May 22, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 22, 2003, at 5:35 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Bob Arthurs, Merritt Assembly of God, Merritt Island, Florida.

Commissioner Susan Carlson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: APPEAL OF BLASKY V. BREVARD COUNTY AND BREVARD
COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley requested permission to appeal the case of Blasky v. Brevard County and Brevard County Mosquito Control District in the Fifth District Court of Appeals.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to appeal the case of Blasky v. Brevard County and Brevard County Mosquito Control District in the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: MEMORIAL DAY

Commissioner Pritchard stated this weekend everyone will celebrate Memorial Day, which is a very important day; and it is a day of remembrance and day when everyone should fly the flag of the United States. He read aloud, “It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press; it is the soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech; it is the soldier, not the campus organizer who has given us freedom to demonstrate; it is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped with the flag who allows the protestor to burn the flag. God bless the men and women of our Armed Forces.”

REQUEST REPORT, RE: MOSQUITO CONTROL

Commissioner Higgs requested staff prepare a report for the Board on Mosquito Control operations, impoundments including their function and history, and current research on alternatives that are being explored, and any other aspects of the operation including development issues.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to prepare a report on Mosquito Control operations, impoundments including their function and history, and current research on alternatives that are being explored, and any other aspects of the operation including development issues. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT AARON McOWEN

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution recognizing the achievements of Eagle Scout Aaron E. McOwen and recommending that all citizens of Brevard County acknowledge his accomplishments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated she will present the Resolution to Mr. McOwen at his Court of Honor.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING JEWISH WAR VETERANS WEEK

Chairperson Colon stated Jewish War Veterans Week is June; but the Board does not meet in June; and requested the Board adopt the resolution.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution proclaiming the week of June 9 through June 13, 2003 as Jewish War Veterans Week in Brevard County, and expressing its appreciation for their dedicated service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS FROM OCTOBER 7, 2002, MARCH 10, AND
APRIL 14, 2003 PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDAS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meetings of October 7, 2002, March 10, and April 14, 2003, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0210403) The Pantry, Inc.’s request for change from TU-2 to BU-1, removing the existing CUP for Gasoline Pumps and Gasoline Sales on 0.67± acres located on the north side of Wickham Road, west of George T. Edwards Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Ivan Walker stated they are requesting a zoning change from TU-2 to BU-1; the property is located on North Wickham Road on the east corner of the new four-lane road leading into the new Super Wal-Mart; and their lot is presently the out-parcel that is next to the Chevron Gas Station and Pantry Convenience Store. He stated if the request is approved tonight, they plan to build an automatic car wash with two full-service automatic bays; it is unique because there are no self-service bays, no vacuums, no parking, and no trash cans or dumpsters; it will be an upscale car wash; and with this type of car wash, over 65% of the people use a credit card. He stated the car wash will feature a reclaimed water system; they will be able to reclaim over 85% of the water they use in washing the cars; so water usage will be much less than if someone wanted to wash their car at home with water going down the driveway. He stated all the soaps and chemicals are biodegradable, so they are less harsh to the environment than the cleansers that are typically used by those washing their cars at home; there will be surveillance cameras for security purposes; the car wash features large glass panels, which allow for an open, well lit, and safe environment for the customers; and the front portion of the property will be a grass area with landscaping. He requested approval of the project.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has looked at this and been briefed; and it does not seem there are any problems.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0303402) The Viera Company and Loren and Fawn Von Riesen, Co-Trustees’ request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 4 to Community Commercial on 3.5 acres and change from GU, AU, EU, RU-1-7 and PUD to all PUD with an amendment to the PDP on 210.40 acres located on the south side of Viera Boulevard, west of Holiday Springs Road, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board, and Small Scale Plan Amendment was denied by the Board on April 10, 2003.

Commissioner Higgs advised she met with Mr. Fleis and Mr. Toland regarding revisions to the project. Chairperson Colon, Commissioners Pritchard, Carlson, and Scarborough advised they also met with Mr. Fleis. Commissioner Scarborough stated he also met with some of the individuals owning adjoining properties as well.

Ed Fleis stated on April 10, 2003 the Board tabled this item, and advised him to confer with staff because there were unresolved issues and inconsistencies in the plans; and it was suggested he meet with the neighbors, particularly Indian River Colony Club (IRCC), on unresolved issues. He stated they have met with staff; they found out the preliminary development plan needs to be a very complete document; they went through the process with Mr. Enos and Ms. Sobrino, who have been very helpful; and the submitted document is now totally consistent with the PUD criteria and is a self-contained document. He stated they met with the board of the Indian River Colony Club to discuss issues on the boundaries; they have received input from some of the adjoining property owners; and they worked out an understanding and agreement, which was reduced to a memorandum of understanding that was signed by both parties. He stated he faxed that to Ms. Sobrino to make it part of the public record; and he can provide copies. He stated the agreement is the result of a number of issues over the last several years; they have defined a 25-foot landscape buffer, which provides now for a 45-foot setback; before there was an issue that this was just an easement; but now the buffer is not part of the lots. He stated they had already agreed to build a six-foot wall, but they will now build that wall ten feet east of the property line; and the purpose of that is to be able to build the wall to a certain height so it will provide a visual barrier. He stated it will now be at elevation 37 where before it might have been at elevation 33; and it will be similar in design to the IRCC wall on Murrell Road. He stated IRCC will maintain its side of the wall; and they will dedicate an easement to IRCC for that maintenance. He stated they have agreed to plant 12 queen palms 12 to 14 feet high; and the remaining trees will be 50% hardwood and 50% palms, planted on the east side. He stated IRCC is responsible for all matters concerning irrigation systems as will be required to water the trees and the sod; and they will also accept responsibility for the trees. He stated Tract LB8 has been encroached on by the golf course; they have agreed to sell that to IRCC; and they have agreed to work with them to re-grade that and bring fill into that site when site development is going on. He stated they also agreed to install a six-foot vinyl chain-link fence; and some of the fence will be eight feet high to provide protection from golf balls. He stated there was also concern about the stormwater design; they have reviewed the approved plans for the Indian River Colony Club; and their design will be consistent with the criteria of the IRCC. He stated it was also brought up that there are a lot of nuisances when Grand Haven was constructed with noise, dust, and vibration; and they have agreed to be in compliance with regulations and best management practices. He stated dust will be controlled by a temporary watering system; work hours will be limited from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; the wall will go up during the early construction stage; compaction of fill will be by non-vibrating equipment; the first 12 homes will be single story; and they have also agreed to protect the trees in the hydric hammock. He stated for Holiday Springs Homeowners Association, they provided a 25-foot tract instead of just the easement, which gives a 45-foot setback from property line; and Holiday Springs has a 30-foot vegetated tract on its side, so there really is a 55-foot vegetated tract, and the elevations are at grade. He stated the minimum lot width is 65 feet; and they also agreed that the first tier of houses will only be one-story buildings. He stated they made significant changes to the preliminary development plan; they have provided landscape buffers for the four areas around the site where there is existing development or the potential for development; and pointed out one tract at Indian River Colony Club, where there is a 25-foot tract. He stated at Holiday Springs along Hill Avenue, there is now a 25-foot tract; there are only five homes; most will have quite a substantial vegetative buffer; but there is one part that would not, and they have provided a 25-foot tract there. He stated in another area even though the land is zoned BU-1-A, they are providing a 15-foot wide buffer on their property, so there will be a minimum of 35-foot buffer. He stated they have put the neighborhood commercial back where it was in the approved PUD; the area that was commercial and multifamily in the last plan is now single-family residential homes; and they provided for an alternative use for some of the homes. He stated the number of units proposed for the 159.29-acre parcel and the 51-acre parcel is now 775, which is 60 units less than the 835 approved for St. Patrick's PUD only. He stated they also got the ratio of residential units more in consistency with the approved PUD. He stated the neighborhood commercial was approved for a restaurant up to 150 seats with sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption; BU-1-A allows up to 40,000 square feet including the restaurant use; and the big question is whether or not any or all of it will be built. He stated they know it will be much more difficult to be financially feasible internally than externally; so they are requesting approval for a village-type mixed use of commercial and residential. He stated there may be commercial on the ground floor of a small shop with residential above it; they may provide some strictly commercial buildings; and there may be some that are strictly residential; but the entire area that they are identifying as neighborhood commercial, they are thinking of developing in a village setting around the recreation center. He stated they have reduced the multifamily from 177 units to 72 units; they are preserving 27 acres onsite to be managed as optimal occupied scrub jay habitat; and there are another 27+ acres that will be preserved as enhanced wetlands. He stated they have met with the EEL’s Committee to request it manage these lands; and they hope to have an agreement fairly soon. He stated they are asking for the Board’s approval of the amended preliminary development plan as presented and with the conditions that have been stated in the report and on the plan; the conditions reflect what has been previously approved and the changes in the items; and they are also asking for a reaffirmation of the waivers that were granted previously. He stated one was the 25-foot perimeter setback; that would be waived around the entire property because the four areas where there is residential development now have tracts in place; they are also asking for the front setback to the single-family homes to be reduced from 45 to 40 feet; and the single-family attached homes would still be 25 feet from back of curb. He inquired if there are any questions.

Gene Anderson, Chairman of the Board for the Indian River Colony Club, stated they are a community of approximately 768 homes that abut the proposed St. Patrick’s PUD; if he had his way, this property would never be developed; but he knows it may be developed someday, and the current plan is as good as they are going to get to do that. He stated they have negotiated with Mr. Fleis the items he described along the boundary wall; they have a signed memorandum of understanding; and it meets the Board’s request for a win/win situation. He stated the vegetated buffer is provided for in the agreement, with ten feet on their side of the wall and 15 feet on the developer’s side of the wall; County regulations are not specific about what a 25-foot vegetated buffer is; so where they need to expand, they did. He stated they negotiated to have palm trees on their side because oak trees would be sitting on a slope, which would be wet and result in them blowing over and needing to be propped up; and their deed restrictions, which do not allow anything to be put in their backyards, will preserve the buffer area. He stated an irrigation system will be put in there; and they have a concern about runoff. He stated they have some lakes; and they would like no less water and no more water in accordance with the regulations. He stated there were concerns about the maintenance of the buffer area and insuring that area will always be buffer area; the deed restrictions specify what can happen in people’s back yards; and he is hoping the developer will write similar deed restrictions. He stated there is concern about dust, dirt, and possible destruction of plantings in yards; he is sure the dust and dirt will occur; but the sprinkler system and the compaction system they have asked the developer to use will help; and the developer will give sufficient time to move plantings they want to save from the yards. He stated the developer has to come four feet onto their property to start his slope, and will work with each homeowner to try to do that. He stated in some areas because of the elevation that will not be required; they will work on that; and there will be no destruction in the backyards. He stated he would prefer the property be left in its natural undeveloped state; but he does not have title to the property so cannot control that; and this development is as good as they are going to get.

