MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

November 7, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 7, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Sue Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Father David Page, Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church, Indialantic.

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

CONGRATULATIONS

Chairman Scarborough congratulated Commissioner Sue Carlson on her victory in the recent election.

DISCUSSION, RE: TABLING OF ITEMS

Commissioner O'Brien stated the neighbors have requested one of the items for District 2 be tabled because their expert witness is unavailable this evening.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has a similar situation in her District; she thought it best to give the applicant an opportunity to speak to the item; and then those who wanted it tabled would have that opportunity.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Old Catholic Church of America is asking for a CUP for a church; and the neighbors would like it to be tabled because they want to bring forth witnesses.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will proceed with those items in the regular Agenda.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETING

Commissioner Colon stated the town meeting for the people in Palm Bay will be held at the Senior Center at the corner of Culver and Emerson; the town meetings have been very well attended; and the last meeting had over 100 people in attendance. She invited everyone to attend; and advised they will be meeting with the newly elected officials.

REPORT, RE: TIME CERTAINS FOR ZONING MEETINGS

Chairman Scarborough stated he had a request for a time certain; historically the Chairman has not given time certains for these meetings; he will be ending his stint as Chairman shortly; but if the Board desires the Chairman to have time certains for zoning, additional parameters need to be set. He stated normally what they ask is how many people will be coming out because it is more convenient to have a time certain if a number of people will be attending; but at a zoning meeting, it is not known how many will be attending; so there are different dynamics. He stated there should be some policy for the Chairman to follow so there will be consistency.

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

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

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated in addition to the two items mentioned where requests have come from neighbors, there are three items for tabling at the request of the applicant. He stated the applicant has requested Item III.B.5 be tabled to March 6, 2002.

Item 5. (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 P&Z Board.

Chairman Scarborough called for anyone present to speak to the item; and no response was heard.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 5 to the March 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0210404) Azan Temple Holding Corporation, Inc.’s request for change from AU to RU-2-12 on 27.84 acres located on the east side of I-95 abutting the northern terminus of Turtle Mound Road, which was recommended to be tabled to the January 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Mr. Enos stated at the P&Z meeting the applicant requested Item II.B.6 be tabled; the P&Z Board tabled it to January 6, 2003; and it will come back to the Board on February 6, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 6 to January 6, 2003 P&Z meeting and the February 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0210501) William P. Turnbaugh, Trustee’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 81.09 acres located on the east side of Simon Road, south of Milwaukee Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos stated staff received a letter from the owner requesting the item be tabled to December 5, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 7 to the December 5, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING SIXTH SMALL SCALE PLAN
AMENDMENT OF 2001 (01S.6)

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the sixth small scale plan amendment of 2001 (01S.6).

Commissioner Higgs stated a letter was received from the attorney for the applicant; Mr. Gonzalez is asking for an additional 60 days; he is not present yet as he had a previous hearing, but will be coming; and she has no objection to continuing the hearing one more time to see if the issue can be resolved. She noted no one is present to address the issue. Chairman Scarborough inquired if anyone is present to address Mr. Houston’s item; and no response was heard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the sixth small scale plan amendment of 2001 (01S.6) to the February 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
OF APRIL 18, MAY 6, JULY 8, AND SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Item 1. (0207401) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Irene Charamut, Trustee, pursuant to Future Land Use Policy 15.1, for change from BU-1 and BU-2 to all BU-1 on 1.66 acres located on the west side of US 1, south of Allen Hill Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Irene Charamut, Trustee, stated it was his understanding this was coming back after Code Enforcement had an opportunity to report to the Board; and there are no outstanding Code Enforcement violations.

Commissioner Carlson stated this was tabled to allow an opportunity to look at the Code violations; the item went before the Special Master; and inquired if all violations have been corrected; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding yes, there are no violations on the property at this time. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board goes along with the P&Z Board’s recommendation for denial, which would keep it at the existing zoning, what would that do to the use on the property. Mr. Enos responded if the administrative rezoning to change it to BU-1 was denied, then the property would stay BU-2, and the current use would still be a legal use; however, if the Board approved the reduction to BU-1 the use would become nonconforming, but would still be allowed to continue. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board understood that but she does not know if Ms. Sheahan understood that.

Maudie Sheahan stated she hopes the Board has the brochures that she submitted; and she has some additional information that was faxed to Commissioner Carlson’s office from a person who used to remove trucks from the property before 7:00 a.m. She submitted additional paperwork to the Chairman. She stated she appeared before the Board in May, asking it to rescind the zoning because of the constant violations on the property; and commented on an alleged noise violation. She stated a mistake was made in August 1987 giving a BU-2 zoning between two residences; and this mistake needs to be corrected. She stated in May she requested the Board rescind that zoning, and the Board approved that; later she heard there had to be public hearings and it had to go to the Planning and Zoning Board; she went to all those meetings; and reiterated the mistake needs to be corrected. She stated it is a very narrow strip of land, 105 feet by 600 feet; there are families on each side with children; her grandchildren play in her yard; and all that equipment is very dangerous and is not compatible with housing areas on each side of the property. She stated a big truck can just barely turn around in the narrow strip; demolition and C&D material has been dumped on the property as well as trees, PVC pipes and sewer pipes; and she cannot trust Mr. Charamut to keep his word. She stated in 1987 Mr. Charamut said he would keep the orange grove; he got his zoning because he promised to leave the groves; and after two years he bulldozed them down and told Code Enforcement that they froze. She stated she has 13 trees in her yard, and has not lost any of them; so, she cannot trust Mr. Charamut’s word on anything, and has to rely on the Board to help her. She stated if the Board will look at the pictures in her book, it will see what she has to deal with; she has been to all the public hearings and meetings; and requested the original zoning be reinstated and 120 days be given to comply to the GU zoning that was originally there before the mistake was made in August 1987.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Sheahan understands that if the Board changes the zoning to BU-1, it will not change the use, but will only make it nonconforming. Ms. Sheahan responded she understands; and that is why she was fighting for it to go back to GU, which was the original zoning. She stated she understands the complications of BU-1; it does not help her now; and she has had to deal with this since 1987. She stated this morning she heard noise on the property before 7:00 a.m.; she cannot rely on anything anyone tells her; and she needs something that will help her. She commented on the Code Enforcement violation list, a letter from 1999 saying trucks did start before 5:00 a.m.; and proximity of bulldozers. She stated she understands the zoning and that the Board is trying to accommodate everybody; but BU-2 does not help her because the use will remain the same until he sells the property. She stated if she knew he was going to sell the property in six months or a year, she could probably tolerate it; but she has no guarantee of that; so, she needs the Board’s help. She stated she has done everything to try to alleviate the problems; and if the Board cannot help her, no one can.

Chairman Scarborough stated what Commissioner Carlson is trying to say is that even changing the Zoning Map will not change the use. Commissioner Carlson inquired if changing the zoning to BU-1 will give any support to what Ms. Sheahan is trying to do later on down the road; stated the use goes with the property; and inquired if the property was sold, would the use end. Assistant County Attorney Bentley stated if the property was sold, the use would remain if it were still in operation; and they would have to abandon the use for a period of 180 days for it to go away, if it was nonconforming. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is any injunctive relief or anything like that; with Attorney Bentley responding there may be some private nuisance action Ms. Sheahan could take; but public nuisance is a much higher burden; and she does not know if it rises to that level or not. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board administratively rezoned the property to BU-1, which is not as intrusive as BU-2 in this area, and down the road the property and business were sold, would there be an opportunity for a BU-2 type business to move in again; with Attorney Bentley responding not a new BU-2 business, but the existing business could remain. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with the administrative rezoning to BU-1, given the neighborhood concern.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended.

Chairman Scarborough stated the motion is to rezone the property to BU-1 with the understanding the use is going to continue; with Ms. Sheahan advising she understands that. Commissioner Carlson stated the applicant understands that too.

Mr. Spielvogel stated he has a right to make rebuttal. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Spielvogel has a right to speak; with Attorney Bentley responding typically the Board allows the applicant 15 minutes to speak, and then rebut; but in this case it is a little reversed because the County is the applicant. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is a motion to allow Mr. Spielvogel to speak; with Commissioner Carlson responding she does not have any problem with him speaking.

Mr. Spielvogel voiced objection to the procedure; stated his client is the interested party; and the County is taking away his client’s property rights. He stated the Board is not going to afford him an opportunity to speak to the issue; it is going to become a privilege that is afforded to him; that is absolutely wrong; and he is embarrassed that the Board would think he would not be able to represent his client unless the Board gave him the opportunity. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board devoted a lot of time to hearing this issue; it heard Ms. Sheahan; and it unanimously recommended leaving the property as BU-2. He stated he would like to think that would count for something; the P&Z Board did not have a time limit, but allowed the speakers all the time they needed to make their presentations; and that was its recommendation. He stated something was submitted to the Board; he has no idea what it is, but bets it is hearsay; and yet, the Board is looking at it and is influenced by it.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has not read the submittal, so it has no impact on her.

Chairman Scarborough stated as Mr. Spielvogel has not seen the submittal, he will allow him to take a minute to read it. Mr. Spielvogel read the submittal; and advised it is a statement from someone who is having a tooth extraction and cannot be present. He inquired why this is not being tabled so the person with the tooth problem can speak and be subject to cross-examination, if this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Chairman Scarborough advised the Board does not afford cross-examination. Mr. Spielvogel stated that is unfortunate, as this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be a substantial change of the Board's procedure to go to cross-examination; some municipalities and counties have done that; but until that is set as part of the Board’s rules, it does not cross-examine, nor does it swear people in as witnesses.

Mr. Spielvogel stated the hearing was postponed to today to get a report from Code Enforcement; the report is that his client’s property has been maintained within the Code requirements of the County; and if Ms. Sheahan or any of the neighbors had a problem, they should have reported it to Code Enforcement. He inquired if the Board is becoming a super Code Enforcement Board so that somebody who wants to shortcut the process can come directly to the Board instead of going to Code Enforcement, and because the Board is made up of nice people who may be moved by emotion, it may change the rules. He stated he questions the authority of the Board to administratively rezone his client’s property; Policy 15.2 of the Comprehensive Plan says, “County staff may initiate administrative rezoning for those properties that are found to be inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map at the time of a development permit application”; his client’s zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map; and he questions the authority of the Board to take away his client’s property rights through this process. He stated this is not the right way to handle a due process proceeding just because someone gets up and says things are terrible; right behind his client’s property is MacAsphalt, which is zoned IU, and does not have limited hours; but his client is limited by the hours. He stated there is a whole list of complaints; Ms. Sheahan made 20 complaints in ten years; the ones with any basis were resolved, and the rest were unfounded; and Ms. Sheahan has an obsessive concern about this property. He reminded the Board of the fence and the ladder Ms. Sheahan climbs so she can look over the fence and watch his client; and stated this procedure is wrong and is not fair to his client. He recommended taking the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and leaving the property as is.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board does take the P&Z Board recommendation into consideration, but this is a separate hearing; the Board hears the facts that are brought before
it and considers them separately; and frequently it sees things different than the P&Z Board. He stated questions have been raised; and it would be advantageous to table the item and let the County Attorney do a memorandum of law regarding the issues that have been raised. He inquired when is the next meeting; with Attorney Bentley responding December 5, 2002.

Commissioner Higgs stated the reference in the Comprehensive Plan that Mr. Spielvogel quoted was very specific in regard to staff initiating administrative rezoning, but the Board has the ability to initiate administrative rezoning. Attorney Bentley stated that is correct; the provision Mr. Spielvogel was talking about was solely directed toward staff on its own action; and the Board has given staff pre-authorization to initiate in specific instances. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has other broader powers that may not be in the Comprehensive Plan, such as statutory authority; with Attorney Bentley agreeing that is correct.

Chairman Scarborough stated because of the number of issues that have been raised, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and receive written letters, it would be good for Attorney Bentley to write a memorandum of law on all those issues so it can be part of the record. Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 1 to December 5, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meetings; and direct Attorney Bentley to prepare a memorandum of law concerning the legal issues raised. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0204104) Statewide Materials, Inc.’s request for CUP for Land Alteration in an IU zone on 12.28± located approximately 476 feet north of Golden Knights Boulevard, east of Tico Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as an expansion of the existing borrow pit.

