October 31, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on October 31, 2001, at 1:05 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: FLOODPLAIN RULES

Commissioner Scarborough stated he went to Project Impact; he met someone from FEMA; he suggested Brevard County get information from Orange County; and Charlotte Mecklenburg was mentioned. He stated the Chamber of Commerce promulgated the floodplain rules with the homebuilders and it did not come from government; and it is information from 1987, so the ideas are not cutting edge technology and have been around for a while.

REPORT, RE: HALLOWEEN

Commissioner O'Brien wished everyone a happy Halloween; and stated tonight he hopes all parents keep their children safe. Commissioner Higgs advised there is a big event taking place at the Space Coast Stadium tonight also that children can go to and enjoy.

DISCUSSION, RE: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Zoning Regulations

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated on October 2, 2001, the Board had the opportunity to review a staff generated plan, which is part of the package called the Flood Management Options; in the October 2, 2001 meeting, the Board directed staff to put together draft language which would implement the proposals contained within the report, Flood Management Options; and staff can go through the draft language. She noted these are not ordinances that are in their final state as the Board only wanted the language to move quickly as there is a moratorium; Page 1 includes a proposal to create a new provision that would eliminate new mobile home zoning applications from being accepted at the County within the 25-year floodplain; however, it would permit the continued zoning as well as, in other Sections of the Ordinances, development of areas which currently have some mobile home development; and if there were five mobile homes and a vacant lot in the middle, the County could allow the vacant lot in the middle to be developed with mobile homes, but new mobile homes would not be permitted within the floodplain.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired would mobile homes be permitted if someone built up the lot to perhaps 18 feet. Ms. Busacca responded it would be a decision of the Board, but there are different construction standards for mobile homes than for stick-built homes; this follows what the Board has done in the West Canaveral Groves area; and staff could advise what would happen when mobile homes get wet and why it is not advantageous. Commissioner O'Brien stated the suggested regulation states, "No mobile homes shall be approved after the date of this amendment on lots or parcels that are located at or below the 25-year floodplain"; it is a very strict no; and inquired if somebody owns a lot and brings in 25 truck loads of fill to bring the whole lot above the 25-year floodplain, are they considered to be in the floodplain or is their lot now above the floodplain and, therefore, they can put their mobile home there. Ms. Busacca responded the standards do not permit someone to fill to be above the floodplain so as to allow them to become exempt from the regulations; the regulations before the Board are a balancing act; it is a poor idea to add fill to the floodplain; and it reduces the amount of storage capacity and the water goes somewhere. She noted the balancing act is to minimize the amount of fill in the floodplain thus impacting adjoining properties, while still allowing people to build safely within the floodplain; the County does not encourage filling to exclude someone from the regulations of the floodplain; and the filling would be for specific issues, such as raising the house pad and putting a septic tank up.

Regional Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones stated Commissioner O'Brien asked what makes a mobile home different than a single-family residential structure if someone is filling the property in accordance with the recommendations; the answer to that question is probably nothing; typical mobile home activities usually have less fill involved and there is not fill for the driveway; someone basically moves a mobile home in, it is blocked up, and the wheels are removed; and one of the things the Board may wish to consider is if mobile homes are to be allowed in the floodplain, that they not be allowed in a mechanism without that minimal fill necessary to make sure that it has addressed the issues of the additional damage that occurs to mobile homes. He noted once the mobile homes get wet, they are done; another issue that could be addressed is the additional anchoring requirements that are necessary; when there are flood waters, a concrete slab is not likely to move very far, but a mobile home can; and something the Board will need to weigh is if mobile homes are to be allowed, it needs to assure that those issues are addressed.

Commissioner Higgs stated the language drafted on Page 1 talks about mobile homes at or below the 25-year floodplain; and inquired does it say that somebody cannot build out of that with fill. Ms. Busacca responded that is correct.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve staff's recommendations to create new provision for Zoning Regulations, Section 62-2129.5, 25-year Floodplain, to include that no mobile home zoning application shall be approved after the date of this amendment on lots or parcels that are located at or below the 25-year floodplain elevation; and no mobile home building permits shall be issued on lots or parcels located at or below the 25-year floodplain elevation, unless such lot or parcel is part of a mobile home park or mobile home subdivision that is at least partially developed as of the date of this amendment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Franck Kaiser, representing the Homebuilders and Contractors Association of Brevard, stated the only area of concern that the Association has is that in the health area; it primarily addresses the drain field size, buffers, and fill requirements; it depends on where someone is located in the 25-year floodplain as to how much fill is going to be required at any given site; and the Association is concerned about how much that would cost, how much it would impact property values, whether or not it would make it feasible to fill or not, and if it did not make some developed lots feasible to fill, then it would depreciate the existing properties as it would become an undesirable area. He noted the figures he received from one of the larger fill firms in the County indicated a minimum of one-half acre fill on a site; to fill it to one-foot of elevation would take approximately 1,000 cubic yards; the average cost on such fill is approximately $4.00 per yard; so it would cost $4,000 to put one foot of elevation on one-half acre. He stated to fill a site at five feet, it would cost $20,000; the drawing indicates one-half acre maximum; and requested clarification as to if it is one-half acre or a larger lot, how much has to be filled to cover all the structures and driveway. Mr. Moia stated the one-half acre maximum on the drawing would be before someone would have to have compensating storage. Mr. Kaiser inquired is there a minimum requirement to fill one-half acre under the proposal; with Mr. Moia responding negatively. Mr. Jones advised there is a minimum requirement to provide a buffer of fill around the septic and well systems, the home, and the ingress and egress driveway; so someone would have a minimum amount of fill. Mr. Jones stated the County's objective is to minimize the amount of fill that occurs in the floodplain; but in recognition of both small lots and other lots that have special or unique configurations in terms of their dimensions, someone with up to one-half acre would not be required to provide compensating storage for filling the floodplain.

John Denninghoff, Construction Management and Design, stated in the worst floodplain, the buffer distance between the septic system and the area that is below the floodplain would increase because of the increased frequency of the flooding, and duration of the flooding would be longer.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is the Association objecting to the buffer around the septic tank, the driveway being elevated, the accessory structures being elevated or the well; and requested clarification. Mr. Kaiser responded the Association is primarily concerned about the size of the drain field requirements, which would be the buffer. Commissioner Higgs stated the drain field requirements would be the same as under Florida Statutes; and the County is increasing the buffer concept. Mr. Kaiser inquired how far is the base of the residence supposed to be above the 100-year floodplain; with Mr. Moia responding 12 inches for the structure. Mr. Kaiser inquired if a structure required a septic drain field system, how high does the drain field system have to be; with Cheryl Dunn, Environmental Health, responding staff has proposed that the bottom of the drain field be two feet above the 100-year floodplain, and the width of the drain field plus the cover would put the top of the grade four feet above the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Dunn noted the foundation is only required to be one foot above the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Kaiser inquired if someone has a gravity-fed drain field, how high does the base elevation of the floor have to be above the drain field; with Ms. Dunn responding approximately two additional feet, so someone would be looking at five feet above the 100-year floodplain; and the point is to have other options than a gravity-fed system. Commissioner Scarborough noted somebody could go to stemwall. Mr. Jones stated another option is an elevated mound drain field with a pump system; and the language as it is currently written also provides for advanced treatment systems and minimizing the buffer by dividing it in half. Mr. Kaiser inquired what is the financial impact of an advanced treatment system compared to a standard system; with Ms. Dunn responding several thousand dollars as an advanced water treatment system must be engineered and requires bi-annual permitting and maintenance. Mr. Kaiser noted it is going to take several thousand dollars to get the height needed under the new ordinance or several thousand dollars to build an advanced treatment system that will require either five feet or two feet of fill. Ms. Dunn responded the advanced wastewater system does not affect the height, but does affect the buffer. Mr. Kaiser stated it will affect the height of the foundation of the homes since a home has to be above the base of the drain field; and the buffer is a separate issue. Mr. Moia noted the language provides the builder with a lot of options; some of the options might be more expensive than the others; but it gives builders the ability to put it together to find out which way they want to go, whether they want to do fill, put in the pump, or go to stemwall; and builders have the opportunity to review the options to discover what is going to be the most economical for them.

Mr. Denninghoff stated currently the way the language is written the improvements themselves have to be above an increased elevation from what might be required today; the 12 inches above the base flood elevation is an increase; currently the regulations allow construction at the base flood elevation; in some cases, the septic system would increase from what would currently be required today; and in many cases, it will not be required to go any higher. He noted the accessory structures would increase to allow continued use during a flooding event, including the well head, access to the house, and the buffer around the septic system; the means by which someone elevates the individual structures is up to the builder; the buffer around the septic system and around the well head is going to have to be filled; but there are options for the actual structures that do not necessarily require fill for the entire one-half acre or up to one-half acre. Mr. Moia stated the drawings including the one-half acre, which would be the amount allowed to be filled without providing compensating storage; staff showed what would be a typical scenario with a structure and accessory structure with a septic system, well and driveway; someone would not have to fill the whole thing, but the same elevation of the structure; there would be varied elevations within the one-half acre and the house and septic system might be at a different elevation than the accessory structure and remaining one-half acre, including the driveway; and everything in the one-half acre would be above the base flood elevation, but some of the individual components would be elevated in a series perhaps higher than that, depending on the way the builder wants to develop the property. Mr. Moia stated the other drawing is a cross-section through the drain field showing above the floodplain elevation and the distance from the drain field itself to the surface water, which would be created by the base flood.

Mr. Jones stated another important thing to consider when discussing placement of septic systems in the floodplain is that the County is not discussing if a property is going to flood, but how frequently is there going to be flooding on the property; in order for a septic tank system to function, it has to be able to withstand that time frame in which that inundation occurs; it is important not just from the functionality of the septic tank drain field system, but also important from a health, safety, and welfare issue because there is lateral movement of the leachate or effluent from the drain field into the flood waters; and it is a hard thing to balance.

Chairman Carlson stated this is not a done deal today and the Board is moving certain things forward; and if Mr. Kaiser wants to work with staff to better understand what the implications are, it might be best done then versus sitting here and trying to understand it all right now. Mr. Kaiser stated taking the real world situation into account and the size of the buffers, a lot of lots are only 120 feet wide even if they are a one-acre lot; some of the buffer requirements would not fit on a standard lot; and requested the Board consider the minimum requirements and not over-engineer here as it is a flooding event that might occur once in 100 years in a 100-year floodplain or once every 25 years in a 25-year floodplain. He noted to over react and over engineer would penalize thousands of lots; requested the Board go with what it needs to get by with for the minimum requirements on a buffer and drain fields that will address the health, safety, and welfare issues; and stated the Association wants all the structures and driveways elevated to where they should be, but do not want it over killed. Commissioner Higgs inquired in the perspective of the Homebuilders Association, where should they be, and if someone is in a 25-year floodplain, should they be above the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Kaiser responded the 100-year seems reasonable, especially for the roads. Commissioner Higgs inquired should the slab of the home be above the 100-year floodplain; with Mr. Kaiser responding the Association feels that 12 inches above the 100-year floodplain is maximum. Commissioner Higgs inquired is the Homebuilders Association in a position to say that the septic system and the drain field should be above the 100-year floodplain; with Mr. Kaiser responding the drain field should be above the 100-year floodplain, but the Association does not want to go way above the 100-year. Mr. Kaiser inquired what is the minimum that someone could go and is 12 inches above the 100-year floodplain reasonable with the buffer, or does somebody have to go to 24 inches as a minimum; and stated the 24 inches is excessive.

Mr. Denninghoff advised the County is currently committed under the Community Rating System as an National Flood Insurance Protection Program (NFIPP) Community; it needs to abide by the NFIPP regulations; it requires that for new construction, the County provide assurances that a septic system or well remain functional during a flood event; and in the case of the septic system or onsite sewage disposal system, the County is also supposed to assure that it does not contaminate the flood waters. He noted that is the genesis of the buffer and additional elevation for the drain fields; that is why the County has a larger buffer for the 10-year and 25-year floodplains versus the higher elevations; and the duration of the flood event will allow the possibility of the lateral movement of the leachate to contaminate the surface waters. Mr. Denninghoff stated in the case of the well and pump, the elevation above the 100-year floodplain takes care of the problem; and the County needs to make sure it complies with that. Chairman Carlson inquired does the County have minimal assurances that will take place if Brevard County gets a 25-year floodplain or less event, based on what is written here; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively. Chairman Carlson noted the County has minimized the impact to the building community as far as increasing the height of the slab or whatever. Ms. Busacca stated should the Board wish to consider lesser standards, staff has suggestions for ways it could do that; what has been provided here is consistent with the report that was provided to the Board in October, 2001; and there are certain ways that the Board could find some compromise if it desires and still comply with the NFIPP regulations. Chairman Carlson inquired are the standards before the Board considered minimum requirements; with Ms. Busacca responding some of the standards would be over minimum requirements; and staff can highlight those for the Board.

Fran Wales stated it is disturbing that the Homebuilders and Contractors Association just received the package today; there has been no task force appointed; she does not know how many staff and Board members have worked in the field of construction; and what looks good on paper sometimes does not work out in the field. She noted sometimes when doing things of this magnitude it is better to put the task force in place first and get professionals who have had to do this on a daily basis; the task force could review issues with County staff; and such issues could then come back to the Board. She noted she is not fond of manufactured housing and does not promote it; but she feels concerned for some of the people who may have 10 or 15 acres in the 25-year floodplain, and may have planned on putting a mobile home there; and they may be in for a surprise and may not be aware of what is happening. Ms. Wales expressed concern with a lot of the issues under discussion; stated individuals will be hurt unintentionally; and there is a January 1, 2002 deadline date of a new State Code coming in. She requested the Board appoint a task force to review the issues; suggested those individuals coming into play with the crucial Code change be allowed to sign a disclosure saying they have been advised of the issues; and stated the County could make an exclusion for those people and provide them the ability to move forward with their plans.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the reason for the Board contemplating today is that a lot of people have been hurt in the past by being allowed to build in a 10-year floodplain and 25-year floodplain; those people have been flooded; everything they have saved up for is gone forever and they cannot get it back; and the federal government has said many times that it is not going to step back in and keep paying people for the loss of their homes. Ms. Wales stated this was not a problem that arose overnight; it should have been addressed earlier; and now it is being addressed because some areas were flooded again. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has discussed the issue on other occasions because previous Commissions did not take any action; it does not mean that the Board should not take any action now; it is time to grab the bull by the horns and do something; and it is not just because of one area being flooded. He noted he brought the subject up to the Board more than one year ago when it came down to people getting the titles; someone's title should indicate whether or not they are in a 10-year floodplain and they are going to get flooded; and the reason Brevard County does not do that is because it does not control that law. Ms. Wales stated the issue needs to be addressed and the County needs to have meetings involving professionals who deal with the subject on a daily basis.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is reviewing the issues today and will make a first determination of what it wants to move forward on; it would be preliminary for the staff to bring to anybody before it talks to the Board about what it thinks it may want to do; staff has various people and agencies it will go to, to discuss the issue; and this is the Board's first chance in looking at staff's recommendations. She noted for such recommendations to go out as seemingly coming from the Board would be unfair.

Mr. Jones stated at the last Board meeting when the report was provided, staff made a commitment that it was going to work with the Homebuilders Association; today's workshop was originally scheduled for November 13, 2001 and was moved back to today; this provides an opportunity for staff to have the dialogue with the Board and provide information so that the Board can help to craft such information before it goes forth into public hearing process; and it is staff's intent to work with the Homebuilders Association and other interested groups, as well as the Local Planning Agency on the issues.

Ms. Wales stated the clock is ticking; even if the County puts this issue on the fast track, it is still going to run into a brick wall when it comes to the January 1, 2002 date; and the County may want to look at providing certain individuals some means of getting an exception to this in the meantime. Chairman Carlson stated those individuals affected will come to the County; and they will be dealt with when they come in. Ms. Wales stated the new State Code is supposed to come into effect on January 2, 2002; and the costs could range from $5,000 to $15,000. Chairman Carlson stated the Board understands where Ms. Wales is coming from; and it will take due consideration of all the points.

*County Manager Tom Jenkins' absence was noted at this time.

Buildings and Building Regulations

Ms. Busacca stated the important changes begin on the bottom of Page 3 and continue to the top of Page 4; the current standard is that a home or a building is required to be elevated at least 10 inches above the crown of the road; the language would include, "or 12 inches above the 100-year base flood elevation, whichever is greater"; and it is the freeboard requirement that staff has discussed. She noted the requirement is described later on the second half of the page, which is depicted in the map showing the one-half acre of maximum fill; it would require the electrical service and any portion of a structure must be above the 100-year base flood elevation; and accessory structures associated with housing of animals or livestock would be elevated above the 100-year base flood elevation. Ms. Busacca stated staff considers this provision to be very important for a variety of reasons; it does insure that structures are above the 100-year base flood elevation; and it would potentially lead to an additional 5% decrease in flood premiums through the CRS rating.

