MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

April 24, 1997

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 24, 1997, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Chambers, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Building C, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Randy O?Brien, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Nancy Higgs, Mark Cook and Helen Voltz, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Kathryn Harasz.

Chairman Randy O?Brien led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

DISCUSSION, RE: BRIEFINGS WITH STAFF

Commissioner Cook advised he received briefings from Zoning Official Rick Enos on various zoning items and from Staff Specialist III Sharon Luba on Item 2. Commissioner Voltz stated she also met with Mr. Enos and Ms. Luba regarding the Time Warner Cable issue. Commissioner Higgs advised she had a briefing with Mr. Enos on the entire agenda.

Commissioner Cook advised the aquaculture lease measure has passed the House of Representatives; and requested the County Manager send a letter to the Governor urging that he veto any portion of a bill that would take away counties? abilities to restrict or deny aquaculture leases within their boundaries. He stated a cover letter can be sent from the Chairman urging other counties to send a similar letter to the Governor protecting their rights under current law.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Manager to send a letter to Governor Lawton Chiles urging he veto any portion of a bill that would take away counties? abilities to restrict or deny aquaculture leases within their boundaries, along with a cover letter from the Chairman, urging other counties to send a similar letter to the Governor protecting their rights under current law; and forward such letters to the county commissioners throughout Florida. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table discussion on the Zoning Code amendment process to the April 29, 1997 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O?Brien called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board recommendations of March 3, 1997, as follows:

Item 19. Eileen K. Taylor?s requests for Conditional Use Permit for Aquaculture Case II on that portion of property zoned SEU on three acres located west of A1A, 0.36 mile north of River Oaks Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated on the plot plan she received, it shows pumps; they are moving the location of the pumps to meet the required setback; and inquired is it consistent with what is going to be done.

Max Taylor, 8850 S. A1A, Melbourne Beach, stated the pumps will be moved back 25 feet from the bulkhead and 25 feet from the northern property line; they will be housed in soundproof housings; the property north of his property is the Archie Carr Refuge; and hopefully, there is not going to be any development there.

Commissioner Higgs inquired does it meet the Zoning Code; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 19 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Chairman O?Brien inquired is bringing the crop on ground at that site applicable or allowable. Mr. Enos stated the intent of the CUP is to allow them to raise the nursery clams on the property; they are then moved into the river; but they cannot bring the crop back onto the property once it is finished. Mr. Taylor advised they are not coming back to his house after they go to the river.

Chairman O?Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Gary J. Coppola?s request for change from PUD with CUP for water treatment plant to RU-2-4 on 198.7? acres located at the west end of Senne Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board as EU-2 on 152? acres and RU-1-13 on 42? acres pursuant to survey by Jackson Land Surveying, Inc. Project 9597-B, Drawing #97009, dated 2/28/97 with binding development plan - 388 units, maximum 1.98 units per acre, 40-foot buffers (north and west property lines), and fencing to south as voluntarily offered by the applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 23 to the May 22, 1997 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O?Brien stated the Board has legal boundaries that it must abide by; and in order for it to reject the application for change of zoning, it is required to have competent and substantial evidence that allows it to approve or deny an application.

Chairman O?Brien called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board recommendations of April 7, 1997, as follows:

Item 1. Benjamin B. and Patricia E. Garagozlo?s request for change from RR-1 to BU-1-A on 1? acre located on the east side of Murrell Road, 1/4 mile north of Barnes Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 2. Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse?s request for change from RR-1 with Conditional Use Permit for Tower to BU-1-A on 8.69? acres located on the east side of Harlock Road, north of Lake Washington Road, which was amended by the applicant to BU-1-A on 1.4 acres and GU on remainder of property with binding development plan and denied by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing the applicant, stated Time Warner Cable owns an 8.7-acre parcel on Harlock Road, north of Lake Washington Road; it is presently zoned RR-1 with a CUP for a tower; his client presently has located on his property two commercial towers; one was placed there in 1964 and the other in 1982; and by a BDP, his client will build no additional towers on the site. He noted his client needs to build a new building at this location; the building presently there is prone to flooding; and distributed pictures to the Board for its review, showing the interior of the building in the absence of flooding and what happened when Hurricane Erin came through. He stated what the photos evidence is what was a very dangerous situation where the water was within the building; Time Warner had to stay on line because it is part of the County?s emergency alert system; his client was extremely lucky that no one was electrocuted as there is a lot of equipment on the floor; and some equipment is beneath the floor. Attorney Spielvogel stated there is a second reason for needing a new building and an enlarged facility of 6,000 square feet; that is in order to house equipment for existing and proposed operations at this site; this building needs to be made hurricane proof; and submitted pictures to the Board showing the site in 1964 when construction was begun and what the area looked like at that time. He noted when such construction began in the 60's, this was out in the country; there were not people living around his client?s site at the time; and the community has grown up around him.