Rodney Honeycutt, representing Statewide Materials, Inc., stated the request is for a conditional use permit; he came before the Board the first time in May 2002; there are existing conditional use permits on 30 acres contiguous to this property for land alteration; and the requested permit is for an additional 12 acres. He stated at the May meeting the Tico Airport Authority objected to the conditional use permit request because of a Circular Advisory of the FAA that indicated there could be some wildlife problems; since that time they have worked closely with the FAA and have come to an agreement for his client to conduct a wildlife study; and his client is hiring the Department of Agriculture to conduct the study. He stated with his client agreeing to do that, the Airport Authority is willing to remove its objection; and a letter has been forward to the Board indicating that.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is anything else that needs to be considered. Mr. Enos stated the letter says the Airport will withdraw the objection if Statewide Material agrees to comply with the USDA recommendations that come out of the study; and the only caveat he would suggest is to add, “as long as those recommendations are not inconsistent with County Code.” Chairman Scarborough inquired if this is part of a binding development plan; with Mr. Enos responding this is a conditional use permit so a binding development plan is not needed; and the conditions can be added to the CUP. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that would normally be brought back to the Board; with Attorney Bentley responding the conditional use permits are usually done verbally at the meeting, but binding development plans come back to a second meeting. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be advantageous to put it on the Consent Agenda; with Mr. Honeycutt agreeing that would be a good idea. Commissioner Higgs recommended it be put on a regular meeting. Attorney Bentley inquired about the date of the meeting. Mr. Honeycutt stated the study will not be completed until February 2003. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the study is needed to do the conditions or do the conditions just reference the study. Mr. Honeycutt stated to make the condition, they would not need the study; the condition would be that they would abide by the results of the study; and he thought that was what the Board wanted to come back. Chairman Scarborough stated in case there is a question, it is coming back before the Board. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the date would be December 3, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 as an expansion of the existing borrow bit; and direct CUP conditions return to the December 3, 2002 Board of County Commission meeting on the consent Agenda. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0205401) Dianne M. Cullen and Desiree M. Webber’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and change from GU to BU-2 on 1.97 acres located on the south side of Freeman Lane east of Waelti Drive, which was recommended for approval as Community Commercial by the LPA and as BU-2 by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing Dianne M. Cullen and Desiree M. Webber, stated his clients are requesting rezoning and a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow BU-2 zoning on the property; and it is a rare situation for him to come to the Board on behalf of a somewhat sympathetic problem. He stated Ms. Cullen and Ms. Webber have been using the property to take care of abandoned dogs; they have been trying to set up a shelter for those dogs until they can be relocated; and they have come to the Board for several meetings to discuss the problems. He stated the property is not zoned for that use; and that is why they are requesting rezoning. He stated they have approximately 75 dogs now; it has understandably upset some of the neighbors and some that are thinking about putting residential uses there eventually; and they have come to the Board for some help. He stated he is present to try to propose a compromise that might save the dogs from being euthanized and at the same time not over-burden the neighbors of the area. He noted the request for rezoning has already been approved by the P&Z Board; and if the Board will approve the BU-2 zoning, his clients agree they will reduce population of dogs to 25. He stated that reduction cannot be done overnight; he has spoken to Code Enforcement; and read a memorandum prepared by Mr. Engelson at the request of the Board dated October 30, 2002. Mr. Torpy stated in most of those conversations and in reading the memo, there is some difficulty as these are large dogs that are not necessarily easy to adopt out; so, they would like the reduction to occur within six months of anyone obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the adjacent properties or two years, whichever occurs first. He stated some of the dogs are old and cannot be adopted or for other reasons, they are not going to be able to be adopted; and there are approximately 25 such dogs. He stated the remainder of the dogs can be adopted out, but it will take some time; the concern is that if someone moves next door, the dogs will have to be culled down to 25; but they believe if someone were to build a house and pull a certificate of occupancy, it would probably take approximately six months to do so. He stated the two-year time period allows the opportunity for Ms. Webber to more properly and selectively place the dogs; and commented on restrictions and criteria for adoptions. He stated the second proposal is there will be no expansion of the use; during that period of time, there will be no new dogs accepted on the property; no dogs will be kept in the front of the property, specifically in front of the front building line of the home; and there is already, and will remain, a six-foot privacy fence along the north boundary of the property. He stated the only residential property currently is northwest, out of line of sight; and the fence will provide a buffer from the street. He stated all the dogs on the property are vaccinated and spayed or neutered; so that condition has already been met. He stated the facility will be properly licensed; they cannot apply for licenses now because they do not have the proper zoning; but if the zoning is granted, they will go to the County and obtain occupational licenses and whatever else is required. He stated the memo he referenced earlier dated October 30, 2002 from Animal Services has conditions to keep dogs; and his clients agree to all those conditions for the dogs to be maintained and taken care of. He stated to insure his clients do this, they would agree to a reverter provision that the Board could administratively rezone the property back to the current zoning; and they will put that in the binding development agreement so they will not have the nonconforming use problem discussed in the first Agenda item. He stated if they violate the condition of reducing the dogs, that is the proposal; and he knows there are other people present to speak to the Board today, but he would like to reserve some time to sum up. He stated this is a zoning issue; and requested the Board review it as a zoning issue. He stated it is a compatible use with the surrounding area because there are a lot of industrial and commercial uses in the area; and the conditions and criteria will help soften the impact and allow both things to occur, maintaining the dogs properly until they can be placed, and protecting the neighbors that have competing concerns.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Torpy used the word “compromise”; but there are no compromises in what he said. She stated all she is hearing is based on the Code Enforcement violation; and inquired if Mr. Torpy was before the Special Master this morning. Mr. Torpy stated what they did this morning was to stipulate they were in violation; they agreed to pay the administrative costs and that they would not increase the use; and all they are doing now is waiting for the Board’s action on the rezoning request. He stated they agreed they need to come into compliance; but they asked the Special Master to wait to see what compliance would be if the Board grants the rezoning. He stated if the rezoning is not granted, they need to deal with Code Enforcement on the issue of how long they will have to come into compliance with the current zoning. He noted he only recently came into the case.

Attorney Christopher Coleman, representing the Wheelers, Johnsons, and Stephens, stated Mr. Torpy pointed out that he is here on a sympathetic matter in that some people are doing some good in finding shelter for some dogs; but unfortunately, they are in violation, and the only thing that prompted them to come to the Board for rezoning was the Code Enforcement violations that started accruing. He stated his clients do not want the dogs there at all; it is not in character with the community; Mr. Torpy made some representations that there are no neighbors and there would a compromise if the certificate of occupancy was pulled; but there is already a single-family home directly across the street. He stated the Wheelers have been living in that home for quite some time; the Stephens have a builder on-hold waiting to see what happens; and the Johnsons’ property is immediately adjacent, so any compromise about having dogs only in the rear of the home would do them no good because they are not across the street. He stated looking at the Board’s policies concerning the future land use change being requested, they are not there; this is not in character with the community; it is currently Neighborhood Commercial, which is residential in nature; and there are single-family homeowners coming forward saying they do not want the dogs. He stated kennels are not allowed within 300 feet of an existing home; Planning and Zoning found the existing home is 80 feet away; so, automatically it would not be in compliance and presumably would not be able to pull the necessary licenses. He stated the issue is the character of the community; it is an odd area; there is Dusa Distribution, which is sufficiently far from Ms. Webber’s property; to say her property is commercial in nature is a misstatement; there is a daycare down the street that is more in conformity with Neighborhood Commercial land use; the rest are single-family homes up to 800 feet away; and immediately across the street on Waelti Drive is part of the Suntree PUD, which is all residential. He stated Planning and Zoning missed the issue when it said there would be no adverse impact from traffic, but found that traffic would increase to 1,160 cars per day, up from 52 per day; Freeman Avenue is an unpaved road; and to suggest that adding over 1,000 traffic trips per day would not be an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood is ignoring the real problem. He stated reducing to 25 dogs still leaves 25 dogs there indefinitely, which is a kennel; his clients made a trip to the County-run kennels and found them to be outstanding facilities; the dogs are not kept outside overnight; and they have not become nuisances by way of noise or odors; but nothing is indicated in the stipulations that they would control any of these, other than reducing to 25 dogs over a six-month period as there is already someone who has a certificate of occupancy and is living in his home. He stated his clients request this application for land use change and rezoning be denied in spite of the sympathy for the activity, which is a good activity, but not in the right place.

Mr. Torpy stated this neighborhood is mixed; it is not residential and not commercial; and they know the history of the neighborhood as does Commissioner Carlson and others. He stated the P&Z Board and staff have looked at this; it is an appropriate use in the neighborhood if brought under control; and if it is brought down to 25 dogs, they can be appropriately cared for. He stated number 6 of the October 30, 2002 memorandum deals with the issue of proper maintenance and housing of dogs; his clients will also adhere to any other sanitary conditions required by the County when they receive an occupational license; and there are Code provisions in place. He stated if dogs are barking too loud or are allowed to run
free, there are Codes in place for Code Enforcement to deal with those issues; so every item raised as far as impact on the neighbors can be dealt with appropriately through existing Code Enforcement and Animal Control methods. He stated they are asking for zoning; commercially zoned property surrounds the land; there is residential use, but the people have intentionally built homes where property is already zoned commercial; and moving into those areas knowing there is commercially-zoned property results in these issues al the time. He stated the Board is the one stuck with sorting the problem out; and he does not envy that job. He stated this is not about being sympathetic; this is about land use rights for everyone involved; the Board typically in the past has taken difficult issues and buffered those impacts to protect surrounding neighbors; but at the same time, the Board has allowed an appropriate use. He stated this is a wholly appropriate use if it is kept under control; it is a new attempt to take care of the problem of pets in the community that have been abandoned; it is allowing for more of an outdoor use, not requiring the dogs to be contained in a facility; and this is an enlightened approach. He stated there is one neighbor living there and maybe as many as two more balanced against the interests of Ms. Cullen and Ms. Webber and their attempt to do a humanitarian act on the property. He stated it is clearly in the right area; the Board has been given all the conditions to support the rezoning; and it becomes an issue of what the Board decides to do; and the best way to deal with the issues is through a binding development agreement. He stated the alternative is to deny the zoning; Code Enforcement already has an action; they have agreed they are in violation; and they will still have to find a way to appropriately deal with the dogs. He stated he does not think anyone wants to see the dogs euthanized if there is an alternative solution; and the solution they have brought out will not make everyone happy; but Ms. Cullen and Ms. Webber would prefer to continue to operate to save as many dogs as possible. He stated they realize they are in the wrong place; and it may not have been a well-reasoned or properly-informed idea to do it where they are; however, this gives a good solution to the problem; and requested the Board consider the binding development agreement he laid out.

Chairman Scarborough stated he was under the impression that if the number of dogs could be defined the Board was pretty close to having something; and inquired what is the Code Enforcement action. Commissioner Carlson stated that is having the dogs in front of the house. Mr. Enos advised the issue was brought to the Special Master. Chairman Scarborough reiterated what was the issue that brought the Code violation; with Ms. Busacca responding they have a kennel without the proper zoning; currently four dogs are permitted to live in a single-family home; and because Ms. Webber has more than that, there is a violation.

Mr. Torpy stated the issue is the number of dogs; four is all that is allowed in a residential zoning; and there have been varying numbers of dogs, but it has grown up to approximately 75 dogs, which is clearly a violation. He stated by rezoning to BU-2 and allowing a kennel, the use would come into compliance; kennels do not have a restriction on the number of animals; so what it comes down to is the number of dogs. He stated they need to find an appropriate number of dogs that can be properly contained and also allow for the ones to be adopted out as soon as possible; and that is why they requested 25, which is as low as they can get considering the dogs that are there now.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it was an attempt to come into compliance; with Mr. Torpy responding they are trying to find a solution to the problem.

Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Coleman comment. Mr. Coleman stated Mr. Torpy accurately stated the issue is the number of dogs; Section 62-2113 limits it to four dogs for any zoning in which residential use is permitted; and that is why they had to request commercial use, which could permit a kennel. He stated the problem is they have a single-family home within a commercial zoning that they are still trying to live in and maintain the dogs; at a prior meeting the Board looked for guidance on what was needed for a kennel; but the Code was silent with no minimum criteria, so solutions have been offered to allow a kennel and a single-family home within a commercial zone, keeping all the dogs. He stated this is just a way of getting out of the Code Enforcement violation; and his clients would not have a problem working to get rid of the dogs. He stated the appropriate action is not to change the zoning on the property, but work with the owners to get them conforming and down to four dogs. Chairman Scarborough stated if this was not a dog issue, he would have to note there is BU-2 out there in the area. Commissioner Carlson stated looking at it strictly by the zoning, one could say it is compatible; and if it was possible to chip away the emotional aspects on both sides, one could say it is a zoning issue because it is backed up against BU-2. Chairman Scarborough inquired if a client walked in and said he was living next to a place that was BU-2, what would Mr. Coleman say in that case. Mr. Coleman stated he would advise them in theory there could be a kennel there; but what he is dealing with is that at least one of his clients has a home that existed before the zoning changes; and it was residential. Chairman Scarborough stated normally he goes to the zoning map to see if there is other zoning like what is being requested or whether it is out of place and should not be there; but in this case he was not able to do that; from the beginning people have been talking about happy dogs, whether the applicant is a nice lady; and inquired if he is supposed to be looking at issues like that in zoning. Mr. Coleman stated the applicant purchased the property as a single-family home; the Wheelers built on their property when it was all residential out there; but it has become mixed use with some BU. Commissioner Carlson stated it was mostly GU; with Mr. Coleman agreeing.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has struggled with the emotional side of this issue; what has been presented is a reasonable compromise because she is not sure there is a win/win situation on this issue; but what they are suggesting is keeping residential on the front and the back portion of the lot rezoned to BU-2 to allow for the care of the dogs. She stated Mr. Torpy laid out in terms of taking care of them, abiding by the base criteria in the memorandum from Mr. Engelson with Animal Control, and a reverter clause if Ms. Webber does not abide by the binding development plan, that the property would go back to residential and four dogs; and inquired if the Board can do that. Attorney Bentley advised the reverter part is problematic as it would be necessary to go through the public hearing process to rezone. Commissioner Higgs stated it could still be included; with Attorney Bentley advising it could say if it occurs, the Board is authorized to initiate administrative rezoning, which would put everyone on notice. Commissioner Carlson stated what she understands from the proposal is that 25 dogs would be the maximum; there would be a two-year time frame to get to that number unless someone pulled a certificate of occupancy for a home; and in that case, there would be a six-month time period to get to 25 dogs, no matter how many dogs were there.

