The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 22, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner.

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

REQUEST, RE: RESCHEDULE FDEP MEETING

Commissioner Cook stated he is sure the Department of Environmental Protection would like to hear what the Board and other residents have to say; and he would like DEP to be officially requested to reschedule another meeting with proper notice.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to officially request the Florida Department of Environmental Protection reschedule its meeting in Brevard County with sufficient notice to the Board and the public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: FUNDRAISER

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there was a fundraiser yesterday for an employee who is ill; and Commissioner O'Brien was one of the performers, proving to all that he was formerly a professional entertainer.

REQUEST, RE: SUBMITTAL OF SECTION 8 RENTAL VOUCHER AND RENTAL CERTIFICATE GRANT APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING AUTHORITY

Commissioner O'Brien stated he received a fax today for the zoning Agenda, but it is to Mr. Jenkins from Ms. Madden concerning a rental voucher program; and inquired if it is on the Agenda tonight. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised it is a last minute grant opportunity, and is on the Agenda. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it supersedes Mr. Jenkins' memo that nothing would be on the agenda without two weeks notice. Mr. Jenkins responded this was either put it on or not have the opportunity to get the funds; and he broke his own rule. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is only the desire to submit a proposal.

Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden stated this is an application for $330,000 which staff would like to send in. She apologized for the lateness; advised it got to staff last Thursday; most of it was sent out on Friday; and there was a correction this morning which was faxed out.

Commissioner Cook stated the County has never entered into this type of Agreement with the Housing Authority before; and in the past the Housing Authority has always stood on its own and been funded by HUD. He stated it says, "the County shall coordinate the Joint Application with the Authority, and the County has an ongoing partnership," which concerns him. He stated it says "the County shall insure that eligible homeless participants are being served in the program"; and he does not know how much staff time it would take to do that. He stated it also says "the County shall insure that housing search assistance and stabilization services are being provided by homeless provider organizations"; and the County is taking the responsibility to insure that these organizations are supplying the assistance they should supply. He noted he is a former member of the Housing Authority; he is concerned that this got to the Board at such a late date that it puts it in the position again of having to vote on it or lose the funding; and he is tired of that, and cannot support it.

Housing and Community Development Supervisor Nancy Slater stated the County's participation is to coordinate the effort; and there needs to be a government body to assist in the application.

Larry Shoeman, Director of Resident Management Services for the Brevard Family of Housing Authorities, stated the partnership would be the Housing Authority would qualify and do a set aside of Section 8 for ten eligible applicants; the Housing Authority would qualify and certify the applicants for continued eligibility; the waiting list has been closed for almost two years; and this will give an additional set aside of ten units which will specifically help the homeless.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem helping the homeless, but his concern is the County has never done this before; and there are other things happening with regard to housing. He stated the County has to take a major leadership role in supplying those services when it has to insure the eligible participants are being served, the housing search assistance is going on, and that the homeless provider organizations are participating; and that will take staff time and money. He stated he cannot see any excuse for a proposal of this type coming to the Board at the last minute, and putting the Board again in the position of if it does not vote on it, the Housing Authority will not get the money; and this is an unacceptable position for the Board to be put in repeatedly. He stated the Housing Authority should have come with adequate notice; and staff admits it had input into the language of the Agreement. Ms. Slater advised she did not write it herself, but one of her staff members did. Commissioner Cook stated this has never been done before; the County is getting into another cooperative funding situation, and expanding its role; and he wants to see the County start stepping back and addressing the needs that have to be addressed.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is ten vouchers for five years, with $323,000 to administer, and does that include the value of the vouchers or is it just administration. Ms. Madden responded that includes the entire grant; and it is her understanding it is the voucher and administration. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a way to verify that because if the $323,000 is just for administration, that is not right as it is $600 per month per applicant; with Ms. Madden advising it does include rental voucher assistance. Ms. Madden noted one of the reasons this was brought to the Board is because it is in line with the direction staff got at the workshop, which was to provide direct rental assistance, and this is one of the mechanisms to do that. She stated it would not be a loss of the money if the Board decides not to do this, although her recommendation is to file for it; and there is no guarantee it would be granted, if the application is filed, as there is still the process to go through at the federal level.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not understand where the $600 per month figure came from; with Commissioner Ellis providing an explanation. Chairman Higgs stated what has been clarified is it includes the price of the rental.

Mr. Shoeman stated that is correct, with an average of $538.79 per unit per month for a three-bedroom unit and an $80 utility allowance, plus 8% administrative fee, which brings it to an average of $600 per unit per month for the five-year period.

Commissioner Ellis stated the other figure is for homeless persons and families; and inquired if this is really just families and not single individuals. Mr. Shoeman stated the definition of an eligible person does not allow discrimination by family status; so, they cannot discriminate against a single person who would be income eligible for the program. Chairman Higgs stated a single person's rental facility would not cost the same. Mr. Shoeman stated that is why there is an average; for a single person it would be less; and if everyone who applied had a large family requiring a four or five bedroom unit, there would not be ten, but only seven. Commissioner Ellis inquired how is it decided who gets the funding; with Mr. Shoeman responding first come, first served of those who are eligible under the guidelines. Mr. Shoeman stated if it ends up with enough funding, it could fund eleven homes instead of ten, depending on the number of persons in the household.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board approves this and staff submits it, would it be possible for each Commissioner to talk with staff extensively to fully understand, and bring it back on June 6, 1995, and could it be withdrawn. Ms. Madden stated it could be withdrawn at any time; and all the Commissioners can be briefed on it by staff and the Housing Authority.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has other figures; he comes up with $538 per month per applicant; then $43.04 is set aside for administration or $430 a month; and inquired how much time would it take to administer this. Ms. Madden stated the County would need to be involved with the eligibility with ten families; and those numbers have not been worked out; but staff feels this could be assimilated into the workload with no additional staff. Commissioner O'Brien noted there is $430 a month available to pay for the administration.

Commissioner Cook stated even if it can be done with existing staff, that takes them away from other duties in the County; if this is talking about initiating a community-wide process and a partnership with the Housing Authority, that is something that could end up being a major undertaking; and even if it is done in-house with current staff, it is still adding to their duties and responsibilities.