Troy Harville, representing Time Warner Cable, stated he is surprised at the reaction some individuals are having to his Company wanting to upgrade the site; the property sits off of I-95; Time Warner has been there since September, 1964; and it has never received a complaint to any government body about its operations there. He advised it is equipment intensive, not people

intensive; there is a very limited number of people that go to the site; Time Warner is more than willing to adhere to a very restrictive development plan; and it has agreed to no more towers, a large buffer zone averaging approximately 20 feet all the way around the property, and limiting the number of personnel. Mr. Harville stated Time Warner needs to do something to prevent future flooding and not take the risk with its people; it needs to make sure it stays on line as it is part of the County?s EAS system; such system is due to be upgraded in mid-year; under the new system, there will be emergency alerts on all channels; and it is a very critical part of the Emergency Management System?s plan in Brevard County. He stated Time Warner is willing to compromise, work with the County, and do anything it can to avoid spending approximately $2 million which ends up impacting the cost of cable; and requested the Board take these points into consideration and allow the Company to proceed with the project.

Attorney Spielvogel stated he made telephone calls to the neighbors and held meetings with them; he also wrote letters to all the property owners within 500 feet; and he has a BDP to submit to the Board today.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is allowed in GU. Attorney Spielvogel responded commercial towers are a conditional use in GU; he does not know if there is any limitation beyond that; his client is putting a limit on the building and asking for 6,000 square feet; and it is included in the binding development plan. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not see a permitted use that seems consistent with this request. Mr. Enos responded under the GU classification, there is a conditional use permit for commercial towers and antennae; and that has been interpreted to include any unmanned structures necessary to support the electronics on the tower. Commissioner Higgs noted that is not what is going into the building. Mr. Enos responded that is correct; in addition to the equipment, Time Warner also wants to house some personnel; and that is why staff recommended BU-1-A which would be necessary to include the personnel. Commissioner Higgs noted to change the request to GU is not consistent. Mr. Enos responded it is an interpretation and there is no clear indication of that; the GU would be appropriate only if the Board wanted to interpret its Code to include some technical personnel to support the facility. Commissioner Higgs inquired has staff ever interpreted the Code that way; with Mr. Enos responding negatively, but the Board can interpret its Code differently than him.

Attorney Spielvogel stated an accessory use would mean a building that is there and houses equipment; having support personnel and allowing people in the building to take care of the equipment is incidental to the towers; and the binding development plan, which he is asking the Board to be a party to, would allow people in the building.

Commissioner Cook stated if there were an interpretation like that, it would have to affect all current GU towers the same way; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Mr. Enos stated his current interpretation is very conservative because it would apply to all towers; he would be concerned that although the Board has the right to interpret the Code under GU to permit a certain number of support technical people, that interpretation would then apply to all GU and AU towers in the County.

Assistant County Attorney Kathryn Harasz stated she has reviewed the General Use zoning category and the accessory uses for GU appear to be accessory uses; the Code states that accessory uses customary to single family dwellings are permitted, provided structures shall not exceed 50% of the living area of the principle building; it appears that all the accessory use language under the General Use references only an accessory use to a single family dwelling; she does not see a commercial building in the permitted uses for this zoning category; and the position would be that the building would be allowed only as an accessory use to the towers and antennae for conditional uses.

Jerry Fuqua stated no one is complaining about the towers; the residents do not want commercialization of the property; the property is residential; and they would like the area to remain rural residential.

Commissioner Cook stated Janet Fuqua called his office advising she is against the rezoning.