Chairman Scarborough stated the certificate of occupancy is the last act before they turn the electricity on; it is known the CO is coming because the building permit was issued; and he would never trigger something with a CO instead of a building permit. He stated he is concerned about the document itself, and does not think it is outreaching to the neighbors. Mr. Torpy stated he is not saying the proposal does not need work; but he was trying to get something to the Board tonight to get close and worked out. He stated Animal Control recognizes that it takes as much as six months to adopt out these types of dogs; and he did not think that putting a six-month period of time from pulling a building permit would allow it to get done; he understands Mr. Coleman’s position that there is a home already across the street; and he is not going to address that because that home is in GU adjacent to BU, but there may be additional people coming in. He stated that gives them the time period for the construction of the home; it allows a little more time to adopt the dogs out; and someone could build a home out there in one year from the time they get the building permit or three months. He stated the difficulty in adopting out the dogs in haste is that the adoptions do not work; and everyone wants to make sure these adoptions are successful and that the new owners do not abandon the dogs.

Commissioner Colon reiterated she does not see a compromise; she is fully aware of the kinds of dogs they have; she knows some are old or have illnesses and cannot be adopted out, and is sensitive to that; but she could never agree to the CO. She stated the facility is not capable of having the kennel scenario described because it is a home; if it was turned into a commercial use, it would have to have site plans; there is cost involved with that; and inquired if Mr. Torpy’s clients are aware of that. She stated she had discussions in her office with Ms. Webber; it would have to be commercial because one could not keep 25 dogs in a home and think it was okay, because it definitely is not; therefore, there would need to be discussion about the site plan. She stated if they are willing to talk about real things and how they can go about discussing it, she is willing to talk because then there will be real compromise. Mr. Torpy stated Commissioner Colon may have missed the point of his binding development agreement; they agree that upon obtaining the zoning, they will get all necessary permits; in order to get an occupational license, they will have to meet any conditions imposed by the County based on site planning; and that is why he specifically put that in the binding development agreement. He stated there are going to be terms and conditions to make sure the dogs are housed sanitarily and safely for the sake of the dogs and the surrounding residents; that is part of the permitting and licensing process; it is something that cannot be dealt with, and typically is not dealt with at the Board level; but that is a specific term of the binding development agreement. Commissioner Colon stated one of the things that has been an issue in the past is money; the Board waived the fee to come before it; and she wants to be sure everyone is being realistic. She stated she is sympathetic to what is going on there; but the Board needs to make sure it protects the quality of life for the folks in the area. She stated the Board must be fair; in talking about compromises, she does not want to hear excuses a few months down the line that there is no money and things cannot be done; and she does not want Ms. Webber to come back asking for waivers because that is not fair. She stated this has been tabled at least four times; it is hard on everybody; she wants the Board to be as realistic as possible; and she is uncomfortable about the commitment to be able to completely follow the kind of contract that is being talked about.

Mr. Torpy stated when they reviewed the memo from Animal Control, there were many conditions for taking care of animals; they are content to meet those conditions; that is why he specifically made that part of the presentation at the onset; and he may be missing the concern.

Commissioner Colon stated running a kennel is not easy; there are issues at the County’s own adoption center that the County took over in January 2002; and inquired what kind of commitment is Mr. Torpy talking about. She stated she wants to be sure everybody is being realistic; she is talking about having staff, employees, volunteers, etc.; and it is hard to be able to get something going with a kennel.

Mr. Torpy stated he appreciates everything Commissioner Colon said, but he wants to get back to the issue of zoning. He stated they agree this is not an easy undertaking, but they are requesting zoning that is compatible with the surrounding community and have offered numerous conditions. He stated the reason they are bringing the number down to 25 is because there are 25 dogs that are aged or for other reasons are not adoptable; they are agreeing to comply with the stipulations of paragraph 6 of the memo about how dogs must be taken care of; and Ms. Webber’s comment was that she already does more than what is required. He stated the Board sometimes forgets that once it zones, there are things in place through Code Enforcement, through occupational licenses, and through various boards and divisions of the County to make sure people not only construct according to the existing County Code, but continue to comply with the Code. He stated that is Phase 2; if the Board grants the zoning and Ms. Webber and Ms. Cullen do not comply with the conditions and terms of the zoning and housing of the dogs, other divisions will step in such as Code Enforcement; and commented on the previous Code Enforcement action. He stated the Board has staff recommendations; it has the Planning and Zoning Board recommendations; this is compatible and consistent with the Land Use Code; and they meet all of the criteria in the Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan for rezoning. He requested the Board approve the rezoning subject to the binding development agreement as outlined. He stated he understands there may be some things where language needs to be better; he put this together after some conversations today; and suggested a motion to approve, subject to getting an acceptable binding development agreement, which could be brought back to the Board for final approval next month.

Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Torpy and Ms. Webber came to her office yesterday; he mentioned they were trying to work on a binding development plan and couple of the criteria including the fence and buffer; but she made no commitment to them.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this were the Humane Society or an SPCA requesting a change of zoning to build a shelter, would the Board find this an appropriate place for a shelter. He stated that train of thinking may get the Board down to the answer it is seeking. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board had exactly that scenario; and it was pulled because there was so much neighborhood resentment that it could not proceed forward. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the SPCA in Titusville had a problem also; with Chairman Scarborough responding not at all. Commissioner O'Brien stated these are the kinds of things the Board will draw from this conversation in order to look at the bigger picture; and inquired if this was a national organization, would the Board be looking at it differently or would it say no because it is an inappropriate place for this type of use. He inquired what is different about the Humane Society; do they actually build an enclosed building with kennels and cages to take care of the adoptable animals; is there a difference; and should the Board care.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is nobody to talk to the Code violation issues; and inquired how much time Ms. Webber has been given to come up to speed on the violations. Ms. Busacca stated the Special Master said no more animals are to be put on the site, and that the time for compliance would be dependent upon the Board’s decision. Commissioner Carlson stated to get an occupational license with use changes involves cost; there has to be a site plan; and requested staff explain some of those details. Ms. Busacca stated to get an occupational license would require a change of use review, which would require that the project meet all the requirements of BU-2 including impact fees, site plan requirements, parking requirements, and all that, before an occupational license would be issued. Commissioner Carlson stated she met with Mr. Torpy and Ms. Webber today; they did not bring up the issue that Ms. Busacca described, but it was brought up last time; Commissioner Colon has a serious concern about the ability of Ms. Webber and Ms. Cullen to be able to put up the money to do the things she wants to do and the timeframe; and she also has concern. She stated Commissioner O'Brien raises a good question, whether this is an appropriate place for a kennel looking at it strictly on zoning; and she does not have an issue with the BU-2 although she did at the beginning. She stated she listened to the constituents in terms of wanting to build a home, but the property is all GU; when Ms. Webber looked at the property, she thought it was an ideal location and did not know enough about zoning to apply for rezoning at the time; she began collecting dogs, and put herself in a serious situation; and she does not know if there is a reasonable solution other than giving Ms. Webber some time to adopt out the dogs to appropriate homes where the animals will be taken care of, which takes time. She stated she understands Ms. Webber is not taking in any more animals at this time based on the Special Master’s direction, and that she has reduced her numbers by approximately 10; but she is not sure of the reasonableness. She stated there are a lot of questions; there are property rights; there are people living there; and there are people who want to live there. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board can deny and give Ms. Webber a longer time to adopt out the dogs or it can allow her to go this road; but there should be some guarantees in terms of the cost to apply for the occupational license and go through all those things that will cost a lot of money.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not a money issue; it is an issue of whether it is an appropriate place for an animal shelter; and anything else is inconsequential. He stated he does not know what the answer is; people who are living in houses in close proximity are saying they do not want animals there; the Board has always been very pro-animal and for animal rights; so the Board is in a hard spot because people have personal property rights that the Board should be defending, but what Ms. Webber is doing is a wonderful thing.

Chairman Scarborough stated the question is whether this is the place for it; and there are a lot of good things, but maybe not in this particular place.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Future Land Use Map calls for Neighborhood Commercial in this area; it has been in place for a good while; so it is not a new assumption that there would be commercial in the area. She stated all over the map, on both sides of the railroad, there are BU-1 and BU-2 uses north and south of the parcel; and the Board needs to focus not on the auxiliary issues, but the question of the land use that should be there and the zoning. She stated the Board does not ask people who are coming before it for zoning about site planning issues, financial conditions, or anything else; the Board is here to look at zoning; and the Board should ask what is the proper zoning.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has the old binding development plan, but not the one Mr. Torpy was referencing; and inquired if it was handed out; with Commissioner Carlson responding it was from the last time when the Board requested to look at the options and have staff come back with suggestions. Mr. Torpy advised there is not a new version in front of the Board. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Torpy has put together a draft; with Mr. Torpy responding no. Mr. Torpy stated what he has came from conversations in the last couple of days, looking at the old one, and looking at the zoning issue specifically. Chairman Scarborough stated a word here and a word there can bring something that is total disagreement into an agreement; he does not know if Mr. Coleman is going to agree to anything more than four dogs; but he is at a disadvantage tonight because the Board has items he has not seen. He stated he cannot proceed until he sees more details of an agreement and allow Mr. Coleman the opportunity to review the agreement; and there may be a moment when everyone can come together. He expressed concern about the continuation of dogs until a trigger event; that could create a problem for the Board; so Mr. Torpy needs to go back to his client to address these things and the thing Commissioner Colon referenced. He stated the question is whether it is after someone gets a CO next door or does it have to be done immediately; and if it is not done immediately, what are the ramifications there.

Mr. Torpy stated those things can be worked out; with regard to Commissioner Colon’s comments, as soon as they get the zoning, they have to get an occupational license, which means meeting the site planning requirements of the County and spending money right away; and they have to meet all those conditions. He stated as soon as they get the zoning, they will go through the application process; they have not done that because they cannot get an occupational license in the current GU zoning; so it is a Catch 22 situation. He stated he knows what is wanted; he was hoping to get a motion tonight to approve the zoning, which is why he referenced the specific details of the binding development agreement; and the only delay is in bringing the dogs from 75 down to 25, which is a practical matter. He stated everything else is based on receiving the zoning, and then moving forward immediately.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to see the language. Mr. Torpy responded sure, and if there is anything else, he would like to hear it from the Board tonight. Ms. Busacca stated she understands that they will proceed immediately to get an occupational license; but there is something on the Agenda this evening that has been tabled for six months for someone trying to get a site plan approval; and she would appreciate the Board giving staff direction on how long it would give to put the site plan together, so that two years from now, it will not still be in the process and not being completed.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired before sending the applicants back with an agreement, does the Board agree that it is going to approve the zoning, or is the Board just making them spin their wheels until next time.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is of the opinion that there is probably some place an agreement can exist where it can rationally move to a limited number of animals on the property. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Chairman Scarborough is saying he could support a motion for rezoning; with Chairman Scarborough responding no, not based on what has been said this evening. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if he could if an agreement came forward; with Chairman Scarborough responding there may be some grounds that he would go for a binding development agreement; he is not ready to say BU-2 should not be there; and that is his problem. He stated if he agrees to BU-2, he knows there will be animals there; and he knows the dynamics of having animals and not wanting to euthanize them; but he does not know how to get from here to there in the agreement.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the past with BU-2 a lot of times the Board has seen a concept plan or something like that ahead of time because that addresses some of the fears and concerns of the neighborhood; but she does not know if that is a possibility. She stated the concern Commissioner Colon brings up and the fact that there is nothing on paper are concerns; the issue of the cost was her big concern last time; but there is a chance there could be a compromise. She stated the Board needs to see things in writing; and she does not know if this is the right place for this sort of facility, but it is there. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if he moved next door and started doing some, could he get zoning because he is already there; with Commissioner Carlson responding no necessarily. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is what the Board is doing here; and inquired what is different.

Commissioner Higgs stated her consideration on this item is the land use and what would be appropriate land use, not what is there; and that is what the Board needs to focus on.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they saying BU-2 may be proper; with Commissioner Carlson responding looking at the Land Use Map, there is BU-2, GU, and GML. Commissioner O'Brien stated before the Board sends the applicants on their way, it should know what road it is traveling down. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not saying how she will vote because she wants to see some particular details; but the Future Land Use Map in this area is commercial. Commissioner Carlson stated it has already started out with BU-2. Commissioner O'Brien stated an animal shelter is commercial. Commissioner Higgs stated the issue is where a kennel is allowed; and it is allowed in BU-2 and IU. Commissioner Carlson inquired what will be brought back. Chairman Scarborough stated he not only wants to have the agreement but to make sure that Mr. Coleman gets it weeks in advance before it comes to the Board so his people will have a chance to work on it and go back to Mr. Torpy to see if there can be some agreement; just to bring it back to the Board will result in it being tabled because the Board does not govern by surprise; and the Board is going to let the people play a role.

Mr. Torpy stated he is comfortable with the idea of doing a binding development agreement in writing; he could have it done in seven days and could circulate it to Mr. Coleman to look at with his clients; and recommended the Board impose a deadline on Mr. Coleman to get back to him so he is not getting responses the day before the next meeting with no time to respond. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will need to give a date that allows enough time. Mr. Torpy stated that is the concern; he wants to be sure if he sends it to Mr. Coleman, that his people get it back to him; Mr. Coleman had said he wants four dogs and that is it; and if that is their position there is no room for compromise. He stated frequently he is faced with saying he cannot compromise further; he is happy to take a shot at it and put it in writing to circulate to the Board and staff; and he is happy to give it to Mr. Coleman at the same time; but he cannot assure the second part of the equation is going to occur and he will be able to come back in 30 or 60 days with an agreement. Chairman Scarborough advised if the residents do not elect to respond, they do not; but they have the opportunity.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make clear she would not want any more than 25 dogs on that property; even if the applicants built a soundproof building, they are talking about smell and sound; she has been told 75 dogs do not make noise at night; but she has a small dog that anyone would think is huge, so they cannot tell her that 75 dogs do not bark. She reiterated her concern that there be no more than 25 dogs; stated these are the kinds of dogs that no one else will want; and that is why she wants to make sure there is some kind of compromise and also able to protect the citizens who live there. She stated the residents need to be a part of this to make sure they are not affected by smell or sound or any of those concerns; she is not willing to support anything more than 25 animals because otherwise it will be an adoption center, and that is not what is being allowed. She stated they are allowing a little compassion for the dogs; and reiterated 25 is the maximum number.