Commissioner Carlson stated the speaker commented on deed restrictions and leaving property in its natural state; and inquired if he was talking about the 25-foot buffer; with Mr. Anderson responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated the buffer is a tract on its own; and inquired if the Board has ever included the statement in conditions that something will be included in the deed restrictions that this will be left in its natural state; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advising the Board can put it in the binding development plan; but the memorandum of understanding is between private parties; and the Board would not want to incorporate all of that into a binding development plan. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that, but recollects that the Board has done this before in terms of putting it in deed restrictions; and inquired how that could be incorporated in the process. Attorney Bentley stated it would not be a deed restriction; it would be put in the binding development plan, which works like a deed restriction; but it is not the same because it is an Ordinance-authorized kind of document. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired can the County enforce a deed restriction; with Attorney Bentley responding no, it can only enforce the binding development plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board agrees to it in the binding development plan, can it enforce it; with Attorney Bentley responding affirmatively.

Chairperson Colon stated that is what the Board would want.

Commissioner Carlson stated they are putting that it must be left in its natural state in the deed restriction; she is not sure how far the Board can go with that; but at least it can be put in the binding development plan.

Ed McMahon submitted paperwork; and stated in last minute negotiations with Mr. Fleis, Indian River Colony Club Board of Directors resolved a number of the residents’ concerns; but there are still some that need to be resolved. He stated the first is the buffer zone along the rear yards of Patriot Drive; when the zoning was changed and the preliminary PUD was approved in January 2000, a wall at existing ground level and a 25-foot vegetated buffer was required; at that time the County did not have an ordinance covering this; he discussed with the Natural Resources Management Office how this would be handled; and the result was that the PUD would be required to specify that trees of a certain height and type would be included, but that the quantity and spacing as well as the type of vegetation would be worked out by the Natural Resources Department at the site planning stage. He stated since Mr. Fleis plans to incorporate four feet of fill in his plans, to maintain the line of site protection will require that the six-foot wall be moved ten feet inside the 25-foot buffer, dividing the buffer into two sections and eliminating the natural vegetation. He stated in order to maintain the purpose of the original buffer, which was to be set aside as a separate tract of trees and vegetation, the buffer area must have specified planting and an irrigation and maintenance system on both sides; the current PUD only specifies the type of size of trees and does not address the quantity or location of trees or the type of vegetation; and the County Ordinance has in its landscaping sections buffering criteria for family versus commercial and along roadways, but not single-family abutting single-family. He stated the Ordinance does an excellent job of specifying quantity, density, size, location, maintenance and irrigation; and they have submitted pertinent pages from the Ordinance as well as suggested plantings from a reputable local nursery. He requested Mr. Fleis incorporate this into the PUD to maintain the buffer as originally planned. He stated their second request is for the walkway on the berm at the southwest corner of the protected wetlands be eliminated; the original PUD did not include this; removing it would maintain privacy for the people living adjacent to it; and it would eliminate a potential hazard because of its proximity to the IRCC golf course and reduce the fencing requirements in the area. He stated the more he delves into this project, the more convinced he is that if for some reason the plan is denied, everyone should work together to acquire and maintain this property as a natural sanctuary; and this could be done through the EEL’s Program with funding from the State, County, and Florida Community Trust.

Bill Mallinger, speaking for Henry Evans, stated in spite of the prior agreement between the IRCC Board of Directors and Mr. Fleis, it appears the 25-foot buffer between IRCC and the western side of the developer’s land has been changed in revision 7 amendment to the proposed PUD; the 25-foot opaque vegetated tract was dictated in the original approved zoning of January 26, 2000 to include 50% hardwoods and 50% palms; a request from the developer on April 3, 2003 asked for a waiver of buffers as required by Ordinance 01-77 inside the developed area and its perimeter; and the present agreement between the IRCC Board of Directors and the developer is documented in amendment 7 and calls for a six-foot masonry wall above ground level ten feet east of the IRCC property line on Patriot Drive, with the developer agreeing to plant 12 palm trees within a 1,500-foot linear area on the west IRCC side of the wall. He noted nothing is said about hardwood trees; the slope area west of the wall will be grass; the 15-foot vegetated buffer tract east of the wall will contain 50% hardwoods and 50% palms; and the 15-foot buffer area will allow the property lines of the new homes to start at the wall. He stated the builder will have to use fill, which will extend into the properties of Patriot Drive by four feet; and in doing this the developer will use the backyard water runoff systems of IRCC on Patriot Drive. He stated the Patriot Drive residents are not happy; the earthmoving equipment that will be needed may also cause water drainage problems; and inquired if the residents will have to see their planted trees and gardens demolished by heavy equipment or will safeguards be provided to prevent damage. He stated in the southwest area of the property that is existing forested area, the developer will be building a berm to meet certain hydrology criteria; when one attempts to make hydrology changes, one often fails; and the unintentional damage can ruin forested areas. He stated provided the possible consequences can be anticipated and rectified, the request for zoning approval for the Von Riesen portion of the St. Patrick’s PUD should be approved.

George Harris stated he is an international space consultant, and lives on Patriot Drive. He stated the Board has heard the discussion on the original PUD and the subsequent modifications and final agreements between the Board of Directors of the IRCC and the developer. He stated the compromise document and amendment 7 show that there will be a wall with palm trees on the ten feet to the west of the wall and hardwoods and palms on the east side of the wall; but nothing is said in amendment 7 about bulldozers tearing up yards, safeguarding the trees and landscaping belonging to the residents of Patriot Drive, or saving existing trees and vegetation. He stated nothing is said about how long they can expect this activity to continue; and the impact of prolonged bulldozer earthmoving activity on the health of senior citizens is of great concern. He stated the developer is also requesting a change in zoning for 50 acres of Viera property north of the IRCC/Von Riesen boundary; he intends to buy this property and fold it into the St. Patrick’s PUD; but there are two separate jay families and 28 gopher tortoises, and if four-to-one mitigation applies, 36 acres are needed for the scrub jays, and to this must be added the gopher tortoise requirement. He stated within the Von Riesen acreage a scrub jay family has been seen together with 48 gopher tortoises and a bald eagle family; and amendment 7 does not say how this wildlife will be handled. He stated the developer promised land within the Von Riesen area to the EEL’s Program, and this is to be applauded; but the office informed him they have yet to see the area offered by the developer; and therefore they would not say if the scrub jay problem is resolved. He stated they have reconsidered their position because of the facts learned in meetings with the Board and the data provided in amendment 7 to the original PUD; and they are in agreement with the Von Riesen portion of the plan as shown in amendment 7 proving the developer retains the mature trees to the maximum extent; insures existing wildlife will not be totally exterminated; presents a plan to safeguard Patriot Drive’s backyards, landscaping and trees while the bulldozers are at work; and installs vegetative buffers in accordance with Ordinance No. 99-55. He stated they do not agree with amendment 7 for the Viera property as the developer has not shown how the endangered species will be handled, how the refuge wildlife from the Von Riesen land will be accommodated, or how the Gold Rush/Patriot Drive buffer interface is defined and implemented. He requested the Board approve the Von Riesen portion of the St. Patrick’s PUD, but refuse the zoning change for the Viera portion until such time as the developer submits to the County a plan for safeguarding the endangered species, wildlife, and their habitat.

Ford Garvin, submitted paperwork; and advised he lives on Patriot Drive in Indian River Colony Club. He stated he has a prepared statement, but is now confused; they have added 50 acres but are giving some of them to EEL’s; he thought they threw out the restaurant but it was moved somewhere else; multifamily was changed to single family, and now there are 50 less houses, but there is going to be a section for a village; and he does not have any idea what they are building now. He noted his children and grandchildren have advised him that speeches printed in all capitals are rude because it means you are shouting; and he does not mean to be rude, but he does mean to shout. He stated the land in question is unique; it is a self-contained ecosystem the way the County was many years ago; and this is the last piece of property in the County, maybe in the State, with such a diversity of animals, birds, and reptile life that can be passed on to generations beyond. He stated the request to develop this unique piece of land has been going on for many years; it is not fair to the people of Brevard County, the developer, the landowner, or anyone else; and it should be disapproved now. He stated if the Board cannot disapprove at this time, it should at least put it on hold until the 20 years of the EEL’s Program runs out in 2004; he feels sure the program will be renewed and there will be an infusion of money; and the property could get into the EEL’s Program. He stated if the property is not preserved, the deer, pigs, wildcats, turkeys, and many other animals will become road-kill; the gopher turtles that have not been counted will be lost; the indigo snakes that have not been surveyed will be lost; and the nesting areas for the sand hill cranes will be lost. He commented on scrub jay sightings south of the areas mentioned in the developer’s study and panther sightings. He stated Erna Nixon Park is approximately 54 acres with a full-time ranger, walking trails, and educational material for the public; it is a wonderful place; but it has nothing compared to this piece of land. He stated if the Board allows this development to proceed, there will be no place to show the children how Florida used to be; and advised of showing his grandchildren different animal tracks. He urged the Board to preserve this unique piece of land for future generations or at least put it off until the end of the EEL’s Program in 2004.

Dick Stewart stated he resides in Indian River Colony Club, which is a community of retired service personnel; the Board is responsible as is every citizen in the State for the protection and conservation of valuable natural resources; and he is present to speak for the wildlife. He stated he walks through this area almost daily; he saw a pair of bald eagles just this past week; he has seen a panther; and he has seen deer in the area. He appealed to the Board to not approve this area for development.