Janet Fuqua stated the residents do not want to have a commercial area right in the middle of a wonderful rural neighborhood; and requested the Board protect the residents. She stated Attorney Spielvogel called her on a Friday morning about a meeting he was going to hold the next morning; but the neighbors did not receive a letter advising of the meeting.

Melanie Farinella stated she agrees with Ms. Fuqua?s comments and is opposed to the rezoning.

Ellen Parda expressed concern with the drainage ditch that runs in the back of Shell Wood Drive; and stated the residents are flooded when there is a hurricane.

Jack Keel stated most of the residents are concerned about the expansion; he is not against what is already there; there are personnel there operating and maintaining the systems already; and he does not want to see it expanded.

Bernard Berger expressed concern regarding the rezoning request by Time Warner; and stated rezoning this property would set a precedent for rezoning of other properties contiguous and resulting in more construction of towers.

Cindy Parks stated her major concern is about the microwaves; no one says what kind of equipment it is and how it is going to affect the residents? health; she wants to know that; and she strongly opposes the rezoning request. She inquired is there any radiation from the towers or building.

Chairman O?Brien responded it is nothing that will affect Ms. Parks and the federal government has ruled that especially in tower construction, the electromagnetic field cannot be a consideration as there is no real information that says it is bad.

Anne Hodges stated she has no objection with the existing tower; this is a rural residential area; and she opposes any further expansion.

Chairman O?Brien inquired if Ms. Fuqua received a notice from the County; with Ms. Fuqua responding affirmatively.

Mr. Enos stated the County does send a notice; Attorney Spielvogel is not required to notify anyone; anything he does is above and beyond any requirement; and he does not believe it is relevant whether or not Attorney Spielvogel notified anybody.

Attorney Spielvogel stated he received the list from the Zoning Office with the names of everyone it notified; that is the list to which he sent; why anyone did not receive any mail or whether they open their mail is beyond him; his Office did not send the letters postage collect, but put postage on them; and a number of the neighbors showed up for his meetings.

Commissioner Cook inquired is this a non-conforming use; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook advised Cindy Parks called his office and had concerns with the health issue and equipment being stored at the site; this particular site is a non-conforming use; from what he is hearing from Mr. Enos and Attorney Harasz, there is no way to make the site GU and make it work; and the concerns about BU-1-A are legitimate. He noted he reviewed the area and looked at the homes; he would be concerned if a parcel, even with restrictions, was being zoned BU-1-A in a residential zoning classification; he also has a concern of expanding a non-conforming use; he appreciates the efforts that Attorney Spielvogel and others have made to try and work something out here; but he believes there is always going to be a conflict with this particular site because of its location. Commissioner Cook stated this is not a viable or proper place to put a BU-1-A zoning, even with the buffer and size restrictions; and he cannot support changing the zoning classification on this particular property as it would be improper with the County?s Comprehensive Plan and against the zoning regulations.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan?s locational criteria as outlined in Policy 4.7; the zoning map reveals that a BU-1-A zoning classification commercial character would be inconsistent with the established character and zoning of the area; and it would be inappropriate.

Chairman O?Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:10 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 7:25 p.m.

Item 3. Henry U. Parrish, Jr.?s request for change from AU to BU-2 on 3.82 acres located on the south side of S.R. 520, 0.34 mile west of Lake Poinsett Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Judy Parrish, representing the applicant, stated the request is to rezone the property to BU-2; the business is wishing to relocate in the City of Rockledge on the corner of U.S. 1 and Barnes Boulevard; it is a utility trailer dealership-type distributor; and the reason for the move is because the applicant would like to own the building and he is limited in space where he presently is located. She presented photographs to the Board showing the site and the type of vehicles being sold. She noted behind the site is zoned estate use; it is currently a borrow pit; there will not be any estates built there unless they are under water; and the property next door is a city pump station and an industrial-type use. Ms. Parrish stated across the street is BU-2 zoning; to the east is a gas station and RV dealership; and to the west is BU-2. She noted the RV dealership has RV?s out front; that area is becoming dealership road; Ford and everyone else are moving along that strip; with the new site plans and Codes, they do require buffers, drainage, and landscaping requirements; the construction is going to have a retail front with any type of commercial use behind it; and they sell things like lights, fuses, and trailer hitches in the store. She stated there is BU-2 on every side of the property except the back; she feels this is a compatible use for the area; the proper zoning is BU-2; and a good clean business would locate there.