Chairman Scarborough suggested tabling to the January 2003 meeting; with Mr. Enos advising the next meeting after December 5, 2002 is February 6, 2003. Mr. Torpy advised he will be out of town from November 26, 2002 to January 6, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 3 to February 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Sheahan requested return of her submittal as it is the only copy she has. Chairman Scarborough returned her submittal to her.

The meeting recessed at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 7:16 p.m.

Item 4. (Z0209404) SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.’s request for a cup for cemetery and mausoleum in an AU zone, retaining the existing BDP, and removing the existing CUP for Cemetery on 18.9 acres located on the west side of US 1 opposite and immediately south of Helmsman Place, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with the condition that the 20-foot wide vegetative buffer along the north property line be replaced, per the previous BDP, with an earthen berm eight feet high and native vegetation with eight-foot trees and proper irrigation.

Housh Ghovaee of Northside Engineering, representing SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., stated last month they came to the Board requesting a conditional use permit or modification of the existing conditional use permit to include a mausoleum in an AU zone; and per the Board’s request and continuation of the project, they worked with the neighborhood to come up with an agreement; and he believes everyone is happy. He stated Mr. Merwarth has been diligent and creative in working with the neighborhood; and submitted a handout for the Board’s information.

Noel Merwarth, representing SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., stated they met with the residents of Indian River Isles, and discussed different items about which there were concerns; they addressed those items; and there is full agreement to move ahead with the project. He offered to show the Board what was reviewed and done.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the height of the mausoleums has been reduced. Mr. Merwarth stated the original building height was 21.5 feet; and displayed an elevation drawing, a copy of which is in the Board’s package. He stated Exhibit C shows they cut the elevation of the slope between two and five feet and used part of the earth to build berms to help raise the elevation of the landscaping to help shield the visibility of the mausoleum; and they also have extensive landscaping that includes several buffer areas that would help. He stated there are two landscape drawings; Exhibit A is the overall site; and the second drawing, Exhibit B, is the detail of the first drawing giving a better view of what they are going to do next to the mausoleums. He stated they created several buffer areas starting next to the highway; there are a berm and buffer on US 1; and then there is a row of oak trees that are 30 feet on center; with alternating trees 50 feet on center on the opposite side of the driveway, with a repeat on the south side to shield the view coming down the highway. He pointed out the berm and landscaping are near the highway to shield the view coming down the highway. He pointed out the berm and landscaping, the conservation area, and the berm and landscaping by the mausoleum.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Merwarth is representing particular heights and dbh on the trees; with Mr. Merwarth responding the oak trees would be live oaks; there are 108 of them between 14 and 16 feet; some of them are planted 30 feet on center and some are 50 feet on center; there are also some sabal palms, which are 12 to 16 feet, as well as some ligustrums; and the palms are interspersed between the oak trees to give a native natural look. He stated they have added the ligustrum standards as a kind of understory to help break up the view; and pointed out the area where they will be planted. He stated they are also proposing to plant 577 hedge plants on a 24-inch center; and they would run along the highway on the berm as well as along the berm that is adjacent to the mausoleum complex. He stated they have also told the community that they are doing Phase 1 mausoleum now, but are requesting the whole site; and they will be landscaping the whole area in the first phase. He stated the mausoleums will be phased in over the years; but the landscape will come in the first phase.

Commissioner Higgs stated generally the County measures trees at diameter at breast height; and inquired if the 12 to 14 feet is going to work in terms of knowing exactly what will be planted. Ms. Busacca stated when talking about the height of a tree, there is also discussion of a certain grade, which lets the County know it is not getting tiny sticks. Mr. Merwarth responded this would be Florida Grade 1 landscape material; and it would be staked and planted according to Code. He stated they will meet all the requirements and will not put something out there that the wind is going to destroy.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the 14 to 16-foot oaks are four inches in diameter; with Mr. Merwarth responding he does not know that they will be quite four inches, but they could run two to three inches, which is the standard. Commissioner Carlson stated the concern is that they not be little sticks. Commissioner Higgs stated it is measured in Code as dbh; these numbers are not consistent with what is in some of the County’s landscaping regulations; and inquired if it makes a difference. Ms. Busacca stated because this is a binding development plan, typically it is the Board’s practice to bring it back anyway; and staff could have the landscape people explain what that means and make sure everyone is comfortable with that and that they are not putting in sticks and twigs.

Thad Altman stated there have been a couple of discussions with the cemetery representatives; they are quite pleased with their efforts and what they are proposing to do; and it appears they are working hard to be a good neighbor. He stated Commissioner Higgs’ idea is good; height and dbh are good to specify; Florida Grade 1 is good, although not the nicest; but it is nice landscape material; and he agrees with the applicant that it would be good. He stated it appears the new owners want the cemetery to be an attractive place and be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood; and they appreciate that the Board gave them the opportunity to get together.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Altman orchestrated getting the group together; with Mr. Altman responding his brother did most of the calling. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Altman saw a draft of the binding development plan; with Mr. Altman responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Altman realizes there are a couple of things that are in the Indian River Isles memorandum that are not in the binding development agreement; with Mr. Altman responding no. Commissioner Carlson stated one is the issue under lease agreement for the billboard, which she does not know if it can be put in a binding development plan; and it seems that everything else is in. Commissioner Higgs stated it says it is going to run through 2006; with Commissioner Carlson advising that is just the memorandum, not the binding development plan. Mr. Altman advised he has only seen the memorandum, not the binding development plan. Commissioner Carlson stated she asked for a draft to see what it would look like; and what is in the memorandum needs to be reflected in the binding development plan.

Chairman Scarborough stated binding development plans are being brought back; they were getting lost from what the Board’s intention was to what was actually adopted; and the Board could ask for the additional language to be incorporated, giving the community a chance to look at it, and if there is a need, to make a correction. Mr. Altman stated it looked good; the only thing he did not see in the memorandum was agreeing not to provide driveway access to US 1; but he assumes that will be covered as the buffer is shown.

T. A. Altman stated he saw the plan and thinks it is good; however, Commissioner Higgs came up with a good suggestion. He stated a number 1 plant is supposed to be a good plant, but it should specify the height and width; and suggested that it be at least a six to eight-foot spread. He stated the live oak is the best oak; and thanked the Board and representatives of the cemetery for working with the community on this. He stated there was a problem with the previous owners; and suggested before they get their CO, the landscaping be inspected and approved.

Jim Harvey stated he agrees with the presentation, and appreciates Commissioner Higgs for bringing up the point about the oak trees because the height proposed was 14 to 16 feet not 12 to 14 feet; and the diameter of those trees is going to be significantly more than two to three inches. He stated he has seen some of the twigs people have put up; he appreciates Commissioner Higgs for recommending dbh be listed; and he wishes the Board would follow through on that.

Alex Altman waived the opportunity to speak.

T. A. Altman stated on the previous parcel, the buffer was not adequately taken care of; and the gentleman he talked to said he would get with him when they start construction and take care of it.

Mr. Merwarth thanked everyone for their time; and stated they would be amenable to any of the changes mentioned for the binding agreement.

Chairman Scarborough stated it may be good to get with the group in the back of the room to get the ideas together; this agreement needs to come back to the Board; and if everyone gets their ideas together, there will probably be fewer changes as the Board gets closer to doing it. He stated the Board will take action on the item tonight, but will review the binding development agreement separately.

Housh Ghovaee inquired if it would be possible to submit the construction plans to the Building Department while the binding agreement is being worked on. Mr. Enos advised the zoning does not take effect until the binding development plan is recorded; and typically the site plan staff will not take a site plan application unless the zoning is approved. Chairman Scarborough stated the answer is no, but this is not unique to this application; as every binding development plan comes back to the Board in final form for a final review. Mr. Ghovaee inquired if it cannot even be reviewed; and advised time is ticking and it is an important issue with State laws. Mr. Enos advised the Board has allowed that to happen at its discretion, although site planning policy is not to do that. Chairman Scarborough advised it would be at the risk that the whole thing could fall apart; with Mr. Ghovaee responding they are willing to take that risk; it takes a little time to review; and the permits will not be issued until the binding development agreement is agreed upon, but at least it is letting time work for them.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the fees would be paid upfront; with Commissioner Carlson responding they would have to pay the fees upfront. Mr. Ghovaee stated he has no problem with that.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 4 with Binding Development Plan to be returned to the Board on the December 3, 2002 Consent Agenda; and approve beginning the site plan review process. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 1. (Z0210301) Mark A. and Mary J. Taglione’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.07 acres located on the north side of Farnworth Avenue, approximately 300 feet west of Corey Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mary Taglione stated she and her husband Mark are requesting their property which is 2.07 acres be rezoned from agriculture to RR-1; the property meets all the requirements of RR-1; and the reason for the request is to be able to build a single-family residence on one acre. She stated when she reviewed the setbacks on the RR-1 sheet, it said the minimum lot size was one acre, having a width of not less than 125 feet and a depth of not less than 200 feet; and they meet those requirements.

David Gasperini stated everyone on the street has considerably more property than what the Tagliones will have if they split the property; and he opposes the request as it would make the value of their properties go down.

Gary Gasperini stated he opposes the request; there are several houses in the neighborhood that have mother-in-law houses attached or on the same properties; this would allow them to reduce their property size, throw in another driveway, and put two houses on properties that by a very old deed restriction need 1.5 acres for building; and he is afraid if the Board approves this, that they will be squeezing more houses onto smaller pieces of property. He stated he moved to Valkaria to get away from the Palm Bay/Port Malabar type of housing; and he has an old deed that requires 1.5 acres to build; so, he is opposing the request.

Barbara Klingler stated the Tagliones have been good neighbors; she sold them the property where they originally lived at 1295 Farnsworth; and the reason they bought it was to have a large piece of property. She stated she came from Ft. Lauderdale; everyone knows how squeezed everyone is there; she bought her property in 1993; there was no road; they put the road in; and they sold property to the Tagliones in 1994. She stated they built a beautiful home, and inquired about buying additional property behind them; they did not buy the additional property; but everyone has the same goal in Valkaria, which is to have a large spread-out area. She stated Commissioner Higgs met in her log home at the end of Farnsworth Avenue when they were trying to avoid the paving of that road to slow the development in the area; and the Tagliones attended that meeting and were in favor of slowing the development. She stated since living in their home at 1294 Farnsworth, they also bought three acres in Grant and said they were going to move, downsize, and build there; and the reason for a lot of this is that Mr. Taglione had some problems with his back and recently became Medicare disabled, which limits ones income. She stated Mr. Taglione sold his home and purchased the house at 1580 Farnworth from Mrs. Farnsworth, who built the house 30 years ago; Ms. Farnsworth hated to see the area get built up; and she recently moved to the west coast. She stated even in her 70’s Ms. Farnsworth did not divide the property, but leased it out as pasture land since she did not need that kind of acreage. She stated since then the Tagliones bought 12 acres in Live Oak, and are in the process of moving goods up there on the weekends; they have a manufactured home already on the property; and their interests are not really in Valkaria except for financial interests. She stated most of the residents have at least 1.5 acres; and some people have two or three pieces of property just so people cannot build up all around them. She stated no one attended the P&Z meeting to contest the rezoning because they were not aware of it; the notification area is 500 feet, so very few properties were aware of it until it was posted; and when it was posted, they called Planning and Zoning and sent letters. She stated she is also representing Mr. McGinley who had a family emergency, but sent a letter; and the Berisfords who purchased the Tagliones first house also sent a letter. She stated the reason they moved to Valkaria was to have some acreage; if they start taking two-acre plots and splitting them in half, it is just going to get smaller; and they do not want precedent to be set. She stated the property next to them is RR-1; the man did that to build a mother-in-law suite; but this is strictly a financial move on the part of the Tagliones as they have no intention of living in Valkaria. She stated they say they are going to sell the Farnsworth residence and keep the second piece of property for a single-family home; but when people have land, they want more; and she cannot see them moving from 12 acres in Live Oak back to one acre. She stated RR-1 is not compatible; it is strictly a financial move; and she hopes the Board listens to the constituents who are going to live there and not the people who are only going for financial profit.

Lee Klingler stated the reason they came from Ft. Lauderdale was to get away from population density; when they built in 1996, they had to produce a paper saying their land was platted before 1972 to allow them to build on 1.5 acre; and if he had not had that paper, he would have needed 2.5 acres to build there. He stated he opposes the rezoning.

David Lockhart stated when he moved to Farnsworth Avenue, it was his first home; he and his wife moved there with their son, they recently had a daughter, and they plan to keep expanding their family; and one of the reasons they chose the Valkaria area was because it is a widespread area. He stated Farnsworth Avenue is a dead-end street; there is no high volume of traffic; when he first moved to Florida, he lived in a similar area, but it was zoned RR-1; he saw it build up tremendously; and he would hate to see anything like that happen to the area he is in now. He stated the Tagliones have been very good neighbors; when they needed to move, they did purchase at the end of Farnsworth and remained in the neighborhood; and that was admirable of them. He stated if they are planning to move now, he can see that they would like to have a little piece of land to come back to; but unfortunately that is opening a can of worms. He stated they prefer to keep the properties the way they are set now; it is a very safe environment and a wonderful area to raise a family; in the area he originally lived in, there is not an empty space left; his father lives in that neighborhood now, and he will not let his child play in the front yard there because it is not safe. He stated where he lives now, he feels safe with his children playing outside; and he opposes the rezoning.

