at putting that facility in the back portion of the property. She stated the Center offered a buffer suitable for the Church and Center; they would consider some fencing around the juvenile program, if that would be appropriate; and they looked at putting the facility in the back because it is not good clinically to put adolescents near the women and babies.

Pastor Mike Grant, First Christian Church, Cocoa, advised they have all learned a great number of things through the process; they were never against the Center and the purpose it stands for; and their concern has always been the fear of the community to bring their children to the preschool day care in the future. He stated the economic study did not compare apples with apples in all cases, but he is thankful the Board commissioned the study; their preference would still be to relocate the Center a mile or so south of the Church, which would be farther away from the Canaveral Groves community and not adjacent to the Church; but if the Board seed fit to approve it, they will be good neighbors. He stated if it is approved, they have faith the Center will follow its commitment; and they have assurance from the Church Board that the Church will follow its commitment also.

Tim Kozusko advised he is a biologist and member of the Brevard board of directors for the Center For Drug-free Living; and he would like to read a section of the letter the Board received about the environmental aspects. He stated the Florida scrub jay was not seen or heard on the property; although scrub jays have been documented to the east of the property, the presence of dense sand pines probably precludes the area as a suitable habitat for jays; dense stands of pines provide hawks with ambush sites and are usually avoided by scrub jays; thus the property probably does not provide protection from predators and food sources scrub jays seek. He stated although a dedicated survey for tortoise burrows was not conducted, five burrows were seen during the site visit he conducted on April 20, 2001; one of those was collapsed, one was small and possibly active, and the other three were inactive; nevertheless, the probability is high that at least one tortoise is using the property. He stated since burrows are there, the probability is high that the threatened indigo snake, which is known to use borrows, is on the property. Mr. Kozusko advised, after consulting with the President of Ecos Consulting for whom he works, it is proposed that onsite mitigation be recommended for the property if Phase I assessment reveals listed species there. He stated the Brevard board of directors discussed using natural vegetation as a buffer between the site and property to the north; the natural area can serve several functions in addition to acting as a buffer; it could provide a place for solitude learning, and natural aesthetic beauty for the clients of the Center; and it could also provide a unique opportunity for partnering with conservation-minded environmental groups. He stated if gopher tortoises are encountered on the property, the Center will attempt to keep the animals onsite rather than mitigate offsite and destroy the habitat; there is an opportunity for local conservationists to assist in that onsite mitigation with supervision by Ecos, Inc. or any consultant the corporate board chooses; and with proper management, the natural area could provide a much better habitat for scrub jays than what currently exists. Mr. Kozusko advised the mitigation option is subject to review and approval by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has legal jurisdiction over permitting issues involving the gopher tortoise; and it will be offered informally to authorities to determine their level of support for onsite mitigation. He stated he performed the survey without compensation and will abstain from any voting on environmental aspects of this issue.

Richard Daves, Vice President of Operations for the Center for Drug-free Living, advised the last two months turned out to be an eye-opener for everyone involved; they developed a relationship and answered a lot of each other's questions; and they provided a lot of good information about the agency and its 30-year history to the economists who performed the study for the County. He stated what the Board has before it provides no competent and substantial evidence of why the permit should not be approved.

Sandra Helmig, Canaveral Groves, expressed concern about the Center being in her neighborhood; and stated a better place would be near the Circles of Care facility, which also has the Health Department nearby. She stated she has worked with the youth they are going to bring in; most are juvenile delinquents on probation; the pregnant ladies have a drug problem and are addicted to something or would not be seeking treatment; she does not know who did the environmental study, but she and her friends have ridden all over the property for the last seven years and have seen scrub jays, tortoises, and a bobcat; and unless they have been out there at all hours, the scrub jays are not going to hold still for them to witness it. She stated she is not for the Center and does not want it; and suggested it be moved further south.

Mary Scattergood, Satellite Beach, requested the Board look at the facts and not the fears, and recognize the need for treatment programs. She stated illegal drug use and its consequences that include crime, disease, social ruin, and family suffering permeate every corner of the County, afflicting affluent suburbs and rural communities alike; and drug use is not a danger from which anyone is secure or a problem that only threatens someone else. She stated it is a danger posed to all; there is no sanctuary from its threat; drug use affects the rich, poor, educated, uneducated, professional, and blue-collar worker; and 73% of drug users in America are employed. She stated innocent infants are suffering in great numbers from chemical dependencies passed on to them by mothers who are addicted to drugs; it is a fact that drug addiction harms all elements of society in Brevard County; the economic impact study addresses the question whether or not perception translates into reality; and the perception is that crime is greater in and around drug treatment facilities, but the reality is that those facilities are safer than the convenience stores located within most suburban communities. Ms. Scattergood advised the findings suggest that drug treatment and rehabilitation facilities can be found either adjacent to or in close proximity of a wide variety of residential, commercial, office, industrial, and institutional uses; the research points out several church facilities and day care operations, which are open and functioning within close proximity to the residential units and within immediate proximity of the treatment center location studied for this report; and the recommendation of the report is that the case study does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that rezoning should be denied on the basis of land use and compatibility. She thanked the Board for taking the time to hear the facts and find out what the facts are; and requested its support and decision in favor of the CUP for the much-needed programs in Brevard County.

Susan Morris, Winter Park, advised she is a community volunteer who has extensive interaction with ladies and staff at the residential center in Orange County, and supports the facility in Brevard County. She stated she is a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Orlando, and one of the programs they did with the Women's Residential Center was a Bible study; it is a volunteer program; they had a wonderful response; there are always ladies on the waiting list; and it has been an opportunity for them to see how successful the program is and the change the ladies go through. She stated the program is not a handout; it is an opportunity for those ladies to put their lives together and become productive members of the community; it is very successful; and all the mothers in the program have been united with their children. She stated 98% of them gained custody of their children, have gone through job interviews, and at discharge, over 80% have jobs. Ms. Morris advised she has had extensive interaction with staff and the ladies at the facility in Orange County, and has a very high comfort level; they are respectful and very appreciative; she has taken her four-year old daughter with her to the Center on several occasions; it is extremely clean, structured, disciplined, and peaceful like a sanctuary; and she has never seen any problems. She stated it is a very good program.

Ellie Ariko, Orlando, advised she works with Ms. Morris through the First Presbyterian Church and chairs a mothers group from the Church that has created an alliance with the 24 women at the Center; they have been running the program for three years; and she is comfortable working with the women. She stated mothers within the Church have a lot in common with mothers coming into the Center who are frightened about assuming the role of motherhood; those women never had mothers and do not know how to do things like ironing or setting a table; and they help those ladies through life skills on a monthly basis, teach them classes on being mothers as well as skills they need to go back into society, health care, job interviews, etc. and hope they show them they are similar to them and give them hope so they strive to better themselves. She stated their hope is the ladies learn to love themselves because it is only through learning to love themselves can they love the children they are bearing while on the property. Ms. Ariko stated the way to change the world and correct the cycle of drug abuse is getting to people's hearts; she has seen women come into the program and when they leave, it is such a dramatic change; and they are given training from all different angles, including GED, psychological training, and training on how to do day-to-day activities. She stated it is their hope that the Board will approve the CUP; it will create hope for the County because it will change the cycle; and it is not a quick fix, but it is something that really works. She stated she lives in College Park, within two miles of the Center on Mercy Drive; she has no concerns with the facility being there; she teaches classes on the site all the time, and has a three-year old daughter who she brings with her; and there is absolutely no fear for her from the women at the facility.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the facility Ms. Ariko is referring to is just the women's facility; with Ms. Ariko responding yes, for the women and children. Commissioner Scarborough stated the concern was not expressed about the women's facility, but about the other components.

Thomas Chiuchiolo, Merritt Island, Chairman of the Brevard County Board of Directors for the Center for Drug-free Living, thanked the Board for the time, wisdom, and energy put into the analysis of the property; and requested the Board approve the CUP for the center, which he hopes will be the beginning of a long-term expanding presence in Brevard County.

Ron O'Dell, Canaveral Groves, advised he is not here to question the validity of the facility, but heard there will be males at the juvenile facility between 18 and 25 years of age. Chairman Carlson stated the males are from 10 to 14 years old. Mr. O'Dell stated it is a concern of his and a lot of his neighbors; they already have to pass the jail and the correctional facility to get to Canaveral Groves; and now coming from the other way, they will have the drug rehabilitation facility. He stated they are also concerned about resale value of their properties; he is against locating the center in the area; and he would like to see it somewhere else, maybe in Viera.

Ann Coburn, Canaveral Groves, stated some speakers at the last hearing said leave emotions out of the issue; they seem to forget the views they expressed are also emotions such as fears that they will be run into on Grissom Parkway by someone under the influence; the clientele of the center and visitors will not be there under the influence; and it is more likely that current and future residents may be driving that area under the influence. She stated at the last hearing the Board was concerned about fears voiced by some people; as requested, another public meeting was held for the center to answer questions and address the concerns; and they have been meeting with the Pastor and elders of the Church to address their concerns. Ms. Coburn advised the center is for pregnant women and children; she and her husband are Guardians Ad Litem and see mothers who need treatment and have to go outside the County to get it; but some of them are not able to do it, so they do not get treatment that would enable them to be productive citizens and regain custody of their children. She stated if the Center cannot get the location, the funds will be allocated to Osceola County and Brevard families will still have the problems; and it is for that reason and the fact that the Center has done what it could to answer all concerns and complied with all requirements that she asks the Board to approve the CUP.

Kurt Van Dyke, Canaveral Groves advised he lives one-half mile from the proposed location of the center; the issue is not whether or not the center is needed in Brevard County but exactly where to put it and its compatibility; so it really is defined by Section 62-1901.c.1.(b), "proposed compatibility with nearby properties with regard to use, function, operation, and traffic generated." He stated the narrative of the CUP shows it as a campus on a ten-acre parcel with several buildings; at any given time it may house 50 residents or more; so it is a medium residential multifamily development located very close to single-family dwellings on spacious lots in Canaveral Groves. He inquired if that is compatible with the existing development. He inquired about the image the center will bring to the community, Church, and day care center. Mr. Van Dyke advised last year there were 46 police calls in a 12-month period to the youth center in Rockledge; it is the same center they want to bring to Grissom Parkway; and inquired who will pay the increased cost for deputies to respond to those calls. He inquired if the people who support the center know everything that it will bring, or what the percentage is of the residents who support the center. He stated 82% of the residents in close proximity of the proposed site oppose it; and he knows that because he did a house-to-house survey from east of Alan Shepard Avenue to south of Canaveral Groves Road. He noted they were asked if the center was put in that location would they support it or oppose it and why; and 82% were opposed because they fear the image it would bring to the community might be bad and might attract the wrong crowd. Mr. Van Dyke stated he finds it surprising that the County spent more than $6,000 on an impact study that never asked the residents what they thought; last month there was a public meeting where he asked questions of the center's board of directors; and when he asked why they had not considered other locations in Brevard County that would be more compatible with more buffer zones between the center and church and planed day care center, the answer was they picked the location because it serves their purposes and they do not have time to look for another location. Mr. Van Dyke advised he is bothered by the extreme sense of urgency to put the Center on that property; they lead people to believe they will lose the funds for the Center, but that is not true; those funds for Brevard will be redirected to Osceola County instead; and requested the Board not be pressured into hurrying to believe there is not an alternative location for the Center. He shared a quote with the Board-"If you cannot make the right decision, let's not make the wrong decision." He suggested telling the Center there is a more compatible location within Brevard County other than Grissom Parkway; and send them back to do their homework and find a better location.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Van Dyke has a petition showing that 82% of the residents are opposed to the Center; with Mr. Van Dyke responding he wanted to keep the study unbiased and just asked them questions on the five items in the CUP application and checked the items for or against. He stated 3% had no opinion and 82% were against.

Pastor Grant advised Lt. Whelan was called away on an emergency in Rockledge; but he did make one statement, that whether it is the City or State that deals with indigents or any kind of social work, there will be a need for increased police services.

Randy Moore, member of the Brevard County Board of Directors for the Center for Drug-free Living, advised he is also Chief Assistant Public Defender for Brevard County and worked for the Public Defender's Office for 18 years; and he wants to convey to the Board the caliber of people on the Board of Directors. He stated they are very intelligent, highly competent, and dedicated to the cause of bringing quality drug treatment facilities to Brevard County; there is no question there is a need; and in his 18 years as a criminal defense lawyer, he would estimate 70 to 80% of the people they represent have substance abuse problems. He stated it is that high because of the absence of a quality drug treatment facility in Brevard County; the center proposes to bring quality treatment to the County; and the type of people who are spearheading it are the type of people the Board would want to bring the facility to its County. Mr. Moore stated they are dedicated to the cause and are concerned about the environment, social issues and co-existing compatibly with the community in which it will operate. He requested the Board approve the permit so they can do that.

Ronnie Lawhon, Canaveral Groves, advised she has concerns with the facility being in their neighborhood; the first question that comes to people's minds is do they have a drug problem in the neighborhood; and inquired what type of reputation will they be projecting by having the center in their area. She stated at the Homeowners Association meeting it was brought to them that there will be men from 18 to 25 years old at the facility; and inquired if that has changed. Chairman Carlson stated it is 10 to 14, has not changed, and has always been understood that it would be 10 to 14-year old males. Commissioner Scarborough stated the list says no residential adult men will be located on the site; and he may want to pursue that later. Ms. Lawhon advised they had an experience with a youth in their neighborhood a few years ago. She stated she is the owner/developer of 200 acres in Canaveral Groves; and if one vote was given for every homeowner there, she would have a voice of 200. She stated currently the property brings in revenue of about $40 per year in taxes, which would give the Board a grand total of $8,200; her project, at completion, will be worth $20 million, including homes and land; and estimating taxes of $2,000 per home times 83 homes, the revenue would be $175,000. She stated she has a personal interest since she lives in Canaveral Groves; she has a 16-year old daughter who will be driving the roads; and she has a big concern, not only for the people on the road with a new driver, but also for her daughter. Ms. Lawhon advised pregnant women with a chemical dependency are attached to a husband or boyfriend; when a woman leaves a man, that creates a violent act; he is angry that she has left and will chase after her to find out why; so that could be a big problem. She stated she is a realtor and her husband is a builder; the concerns she hears involve the prison and landfill; it is hard to sell property and explain to people to overlook those facilities because they think the inmates may escape and come to their house. She stated there was a break-out once and the inmate was in one of the vacant homes she had listed; he stole a neighbor's car; and she has documentation of that. She stated she would like to know how many of the people who spoke in support of the Center live in Canaveral Groves; it is easy to paint a pretty picture when they do not live near that type of facility; the Board has always worked for the good of the communities; and inquired what is the good of the center to their neighborhood.