Mr. Fleis stated the consultant on this project is Brian Toland who is one of the top environmental consultants in the State; he worked with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and was considered to be the scrub jay expert; he then went to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was involved in the Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program; and he then worked with Brevard County in the Office of Natural Resources, and prepared many of the materials including the vegetative descriptions that are being used. He stated they brought Mr. Toland on board very early because they knew this was an environmentally sensitive site; they have a management plan; and they have been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the Army Corps of Engineer. He stated the environmental issues are all being addressed; they are preserving one-third of the site including 27 acres of upland; part of that is optimal scrub jay habitat, but much is not; and the management plan will bring it all into optimal scrub jay habitat. He stated many of the wetlands have been impacted and exotics are growing; and the plan is to re-hydrate to optimize the quality of the wetlands. He stated nothing talks about preserving a natural buffer; and it only references a landscape buffer without any particular reference to planting vegetation. He stated on the east side of the property next to Holiday Springs there is a beautiful natural buffer, which is at grade; and their houses will pretty much be at the same elevation as the abutting houses. He stated Indian River Colony Club at the first meeting asked them to put a fence in along the boundary of the golf course; if they did that, the fence would go right across the fairway because there has been an encroachment of Tract LD8 that has been used for the golf course; many people consider it to be their property; but if they put the fence in where the property line is, they would have the fence in the fairway. He stated they talked about selling the tracts so the fence would be away from the fairway in a natural treed area. He stated when they walked along the back of Patriot Drive, he was not sure where the property line was, so he had a surveyor stake the property line; he was surprised to find the property line was halfway up in many of the yards; and in some cases there is a 20 to 30-foot encroachment into the St. Patrick’s PUD. He stated the back 20 feet is a drainage easement; typically trees are not planted in a drainage easement; so in many cases there is not natural vegetation left there. He stated there was some misunderstanding about where the property line was; but much of the natural buffer has been taken out and is either grassed or planted with trees; and that is why there is concern about moving the trees before the start of development work. He stated what is called for is a landscape buffer with 50% hardwoods and 50% palms; it does not say one every 50 feet or one every five feet; it does not say it must meet certain buffer criteria; so, what they did in talking about the number of trees was average one every 50 feet, which is not unreasonable, with 40% of the trees on one side and 60% on the other. He stated it is attractive land; it is not to be used for residential purposes; there will be restrictions on the use of the tract of land; and it will be a buffer, planted with trees and other shrubs. He stated they are addressing the environmental issues; they are talking about preserving; and they are not going in to destroy and mitigate offsite. He stated they are preserving, enhancing, and working with the EEL’s Program.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was under the impression that IRCC was in agreement with a memorandum she received earlier that stated all the things Mr. Anderson brought up; she did not understand that others were against it; and there are a few things she had not considered. She inquired if Mr. Toland is present; with Mr. Fleis responding he had a sale of a house tonight and may be able to be here later. Commissioner Carlson stated they talked about the scrub jays, but not the gopher tortoises; and she is glad she asked for the May 2002 assessment because that way she can answer some of the questions people have. She stated on both pieces of property, the amended portion and the original piece, it talks about gopher tortoise burrows; and inquired what is the gopher tortoise plan. She stated usually when there is a large colony, people are required to mitigate a considerable amount; it says the required mitigation for 15% of the 28 acres would be 4.2 mitigation acres, which would cost “x” dollars; but she does not know if there is a plan that described exactly what the developer is going to do. Mr. Fleis responded they are preserving 27 acres; gopher tortoises are being preserved in that area and some are being relocated to that area; and it also provides habitat for the indigo snake. He stated if they were to take all the gopher tortoises off the property, then according to Fish and Wildlife, they would be required to mitigate for a taking. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is no plan as such; with Mr. Fleis responding the consultant is working on a plan right now; but the plan that has been prepared is preservation, relocation on site where possible, and possibly it may involve taking in some areas. Commissioner Carlson inquired what will agencies look at when they look at potential permitting for the site, given the capacity of the site with the tortoise burrows, and has staff looked at the analysis. Sherry Williams of Office of Natural Resources Management responded they have not reviewed the analysis because they do not get into permitting regarding wildlife as that is the purview of the State and federal agencies; but she has had experience with some gopher tortoise permits. She stated they are sometimes reluctant to have relocation of gopher tortoises from one area of the property to another because if there is an existing population there, they are usually at the carry capacity of the land already; and it depends on whether the land can support more, and if it cannot, usually they will issue a take permit, which requires composition and mitigation. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there can be a number of burrows that are active or such a high quantity that they disallow anything or is there always an out regarding the taking or relocation scenario; with Ms. Williams responding she does not know. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Fleis has put in for permitting on the property; with Mr. Fleis responding they have filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the County. Commissioner Carlson inquired have they gotten any permits for any of the wildlife, specifically the gopher tortoises; with Mr. Fleis responded on the gopher tortoises many of those fall within the area that is being preserved; this would be a State issue; and the rules of the State have three approaches, preservation onsite, partial preservation onsite and the taking. He stated there could also be relocation from this site to another site; in that case a fee is paid, which the State uses to buy other lands for gopher tortoises; and it is a straightforward permitting procedure. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they are required to have a plan before they come before the Board; with Mr. Fleis responding they are required to have a plan but many of the environmental issues are resolved through regulatory agencies and do not happen at the time of rezoning. Commissioner Carlson stated most of the Commissioners have met with Mr. Fleis and some have talked with Mr. McMahon and others about the issues that were brought forward tonight; and suggested during a break she meet with Mr. Fleis and the others to see if some things can be ironed out.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are several different agreements with several different parties; he does not see things coming together; and he did not see this until a few minutes ago.

Attorney Bentley stated she has a sheet that is called the proposed development; there is a commitment in there in 6A for an easement over the easterly four feet of the rear lots within IRCC; and inquired if those are privately owned lots or are they homeowner association-owned lots. Mr. Fleis responded there is a sketch in the book.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is he has an agreement that came forward from IRCC; it is talking about an easement on what he perceives to be private property; but there is no way that agreement represents the greater homeowners association, nor can the PUD intrude on individual property rights of the people by four feet. He inquired what if some agree and some do not; will there be a strange environment of some people having walls one height and others another height; and stated he sees the whole thing coming unglued. Mr. Fleis stated they have discussed that in detail; there is already a 20-foot drainage easement on the back of the lots; the elevation of the rear of the lots varies from 27.5 feet to 28.5 feet above sea level; they proposed a one on four slope, which is a very moderate slope; and at the worst condition at 27.5 feet, they need four feet on their property. He stated some people, even those who want the wall, may not give access. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the engineering; but inquired unless the land is owned by the homeowners association as opposed to the individuals, how can Mr. Fleis have anything that will bind any of these gentlemen who are now opposed to it; and are they walking into a disaster. Mr. Fleis stated if nobody gives access, they can still put up the wall; it can be done on a one to three slop instead of one on four; but they can still put it up and make it work. He stated if the wall was on the property line and no one would provide access, he would have a problem; so, he moved it by ten feet, so he can do all the work within the property itself. Commissioner Scarborough outlined a scenario where some on Patriot Drive go one way and some go another; there is a methodology to go in four feet and create a four on one slope; and inquired what would happen. Mr. Fleis stated they would work with it and perhaps put a one on three slope there. Commissioner Scarborough inquired can they vary from a one on four to a one on three; with Mr. Fleis responding yes, and sometimes it looks more engineered if it all looks the same. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they can improvise at the property line, dropping up and down; with Mr. Fleis responding some of the property is at 28.5 feet and they do not need an easement; the lowest part is 27.5 people; and if people do not give the easement, they will just put in a steeper slope. Mr. Fleis stated they could also drop the height of the wall one foot in those areas; they are trying to make something work for the neighbors, even those who may refuse to give an easement; and there are options available to them. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is confused.

Attorney Bentley inquired if Mr. Fleis said there is a drainage easement at the rear of the lots that he is going to fill; with Mr. Fleis responding yes, there is a 20-foot drainage easement; it does raise the question about filling in a drainage easement; and that may be why they have to do it within the ten feet. Attorney Bentley inquired whose drainage easement is it; with Mr. Fleis responding it is a platted drainage easement and may be in favor of the County; but that was their reason for moving it ten feet in; and if they have to do everything within their own property, they can do it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not going to be able to vote on this tonight; the Board may want to talk about it; but he is beyond his comprehension within a break period.

Commissioner Carlson stated some legal issues were brought up that need to be ironed out; and she is not sure the Attorney is comfortable with some of the issues that Commissioner Scarborough brought up. She stated she is not sure she is well versed enough to sit at a break and talk to everyone; and this probably needs to be tabled again. She stated she hates to table it because she knows Mr. Fleis has worked very hard trying to work out the issue; she does not think there is another time frame to bring it back because the Board is not going to be meeting until July; and suggested bringing it back at the first regular meeting in July if everything can be ironed out. She expressed desire to talk to Brian Toland further; and stated there is a need to get some of the legal issues sorted out.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 1.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he thought there was a win/win situation as presented; he thought there was agreement between the developer and the residents of the IRCC; and he is surprised to find they do not have that, so there is no win/win situation. He stated until that point is reached, there is not much that can be done but postpone what may become the inevitable and let everyone work this out to the satisfaction of both sides. He stated the status report says concerned residents intend to continue liaison with County agencies to insure they fully understand what the developer is planning to do, and given that reality dictates this land will be eventually developed, the IRCC board proposal to Fleis and Bennett is in the best interest of the residents who are affected by the proposed development. He stated there is some conflict that needs to be resolved; and recommended bringing back the issue so there can be a win/win scenario.

Commissioner Higgs requested clarification from staff on the current zoning and what may be done. She stated she understands the proposal for the PUD and value of the onsite preservation; and inquired if the Board does not support the zoning change, what could be done. Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the current PUD is in place and could be developed at any point, including between now and July; it permits approximately 100 more units than the proposal; and the type of project is slightly different with a different mix between multifamily and single-family and commercial approximately the same as now. He stated except for the fact that the project is bringing in a large tract to the north that has not been part of the current PUD, on the face of it, it is not a lot different. Commissioner Higgs stated what is on the books today can be developed; there are 100 more units; and the amendment folds in the Viera parcel into the St. Patrick’s PUD that has already been approved. She stated there is probably no one who has fought more environmental battles over the past 20 years than she has; she is very concerned about the issues presented; but she is also concerned that they not lose the opportunity for onsite preservation. She stated she has seen in the report that this connects with other parcels in the central part of the County; and that connectivity should be considered very heavily. She stated the connectivity between existing preservation parcels and other parcels that may be able to be saved is important ecologically; and the option to see a typical kind of development where everything is mowed down and there is no onsite preservation is of great concern. She stated the permitting agencies do not always protect properties; she likes that there is some handle on the situation at this point; but she is very concerned that the Board be aware that there are some things that are part of this that are very valuable in the onsite preservation. She stated she thinks the permitting agencies would approve in other places; it could be a done deal; and she likes the preservation onsite and preservation of wetlands onsite. She stated there are other things where there could be improvement; and inquired if there is any chance the Board could hear this on Thursday.