Manuel Poveda stated he lives in the neighborhood they have been talking about; he does not personally know the Tagliones as he just moved to the neighborhood; and he has a petitioned signed by 28 residents who oppose the rezoning.

Mary Taglione stated she does intend on staying on Farnsworth Avenue; her neighbors assume a bit much; they built their dream home at the end of Farnsworth, but her husband had medical conditions that forced them to sell the house; and they liked the neighborhood so much that they bought the oldest home on the street, which is not quite big enough for their family. She stated they did have plans to move to North Florida; that fell through; her neighbors have not talked to her or her husband; and she did not know so many people were opposed to this. She stated she has been employed for over 12 years with a company, and plans to stay there; and they would like to rezone the property, which meets the minimum requirements.

Mark Taglione stated all the parcels on the street are actually 1.39 acres; what they have is 2.07 acres; and they are just asking to be able to split the 2.07 acres and put a house on what Ms. Klingler was saying was the pasture land. He stated the house would face the lake; to the east of them are two houses set up the same way; and he does not see how it would degrade the value in the neighborhood because they are not asking to put a trailer on the land. He stated they are going to build a new house; they live in Betty Farnsworth’s house that is 32 years old; they did that for financial and medical reasons; and he does not think it is anyone’s business about the property in Live Oak. He stated things have changed; his wife is still employed in Melbourne; she has been employed by that company for 12 years; and they do not plan to move now. He stated no one talked to them or asked them anything about what they planned to do; and they just showed up tonight. He noted they posted the orange notice on the telephone pole at the front gate over two months ago; so people are wrong in saying they did not know about it. He stated he talked to everybody, but nobody said anything about not liking the idea; and he did not know that anybody would even show up tonight. He explained his medical problems involving two neck surgeries and one back surgery; and stated they wanted to split the property so that in the future, they would be able to sell the older house. He stated Ms. Farnsworth’s house is on over an acre of land; he lived in Palm Bay for 17 years, and it has quarter-acre lots; and they are not looking to bring the area down. He stated the other residents have 1.39 acres; but some have wetlands and other things that do not allow them to build so really all they have are their houses and the use of acre parcels; and on his property the whole acre or over is all usable. He stated the property faces Farnsworth Avenue, and meets the requirements in the width. He commented on the roads, housing values, plans to build a new house, and their sale of their previous house and move to Ms. Farnsworth’s house. He stated they did buy other land in North Florida, but that has since fallen through; they do not plan on moving; and no one came to talk to them as neighbors, as he thought they would.

Commissioner Colon stated she does not know how the Board is going to vote; but it is always uncomfortable to see neighbors come to this. She stated one thing that was said again and again was that the Tagliones are good folks; and no matter what happens, she hopes it does mess up their friendship. She stated she hopes everyone can work out their differences, no matter what happens.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has seen the issue of dividing AU lots and making them RR-1 before; and she has been consistently concerned about that because of several things. She stated one thing is incompatibility of sizes; if the property goes to one acre, it is one acre with the rest of the lots being more than 30% different in size; and she does not find those compatible. She stated even more than that is the potential incompatibility of uses; RR-1 is a rural residential use that is more of a suburban residential use than AU; and AU has many uses, some of which are not compatible with the urban pattern that RR-1 establishes. She stated there are a couple of RR-1 lots there, but the clear pattern in the area is AU, which is agriculture, requiring 2.5 acres in most cases, although those are pre-existing AU lots. She stated AU should be maintained in the area because of the uses and compatibility of the sizes; and her motion would be to deny the request. She stated she knows the P&Z Board did not make that recommendation, but it is consistent with what the Board has done and with what she has recommended in the past.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0210302) Old Catholic Church in America’s request for CUP for a Church in an SR zone, removing the existing CUP for a Residential Social Service Facility on 1.57 acres located on the southwest corner of Florida Avenue and Dairy Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired was there a request from a neighbor to table this item; with Commissioner Higgs responding there was a request received from the abutting property owner who was not able to be here and was not able to have the expert witness attend. She stated she received that letter a week or more ago and sent it to Father Conway who is the applicant; and recommended allowing both parties to speak. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can table the item if it wishes at any time. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to take testimony from those who are present; it has been the practice of the Board to table items when the applicant has asked in advance; and while there is no policy to do that when there is notice from an abutting property owner, it would be fair when there is notice they cannot be here with their witnesses and expert. She stated she talked to Father Conway and Mr. Tsamoutales. Commissioner O'Brien stated Father Conway has the option to agree to the tabling; and inquired if the Board takes testimony now and tables it, will it have to hear testimony again; with Chairman Scarborough responding there is the opportunity for testimony at every meeting.

Father David Conway, Rector of St. Peter’s Old Catholic Church, stated today the Board is being asked to table their application for a CUP, which has been in process since June 20, 2002, based on a scheduling conflict, specifically that an expert whose expertise is still unknown was unable to attend the meeting this evening. He stated he made his presentation at the October 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board meeting; he is now being told that due to a conflict in scheduling the author of the petition before the Board today could not attend; and in the same letter the author advises he writes on behalf of himself and his neighbors, which begs the question where were the neighbors on October 7, 2002. He inquired if they are to believe that everyone had a conflict of interest on October 7, and in a country of 300 million Americans, not one person could present to the P&Z Board an explanation as to why there should be a tabling of his application. He stated that is not the case; and the case is one neighbor does not want him to develop the property. He stated this is a tiresome process; they brought their initial application to the Zoning Department and asked what future land use would be and what their opportunities would be to develop the property; and initially they were told it could be rezoned commercial. He stated he is not saying the Department misled him, but an error was made; and days before he was to post the sign, he received a call telling him there was a problem and he would have to reapply another way. He stated they reapplied for a conditional use permit; they threw away all of their plans at considerable cost; and they introduced new plans into the site plan system. He stated he lives next to the man who is objecting; he hears his children daily; and the day he moved onto the property, he introduced himself, and was told they do not want a church there. He stated he would like to know how whatever in-depth expertise is going to be brought forward became focused one and one–half days after he acquired the property. He stated this is 1.5 acres of property; currently the zoning is SR, which is permitted to be used if a CUP is granted for a church; the community in which the property has a well-established Christian presence includes First Baptist of Melbourne to the north, Good Shepherd Presbyterian to the east, and the Seventh Day Adventists to the left; and all are within a ten-minute walk. He stated the engineers have assured their plans are in full compliance in every way with County Ordinances; the site has been inspected by the State Environmental Health people who have said there is no difficulty in using the site to process the waste that their plans call for; and they will not consume more than 17% of the capacity of the site. He stated they

visited County Departments and explained their situation; each County Department has said unofficially they will not only be in compliance with the law, but also with the spirit of the law; and inquired who could be more expert than the people who process these applications day after day. He stated the application had a long and tiresome history; and he hopes this evening the application is not again frustrated in its advancement based on the fact that someone has a scheduling conflict. He stated the letter says the expert cannot be present; however, nobody says what the expert is an expert in; no opportunity was given to him 30 days ago to hear whatever complaints the gentleman may have or to take the 30 days between meetings to introduce whatever remedies would be necessary to resolve the problem; and this is preposterous.

Sharolyn Tsamoutales stated Father Conway did introduce himself, and she introduced herself; he said he was putting a church inside the small structure existing on the property and that he would be living in the larger house; but now she finds that he is not only wanting to put in a parking lot but to add another large structure. She stated they do have an expert witness who does land development and land planning; and submitted paperwork to the Chairman but not the Clerk. She stated she is a good neighbor; and if something changed, Father Conway did not tell her it changed. She stated she lives in Palm Bay right now, but her new address will be 3015 Florida Avenue; they are renovating the home and putting in money to enhance the property; it is an 18-year old home; and they have two small children. She stated before purchasing the property, they checked the zoning of the neighboring property, and found it was zoned residential with a conditional use permit for congregate living; they are not pleased with that; but they did think it was still livable. She stated it is a beautiful piece of property; it would be a wonderful place to raise their family; and it is their home and sanctuary, which they purchased prior to Father Conway coming to his property. She stated all the surrounding properties are residential; there are no other uses; and they did not appear before the Planning and Zoning Board because they were unable to, not because they did not want to be there. She stated she spoke to the neighbors across the street today; they did attend the previous meeting; and a lot of delays are not because they are asking for the tabling but because the applicant had to do some changes. She stated apparently it was not posted or something, and had to be delayed; and they care about this issue very much, especially now that they are aware of the intensity of the proposed use, which they feel is totally incompatible. She stated they hired a professional land use planner; her husband could not be here because of a conflict; he is the Palm Bay City Attorney, and had to swear in new Council members tonight; and requested that the matter be tabled to the next Zoning meeting. She stated she tried to reschedule because she could not get everyone to this meeting; and commented on the previous case involving the home for the dogs. She stated her home is compliant; the applicant is not compliant with his proposal; and requested the Board approach the situation carefully and with good thought. She stated she is certain Father Conway would be considerate enough to allow a month’s time for them to have a good neighborly rapport. She advised the church she attends has festivals, dances, rummage sales, and craft fairs; and she does not find any of those compatible with a residential home because they are loud and run late, noting nothing Father Conway has submitted has indicated time.

Chairman Scarborough inquired who is the expert; with Ms. Tsamoutales responding Rochelle Lawandales. Ms. Tsamoutales stated if this is not tabled, she would like to submit for the record the full document from the land use people and some noise information. Chairman Scarborough inquired what is Commissioner Higgs’ intention; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board should let Father Conway rebut.

Father Conway stated 2,000 feet down the road from where he wishes to build there exists a church; it is on suburban residential property conditionally zoned for a church; and it is on a smaller piece of property than his. He stated behind the church is a Seventh Day Adventist residential community that operates off a septic tank; and so far there have been no complaints. He stated it is an assumption on anyone’s part that there will be a complaint down the road; this is due process; and he has done everything he was supposed to do.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is required by law to provide due process in the hearings; that includes the ability of people to bring forth substantial competent evidence; and the Board has heard more than once from the Judiciary that it needs substantial competent evidence in order to review the applications. She stated it is fundamental fair play to allow either an applicant or a concerned neighbor or the community to present substantial competent evidence.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 2 to the December 5, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated she got information by fax late this afternoon; and requested Father Conway be given a copy.

Father Conway inquired if there is any point since the same evidence could have been presented 30 days ago.

Item 3. (Z0210401) Ronald R. Nail and H. Clark Nail’s request for change from PUD to AU on 4.38± acres located on the west side of Turtle Mound Road, north of Ligustrum Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised there was no opposition presented to this item.

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

Item 4. (Z0210402) Ronald Richard Nail and Howard Clark Nail’s request for change from AU and PUD to RR-1 on 2 acres located on the west side of Turtle Mound Road, north of Ligustrum Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated there was a question about the two units; but they are two separate parcels; and she assumes they were brought together under one application to save some money. Mr. Enos advised they are separate parcels. Commissioner Carlson stated there should be no impact to schools or anything like that.

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

Item 8. (Z0210502) Klebeck’s Groceries, Inc.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and change from RU-1-9 to BU-1 on 1.07 acres located on the east side of City Acres Road, south of US 192, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is opposition to the item; with Chairman Scarborough responding no.

Bruce Moia, representing Klebeck’s Groceries, Inc., advised the item was unanimously approved by the P&Z Board and the Local Planning Agency.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is a letter from Joel Moss requesting the item be tabled; with Chairman Scarborough advising that is for Item 8.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is the applicant’s intention to allow access on Acres Road; with Mr. Moia responding it is not their intention to do a whole lot with it; when his client purchased the property, there were two existing abandoned homes on it that were being used for all kinds of unsavory activities; and those houses were removed from the property for the betterment and safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Moia advised his client has no immediate plans for the property; it was residential; his client does not think that is a great use of the property; and it would be better to be commercial. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the commercial piece is going to be a part of the piece that fronts US 192; with Mr. Moia responding the applicant does own the piece that fronts US 192. Commissioner Higgs inquired if he would be willing to enter into an agreement that would bind his client to the access only through US 192 with no access on Acres Road; with Mr. Moia responding not at this time. Mr. Moia responded he would not be willing to put that encumbrance on the property because his client is not sure if he is going to combine the two properties for the same purpose.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is the way the other BU-1 is treated on Acres Road, just across from the property in question. Commissioner Higgs responded she is not sure how that one is; she thought it was combined with the parcel on US 192; when some of the parcels have been done on US 192 and commercial has been moved back, the property that abuts the neighborhood has had some special conditions, such as a binding development agreement that they were only retention, or they have provided buffer because there is a transition from the commercial right on US 192 to the residential; and the Board has afforded some protections to the neighborhood. She noted BU-1 is a reasonably intense commercial use; and she is a little concerned. She stated the Board may recall the heated discussions it had about the access; her concern is the Board may be creating some incompatibility with the access, but not necessarily in regard to the zoning; and she would like some discussion regarding that.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Moia knows the situation on the properties across the way; with Mr. Moia responding the property directly across City Acres Road is a residence, even though it is in commercial zoning.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Moia wishes the item to be tabled so he can check with his client; with Mr. Moia responding if the condition is an expansion of the existing business on the front property, they can agree to that. Commissioner Higgs stated there would be no access onto Acres Road; with Mr. Moia responding if it is an expansion of the existing use on this property; but at some time his client chose to not include this property and make it one, he would have to access onto City Acres Road as it would be the only access he would have. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Moia does not know what the uses are going to be; with Mr. Moia responding no, but if he does intend to expand his business and he has access onto US 192, he would not need additional access; but he does not know if the Board can do that. Chairman Scarborough suggested Mr. Moia ask for the item to be tabled as there are not the votes for approval, or the item can be denied. Mr. Moia requested the item be tabled.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it could be tabled to a regular meeting. Mr. Moia stated there was one letter from someone living on the road, but he is not aware of any other opposition. Commissioner O'Brien noted the P&Z Board was unanimous in recommending approval; with Mr. Moia advising the LPA also recommended approval. Commissioner Colon advised the regular meeting will be on December 3, 2002 and the Zoning meeting will be on December 5, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 8 to the December 5, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z0210101) Champion D. Waring’s request for change from AU to RRMH-2.5 on 4.75± acres located on the south side of Jay Jay Road, east of US 1.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has no problems with the item; and inquired if the Zoning Official had anything come in; with Mr. Enos responding he has no problem with it.