Commissioner Higgs inquired the 5% decrease in flood premiums is in whose insurance. Mr. Denninghoff responded currently under the CRS Program, the homes that are in the special flood hazard areas benefit by the County's participation in the CRS Program with a 10% discount in their insurance premiums for floods; if they have a mortgage, they are required to have flood insurance; and if they do not have a mortgage, they are not required to have such insurance. Mr. Denninghoff stated the benefit is forced on individuals if they have a mortgage; otherwise, it just saves them money; for homes that are above of the 100-year flood elevation, they receive a 5% discount in their flood insurance premiums; nobody requires them to have that insurance; the individuals who would receive the increase would be those that are in the 100-year flood area; and they would receive a 15% discount instead of 10%.

Mr. Jones stated one important consideration when discussing freeboard is that the accuracy based on the scale of the type of analysis that is being done to determine flood elevations, especially riverine elevations, plus or minus six inches is a very acceptable determination because of the complexity of it and the cost of the surveying that is required to get it closer than that; and it is important that it be factored in and make sure that if it were six inches higher, that the finished floor elevation would be above that. Mr. Denninghoff stated the NFIP recommends that the 12 inches of freeboard be provided; and it recommends constructing one foot above the base flood elevation for the reason Mr. Jones previously outlined.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 4 includes language, ". . . shall have the lowest floor, excluding the floor of the garage, elevated at least 10 inches above the crown grade of the road on which the property abuts or 12 inches above the 100-year base flood elevation, whichever is greater, except that such requirements may be waived prior to construction by the County Manager or designee, if natural drainage permits." He requested staff provide an example to the Board. Mr. Denninghoff stated this is one of the areas that needs to include additional language; in the special flood hazard areas, the County cannot waive the finished floor elevation requirements to anything below the base flood elevation; the 10 inches above the crown grade of the road would only be in areas that are above the 100-year floodplain; there has been some concern that 10 inches in one area and 12 inches in another area might lead to some confusion; and the confusion could be solved by making it 12 inches across-the-board. Chairman Carlson stated it would make sense to make it 12 inches across-the-board to reduce confusion. Mr. Moia clarified that the County can only waive the elevation above the crown of the road; and there would be no exception for above the base flood elevation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve staff's recommendations on amendments to Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Technical Codes, Section 22-46, Definitions; Section 22-47, Administration; Section 22-48, Floor Elevation to be above grade of adjacent thoroughfare; included language in Subsection (b), "12 inches across-the-board"; and included verbiage clarifying that the County can only waive the elevation above the crown of the road, and no exception for above the base flood elevation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Onsite Sewage Disposal

Ms. Busacca stated the requirements begin on Page 9; such requirements are different depending on what part of the floodplain someone is in; the requirement on Paragraph 5 states, "For property lying at or below the 100-year base flood elevation, the bottom of the drainfield will be no less than 24 inches above the seasonal high water table or the 100-year base flood elevation, whichever is higher"; beginning through Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, is the requirement for the buffers; and for the buffer in the mean annual flood elevation, which is defined as an area that is expected to flood once every two years and four months, there would be a 75-foot buffer, unless the property was platted prior to 1982, in which case there would be no less than a 50-foot buffer. She noted the intent of the buffer is to reduce the lateral movement of effluent into surface waters; Paragraph 7 talks about for property below the 25-year flood elevation, but above the mean annual flood elevation, the buffer would be 50 feet; Paragraph 8 includes above the 25-year flood elevation and below the 100-year flood elevation; and the buffer would be 25 feet. Ms. Busacca stated there would be some instances where these buffers would not be able to be put on a small property; and in the original plan, staff had proposed that some appeal process be permitted so that those would still continue to be buildable lots.

Chairman Carlson stated Paragraph 8 says, "The buffer shall be vegetated and sloped at a ratio no steeper than two to one"; and inquired does "vegetated" mean grass. Mr. Jones responded that is correct. Chairman Carlson stated staff may want to clarify it at some point.

Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern about the magnitude of the event when it occurs; stated a few years after he took office, there was a massive drainage problem in the very north end of Brevard County, and it reached down to Mims; the water was not just rising, but also moving rapidly; and going out there was like driving through a river that was a mile across. He noted the County is talking about only one thing with propensity; there are many other things that occur, including how high does the water rise; raw sewage was also occurring; and the County is touching one element of many different elements in this.

Ms. Busacca stated the buffer would allow the septic tank to function; and not only will someone be able to flush, but the treatment capacity will occur as well. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has captured areas within Brevard County today that are anomalies that occurred with the building of its roads; it has storm events that are unusual and can create strange and dangerous events; the County does not necessarily need a hurricane; and the one incident that occurred was a couple of storm cells that sat for a few days and created havoc. He noted it sounds pretty and nice here, but the County does not deal in pretty and nice things when the event occurs; and it is sometimes very ugly.

Mr. Jones stated when there are flood waters moving, there is a real issue with the potential for the foundations that usually hold the mobile homes up; and they do not address the same kind of engineering constraints as with a finished floor foundation.

Commissioner Scarborough noted what Commissioner Colon had in Deer Run was benign in comparison with what he saw approximately 10 years ago; the only way the waters could move was from Volusia County into Brevard County and ultimately to the St. Johns River to the west; he has seen events in the north end of the Indian River Lagoon where the wind has blown the water up in there and the water is not flowing out the ditches; and the ditches are charging the water back up into people's homes, so the Lagoon itself becomes the flooding event because of wind-driven water movement. He stated the County needs to know about wind-driven and capturing the water that is moving. Ms. Busacca stated there are designated floodways on the FEMA maps that show there are certain areas where the waters move a certain way; and according to Mr. Denninghoff, the instance Commissioner Scarborough is describing was not described as a floodway. Commissioner Scarborough noted he talked to people who have lived in Brevard County for quite a while; they were able to foresee and know that the event was occurring; there are people that go beyond the maps; every time a development is built, it is damming, capturing, and channeling, which creates dynamic events; and he does not understand it yet. Chairman Carlson stated she does not believe the County has control over that level; after it has changed the landscape so much, she is not sure there is an engineer on Earth who can say the water is going to go this way and no one should build in this path now; and it is moving that path dynamically as it is building the community. Commissioner Scarborough stated perhaps certain events are more profound in certain areas because they are in this dynamic stream flow, which would result in more massive and different types of damages.

Mr. Jones stated in many of the areas, even during the Hurricane Erin event, the slough system that runs southward from Suntree had whole watersheds interconnecting and contributing; in a significant storm the County normally does not see that; water elevations were over Lake Washington Road and other roads because they were crossing a historic slough; I-95 is located on the ridge to avoid being in the lower area; and when there are massive rainfall events, the sloughs will function as they did previously. He noted some of the advantages of the work that the Stormwater Utility Program has done are to identify and do modeling in those areas; and although staff could not predict every occurrence, it might be able to draft a map of different areas within the County where it knows there is a high probability during major events. Chairman Carlson inquired what would staff do differently for those areas than what is being proposed; with Mr. Jones responding there could be a heightened awareness on the part of working through land development processes; and developing the map and incorporating those types of areas for additional scrutiny in the development process is probably the best thing staff could do.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired does Brevard County still have copies of the SLOSH maps; with Mr. Jones responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how do the standards that are in the draft ordinance compare with the Statewide standards. Ms. Dunn responded the County's standards greatly exceed the State standards; currently when staff evaluates a lot and adjusts the seasonal high water table, it does not adjust the water table above the natural grade; therefore, staff typically does not set the systems with the bottoms of the drainfield more than two feet above an existing grade if the water table is adjusted at zero; the County only requires a two-foot separation from seasonal high water table; and it is in conflict with where it knows the flood waters go to. Commissioner Higgs inquired how far above does staff set the bottom of the septic tank drainfield; with Ms. Dunn responding two feet above the seasonal high water table, and it does not address the floodplains. Commissioner Higgs noted the NFIP regulations differ from the State regulations; but the NFIP regulations will get people discounts in regard to their flood insurance. Mr. Denninghoff stated the better the local regulations coincide with the recommendations made through the NFIP, the bigger and deeper the discounts are; and the reason for it is being less likely to have flood damages.

Mr. Jones stated it is his understanding that there were floodplain requirements in the Code, and they were recently changed to be specific to the Suwannee and one other river; he is not sure if it was an oversight on the part of that process; but there are some standards for riverine systems. Ms. Dunn advised the two-foot separation came from that specific standard; they have a two-foot separation between the 10-year floodplain; and the County is asking for such separation between the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Busacca stated there is an opportunity if the Board would like to consider this to be 12 inches above the 100-year floodplain or two feet above the 10-year flood elevation that Ms. Dunn has suggested; and staff has discussed the fact that someone could probably get the same amount of treatment with a 12-inch separation as they could with a 24-inch separation of the 100-year flood elevation. Ms. Dunn noted it would be close to the two feet with the 25-year floodplain. Commissioner Higgs stated it still exceeds the State standards. Ms. Busacca stated it would address the concern of minimizing the amount of fill that is put into the floodplain; with Chairman Carlson responding it sounds positive to her, if the Board wants to proceed.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is the County compromising its flood insurance program; with Mr. Denninghoff responding negatively.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve staff's recommendations on amendments to Chapter 46, Environment, Article II, Onsite Sewage Disposal, Section 46-36, Definitions; Section 46-37, Penalty; Section 46-38, Declaration of Intent; and Section 46-39, Incorporation of Applicable Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Sections. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Environmental Protection and Conservation

Ms. Busacca stated there are several significant changes in these provisions; currently the Floodplain Protection Ordinance addresses largely riverine floodplains and excludes significantly isolated and estuarine floodplains; the maps show the additional floodplain that is being included; and the map to her left shows the riverine floodplains. She noted the Merritt Island area shown on the map shows the estuarine floodplains; the additional estuarine floodplains on Merritt Island would be included within the provisions before the Board; the map to the right includes staff's best depiction of where the isolated floodplains would be; and such floodplains are those that are not directly connected to a riverine system. She stated the increase of putting isolated floodplains in would be a significant impact as far as increasing the amount of acreage that is included within these and would be much more restrictive than is required under the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the benefit to the County; with Ms. Busacca responding it would protect the people who are in the floodplains. Commissioner Higgs inquired is there anything different between a flood and an estuarine level. Ms. Busacca responded it is the frequency of flooding. Mr. Denninghoff stated the estuarine floodplain is the areas that are basically salt water floodplain as opposed to freshwater floodplain; there is typically no moving water as there is on a tributary to the river, such as a creek or a stream; the estuarine floodplain is also more susceptible to storm surge from a hurricane event; and as far as a regular storm event is concerned, the estuarine floodplain does not suffer the fluctuations in elevation as much as the riverine does. Ms. Busacca inquired about the isolated areas. Mr. Denninghoff responded with the isolated areas, each one is unique depending on where the location is and where the outfall would be during a severe flood event or storm event; they are not regulated nearly as tightly under the NFIP as the riverine systems; and they frequently are dealt with on a case-by-case basis under the Land Development Regulations.

Debbie Coles, Environmental Permitting, noted a majority of the isolated floodplains are associated with wetlands as well. Mr. Denninghoff stated in the regular riverine floodplain one is not necessarily looking at a wetland; there are plenty of uplands that are in the riverine system; and many of the isolated floodplain areas or flood-prone areas are wetlands.

Chairman Carlson inquired would it be good to create a map in terms of isolated floodplains as well as in terms of the wetland systems that are interconnected and how the County develops within those. Mr. Jones responded most of those systems are fairly well mapped on the firm panels, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps; unfortunately, FEMA has not provided for elevations in many of those areas; it becomes a interpretation and an application of best available data on the part of staff to tie down what the elevation is likely to be; and staff does it on a routine basis daily. He noted part of the issue associated with this particular item is that this would significantly increase the amount of acreage covered within the County; elevations are clearly determined on most of the riverine systems; however, there is an awful lot of data that has to be collected and analyzed in order to provide that same level of assurance in terms of what those isolated floodplain elevations are; in terms of the impacts, as it relates to this area, staff has proposed that up to one-half acre would be allowed to be filled; and beyond one-half acre there would be a requirement for putting back as much of the floodplain as the amount of fill that would be added. Mr. Jones stated when moving forward in trying to do actual construction applications on property, with the floodplain going from a riverine system to estuarine and isolated, there are a lot of properties that are isolated floodplain where the County is not going to be able to accomplish that; and it has the potential to render many properties marginally developable.