Chairman Higgs requested clarification of what the Board would be doing and what the Authority would be doing. Mr. Shoeman stated the Housing Authority would be doing intake processing on the reserve set aside; and the third element that is missing is the homeless provider, such as the Salvation Army. He stated there are three homeless providers interested in being part of the partnership and working with the County to bring it qualified homeless individuals. He stated once the reference of those individuals is made to the Housing Authority, the screening is done for eligibility for participation in the Section 8 program; negotiation is done with the landlords to enter into contracts under housing assistance payment; there is recertification of their continued eligibility and inspection of the units for compliance with HQS; and if there are violations, termination is effected. He stated the bulk of the work will be happening between the Housing Authority and the homeless provider; but the Board will be the primary applicant for this program. Chairman Higgs inquired is that who has to be the applicant in order to qualify; with Ms. Madden responding yes.

Commissioner Cook stated this is the first time this has happened; the Board has already broken its own rule which he thought was going to be hard and fast; and this should have been put on by a Commissioner, if it was going to be put on the Agenda. He stated there was a hard and fast rule that the Board was not going to be put in this position any more; but the Board has been put in this position again; and he thought that was why the rule was passed.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Commissioner Cook is right about the rule; but the program is for ten homeless families over a period of five years; and the County or the provider can receive $430 a month to handle this, if necessary. He advised of his experiences in visiting the homeless shelter; and stated it is sad. Commissioner Cook stated no one denies that; he served a year on the Housing Authority with no compensation; and no one has worked more for the homeless than he has. He stated his point is this is bringing the Board into public housing; and if the Board wants to go that route, it can; but he would prefer this come back at the next meeting so the Commissioners have a chance to evaluate it. He reiterated he does not like being put in this position; and it will take significant staff time. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not like being put in this position either; but the Agreement is subject to the availability of funds, and if funds are no longer available, the Agreement will terminate on no less than 24 hours notice in writing to the agency; so when the money runs out, it is over. Commissioner Cook stated it is still bringing the County into an area it has never gone into before; it is blurring responsibilities and expanding the role of the Board; and he would like more time to review it, and bring it back on June 6, 1995.

Chairman Higgs stated if the local government must apply, the Board is the only one that can apply. Commissioner Cook stated a city could apply. Ms. Madden advised it would not be Countywide if a city applied. Commissioner Cook stated it would be a local unit of government; and there are Cocoa, Melbourne and Titusville Housing Authorities; so any of those would be eligible to apply.

Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is with the Salvation Army, the Board specifically delineated the money was to go to families; and this may not necessarily be for families. He stated he does not mind using the money to help families that need a hand, but it is not proper to use taxpayer money to give a bum a free apartment when he really needs to get out and get a job. He stated the family situation with two or three children could happen because of loss of home or spouse; but it may not end up going for that; and he is not going to vote for it. Commissioner O'Brien agreed. Commissioner Ellis stated Salvation Army just deals with the family situation.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is any way to designate that the target group would be families and that the proposal would only go in for families. Mr. Shoeman advised a local preference could be elected in scoring, placing families at a higher scoring rate than single individuals. Chairman Higgs inquired if families could be designated. Mr. Shoeman stated it says eligible persons. Chairman Higgs stated it says transitional family, so the proposal could be submitted any way the Board wanted. Ms. Madden advised the definition of family includes single entities; and the only way would be to put a higher preference locally on families.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to deny permission to submit a Section 8 Rental Voucher and Rental Certification Grant Application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Chairman Higgs stated she will not support the motion; the Board could designate it for families by showing the preference; there are homeless families in greater abundance than the number of slots that will be available through this proposal; and if the proposal designates the preference for families, families would be served. She stated the Board should support the proposal.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is first come, first served. Commissioner Cook stated there is no way it could be done under Section 8. Chairman Higgs stated if the proposal is submitted clearly saying the County wants to serve families, that is who would be served. Commissioner Cook stated, having served on the Housing Authority, there is no way that will fly under federal regulations; and he understands what Chairman Higgs is trying to do, but it will not work under Section 8. Chairman Higgs advised it will work; and there are people who think the County could designate preference locally for serving families. Commissioner Cook stated a preference is different than what the Board is trying to accomplish. Chairman Higgs stated there are more homeless families than there will be slots under the program; and if the preference is clearly given, then it can be done. Mr. Shoeman clarified there are federal preferences and there are local preferences; they will all score the federal preferences by virtue of being homeless; then there is a second line of preference which can be designated locally; and the families can be designated as being the higher preference over single individuals. He stated it can be put in exclusively for family; but this is a national competition; and applications that are broader may receive a higher score. Commissioner Cook stated the Board would be kidding itself; and with the federal regulations, that will not be accepted. Chairman Higgs stated the County can state its local preference.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to deny. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 1, 1995 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING

Chairman Higgs explained the procedure to address the Board and the time limitations.

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the zoning recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its May 1, 1995 meeting as follows:

Item 1. Indian River Villas, Inc.'s request for a CUP for a security trailer (renewal) in a BU-2 zone on 4.16 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, approximately 0.2 mile north of Spring Street and 0.2 mile south of Cottrill Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board for one year with one administrative renewal.

Jack F. Wall, 230 Carib Drive, Merritt Island, requested an extension of the extension because one year is not enough. He stated it takes a great deal of time and effort to make a request for a security trailer; and he would like an additional two years over the one he has.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board had discussions about extending the renewal of security trailers; and inquired about the status in the change of the rules. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated staff brought a proposal to the Board; the Board asked staff to draft additional language dealing with BU-1 and BU-2 zoning; and staff is in the process of doing that, and should have it back to the Board shortly for permission to advertise an ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what will be done with those; with Mr. Enos responding staff is proposing with BU-1 and BU-2 that the security trailer could become a permitted use with conditions which would be approved administratively instead of by Board action, if they meet certain conditions. He stated if the applicant does not meet the conditions, then the property owner could still request a Conditional Use Permit under the current process. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff explained this to Mr. Wall; with Mr. Enos responding he does not believe Mr. Wall knows. Commissioner Scarborough advised next year this may not be necessary because there may be a more permanent position.

Mr. Wall stated his business is in the County and he does not have sufficient police patrol; and he has no argument as long as he is able to protect himself. He stated he has made a fortress out of his building; and explained the measures he has taken. He stated he has done everything possible on his part to protect himself; the County has worked with him; and his only complaint is now he has an extension of one year with one year administrative extension for another year. Commissioner Scarborough noted no matter how long the Board allows, sooner or later Mr. Wall will have to transition to the new mode of not looking at a CUP but coming under the new provisions; if the Board allows two years, Mr. Wall will be back trying to transition, but if it allows one year, he will be transitioning sooner. Mr. Wall stated he understands that, but it is not something that is definite; he does not know if the County is going to go through with what it is talking about; and he does not want to keep coming to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what Mr. Wall wants; with Mr. Wall responding he wants an additional two years.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 1 for one year with three administrative renewals.