Commissioner Cook inquired is there BU-2 zoning surrounding this property; with Mr. Enos responding that statement did confuse him as there is BU-1 within 500 feet to the east and BU-1 across the street. Mr. Enos advised he is not aware of any BU-2 close to this property; there may be some within one-half mile or a mile; but he is not aware of any in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Cook expressed concern that this is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?s locational criteria for non-retail commercial; this is a major corridor into the County; and the BU-1 would be a better classification rather than the heavier use of BU-2. Ms. Parrish inquired if the option of BU-1 zoning back to approximately 90 feet and BU-2 zoning behind it can be reviewed. Commissioner Cook inquired would it be consistent. Mr. Enos responded splitting the zoning BU-1 and BU-2 is an appropriate means to keep the BU-2 off the highway frontage; the retail portion could be put in the front within the area that is zoned BU-1; and storage could be put in the back on the portion that is zoned BU-2.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve BU-1 zoning on the first 100 feet and BU-2 on the back 200 feet, with a binding development plan for the specific use on the back of the property for Item 3. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Charles W. and Marie Brumbaugh?s request for change from BU-1 to SR on .33 acre located on the east side of U.S. #1, north of 13th Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 5. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on which a development order had been submitted initiating a consideration of a change in zoning classification in accordance with the provisions of Future Land Use Element XIII, Policy 10.2, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as adopted on September 8, 1988, on 14+ acres located on the east side of Simons Avenue, 1/4 mile north of S.R. 3, from BU-2 and AU with binding site plan, use on review, and conditional use permit for a tower to PIP, which was tabled by the P&Z Board to its June 2, 1997 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item 5 to the June 2, 1997 P&Z Board meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.?s request for CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in BU-2 zone on two acres located on the north side of S.R. 520, west of North Banana River Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Chairman O?Brien passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Voltz.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman Voltz passed the gavel to Chairman O?Brien.

Item 7. Ronald E. Dimenna?s request for change from SR to SR with a binding development plan on 21.24 acres located on the south side of North Tropical Trail, west of Colony Park Drive, which was tabled by the P&Z Board to its May 5, 1997 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item 7 to the May 5, 1997 P&Z Board meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Richard Pecar and Johanna Weinraub?s request for change from GU to ARR on 2 acres located on the south side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, 0.17 mile west of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 9. Paul and Sonny Jewell?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1.16 acres located on the east side of Stephanie Way, directly east of Doug Williams Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 10. Selma Ruth McCue?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the south side of Harley Avenue, 0.22 mile east of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. Rebecca Rae Johnson-Hudson?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the south side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, west of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 13. Gina and John Loffink?s request for CUP for towers and antennae in a GU zone on 1.03? acres located north of Date Palm Street, west of I-95, which was tabled to the July 7, 1997 P&Z Board meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item 13 to the July 7, 1997 P&Z Board meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. Buddie Joe Thomas? request for CUP for towers and antennae in a GU zone on 6.96 acres located east of Blounts Ridge Road, west of I-95, north of Aurantia Road, and bisected by April Lane, which was tabled to the July 7, 1997 P&Z Board meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item 14 to the July 7, 1997 P&Z Board meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. Hoyt G. and Sarah A. Mack and Ola Mae Mack?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.01? acres located on the south side of Parker Street, west of U.S. 1, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 16. 4 G?s of Brevard County, Inc.?s request for change from GU to ARR on one acre located on the south side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, west of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 17. 4 G?s of Brevard County, Inc.?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1.26 acres located on the northeast corner of Burning Tree Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 11. Tad Allen Kokoszka?s request for change from RU-2-10 to RP on .87 acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, 0.31 mile south of Broadway Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Harley Gutin, representing the applicant, stated Mr. Kokoszka purchased this property with the intent to put a law office in there; they have moved in and expended over $6,000 in improvements; they hope to repair the dock which is approximately a $10,000 improvement; and they are not doing anything to change appearance of the property from the nice residential appearance it has right now. He noted he believes a residential professional setting is a traditional transition from the residential setting it presently has; they want the Board to be aware that the property directly across the street is a commercial property; it is Crosby Equipment; and 7/10ths of a mile south of U.S. 1 are two gas stations, Corky Bells, apartment rentals, a bar, flea markets, and truck rental. Attorney Gutin stated a professional residential setting is not going to do anything, but improve the property which was run down; there is no increased traffic; it fits into the traditional setting of the residential; and requested residential professional zoning be approved for the property. He presented photographs of the property to the Board for its review.