Dick Mathiesen, Canaveral Groves, stated he is opposed to the center but not to the service it would provide; however, it is not the place to be. He stated what bothers him most is their area seems to be the dumping ground for everything nobody wants; and they have enough pollution with power plants and the landfill, and do not need anything more in the area.

Joe Pezzimenti, Canaveral Groves, stated he is opposed to the center but not the idea of a facility or the programs that are needed; however, what is nonsensical and somewhat problematic is bringing people in from other areas. He inquired if the center is solely for Brevard County residents or also other counties, and will it be a spillover; and stated if that is the case, then they will bring other troubles from other areas, and nobody will be helped. He stated problems like drug abuse would be more appropriately dealt with one-on-one; if the neighborhood has a problem, then let that neighborhood manage its problem; and Brevard County should not accept the spillover from other counties. He stated he has eight children with six still at home; they have a lot to worry about; they are trying to get beyond the stigma of the prisons and landfill; the area is growing, he sees some benefits, and enjoys living in Canaveral Groves; so he is totally against the center being located there.

Chris Marcelle, Indialantic, advised she is a real estate broker and was involved as a volunteer with the 12-step programs when they had the children/adolescents' facility in Palm Bay; and she is responsible for bringing this issue to Brevard County. She stated about a year and a half ago, some people she knows from networking with the Chamber of Commerce came to her and asked her to look for property to locate a Center for Drug Free Living; she toured the facilities in Orange County to see what it was all about before looking for property to locate a center in Brevard County; and she spent a year and a half looking for property all over Brevard County, from Titusville to Melbourne. She stated they told her the reason why they want to put a center in Brevard County is because 25% of the women come from Brevard County; after they are released, they go back to attend day care programs for drug abuse; and it was a nice place, but she wanted to see something even nicer. Ms. Marcelle advised she looked at a hotel in Titusville, but it was not large enough for what they wanted; she looked at property on Murrell Road, but across the street was residential, and the CUP required a 500-foot radius; and it would have been a beautiful place, around the corner from Circles of Care. She stated when Devereux moved into Brevard County, there was nothing out there; ten years later, they are afraid of Devereux, yet it does not have that many problems; the Center is not for people with learning disabilities, attention deficit, and those types of problems; it is for drug-free living and is an outstanding program; they are looking at ten acres of 278 acres to put the facility in the back end of the property; and it will not touch a residence within 500 feet. She stated if the Board could think of a better area, the Center would consider it; and she is willing to share her files with the County to find a different location for the center.

Bob Waters, Canaveral Groves, stated there is a place for a drug-free living center; it is needed; but everybody said not at that location. He inquired why they picked a location next to a church; stated they said the reason they picked the property was because they could afford it; and now he is hearing rumors they are going to buy ten acres next to the property; so that will be more money they will be spending. He inquired how many people from Brevard County will use the facility; and stated if 25% are from Brevard County, 75% are from other counties who use the facility in Orange County. Mr. Waters stated it is an open facility where people can walk in and out; that is an issue that worries him; the survey said there was no proof that the center will impact the church; however, there will be monetary loss to the church if people go elsewhere. He stated Commissioner Colon asked about a petition with signatures; many people do not want to participate if their names are on things; and the check marks were the best method to do it. He stated there is a need for drug treatment centers, but not at that location; and inquired about the Church's property rights.

Ms. Hankey advised Tab 12 has everything that was handed out to homeowners who attended the meeting and clearly identifies the population they will serve on the property; there will be a 15-bed women's residential and infants program, and a 20-bed juvenile justice program facility for ages 10 to 14 years. She stated they have operated in Orange County for 11 years; and no one is allowed on the property unless they have been cleared, which means significant others who participate in the women's treatment and do not pose a safety threat to the women or children are screened and cleared before coming on the property. Ms. Hankey stated the women's program, the infants' program, the nonresidential services, and the step-down services are all for Brevard County residents; that is what the legislation says and that is their intent; and the 25% mentioned earlier is the average of what they have seen in their Orange County facility over the past two years. She stated since they have gotten the appropriation, about 50% of the women are from Brevard County; the Brevard County women have drawn down all the dollars that were allocated to them for services; and they are having to do that in Orange County. She stated the Juvenile Justice Program is a State program; it varies in terms of where the clients come from; there will be residents in the Juvenile Justice Program from other districts; and in reviewing prior data, she found that 25 to 35% are Brevard County residents. Ms. Hankey advised she has offered to the Church and the Board a commitment that she will oversee development of the site; everything they were asked to do they have addressed; and if the CUP is denied, she would like to know where they could put the program. She stated the drug problem in Brevard County is growing; the adolescent numbers are soaring; there are women who need the services; and they have nowhere to put the program on property that is zoned for that use.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about no residential adult males will be located on the site; with Ms. Hankey responding the Juvenile Justice Program is for ages 10 to 14; if a juvenile at age 14 is there for an extended period of time, he may have his 15th birthday while in the program; adult is 18 years and older; and right now they are running the program for 10 to 14-year olds. She stated adult males are not in the CUP and it is not their intent to have adult males as residents. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there will be people visiting the facilities who are not residents and would fall into a different classification; with Ms. Hankey responding significant others of the women who are in treatment are part of the protocol and design of the program. Commissioner Scarborough suggested, "no adult males be treated at that facility," be added to the permit; with Ms. Hankey responding in terms of residential that would be okay, but for the nonresidential phase, there will be adult males. She stated the nonresidential is a component of the CUP and does not classify whether they are men or women, just nonresidential services. Chairman Carlson stated it says outpatient treatment services. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they will have adult males for outpatient treatment; with Ms. Hankey responding they do now in the Melbourne facility. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what type of activity would that entail; with Ms. Hankey responding group sessions and possible individual counseling. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long will they be on the site; with Ms. Hankey responding for an hour.

Commissioner Higgs advised she received several calls and letters from people, talked to homeowners and supporters on the issue, and met with representatives of the Center and Church. Commissioner Colon advised she met with homeowners, and the Pastor, and went to the facility in Orlando to be able to compare apples to apples, and see what it looked like.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Pastor Grant said he reviewed the offerings and the Church members discussed them and the question dealing with males; and inquired if his understanding of the relationship is that they are dealing with residential as opposed to treatment; with Pastor Grant responding at the first meeting with Canaveral Groves someone stated there will be 18 to 25-year old males on the site; since then that has been clarified; so that is where they have seen a lot of progress. Pastor Grant stated it was their understanding the Center would have outpatient treatment of adolescents and adults; and the Church's plea was there be no males above 10 to 14 year old on the site as residents because they have concerns with potential problems. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Pastor Grant broached the subject of people over 18 years of age receiving treatment; with Pastor Grant responding they toured the facility in Palm Shores, which is the program they will bring to the proposed site; and there are outpatient services for adolescents and adults who come on site for group sessions and counseling. Commissioner Scarborough stated comments were made that there is a need; when it gets into compatibility, there are a number of issues of how the exterior will look, etc.; that did not seem to be the topic of conversation; but what he wants to be sure of is who will be there and the nature of the people. He stated he would like it better defined that no residential adult men would be located on the site; they are dealing with programs that will be outside that scope; but he would be more comfortable if they take it a step further and define what has been said. He stated all the comments were about the women; some were concerned about who would be visiting the women; Ms. Hankey indicated they supervise that activity; but repeatedly the concern was the type of adult men who would be there. He stated if they are going to treat males from 10 to 14 years of age, it would be good to state that on the permit, or up to the age of 15. Ms. Hankey stated the male participants for the Brevard Group Treatment Program will be nonresidential; and she is not sure what language Commissioner Scarborough is looking for. Commissioner Scarborough stated the question came up and it has been discussed repeatedly as to what type of clientele the center will have in that category; and the better that is defined the more assurances the community will have as to what will occur on the property. Ms. Hankey stated they clearly identified at every meeting what their intentions are, have been very up front, and tried to work and negotiate to meet the needs of the church and community that expressed concerns; the Brevard Group Treatment Home Program is 10 to 14 years of age unless they come in for a length of stay and turn 15; and that is the Juvenile Justice Contract. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they could say no residential men over the age of 15; with Ms. Hankey responding their contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice is for males ages 10 to 14; and their program director can verify that. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the residential could be limited to no one older than the age of 15; with Ms. Hankey responding that is fine for the males. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the males coming for treatment; with Ms. Hankey responding throughout Central Florida they have several sites at which they provide nonresidential treatment services which are in office settings; in the evenings or at scheduled times people come in and meet with their masters level licensed certified counselors to receive counseling; the groups are typically between five and ten persons; and they often meet in the evenings. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how does the center get those clients; with Ms. Hankey responding some are self referred, some come through the system, and some are significant others who are using, or they may come from the Department of Children and Families identified by substance use. She stated the age is not limited; she has a 71 year old male now who is looking for services; they do not discriminate on age, sex, or anything else in terms of who they treat; so it could vary in terms of different ages. She stated it is administered in a professional setting; and they have the program in Melbourne, which some of the people looked at. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they are people living in the community; with Ms. Hankey responding yes, throughout Brevard County. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is necessary that the service take place at that location; with Ms. Hankey responding yes, because it will also be a step down program for the women in treatment, and has been part of the campus concept design in terms of getting some economies of scale. She stated she is working with Ann who is writing a grant for Brevard County for the youth initiative; one of the things they are looking at, as part of the comprehensive strategy, is what they need to do in Brevard County to be able to identify appropriate service components; they need to look at north, center, and south locations; and this site will provide a north location. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the program will be in three areas of the County; with Ms. Hankey responding right now they are in Melbourne; this phase would be the north side when it comes online; and ultimately they hope to have one on the south side. Commissioner Scarborough stated if they are residents of the facility it is irrelevant where they live in the County; but if they are coming for group sessions, it would be better to have it in close proximity. He stated 60% of Brevard County is south of the Pineda; this site will only service the north area; and inquired if Ms. Hankey said they are going to have three locations in Brevard County; with Ms. Hankey responding right now they have a facility in Melbourne; the goal is to be with youth services, which the County is working on right now, and other services should be located as close as possible to the people who need the services; and there is no facility in Titusville. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that function will be for adult males in the North area; with Ms. Hankey responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he could put that in the CUP; with Ms. Hankey responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 3 with a stipulation of no residential males over the age of 15 and nonresidential services for adult males to be for North Brevard County clients. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Pastor Grant advised he hopes to get assurance from Ms. Hankey that the site is limited to the original ten acres as described in the CUP. He stated the community has been concerned with the growth and expansion of the center to a bigger facility; he understands there may be a problem with giving that assurance; but he would like to ask that the expansion on that property cannot be over the ten acres and another CUP for adult programs in that facility. Ms. Hankey stated the CUP addresses the ten acres they are looking to purchase; and if they were to do anything else, they would have to come back before the Board and request another CUP at that time. She stated there was an amendment to the contract to allow another ten acres; that part of the contract has been deleted because they do not have the resources; and to fill the ten acres will take a while. She stated Mary Scattergood is their corporate chairperson and could respond, as she has been involved in meetings with the executive committee; and Mr. Daves can verify the contract on the ten acres is no longer part of the purchase.

Mr. Daves advised when they originally signed the contract, there was an option for an additional ten acres south of the subject parcel; after they found out they could not accomplish it from an economic standpoint, they abandoned that; and the sellers both understand they have no plans to build beyond the ten acres.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is nothing in the law that prohibits them from coming back and amending any action taken by the Board because if that happened, the zoning given in the 1800's could not be changed. He stated there could be new Commissioners, changes in the laws, etc.; and while they have committed to the original ten acres and certain limitations, as time goes on, there could be new restrictions and limitations that could apply. He stated nothing the Board does tonight locks anyone to follow what it has done; so this is as far as the Board can go.

Pastor Grant advised he understands that, but what he is looking for is a good-faith intention. He stated they made a lot of progress; they answered the question that they do not have an option on the additional ten acres; and they were just looking for good faith intentions for a period of time.

Commissioner Colon encouraged the Church and homeowners to be part of the board of directors so they can determine what goes on and keep an eye on the promises made to ensure they are followed through. Chairman Carlson stated a position for the Church was offered, but she is not sure that same offer was made to the Homeowners Association.

The meeting recessed at 8:01 p.m., and reconvened at 8:19 p.m.

Item 4. (Z0102103) Conard L. Richardson's request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1.10 acres located on the west side of Weatherly Place, south of Breckinridge Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Richardson knew about the meeting; with Mr. Enos responding staff spoke to him personally and notified him he needed to be at this meeting; and he assured staff he would. Commissioner Scarborough recommended the Board discuss it. Mr. Enos advised the parcel straddles the 25-year floodplain line; part of it is above the 25-year floodplain and part of it is below. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board had one above the 25 year and one below the 10 year floodplain; with this item there is a portion above the 25-year floodplain; but the Board has not discussed between the 10 and 25-year floodplain. Mr. Enos stated the density between the 10 and 25-year floodplain in the Comprehensive Plan is one unit per 2.5 acres. Commissioner Scarborough stated the property is 1.1 acres; right now Mr. Richardson can have a stick-built home with agricultural uses; and inquired if he could have the mobile home with no agriculture if approved. He stated when there is a split, he would like to have it defined within the terms 50% one way and 50% the other way and how that would fall out. He inquired if Mr. Enos could put that into the record. Mr. Enos stated under the assumption it is 50%, the half-acre that is above the 25-year and below the 100-year floodplain would be consistent with the two units per acre limitation. He stated the portion that is below the 25-year floodplain would not be consistent.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0103302) Clyde G. and Dorothy Joan Beatty's request for change from AU to RR-01 on 1.0 acre located south of Mount Pleasant Avenue, west of Main Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson advised Item 5 has been withdrawn.