Chairman Higgs stated that is totally inconsistent with what the Board has done; and she understands the argument; but she will not support the motion.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 2. J. W. Dunn, Lodge No. 37, Inc., a non-profit corporation's request for a CUP for a security trailer (renewal) in an AU zone on 5 acres located on the north side of Julia Drive, 0.3 mile east of Croton Road directly opposite of Palmetto Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board for one year with one administrative renewal.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 for one year with three administrative renewals. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 3. Thomas A. Price and Anthony Dale Price's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the north side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, approximately 0.36 mile east of Satellite Boulevard, which was tabled by the P&Z Board to the July 3, 1995 P&Z meeting, with the reprocessing fee required. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table Item 3 to the July 3, 1995 P&Z meeting, as recommended, with reprocessing fee required. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. William W. Jones' request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1? acre located on the north side of Suntee Avenue, approximately 800 feet east of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 4 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Bonnie F. Massey's request for change from RRMH-1 to TR-2 on 1 acre located on the north side of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, approximately 152 feet west of Hess Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 5 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Anne Brown's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the east side of Satellite Boulevard, 151 feet south of Soggy Bottom Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 6 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Terrance Wade Crowley's request for change from AU to GR on 14.44 acres located on the south side of S.R. 46, approximately 0.34 mile east of Hatbill Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 8. Warren H. and Linda L. Ilse's request for change from GU to AU on 4.78 acres located on the west side of Fishtail Palm Avenue, approximately 465 feet south of Cabbage Palm Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 8 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. James W. Peeples, III, Trustee's request for amendment to an existing BDP to allow a Child Care Center in a BU-1 zone on .32 acre, located on the northeast corner of Fay Boulevard and Arabella Lane, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Higgs stated she understood there was opposition from the Port St. John Homeowners, but sees no one here. Commissioner Scarborough stated no one is here; he cannot talk to people before the meeting; and unless someone wants to object on the record, he has no reason not to approve.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 9 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Claude and Louise Villeneuve's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the south side of Bear Trail, approximately 0.27 mile east of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 10 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Ronnie D. Hudgens' request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 3.23 acres located on the southwest corner of Amira Place and Rustic Place, approximately 0.44 mile east of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 11 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. Jimmy J. Messer and Kyriacos J. Lagges' request for a CUP for a Treatment and Recovery Facility in a BU-1 zone on 1.32 acres located at the northwest corner of Canaveral Groves Boulevard and Grissom Parkway, which was withdrawn prior to public hearing.

Chairman Higgs advised Item 12 was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the public hearing.

Item 13. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning from AU & BU-1 to RR-1 on 1.13 acres located on the south side of S.R. 46, approximately 0.4 mile west of S.R. 46 and Turpentine Road intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 13 as recommended.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the County is rezoning property to fit a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map; and inquired if the Board will be looking at the piece of property next time or the property behind it next time, and why this is being done. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated this is different from the administrative rezonings that are going through on the South Beaches; Policy 10.2 is used where the property owner is submitting an application for a building permit or a site plan or some other development order that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and that is the case in Item 13. He stated the property owner wishes to build a house; before the permit can be issued, the zoning must be brought into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and this is done entirely with the agreement of the property owner. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why did the property owner not make the application. Mr. Enos responded Policy 10.2 states staff will initiate it. Commissioner O'Brien advised he still does not understand why this is being done. Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca stated the Florida Statutes require that the zoning be brought into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan within one year of adopting the Plan, which would have been in 1989; the County has not moved that quickly through this; and in order to expedite the situation where someone has a development order which is inconsistent with the existing zoning, the Board has said it would take it upon itself to initiate the change so the person can go forward with the development of his property in the way he wishes. Commissioner O'Brien stated directly across the street from the property is BU-1 and BU-2; next to it is TR-2; this person is going to build a house; and across the street is commercial with light industrial behind that unless those are changed to be residential. Ms. Busacca agreed, but advised sometimes the best you can do is as people request; and this is what this person wanted to do on his property. Commissioner O'Brien stated Future Land Use should be the whole picture, not just one lot. He stated this does not make sense; and suggested it all be made RU-1 or RRMH-1 to make it all compatible. He stated this is residential right across the street from BU-1 although there is nothing there because this is out in the middle of nowhere; and suggested correcting the other properties at the same time.

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

Item 14. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning from GU & PUD to IU on 3.12? acres located east of Grissom Road, approximately 0.21 mile north of Kings Highway, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 14 as recommended.

Chairman Higgs stated this item is creating an IU zone in the midst of GU with a PUD on one side; and it does not seem to be compatible. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the Future Land Use Map shows an industrial land use designation. Chairman Higgs stated it does not abut this property; with Mr. Enos advising this property is part of it, and it goes quite a bit south of this property. Mr. Enos stated it will be administratively rezoned by the County when it gets to that area in the Small Area Plan; and the procedure which takes them out of order is a way to allow the property owner to move forward without waiting for the County. Chairman Higgs inquired about an area on the Zoning Location Map; with Mr. Enos advising the area is shown as industrial on the Future Land Use Map. Chairman Higgs stated the zoning within the industrial category is GU, and PIP, PBP, or several other uses could be appropriate for the parcel; with Mr. Enos agreeing. Chairman Higgs inquired why is IU recommended instead of other zonings when there is nothing abutting the property that is IU. Mr. Enos stated the Board can consider any of those classifications; and the reason staff recommended the IU zoning is because the property owner, FP&L, requires that zoning to build a transmission facility.

Commissioner Cook noted there is a PUD; and inquired if there is no residential surrounding the property. Mr. Enos stated the PUD is an old vacated PUD; it is also located in the industrial land use designation; and the residential designation starts 500 to 600 feet to the south.

Chairman Higgs inquired is the IU zoning the only zoning classification where the owner could operate the power transmission facility.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the only reason the Board is looking at the one small parcel out of all the other larger parcels is because the owner wants to develop an industrial zone, and the other stays GU because it is lower taxes and will not be developed for a long time. He inquired if the Board can make all of it industrial tonight. Chairman Higgs stated it has not been advertised. Mr. Enos advised that will eventually be done under a different procedure; and described the current procedure which allows staff to respond to a situation where an individual property owner is ready to develop the property.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired is the County the applicant because at some time in the past it changed the property to GU; with Mr. Enos responding GU is the original zoning going back to 1958. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the County the applicant if it did not cause anything. Mr. Enos advised the County is the applicant because the Comprehensive Plan establishes the County as the applicant in this situation. Commissioner Cook stated when an applicant comes in, staff gives them a number of options; and his concern is approving this establishes the character of the entire parcel.