Motion by Commissioner O’Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. (Z0210102) This item has been removed from the Agenda.

Item 11. (Z0210103) Helen E. McCarren’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial and Residential 4 to Community Commercial; and change from RU-2-4 to BU-2 on 1.53 acres located on the east side of US 1, north of Pam-Lem Drive, which was recommended for approval by the LPA to a depth of 400 feet, and by the P&Z Board to a depth of 400 feet from US 1, with a binding development plan limiting development to a mini-warehouse facility with a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along the US 1 property line and prohibiting development, except for stormwater facilities, on the remaining RU-2-4 portion of the property.

Chairman Scarborough stated the P&Z Board authorized to a depth of 400 feet, which is contrary to the request. Mr. Enos stated they originally applied for 600 feet; the P&Z Board approved the zoning on the 400 feet only where the development would be; and the remainder of the property would be limited to stormwater retention area in the current zoning. He stated the applicants have agreed to that; they submitted a binding development plan; the language needs to be worked on a little bit; but it is almost there.

Commissioner Carlson stated there should be rewriting of the binding development plan for clarity purposes.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 11 to a depth of 400 feet from U.S. 1 with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to a mini-warehouse facility with a 15-foot landscape buffer along U.S. 1 property line and prohibiting development except for stormwater facilities on the remaining RU-2-4 portion of the property, and BDP returning to the Board for approval; 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 Fourteenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002, 02S.14, 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.

Chairman Scarborough stated the binding development plan will come back to the Board for review. Patricia McCarren stated they met with Attorney Bentley and rewrote the BDP. Chairman Scarborough stated the binding development plans come back to the Board so there is an opportunity to fine-tune them. Commissioner Carlson stated the item is approved conditioned on approval of the binding development plan. Ken Jones inquired when would that be; with Mr. Enos responding staff will get back to them quickly.

Item 12. (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 P&Z Board, with a binding development plan limiting development to two residential homesites.

Alan Zajdel stated he is the applicant; he is trying to have two single-family lots; and he is available for questions.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the P&Z Board recommended approval of two residential homesites; he has seen the plans; and he and Mr. Zajdel have discussed this.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 12 with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to two residential homesites.

Mr. Enos stated the binding development plan that Mr. Zajdel has presented is not what the P&Z Board recommended; so if the Board approves the P&Z Board recommendation, Mr. Zajdel will need to agree to it because it is not the same as what he submitted.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is concerned about the staff comment that said this is 85% wetlands; the zoning is GU; the Zoning Code allows development of one unit per five acres in wetlands; but she has no documentation beyond the staff report. Mr. Zajdel stated the P&Z Board addressed the same issue; the 85% was determined by aerial review; the property has been walked and flagged by DEP; and close to three acres of the seven is uplands. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the applicant has any documentation of that. Mr. Zajdel stated he does not have a copy of the survey with him; but he does have a survey showing what areas are uplands; and it is possible to determine from that how much land area is upland. Commissioner Higgs stated she would like to see it; with Mr. Zajdel reiterating he did not bring it with him. Mr. Zajdel stated everything he is planning to do is within the confines of uplands; and he is not proposing to get into the wetlands at all. He stated his two lots have road frontage on Morningside Drive; and his driveway and building lot would be all within the upland area.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what was the problem with the BDP that P&Z wanted; with Mr. Enos responding the P&Z recommended a binding development plan that would limit the site to two residential homesites; Mr. Zajdel’s binding development plan takes it one step further and says there will be two homesites now, but once Merritt Island High School is found to no longer be overcrowded, then he would be able to add more homesites according to the EU-2 zoning classification and other relevant land development regulations.

Attorney Bentley stated there were a number of questions about the binding development plan; and if the Board approves, the BDP would need to come back. Chairman Scarborough inquired if it would be best to table the item so staff can work on it further; with Attorney Bentley responding the binding development plan definitely needs more work.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it does not have to be tabled; the Board can have the BDP come back as New Business so it will be discussed, rather than putting it on Consent. Chairman Scarborough stated it is one thing if it is just wordsmithing, but another when there are substantial differences; and the issue is that things have been added.

Mr. Zajdel stated it was explained to him that with the school overcrowding, only one additional building lot can be added; he currently has one so is adding one more for a total of two; and there is potential in the upland region to have the possibility of four lots that would meet all restrictions. He stated he mentions there may be two additional lots in the binding development plan to address the issue outright; and it is not an attempt to build more than that or expand further. He stated that can be left out. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board does that for Mr. Zajdel, the question is whether that should be the format used for everyone; and there is probably a need to ask why is there a problem, and what are the problems. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be easier to go back to where the P&Z Board left it.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Enos mentioned about the legal language and the binding development plan, and that the County was not protected any longer; and that is why Attorney Bentley is advising a lot of work needs to be done on it.

Mr. Zajdel stated he had a more recent edition of the binding development plan faxed to the County Attorney’s office; and inquired if Attorney Bentley had a chance to look at that. Attorney Bentley stated she has one dated November 6, 2002; she looked at it; and she contacted Mr. Landford to explain her concerns, but did not hear back. She stated there are a number of issues that need to be discussed.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is still concerned about the issue regarding the wetlands; and looking at the aerial, there is a mosquito control designation just to the north. Mr. Zajdel stated he does not know of any facility out there; and he is not sure what picture Commissioner Higgs is looking at. Commissioner Higgs stated she is looking at the MCIA designation that would seem to have some association with Brevard County Mosquito Control; she is concerned that there is an intense wetland area; wetlands are one unit per five acres; and she would be interested in seeing the nature of the parcel in terms of the wetlands before voting on the request.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 12 to December 5, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Scarborough stated there are many things to talk about; and Mr. Zajdel may wish to contact Commissioner Higgs directly to see if he can answer her specific questions as to the wetlands. Mr. Zajdel inquired if a copy of the survey would be helpful; with Commissioner Higgs responding affirmatively.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 10, 2002

Item 1. (NMI21001) Frank E. Sullivan, III, Trustee’s request for change from GU to AU on 29.25 acres located on the south side of Chase Hammock Road, east of Winding Way, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 1, as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Advisory Board ignored the school capacity issue.

Chairman Scarborough stated he was at a regional meeting today; there was discussion about the school issue; and Rich Crotty, Chairman of the Orange County Board where this issue started, said it will all have to be readdressed due to last Tuesday’s election because there will be portables everywhere. Commissioner Higgs stated he does not know that. Chairman Scarborough stated he is just saying there are going to be discussions; he is not saying the Board should discuss this; and suggested County staff contact Orange County staff or anywhere else using the same methodology to find out what they are finding so the Board will get all the data and information on this subject.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to know exactly when it is being enacted. Chairman Scarborough stated the people have spoken; and it is going to create a different place. Commissioner Carlson stated they are really between a rock and a hard place because they cannot put portables up. Chairman Scarborough stated this has been a problem from the beginning; and inquired how do you define quality, and is it number of portables, classroom size, or computers. He stated there could be a number of criteria; and commented on having quality parks, libraries, roads, and schools, and the Legislature. He stated this is a dynamic situation; and he wants to be sure staff is alert.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has to be consistent with the policy it has; and that will put it in the best position to face whatever comes down. Chairman Scarborough stated the people of Florida are defining it different from what the Board is defining as the ideal. Commissioner Carlson stated it is going to make the overcrowding that much more prevalent; but the Legislature has said portables cannot be used and that is why there was a $50 million bond to harden the portables. Chairman Scarborough stated he is presenting the issue of school size, which is constitutional; and next to pigs, portables are sacred in the State.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a currently adopted policy; to be consistent with that policy, it should deny this request because it increases the overcrowding at schools; and it may be well into Spring before anyone knows what the Legislature is going to do to enact the voted mandate.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has no problem keeping things consistent; but the County is at the tail end of this discussion about quality education; the people of Florida have spoken; and there are going to be profound repercussions that will impact the budgets of counties and municipalities. He stated for the Board to think it is the same as it was last week is crazy, because this is a different Florida today; and he wishes he were a pig instead of a Commissioner because at least then he would have constitutional protection.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should focus on the zoning issue; the school issue may be evolving, but it will be well into Spring; and the Board should act consistently and deny the request. She stated there is nothing to stop the applicant from coming back; and if the desire is to table it, it would need to be tabled for months and months.

Commissioner O'Brien withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 1 based on school overcrowding.

Commissioner Higgs stated the applicant asked for AU; and suggested AGR as an alternative.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF OCTOBER 7, 2002

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

Item 1. Section 21, Township 28, Range 38 Parcels 259.1 through 259.7, owned by Peter and Joan Lee, Thomas P. and Dolores L. Chotta, co-Trustees, Roland E. and Virginia H. Gallo, Anna L. Von Statten and Roy C. Moberg, Jr., David M. and Gloria Bullman Cohen, John J. and Nancy Lee Kroll, and Gerald W. and Susan L. Newman, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5121 for Sewer Faculties.

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

Item 2. Section 21, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. GD, Block C, Lots 8, and 9, owned by Beach Front Inn, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4700 for Alcoholic Beverages, with the stipulation that the pre-existing use remain on the property, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised this is an existing hotel and restaurant, but is zoned RU-2-8; it has a pre-existing use; and removal of the CUP does not affect the nonconforming status of the restaurant or the Conditional Use Permit for the alcohol. He recommended the Board approve the P&Z recommendation.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is RU-2-8; with Mr. Enos responding it is a multifamily zoning classification at eight units to the acre.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board with the stipulation that the pre-existing use remain on the property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. GH, Lots 1.01 through 1.40, owned by Michael and Sandra A. Giacchetta, Rose D. Canestrare and Russell J. Canestrare, James Robert Nelson, Louis J. Debarbieri, Peter G. and Jutta G. Bockhold, Martin Foster and Patricia Brown, David T. and Jane S. Thompson, Charles E. Buchanan, Patricia June Szczepanski, William P. (Sr.) and Barbara Ann Devlin, Frank Klem and Joan Klem, Richard J. Canestrare and Theresa A. Sandford, Dale Marilyn Palmer, Shane J. Miller and Jill D. Tallman, Jay S. Spechler and Mindy N. Shrago, Michael Scott DeVries, David and Maree Wijgerse, Robert J. Lewis and Rhonda L. Elias, Anthony and Ann G. Aguanno, Norman G. and Charlotte C. Taylor, Karen A. Baker, John R. Lincourt, Orlyn B. Labrake, Leonard L and June E. Ford, Michele L. and James H. Carter, Matthew Frank Kiritzer, Richard A. and Debra M. O’Connor, Linda J. Fleck, Dan R. Bryant and Kathy L. Bryant, Co-Trustees, William E. Koss, Beth Anne Fairchild, Trustee, Linda Putnam, Ron S. Bockhold, Paul B. and Amelia Dubey, Lauris Cady, Nancie A. Williams, Arthur G. Feldman, Dale T. and Cynthia Ruiter, William J. and Jane M. Cunningham, and Phyllis Lee Dix, Trustee, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4299 for Sewer Plant, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 4. Section 26, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 1 and 2, owned by William J. and Linda L Thermos, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5020 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 5. Section 03, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 501.1 and Sub. 52, Block A. Lots 1 through 4, and Lots 23 through 35; Block B, Lots 1, 2, 8, 9; Block C. Lots 1 through 11, Tracts A and B, owned by Matthew R. and Kimberly B. Winkler*, Mart Partridge*, John E. and Yeon O. Dunbar*, William E. and Ida C. Osmun*, Patricia A. and Ralph E. Bursey, Co-Trustees*, Wilf and Andrea Stemmle*, Randal G. and Jan H. T. Wood*, Rockne J. and Lyce C Pulcini, James and Sally Mayer, Kevin F. and Diane T. Dugan, R. Mason and Amy S. Blake, Thomas e. and Tanjiah Whitaker, Marie Ramundo, A. Patrick and Molly D. Leighton, Mitchell W. Greenberg and Christina L. Senft, Peter F. (III) and Kathy D. Snawerdt, Sean Drury and Holly Jordan, Donald and Mary Jane H. Pyle*, David B. and Joyce S. Lehr*, Robert and Claudia Rybak*, John Boyd (III) and Marianne L. Braddock*, Joanne D. and Michael C. Zito, Robert and Sandra L. Von Alt, Rex D. Hill and Jane M. Daniel, Daniel R. and Judy L. Gallgher, Frederick P. Bolger and Stephen Robert Bolger*, Hettie Buck*, Clarence F. Schmitz*, Hashim Sirous Balochian, Carolyn A. and Ronald Aleks, Eva Caruso, Trustee*, George F. and Irma Boser*, Turtle Bay Homeowner’s Association and the United States of America*, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5218 for Water Plant on all except parcel 501.1, and Z-5094 for Sewer Facilities and Recreational Facilities on properties marked with an asterisk, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 6. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 1A, Block 7, Lots 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 161, 163, 165, 167; Block 10, Lots 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164; Sub. 2A, Block 9, Lots 169, 171, 173, 175, 177, 179, 181, 183; Block 12, Lots 166, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180, 182; Block 14, Lots 184, 186, 188, 190; Parcels 788, 793.A through 793.Z, 794.A through 294.O, 799, owned by Grace Drapeau, Herbert and Dorothy Sondericker, Kenneth C and Maralee E. George, Teresa Stoughton, Teressa H. Gibson, Trustee, Thomas W. and Eunice R. Kinrade, Ingrid O. and Paul H. Phenix, Co-Trustees, Patricia L. Kodl and Mary Pat Hobbs, Co-Trustees, Aleander E. and Mary Yourk, Philip E. and Ellen P. Pearson, Joan O. Froelich, Trustee, William T. and Alice R. Hamilton, Nicholas and Mary Ann Desocio, Roy Russell and Judith Ann Hays, Ward C. and Paula A. Roman, Paul R. and Mary T. Prado, Joseph R. and Pamela Lane, Aldene B. Wilburn, Jerome J. and Kimberly G. Widmer, Jean C. and Daniel Hesford, Robert R. and Sarah. L. Rizzo, John G. and Loretta Peters, Mildred M. and Robert A. Osterhoudt, Armando and Joan T. Marin, Douglas C. Beardmore, Daniel G. Rodgers, Gary Coppola, Trustee, Beverly H. and Lloyd C. Ford, Jr., James F. and Frances L. Ward, Melissa A. Carver, Geraldine F. Meyers, Joseph Santha, Norton G. Davis, Sr., Siegfried Romer and Hella Kaltschmid, George E. (Jr.) and Eula C. Koppel, Nicola Stubbs, Carroll R. and Geneva K. Sanders, Michael J. and Rosalie D. Michaels, Angelo J. and Emily A. Palacino, John Schaufert and Steffen Schaufert, Robert R. Moffett, Jr., Robert F. (Sr.) and Frances A. Turner, George A. and Elinor W. Wetherell, Michael S. Fitzgerald, George Farina, John P. and Mary Ellen Staab, Nicholas A. and Alice A. Dice, Angela Kay Zimmerman, Carole Miskew, George R. and June D. Kehlbeck, Carl Ognibene, Maryann Villa, Dorothy E. Rogers, Joan F. Seele, Paula Kelly Biscardi, Donald A. Buckley, William K. and Jean M. Bayer, John B. (Jr.) and Joyce K. Broyles, Donald P. and Wilma E. Schmitt, Edna Ber, Richard D. and Merna T. Bunnell, Trustees, Edward and Carol L. Byrne, Suzanne M. Mozal, George J. McKenna III, Trustee, Clyde M. and Era P. Hawkins, Lynn D. and Andrea Usher, Gwenesse R. McCarthy and Forrest N. Pearsall, Theodore D. and Mary Cooper, Jack Maclauchlan and Rosemarie Maclauchlan, Trustees, David S. and Kathleen R. Hoopes, Robert J. and Marianne L. Ahrweiler, Elisheva Michaeli and Giora Michaeli, Kenneth R. and Helen L. King, Martha C. Gilstrap, Neil J. and Huguette B. Corker, John R. and Elizabeth R. Rafter, Charles J. and Anna M. Kanige, Henry L. Mogk and Patricia M. Wright, P. Gerald and Kathleen Barbato, and State of Florida co/ Lighthouse Cove Condo Association, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4931 for Sewer Facilities, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 7. Section 17, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 8 and 9, owned by Krystyna Koziarska, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5021 for Boarding of Horses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 8. Section 23, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 8.1 through 9.5 and 10.1 through 13, owned by John K. Milstead, Kevin l. Parsons, John E. Pettigrew, Jr., Gerald T. and Helen Ellermeyer, William G. and Bonnie L. Halenkamp, Trustees, Pamela J. Winn, Barbara N. and David K. Root, James P. and Lois J. Scalise, H. Brooker and Joyce A. Mills, Richard N. and Jo Anne H. Miller, Trustees, William N. and Wanda N. Andrus, Frank E. and Leola Turner, William S. and Beverly A. Templeton, Charles D. and Phyllis B. Kirk, Lee and Marianne Schmudde, Shirley J. Zeller, Ruth J. Dunn Life Estate, Robert W. Page and Donna E. Page, Trustees, Antonette P. Barmashi, Raymond H. and Christine Podowski, Co-Trustees, William S. and Audrey C. Branch, Co-Trustees, Clifford E. Mueller Estate, Morris B. and Ethel U. Pierce, Dominic Dalfonso and Kathleen VanLindt, Mary Louise Westuba Life Estate, Betty Lou Wallace and R. Powell Wallace, Co-Trustees, Robert E. and Jacqueline H. Stoneberger, Dolores M. Rocker and Elizabeth Kate Ballantine, Thomas P. and Lady C. Lombardo, Harold L. and Joyce L. Boyce, KMH Limited Liability Company, Robert R. and Sally Shelmerdine, Norwood T. Hoecker, Trustee, Edward G. Falconer, Richard M. and Mary Ann Fitzgerald, John E. Arbet and Theodore M. Arbet, Co-Trustees, Leo S. and Thelma P. Vasil, Edward Falconer, Jose V. and Hertha E. Dorribo, Seymour L. Fischer, Trustee, Raymond M. and Nyra W. Whelchel, Valerie E. McMurray and Brian A. McMurray, Shirley J. Joseph and Patrick Shawn Joseph, Gertrude M. Izbicki Life Estate, and Ira Robert and Barbara Ann Arnett, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5112 for Sewer and Water Facilities, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 9. Section 25, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 519.A through 519.H, owned by John J. and Patricia Burke, Richard A. and S. Jane Carton, Michael F. and Mary S. Curran, Richard and Gloria Apple, Charles I, and Janice E. Duggan, Glen J. and Marjorie A. Kane, W. R. Rossman and Beverly A. Rossman, Trustees, and Steven A. and Carol L. Fork, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4899 for Sewer Facility Package Treatment Plant, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Section 25, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 77, Block D, Lot 13, owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4641 for Telephone Transmission Facility, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 11. Section 34, Township 30, Range 37, Parcels 1, 2, 501 and Section 35, Township 30, Range 37, Parcels 1, 500, 501, 750, owned by St. Johns River Water Management District and Bernard A. Egan, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5138 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home (4), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. Section 01, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 7, 7.1, 259.01, owned by Community Chapel by the Sea, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4463 for School, retaining Church, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 13. Section 10, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. 75, Lot 8, owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4564 for Telephone Switching Center, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 14. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 500.2, owned by Ralph F. Priep and Alda E. Priep, Trustees, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4506 for Trailer Sales, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 15. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 508, 510.01 through 511.3, 512.6 through 515.5, 517 through 518.1, 520 through 520.Q, owned by Summit Cove, Inc., Jacquelyn B. DeVane Life Estate, Alfred L. and Ivah June Rayner, Lise LeBlanc and Sophie LeBlanc, Joseph and Madeline Alfarone, Sylvie Laliberte, Jean Jones, William and Lynn Parker, Joanne St. Aubin and Brian W. St. Aubin, Ralph G. Buron, Ann M. Richmond, John S. Fagan, Walter Bell and Carol Bell, Trustees, Robert W. and Dagmar Z. Gwinn, Christian Bastien, Norman E. Oates, Sr. and Norita M. Ludwig, Joseph F. Scanlan, Serge and Lise Doyon Martin, Eugene H. and Ida A. Gwinn, Yannick Bastien, Dean E. White, Eric Champlin and Virginia Eckard, Erik W. Granger, Denise Cote and Noel Carter, Mary Jane Young, Marie A. Attardi, Andrew J. Nichols and Jonell L. Collier, Quebec, Inc., Jean-Louis Moisan and Rejeanne Cayer, Real Cloutier, James and Gloria Studnicka, Jack E. Burklew Life Estate, Charles and Charlene Scheman, Gail Tiska, Jean-Jacques LaFontaine, and Theresa LaFontaine. Clarence E. and Patricia L. Dodd, Bruce and Connie T. Loftes, Teresa E. McCabe Life Estate, Wendy Feinsilver and Joseph C. Pagan Jr., Carol Therien Chandley, Martin J. Hughes, Thomas R. and Candace C. Griffith, Multi-Soins, Inc., Miro Lanaro, Therese Martin, Robert L. and Jeanne M. Marshall, Robert Kraft, Alexandre Hebert and Denise Legault, George L. Wright and Thelma B. Wright, Trustees, Shirley L. Shelmandine, Barbara and Clayton Ray Armour, Melvin G. and Audrey S. Veall, Park Wah Mui, Jeannine Garneau-Masson, Marie E. Duerr, Trustee, George Albert Bere and Wayne Albert Bere, Anthony and Sharon L. Cammarano, Carol A. and Richard G. Lehman, Anthony Burklew and Patricia H. Burklew, Steve Parks, Christopher J. Lanigan, Walter J. and Shirley A. Stilphen, John Adam and Simone Legros, Brian David Butti, Richard Legare and Rolande Morneau, David A. and Violet S. Geller, Alvin M. Russell and Christopher M. Russell, Joseph and Lorraine Riccio, Renald and Yolande Thivierge, Wilfred A. Prodell, Jacques Chouinard and Louise Blanchet, and April J. Lafreniere, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-444 for Sewer Plant, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 16. Secstion 124, Township 39, Range 38, Sub. HH. Block 8, Lots 1 through 6 and 25, owned by Harborview Motel and Efficiencies, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4408 for Tourist Efficiency, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 17. Section 26, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 762, owned by Robert Carl Cook and Christy M. Cook, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5068 for Truss Manufacturing Plant, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 18. Section 26, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. NA, Lots 5 through 24, owned by Charles and Linda Yawn, James P. and Michele A. Capley, Mark P. and Kristine S. Wilson, Theodore R. and A. Carol Mosher, Alan and Suzanne Singer, Howard W. England and Leslie R. Harlan, Mario Joseph Guignardi, Jr., Greg Alan and Rose Ann Roth, William J. Gebbia and Kathleen L. Kane, Michael E. and Joi L. Springman, Louise Flynn and Karen L. Bowers, Benjamin C. and Rosalind A. Clark, Jonathan M. and Tambre E. Clark, Carl D. (Jr.) and Jenna S. Stewart, Mary Ann Higgins, Linda Dyches-Clark, and William B. Dyches, Maurice N. and Donna K. Wenzel, Susan K. Burrier, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4517 for Sewer Plant, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 19. Section 35, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 4.1, owned by 123 Corporation, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4519 for Metal Salvage Yard ( Automobile Salvage), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 20. Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item 21. Section 35, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 36, 48, owned by Korbin Street Enterprises, Inc. and Yorke Doliner and Company, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5013 for Metal Salvage Yard (Automobile Salvage), which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial; it was a request to remove Conditional Use Permits for Metal Salvage Yards on two parcels; the two parcels are vacant at this time; but it is in that part of south Rockledge where there are a number of metal salvage yards. He stated there was an objection from one of the two property owners; they wanted to keep the CUP based on the character of the area; and the P&Z recommended denial of removal of the CUP.

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

Item 22. Section 35, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 501, owned by Dottie Mae Nail, Trustee for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4652 for Towers and Antennae (Radio Tower), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 23. Section 23, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 253, owned by Maviro Corporation c/o The Pantry, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4503 for Gas Pumps Accessory to Convenience Store, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 24. Section 23, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 79, Lots 1 through 8, Tracts 1 through 5, Parcels 752 through 752.T, owned by Louis M. Fielack, Jr., Ralph J. and Edythe T. Chiaro, Co-Trustees, Kenneth and Kathryn Crowe, Donald A. Moes and Kelly L. Ramsey, Lynde R. West, Azalea Lee Nicodemus, Scott A. and Deborah L. Kemps, Barry L. Bennett, Ocean Residence North Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Opal Seas Development, Inc., Diana C. Blackwelder, John G. and Sharon K. Horton, Deborah Sue White, Sallie Adams, Calvin C. and Linda W. Luther, Gary B. Campbell and Judith A. Hamel, David E. Omler, David C. and Janet C. Cronin, Donald P. and Ronnie S. Goodheart, Walter G. and Irene N. Young, James Weaver and Margaret Weaver, Trustees, Victor T. Perez and Justo T. Perez, Salvatore and Rosa Calabrese, Richard A. and Paula A. DiPatri, David C. and Janet C. Cronin, Donald P. and Ronnie S. Goodheart, Water G. and Irene N. Young, James Weaver and Margaret Weaver, Trustees, Victor T. Perez and Justo T. Perez, Salvatore and Rosa Calabreze, Richard A. and Paula A. DiPatri, Randall Jones, Loren Victor Fritz and Sheryl West Fritz, John H. and Shirley R. Law, Steven D. Wood and Alan J. west, and Ronald B. Salica, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4582 for Townhouses on all and Z-9660 for Additional Building Height (45 ft.) on Parcels 752 through 752T, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 25. Section 32, Township 26, Range 37, Sub 52, Lots 5, 6, 6.02, 6.02, owned by VFW Satellite Post #8191 and Mach One Development, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit 4648 for Private Club and Alcoholic Beverages on all and removal of Z-4504 for Travel Trailer Sales on Lots 5, 6, and 6.01 only, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board. CUP Z-4648 for Alcoholic Beverages on lots 5 and 6 (BU-1 and BU-2 only) has been withdrawn.