Item 6. (Z0103303) Leonard Dean Hearndon and Ridge Automotive, Inc.'s request for small scale plan amendment (O1S.2) that proposes to change the land use designation from residential to mixed use district on the Future Land Use Map; and change from GU to BU-2 on .71 acre located on the southeast corner of Evernia and Main Streets, which were approved by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Leonard Hearndon presented layouts to the Commissioners, and stated the item was tabled because of a wetland issue; he had Strickland Environmental do a study, which showed no significant wetland on the property. He advised another issue was the buffer zone between his property and the residential property to the back; and he will construct a four-foot masonry wall with an additional 20 feet of buffer area that cannot be used for parking, storage of materials, buildings, or anything else.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Hearndon will plant vegetation on the west side of the wall in addition to constructing the wall; with Mr. Hearndon responding he will add trees, but there is a lot of natural vegetation there now. Commissioner Higgs stated if Mr. Hearndon can leave the natural vegetation, that would be even better. Mr. Hearndon commented he does not want to disturb the natural area because it provides privacy for him from the residences. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the height of a wall between BU-2 and residential; with Mr. Enos responding a minimum of six feet. Mr. Hearndon advised except when it abuts an adjoining right-of-way. Mr. Enos stated the wall is not required for this property, but if there were residential properties directly abutting the property, it would require a six-foot wall. Mr. Hearndon advised Section 62-4335 provides for a four-foot wall along a right-of-way with 20 feet of vegetative buffer. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the six-foot wall would not be required; and inquired if Mr. Hearndon would be willing to put in a six-foot wall since there is residential property to the west; with Mr. Hearndon responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board, with a binding development plan including a six-foot wall with vegetative buffering and vegetation on the west side of the wall; and to adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan," setting forth the Second Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2001, 01S.2, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XI(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, as recommended by the LPA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0103404) The Viera Company's request for change from RU-2-10 to BU-2 on 12.7± acres located on the south side of Barnes Boulevard, west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board of BU-2 on the easterly 8.31 acres and EA on the remainder, as modified by the applicant, and with a binding development plan.

Chairman Carlson advised there was concern about the BU-2 zoning classification; and she received a letter changing the request to BU-1.

Hassan Kamal, Engineer with BSE Consultants, Inc., representing The Viera Company, advised there was concern at the last meeting whether BU-2 was consistent with the approved DRI; and they looked at it and amended the request to BU-1 applicable to Parcels A-1 and A-3, which are the parcels highlighted in yellow. He stated they will still move forward with their request to rezone Parcel A-3 to EA, which is the area highlighted in green and is an existing wetland; and they will do that as part of the binding development plan. He stated the binding development plan will restrict development in Parcel A-3, which is the small upland portion at the southwest corner of the property to stormwater facilities or some type of buffer area; the BU-1 is consistent with the DRI designation and the Comprehensive Plan; so that meets and answers the questions raised by the Board the last time it discussed the Item. He stated the other issues raised regarding the wetlands are being addressed by putting it in EA zoning classification; so there will be no development in that wetland. Mr. Kamal advised the questions about scrub jays were addressed in detail as part of a previous permit and through the DRI process; they have provided mitigation for the parcel in the form of 400 acres of preservation area that The Viera Company has been managing and maintaining for several years; and they provided copies of the permits to staff earlier this week.

Chairman Carlson advised she was told there is a nesting pair of scrub jays on the property; and inquired if that was included in the DRI mitigation; with Natural Resources Management Supervisor Debbie Coles responding that site was designated as scrub habitat and was included in the mitigation provided by the DRI. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is an existing nest that would have been mitigated in the DRI already; with Ms. Coles responding it has already been done, but they may have to wait to do clearing until the scrub jays are no longer nesting on the site. Chairman Carlson stated she does not have a problem with the request.

Mary Sphar, representing the Sierra Club, Turtle Coast Group, advised at the April 5, 2001 Board meeting, they voiced concerns that the property is a critical habitat connecting the Cruickshank Sanctuary and the Viera scrub jay population; development of the property and the 96-acre parcel to the west in the City of Rockledge is likely to result in extirpation of the scrub jays in Central Brevard; both properties are part of the Brevard Coastal Scrub Eco-system CARL project; and EEL's is proceeding with the appraisal process for the 96-acre parcel in Rockledge. She stated she wished the EELS Selection and Management Committee had met since April 5, 2001 so it could have discussed the parcel before tonight, but the next meeting is not until the end of May, 2001. Ms. Sphar requested the Board consider land use compatibility, not only with the directly adjacent parcels, but also with nearby properties that form the essential scrub corridor between the Cruickshank Sanctuary and the Viera scrub jay population. She stated another issue is the requested binding development plan (BDP), which would allow the construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities; she understands they will be located only in Tract A-3 and not in Tract A-2; Tract A-3 contains occupied scrub jay territory and Type 3 aquifer recharge soils according to the topography map; and they feel it is an inappropriate use of that tract and oppose the BDP for that reason. She stated it will have adverse effects on the critical habitat and aquifer recharge area. Ms. Sphar advised the rezoning review worksheet prepared for the April 5, 2001 meeting stated that based upon an amended application whereby the eastern two-thirds of the property would be rezoned to BU-2, development must be phased as proposed trips generated by the project will exceed the maximum capacity allotment; and inquired if that is the case with the BU-1. She inquired if the County is comfortable with the proposed BU-1 zoning classification from a traffic standpoint considering all the projected development on Barnes Boulevard. She stated they are opposed to stormwater management facilities in Tract A-3; and requested the Board consider compatibility of the land with the nearby habitat corridor parcels running from the Cruickshank Sanctuary to the Viera scrub jay population. She stated the Sierra Club is very concerned about the proposed rezoning.

Amy Mosher, Rockledge, stated she just found out the scrub jays were mitigated under the Endangered Species Act in 1994; the area is part of the approved CARL project and is identified as core reserve on the 1993 scrub jay inventory maps; and it is terrible that the federal government sees no problem mitigating jays located within a core reserve habitat in Central Brevard mainland. She stated Mr. Kamal described that Tract A-3 would be rezoned to EA and subject to a BDP, which would allow construction and maintenance of stormwater management facilities within the Tract; and inquired how will it affect the remaining scrub habitat on Tract A-3. Ms. Mosher advised Section 62-1571 states the purpose of EA is to conserve natural resource functions and features by retaining lands and water in their pristine character and condition, but permits uses that are compatible and enhance and restore the functions and features of such natural resource; and she does not see how allowing construction of stormwater management facilities on Tract A-3 would conserve the pristine scrub resource or be compatible with EA zoning. She stated the area borders the Viera DRI conservation area located to the south; that area is currently being managed by the County; Brian Toland knows about it; and the 96-acre Pine Acres property located to the east is zoned residential and is currently undeveloped. She stated both those areas on the south and west property lines are occupied by jays and should be allotted a generous buffer. Ms. Mosher advised Barnes Boulevard is a two-lane road with no center turn lanes or acceleration lanes; safety has always been a problem on that narrow road; and funding for needed improvements has become a most recent issue. She stated there are 37 properties zoned for commercial on Barnes Boulevard; many of those properties are still undeveloped; they are looking to make Barnes into another tacky neon strip; ten years ago it was rural; and now it is turning into one big timbered unattractive dustbowl. She stated according to the Rockledge Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, Barnes is already maxed out with commercially-zoned properties; 200 acres have commercial designations on Barnes; the Rockledge Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.2.3 states commercial land uses currently involve 59% of the total mixed use area in Planning District 7; and that District is Barnes Boulevard. She stated zoning changes may reflect a range of between 41% and 59% of the total area, meaning the Planning District has already reached the limit for commercial land; and this would go beyond the max created on Barnes Boulevard. Ms. Mosher stated she heard Commissioners say development does not pay for itself; she agrees with that statement; people should not have to foot the bill to repair damages developers create in their attempt to make a quick buck; and all the people of Rockledge are left behind to pay for all the problems. She stated sprawl in Rockledge and Viera is racing out of control; and having grown up in Rockledge, she continues struggling daily to preserve some kind of quality of life in a world where it often seems man's main concern is making the highest dollar even if it means mitigating core reserve areas occupied by one of Florida's vanishing threatened species. She stated the proposal for commercial is not compatible with the surrounding area or Rockledge's Future Land Use Element in that it would create even more commercial than the Comprehensive Plan allows; and the infrastructure cannot handle it. She requested the Board envision the 37 commercially-zoned properties on Barnes Boulevard after development is completed with convenience stores, home builders supplies, dueling supermarkets, fast food franchises, and gasoline stations with bright lights all crammed beside two narrow lanes. She inquired if Barnes Boulevard really needs to withstand any more commercial, and does the County need to make it 38 commercial properties.

Earl Jacobs, Rockledge, advised the applicant mitigated for scrub jays in 1994; seven years later they have less scrub jays in Brevard County; the Cruickshank Sanctuary is across the street; so things are different now than they were seven years ago. He stated the property has become part of a greenway; it is the missing link; and presented copies of maps to the Commissioners. He stated if the County could buy the property, it could preserve it; it seems that residential development would have less impact if they left the natural vegetation; and it seems that mitigation fees are not stopping the destruction of scrub jay habitats. He stated the County since it has lost so much natural habitat, it should try to limit development to lands that have previously been disturbed. Mr. Jacobs stated there are plenty of disturbed lands to build on; the big developers like The Viera Company are destroying the natural habitats, health, and beauty of Brevard County so they can make money and leave the residents with sprawl; and requested the Board stop letting the big developers run the County or ruin the County. He stated he hopes The Viera Company is not getting special favors.

Chairman Carlson inquired if a letter was supposed to be sent with additional information to the City of Rockledge regarding this parcel and where the scrub jay was being tracked between the Pine Acres parcel and this parcel. She noted the Board asked staff to send another letter to the City. Ms. Busacca stated she understood staff was to send the Board a copy of the letter it provided to the City. Chairman Carlson stated it was comments on the Board's part to the City. Ms. Busacca stated she understands the Pine Acres rezoning request in the City of Rockledge has been amended; and that will come back to staff for additional comments. Chairman Carlson inquired if in the DRI process when they mitigated for jays, what is the process, how do they mitigate if jays were not there nesting at the time; how does that occur, and does staff know when the jays are on the parcel actually mating. She stated Brian Toland has done some tracking of those birds; and inquired if Ms. Coles has enough knowledge regarding that; with Ms. Coles responding she does not, but can get the information for the Board, as Kevin Irwin was the consultant for the DRI. Chairman Carlson stated when they do mitigation for the DRI, they look at scrub habitat and then they say they are going to mitigate and that would cover nesting privileges at that point; and inquired if there is a nesting pair that is banded and being tracked, do they have a taking permit for that through the DRI process. Ms. Coles advised it is her understanding they have mitigated for any proposed future scrub jay impacts on the DRI; the property was proposed to be residential, but also had a future use for commercial; however, she would have to make an assumption because she does not know for sure.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the parcel to the west is a residential PUD; with Mr. Enos responding there is a proposed PUD on that tract to the west. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is currently zoned RU-2-A by the City of Rockledge; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if a PUD is pending on that property; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how would the Board deal with a proposed zoning, in terms of compatibility, if the parcel it is looking at tonight is currently multifamily residential and it is moving it to BU-1. She inquired if the Board deals with the incompatibility as it exists today or does it try to prophesize it into the future; with Mr. Enos responding staff discussed that with the City of Rockledge's staff; they had originally objected to the BU-2 because they knew the PUD was coming into the picture; but once they learned they would leave the wetland Tract A-2 and the smaller triangle of Tract A-3 in a noncommercial use, the City was comfortable with the compatibility issue. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board deals with incompatibility as it exists today; with Mr. Enos responding it would be compatible with multifamily even if commercial came up against it because it is a transitional parcel with industrial to the east and residential to the west. Commissioner Higgs inquired if RU-2-A is the City's residential classification; with Mr. Enos responding yes, a multifamily classification. Commissioner Higgs stated the existing multifamily is compatible with the PUD or RU-2-A; it could be viewed as a transition between industrial on the east and multifamily residential on the west; so RU-2-10 is not incompatible with either of those and may be an appropriate use. She stated changing it to BU-1 may increase incompatibility. Mr. Enos stated that is arguable, but the existing RU-2-10 is not going to be more incompatible; the DRI defines that parcel for retail; so to be consistent with the DRI, it needs to have a commercial zoning classification.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the BDP talks about EA zoning, but the actual worksheet does not mention zoning as being BU-2 and EA; with Mr. Enos responding that was committed by the applicant at the last hearing; and since then, he has amended the BU-2 to BU-1, but is still suggesting EA as is staff. Commissioner Scarborough stated EA is not part of the BDP, but the motion; and inquired if EA is approved, can it be altered by the BPD to the extent that it ceases to be EA; with Mr. Enos responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired by putting provisions in the BDP on what can go in EA, can they put a cement plant in EA; with Mr. Enos responding no, they cannot put a use that is not permitted in EA even through the BDP.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a BDP should bind and reduce activity rather than increase activity; with Mr. Enos responding they cannot increase activity on the EA parcel. Commissioner Higgs inquired is making it a retention pond for stormwater increasing the activity; with Mr. Enos responding Tract A-2 is not the retention tract, but Tract A-3 is. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is allowing retention in EA; with Mr. Enos responding they are asking to convey water across the EA tract. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the EA tract is being used as conveyance; with Mr. Kamal responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how is that not similar to a cement plant; with Mr. Kamal responding they are not constructing anything on the parcel. Mr. Kamal stated from an engineering perspective, they can design a stormwater facility that would collect water on the BU-1 parcel, spill over the wetlands after it is treated, and convey to the other BU-1 parcel. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is part of the positive outfall; with Mr. Kamal responding the detailed engineering is not done to know exactly where the drainage will be, but they want to retain the ability to use the triangular portion of the property that is not wetlands for a potential stormwater facility. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is part of the conveyance system; with Mr. Kamal responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is the positive outfall from their retention pond; with Mr. Kamal responding they may end up having to do 100% retention on that site; he is not sure they have a positive outfall; it is a difficult drainage area; but they may end up using it for storage after they treat the stormwater in other areas. Commissioner Higgs stated if it becomes the positive outfall, then it is no longer an EA parcel; with Mr. Kamal responding they are not constructing anything on that portion of the property. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to end up zoning something then using the BDP to make things more liberal rather than more conservative; and generally a BDP restricts rather than adds benefits. He stated at the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council a presentation was made in which they used the word "tools"; it was about the bear; the bear would lack the possibility to continue to exist in the southern portion of the property if the parcel was developed; and their point was they cannot go to traditional ways and make things make sense because they would take this and that and begin to put one pattern on top of another and find that there were some profound things that occurred. Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Sphar inquired if compatibility exists; and inquired does it exist with the concept of what the Board wants as a greater community; does the Board want to eliminate a scrub jay population; and is there a compatibility issue that can be addressed.

Chairman Carlson advised the reason the item was tabled was because she asked the question of what are the impacts to the Cruickshank parcel that the County purchased, and how would development or rezoning efforts that are occurring there and the Pine Acres development in Rockledge affect the longevity of the scrub jay population and the Sanctuary. She stated a lot of money was spent on the Cruickshank property; the County would like to preserve the species; Brian Toland who knows most about it should have been here tonight to talk about that; and the Board does not know all the specifics of how it is going to impact anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County made an investment; and inquired can it look to issues beyond that to the greater issue, and does it have the tools with which to make sense of those things, because taken on its face there are no problems, but looking at the map the parcel sits in the middle of the property. He stated there are compatibility issues that the Board has not acted on.

Chairman Carlson stated it is difficult because the DRI was structured and the property mitigated a long time ago; but she is of the understanding that if the Board passes the rezoning, they could build in such a way that would protect the scrub jays nesting area. She noted she does not know if that is true, but Brian Toland had interested input on that.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if someone mitigates and because of the mitigation loses a species, does that make sense; with Chairman Carlson responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has a program but should have end results for what it does as opposed to just rules and people meeting the rules; and if the scrub jay issue is critical, and it is not being addressed by rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to have those people who prepared the tools for Lake County to make a presentation to the Board so it can see there are other ways to view things. Chairman Carlson stated that would be great if they have other ideas, as she does not know how to deal with it through an existing DRI.

Commissioner Higgs stated when a developer comes in and wants a substantial deviation, the County goes through that process; now they are asking for a change; and inquired if it is consistent with the DRI, and does the Board have to do it. Ms. Busacca stated it is consistent with the DRI, and the Development Order approved by the Board contemplates it to be retail commercial. Commissioner Higgs inquired if RU-2-10 is inconsistent; with Ms. Busacca responding if it is not retail, yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the DRI draws out the parcel; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, and shows that it was going to be retail. Commissioner Higgs stated the developer has a right to ask for substantial deviation; and inquired if the Board has that same right. Chairman Carlson inquired what would the grounds be for requesting substantial deviation; with Commissioner Higgs responding they are asking for substantial deviation. Ms. Bentley advised she never heard of that happening, and would have to look into it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is like administrative rezoning. Ms. Bentley stated there are a lot of regulations involved, and her suspicion is the Florida Statutes do not address it. She stated it may be fair, but she is not sure the Florida Statutes say the Board can do that.

Commissioner Colon stated the developer is doing what the DRI says, and that is that it is supposed to be commercial; and she will support it. She stated it is consistent with the original Viera DRI; wetlands have been identified and can be rezoned EA; so she will support the remaining portion as BU-1.

Ms. Busacca stated if the issue is the scrub habitat and if the property remains in its current zoning, the scrub habitat would be at the same level of risk as commercial development. Commissioner Higgs stated she is concerned about the scrub, but is looking at the issue of compatibility with the residential PUD and a step-down approach from IP to PUD. Ms. Busacca advised the City of Rockledge's original application for PUD included retail commercial. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board will be adding to the 37 properties that are commercially zoned in Barnes Boulevard; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, assuming the PUD ultimately is approved.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the applicant wants to rebut the comments made by other speakers.

Hassan Kamal advised the compatibility issues were looked at through the DRI process; the retail use on the property was deemed to be compatible with adjacent land uses; and that was all done through the DRI process. He stated when most of the parcels in the DRI went through rezoning to be compatible with the DRI, this parcel fell through the cracks; the zoning remained as residential and was not changed to be compatible with what is in the DRI; and that is the step they are taking today. Mr. Kamal stated regarding the scrub jays, approval of this request does not allow the developer to cut down trees and plants; they have permits to do that, but they do not have development approval from Brevard County; and they have to come back to staff, submit site plans, and obtain clearing permits, etc. He stated all this does is get the zoning compatible with the approved land use on the DRI.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the parcel to the west zoned R-2-A in the City of Rockledge is part of the DRI; with Mr. Kamal responding no. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the IP parcel is in the DRI; with Mr. Kamal responding it is outside of the DRI. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is just a finger of land that comes up; with Mr. Kamal responding yes, it comes out of the mass project and goes to Barnes Boulevard.

Ms. Bentley advised when the Board adopted the Development Order, it established a date within which time the DRI would not be subject to downzoning, density reduction, or intensity reduction unless there was an error or substantial change in conditions, or there is a change established by local government to be essential to public health, safety, and welfare; so the Board has to look at the Development Order, and no one has it at the meeting.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board is bound to applying commercial zoning because of the DRI; but she is not sure when the DRI was put in place and the scrub jay corridor was established and identified as the core areas; and inquired if those dates were in line with one another or did one happen before the other. Ms. Busacca stated the DRI was in place in 1990 and predated the other work. Chairman Carlson stated from what she heard, the Board needs to apply zoning to the property; it sounds like it has to be commercial in terms of compatibility because the parcel was left out when the DRI came in for rezoning; and there is a nesting pair of scrub jays there, but unfortunately the damage has already been done. She stated from conversations with The Viera Company, they do not have plans for the parcel right now; EEL's may want to take it upon themselves to review it; but she will leave that up to the folks in the audience who are interested in that. She stated she would be interested in finding out the response from the City of Rockledge on the development to the west, which is going to have an impact; and the jays will be going away in that area.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot vote in favor of this request; everything being said sounds logical and simple, but there is something disturbing about the map; and there has to be something more fundamental than just rules and laws. Chairman Carlson stated she does not have a problem tabling the item if the Board can find answers, but she is not sure it will find any answers. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to know how to change it so something like this is not going to happen elsewhere, because it is not the way the Board needs to do business. Chairman Carlson stated she is not sure the Board has the legal ability to do anything; and asked the Assistant County Attorney if the Board has an ability to do anything different regarding the rezoning. Ms. Bentley advised she would have to review the Development Order to see if there is any room to change or alter anything. Chairman Carlson stated she is not opposed to tabling the item so the Board can look at that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 7 until August 2, 2001 for review of the Development Order to determine what options are available. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated some of it does not make sense; she wishes there was a way to get to where the Board would like to get; but unfortunately things have already been laid out. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to know how the Board can make some sense out of the way it does business. Chairman Carlson suggested Commissioner Scarborough report back to the Board on the issue of the bear. Commissioner Scarborough stated he found it intriguing because they said it could have gone a lot of ways, but by running a lot of different data, they were able to see the problem. Commissioner Higgs stated they showed different configurations of development that took into account moving around of things. Chairman Carlson stated after the Legislature looks at DRI's, the Board may be in a different position.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
APRIL 9, 2001

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on April 9, 2001, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0104301) Leland M. Hildreth's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 0.583± acre located on the west side of SR A1A, south of Oak Street, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Glenn Summers, representing the applicant, presented copies of correspondence to the Commissioners. Commissioner Higgs advised she met with Mr. Summers regarding his request and discussed some concerns. Mr. Summers advised the request is to rezone the rear portion of the property Mr. Hildreth has constructed a car wash on, and comes about because there are no provisions in the BU-1 zoning classification for conditional use to store motor homes, boat trailers, boats, etc. He stated the property is south of Spessard Holland Golf Course on Highway A1A behind the car wash; to the north is government land, which is the access road to the sewer plant; to the west is the sewer plant; and on the south side is vacant BU-1 abutted by a 7-Eleven Store. He stated the letters he presented to the Board spell out the attitudes of some of the residents in the area; the need has been demonstrated; and the first letter covers the deed restricted communities and condominiums in the South Beaches that prohibit residents from having motor homes, boats, etc. on their properties. He stated the second letter is from Mike Sealy, who has been in the real estate business for a number of years, and is also a member of the P&Z Board, but was absent when this item came up; and he wrote that the storage of motor homes, boats, etc. is an excellent buffer between the sewer plant and existing car wash or anything else in the area. He advised the letter from Alan Broadwell, President of Ocean Ridge Homeowners Association, a deed-restricted community, noting a number of property owners do not have a place to put anything; and a letter from Jason Steele states it is a compatible use and something that is very much needed, and the intended use can be buffered so it would not cause injury to the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated the last letter is from Corey's Lawn Care and Landscaping, which estimates 30 of the existing oleander bushes need to be replaced due to storm damage, and once they are replaced, they would grow to 10 and 15 feet in height and be an excellent buffer around the exterior six-foot fence that currently surrounds the property. Mr. Summers advised he drafted a binding development plan (BDP) which he delivered to the County Attorney's Office; Item 2 in the BDP restricts the vegetative buffer aspect, saying the buffer that is there with 18-inch oleanders should continue to grow and go up in height; and it also provides that no vehicles over 40 feet in length or that are inoperable or not road worthy would be allowed to be stored at the facility. He stated they are not talking about a typical BU-2 use; and they are talking about half an acre of land on which they would like to have the zoning change to store motor homes and boats.

Commissioner Higgs advised the request is for BU-2; Policy 4.7 of the Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan, says, "Non-retail commercial land uses shall be limited to those areas where non-retail commercial/industrial characteristics are established or planned so as to protect residential areas from the influence." She stated there are no other BU-2 uses in the area. Commissioner Higgs continued reading the Policy, "This non-retail commercial land use shall not be located in prominent locations along major transportation corridors except where such uses are buffered visually by vegetation or other appropriate methods." She stated the applicant indicated a willingness to enhance the oleanders that he has; and unfortunately, because of the nature of the property on the front, the BU-1 use that is there, there is a car wash on the front, the use has already been established in the rear. She stated she understands there was Code Enforcement action because they did not have the proper zoning on the rear portion of the property; the use on the front is the car wash; and car washes by nature are very open, so any BU-2 use would be apparent from the BU-1 property that abuts a major transportation corridor. She stated while she understands there are some needs in the area, and Mr. Summers has rightfully indicated that, she has a great deal of concern about establishing BU-2 use in that area; the Future Land Use Element 13 talks about strongly incompatible when looking at the use of BU-2 and the use on the north side; and she does not know how to resolve that. She stated although the project has some merit, she would have to move to deny the application as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0104401) CAN Company's request for change from BU-1 and BU-2 to all BU-2 and removal of the existing binding site plan on 1.87 acres located west of U.S. 1, south of Jen Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Jerry Jestor advised ACN Company owns the property zoned BU-2 north of the Pineda Causeway and west of U.S. 1; it has two warehouse-type buildings on it; and in those buildings are a number of service companies. He stated they recently bought the strip of land to the south of which most is zoned BU-1; to the south of that property is BU-2; to the north of the previous property is BU-2; to the west is the railroad tracks and MacAsphalt, which is IU; and to the east along U.S.1 is BU-1. He stated they are surrounded by BU-2, IU and the railroad tracks; their property is zoned BU-1; and they would like to build two more buildings like they have and put the same kind service-type companies in them.

Chairman Carlson advised the property is surrounded by BU-2, BU-1 and IU; and the rezoning would be compatible, so she would recommend approval.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0104402) Flagler Development Company's request for change from AU to BU-1 on 4.15± acres located on both sides of U.S. 1, south of Viera Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing the applicant, advised the request is simple and comes with a unanimous approval from the P&Z Board; they are two parcels, one on the west side of u.s. 1 with 3.35 acres, and the other across the street at .80 acre; and they are asking BU-1. He stated the property is adjacent to BU-1; the larger tract to the rear is the railroad; and it is actually a residual parcel. Mr. Spielvogel advised Flagler Development is an affiliate of Florida East Coast Railway, and holds surplus real estate for the Railway.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not have a problem with the request; it looks like the only good use for the property given the BU-1 strip that is occurring to the south; there is IU across the railroad tracks; and it dead ends into the arterial road.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0104403) Richard Lee Beattie's request for change from AU and BU-1 to BU-2 on 11.01± acres located on the south side of SR 520, west of Lake Poinsett Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board, subject to the concept plan submitted by the applicant and a binding development plan limited the use of the property as a moving and storage facility and a mini-warehouse facility, with all activities done inside, no outside storage, and no businesses to be run from the mini-warehouse facility.