Mr. Enos advised the Comprehensive Plan establishes the character. Chairman Higgs stated if it goes to heavy industrial, it establishes that. Mr. Enos stated the Board does have some choices. Chairman Higgs inquired what other zoning would allow FP&L to put in the sub-station. Commissioner Scarborough stated while it is industrial, the Board does not want to create a precedent. Mr. Enos advised a power substation is also permitted in PIP. Commissioner O'Brien stated part of his problem is Parcel 291 will come back at some time; and the Board will keep addressing little pieces, when the whole thing could have been advertised in one shot, and taken care of. Commissioner Scarborough stated FP&L needs to move forward to provide power; in doing so, the Board is accommodating FP&L; and Commissioner O'Brien's thought is rather than accommodating someone in an area, to advertise the whole area to do it at once. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is an example of the Comprehensive Plan going in circles. Commissioner Cook stated it is interesting that the Board finds out now that there are other classifications that can be considered; and it clearly establishes the character of the area.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested continuing the public hearing to the next zoning meeting. Chairman Higgs noted the meeting is not until July 31, 1995. Commissioner Ellis inquired what if FP&L is already pulling permits and getting ready to begin. Chairman Higgs advised FP&L could not pull the permits yet. Mr. Enos advised the PIP zoning is the lightest classification that permits the use and is consistent with the land use designation. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could continue this to July 31, 1995 and consider that. Mr. Enos noted the Board could consider PIP now if it chooses. Commissioner Ellis inquired if FP&L can put in a sub-station in PIP; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is enough acreage for PIP; with Mr. Enos responding PIP requires a ten-acre minimum planned industrial park; and this parcel is three acres which meets the minimum one-acre requirement, but the park must be ten acres. Mr. Enos advised the Board could approve it with the presumption that the rest of the planned industrial area will go to the PIP zoning. Commissioner Cook inquired if the planned construction is such that the applicant needs to know tonight; with Mr. Enos responding yes; and FP&L would have submitted a site plan to initiate the rezoning. Commissioner Cook stated PIP is less that the other classification, but still establishes a character. Commissioner Ellis stated the future land use is established; PIP on a three-acre parcel has a completely different set of setbacks; and FP&L may have a site plan submitted now that will not fit on PIP. Mr. Enos advised that is very possible. Chairman Higgs stated FP&L submitted under the current zoning which is GU. Commissioner Cook noted a nice setback for this type of installation would not be bad, if it can be fit in. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is almost at the end of the runway for Tico Airport; it is on Grissom Road which has heavy industrial; it is to the north of Port St. John; and he does not think there is any problem with going this route.

Commissioner Scarborough stated FP&L should be able to come in and comment, and the Board should be able to get some more questions answered; and while it does run into an industrial area as it gets closer to S.R. 405, it is not a nasty industrial park. He stated it is the County's industrial park; it has deed restrictions and landscaping restrictions; and it is not a heavy industrial area. He inquired why it will throw FP&L into a tailspin if this is continued to the July meeting. Mr. Enos stated it would hold them up for two months; and he does not know if that is consistent with FP&L's plans or not. Commissioner Scarborough noted a representative of FP&L is not here tonight.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see the point of sending applicants through hoops; and he can go all over Melbourne and see sub-stations sitting in the middle of neighborhoods. He stated the Board is not talking about building smokestacks and a power generating plant; it is a sub-station. Discussion ensued on the advisability of continuing the public hearing.

Mr. Enos advised Mr. Myers is familiar with the site plan; and this site, as planned, could meet the PIP setbacks. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is better to wait than to set a precedent for the entire area. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board approved PIP, it would not be setting the heavy industrial precedent.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 14 to the July 31, 1995 Board meeting.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand why the Board is discussing precedents when the whole area has a future land use of industrial.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to table. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Item 15. O.R.E.O., Inc.'s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages (On-Premise Consumption) in BU-1 and BU-2 zones on 2.79 acres located on the east side of North Courtenay Parkway, approximately 500 feet south of Gator Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board for restaurant with seating capacity of at least 50 seats.

Garry Lawrence, 380 Ferris Drive, Port St. Lucie, representing O.R.E.O., Inc., stated he would like to get a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for consumption on premises to open a restaurant.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he received a copy of the letter Mr. Lawrence sent to Mr. Enos; the establishment cannot be an adult entertainment business because of the surrounding residential properties within 1,500 feet; and that was a great concern of the neighborhood. He inquired about Mr. Lawrence's plans. Mr. Lawrence stated it is an 8,500 square foot building; he plans to develop 6,000 square feet as a restaurant; seating will be from 150 to 200; and he is seeking an R-1 license for liquor on premises. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are plans for a rock and roll club; with Mr. Lawrence responding no. Mr. Lawrence advised of the planned layout of the restaurant.

Don Torchia, representing the applicant, stated the restaurant will be similar to a Bobby Rubino's or Tony Roma's; the menu will be almost identical; there will not be an area designated for a dance floor; there may be weekend comedy entertainment; but it will not be set up to be a nightclub. He advised approximately $50,000 will be put into the kitchen; it would be less expensive to just buy a liquor license if they were going to have a club; but it will be a family restaurant offering liquor for those who want to drink. He stated he has projected 17% of the sales to be liquor; and he is projecting $900,000 a year in total sales.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired which kind of liquor license is the applicant planning to get; with Mr. Torchia responding SRX, an on-premise license. Mr. Torchia advised they were in business in Broward County. Commissioner O'Brien advised there are two types of liquor licenses; if sales of alcohol are higher than food, a license has to be purchased; but a restaurant that serves alcohol can use an X license, which is free.

Mr. Torchia stated he had two restaurants in Martin County; they had SRX licenses; and the law there was that 51% of the sales had to be food, and there had to be 4,000 square feet of covered space and seating for 200. He noted he does not know the requirements for a Brevard County X license.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are any plans to buy a liquor license; with Mr. Torchia responding no.

Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Lawrence advised 6,000 square feet will be developed; and inquired about the other 2,500. Mr. Lawrence advised he plans to leave it for storage right now because it has high ceilings, and possibly put mini-warehouses in it because of the large doors on the south side.