Mr. Enos stated staff withdrew the removal of the CUP for Alcoholic Beverages on Lots 5 and 6 because that is the VFW Satellite Post 8191, and alcohol is served at that site.

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

Item 26. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 4, owned by Dorothy Gulak Baker, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4840 for Farm Animals, Bees & Fowl for 4-H Club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 27. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 5, owned by Richard C. (Sr.) and Pauline E. Wilson, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4834 for Cattle and Z-4841 for Farm Animals, Bees & Fowl for 4-H Club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 28. Section 02, Township 27, Range 376 Parcel 7, owned by Danny Patrick Joyce, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4832 for Cattle, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 29. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 14, owned by Raymond A. Craig and Kathryn E. Craig, Trustees, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4838 for Farm Animals, Bees & Fowl for 4-H Club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 30. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 33, owned by Angelina Garcia for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4839 for Farm Animals, Bees & Fowl for 4-H Club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 31. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lots 1 through 23; Sub. 26, Lots 1 through 13, 40 through 46 & Tract D; Sub. 31, Lots 14 through 39, Tract A, owned by Michael E. Cobb, John J. Andrea and A. Jeanne Andrea, Co-Trustees, Gary J. Bowie, Roy Everett and Martha B. Masters, James R. Lobianco and Joanne L. Patchin, Linda J. Lamb, Sam F. Morina and Frances M. Morina, Trustees, Victor K. and Lucille F. Nuorimo, Ronald N. and Nancy E. Rhodes, Lawrence Brill, Donald G. (II) and Deborah J. Kennedy, Keith W. and Teresa I. Krauterbluth, Richard K. (Jr.) and Susan H. Krebs, Dorothea C. Rauth, Eric A. Arnold, Corbit L. and Joan A. Best, Richard C. and Irene H. Greene, Denis P. and Cynthia Lynn Richard, Carl M. Jacobs, and Dona R. Jacobs, Trustees, Beverly R. Garza, Barbara S. Miles, Dale E. and Susan M. Wright, Johnny R. and Louise Ray, Stephen W. and Ana T. Crane, Richard E. and Lisa M. Tally, Peter J. Malzone, John A. and Brenda Y. Clarson, Marian F. Stevens, Nebil Y. and Irene Theresa Misconi, Timothy R. and Cynthia M. Williford, Gerald L. and Karen R. Stephens, Bobby R. and Ileta W. Dove, Glenn and Claudia Burgess, Bipin and Madhu Jani, Anne T. Stout, Christopher M. Trionfo, Henry J. Wielgosz and Patricia A. Nemec, Bruce E. and Carla C. Blaisdell, Christopher A. and Karen A. Gaeta, Levahn E. and Judy Heiden, Homer L. and Terry M. Murray, Thomas J. and M. Suzanne Jones, Rudolph C. and Carol A. Sotelo, Brevard County, Phillip Kevin and Joann K. Gulliver, Tyrone and Joyce Wilburn, William P. and Andrea S. Tagg, Diane O. and Martin Alan Maxwell, Harold and Patricia Bromberger, Patrick Allen and Ann Marie Ferry, J. Frank and Joyce M. Mermis, Phillip K. and Phyllis R. Curry, Charles F. (Jr.) and Carole J. Lukens, W. David and Cara L. Philpot, Peter J. and Michelle M. Trepanier, Robert T. and Rita A. Warner, Louis J. and Ruth C. Villani, John T. Massa, Jr., David L. and Frances I. Rouse, Michael T. (II) and Carrie McNally, Isabelle C. Ziegler, James F. Bolger and Carol Z. Fielder, Edward Allen and Deborah H. Boggess, Patrick E. Corrigan, Jaime A. and Susan K. Verano, St. Elmo and Veda Dillon, Dorothy W Fairbanks, Donald A. and Ruth J. Buzzelli, Michael L. and Eileen Clausen, Timothy S. and Connie J. Cowan, and Fox Bay Homeowners’ Association, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-412943 for Landscaping Business, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 32. Section 35, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 502, 503, owned by Charley T. and Olga S. Sims and Mark D. Wadsworth, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4566 for Landscaping Business, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 33. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Parcels 500, 504, 750, 751, owned by Diocese of Orlando, Norbert M. Dorsey, Bishop, for removal of Conditional Use Permit for School, retaining the Church, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 34. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Parcels 789 through 791.9, owned by Edward G. and Carolann, I. Bell, Lloyd A. and Nancy Short, Edward J. and Patricia H. Kapuscinksi, Howard W. McCormick Life Estate, Robert E. and Maxine D. Krieger, Virginia H. Braasch Trust, Toni L. Sullivan, Florence F. Shapiro, Trustee, Richard L. West and Harold West, Hermans Holdings LTD, Shokri and Mary Ann Radpour, George D. and Rhoda D. Delaney, Irving A. and Marie C. Lepore, Uday B. Koppikar and Shalini Elsie Azariah, Thomas E. and Rae B. Miles, Thomas R. Law and Jean Law, Trustees, Michael W. Blevins, John R. (Jr.) and Donna M. Waterson, Jens Uwe and Eileen F. Meyer, Eleanor M. Stumpf, James Michael Shelton, Robert D. and Maria C. Jones, Lawrence R. and Marie P. Mula, Howard N. and Angela Hebert, John M. and Brenda J. Sniegowski, John C. Andy, George R. (Jr.) and Rebecca A. Wagaman for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4501 for Townhouses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 35. Section 17, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 52, Block D., Lots 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, owned by larry and Deborah Heaward, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4788 for Automobile Repairs on Lots 14, 15, 16 only and Z-7810 for Automobile & Motorcycle Repair and Paint & Body Work on all, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 36. Section 30, Township 27, Range 38 Sub. ME, Lots 4 through 6; Tracts 1 through 5; and Section 31, Township 27, Range 38, Sub. ME, Lots 1 through 3, owned by Dempsey L. Blanton, Robert and Carole Blamer, Betty Detwiler, Ocean Residence South Homeowners’ Association Inc., Dolores H. Mattox, Kathleen Klair, and Walter Jachimski and Sharon Ann Jachimski Life Estate, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4565 for Townhouses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 37, Section 03, Township 28, Range 35, Sub. 01, Lot 1, and Parcels 751, 752, owned by Deer Park Range LTD and St. Johns River Water Management District for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4998 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 38. Section 02, Township 28, Range 36, Parcel 18, owned by Glenber L. and Irene M. Hinkle, Trustees, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5167 for Mini-Warehouses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 39. Section 05, Township 28, Range 36, Parcels 501, 502, 503, 504, owned by Nekoda Ann Loseke and Martin Clinton and Cheryl Lynn Hanna, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5168 for Alcoholic Beverages (Beer & Wine.), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 40. Section 02. Township 29g, Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 6, Lot 3, owned by MHP Investments, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5099 for Sewer Facilities, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 41. Section 21 Township 20g, Range 34, Sub. AM, Block 9, Lot 30, owned by Theodore R. and Bonnie G. Heath, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4615 for Towers and Antennae (60 ft. Radio Tower), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 42. Section 40, Township 29g, Range 35, Sub. AC, Lots 25 through 29, owned by Morris M. (Sr. ) and Arlene P. Hallum, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4866 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 43. Section 30, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 1; and Section 31, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 1, owned by St. Johns River Water Management District and Andrew J. an Norma Jean Sharpe, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4396 for Tenant Dwelling, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 44. Section 16, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 24, Lot 7; Sub. 26, Lot 15, owned by Christopher Glenn Willis and Edwin Allen Willis, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4759 for Metal Salvage Yard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 45. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 10, owned by Leola B. Lewis, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5000 for Restaurant with 30 seats (food only), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 45 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item 47. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 523, owned by Robert C. and Janice Faye Minnear, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4618 for Automobile Repairs, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 48. Section 06, Township 22, Range 35, Parcels 288, 296, owned by Daniel J. Waldron and Maruha L. Hill and Duff Brandon, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4758 for Horses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 49. Section 33, Township 22, Range 35, Parcel 259, owned by S & S Enterprises, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4947 for Gasoline Sales Accessory to a Convenience Store, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 50. Section 01, Township 23, Range 35, Parcels 505, 507, owned by Brevard County, Jack E. Niewoehner and Doris A. Niewoehner, Trustees, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7012 for Private Club on Parcel 505 only, and Z-4885 for Boat Sales on all parcels, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 51. Section 17, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 25, all of Block B. and Block D, Lot 1, owned by Thrift Inns, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4926 for Efficiency Units (Tourist), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 52. Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item 53. Section 11, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 503, owned by Virginia Ann Tingley and Paul K. Hall, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5187 for Recreational Vehicles Accessory to a Fish Camp, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 54. Section 14, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 276, owned by Azan Shrine Temple Holding Corporation, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4347 for Alcoholic Beverages, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 55. Section 14, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 265, 291, owned by Riverside Group, Inc. and Marshall W. Wren, Jr. and Melinda K. Wren, Co-Trustees, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4305 for Church, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 56. Section 22, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 44, owned by Merritt Island Masonic Lodge 685, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4891 for Private Club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 57. Section 31, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 70, 70.1, owned by Janet I. Keller and Ronnie L. Keller, and City of Cocoa, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4717 for Sewer Facilities, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 58. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 31, Block J, Lots 19 through 24; Block L, Lots 1 through 9, owned by First Baptist Church of Merritt Island, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4319 for School, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 59. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 28, Block A, Lots 10 through 14, owned by Southland Corporation and Lavern M. Meloche and Kimberly S. Ell, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4629 for Efficiency Units (Tourist), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 60. Section 14, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 502, owned by Courtenay Animal Hospital, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4531 for Cabinet/Carpentry Shop, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 61. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 28, Block B, Lot 14, owned by Phillip W. Finney and Wallace L. Finney, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4943 for Professional Services Office Building, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 62. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 251.1, 276, 292, owned by Health First, Inc. and Lubrication Specialist, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6313 for Automobile Paint and Body Work and Automobile Repair on Parcels 251.1 and 292 only and Z-4800 for Boat Sales and Service on all, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 63. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36m Sub. 25, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6; Parcels 3.01, 4, 4.01, 5, owned by Alexander H. Bobinski, Trustee, and Premier Restaurant Management Co., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5026 for Alcoholic Beverages on Lots 3 through 5, Parcels 3.01, 4, 401, 5 and Z-10133 for Alcoholic Beverages on all lots and parcels, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 64. Section 26, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. CG, Block 99, Lots 9, 10, owned by Ruth C. Ballenger, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4404 for Automobile Repairs, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 65. Section 01, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CM, Block 6, Lots 3, 4, 20, 21 and Block 7, Lots 1 through 9 and 14 through 20, owned by Ace Storage, Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5040 for Mini-Warehouses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 66. Section 07, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. CY, Lots 3 through 8, 4.01, owned by Citrus Council of Girl Scouts, Inc. and Brevard County, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4304 for Private Camp, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 66 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
NORTH MERRITT ISLAND SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD OF OCTOBER 7, 2002

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider administrative rezoning recommendations of the North Merritt Island Special District Board, made at its October 7, 2002 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. Section 34, Township 23 Range 36, Parcels 753, 779, 781, owned by Robin Fite, Thomas L. (Jr.) and Barbara D. Ruland, and Cleone Callen Nutt, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4393 for Towers and Antennae (Radio Tower), which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 258.1, owned by Martin A. and Annita Megregian, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4484 for Alcoholic Beverages, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lots 5 through 20.1; Sub. 26, Lots 1 through 15; Parcel 275, owned by Robert B. and Linda C. Coates, Shawn C. Fearon and Karen H. Fearon, Co-Trustees, Susan Preston Lang, Susan Jones Preston, Ali and Sema Yildirgan, Scott S. Royle, Edward H. and Nancy M. Pytlarz, Gerald Gazner, Jr., John R. Coulson and Christine A. Coulson, Co-Trustees, and Eric Scott Marlowe and Deandra Dawn Marlowe, Judith A. Ivey and Wade A. Ivey, Trustees, Michael L. Knight, Jr., Salvatore and Eufemia Palazzolo, Sharon M. Billings, James H. Ettinger, Gerald D. Steele, Paul C. Locklair, Mary F. and Richard L. Von Glatzel, William E. and Patricia A. Giles, Thomas Joseph Parker and Ilona B. Parker, Walter J. and Kathleen Dembosky, Sue Y. Strout, Jeff and Marttitia M. Stanton, Keith J. Braun, Edward and Kyra Kinane, Stephen J. and Sherri L. Scott, Alexander E. Terrero, Kenneth J. and Nancy A. Winn, Bruce Charles and Patricia Nielsen Laissle, Banyen Promyaree, Anthony M. and Trilby D. Brannon, Joseph Scott and Joanne Borman, and Jack Rayfield, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4673 for Tenant Dwelling, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Section 22, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 765, owned by John C. and Peggy N. Ramsey, for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4673 for Automobile Repair, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Special District Board.
.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 264, 265, 266, owned by Gerald L. Keyes and L. A. Construction Services Inc., for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4969 for Cabinet/Carpentry Shop, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.

_________________________________
TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)