Wayne Gandy with Law & Associates Engineers, representing the applicant, advised the property is located on the south side of SR 520, west of I-95; the front 300 feet is presently zoned BU-1; and the remaining southern part is zoned AU. He stated Mr. Beattie is requesting approval of BU-2 with a binding development plan, which has been submitted to the County Attorney's Office, to put a moving and storage warehouse in the northwest corner, identified as Parcel 1, and a mini-storage warehouse on Parcel 2. He stated they originally submitted an application for the front 600 feet to be rezoned BU-2; and at the P&Z Board meeting, they modified it with the BDP and conceptual plan before the Board, and are only looking at Parcels 2 and 2 as BU-2 and allowing some use of the perimeter of Parcel 3, which is an existing wetland, for stormwater usage prior to going into the wetlands. He stated Parcel 1 has waterway wetlands, which is a series of ditches constructed on the site; it is an isolated low-quality type of wetland; and it takes from the existing wetlands in the northeast corner of the site. He stated filling in of that wetland will enhance the existing wetlands along with the strand that goes to the southern part of the site; they are proposing to leave the remainder of the site in a natural vegetative state; and the existing wetland in Parcel 3 would remain in place and be enhanced. Mr. Gandy advised the wetlands in the parcel to the southwestern part of the site would remain as is and the remainder of the site will remain in its natural state and be used for mitigation of possible impacts on Parcel 2 when they develop it. He stated the traffic impact from that type of development will be minimal; staff said the number of trips estimated will keep the existing level of service on SR 520; Parcel 3 is not proposed for construction until the widening of SR 520 occurs; and the intended use as a moving and storage warehouse would have more than 90% of the usage inside the building, so there will not be a lot of activity going on outside. He stated there will not be extensive lighting; they are prepared to put in an extensive vegetative buffer along the western and northern parts of the site to ensure there is no impact to adjacent properties and the major corridor of SR 520; and he will entertain any questions the Board may have.

Chairman Carlson advised of her concern with the additional depth that would abut SR and AU; stated Policy 4.7 lays out clearly that non-retail commercial land uses shall be limited to those areas where non-retail commercial or industrial characteristics are established; and they are not established in the subject area. She stated BU-1 is established in the area; but she is not comfortable with BU-2 intrusion into residential areas and the depth of the parcel requested for rezoning.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he continues to have a problem with use of the wetlands, not specifically for this item, but generally; the Board is trying to delineate wetlands as part of zoning; wetlands are called one thing and ultimately the Board moves away from it and finds that as time evolves there is a different thing happening to the wetlands because there is not sufficient staff to go out and constantly monitor them; and he is afraid the Board is creating a nightmare. He stated if staff goes out and later finds there are no wetlands, the Board has done things that are not working. He stated the Board says they cannot develop in wetlands, then it puts in the binding development plan that they can do this and that in the wetlands; then all of a sudden there is something in the record and it is just not wetlands but something else as well; so the Board needs to be careful with what it says, how it does it, and how it is going to monitor that because it only has so many people to go out and look at wetlands over a period of time. He inquired who is going to pull out all the BDP's and walk around and see all the wetlands.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board asked for wetland assessments to come before the whole process. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not talking about what the Board does, but what happens after that; the Board says they have to maintain a vegetative buffer, and neighbors say there is nothing there; and inquired if the Board is creating monsters for staff over a period of time. He stated it is one thing to say it is wetlands, stay out of it; that is clear; but when the Board says they can do this and that, it becomes ambiguous. Chairman Carlson stated she agrees; like the last item, there are a lot of creative ways to mitigate wetlands, but what the Board actually is doing to the systems that are there and worth saving, she does not know; and she has no clue of how to monitor that.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Ms. Coles' letter of April 6, 2001 says, "This office has received additional data about the jurisdictional wetland on the above-referenced property. Our original comments on the rezoning included that the property was 100% wetland." He stated then St. Johns River Water Management District says no, about 30% is wetland; then an independent consultant says in her letter she felt it was 60% wetland; and it goes on to say, "In relation to the site, it may be feasible to complete mitigation on site. If wetland impacts are kept to a minimum because of the low-quality of the onsite wetland, it may be possible to enhance any un-impacted wetland areas by eradication of nuisance exotic wetland species." Commissioner O'Brien stated they said a lot of the wetland is covered in Brazilian pepper trees, and replanting with desirable species may preserve and meet conservation requirements. He stated part of the mitigation done along Merritt Avenue behind K-Mart for B.J.'s was to remove all the pepper trees and replant native vegetation; the improvement was dramatic; and within three to four months the wildlife returned because there is better water quality and everything else involved. He stated it is worrisome that one government body says it is 100% wetland, another says only 30%, and an environmental consulting firm says 60%, but nobody read the bottom line. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board could have improved wetlands on this parcel by saying it will approve the request for rezoning and wants the applicant to mitigate the wetlands that are of poor quality. He stated the Comprehensive Plan talks about the quality of a wetland being one of the triggers of whether the Board wants to go forward or not; it talks about the quality being important to the County; there are a lot of low-quality wetlands in a lot of places with rubber tires and Styrofoam cups, etc. in them; and migratory birds will not even stop there. He stated the bottom line of the letter says, "The low-quality wetlands could be repaired if the rezoning takes place and if the person was to move forward with construction."

Item 5. (Z0104404) Curtis B. Flinchbaugh, Cornett W. Martin, Jr., Jay A. Bonadio, Trustee, Daniel T. Martin, and E. J. Martin's request for change from AU to RP on 2.00± acres located on the northwest corner of Tuckaway Drive and Fiske Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Michael Bross advised he was interested in purchasing the land of about two acres on the corner of Fiske Boulevard and Tuckaway Drive in Rockledge; however, through a series of nightmare-type findings and information given to him, he is no longer interested in the purchase. He stated there are Statutes and Ordinances that say where to go, but when a person buys a piece of land, he or she does not know all the things to look forward to; he got Environmental Services, Inc. to look at the land; they said the entire two acres is wetlands; and prior to coming here, he heard from County staff through his secretary that it was part of a floodplain; however, it was not in a floodplain at all. He stated he had the land surveyed and found there is an Easement, but they will not let him get access to Tuckaway Road; in some sort of plan between the County and City of Rockledge, they will not let him have ingress/egress off Fiske Boulevard; and then he finds out the land is all wetlands. He stated two weeks ago he found out the Board made some rulings about wetlands which happened almost like a development of law after he submitted his application; and because of all that, he wishes to withdraw his application and request return of his fee.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept withdrawal of Item 5, and authorize return of the application fee to Michael Bross. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board did not change the rules, the rule has been in place for some time; but it is working on how to administer it.

Item 6. (Z0104405) Fred D. Boozer, Jr., Trustee's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 1.71± acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, north of the west end of Ruby Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a binding development plan limiting use to mini-warehouse facility only, and concept plan to include a buffer along U.S. 1.

The Board tabled Item 6 earlier in this meeting.

Item 7. (Z0104406) The Waelti Family Limited Partnership's request for change from GU to IU on 9.79 acres located on the west side of Waelti Drive, north of Wickham Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Antonio Gonzalez advised he is a small business owner at 395 Pineda Court, Bay #2, in Suntree; his business is industrial equipment, supplies, and services; and he ahs been searching for a piece of property in the area for a while and finally found one that may suit his needs and in the price range he can afford. He requested IU on the parcel, which is at the end of Waelti Drive and surrounded by IU-1 to the northwest, IU-2 across the street, and RR-1 to the southwest, which is the landowner's residence; and she is here tonight. He stated the original request was for IU on the 9.79 acres; but after talking with County staff, they decided to downscale it to four acres; and he hopes the Board received the packages presented to the P&Z Board, which contained aerial photos and the concept plan. Mr. Gonzalez stated he addressed the homeowners in the area and had a good response from them; there was a lady who wanted to speak tonight, but it got too late and she had to leave; but Mr. Lopez from the Homeowners Association is here. He stated he looked at the list of industrial uses and is prepared to do a binding development plan (BDP) that would exclude a lot of the uses that would be environmentally hazardous, create noise, or do anything that would be harmful to the area. He stated his intention is to build a 15,000 square-foot warehouse for his business in the front part of the property; and in Phase II and Phase III he wants to build a second and third warehouse that would allow leasing to service companies such as air conditioning, glass replacement, and those types of small businesses.

Commissioner Colon inquired why was the application denied by the P&Z Board; with Mr. Gonzalez responding the first motion was to approve it, but it was not seconded; then someone offered BU-2 and he said no because BU-2 would limit his business to warehousing; and after he would not accept BU-2, there was a motion to deny and it was seconded. He stated he spoke with Rick Enos since then who explained to him that BU-2 was not an option and it was wrongfully offered to him; so he is requesting IU with a BDP if possible. Commissioner Colon stated she thought he wanted to build warehouses; and inquired what is the problem with limiting the use to warehouses; with Mr. Gonzalez responding he wants to rent space to a cabinet manufacturer; and there is a possibility of teaming with Cherokee Nations from Oklahoma that is possibly acquiring $50 million worth of business with Harris for wire harness assembly. He stated he is talking to Harris about allowing the company to build the wire harnesses in Oklahoma and ship them to his business for storage and immediate delivery to them; and in the new future, bring the wire assembly to Melbourne because Harris would like to give the company a contract, but wants a presence in Melbourne.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the worksheet he has goes on about regulations in Policy 5.3; it says, "This property is not located within 660 feet of a major transportation corridor, so it is in compliance. This property is designated for heavy/light industrial use on the Future Land Use Map. RU-1 zoning is contiguous to the north along the easterly portion of the property and abuts IU zoning to the east as well. Sites for light industrial land shall be at least half and acre, and this property is four acres in size. Light industrial land uses have the potential to adversely affect surrounding land uses; therefore, such light industrial proposal shall be reviewed for compatibility with surrounding land uses. The property abuts GU to the southwest and northwest land use compatibility matrix of the Comprehensive Plan and indicates a possible land use incompatibility with the GU classification, so at a minimum, special buffering should be utilized adjacent to the residential zoning if residential is going to be there." He stated the property is designated for heavy/light industrial uses on the Future Land Use Map; it appears Mr. Gonzalez is in compliance with Policy 5.3; and the maps show IU abutting the property to the north and east; so he cannot find a good reason to deny the request.

Chairman Carlson advised there is a transitional zoning classification of PIP, planned industrial park, which is more compatible and may be suitable for what Mr. Gonzalez is requesting; and asked staff to explain the difference between PIP and IU-1. Mr. Enos advised the request is for IU; PIP is an alternative that can be considered in the heavy/light industrial land use designation; and the uses are quite similar except that IU permits trucking terminals and heavy transportation uses as conditional uses, whereas PIP does not. He stated all other industrial uses, office and research uses are permitted in IU and PIP.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Gonzalez would be willing to go with PIP; with Mr. Gonzalez responding yes, but he would like to see what falls under that classification. Chairman Carlson asked Mr. Gonzalez to talk to Mr. Enos while the Board hears Mr. Lopez.

Edward J. Lopez advised he lives in Lakepoint Subdivision, which is east and south of the Waelti property; initially it was requested for 9.1 acres, and he had visions of factories and smoke stacks; they went to the meeting, and Mr. Gonzalez was vague about what he wanted to use the warehouse for; they were thinking about toxic materials and all sorts of things; and the reason Mr. Gonzalez was denied is because the P&Z Board made two suggestions to him, to meet with the residents, and agree to a BDP, and he said no. He stated they received a phone call from Mr. Young, a realtor with National Realty Company, setting up a meeting on April 30, 2001; at that meeting Mr. Gonzalez was clearer as to his intent and that the warehouse was going to be located close to Waelti Drive; and he said he was going to use the warehouse to store items, such as lotto machines, empty 50-gallon drums for sale, packing materials, and possibly contract with the Brevard County School District for installation of storm shutters. Mr. Lopez stated Mr. Gonzalez also said in the future he would like to have a wiring operation in the back portion of the first warehouse that would employ approximately five people; and he would be willing to sign an agreement that would restrict the use of the property to his operations, whatever they may be. He stated at the meeting Mr. Young said the classification Mr. Gonzalez is seeking would allow manufacturing of cosmetics and pharmaceuticals; that brings a great deal of concern to his mind of what agents would be used; and their concern is not to have any toxic chemicals on the property and the noise level be at a minimum. He noted the trucking company sounds like a speedway in the morning; at the other end there is an auto salvage operation, which was grandfathered in; and if Mr. Gonzalez agrees to the restrictions he said he would, then they do not have any objections.

Mr. Gonzalez stated he would be willing to accept PIP; however, his concern is how the setbacks will affect him; he was told PIP has 50-foot setbacks from the sides; and IU is only 15 feet. He stated the property is 200 feet wide; but he may be able to do it if he can use the 50 feet for parking.

Chairman Carlson stated she is hesitant about putting in additional IU in the area that close to a residential community; that is why the County has the PIP classification; and inquired if Mr. Gonzalez is willing to restrict the uses as he said. Mr. Gonzalez stated he would like to rent space to small businesses like service companies, but nothing that would have heavy machinery or equipment or chemical manufacturing of any type in the warehouses he plans to build in Phase II and III; and he also wants to have wire harnesses assembly or manufacturing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is difficult to say he wants to do wiring, because if the contract falls apart, something else may come in; what the neighbors are concerned about is hazardous materials, noise, and time of operation; and rather than getting into what he is going to do, he should say what he is not going to do, which would give him some latitude. He stated it can be worked out this evening, but it may be easier to have staff put together a BDP that include things that concern the neighbors and leaves open who he rents to as long as they are not making noise in the middle of the night. Commissioner Scarborough recommended the item be tabled for preparation of a BDP and review of it by everyone concerned; because it is going in the wrong direction rather than stating what he is not allowed to do on the property.

Mr. Lopez stated another concern of the residents is if Mr. Gonzalez's operation fails, he may sell the property and they would not know what would come in there and what safeguards they have that it is not going to be a chemical manufacturing operation. Commissioner Scarborough stated what the Board does goes with the property and not with Mr. Gonzalez, so the restrictions will stay with the property. Mr. Lopez inquired if it is in perpetuity; with Chairman Carlson responding until a change is requested, which will have to come before the Board.

Mr. Enos advised the heavy uses such as chemical manufacturing is a conditional use permit in IU-1; it is not permitted in IU let alone PIP; so it should not be a concern if PIP is approved. Mr. Lopez questioned chemicals used for air conditioning repair; and Commissioner Scarborough stated the advantage of tabling the item is to allow staff to answer those type of questions.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 7 until May 24, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0104501) Charles R. and Mary Ann Latch's request for change from RU-1-13 to RP on 0.84 acre located on the northwest corner of Minton Road and Sharon Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Charles Latch advised they are requesting change of their residential property to RP to enhance the sale of the property.