Ruth Roberts, 3490 North Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, Vice President of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, stated she is aware of the standard acceptance of the P&Z Board recommendations; the District 2 representatives on the P&Z Board voted against the request; but the representatives of other Districts merely looked at the BU-1 and BU-2 Conditional Use Permits, and approved. She stated single-district voting derived from the fact that District representatives and District Commissioners should know what is best for their areas so long as it does not infringe on the rights of all of Brevard County. She inquired if the Commissioners should support each other when a request which only affects the District directly involved for change comes before the Board. She stated no P&Z representative or any one Commissioner voting on changes out of his or her District should vote in opposition to the subject District's decision unless that decision would affect all Districts. She advised there are two churches fronting North S.R. 3 in proximity to the intended business; there are several neighborhood restaurant/lounges with beer, wine and hard liquor permits in close proximity; and another hard liquor establishment is not needed. She stated North Merritt Island is a family-oriented residential area; and the existing businesses are capable of serving the people's needs. She stated if the Board approves this, the people would appreciate a public declaration that the warehouse property would serve as a family restaurant and would not later be converted to an adult entertainment establishment by Mr. Lawrence nor his partners. She stated further restrictions should include no hours of operation after midnight. She urged the Board to deny the CUP. She stated it is her understanding a 50-seat bar is being planned with restaurant seating of 200. She requested the Board find out exactly what the owners plan to do.

Shannah Hunt, 155 West Crisafulli Road, Merritt Island, read aloud a letter from Darlene Hunt, North Merritt Island resident, parent, business and grove owner, as follows:

I will be out of town on a business trip when the zoning issue #15, requested by O.R.E.O., Inc. Garry Lawrence for the Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages in building currently identified as the Bechtel Building comes before you. Therefore, I request that this letter be read out and entered into the official minutes. I am very concerned about this request and urge you to vote no for the following reasons: The current zoning of BU-1 and BU-2 offers a wide range of acceptable uses for this property; there are adequate numbers of businesses licensed to serve alcohol and beer and wine for the North Merritt Island population, as a matter of fact, two have closed because of a lack of business, and another is currently for sale; those that remain are well patronized and are in keeping with the character of the area. Mr. Lawrence stated to us during a homeowners meeting on May 15 that he has been a partner in adult entertainment establishments. Brevard County, and specifically rural North Merritt Island, does not owe him an opportunity to prove to us that he will not indulge in past practices; and if Mr. Lawrence and his partners are sincere about establishing a family restaurant, they should purchase the property, establish the restaurant, and then request a CUP for alcohol, as other businesses have done. I respectfully urge you to vote against this zoning request for a conditional use permit for alcoholic beverages on site consumption.

Diane Bishop, 1085 Pine Island Road, Merritt Island, President of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, stated she represents over 1,500 homes in the North Merritt Island area; and requested the Board deny the CUP. She stated all District 2 members of the P&Z Board voted against the CUP; there are six existing drinking establishments on North Merritt Island within less than a four-mile radius; and there is lack of faith that the restrictions will be met or honored. She stated there are three District 2 representatives on the P&Z Board; each voted against the CUP; and when all representatives vote the same, that sends a strong message, which should have carried through to the other Districts, but did not. She stated visitors to North Merritt Island may not get an honest view if they do not come at the right time; there are currently six bars in existence; and four of the establishments are active, two with beer/wine licenses and two with full liquor licenses. She noted two additional bars went out of business but still retain a CUP with a building to sell alcohol. She stated at all times when passing through, the residents must constantly be aware of drivers who are under the influence of alcohol; and the concern is the introduction of another bar on North Merritt Island will only exacerbate the problem of drunken driving. She stated an additional bar will also increase traffic; and according to the County's projections at the current service level, the road will reach capacity in the year 2010. She stated the residents or church parishioners who are located near the property or who must pass it request the Board deny the CUP. She stated the lack of faith stems from the fact that the people who will benefit from the request do not reside in Brevard County although they did visit the Homeowners Association meeting to explain their plans for the property. She stated no marketing study was done; Mr. Lawrence was not aware of the two bars which are out of business; he was not aware of the local pending layoffs and the effect it will have on the economy; he was not aware of the local traffic patterns; nor was he aware that North Merritt Island is a cul-de-sac property during the evenings because there is only one egress. She stated Mr. Lawrence advised he and his partners have managed adult entertainment establishments in the past, but he would not be involved in another adult entertainment establishment; however, he did not mention any of his partners. She stated the request was discussed with the residents and Homeowner Association members; and she has been asked to request the Board deny the CUP permit. She stated if Mr. Lawrence and his partners are sincere about establishing a family restaurant, they should purchase the property, establish the restaurant, and then request the CUP.

Aneta Ott, 5859 Broad Acre Street, Merritt Island, stated she tried to get Mr. Lawrence to say there would not be bands; when Rosie's Cantina had bands on Saturday night, she could hear the noise five miles away; and she is concerned about the noise factor. She stated this is a rural community; and she is concerned that once this starts, if the business is not what Mr. Lawrence thinks it is going to be, he will bring in a band, and it will get loud. She requested the Board vote to deny Item 15.

Tom McFarland, 3115 Water Oak Drive, Merritt Island, stated all of the previous speakers have spoken about the concerns with traffic, noise, and the sufficiency of liquor licenses already in the neighborhood, and the fear of an adult entertainment establishment. He requested those opposed to the CUP stand; and advised there is a strong delegation who live in the area and are concerned. He requested the Board vote against the CUP.

Mr. Lawrence stated the area where he would like to put the restaurant has only one liquor establishment which is open to the public; most of the other bars are private; and there is no other restaurant from the bridge to the Space Center. He stated the building is 250 feet off S.R. 3; the closest residential lot is approximately 1,000 feet away; there is a large nursery south of the building; and all the property behind is BU-1 and BU-2.

Mr. Torchia noted he was not here for the P&Z meeting; and he does not know where the adult entertainment stuff came from. He stated this is a total restaurant concept; he was regional director of Red Lobster for eleven years; he was in the fast food business in Stuart; and he was with Tony Roma's for three years. He presented a proposed menu, a diagram of the fifteen-seat bar with no dance floor; and stated he does not know where the bar or nightclub idea is coming from. He stated he would not call Tony Roma's, Red Lobster, or the Outback Steak House a bar; and there is misinformation coming from somewhere. He stated this is set up to be a restaurant, serving food; and it is planned that over 80% of the business will be food, with alcohol as an offering to the customers just as dessert is an offering to the customers. He stated the plan is not for an adult entertainment center, which would require zoning anyway. He inquired if special zoning is needed for adult entertainment. He stated they are not applying for that; but they are applying for an X license so they can serve liquor with the food; and they will meet the requirements for that license. Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 15, based on the request not being in character with the area, the CRG recommendation of parkway zoning which would eliminate this, the recommendation of the District 2 P&Z representatives, and safety of the community.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a family-oriented area, and the people want to keep it that way.