Pat Herron stated she personally has been in and out of the law office many times; it is highly professional; they have made great improvements to the building; defense attorneys often get a bad rap; Attorneys Kokoszka and Gutin are two fine reputable men; and she highly recommends the Board keep them located on U.S. 1. She noted they have made a great improvement; and requested the Board honor them with the residential professional rezoning.

Syble Clark stated she has known Attorney Kokoszka for a couple of years; the property was originally a duplex; they contacted the Zoning Board; and it is her understanding that RP zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

Attorney Gutin stated one of the issues that came up at the last hearing was the concern about representing criminal clients; he is proud of what they do, but they do not just do criminal law; and they also practice family law. He reiterated the improvements that have been made to the property; stated they intend to make more; he cannot say enough about the location; the neighbors to the south of them are very happy they are located there; and he has affidavits from Crosby Equipment, his tenant Rod Borfeld, Dallas Tones, and Mr. Norton on U.S. 1 also.

Pat Bayer stated she opposed the rezoning of this property; it is a very old, historical residential and riverfront community with homes over 100 years old; this duplex was built in 1962 for a retired couple who used the rent to pay their taxes and live quietly on the river; and Mr. Borfeld is in the other half of the duplex and has assured his neighbors he has no intention of moving. She noted that creates one residence and two law offices in a duplex with one driveway and no parking for clients and two lawyers; it is not enough space; there have been multiple phone calls to Code Enforcement and Zoning to complain about the business and their sign since December, 1996; and Code Enforcement notified them that the sign was not permissible, the property is not zoned for a law office, and if Attorney Kokoszka had more than one site for his business, he is required to have a branch office license. Ms. Bayer stated she protests rezoning to lawyers who do not operate within the law; she and her brother own 110 acres to the west of the property in question; together they protest additional traffic and the quality of the attorneys? clients listed as trial, criminal and DUI at the top of their sign in this residential area of retired people; and the Zoning Department report also notes that residential professional zoning may be incompatible with the RU-1-13 zoning already there.

Myralene Williams stated she is south of the property in question and opposes the rezoning request as the area is residential; all the houses are on the river; the properties Attorney Gutin was referring to are located on the highway; and requested only residential people be allowed to locate in the area instead of residential professional.

Attorney Gutin stated there is plenty of room for parking; improvements can be made; there is plenty of commercial property on the east side of U.S. 1, as well as the west side; they are doing nothing to change the appearance of the residential community; and they have done more improvements than the apartment complex to the south of them. He noted they have done more to add to the residential appearance; they are not putting up an eyesore; the parking can be handled; and they can work with the neighbors to make sure it is done tastefully. Attorney Gutin stated the property as it sits now can be used as a home office; they are good neighbors; they are not doing anything to upset the house the way it was built and designed; and they have done nothing but improve the property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Enos briefed him regarding a home office and signage; there are restrictions on it; and requested Mr. Enos respond.

Mr. Enos stated home occupation is available for an attorney?s office; they must live in the home; they can only have one employee; and they are limited to the number of clientele coming in and out at any given time such that there is not a need for more than two parking spaces; and the signage is limited to a one square-foot sign that can be placed on the wall and not free standing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in Mr. Enos? report, he addressed the matrix and it may be incompatible; and inquired in what manner was that viewed as being incompatible.

Mr. Enos stated the Comprehensive Plan describes professional offices as possibly incompatible with residential; and that is from the standpoint that with a professional office, there is commercial traffic and a lot of activity going on that may not be compatible with a residential neighborhood.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a restaurant north of the property; there has been a lot of incompatibility and code complaints on it; it never merged in being a part of that community; even though it is limited on that site, it tends to want to remain residential in nature; and he is going to move to deny the request.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 11. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions Nos. Z-9871 through Z-9883.)

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

ATTEST:

__________________________________

RANDY O?BRIEN, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)