Chairperson Colon stated that was going to be one of her suggestions; the legal wording is important to iron out; but she does not want this to be prolonged further; and the Board can hear it on Thursday to see how much farther they have gotten.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would like to see if some progress can be made; she has fought a lot of environmental battles and also has lost a lot; losing is not fun; and if they lose this time, as a lot of speakers have pointed out, they will have lost something they can never get back. She stated she is a purist; if the County had the money, she would want to save every acre on this piece of land; but she is also a realist; and they are not going to get every acre, so, she would like to at least try to save the good aspects of the project, realizing it is not going to be perfect. She stated there is a workshop on Thursday; and she is willing to give it a shot to see if the Board can talk about it then. She stated there are some things she does not want to see lost; and she would prefer to save it all, but is not sure that is a realistic possibility.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to table it to Thursday; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is fine; but she wants to be sure people understand what Commissioner Higgs said. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Fleis has the authority to do what he wants on the lower portion of property as it is today; he can say he is tired of this and go out and develop it; and then the people are going to be left with less than what they have.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to tabled Item 2 to the May 29, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with the item to be first on the agenda. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Attorney Bentley inquired what time does the meeting start; with Ms. Busacca responding it starts at 9:00 a.m. and will be in the Florida Room on the third floor.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff needs to get with the applicant on the issue of the easement and drainage so everyone is clear whose easement it is and what the County’s role is.

Mr. Enos requested Item VI.C relating to the waivers be tabled as well.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI. C, Waiver of Requirement for Perimeter Landscape Buffer, Width of Right-of-way and Roadway Width, Re: St. Patrick’s PUD Amendment Addition to May 29, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0304401) Rockledge Baptist Church’s request for change from AU to RP on 2.5 acres located on the northwest corner of Rose Drive and Murrell Road, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Mr. Enos advised the item was withdrawn by the applicant.

Item 4. (Z0304501) Martha K. Ross’ request for change from AU to SR on 1.88 acres located on the west side of Burton Lane south of Aurora Road, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Chairperson Colon inquired has anything changed since the denial by the Planning and Zoning Board; with Michael Henry responding no changes have been made to the request other than at the last meeting, he mentioned he would be in agreement to enter into a binding development agreement to provide on additional lot rather than the two he requested, if that is suitable. Mr. Henry stated the application for the SR zoning was based on recommendations from the Brevard County Planning and Zoning staff; they indicated this was the best option; and advised the Board the surrounding area has a mixture of various zonings that are in some cases higher densities than the requested zoning. He stated there is EU zoning, a new subdivision within 900 feet of the property to the east that was zoned SR and yields 30 units, and there are also other properties that are properties that are RU-1-13 and RU-2-10 within close proximity. He stated there is a mix of zoning; the trend is residential even though there is some agricultural; and he believes those are being held as agricultural primarily for tax purposes. He stated probably the future developments will be SR zoning. He stated their motivation for this request is to provide a means to enable them to provide health care for Mrs. Ross who is in a nursing home; this is Mrs. Ross’ single remaining asset; they have exhausted all family funds; and they are endeavoring to maintain Ms. Ross’ quality of life and provide some kind of extended health care without her having to go into a nursing home with Medicare.

Chairperson Colon inquired about recommendations from Planning and Zoning. Mr. Enos stated there are two issues; one is compatibility; the character of the neighborhood is one acre lots and larger; and the other issue is school capacity. He stated as requested the lot would go from one lot to three lots; if the property was limited to two lots, as has been suggested through a binding development plan, then the lot sizes would be reasonably compatible over .9 acres and it would only be increasing the number of units by one, which is within the Board’s policy for school capacity.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 4, with Binding Development Plan limiting to two lots. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0210201) Carmen Realino’s request for change from GU to EU-2 on 7± acres located on the north side of Morningside Drive, east of North Banana River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, with a BDP limiting development to three residential homesites.

Bruce Moia, Moia and Associates, representing the applicant, stated they have agreed to only ask for two lots and are willing to limit it to the north parcel and formally withdraw the south parcel from the binding development plan; the south parcel is an illegal lot so they cannot build on it anyway; and rather than further encumber it, they would like to withdraw it from the binding development plan and submit that they would be agreeable to two lots.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was going to agree, but is willing to listen to Commissioner Higgs’ comments before making a motion.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a policy about the estuarine floodplain, the elevation of that; and what the limitations are; it also has a policy on wetlands; and requested staff speak to the wetlands present on the site and explain the policy in regard to density in wetlands and also the floodplain. Sherry Williams, with Natural Resources Management Office, stated the applicant has submitted a survey to staff that has a wetland line, which was approved by DEP; and they have accepted that as the wetland line. She stated the binding development plan they reviewed showed three lots; the Comprehensive Plan Policy says when new lots are created after 1998, each lot has to have sufficient uplands within each lot to provide for the primary purpose, which in this case would be single-family homes; and inquired if the applicant is dropping out lot 3 and only proposing lots 1 and 2 on the north parcel; with Mr. Moia responding yes. Ms. Williams stated based on the wetland lines, it appears to have sufficient uplands on lots 1 and 2 for the primary purpose of the house building pad, septic tank, etc. She stated they have provided the comment that they would like to see the access easement, which is partially in the wetland area, shifted east out of the wetland area; and the wetland density established by the Comprehensive Plan is one unit per five acres of wetlands, but the applicant is creating two lots with sufficient uplands for the intended purpose. Commissioner Higgs stated that would seem somewhat inconsistent; and inquired how can that be resolved if the applicant has 6.6 acres and only one unit is allowed for five acres in wetlands. Ms. Williams advised it is one unit per five acres of wetlands. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised none of the wetlands are being encumbered by the lots as the lots are in the upland portion of the property. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are sufficient uplands on both lots, and what about the issue of the estuarine floodplain. Ms. Williams responded the applicant would have to comply with the Floodplain Ordinance that limits fill; and he would also have to comply with the Surface Water Protection Ordinance regarding the buffers and wetlands along the river. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is not compelled to give the most intense use allowable; and cited a court case where there was concurrence that the governing body is not required to rezone a property to the most intensive use allowable under the comprehensive plan as long as what it allows is consistent with the Plan. She stated the zoning classification of the parcel may not be what the Board wants to change; there is a parcel that has zoning that could be built upon; it is predominately wetlands with very little uplands; and once there is access given, there is very little building land possible on the lot. She stated when staff says there is sufficient land available in the uplands, that assumes a certain size house and a certain amount of septic tank; and inquired if staff has an estimate on what is actually available there. Ms. Williams stated she can provide a rough estimate based on the scale of the drawing; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would like to get that because she is concerned about going forward when there is basically a very wet spot.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he may well support the motion, but the last time the Board said it would like to see two lots for the whole parcel; now it is saying he cannot build; and inquired what does that mean and would somebody have to come back on some other basis. He stated Commissioner Higgs has raised some issues; and he would like to see more information before he votes. He stated he may be able to vote for it; but right now he is being given new scenarios, and he is not prepared to vote yet.

Commissioner Pritchard displayed a rendering showing the upland area being discussed and the wetland area; stated lot 3 is being taken out of the proposal, and lots 1 and 2 are nearly an acre with sufficient upland to construct a house; and .9 acre with sufficient upland will give a house of fairly good size.

Commissioner Higgs stated lot 3 is taken out of the mix. Mr. Enos advised the upland portions of the two northern lots appear to be approximately 10,000 square feet each; and those parcels alone are adequate to meet the EU-2 zoning classification, not even considering the wetland portion of the lots. Commissioner Higgs stated Ms. Williams mentioned access. Ms. Williams stated the plan she was given shows an access easement located along the eastern wetland boundary of the western wetland; it looks like part of the easement is located within the wetland; and staff would like to see it shifted slightly eastward so that the access is completely out of the wetland. Mr. Moia stated they fully agree with that. Commissioner Higgs inquired if in the binding development plan, the applicant is granting an easement over lot 3 and an easement over lot 2 to lot 3 so there is access. Mr. Moia responded yes, and the reason they put the easement there was to avoid any wetland impacts. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the applicant is granting those easements as part of the binding development plan; with Mr. Moia responding they would be willing to do that; but there might be another step they would have to go through. Mr. Moia stated he would have to check when that is done because of the access by easement Code for a lot; and they were going to apply to the Board for a waiver to get access based on the size of the parcel. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they do not have legal access; with Mr. Moia responding they have legal access because they have frontage. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Moia said he had to get a waiver. Mr. Enos advised there is an administrative process that Mr. Moia will need to go through in order to get the easements approved; and it is handled through the Zoning office. Commissioner Higgs inquired if a waiver is needed; with Mr. Moia responding they talked about that with staff, but that was before they talked about the parcel. Mr. Enos advised the easement requirements require a 25-foot easement for each of the two lots; Mr. Moia indicated he may come back to the Board and ask for a waiver to allow both lots to access over one of the 25-foot easements; however, that is something that would happen at a different time, and is not part of this application. Commissioner Higgs stated the zoning application is creating lots that do not have access; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Moia stated since they removed the south parcel, they may not need a waiver any more because the combined total of the two parcels exceeds the minimum allowed for access by easement; there has to be a five-acre total of lots for access by easement; and since they are not only going with two lots, they meet that minimum so the waiver would not be necessary, so they are willing to put the easement into the binding development plan for access to the two parcels. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they would be coming over lot 3; with Mr. Moia responding yes, but lot 3 is not proposed for any development.