Commissioner Ellis stated he will support the motion; but if the applicant establishes a restaurant and comes in for a CUP, he should be treated the same as any other restaurant coming in for a CUP for beer and wine. He stated that is only reasonable. Commissioner O'Brien stated he could understand that.

Commissioner Cook concurred, and stated there is adequate protection against the adult business. He inquired if it would meet the criteria if the applicant wanted to put an adult business in. Mr. Enos stated the provisions for adult entertainment require 1,500 feet to any residentially zoned area; and this tract does not meet that standard. Commissioner Cook stated that cannot happen; and the applicant has a right to start a restaurant without a market study. He stated if this is established as a family restaurant, and wanted to request a CUP at that time, the Board could take another look.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to deny Item 15. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Higgs announced the meeting with the Department of Environmental Protection is upstairs.

Item 16. Top Gun Enterprises, Inc.'s request for change from AU to EU on 4.62 acres located on the east side of North Tropical Trail and 140 feet south of the North Grove Drive and North Tropical Trail intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the property is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and the maximum allowable residential density, and has acceptable levels of service.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 16 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. Charles L. Azevedo's request for CUP for the Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire in an AU zone (also having an SUP for a church) on 6.08 acres located 468 feet west of Friday Road and approximately 520 feet north of Craig Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the property is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and the maximum allowable residential density, and has acceptable levels of service.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 17 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Charles V. Eaton's request for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages (On-Premise Consumption) in a BU-1 zone on .34 acre located on the northwest corner of 35th Street and A1A, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he received a letter dated May 18, 1995 requesting Mr. Tinkham's application for CUP be tabled by the Board until the July, 1995 meeting. He inquired if Mr. Enos received the letter; with Mr. Enos responding he did.

Commissioner Cook stated he has a problem in that it has been advertised, and there are people here to speak on the issue. He stated the applicant wants to table it, and he could keep doing that until there is no one showing up for meetings.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see any reason to table it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he likes to give everyone the right to speak up, and will not make a motion to table.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not mind hearing it tonight; but generally the Board has honored that type of request from an applicant. Commissioner Ellis stated normally an applicant does not make this type of request at the last minute.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem when people leave their families, rush out from work, and come to the meeting to be heard, and they find the applicant has tabled it. He stated it hurts him when that is done because the applicant, reading that he is losing, can play a game; and sometimes the Board has not been fair to the public process by being fair to the applicant. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the applicant or his representative are present, and no response was heard.

Robert Alcanter, 3520 South Atlantic, Cocoa Beach, stated his property is directly to the south of the adult entertainment bar; and requested the Board uphold the denial. He stated there will be more customers because of the alcoholic beverages; right now there is a fight every week; and he is kept up all night by the music. He noted the establishment is supposed to close at 2:00 am., but he hears music until 4:00 a.m. or 5:00 a.m.; and they close the doors, but continue to play the music.

Steve Jackovitz, 18 Country Club Road, Cocoa Beach, submitted an affidavit from John Hesley affirming his testimony before the P&Z Board that the change from beer and wine to a full liquor license does increase the volume of a bar. He stated there is a horrendous situation in South Cocoa Beach where there is a neighborhood with homes within twenty yards of a topless bar; two years ago the Board denied this application; it was a mom and pop sandwich shop which served beer and wine on weekends; it is located one hundred feet from the river; and people would come in fishing boats and buy a sandwich. He stated a month before the Adult Entertainment Ordinance went into effect, this bar pulled an adult entertainment permit; it has been grandfathered in; and the capacity has increased from one-quarter of the building to the entire building. He stated it is an atrocious situation for everyone who owns land in the area or lives there. He stated he owns a little more than an acre to the south; and he cannot do anything with it but keep the duplex that has been there for almost thirty years. He requested the Board deny the item.

Diana Bradley, 3466 South Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, stated she was asked to attend by her fiancee, Ken Tinkham, who had a family emergency and was unable to come to this meeting.

G. R. Hurt, 3577 South Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, stated he sent the Commissioners a letter with pictures showing the residential nature of the area. He stated adult entertainment is inconsistent with the area; the parking lot is adjacent to A1A; they would have to back out onto A1A to get there; there are accidents fairly regularly; and he is afraid they will increase. He stated it will increase the need for emergency services; and requested the Board deny the application.

Commissioner O'Brien stated although the attorney advises that Mr. Eaton would like to appear before the Board, but is unable to attend because of a family emergency, the scope is quite obvious. He stated a previous request for a CUP was denied in 1991 due to compatibility concerns and insufficient parking; it is not compatible with the surrounding land; and it is not consistent with the character of the area. He stated staff recommends denial based on incompatibility with the surrounding land uses and inconsistency with the character of the area. He stated the P&Z Board recommended denial unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 18 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:16 p.m.

Item 19. Craig A. Graham and Bruce W. Graham's request for change from AU to IU on 200 feet; and change from GU & AU to IU-1 on 6.9? acres located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, approximately 0.85 mile north of 5th Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Bob Wattwood, 1825 South Riverview Drive, Melbourne, representing applicants Bruce and Craig Graham, requested the south portion of the property be rezoned from AU to IU and the north portion from AU and GU to IU-1. He stated Bruce and Craig Graham are the owners of Brevard Rentals which has rented construction equipment to contractors and individual homeowners for over thirty years; they have no ability to expand at their present Melbourne facility; and they anticipate a need to store and repair their equipment. He stated the new property suits their needs; presented a survey and aerial photograph; and described the surrounding area. He stated the proposed zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map; and the only RU-1-9 property that raises a compatibility issue on the matrix is vacant and separated from the parcel by Old Dixie Highway and the Florida East Coast Railway. He stated the Grahams purchased property from a company which still owns the property directly to the south; they have full knowledge of the intended use; and they have indicated there is no problem with this application. He stated the property to the north is already IU-1; quite often there are concerns when industrial use is put into any geographic area; and that is why the Code sets out a number of buffering requirements and performance standards. He stated with an industrial use, his clients will have to construct a building, locate all storage areas to rear of the building and fifty feet from the side and rear lot lines and fence any open storage areas. He stated there is also additional natural buffering provided by the FP&L easement as well as the railroad tracks and Old Dixie Highway. He stated the zoning performance standards are also intended to minimize the possible adverse effects of industrial use; and those standards include noise standards, odor standards, glare and lighting standards and vibration standards. He stated this is the last piece of property in the corridor proposed for industrial use; the Comprehensive Plan does not provide for any proposed industrial use beyond this point; and there should not be any concern about a domino effect. He requested the Board give considerable weight to the Future Land Use Element which references using the FEC corridor for industrial uses and the Future Land Use Map which designates this property as appropriate for industrial use. He noted both applicants are present to address any questions the Board may have.