Commissioner Colon advised the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so she does not have a problem with it.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 9:58 p.m., and reconvened at 10:11 p.m.

Item 9. (Z0104502) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion on May 4, 2000, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Jung-Lin and Shu-Ching Chen, initiating change from RU-2-10 to RU-2-6, and removing the existing binding site plan on 5.29 acres located on the west side of Gray Road, north of U.S. 192, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised about a year ago the Board approved BU-1 on the front 300 feet of the property, and at the same time directed staff to initiate administrative rezoning on the remainder from RU-2-10 to RU-2-6.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Colon advised it will reduce density; she spoke to the owners about a buffer; and they said it would be difficult to be more precise because they do not know if they will sell the property or keep it.

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

Item 10. (Z0104503) James E. Bennett, Jr. and Joanne L. Bennett's request for CUP for wild animals in RR-1 zoning classification on 0.85 acre located on the west side of Ohio Street, north of Chicago Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with conditions: (1) limited to four wild animals; (2) limited to the existing two wolves and two cougars; (3) limited to no other wild animals outside on the property; (4) a re-evaluation of the keeping of wild animals in the neighborhood in one year; (5) animals to be checked annually by a veterinarian and a report filed with the County; and (6) an evaluation plan be submitted to the Animal Services and Enforcement Office.

James Bennett advised they applied for the conditional use permit (CUP) to keep the exotic wildlife they have at their home; the animals are not a threat to the neighbors; they are regulated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which issued their renewal license last week; and they are inspected, usually annually if not biannually by the Commission. He stated the animals are checked by veterinarians once or twice a year; they have been hand-raised by his family and some neighbors and volunteers; they do educational shows with the animals; and that is the reason they want to keep them at the current location.

Joanne Bennett advised the animals have been at their home for almost six years; they use them for educational demonstrations, taking them to schools and teaching children about them; and they are licensed by the State. Mr. Bennett stated they have been on the property for six years without incident; no neighbors have complained about them; and they are trying to ensure they stay at that location. He noted the home sites are an acre plus in the area, which are also zoned for horses, chickens, ducks, etc.

Gary Porter read news articles where two-year old Eric Turner was killed by Mickey, a hybrid dog wolf when the child wondered within range of the animal's chain; Nichole Martin, two years old, was killed while playing in the yard near a chained wolf hybrid; an 18-month old child had her arm bitten off by reaching through the fence to pet a hybrid wolf owned by his father; a three-year old in Vermont was killed when a hybrid wolf with new puppies broke out of her pen and attacked the child; a pet cougar escaped from her pen and hopped on a school bus, but fortunately there were no children on the bus at the time; and a three-year old toddler was mauled by his family's pet cougar, and his six-year old sister suffered minor injuries in the attack; and all that information is from the Associated Press. He stated a cougar ate Wes Collins dog as the children watched from the doorway; it chased the dog around the house; cornered her by the deck; clamped its jaws around her neck; dragged her into the woods; gnawed on her head and shoulder; and buried the rest for later, then took a nap. Mr. Porter stated they are not wild animals, they are professional killers; they are the top of the food chain; children and pets are at extreme risk in those circumstances; and the location in question is not an isolated rural area. He stated the lots are not over one acre, they are .68 acre; there are hundreds of houses filled with children; the lots are only about 100 feet wide; and putting animals in the area would be no different than putting them in the center of Melbourne Beach or on Lansing Island. He stated it is not good for those animals to be caged in small confined spaces; maybe the applicant should consider caring for the animals at the Brevard Zoo where a more suitable habitat can be established; and if the application is approved and the unthinkable happens, the questions will be how could it happen, and who could have prevented it. He noted the Board is who let it happen and who could have prevented it. Ms. Bentley asked Mr. Porter for the documents he read from for the record.

Juan Santiago advised he is concerned about having wild animals in his neighborhood because of the noise and irresponsibility of the owners who have bonfires in the backyard, beer parties, toss beer bottles over the fence and into the neighbor's yard, and speed down the street without regard for the speed limit. He stated situations like that do not mix with wild animals in an area where young children run around, and people walk at night and in the morning for exercise; and requested the Board approve removing the animals from the neighborhood for the safety of everyone. Mr. Santiago stated if the Commissioners lived in that neighborhood, they would have the feelings he has; he hates to be outside looking over his back all the time thinking a wolf or wildcat is going to come after him; he spent 22 years in the military and is not afraid of anything; but for the sake of everyone and the safety of the children; the Board should vote no.

Karen Lyons, advised when she received the notice, she called Mr. Bennett and inquired what he had; he explained he had two pure bred timber wolves and two cougars and that the cougars were de-clawed; and he told her she would not feel comfortable until she came to see them, so she, her husband and her children went to see the facility. She stated the facility is nine gauge steel, has concrete bottoms and bunkers, the pens are enormous, they are double-doored and double-latched; and Mr. Bennett has the keys. She explained what he has to do to enter the cages. She stated the cages are huge and the animals have it better than they would at the Zoo; he has every play toy, trees, etc.; the timber wolves were so shy they would not come out and had to be coaxed for her sons to see them; and he taught her children a lot while they were visiting. She stated Mr. Bennett is certified and does a tremendous job handling the animals; she has no problem with him having them there; she lived in the area five years and never heard the animals or knew they were back there; and she feels no threat. Ms. Lyons stated she lives on Michigan Street which is in front of Mr. Bennett's property; most of the lots are one acre; she took a petition to the people on her street; and they all signed the petition allowing him to keep the animals. She stated there are wild boars, wild bobcats, and wild foxes that come around the neighborhood; she has ducks and had bobcats come into her yard and kill her ducks; but she has never had Mr. Bennett's animals come in her yard and do anything. She stated he takes them to schools and does charity work with the animals; in her opinion there is no reason to make him get rid of them; he is capable, learned, and has been doing it for 20 years; there is no reason to deny the request; and she hopes the Board will not deny it.

Floyd Rogers advised he lives across the street from the Bennetts and met one of the wolves in his driveway; he does not think they were home when the wolves were out; but there have been five complaints registered in Tallahassee of the wolves being out running around. He stated one neighbor said a wolf bit his dog, chased his cat in the swimming pool, and chewed up sneakers; Michigan Street is more than 500 feet from the area; when the wolf came up to him, he picked up his dog, which is a small Pekinese, and put his hand out; and it concerned him, but it didn't frighten him because the wolf stopped. He stated he does not think they are hybrids; they are just wolves; a wolf will run from a human being, but hybrids are dangerous; however, the Board should stick with the law. Mr. Rogers stated Mr. Bennett is completely legal according to the State Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; the State has control over all wild animals and the County has no jurisdiction whatsoever; and coming to the County for a CUP is stealing money from Mr. Bennett because the County law is no good and the Board should not be making laws to make him pay for something he is already doing legally. He stated they are not going to get rid of the animals unless there is a law that says they need five acres to construct cages for Class 2 wild animals and ten acres for Class 1; and instead of telling him he has to have 2.5 acres for two chickens while .085 acre can have two cougars, two wolves, and dogs, the law needs to be reviewed and revised to put things in perspective. He stated Colonel Edwards, Director of Law Enforcement in Tallahassee for the Fish and Wildlife Commission, said in order to get what Mr. Bennett has, he must submit a notarized statement that the construction of the facility, its cages and closures, are not prohibited by County ordinance; that is dated 1998; and if it was not submitted, then there was an error on Mr. Bennett's part; and inquired, if it was submitted, who signed it saying the cages could be constructed. He stated someone in the Building Department had to approve the construction of the cages; and when they approved construction of the cages, then in accordance with the State Constitution, Section 9, Article IV which gives the State jurisdiction over animals, then he is in compliance. He stated if there was no permission given for construction of the cages, then something has been skipped; but he has not been able to get that particular information. Mr. Rogers stated Section 62-1958 of the Brevard County Code says, "It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to keep, harbor, breed, maintain any wild animal"; and that is not right because the State says he can have wild animals as long as he obeys their laws on construction of the cages and the security. He stated this is not a zoning matter; it should not be a conditional use because the State has given him the use; so it is something the County needs to straighten out with its laws where control of the animals would be on certain parcels of land rather than on residential lots. He stated he has a notice that 5/4/01 the license and permitting expires on the property; and inquired if Mr. Bennett becomes illegal the day after tomorrow, what is the County going to do about it.

Commissioner Colon requested the County Attorney respond to the questions on jurisdiction. Ms. Bentley advised the Board has encountered this question before; it is always been the County's position that it has jurisdiction over the land use elements that are raised by this type of issue; and it is not unlike the State issuing alcoholic beverage licenses. He stated the Board has zoning authority over those items; the applicants still have to have the right zoning even if they get a license to sell alcohol; so it is the same thing with this item.

Paula Krist stated she is speaking on behalf of her husband, herself, nine neighbors who could to be here, and a neighbor who is here, all of whom live within 500 feet of the Bennett's property. She stated she lives three doors down; and they chose to live in the Police Foundation because they wanted to live in a quiet residential neighborhood where they feel safe walking, running, riding bikes, and letting their children out to play by themselves. She stated the two wolves and two cougars are not indigenous to Florida; they are not native and are wild animals; wolves in the wild do not attack humans; and documented accounts of wolf attacks are only about wolves familiar with human beings. She stated cougars are known to attack humans and sometimes kill them every year in the United States; the wolves have gotten loose on several occasions; and right now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has sworn affidavits from the neighbors who have been confronted by the wolves. She stated she doubts that the State is aware the Bennetts walk the cougars on leashes around the neighborhood; she has seen it and could not believe it; Mr. Bennett has a handlers license and she is sure is quite capable, but he is not home 24 hours a day; and inquired who is minding the wolves and cougars when he is away. Ms. Krist stated she has seen large numbers of male teenagers at the home when the parents were not there; inquired if they have access to the animals; and commented male teenagers do not have the best judgment. She stated every person she represents have heard the howling of the wolves at night; they all live much closer than Michigan Street; and they all live on less than an acre except people who own double lots. She stated there are times when the howling goes on for hours; the Bennetts entire property is 0.85 acre; that is disturbingly small for two reasons: (1) the property borders close neighbors on all sides, and (2) the environment is unnatural for cougars and wolves. She stated she cannot imaging an animal being caged in the backyard in Florida summers; it is a very dangerous precedent the Board would set in a residential area if this is approved; and inquired whose neighborhood would be next. She urged the Board to deny the CUP and requested it think about what would happen in the even of a hurricane and a potential evacuation situation.

James Bennett advised regarding the stories read by Mr. Porter saying how hybrids have bitten people, that is true; there is a problem with wolf hybrids; when a wolf is bred with a dog, it is the worst of two possible combinations; but what they have are pure-bred wolves, which are shy and timid by nature. He stated they socialize with his family and people who have hand-raised them; his son is 18 and pretty much an adult; and his wife is disabled and is home most of the time with the animals. She stated if his son takes one of the animals out for yard exercise, it has been on rare occasions; they have taken them out and walked them around the yard; but the animals do not roam the neighborhood. Mr. Bennett stated a wold at four or five months looks like a full grown German Shepard; so they may appear to have been full grown, but were only four or five months old; and that has happened when they were younger because they were used to kids and being socialized. He stated since then, Fish and Wildlife has required they have a six-foot high fence around the entire back perimeter of the property as well as nine gauge chain-link fencing with double entrance gates; they are regulated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission every six month to a year; and they have their current license in hand. Mr. Bennett stated as far as the wolves howling, on rare occasions they howl; contrary to popular belief, they do not howl at a full moon; they howl if he or his son comes into the driveway, or his son has friends come in late at night or early in the morning and the wolves hear them talking in the driveway; and they howl for attention. He stated the animals are no threat to anyone; if they were, he would be the first person to relocate them; they have done shows with them since they were ten days old; and the reason he is here is to try and keep them on his property. He stated the Zoo is limited as to what type of animals it can have; Jungle Adventure is used strictly for exhibit; they are not as social as his animals; most of those areas are full to capacity and do not have additional space to house the animals; so they are caught in a Catch 22 situation. He stated the wolves are not indigenous to Florida, but there are a lot of animals in captivity that are bred and used for shows and education that are in Florida and are not indigenous. He stated they do not have a breeding program; they have done State rescue work; but the animals that were brought in were taken and relocated shortly thereafter.

Commissioner Colon requested staff share with the Board the State law that is changing regarding local laws. Mr. Enos advised staff received a letter from Fish and Wildlife dated December 19, 2000 that has kind of changed the State's position on local government authority; prior to that, the State did not believe there was local authority to deal with land use issues; but now it is saying they believe local government has land use authority. He stated the State has also changed some of its rules so that any new permits it issues for Class 1 carnivores would have to be on no less than 2.5 contiguous acres; however, they grandfathered in existing uses that are currently permitted. Mr. Bennett stated that is true, and he is aware of that.

Chairman Carlson stated the County has a CUP for wild animals; the Board talked about going to the Legislature and asking that whenever a State permit for something like this is issued, the County get a say in the process before the permit is given; and inquired if that is true. Mr. Enos stated yes, it would be useful if the County could make some common agreement with the State agencies where they would get some indication of local approval before issuing permits similar to what it does with CUP's for alcoholic beverages. He stated staff has been told it would probably take a legislative change for that to happen. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Bennett got a permit to build his cages; with Mr. Bennett responding when he first applied to get the animals in the area, they applied to the P&Z Department; Randy Woodruff was there and told him there were no County stipulations or regulations pertaining to those animals; however, his stipulations related to the permanent structures, easements, setbacks, etc. He stated he told Mr. Woodruff they would have chain-link fences setback from the easement and building; and that is what they have done. He stated they built the cages to accommodate the regulations, but there were not stipulations on the type of wildlife that could be there; and to have those animals and obtain a permit, a person would have to have a minimum of 1,000 hours experience working with each of those species. Chairman Carlson inquired when did Mr. Bennett talk to Mr. Woodruff; with Mr. Bennett responding about six years ago. Chairman Carlson inquired how long did the county have the CUP for wild animals; with Mr. Enos responding for at least 20 years.

Commissioner Colon advised the animals would not be in a cage and have the kind of restrictions that the State has put on them if they were not dangerous animals; so to say they are not dangerous is not correct. She stated they are predators; and anything can happen. She stated Section 62-1958 states, "No animal, the keeping of which, in the judgment of the Board of County Commissioners, is dangerous and harmful to human safety shall be permitted. No animal, the keeping of which could be obnoxious or disturbing to others in the adjacent area, shall be permitted." She noted howling could be obnoxious; neighbors have testified that has happened; Mr. Rogers testified a wolf came out and was on his property; and the Board would put the community in great danger if it were to allow this now that it has come to its attention. She stated based on that, she would not approve it and would deny it, because it does not meet Criteria 2 and 3 of Section 62-1958, which she just read.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 10. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is their next step; with Mr. Enos responding they have to move the animals from the property. Chairman Carlson inquired how long do they have; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not know, but typically it is 30 days from the time, but it can be negotiated if it will take a little more time.

Mr. Bennett inquired what type of zoning would allow those animals, as they have been looking for more property; with Chairman Carlson responding the County does not have a classification for wild animals. Mr. Enos stated the Code does not provide that option except for zoos; it would probably be agricultural zoning with substantial acreage; the Board asked staff to provide options and update it; and they expect to bring something back in the next few months. He noted it is ten acres for a zoo in the AU zoning classification and requires a CUP.

Item 11. (Z0104504) Joel S. Moss, as Trustee, and Acorn Ministorage, Inc.'s request for amendment to the Binding Development Plan in BU-1 and BU-2 zoning classifications on 6.882± acres located on the north side of U.S. 192, west of Wickham Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel advised in May, 2000, the Board approved BU-2 for mini-storage for his client, with a Binding Development Plan (BDP) limiting the use to mini-storage only; in the course of doing the engineering to provide for positive drainage, they would have to cross Mr. Moss' property to get to the drainage ditch; and Mr. Moss has a large retention pond. He stated they have a letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District, which he provided to staff, that states the retention pond has enough capacity, not only for the balance of Mr. Moss' property, but also to accommodate his client's property. He stated the suggestion was made to amend the BDP to allow the onsite drainage to relocate to the retention pond; that would allow his client to provide another 70,350 square feet of storage space; and that is a good use of resources. Mr. Spielvogel advised he prepared an amended BDP and gave a copy to Mr. Enos; and requested approval of the amended BDP which received a unanimously recommendation from the P&Z Board for approval.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 11 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 12. (Z0104101) Roger Vaughn, Jr.'s request for change from GU to ARR on 1.17 acres located on the east side of Satellite Boulevard, south of Cherven Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the property is located in the ten-year flood plan. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are wetlands on the property also; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

Roger Vaughn stated he sat through the meeting when the Board decided not to grant any more ARR zoning requests; and he does not know what to do, but does not want to lose his filing fee. He stated everyone has a vision for a piece of property; ARR was his vision because it would allow him to have a goat instead of a lawn mower, horses, dogs, a mobile home, and a house later; it was fairly flexible; and he cannot imagine what anyone would do in that area other than what is allowed in that type of zoning. He stated he is looking for advice from the Board on what he can do on the property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board proceeded with an ARR rezoning because the request was already in the process; Mr. Vaughn's problem is not the zoning although it may be eliminated for people in the future; his property is in the ten-year floodplain; and that is the issue that is going to drive decisions. Mr. Vaughn requested an explanation of the ten-year floodplain; with Commissioner Scarborough responding ARR gives the ability to have agricultural uses and a mobile home; and inquired which of those is Mr. Vaughn looking to have; with Mr. Vaughn responding both. Mr. Vaughn stated he has other property in the area and intends to use it for agricultural purposes; the reason he bought this parcel was to have a house or mobile home, preferably a house, but initially a mobile home because it is less expensive; and he wants to have an area for horses within ¼ mile of the house as well as chickens, etc. in the vicinity of the house. He stated he is puzzled with respect to the ten-year floodplain and why it would be an insurmountable difficulty that would impact development of the parcel as ARR. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff address the ten-year floodplain and what it means.

Ms. Busacca advised the ten-year floodplain means a floodplain that is statistically likely to flood once every ten years; and consideration for development in newly developing areas of the County that are in the ten-year floodplain requires compensatory storage for all the fill that is added to the floodplain, so that the total amount of flood storage capacity available is not diminished. She stated that is very difficult to do in the Canaveral Groves area unless there is a portion of the property that has uplands; and for this property, compensatory storage is difficult if not impossible to provide. Ms. Busacca advised the second issue relates to public facilities; a road would be required to service the property; and the County is uncertain if it can get a permit to ever improve any roads in the area primarily because of the compensatory storage requirement. She stated it is possible that areas that never previously flooded would flood, because the storage capacity would be displaced to another area; in addition, the Comprehensive Plan requires certain density restrictions for development in floodplains; and the lots in Canaveral Groves are not consistent with that. Mr. Vaughn stated everybody in Canaveral Groves has a lot; and inquired what are they going to do.

Commissioner Higgs stated if Mr. Vaughn's rezoning is denied, he will still have the right to build a house with the current GU zoning classification; he has other considerations in terms of wetlands that he has to work on with staff; but he still ahs the right to build a house. Mr. Enos stated that is correct, presuming it is a nonconforming lot of record. Commissioner Higgs advised Mr. Vaughn he has the right to build a house, but has to deal with wetland regulations. She told him someone sold him a parcel that is 100% wetlands; it is in the ten-year floodplain; and there are restrictions on what can be built on the property. She stated it is different than the others regarding ARR; the applicant who withdrew his request and requested refund of his application fee applied for RRMH-1; and the applicant who received approval of ARR has property that is much dryer than this parcel. She stated if the property is below the ten-year floodplain, the density is one unit per ten acres; and if his property remains GU, the Board would not be violating the Comprehensive Plan in providing a different zoning.

Mr. Vaughn stated he understands he can put a house on the property with the current GU zoning, but he would not be able to have animals such as goats, chickens, horses, etc. Commissioner Scarborough stated AU would suit him better. Mr. Enos stated GU does not permit animals unless the property is five acres or more. Mr. Vaughn stated he was not looking for just a residential parcel. Commissioner Higgs stated AU would not permit a mobile home. Debbie Coles advised there are also restrictions on the amount of property he can clear for the residence; he can only clear for the house pad, ingress, and septic tank; so if he has the desire to have horses and expects to create a pasture, that may not be possible. Mr. Vaughn stated he would let the goat clear the pasture. Mr. Vaughn stated he is not in a position to decide right now because he does not know enough about the AU zoning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the item could be tabled so Mr. Vaughn can visit with staff. He stated Mr. Vaughn has a problem piece of property; the only reason it is out there is because it is a nonconforming lot of record; but for that, nothing would be going on it other than one unit per ten acres; and he has to deal with the wetlands more intensely regardless of what the Board does. He stated there are a lot of problems with the property, but Mr. Vaughn has a right to know what is being discussed and to respond to whatever the Board does; it is trying to work the situation and is not at the point where it has defined where it is going; but the Board is not going to go back the other way. He stated if Mr. Vaughn wants the opportunity to know more about the implications of GU and AU, he does not mind tabling the item. Mr. Vaughn stated he understands the implications of ARR and that is what he prefers because it would allow him to have a mobile home; and what the Board is saying is that AU is the same thing with the exception of a mobile home. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the property was in an area where the Board had more concerns about a flooding event, it may be promulgating rules on how construction would occur in those areas; people are going to build there; but the Board has concerns of where it is going and what is going to happen in certain areas. He stated there were times when people were flooded out in Brevard County; in the dry season it is hard to believe; but he has seen areas where whole neighborhoods were under water. Mr. Vaughn stated he needs to give more thought to the issues to find out exactly what they are.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it will be brought back at the next regular meeting; with Mr. Vaughn responding the Board mentioned having a workshop on this issue; and it may be good to wait until after the workshop and the Board decide what it is going to do, because he is not the only person with one acre out there. Commissioner Colon stated it would not change much what will happen to Mr. Vaughn because his property is in the ten-year floodplain, and the Board has been consistent with not allowing development in that floodplain because of the fear of flooding. She inquired if Mr. Vaughn wants the item to come back on Tuesday, or May 24, 2001 which is the next zoning meeting; with Mr. Vaughn responding he would prefer to wait until after the workshop. Commissioner O'Brien stated a solution could be to give him back his money and after the Board finds a solution, he can reapply; with Mr. Vaughn responding he would prefer to have it tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 12 until September 6, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. (Z0104102) Harold F. and Sandra S. Helmig's request for change from GU to AU on 1.01 acres located on the north side of Geona Street, west of Knoxville Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. (Z0104103) The Great Outdoors Premier R.V./Golf Resort, Inc., and Dale L. Williams' request for change from RVP to BU-2 with BDP for mini-warehouses on 2.33± acres located on the east side of Plantation Drive, northeast of the sales office, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP.

Rodney Honeycutt, representing the applicant, advised the request is to change the zoning from RVP to BU-2 to allow construction of a mini-warehouse at the Great Outdoors. He stated they submitted a binding development plan that limits the BU-2 to mini-warehouses only and only for the use of the residents of the Great Outdoors. He stated there were wetlands on the fringe of the parcel to the north; they located those and submitted a legal description; and they agree to only ask for BU-2 on the upland portion of the parcel.

Commissioner Higgs advised the DRI has a classification of facilities that are commercial and support; if they were to approve this under the commercial classification, they would exceed their allocation in the DRI for commercial facilities, so it has been called support; and inquired why it is not a commercial facility and if it were commercial, would it be a substantial deviation from the DRI.

Mel Scott advised if it was characterized as commercial, they would need to increase the 15,000-square foot commercial allocation assigned to the DRI; and it would be a substantial deviation because they are looking at a 35,000-square foot facility. He stated there was a lot of internal deliberations on why it is characterized as a support facility; the Great Outdoors is a contained community and the storage facility will not be used by the private sector, will not be advertised or shown from the road, and it will be a self-contained support facility. He stated with the type of facilities people are living in at the Great Outdoors, it is reasonable to expect they would want a storage facility for things they accumulate; and there are actually other support facilities that act more commercially than the storage facility would. Mr. Scott stated the public can use the clubhouse, which is shown as a support facility; there was a restaurant as a private sector where the public could go and order meals and the revenue generated private dollars outside the DRI dollars; and after a lot of litmus tests that staff went over, the final analysis was that it is a support facility.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are some steps that the Board has been through at some time with DRI's that ask the question first if it is a substantial deviation; and has staff gone through that process to determine if this request is a substantial deviation; with Mr. Scott responding they have. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff determined it would be an appropriate step because it is called a support facility; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to go back to the wetland issues again; and inquired what Mr. Honeycutt said they would do with the wetlands on the parcel. Mr. Honeycutt advised the entire parcel is 2.33 acres; the wetland is about .32 acre; and they agree to leave the wetland out of the BU-2 zoning and not develop it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is not being rezoned; with Mr. Honeycutt responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what will be the zoning on the wetlands; with Mr. Honeycutt responding it would remain RVP or could be changed to EA. Commissioner Scarborough stated he needs to go back with the Board, because a few meetings ago it started talking about going into the process of having a delineation of wetlands when it considered commercial rezoning items; and he thought the purpose was to take the wetlands, lay it out, define it, and zone it EA so it would be environmental lands on the zoning maps. He stated two things happened tonight that bothered him; one is a BDP that got muddy, and the other is not rezoning the wetlands and leaving it out so it remains another zoning classification which can be utilized. He inquired why is the Board going through the process of asking applicants to come in and do all those steps to define where wetlands are if it is not going to do something and just put a clause in the BDP. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is referring to the big picture, not just this item; and inquired if someone comes in with wetlands on his property, will the Board say do not rezone it. He stated Mr. Honeycutt said rather than doing that, they would leave that portion of the property out; and inquired if that is where the Board wants to go. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Honeycutt said he would agree to rezone it EA; with Mr. Honeycutt responding he would do it either way, as they have no plans to develop or use that portion of the property in any way. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is more than just this item; and inquired why is the Board going through all the hoops with wetlands unless it plans to put something on the maps that it is EA; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is what the Board is doing.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 14 with a binding development plan as recommended by the P&Z Board, and with rezoning of the wetland portion as EA. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated she will vote against the motion because it is a deviation from the DRI and they should have first ask the question if it is a deviation.

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

Chairman Carlson inquired, when there are identified wetlands on the property, is staff requiring from the applicants wetland assessments; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Chairman Carlson inquired where is the assessment on this Item; with Mr. Enos responding there was a wetland survey done by Mr. Honeycutt as well as a legal description he provided to staff. Chairman Carlson inquired if that is not included in the package so the Board knows it was done; with Mr. Enos responding he just received it today and faxed it to the Commissioners offices. Chairman Carlson stated she did not get it, but wants to make sure that is what is being done for all commercial properties. Commissioner Higgs stated she did not get it either.

Item 15. (Z0104104) Michael D. and Faye Coffin Hogan's request for change from GU to AU on 2 acres located on the southeast corner of Erie Street and Hartville Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 15 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. (Z0104105) Thomas and Pamela Freeman's request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the north side of Terri Lee Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough advised this property is in the 100-year floodplain and outside the 25-year floodplain; ARR is still a viable zoning, and until the Board takes official action, it is available to the applicant; and since there is no floodplain problem, he will move to approve it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 16 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. (Z0104106) Stephen V. and Cheryl D. Pramuk's request for change from GU and RU-1-13 to AU on 4.78 acres located on the west side of Pine Avenue, north of Robin's Hill Court, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with binding development plan limiting the use to one house with a minimum of 1,900 square feet living area, and maximum of two horses.

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

Item 18. (Z0104107) Charley F. Applegate's request for Mixed Use District (MUD) boundary expansion and change from AU and BU-1 to BU-2 on 5.17± acres located on the west side of U.S. 1 south of Brockett Road, which the LPA recommended approval of the MUD expansion and the P&Z Board recommended approval of the BU-2 with a binding development plan as offered by the applicant.

Commissioner Higgs stated this item will expand the Mixed Use District into AU zoned property where there is no commercial at all.

Roger Shealy, representing the applicant, advised there is BU-1 on the front, but not on the back of the property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there does not seem to be any objections, and they seem to have utilized the provisions the Board has applied, so he will move in favor.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 18, as recommended by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not see the compatibility; it is all AU in the back; so she cannot support putting BU-2 all the way back there. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Higgs and Carlson voted nay.

Item 19. (Z0104108) Heidi Silbernagl's request for change from GU to ARR on 2.4 acres located on the west side of Magee Drive, south of Jennelle Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the property is in the ten-year floodplain.

Lucinda Sanders advised she is the new owner of the property; she applied for a building permit; the Department of Environmental Protection was on her property and flagged it for wetlands and not having wetlands; the right side where she is not going to build is wetlands; and the other side is not.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Ms. Sanders plans to build a home; with Ms. Sanders responding no, she has a trailer there now because she was mislead by someone with the County who told her she could put the trailer on the property as long as it had wheels. Chairman Carlson asked staff for an explanation; with Mr. Enos responding he has no explanation for that statement.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a larger parcel, but it relates to the ten-year floodplain and ARR; the Board has not approved anything in the ten-year floodplain tonight; he approved ARR when it was not in the ten-year floodplain; but he cannot move in favor of this request unless there are other options the Board can consider. Ms. Busacca inquired if Ms. Sanders intends to combine the two lots; with Ms. Sanders responding they are already combined. Ms. Busacca noted that would effectively reduce the density on the property, which moves closer to what the Board wanted in the ten-year floodplain. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Vaughn requested his item be tabled until September after the Board discusses floodplains; he cannot promise Ms. Sanders anything; but at that time there should be more clarification if Ms. Sanders wants her request tabled. Ms. Sanders inquired clarification of what; with Commissioner Scarborough responding building in the ten-year floodplain. Chairman Carlson stated Ms. Sanders may want clarification of why the Board is moving out of the ARR in terms of looking at the entire County on a fair scale as far as application of zoning classifications. Commissioner Scarborough stated ARR most likely will go away because it is being used in a limited sense; however, the problem is the ten-year floodplain. He stated the Board needs to discuss how it will allow building in the ten-year floodplain, is it going to allow building, or is it going to do away with building entirely; and he does not know if it will get any better for Ms. Sanders, but Mr. Vaughn wanted to wait and see what that discussion brings.

Ms. Sanders stated she does not understand how she can be allowed to go through the zoning, apply for rezoning, get here and the Board says it is not going to do it any more. She stated that does not make sense. Chairman Carlson stated Ms. Sanders' application is in the pipeline, but the Board is in a discovery mode of how it is going to deal with issues regarding the ten and 25-year floodplains and the inconsistencies of applying ARR in one specialized area without the ability to apply it anywhere else in the County. She stated the Board is trying to be more consistent with its zoning and trying to alleviate flooding problems; and there is an issue of infrastructure in areas such as Canaveral Groves that do not come up to Code. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a larger parcel of 2.4 acres; with Chairman Carlson responding that is true, but the ten-year flood elevation in the Comprehensive Plan calls for not more than one dwelling unit per ten acres in the ten-year floodplain.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired why Ms. Sanders wants ARR; with Ms. Sanders responding for her trailer and horses, and possibly build a house later. Ms. Busacca advised RRMH-1 will allow the mobile home and horses. Ms. Sanders stated she could not build a house later; with Mr. Enos responding a house is allowed in RRMH-1. Ms. Sanders inquired what is the difference between ARR and RRMH-1; with Mr. Enos responding the animals.

Discussion continued on what is allowed in ARR, RRMH-1, and AU, ten-year floodplain, certain previous rezoning requests, stick houses, withdrawing the request, and tabling the request.

Ms. Sanders stated what confuses her is how she can apply for a building permit and rezoning, they tell her what to do, and then they send her to the Board were it is stopped. Commissioner Scarborough stated the process is not over until it is over; anybody can say they paid a fee and it should be done; but then there would be no need for the meeting tonight. He stated the purpose of this meeting is for the Board to have an opportunity to consider the requests; that is what it is doing; and if Ms. Sanders would like her request tabled, he would be glad to do that because she has a right to know what is going on.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 19 until May 24, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Ms. Sanders will be offered a refund if she withdraws her application for rezoning; with Commissioner Scarborough responding absolutely.

Commissioner Higgs stated people need to be informed on what the ten-year floodplain means; and Ms. Sanders needs to talk to staff to understand the significance of the floodplain to her property. She stated if the Board allows wholesale building in the ten-year floodplain and they are flooded; FEMA will reimburse them, but it puts the entire County in jeopardy of losing flood insurance; so it is not like the Board is saying something to be difficult to people. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to discuss the floodplains in Canaveral Groves, it needs to have that workshop to talk about it throughout the County and provide uniformity.

Chairman Carlson stated ARR was derived from the problem of having nonconforming lots of record in Canaveral Groves; and those lots did not fit any other category. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board was trying to figure out a way to get those properties legitimate so the owners could get electricity and things like that. Commissioner Scarborough stated it was not a development tool, but a way to bring those properties into conformity.

Ms. Sanders stated there is electricity two blocks from her property. She stated she talked to Nick in the environmental section who reviewed her building permit which was released from the State and he said she was good to go; and that does not make sense.

Ms. Busacca advised the State has separate regulations and only looks at septic tanks; it does not care about zoning or a variety of other local issues; so when Ms. Sanders' building permit gets to zoning, it will be put on hold. Ms. Sanders stated it is on hold, but the State and Nick said it was good to go and sent it to the next person; and that does not make sense to her. Ms. Busacca advised what that says is it is okay for a septic tank, but that would not allow Ms. Sanders to pull a building permit to put her structure on the property because it is not consistent with the Zoning Code; Nick does not review permits against zoning, so he does not care what the zoning on the property is; and because of that, he is willing to say Ms. Sanders meets that part of the process that he reviews and he will let her move on to the next step. Ms. Sanders stated Nick's part is the wetlands; with Ms. Busacca responding not quite, but she will be happy to discuss that with Ms. Sanders and explain all of it.

Commissioner Higgs stated this is not all about wetlands; it is also about flooding; Ms. Sanders needs to understand that; and people who are buying lots in the ten-year floodplain need to understand the zoning, wetlands issues, and floodplain issues and what that means to their long-term security, safety, and finances. Ms. Sanders inquired if she can build a house on stilts and it would be all right, but she cannot put a mobile home on the property; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board may look at that more favorably because it is less prone to being damaged by floods, but it has not gotten there yet. Ms. Sanders inquired if the Board will not approve any application in the ten-year floodplain whether it is for ARR or RRMH-1; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board tabled, denied, and allowed applicants to withdraw and refunded their application fees; it has not approved anything in the ten-year floodplain tonight; and Ms. Sanders can get her money back, but it is her call. Ms. Sanders stated she understands that.

Item 20. (Z0104109) Heide Silbernagl's request for change from GU to ARR on 2.59 acres located on the east side of Freda Trail, south of the eastern terminus of Olkowski Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the property is outside of the 25-year floodplain.

Commissioner Higgs stated the property is 2.59 acres and could get AU zoning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the property is larger and is not in the ten-year floodplain so it does not have the same problems as the previous item; however, the question is why does she need ARR if there are other zoning classifications that could give her the same thing.

Heide Silbernagl advised she understands ARR and RRMH-1 will allow mobile homes and horses; and that would be enough for her; however, she is concerned about the difference in setbacks because her property backs up to a canal; and if the setbacks for RRMH-1 is more than ARR, she would probably need ARR.

Mr. Enos advised ARR has a front setback of 15 feet, side setback of 10 feet, and rear setback of 10 feet; and RRMH-1 has a front setback of 25 feet, side setback of 15 feet, and rear setback of 20 feet.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Silbernagl has a lot of land; with Ms. Silbernagl responding she has many beautiful trees that she does not want to cut down. Commissioner Higgs stated Ms. Silbernagl would not want to be right up to her neighbors on the back of her beautiful land. Ms. Silbernagl inquired if the Board wants to totally get rid of ARR; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that was a previous motion by the Board. Chairman Carlson stated AU would allow Ms. Silbernagl to do what she wants. Ms. Silbernagl inquired if her request could be the last of the ARR's because it was requested before the workshop and her property is not in a flood zone; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Ms. Silbernagl is in the process and entitled to ARR, so he will make a motion to approve it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 20 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson advised Ms. Silbernagl she has ARR but will have to deal with the wetland issues.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the idea of having AU may be larger lot, but ARR is where they can have a mobile home and agricultural uses; and the Board may want to consider that when it comes back. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board wants to advertise to include that provision and have the option to delete it. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is better to have the latitude as opposed to having to re-advertise. Ms. Busacca stated staff can do that as opposed to completely eliminating ARR. Commissioner Scarborough stated right now 2.5 acres is required for AU; and his thought is to have 2.5 and mobile homes; with Mr. Enos responding that would be a new classification. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff could take ARR and say they have to have a minimum number of acres; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is a bad idea unless Commissioner Scarborough is ready to establish it every where in the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is trying to move forward with the ordinance that is going to come before it; he heard a lot of people who want mobile homes and agricultural uses; and inquired is it a density issue or that the Board does not want mobile homes in Brevard County; with Chairman Carlson responding that would be nice. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to have a real discussion on that given all the AU lands in the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated right now they can build a stick home in AU on 2.5 acres; and inquired what would be the difference coming in with ARR; with Commissioner Higgs the Board will get into deep trouble if it allows ARR every where and next to everything. Com Scarborough stated there are people who want to have agricultural uses and put a mobile home on their property because it is less expensive; and the question is, is it a density issue, floodplain issue, or that the Board just does not like mobile homes. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has to be careful where it is going with manufactured housing uses; it is appropriate in some places, but not in others; and if it allows a classification that can go every where, given the coastal elements and wind loads, it is not a wise thing to do. Chairman Carlson stated that can be part of the workshop discussion, but the motion is to get rid of ARR which is a starting point, then the Board can discuss other options. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is not a density issue or floodplain issue, then all it becomes is the type of dwelling on 2.5 acres; there are multiple issues; and the Board needs to understand what it is it does not like and why. Commissioner Higgs stated she thought where the Board was going in Canaveral Groves was a standard that was consistent across the County; that is why it had trouble with ARR; there were small lots, agricultural uses, and mobile homes all together; and that is why it established ARR which is not what it wanted to do. She stated she does not want ARR across the entire County, nor does she want to change AU to a manufactured housing across the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated there could be AU and a modified ARR. Commissioner Higgs inquired where would ARR go. She stated AU is developing in a sustainable way; and ARR would change the total character if allowed in AU.

Chairman Carlson inquired what does the Board want to advertise. Ms. Busacca advised the current motion is deletion of ARR zoning classification, but if the Board wants a report from staff about location of mobile homes, they can do that. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should look at no ARR or yes ARR as the question and not complicate it with other issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board went into this primarily because people were living in Canaveral Groves; the Board was trying to bring their living facilities into conformity so things would work for them; and after it gets pass that, the question is going to be can agriculture and a manufactured home be combined or is that something the Board does not want to do. Chairman Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting a mobile home as a permitted use in AU; with Commissioner Scarborough responding those people had the option of having a mobile home and agriculture; and the question is why is being discontinued. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a different character developing in those two different housing styles; it is a character question, so the Board would have to define one or the other; and if Commissioner Scarborough wants to go back to Canaveral Groves and say ARR is okay, then that is what the question should be, and not that the Board should change it countywide. Commissioner Scarborough stated whatever the Board does, he hopes it is thought of in a countywide perspective; however, some of the issues that are coming up need to be worked on. He stated if a person has 2.5 acres, he or she could build in AU without having a nonconforming lot; and the question is why allow stick built houses as opposed to mobile homes. He noted Commissioner Higgs stated they are not the same character. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a character question, a safety question, and a sustainable economic question put together. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board allows manufactured homes in many places in the County, but it is not going to allow them around horses and cows and things like that; and the question is why. Commissioner Higgs stated they can have mobile homes around horses; and maybe that is a question the Board needs to explore. Chairman Carlson stated it is strange that people cannot have AU, horses and trailers; perhaps staff can bring the Board some options on how to look at some of those issues when it hears the ordinance to eliminate ARR zoning classification to see where it can fill the gaps or adjust it with something that would apply countywide and not just in West Canaveral Groves.

Item 21. (Z0104201) Charles E. and Shang Hi Stewart's request for removal of a binding site plan in an SEU zoning classification on 1.59± acres located on the east side of South Courtenay Parkway, south of Leslie Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 21 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Item 22. (Z0104202) Harold Kurz, as Trustee's request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on 29.62 acres located on the southeast corner of Pioneer Road and Lewis Carroll Avenue, which as recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Item 22 was returned to the P&Z Board for its July 10, 2001 meeting and to the Board of County Commissioners for its August 2, 2001 meeting.

Item 23. (0104407) Brevard County's request for change from GU, BU-1 and GML to GML-I, retaining the CUP for additional building height on 53.18 acres located on the southwest corner of Judge Fran Jamieson Way and Lake Andrew Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 23 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 24. (Z0102401) Donald N. Molitor, Trustee's request for CUP for towers and antennae to add 25 feet to an existing 430-foot tower in BU-1, replacing the existing CUP on 17.67± acres located on the south side of Parrish Road, west of Range Road, which was withdrawn by the applicant.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 24.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: COMMERCIAL PHYSICAL
CONTACT PARLOR ORDINANCE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing for May 22 and May 24, 2001 to consider an ordinance regulating commercial physical contact parlors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.

ATTEST ________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)