Attorney Bentley suggested saying there would be no access provided over any wetland designated on the map; that would be a simple way to address it in the binding development plan; and then it would not be necessary to get into the details of the easement. Mr. Moia stated that is fine; the easement only came into play when they had the third lot; and now it is not an issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board does not provide access tonight through lot 3, then there will be two lots with no legal access. Attorney Bentley advised they can deal with that at a later point; but the Board wants to make sure they do not impact the wetlands. Commissioner Higgs stated she also wants to be sure the access is through lot 3. Commissioner Pritchard advised it will be. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not know that unless it is part of the binding development plan; with Mr. Moia advising that is fine. Commissioner Carlson noted the binding development plan will come back to the Board as it usually does.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 5 as recommended with binding development plan as discussed.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board would like for there to be a little more tweaking.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is a parcel that is largely wetlands; she is satisfied that one unit that is available under the zoning is fine; she does not see any need to increase density in the wetlands; there already is a zoning; and she sees no need to increase the units on the parcel.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs would be in favor or not in favor; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would not be in favor, but if there was a zoning that left the same density, she might be in favor.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the proposal is upland, not wetland; it is leaving the wetlands; accommodations have been made for lot 3 to not be considered as part of the package; lots 1 and 2 have nearly an acre of upland each; his house is on one-half acre, which is more lawn than he wants; and this is almost one-acre parcels with access to come through an upland on a parcel that is over one acre. He stated across the street there are half-acre parcels; so what the applicant is proposing is something that is reasonable and will not impact the wetland areas; and he does not see the problem.

Mr. Moia advised with the new proposal, lot 1 would be over two acres and lot 2 would be over an acre and a half.

Chairperson Colon seconded the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Carlson voted nay.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised a motion to deny is needed if that is the Board’s intent. Attorney Bentley advised that would make it clearer.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is at a loss; this does not make sense; and when things do not make sense, he cannot vote in favor. He stated he needs to talk about it more; right now he does not understand what is happening and why; and he cannot vote until he understands.

Chairperson Colon inquired if there is a possibility of the Board wanting this to come back. Commissioner Scarborough responded he does not mind talking about it, but does not understand it.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested bringing it back on May 29, 2003 right after the Indian River Colony Club item. Discussion ensued on an appropriate date for the item to be tabled to.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 5 to the July 22, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MAY 5, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its May 5, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0305401) The Sasso Corporation’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and change from AU to BU-1 to all BU-1 on 0.28 acre located on the east side of US 1, south of Coquina Road, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and the P&Z Board.

Michael DiChristopher, President of the Sasso Corporation, stated they are requesting a change to all BU-1 on US 1 in Rockledge.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board; and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Fifth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2003, 03S.5, 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 XVI (E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal constancy with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0305501) Mattress Barn, Inc.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Lane Use Map designation from Residential 15 to Community Commercial; and change from RU-1-9 and BU-1 to BU-2 on 4.28 acres located on the north side of US 192, west of Katherine Boulevard, which was recommended for denial by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated there has been a request to table this item to August 7, 2003, which is consistent with the automatic tabling policy.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 2 to August 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0305101) David R. Meyer’s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 1.35 acres located on the north side of Palm Avenue, east of Roselle Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 4. (Z0305102) Bruce C. Frankenfield’s request for change from GU to AU on 2.38 acres located on the east side of Fishtail Palm Avenue, north of Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0305103) Tanya M. Nierescher’s request for change from GU to AU on 2.09 acres located on the north side of Date Palm Street, east of Florida Palm Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0305104) Charles L. and Mary D. Bounds’ request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1 acre located on the west side of North Singleton Avenue, south of SR 46, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0305105) Brevard Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Brevard County, City of Cocoa, and State of Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund, to change from AU and GML to GML-H on 132.26 acres located on the north side of Camp Road, east of Grissom Parkway, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (Item 7 contains over ten contiguous acres, and will have a second hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on Thursday, August 7, 2003 at 5:30 p.m.)

Item 8. (Z0305106) David W. and Michelle E. Murphy’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.11 acres located on the north side of Grantline Road, east of US 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 9. (Z0305201) Robert A. Baugher’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-10 on 1.984± acres located on the west side of Highway A1A north of Crescent Beach Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limited to an over-55 community, with a maximum of 16 units, and the additional language requested by Natural Resources regarding compliance with applicable regulation.

Dave Menzel stated he is the applicant, and Glenn Sundin will be speaking for him.

Attorney Glenn Sundin stated they propose to have a parcel located in Cocoa Beach rezoned from BU-1 to RU-2-10; they had a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board, which approved it subject to execution of a binding development plan; this afternoon he received a call from the County Attorney requesting they add an additional restriction within the binding development plan; and he has not had an opportunity to evaluate the consequences of that, nor did he get a chance to discuss in detail the consequences with his client. He stated they could approve the item tonight subject to the final agreement on the wording of the binding development plan with the County Attorney, or they could table the matter and get the language finalized with the County Attorney; and they would like to continue the process of working with the County on site plans, without approval. He stated the property is in Cocoa Beach; they understand the Board’s position concerning school overcrowding; and they will agree to develop the property for housing for older persons in accordance with Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, marketing it to individuals 55 years of age or older. He stated that is how they proceeded with the Planning and Zoning Board; however, this afternoon he had a message on his answering machine that the County Attorney wanted to add another restriction, which would be that no occupant could be under 18 years of age. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated the prior binding development agreement involved the age restriction; and there has been an additional clause added saying no one 18 years and younger because of the school capacity issue; but the Statute that is referenced in this binding development agreement provides that a 55-year and above development qualifies if 80% of the residents are above the age of 55, and that leaves 20% who could be under 55 or even school age, so that is a concern. She stated it can be dealt with a number of ways; and that is why she called Mr. Sundin. Mr. Sundin stated they have unilaterally agreed to develop the property in that manner; however, if they are going to be further restricted, they would like another provision in the plan to say that in the event the school overcrowding problem is remedied, the restriction would be eliminated. He stated this is not unreasonable because that is a real possibility. Attorney Bentley stated there is a procedure for amending binding development plans; if that was the only restriction on the property and the reason for the restriction had been eliminated, the applicant might have a good chance of amending the binding development plan; and she does not know how it could be done otherwise. She inquired what if schools became over-capacity again; stated she does not know how that could be addressed; and it would have to be done on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Mr. Sundin stated that is the situation now; people are moving in and out of the community; they may move in with families; elderly couples may be moving out; and it is hard to predict the future.

Chairperson Colon inquired if this would be a deal breaker; and stated they need to know if they are going to move forward with the binding development plan or whether the applicant needs more time.

Mr. Sundin stated Cocoa Beach High School will come online in August; they came with the 55 and older proposal to keep the process going because they cannot even get a site plan reviewed until the zoning is changed; and they would like to table it, but were told that the Board could make a ruling that would allow them to continue their review process with the stipulation they could not get any approvals until the rezoning change. He stated that would allow them to continue their scheduled process of getting permits; and they would be comfortable tabling it for 30 days with the Board allowing them to submit their plans and let the review process continue during that time. He stated the County has such a policy but it is an internal policy.

Chairperson Colon stated the applicant could move the process along if it is a 55 and older development with the additional restriction to insure there is no one under the age of 18; the applicant has that opportunity to continue with the process; and if it changes in the future, the applicant has the ability to come back before the Board.

Mr. Enos advised the Board in the past has not considered that open-ended type of proposal.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Comprehensive Plan policy in the Coastal Element has a statement in Objective 7; and requested staff speak to that objective about creating density on the barrier island. Planner Todd Corwin stated Objective 7 refers to the limiting of residential densities in the Coastal High Hazard Area; and there is a subset of policies that go along with that objective. He stated it does not specify whether or not it is referring to Comprehensive Plan densities or zoning densities; but from staff’s perspective, it pertains to Comprehensive Plan densities. He stated although it is not specifically spelled out that it is Comprehensive Plan densities, it does limit densities within the Coastal High Hazard area; and that policy was inserted into staff comments as a tool and instrument for the Board to use in making a decision on this request. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many units could be built on this parcel; with Mr. Enos responding under the current zoning, seven units could be built under the BU-1 zoning. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board approved the request, how many units would it increase by; with Mr. Enos responding the request is 16 units. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to decide if the Comprehensive Plan applies in this case. Attorney Bentley stated she cannot improve on Mr. Corwin’s explanation of the provision; it says “limit densities”; and that could be the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code. Chairperson Colon stated it could be either one; with Commissioner Higgs advising it could be both.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to hear from the attorney.

Mr. Sundin stated Objective 7 says, “limit densities”; however, Objective 7 needs to be read in conjunction with Policy 2.13 of the Future Land Use Element, which says “in the CCHA, however, residential development is strictly limited to the density of the closest residentially-designated area on the Future Land Use Map that is on the same side of the street.” He stated that says limit density; but it provides guidelines; Policy 2.13 says one can increase density up to the next highest closest category density; but in the Coastal High Hazard Area, it is limited to the density of the closest residentially-designated area on the same side of the street. He stated right now the surrounding property has an R-15 density; Florida Statute 163.3177 (2) says the Comprehensive Plan elements must be consistent; and inquired what is the bottom line. He stated for community commercial land use designation, one should refer to Policy 2.13, which strictly limits density to the Future Land Use Map, which is R-15; they are not seeking R-15, but RU-2-10; and that is the proper way to read it. He stated Policy 2.13 does not necessarily prohibit rezoning; it does not allow an increase in the Comprehensive Plan’s density; they are not seeking that; they are not seeking to go higher than RU-2-10; and that is within the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired in this case is the Future Land Use Map being amended; with Attorney Bentley responding no, they are rezoning. Commissioner Higgs stated the reference in Policy 2.13 is the future land use not zoning. Attorney Bentley stated that is how she reads it, and it could also be read as providing a maximum. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is not necessarily compelled to give the maximum; with Attorney Bentley advising that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated the Future Land Use Element is not being amended; this is a zoning issue; and she is not sure that Provision 2.13 is the one that necessarily applies to a zoning decision. She inquired does the Future Land Use Element in this case refer to zoning or the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Corwin advised in the particular case of Policy 2.13, the policy is the one in the Comprehensive Plan that encourages residential development in commercial areas; it is a policy that establishes the maximum density that a property should be developed at; a commercial property has the potential to be developed residentially at the density of the nearest residential classification on the same side of the street; and in this case a residential 15 would be the maximum classification, but there are other policies and factors that affect density that may or may not be approved. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Policy 2.13 applies to the Future Land Use Map and density allocations; with Mr. Corwin responding it applies to the maximum density that could be considered under the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Higgs stated it does not necessarily apply to the density; looking at the current density, what would be available would be the units that were described earlier, which would be seven under the current allocation density; and what the Board has to decide is whether the policy to limit densities within the Coastal High Hazard Zone and direct development outside this area applies. She noted the zoning action, if approved, will increase the density in the area; and there are other potentials in terms of RA-2-4 and RU-2-4 that might allow the use of the property in some other ways than it is currently zoned.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is a rezoning issue; and it says residential zoning in the area includes RU-2-10 and RU-2-15 classifications, single-family, multi-family, trailer parks, residential uses. He stated the issue before the Board tonight is to go ahead with the RU-2-10 and leave it at that; and it is muddying the waters by having discussions on two sides of the cube, when at this point, one side does not apply. He stated the zoning issue applies; and under the zoning guidelines, RU-2-10 is appropriate.

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

Commissioner Carlson stated increasing the density on a property in the High Hazard Zone is probably not serving the best interest of the public; and she would not support a motion to increase it in such a way that would build more density into the Coastal High Hazard Zone.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is interested in being consistent with the law, the Comprehensive Plan and not increasing density, there may be some other provisions other than the current zoning that may work for the applicant; and she is willing to consider other zonings, if that is what the Board wants to look at.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the applicant is interested in that. Mr. Menzel stated he is not sure about doing something with lesser zoning. Chairperson Colon stated that seems to be the direction now as there was a motion but no second; the next motion may be for complete denial; but Commissioner Higgs advised the applicant and staff could try and consider a different zoning. Mr. Menzel inquired if they could look at some of the options and table this to the next meeting; with Chairperson Colon responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 9 to August 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened at 7:49 p.m.

Item 10. (Z0305202) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Richard B. and Mary Conforti, to change from RU-2-30 to RP on 0.5 acre located on the west side of South Courtenay Parkway, north of Fortenberry Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the Board directed staff to initiate rezoning on property owned by Richard and Mary Conforti; it would go from RU-2-30 to RP; and the direction came because the RU-2-30 originally had a conditional use permit for an office building, the office building was built; and the conditional use permit was invalidated. He stated the RP use would bring the use back into consistency with the zoning.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 10 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z0305203) Donald W. and Donna R. Dean’s request for change from RU-2-15 to RU-1-7 on 0.52 acre located on the west side of Milford Point Drive, approximately 660 feet north of SR 520, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 11 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. (Z0305301) Thomas J. and Lynn H. Conroy’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.71 acres located on both sides of US 1, south of Holder Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. (Z0304105) Jose and Silvia Melendez’s request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the west side of Weatherly Place, south of Breckenridge Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought Mr. Melendez was present tonight; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding he was, but he left. Commissioner Scarborough stated the reason it was denied by the P&Z Board was because the applicant did not show up. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Melendez gave an explanation why he left; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Enos advised Mr. Melendez may not be able to get a building permit anyway because it is not on an improved road; and he suspects that has discouraged him in the process. Commissioner Scarborough stated he can try to meet with Mr. Melendez if the Board desires. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Melendez understands that getting a permit will be quite difficult; with Mr. Enos responding yes, he does understand that. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Enos contacted the applicant; and inquired if he knew about the meetings and understood the complexities; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

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

Item 14. (SPE30501) Millennium Development of Titusville, LLC’s request for change for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a PUD zone on 31.14 acres located at the northern terminus of Folsom Road and west of the F.E.C.R.R., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for beer and wine only accessory to the clubhouse.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about access to the clubhouse only; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos advising the P&Z Board recommended that the permit be limited to accessory to the clubhouse only so there would not be stand-alone bars.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the P&Z Board for beer and wine only accessory to the clubhouse. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 8, 2003

Item 1. (NMI30501) William David Elliott, James H. Fletcher and Matthew D. Phaneuf’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Planned Industrial to Residential 1 and a change from PIP to RR-1 on 3.615 acres located on the south side of D’Albora Road, southeast of SR 3, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Seventh Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2003, 03S.7, 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 XVI (E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (NMI30502) Taylor Properties of Brevard County, Inc. and ACN Company’s request for change from BU-1 and BU-2 with a Special Use to all BU-2 on 5.51 acres located on the east side of North Courtenay Parkway, north of the Barge Canal, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Chairperson Colon inquired has anything changed since the denial; with Mason Blake responding yes. Mr. Blake, representing Taylor Properties, stated the property is on Courtenay Parkway approximately one mile north of the Barge Canal; his client has recently completed the first phase of development; and in conjunction they have a user for whom they are filing a zoning request. He stated initially they filed a request for the front 150 feet of the property, which is zoned BU-1; and distributed a map. He stated the application was done quickly in order to get to this meeting instead of being delayed until August; and in a rush, his client filed for the rezoning. He stated currently the property is zoned BU-1 for the front 150 feet and BU-2 for the rear of the parcel with a lot of restricted uses on the BU-2; initially they filed to rezone to all BU-2 with no restrictions, which was clearly voted down by the P&Z Board; but that request was too broad; and they have since amended the request to no change to the BU-2 zoning on the property and rezoning of the front 150 feet to BU-2 for one additional use. He stated in other words they are going to restrict against every other BU-2 use that is not allowed in BU-1 except for an automobile transmission operation; and they have provided staff with a binding development plan to assure the storefront that is seen there maintains a nice neighborhood retail streetscape. He stated under the binding development plan there will be no overnight parking or storage of motor vehicles within the front 150 feet; there will be no creation of an automobile bay facing North Courtenay Parkway; so, what there will be is a retail storefront, which is what the BU-1 zoning category seeks to achieve. He stated they think they are achieving the intent of the zoning category, and actually improving it from what the potential is for the property right now because a muffler shop with an automobile bay facing North Courtenay Parkway would be permitted under BU-1; going from an overnight type automobile repair as opposed to a day repair makes it fall into a BU-2 category; but they are saying that no automobile bay on any of the buildings will be constructed facing North Courtenay Parkway; and submitted a site plan to the Board. He stated the transmission store they are talking about is Cottmann Transmission; and a representative is present tonight. He stated their goal from a marketing standpoint is to have a neighborhood scale type store; they do not want a garage; and they are seeking to appeal to the upscale customer who can come into a well done lobby and not have to go into the garage area. He stated the automobile bay will be built at the rear of the building; all the cars will be pulled in and fixed in service bays entirely within the building; there will be no repair of automobiles outside the building; and if the Board would like, they can amend the binding site plan to stipulate no repairs outside. He stated for the most part all the cars that are stored overnight will be stored inside too; to the extent that they need to be stored outside, they are going to provide a fenced enclosure that is going to be beyond the 150 feet; and it is already zoned for storage area and use. He requested the Board’s consideration of the request; and advised he and the representative from Cottmann Transmission are present to respond to any questions. He submitted streetscapes showing the Cottmann Transmission look.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Blake has given the Board a lot of pictures and diagrams; and inquired if he minds referencing them in the binding development plan; with Mr. Blake responding they can be referenced and attached to the binding development plan.

Carl Signorelli stated he is a resident of North Merritt Island; and reminded the Board of the Landscape Ordinance that was adopted in 1989, which establishes SR 3 from SR 528 to the boundary of Kennedy Space Center as a scenic thoroughfare. He stated there are two main roads to NASA; one is North Courtenay and the other is US 1; these roads are traversed by Presidents and dignitaries from all over the world; and there are also 1.5 million tourists who come through this road in a year. He stated in the past the County has allowed commercial and industrial zoning to be granted along the corridor; these zonings have been grandfathered in; however, there is no reason to continue such zoning on this road if the plan is to beautify this corridor. He stated the applicant claims the aesthetic value of the area will remain the same; but this is fantasy; and a garage is a garage. He stated there will be tow trucks to deliver inoperable cars and overnight parking; similar garages have ten to twenty cars waiting for repairs; and he does not see how all the cars could be pushed into one small building. He stated the applicants built an attractive building in BU-1; but he would never rent a bay next to a garage; and it would be a detriment to the rest of the building to have a garage there. He stated another garage is not needed on this thoroughfare; this is a corridor that is planned for beautification in the future; and it will be an asset when tourists and dignitaries pass through the area. Mr. Signorelli stated if the change from BU-1 to BU-2 is approved, it will case a precedent; all the businesses that have BU-1 on the corridor will request the change; and this will put future plans for beautification in jeopardy.

Mr. Blake stated there has been extensive landscaping; the kind of building they have constructed is increasing the scale in the area; they have done a first-class job; and they will continue to maintain the building in a first class manner. He stated there is a lot of BU-2 immediately to the south of the property; rezoning to BU-2 with the restriction they can only have one BU-2 use is not setting a precedent that will adversely affect the character of the area; and they believe what they have built to date and what they will build in the future will improve the character of the development in the area.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he likes that the front of the building will remain as it is; the buildings that could be built to the rear would all be BU-2 so there could be other garages back there; but this type of facility having a nice entranceway facing North Courtenay does a couple of things that work well. He stated generally it is the lady of the house who takes the car in for repair or a checkup; many ladies do not like to hang out in a garage; but when they pull up to this facility, they will go in the front door into a clean environment, and the vehicle will be taken around back where the service takes place while the owner sits in a comfortable waiting room. He stated it creates a nice environment and is not going to have any effect on the corridor because the front of the building remains the same. He stated if the Board denies this, other buildings that would be to the east would be BU-2; and there could be the issues Mr. Signorelli pointed out. He stated having the entrance at the front creates a more friendly environment for people bringing vehicles in; and if vehicles have to stay overnight, there is going to be a fenced enclosure back in the BU-2 portion of the property. He stated nothing will be left out in the area of this building; it will all be either inside the bay or in a fenced in area, so there is a lot of potential behind this concept; and it is something the Board should consider.

Commissioner Carlson stated she read the minutes of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board on this item; it talks about when this item was brought to the Board previously and about things being excluded from BU-2; and inquired has the Board looked at this previously. Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the Board looked at this application some time ago; originally the request was for BU-2 on all the property; but at that time the Board split the zoning between BU-1 and BU-2. He stated since then the applicant has built the BU-1 portion of the site; but the BU-2 remains undeveloped at this time. Commissioner Carlson inquired were any specifics applied to the BU-2; with Mr. Enos responding there were some limitations on the BU-2 uses. Commissioner Carlson inquired if additional limitations are being added; with Mr. Enos responding that is what they are attempting to do tonight.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is in addition to the BU-2 in back; with Mr. Blake responding no, it is on the BU-1 in front. Mr. Enos advised they are not changing the BU-2 in the back; and the only thing they are requesting is on the BU-1 portion to add one BU-2 use to the list of BU-1 uses.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the one thing that is absent from any of this is landscaping. Mr. Blake stated they have put in substantial landscaping in the front, but it is not mature yet; and it is a very handsome building. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is any landscaping going to be on this particular parcel; with Mr. Blake responding there already is landscaping. Commissioner Pritchard stated he goes by the parcel frequently and the landscaping is very attractive.

Ron Taylor, owner of the parcel, stated their landscaping exceeds County requirements; his wife did the landscaping; and commented on the kinds of plants that were put in. He noted the architect’s rendition was taken from a picture of the property; and described the landscaping.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is Mr. Taylor going to put more landscaping as he builds more; with Mr. Taylor responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Taylor would be willing to include some enhancements of possibly some mature trees that might give some height; with Mr. Taylor responding yes, he has no problem with landscaping. Mr. Taylor advised it is a family-owned business; they want it to look nice; they feel they are an asset to North Merritt Island; and they would not be bringing in Cottmann if they did not think it would fit in with the retail outlet. He stated he polled all of the other people who are going in to explain what Cottmann was all about; Cottmann identified in its market research that going upscale in a center like his is a competitive advantage; so Cottmann will fit in well with the retail front end. He stated Cottmann stores all cars inside; the number of cars they do per week is limited; and a representative of Cottmann flew down from Philadelphia to respond to questions about the operation. He stated he researched the company and was impressed with it; the person who will be running the operation is a well-educated person; and that is why he let it in. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was also impressed.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 2 with a binding development plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he could second the motion if things can be defined; use and landscaping are two separate issues; a low intense use can look awful while an industrial commercial area may have an extremely high level of landscaping; and he appreciates this is coming with a negative recommendation. He stated the Board can approve it, and when it gets the binding development plan back, it can incorporate those components of landscaping, those things Commissioner Higgs mentioned, and the things that were shown to the Board as attachments.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Taylor is agreeable to that; the pictures do not do justice to the site; the trees and plantings have matured; he has put in additional landscaping and intends to do that further even without it being a requirement; and he does not think the additional items will affect Mr. Taylor as he is a business person who is approaching this from a unique perspective of making it attractive as well as user friendly.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 with Binding Development Plan for enhanced landscaping and attachment of pictures and plans submitted at the meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS

Item 1. Section 36, Township 25, Range 35, Parcels 1 and 2, owned by A. Duda & Sons and St. Johns River Water Management District, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8832 for Agricultural Pursuits (air strip).

This item was withdrawn.

Item 2. Section 07, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 3, owned by Janet I. Keller, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9095 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

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

Item 3. Section 17, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 254, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Wastewater Treatment Plant.

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

Item 4. Section 23, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lots 4.01 and 4.04, owned by Blinds of All Kinds and Donald J. and Dana S. Gray, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8438 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 32, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 2, 753, 753.1, 754, 755, 756, 756.2, and 756.3; Section 04, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 254 (N. of Veterans Way); Section 05, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15, owned as follows: Parcel 2 - The Viera Company - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcels 753, 753.1, and 754 - Brevard County, c/o Property Control - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9006 for Additional Building Height and retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall (GML portion only) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 755 - Florida Marlins Baseball LTD - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 756 - Marlins - Viera - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9006 for Additional Building Height and Retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic, or Exhibit Hall (GML portion only) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 756.2 - Marlins- Viera - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 756.3 - Marlins - Viera - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9006 for Additional Building Height and Retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall, and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 254 - A. Duda & Sons, Inc. - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Athletic Complexes and Stadiums and Z-9486 for Hotel; Parcel 3 - Brevard County, c/o Property Control - removing Z-9006 for Additional Building Height (GML only) and Retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall (GML portion only) and Retaining Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Athletic Complexes and Stadiums; Parcel 4 - Florida Marlins Baseball, LTD - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9006 for Additional Building Height (GML only) and retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall (GML portion only) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 5 - Marlins-Viera - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9006 for Additional Building Height and Retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall, and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 7 - Brevard County, c/o Property Control - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9006 for Additional Building Height and Retaining Z-9006 for Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall, and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcel 10 - Florida Marlins Baseball, LTD. - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and retaining Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums; Parcels 13, 14 - A. Duda & Sons, Inc. - removing Z-8981 for Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Athletic Complexes and Stadiums and Z-9486 for Hotel; Parcel 15 - Brevard County, C/O Property Control - removing Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes & Stadiums and Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises) and Z-9486 for Hotel, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-8981 for Athletic Complexes and Stadiums and Alcoholic Beverages (consumption on premises); Z-9006 for Additional Building Height and Convention, Civic or Exhibit Hall; Z-9486 for Hotel.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Section 04, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 504, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8535 for Additional Building Height.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Section 09, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. QH, Tracts A and D; Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. QH, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Tracts B, C, E, and F, owned by Wickham/I-95 Property Owners Association, Inc., Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., PJ’s III, Inc., The Pantry, Inc., B&G Realty, Inc., Brevard County c/o Property Control, and Wickham/I-95 Property Owners Association, Inc., which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-8918 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premises consumption) on all; Z-9238 for Gasoline Pumps and Gasoline Sales on Section 9, Tract D, and Section 10, Lot 3, Tract E; and Z-9390 for Additional Building Height and Additional Sign Height on Section 09, Tract D, and Section 10, Lots 3 & 4, Tracts C, E, F.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Section 11, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 756; Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 503, owned by Suntree United Methodist Church, Inc., which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8830 for Additional Building Height (cross tower) and Additional Building Height (sanctuary), and retaining Z-9721 for School.

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

Item 9. Section 13, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 756; Section 24, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 9; Section 18, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 514; Section 19, Township 26, Range 37, Parcels 250, 253, 254, 265, and 267, owned by Imperial South, Inc. and Petty’s of Suntree, Inc., which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8534b for Additional Building Height on all and Retaining Conditional Use Permits Z-9704 for Alcoholic Beverages for on-premises consumption on Parcel 267, and Z-10297 for Towers & Antennas (180 ft. monopole) on Parcel 254.

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

Item 11. Section 19, Township 27, Range 35, Parcel 1; Section 20, Township 27, Range 35, Parcel 1; Section 29, Township 27, Range 35, Parcel 1; Section 30, Township 27, Range 35, Parcel 1; Section 31, Township 27, Range 35, Sub. 01, Lot 1; Section 32, Township 27, Range 35, Sub. 01, Lot 2, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8976 for Solid Waste and Disposal Areas.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 11 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 77, Block B, Lot 7, owned by Dorothy L. Crees, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8943 for Child Care Center.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Section 22, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 4, 254, 255, and 752, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, State of Florida DOT, Space Coast Marine Institute, Inc., and Edwina Witt Griffin, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Crematorium and Solid Waste & Disposal Area.

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

Item 14. Section 36, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 50, Block A, Lot 16, owned by Airdre E. Bown, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9074 for Guesthouse.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. Section 17, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 30, Block A, Lots 3 & South ½ of Vac. ditch N. of Lot 3, 44 to 50 & N. ½ of adjacent Vac. strip of land S. of Lots 44 to 50, owned by Juanita Ballew and Mary L. Wilson, CITA, Inc., and Purrs & Whiskers Shelter, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8778 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 16. Section 18, Township 27, Range 37, Parcel 507, owned by Gary A. and Shirley A. Nelson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8478 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

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

Item 17. Section 18, Township 27, Range 37, Parcel 760 (BU-1 portion only), Jerry L. and Jinkie A. Bays, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8609 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes or Trailers.

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

Item 18. Section 30, Township 27, Range 38, Sub. 50, Lots 29 and 30, owned by Daniel L. King, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8921 for Additional Building Height.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 18 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Section 01, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 76, Lot 58, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8821 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 19 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 02, Township 28, Range 36, Parcel 267.2, owned by Mobil Oil Corporation, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8601 for Gasoline Service Station with Accessory Uses.

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

Item 21. Section 02, Township 28, Range 36, Parcels 546 and 554 (N. 414.24 ft. only), owned by Rest Area, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9307 for Gasoline Service Station with Accessory Uses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 21 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. Section 03, Township 28, Range 36, Parcel 759.1 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Rest Area LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8605 for Additional Building Height.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 22 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Section 32, Township 30, Range 35, Parcel 501, owned by Jon M. Smith, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8542 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

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

Item 24. Section 09, Township 30, Range 37, Sub. 01, Lots 53 through 62, owned by Robert L. and Judith A. Baker, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8432 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 24 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 25. Section 20, Township 20G, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lots 1 through 14 & Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3, & 7 through 28, owned by W. C. Griffin Evangelistic Association, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8989 for School.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 25 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. Section 14, Township 21, Range 34, Sub. 01, Lot 17, owned by Durwood G. and Nora L. Lockamy, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8735 for Guesthouse or Servants Quarters.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 26 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 27. Section 17, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 757, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Land Alteration.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 27 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 28. Section 20, Township 21, Range 34, Parcels 2 and 6, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Land Alteration.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 28 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 29. Section 25, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 2, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 29 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 30. Section 27, Township 21, Range 34, Parcels 1 and 6, owned by Ralph M. Higginbotham and Carra E. Higginbotham, Trustees, and Lori A. Clark, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8574 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 30 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 31. Section 07, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 7 (E. of Old Dixie Hwy. only), owned by Joseph M. Hudick and Charles J. Hudick, Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8808 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 31 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 32. Section 28, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 260 (IU-1 portion only), owned by Laurence C. Goethe, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8850 for Cement, Concrete & Concrete Building Products.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 32 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 33. Section 29, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 31, 769, 770, 792, 794, 795, 797, and 798, owned by Steve and Amy Lester, Susan A. Hall and Richard T. Hall, Trustees, Jackie Lee Moore, Carol Lee Buckalew, and Richard M. and Valerie D. Pitoni, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8753 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 33 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 34. Section 18, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. AV, Lot 63, owned by Mary Murell, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8443 for Mini-Warehouse.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 34 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 35. Section 35, Township 23, Range 35, Parcels 501 and 536, owned by Patricia G. Moore and Dana Gunn McMullan, Co-Trustees, and Lake Poinsett Shores, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8880 for Land Alteration.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 35 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 36. Section 30, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 50, Lots 10 and 11, owned by Patrick H. and Juliet M. Harrack and Travel Lynx, Inc. of Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8715 for Treatment and Recovery Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 36 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 37. Section 01, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 25, Block 1, Lots 30, 32 and Block 19, Lot 2, owned by James C. Simons, Terry Sekura and Andrew Sekura, and Ollie King Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7095 for Cluster Development of Modular Coaches.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 37 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 38. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 767, owned by Teen Missions International, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7563 for Landscaping Business.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 38 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 39. Section 34, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 26, Tracts F, G, and G.1, owned by River Moorings Owners Association, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8799 for Recreational Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 39 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 40. Section 15, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 76, Block C, Lot 6, owned by Diane T. Fowler, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9791 for Guesthouse or Servants Quarters.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 40 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 41. Section 13, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 3, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Solid Waste & Disposal Areas.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 41 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 42. Section 22, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 34, 35 (BU-1-A portion only), owned by Ralph M. Williams and Mrs. Naomi Davenport, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z- 8634 for Child Care Center.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 42 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 43. Section 24, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 750, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 43 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 44. Section 26, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 258, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Cemetery.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 44 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lots 38.B0 and 39, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 46 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 47. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lots 21 through 24, owned by Noro and Company, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8460 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 47 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 48. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 255.3 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Mike Erdman Motors, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8681 for Additional Building Height.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 48 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 49. Section 19, Township 24, Range 37, Parcel 252, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 49 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 50. Section 23, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. CG, Block 77, Lots 9 thru 11 & W. 40 ft. of Lot 12, and E. 10 ft. of Lot 12, owned by Hitchin Beach Development Corporation and Steven G. and Wynne Ann Asbury.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 50 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 51. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 30, Block G, Lots 21, 21.01, and 21.02, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, John E. and Barbara A. Zapotocky, and Robert P. Bertrand and Carol L. Bertrand, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 51 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 52. Section 31, Township 24, Range 37, Parcels 22 through 28, 24, and 26, owned by Carl Fischer and McBell & Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9055 for Child Care Center.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 52 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 53. Section 13, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 752 (W. 50 ft. of N. 50 ft.), owned by The Plantation, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8763 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 53 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 54. Section 24, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lot 4.01 (E. of Old Settlement Road), owned by John D. and Bette B. Alis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9190 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 54 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 55. Section 07, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. CX, Lot 28.01, owned by Brevard County c/o, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Wastewater Treatment Plant, Gas Storage, and Metering Station.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 55 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 56. Section 06, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 7, owned by Denise A. Rotolante, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8692 for Guesthouse or Servants Quarters.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 56 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 57. Section 06, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 02, Lot 7, owned by David L. and Janie E. Geraci, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9054 for Guesthouse.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 57 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 58. Section 08, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DQ, Lot 11.10, owned by Ronald D. and Diyan Wiseman, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8780 for Guesthouse or Servants Quarters.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 58 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 59. Section 20, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. QS and Section 21, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. QS, owned by George J. Gebbie, Jr., Brevard Development, Inc., Joseph C. and Pamela E. Mello, Thomas Clair and Cecelia Jane Slick, Nancy C. Haney, Robert J. Smith and Loretta M. Smith, Trustees, Robert L. and Linda Jean Williams, Iris B. Kopeck, Daniel and Lisa Calkins, John and Margaret Napolitan, R. Chris and Terry M. Bentley, Larry D. and Lisa A. Jewell, George and Henrietta A. Baranski, Beverly Rennie, Evelyn Panarese, Trustee, George Gajdos and Anita Gajdos, Trustees, Robert and Olga Leudesdorf, Charles P. and Carol L. Horvath, Karol S. Fox, Joseph Kirby and Wendy Kirby, Life Estate, Paul J. and Carol Hoffman, Ocean Ridge Homeowner's Association, Inc., Michael and Donna K. Strugar, Josee Clerc and Nina A. Coleman, Patricia Rivas Bonneau, Robert M. and Joyce A. Piatt, and Ocean Ridge Homeowners Association of Melbourne Beach, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9035 for Zero Lot Line Subdivision.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 59 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 60. Section 16, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 50, Lot 7 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Raymond J. Raboin, Jr., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9195 for Boat Sales & Service.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 60 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 61. Section 17, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 500, and 501, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Aviation Related Activities, and Retaining Z-8912 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premise consumption).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 61 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 62. Section 21, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 251 (BU-1 portion only), owned by William C. Lewis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8549 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 62 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 63. Section 03, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 500, 501, 503, 756, 757, and 758; Section 10, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 7, 8, and 9, owned by Gary J. Coppola, Barefoot Bay Development Corporation and Gary J. Coppola, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8454 for Water Treatment Plant and Z-9009a for Water Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 63 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 64. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 510, owned by Ralph Priep and Alda Priep Family LTD Partnership, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9193 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premises consumption).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 64 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 65. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. 25, Block 1, Lots 6 through 26 & Adj. Vac. Streets & alleys & Parcel 250, owned by Florence Owens, Life Estate and MIRA Associates, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8971 for Water Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 65 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Section 13, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, Block 1, Lots 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, exc. ORB 4745, PG 1573, owned by Geoffrey Scott Thompson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8589 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Geoffrey Thompson stated he owns the property at 3150 Suntree Boulevard; and he received notice that the conditional use permit was going to be removed for sale of alcohol. He stated at some point in time he may be interested in leasing the property; he bought it for a long-term investment; and he has talked to restaurant owners about renting the site. He stated if the conditional use permit is in place, it will be more likely he will be able to rent the property for a restaurant use.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the Planning and Zoning Board approved removal of the CUP; however, the property owner was not present at that time, so they did not have the benefit of his input.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the P&Z Board approved the removal.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the briefing Mr. Enos mentioned two items; with Mr. Enos responding he was speaking about Item 45.

Commissioner Carlson stated the P&Z Board approved removal of the CUP. Chairperson Colon noted Mr. Thompson was not present; and that is why he is attempting to give his input today. Commissioner Carlson stated she has no problem allowing him to keep his CUP, but does not know what could evolve there; and she does not believe there is anything with alcoholic beverages in that area.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when the Board had other objections to the removal of a CUP, what has it done. Mr. Enos stated most recently there was one in Mims where there was a restaurant that had burned down; the CUP obviously had not been used in some time; and the Board approved that, which removed the CUP.

Commissioner Carlson stated if Mr. Thompson does not use the CUP within a certain period, he will be in the same condition again; and if he is not intending to use it right away, she is not sure the Board should not approve it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how old is the CUP; with Mr. Enos responding approximately ten years.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Mims property was substantially different because the structure had been totally destroyed by fire; and there were comments that they might restructure the property with adjoining properties. He stated this is a parcel that the owner could rent tomorrow and someone could need a CUP, which is a little different; with Mr. Enos agreeing.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny removal of the CUP for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages for Item 10. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if for some reason Mr. Thompson does not use the CUP, will it go back on the list; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Enos stated the Code does not deal with what happens after the initial period of time. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board has set a limitation on CUP’s; with Mr. Enos responding only for new CUP’s adopted after 1999. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can put a caveat on this allowing the CUP for a three-year period provided it is utilized; and stated otherwise Mr. Thompson will have an unlimited CUP.

Attorney Bentley advised the previous motion can be amended to provide a time period.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would happen at the end of the three-year period if the applicant did not have that use; with Commissioner Carlson responding it would expire. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if he would be able to reapply; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone came in tonight and got a CUP they would have it for three years; and inquired why would the Board allow a speculative CUP out there.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to amend the motion to set a three-year time period for CUP. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Mr. Thompson inquired if they get a permit within three years, is there a time limit after that; with Chairperson Colon responding once it is utilized, they are set.

Item 45. Section 26, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lots 43.03 and 43.04, owned by William Hoffman and Robert Traven and Northstar Investment & Development, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9094 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premises consumption).

Mr. Enos advised this was actually two different parcels; one of the two parcels, 45B, was represented and objected to the removal; and that is the existing Tire Kingdom building. He stated the owner objected to the removal of the CUP; and the P&Z Board recommended denial of removal of the CUP. Mr. Enos stated even though they made a motion to deny, they were speaking to both items in Item 45, although they really only meant 45B.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is on the two parcels and could someone go there for a drink tonight; with Mr. Enos responding no, one is a Tire Kingdom store and the other is a vacant lot.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the owner of the vacant lot does not object to having it removed as he plans to put in a doctors’ office; but the owner of the other building would like to keep the CUP because Tire Kingdom is only a tenant and does not own the property; and the property owner would like to keep his options open. He suggested allowing the three-year period for the CUP.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot agree with that; there should be some degree of immediate use; and if there is a tire store there, he cannot see that they will be serving drinks tomorrow.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is thinking of what used to be a gas station on US 1 in Cocoa that became the Pit Stop.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there were sleeping CUP’s; people were doing other things around those properties, and then all of a sudden the CUP would be utilized; and the adjoining property owners were adversely affected because they did not know this could occur. He stated if someone moved next door to Tire Kingdom, they would not expect them to have a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how he could vote in opposition to one half and not the other; with Chairperson Colon advising his vote would be for both.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 45 for both lots. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT IN SUNRISE SUBDIVISION - MARK A. AND MARIA G. NIMMO

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a portion of a public utility easement in Sunrise Subdivision as petitioned by Mark A. and Maria G. Nimmo.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated there have been no negative comments on this item; the applicant requested a fee waiver for the processing fee; staff requested the applicant pay the direct cost of advertising, which the applicant agreed to; so the applicant is requesting a partial fee waiver.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has no problem with the vacating, but would not support the fee waiver.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the justification for waiving the fee, and is there hardship. Ms. Busacca stated the applicant feels the medical expenses she is paying for her daughter cause a hardship; and the applicant is not present this evening because her daughter is ill.

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a resolution vacating a portion of a public utility easement in Plat of Sunrise Subdivision as petitioned by Mark A. and Maria G. Nimmo. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated if there is a true hardship, she has no problem with the fee waiver, but she would need to be convinced there is a hardship. Several Commissioners inquired if the purpose of the vacating is to build a pool. Ms. Busacca stated the applicant has not provided any documentation; and the intent of the vacating is to allow the applicant to build a swimming pool.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny waiver of fees for vacating of portion of public utility easement in Sunrise Subdivision as petitioned by Mark and Maria Nimmo. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ECKLER ENTERPRISES, INC., RE:
SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Sale/Purchase Contract with Eckler Enterprises, Inc. for a 13-acre parcel with approximately 575 feet of frontage along Armstrong Drive in Spaceport Commerce Park in the amount of $210,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., RE: OFFICE SPACE
FOR OFFICE OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve a six-week office lease through July 15, 2003 with Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. for office space in Cape Canaveral for the Office of Tourism Development; and authorize the Executive Director of the Office of Tourism to execute the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

_________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)