Chairman Higgs inquired what would the buffering be that is required on the front of the property that abuts Old Dixie Highway; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding the front setback would be forty feet. Chairman Higgs inquired if the building would have to be set back forty feet; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs inquired if any kind of buffering would be required in front; with Mr. Enos responding none except for the standard landscape buffering against parking lots, which is fifteen feet. Chairman Higgs inquired if a fifty-foot buffer is required on the sides; with Mr. Enos responding in IU zoning, the side setback against residential is one hundred feet for either structures or storage areas. Chairman Higgs noted if the applicants developed this property right now, it abuts an AU parcel; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct; and the one hundred-foot setback would be required under the IU to the south and to the west. Chairman Higgs inquired if anything would be required to the north; with Mr. Enos responding a standard setback of fifteen feet for property adjacent to an industrial use. Chairman Higgs stated there is no requirement on the road, although there would have to be a forty-foot setback. Mr. Wattwood stated they would have to fence any open storage. Mr. Enos advised open storage would have to be to the rear of the principal structure; the structure could be at forty feet; and the open storage would have to be behind it. Chairman Higgs stated her concern is that this is the end of the industrial zoning; to the south will be residential; there is sufficient buffering on the west side; but she is concerned about the property which abuts Old Dixie Highway. She stated the matrix says it is possibly incompatible on the south side; it is possibly incompatible on the east; it is strongly incompatible with the RU-1-9 on the east; and it is possibly and probably incompatible on the west. Mr. Wattwood stated there is substantial buffer on the RU-1-9. Chairman Higgs stated she wanted to be sure the record was clear as to what was in the matrix; and inquired if there is any way to get some assurance because of the residential development that is going to come to the south. She stated that area will be predominantly residential; and inquired if there is something the applicants could do to insure some buffering to make it more compatible with the residential area. Mr. Wattwood stated he is having trouble understanding what would be advisable in light of the hundred and fifty feet to the railroad tracks and the road; then there is forty feet for the building itself, then storage and fencing; and everything would be behind the building, and it is considerably off the road and past the railroad tracks. Chairman Higgs stated there has to be forty feet from the road to the front of the building; and she would like some assurance that there would be landscaping or something in front of the building. Mr. Wattwood stated his clients will have to comply with the Landscape Code; and he is not sure how much landscaping is required in the front. Mr. Enos advised there would be a fifteen-foot landscape buffer on the front of the property which is part of the Code, and it is part of the forty-foot structural setback. Chairman Higgs stated PIP would be more appropriate as a transition. Mr. Wattwood advised PIP would require ten acres; with Chairman Higgs advising not if the Board does some changes. Mr. Wattwood stated it would be necessary to change the whole Comprehensive Plan; and it is not like the situation earlier. Chairman Higgs stated there is property to the north that could be PIP. Commissioner Ellis stated it looks like IU; with Mr. Wattwood agreeing it is already IU-1. Commissioner Cook stated the concern is whether there is any way to get additional landscaping in the front. Commissioner Ellis inquired where would they landscape. Mr. Wattwood inquired what is the Board's intent; and stated obviously more landscaping can be put in. Chairman Higgs stated she is trying to see if the applicant would be willing to come up with a way to make it look less heavy industrial from the street as the people go to the residential area to the south. Mr. Wattwood inquired if there is a requirement already or is there something additional that could be done. Mr. Enos stated at this time the owners would be required to plant the front fifteen feet between the right-of-way and any parking lot; if the owners choose to offer more than that, it can be done through a binding development plan, which would be an agreement with the Board to provide additional buffer; and that option is available. Mr. Wattwood stated he was thinking in terms of planting something in front of the fence. Chairman Higgs inquired if the fence is going to go out on the road; with Mr. Wattwood responding no, it has to be behind the building; but if Chairman Higgs's concern is over the front, then maybe more plants along the fence can be put in.

Commissioner Ellis inquired where does Chairman Higgs want the plants. He stated the equipment is behind the building; as people go down Old Dixie, they will see the building; and the equipment will be behind it. Chairman Higgs noted the building may be ten feet by ten feet; the fence goes around; and what she is trying to achieve is to have a transition from heavy industrial, and trying to make it look less like heavy industrial than the cement plant and asphalt plant up the road. Mr. Wattwood suggested some additional plants be put in further back; and inquired if Chairman wants them closer to the road or further back. Chairman Higgs stated she wants it to look like it is not heavy industrial from the front of the site. Commissioner Ellis inquired what does it matter what the front looks like. Chairman Higgs stated it matters; Commissioner Ellis does not live there; but people who are going to live and drive south of there will care. Commissioner Ellis stated he drives past a lot of businesses on Babcock Street; if he comes past an asphalt plant and a cement plant, he does not see what the big deal is; and he could understand a buffer on the south side of the property because that may abut residential; but he does not understand on any other side.

Commissioner Scarborough requested an opportunity to look at the aerial photo.

Mr. Wattwood inquired if there has been a proposal with similar circumstances where the Board requested additional landscaping be added; and stated he is not sure what the applicant is supposed to offer. Commissioner Cook stated that is up to the applicant.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Enos can suggest anything, and if there could be a twenty-five foot landscaped area that is semi-opaque. Mr. Enos stated it would depend on the applicant's plans; if they planned to put a building right at forty feet, then there would not be any space in front of the building for parking; a binding development plan could be provided for the entire thirty or forty feet or some other amount for landscape buffer; but if the intent is to put the parking in front of the building, then the building will need to be moved back even further; so, it depends on what the applicant's intent is. He stated landscaping could be put in front of the concrete block wall that would surround the storage area that may be behind the building; it would perhaps be visible from the street unless the structure went across the entire front of the site; and there are a number of options the applicant can offer through the binding development process, but it must be voluntary.

Commissioner Cook stated the question was whether any additional landscape was proposed; and the applicant is saying no.