Commissioner Higgs inquired would it make any sense to move forward in regard to the data the County has, primarily in the riverine floodplain; noted Phase 2 could be to proceed to get the data in regard to the isolated or the estuarine; and inquired is the data coming concerning those or does County staff have to map them. Ms. Coles stated the best flood elevations are going to be based solely on the 100-year floodplain without getting into a financial and feasibility issue as far as the isolated systems; and the County has some information on estuarine elevations in relation to what year flood event is expected. Commissioner Higgs noted the County has had a lot of problems with septic systems in the estuarine and isolated floodplains. Ms. Busacca responded she does not believe that the changes to Chapter 46 were completely tied to isolated/riverine/estuarine; the Board intended to make the septic tank regulations consistent throughout the County; and these are regulations relating to compensatory storage, amount of fill, etc. Mr. Denninghoff stated in order to do the kind of analysis necessary to pin down the flood elevations and isolated areas, substantial engineering, surveying, and topographic work needs to be performed, but it is very costly; one of the things that the Board has done in the last six months is started to explore the possibility of obtaining one-foot contour maps for most of Brevard County; it will go a long way toward giving staff one of the tools to be able to do those kinds of analysis; and it does not get the County where it needs to be in terms of isolated flood areas, but it goes a long way toward providing the basic data.

Ms. Busacca stated there is one other change included, which is the requirement for compensatory storage; currently the Comprehensive Plan says that any property which has been created after the date of the Comprehensive Plan and lies below the 25-year floodplain will have to provide compensatory storage; the provisions of the Plan that staff presented to the Board are a trade-off; and it would say that regardless of the date that the lot was created, compensatory storage would be required if more than one-half acre was filled. She noted the difference is that currently large areas of platted lands, such as in Grant, Valkaria, and Canaveral Groves are not required to have compensatory storage because they were created prior to the Comprehensive Plan; if this change was put into place, those lots, if they were filled over one-half acre, would be required to have compensatory storage; conversely, lots created after this date, in which only one-half acre was filled, would not have to have compensatory storage; the trade-off would be to the benefit of the County as there are large areas, including Lake Washington, where these lots have been previously created; and it would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan to fully implement the change. She noted if a lot was created prior to 1988, no compensatory storage is required; the County is only requiring compensatory storage for new lots created in the 25-year floodplain; and this would change that so if someone filled more than one-half acre, regardless of the date their lot was created, they would require compensatory storage. Ms. Busacca stated if the Board chose to move forward with this, it would be implemented in phases if the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Chairman Carlson noted no matter what, the County requires the compensatory storage; therefore, it needs to change the Comprehensive Plan.

A member of the audience requested the definition for compensatory storage. Mr. Jones responded compensatory storage would be providing for excavation of an area between the seasonal high water table and the 100-year flood elevation to offset or equal the amount of fill that is placed and had an adverse impact on the floodplain; it would be above one-half acre of fill; the Board is balancing and saying everybody can fill up to one-half acre because it seems to be a fairly realistic amount of area; and by doing that, it is recognized that additional fill is being added to the floodplain. He noted the County is also going back and capturing all of the lots that were created prior to 1988; and therefore, it is balancing it out.

Commissioner Higgs stated one-half acre is a large amount of dirt to be putting into the floodplain; it has a significant impact to abutting properties if one-third of an acre is filled in the 100-year floodplain; the water is going to go someplace; and expressed concern with the threshold of one-half acre of fill and no compensatory storage, as the water moves when the property is developed. Mr. Moia stated staff agrees that if somebody puts one-half acre of fill in the floodplain, there will be some affect on the floodplain; but if the County can get those lots that do not require any compensatory storage, that could fill acres and acres; currently under the Code, if the County lets everybody have one-half acre, it will be a plus; and the County will end up with having less fill in the floodplain, assuming everything got developed from this ordinance forward. Chairman Higgs inquired if the threshold could be lower, such as one-third of an acre; stated one-half acre is huge; the predominant lot size is one-quarter of an acre; and doubling that without any compensatory storage is a huge amount of fill. Ms. Busacca stated staff was thinking about the large lot where the person had a horse barn, shed, and long driveway. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands that; somebody could fill one-half acre, but there needs to be compensatory storage; one-third acre could be filled; but there needs to be a balance; and reiterated that one-half acre of fill is a lot without some compensatory storage. She noted she agrees that the County should recapture some of the lots that were platted before 1988 because of the accumulative affect of the water moving around the area. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is comfortable with the one-half acre of fill, and one-half acre is not huge.

Chairman Carlson suggested the Board move forward with one-third acre of fill versus one-half acre and see how it evolves. Mr. Moia stated this is for riverine only; and if the County is talking about Grant and those areas, there is no provision for compensatory storage in the language. Ms. Busacca stated under the isolated floodplain, the Board could choose to extend the compensatory storage for anyone filling over one-third of an acre; and it would include the Grant area. Mr. Jones stated in developing these standards, staff is attempting to not be in a situation where it absolutely precludes the ability to develop the property. Commissioner Higgs noted she is not trying to do that; but she does not want the last person in to be the receptor of everybody's water; there needs to be some planning that has reasonable standards; one-third acre is a lot of property to fill; and if someone goes over that, they should be required to put in compensatory storage.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough to approve staff's recommendations on amendments to Chapter 62, Article X, Environmental Protection and Conservation, Section 62-3721, Definitions; Section 62-3722, Purpose and Intent; Section 62-3723, General Provisions; Section 62-3724, Development Regulations; Section 62-3725, Prohibitions; and included compensatory storage requirement within the estuarine and isolated floodplains if fill is over one-third of an acre. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 2:45 p.m. and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.

Flood Damage Protection

Ms. Busacca stated most of the changes are typographical; the first significant change is on Page 37, Paragraph 11; and the policy would require that if significant improvements were necessary to improve or correct existing flooding problems within a flood hazard area, the project should be considered to be financed through a municipal service benefit unit mechanism rather than the other mechanisms such as more of the general public solving these localized problems.

Chairman Carlson inquired what would be one example; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Deer Run. Mr. Jones stated Deer Run is an unusual circumstance in that there have been modifications to the drainage system, which have created a condition where the flooding occurs as opposed to someone moving out into the floodplain. Commissioner Higgs stated the County has been working on the flooding issues in Melbourne Shores for a number of years; the people who are flooded on some occasions are flooded as a result not only of the soils and their own rainfall, but water moving from A1A down to the neighborhood; and inquired who shares the cost, is there the same kind of voter requirement as exists on the MSBU's, which is the 70%, and who is the voted part of the MSBU. She noted she sees some real problems; and inquired is it the impacted or the causers. Mr. Jones responded this would only apply in areas where there was a previously identified floodplain, people chose to move into those areas and build, and then say that local or State government needs to come back and fix this; it is fighting Mother Nature; and as it relates to the MSBU process, the parties that are benefited by development of the project are the parties that participate in the MSBU. Commissioner Higgs stated in some cases the benefited are not the total cause of the problem; with Mr. Jones responding in those instances, the Board would have to weigh the contributing factors and make a determination as to whether it should assist the MSBU process.

Commissioner Higgs noted the County permitted these subdivisions to be developed using standards that were marginally adequate; and she has real concerns.

Commissioner Scarborough stated another element is agricultural pumping; and he agrees with Commissioner Higgs that the County could end up with some real situations.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired could the County go to the Legislature and ask for a Special Taxing District for a big area and the huge improvements that may have to be made across the entire global area; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board could do it instead of going to the Legislature. Commissioner Higgs stated the County has a Surface Water Program that includes, to some extent, the issues of drainage to be dealt with; it should be doing water quality and water quantity; and the Board has the ability through the existing mechanism to raise additional funds if it chooses to do so. Mr. Jones stated the Board also has the ability under its Stormwater Utility Ordinance to, within a specific area within any particular benefit unit, have an additional assessment imposed to fund specific projects; the concept here was should the general taxpayer or stormwater utility fees rate payer be paying for problem correction in areas where the problem was well documented; and that is the balancing issue. Commissioner Higgs stated it almost gets to an individual area and what the problems are; she was under the impression that the County started on this discussion about standards for development; she recognizes those issues and they are big ones; and she would rather see the Board have a separate debate about the funding issues as it is going to degenerate everything into a deep hole with muck. She noted if the County could get the standards in place, that is a big battle; and the Board can come back and discuss how to pay to fix some of the things that have been done. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem with having it here; there is a 75% voter letter approval; this discussion is going to have a lot more dynamics than putting water in the subdivision where everybody gets almost an equal benefit; and this does not make it work, but says it is an option.

Commissioner Colon stated she agrees with Commissioner Higgs; and the Board needs to stay focused on what it is trying to accomplish today. Chairman Carlson noted she does not see that there is a problem as long as the option is there if the scenario is there to apply it; whatever can be done with the stormwater utility as it is or however the County branches out using that utility, there are lots of possibilities; and it is another option.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 41, Paragraph D, last sentence reads, ". . . access and escape routes with the County's Civil Defense Director." Ms. Busacca stated staff will correct the language. Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 46, last paragraph, should read, ". . . accepted for maintenance by Brevard County, if it serves to increase programmed density."

Ms. Busacca stated on Page 46, Paragraph B, the Board requested that information be required that would let people know that they were within a flood zone; this would require that the terminations of flood hazard zones would be shown on the plat of a subdivision; and Paragraph C includes that infrastructure would not be accepted by Brevard County if it serves to increase programmed densities and intensities within the 100-year floodplain. Commissioner Higgs noted if it is put on the plat, then the County is only anticipating new development on such plat; and inquired is staff talking about going back and finding another way to advise people of lands that are already platted. Ms. Busacca responded staff has reviewed this in several ways; it has suggested this for the plat and suggested it for the site plan for the next ordinance; the County Attorney's Office has put together legislation that would require a disclosure by real estate; and staff is suggesting that anytime the Board or staff do an administrative approval, such as a flag lot or a vested right, if it is in the floodplain, it would also be part of the action. She stated staff has looked at it as a multi-pronged approach; and this is one portion of that. Ms. Busacca stated there is another provision which requires that the base of the roads be elevated above the 100-year base flood elevation so that as roads are constructed, the bases are not being inundated, which causes the deterioration of the roads.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve staff's recommendations on amendments to Chapter 62, Article XI, Flood Damage Protection, Section 62-4001, Definitions and Rules of Construction; Section 62-4002, Penalty and Additional Remedies; Section 62-4003, Purpose and Applicability; Section 62-4004, Compliance; Section 62-4005, Adoption of Flood Hazard Boundary Maps; Section 62-4006, Warning and Disclaimer of Liability, Section 62-4007, Interpretation, Abrogation and Greater Restrictions; Sections 62-4008 through 62-4030, Reserved; Section 62-4031, Administration; Section 62-4032, Duties of Building Official; Section 62-4033, Development Permit; Section 62-4034, Variances; Section 62-4061, General Standards; Section 62-4062, Specific Standards; Section 62-4063, Standards for Areas of Special Flood Hazard Without Established Base Flood Elevations or Floodways; and Section 62-4064, Standards for Subdivision Proposals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Site Plan Regulations

Ms. Busacca stated Page 52 includes the requirement that a site plan will include the base flood elevation as a notation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve staff's recommendations on amendments to Site Plan Regulations, Section 62-3204, Site Development Plan Submittal and Approval Procedure. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County does not do a cost benefit analysis with its roads; and inquired is there some methodology if a road goes further out and it is more expensive. He noted it is a Road and Bridge problem; but it has always been frustrating to him as there is a shifting of funds constantly to some people from other people. Ms. Busacca responded this is something that the State is grappling with when it is talking about its growth management, true cost accounting, and what it will cost to provide services the farther away someone is; and the State is trying to come up with a formula that could be used to review development based on those types of costs.

Mr. Denninghoff stated concerning new development, the developer and the market place dictate what the economics are associated with building the road in a manner that meets the standards and whether or not they want to go ahead and do it; if they meet the standards and build it properly, presumably they are going to make money in the process as the County allows them to do that; and the purpose of the standards is to assure that the taxpayers of the future maintaining that road do not have an undue and unexpected burden associated with it.

Well Permitting (New)

Ms. Busacca stated staff has put together an ordinance that would permit wells that are less than six inches; and Cheryl Dunn has been communicating with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

Ms. Dunn stated in order for the County to do well permitting, the Department of Health has to receive the delegation from the SJRWMD to do the permitting; staff has met with the District; she has a draft delegation agreement that would be signed by the Department of Health and the District; and such agreement would go before the Board as a resolution for its approval to do this in Brevard County. She noted through County ordinance, the Board can require stricter requirements than the District or Department of Environmental Protection. Ms. Busacca stated under "Exemptions" on Page 57, (B) (1), that exemption would be deleted, along with (5). Ms. Dunn noted numbers (1) and (5) are basically the same thing.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve staff's recommendations on amendments to Well Permitting, including Definitions; Permit Procedures; deleted Subsection (b), (1), as follows: "The wells (existing installations) described in Florida Statutes, Section 373.316", and Subsection (b) (5), "Non-potable wells where municipal water is utilized as the potable water source"; and include language for alternative wells and potable wells that once municipal water is available and people want to maintain the wells for drinking water on an emergency basis, that the County make sure there are back flow preventers and correct plumbing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Floodplain Management Options

Ms. Busacca stated the Floodplain Management Options are provided for the Board's information; and it was included in the report the Board previously received.

The Board acknowledged receipt of the Floodplain Management Options, including current standards, on-site sewage disposal, potable wells, lot filling, structural design, infrastructure, mobile homes, permitting, and appeals.

REPORT, RE: ALLOCATION FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT

Commissioner Higgs stated the House and Senate Conference Committees have approved the $6 million allocation for beach renourishment, which is the phase in South Brevard; the County is hoping that goes forward quickly; and it is very good news that the Conference Committees have approved it.

Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White stated the Committees' recommendation will go directly to the President; the House has already stamped its version of the Bill; the Senate is supposed to stamp its version prior to 5:00 p.m. this afternoon; and the recommendation then goes to the President for his signature. He noted if everything goes right, Brevard County should start putting sand on the beach very shortly.

REPORT, RE: COUNTY'S FIRE ENGINES

Commissioner O'Brien stated at the present time, the County has four fire engines up for auction and it is replacing them with new fire engines; the pumps on fire engines are made to move water in six or eight-inch diameter hoses; most of the trucks have a pump and tank; and if the tank and two or three pumps could be taken off and put side by side, there could be a portable pumping system in an old fire engine. He noted the way the pumps work is called a roper system; the axle and the drive train of the truck itself drives the pumps; they are very efficient; and he talked to Mr. Jones about it, but does not know if he was able to find out anything about it. Commissioner O'Brien stated with the trucks now on the auction block that the County is going to be selling, he would like to have Mr. Jones or the engineering staff to consider whether or not the County really wants to sell the trucks or scrap out the pumps and make one big pump truck.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff could come back with a feasibility analysis and provide a memo to the Board.

Regional Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones stated staff has already moved forward on the issue and Road and Bridge staff is working on it as well.

REPORT, RE: COMPUTER DISK FOR ELECTRONIC BOARD AGENDAS AND BACKUP
DOCUMENTS

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has been trying to work with the Clerk of Courts and County Manager on getting the Board's agendas and backup documents put on a computer disk; it would enhance everybody's capability; and the Board could have laptops with the information at its meetings.

Chairman Carlson stated if the information could be made accessible on the shared drive, it could be put on a computer disk; and it may be helpful for staff to get an update on what is being done for the paperless office things.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff will provide a report back to the Board.

The Board requested staff to provide a status report concerning the use of computer disk for electronic Board agendas and backup documents.

REPORT, RE: FLOODING ISSUES

Commissioner Colon stated the Deer Run issue has been mentioned a lot in the meetings, but the Board has made a point that the workshop today has been in the plans way before Deer Run; it knew it had a problem in the 25-year floodplain; and she wanted to make sure that it was on the record. She noted she has had a lot of people from the community say that the moratorium took place due to Deer Run; that is incorrect information; and expressed appreciation to staff and Mr. Jones who have spent tremendous hours working on the issues. She stated today's workshop was coming whether Deer Run was an issue or not; it is to minimize public and private losses that happen in the community due to flood conditions; the County is trying to address specific areas, including the 25-year floodplain; and the provisions the Board has put in place today will go to the public hearing for feedback from the public. Commissioner Colon stated the Board is trying to minimize expenditure of public money; and it is a critical issue.

Chairman Carlson stated much of the discussion came from growth management discussions; one thing that has not been discussed here regarding floodplains is that there have been growth boundary discussions and how floodplain issues can be incorporated with urban growth boundaries; and she does not know when the County is planning on incorporating such discussion together.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca noted the discussion is scheduled for a workshop next year in either January or February, 2002; and staff is putting the workshop together with the representative from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)