Mr. Wattwood advised there is no site plan to put a building on the property yet; and in order to obtain the rezoning, the applicant could voluntarily put in some additional plants. He inquired if he can add an additional ten feet of landscaping to the twenty-five feet, and if it is necessary to put in twenty-five feet; with Mr. Enos responding he needs to put fifteen feet on the street side.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it is possible to preserve any of the natural vegetation in front; and stated she is not interested in costing the applicant a lot of money. Mr. Graham inquired if Chairman Higgs is asking for an additional ten feet; with Chairman Higgs responding she is asking for a transition from the heavy industrial to the residential which will be to the south. Mr. Graham inquired if the main concern would be equipment and storage behind the building. Mr. Wattwood stated Chairman Higgs' concern is the aesthetics as someone drives down Old Dixie Highway; and she wants more vegetation. Chairman Higgs stated if the applicant is willing to retain the first twenty feet of native vegetation, she would be happy and feel like there is a transition through there. Mr. Graham inquired if that would be in front of the building.

Commissioner Cook stated his vote is not contingent on what the applicant does in landscaping; if the applicant wants to do something, that is up to him; and if he does not want to, he should just tell the Board no.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board could look at other kinds of zoning in the area which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; she understands what the applicant is trying to do; and she is trying to come up with a solution that will allow him to proceed, but will accommodate the transition from heavy industrial to the residential area.

Commissioner Ellis stated this is like extortion. Chairman Higgs stated it is a negotiation; and it is not extortion. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not consider it much of a negotiation.

Commissioner Cook suggested the Board vote on the item and move on. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the Board after, because it already has setback and landscaping requirements. Chairman Higgs stated there are no requirements in the front of the building; and all she is asking for is some way to buffer the use. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has asked if the applicant has any plans; and at this time there are no plans for additional landscaping. Chairman Higgs inquired if the applicant is willing to suggest something. Mr. Wattwood stated fifteen feet is required now. Commissioner Scarborough stated if this was sitting in the middle, it would be irrelevant, and perhaps extortion; but this property sits like a finger extending into a residential area; and it is substantially different to move to residential from industrial. Commissioner Ellis noted there is not a house there. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Future Land Use Map designates the south a different classification; and this should be discussed in a different light. Commissioner Ellis stated the trees are on the east side. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is in a point of transition; and there has to be some degree of sensitivity that the person sitting to the south is now in a posture of having industrial type activities to the north of him. He stated if the Board allows it to be totally industrial, it creates a situation where the owners cannot do anything with their residential properties; and the Board will need to go to the Comprehensive Plan and move it to industrial. He stated when there is a shifting from one use to another, there has to be a conversation about whether it works and is pragmatic, or is it just creating a later problem which will require amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ellis stated there is always going to be a transition. Commissioner Scarborough stated when it comes to that particular point, if it is going to stick, the Board needs to be sensitive that it is a transitional area, and it is not relevant dialogue. Chairman Higgs stated it is a relevant dialogue because the people who live south of there are concerned. Commissioner Ellis inquired who lives south of there; with Chairman Higgs responding the people of her District live south of there; and the term extortion is absurd. Chairman Higgs stated she is not extorting anything from anyone; she is asking the applicants if there is some way to accommodate the problem; and to use a term like extortion to describe a rational process is appalling, and she is tired of it. She stated she is tired of being accused of something when she is trying to negotiate the proper thing for the people who live in her District. Commissioner Ellis stated these people have sat through a P&Z meeting; they do not know what to say; and they do not know how the rest of the Board is going to vote on this. Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Wattwood represents the applicants, and is an able negotiator who is representing his clients capably.

Mr. Wattwood inquired if the concern is mainly to plant a six-foot hedge in front of the building or something like that; and would that provide the changeover to the residential which the Board is looking for. Commissioner Cook stated it is up to the applicants whatever offer they choose to make, and then he will make a motion. Chairman Higgs suggested saving the native vegetation. Mr. Graham advised he would be concerned about security if all the native vegetation is left; and inquired what is going to happen behind that at night. Mr. Wattwood stated there will be a fence. Chairman Higgs stated that is a reasonable concern. Mr. Graham noted driving down Old Dixie coming from Valkaria, there is open storage in front of buildings. Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Graham's property is at the end which is her concern; and the six-foot hedge is acceptable.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 19 with a Binding Development Plan to include a six-foot hedge.

Mr. Enos stated he is not clear on whether the hedge is across the entire property or just across the structure; and inquired what was the offer. Mr. Graham stated it was in front of the structures. Chairman Higgs indicated it is okay as long as what everyone's not looking at is the industrial use behind there. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be okay to just say sufficient to block view of the industrial use. Commissioner Ellis stated that applies to the whole thing. Mr. Wattwood stated he does not know if that would be interpreted to mean a six-foot hedge around the entire parcel or not; and that would be his concern. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is not being used, he does not have to buffer. Mr. Wattwood stated there is going to be a fence for the storage areas as required by the Code. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is trying to buffer the actual industrial usage. Mr. Wattwood stated that would be fine.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Chairman Higgs, to approve Item 19 with a Binding Development Plan requiring a landscape buffer sufficient to visually buffer the structure. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated she is not trying to extort anything, but wants to have an acceptable building to co-exist with the neighbors in an acceptable manner for everyone.

Item 20. Florida Power & Light Company, a Florida Corporation's request for change from GU to AU on 5.0066? acres located 1.4 miles north of Wickham Road on Sawmill Grade Road, then west 0.75 mile on Six Mile Canal Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 20 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 21. Mohamed A. Shaker, Trustee, and Farouk M. & Olfet Agrama's request for change from RA-2-8, EU and EU-2 to EU on 12.2? acres located east and west of Rockledge Drive, approximately 0.2 mile north of the U.S. 1 and Rockledge Drive intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Lisa Lombardi, Registered Civil Engineer with Lombardi Engineering, representing the applicants, stated the site is approximately twelve acres; currently there are three different zonings on the property, RA-2-8, EU-2, and EU; and the request is for the entire acreage to be zoned to the lowest density zoning which is EU. She stated the applicants would like to develop a low density subdivision with minimum lot sizes of one-third acre; and they were told by Zoning that there needed to be one consistent zoning throughout the development. She submitted a letter from the owner advising she is his representative.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 21 as recommended.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board discussed the property directly east of this two months ago. Ms. Lomabardi advised the property is at the south end of Rockledge Drive and the parcel continues to the Indian River on the east. Commissioner O'Brien stated there are beautiful houses in that area. Discussion ensued on the location of the previous parcel.

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

Item 22. Alan and Grace Metzger's request for change from RR-1 to AU on 10.82 acres located 960 feet east of the intersection of Chicago Avenue and Indiana Avenue, and also located at the eastern terminus of Chicago Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 22 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m.

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )