MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA December 4, 1995

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on December 4, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, Assistant County Manager Joan Madden, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

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

REPORT, RE: HOLLAND & KNIGHT REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CONFLICT

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he was contacted by Holland & Knight, Bond Counsel for the County, who requested whether or not the Board would waive any conflict of interest they might have in representing Display Resources of America, which is a company that intends to seek to construct a flat panel display facility in the County and is looking to get industrial revenue bonds through the County. He stated Holland & Knight was contacted by the company to represent them; since Holland & Knight usually does the County's bond analysis and contacts the Finance Committee, they contacted him to see if the Board would waive any conflict of interest. He stated personally he does not see a conflict of interest.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the reports be held until the end of the meeting because there are a lot of people in the audience.

Chairman Cook advised if there is no objection, the Board will do that; and advised the audience on the procedure for addressing the Board.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1995, ITEM 3, LAWRENCE FRAZIER JOHNSON, ET AL

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board's recommendation of September 5, 1995, as follows:

Item 3. Lawrence Frazier Johnson, Charlene R. Johnson and Tania Louise Johnson, as Tenants in Common's request for Mixed Use District expansion and change of classification from RU-1-7 to BU-1 on 4.985 acres located on the southeast corner of Commodore Street and SR 192, which was approved by the Local Planning Agency to the south line of Lots 209 and 235; approved as BU-1 by the P&Z to the south line of Lots 209 and 235; and tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on September 27, 1995.

Commissioner Ellis advised it was tabled to have a site plan that the building facility would not go beyond the depth that is currently allowed for most of the other commercial properties; and the only part of the property that would be deep would be the retention pond area.

Jenai Nielsen, 1985 Knotty Pine Road, Melbourne, advised she just found out today about this meeting; at the September meeting they were told they would be notified and would have time to look over the site plan before this meeting; and they were not notified. She stated the P&Z Board was not notified by this Board to notify the residents; and she has copies of that. She stated she also received a site plan today that was different from one received from somebody else; so they have two different site plans floating around and something weird is going on.

Teresa Karolick, 4045 Carolwood Drive, Melbourne, advised they are not prepared because they just found out about the meeting; they had planned to have more people show up to back them up; and if the Board approves the zoning, and will receive more taxes, they will appreciate their ditches being dug and lights on their streets. Commissioner Ellis advised in September, the Board was clear that it would be tabled to this meeting.

John Armstrong, 4645 Whipple Hollow Road, Melbourne, advised it was tabled to this meeting; however, Commissioner Ellis also promised he would send them the information on the site plan so they would have time to review it. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not send them out of his office. Mr. Armstrong stated Commissioner Ellis was to notify P&Z and they would notify the people, but P&Z did not receive notice. Commissioner Ellis stated P&Z was at the meeting. Mr. Armstrong advised he picked up a site plan on November 17, 1995, and today he received another one totally different from the first one; they were not notified; and he does not feel the site plan in either case is binding or consistent with the P&Z conditions or what the Board set forth at the meeting. He stated the entrances have changed; one is too far back by the residential land; and it was promised it would not be. He stated the back land was promised to be used by the neighbors for whatever reason they wanted; there is nothing on the site plan at all that comments on that; he does not see a buffer or wall separation; and typically there is a 50-foot buffer and wall separating commercial land from residential. He stated there is no septic system; there was one on the first plan, but not on the second plan; it is not legible; he cannot read the dimensions; and he understands it is a photocopy and it was probably reduced, but they need something they can comment on. Mr. Armstrong stated there is one dimension on there for 365 feet, but it does not show where it starts and where it stops; they cannot tell what the other dimensions are or what the size of the building is; and he feels something has been thrown in to be talked about tonight, and the citizens were not given an opportunity to look into it. He noted they may be looking for a compromise to slip it through, but he hopes that is not the case.

Commissioner Higgs stated since the applicant is not present and because of the general mood of the people who spoke, she would suggest that the Board table it until the next meeting to allow them to review it and give the applicant time to come back. She stated it would be proper to allow anyone who wants to speak to do so, but she will make a motion at the proper time to table it.

Commissioner Ellis stated the issue was that the back of the building would fall within the 360 feet; the only thing behind that would be the stormwater pond; and it has to be clarified on the site plan. He stated to be binding it has to be put in a binding development plan approved concurrent with the rezoning which would limit the building to a certain depth from U.S. 192.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 3 until January 29, 1996 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the motion was to table, but it is actually a continuation of the public hearing until the January 29, 1996 meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF NOVEMBER 6, 1995

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on November 6, 1995, as follows:

Item 1. Charlie C. and Virginia F. Weaver's request for CUP for security trailer (renewal) in AU zoning classification on 10 acres located on the north side of East Hall Road, east of SR 3, which was approved for one year with one administrative renewal by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Michael R. Meyer's request for CUP for a security trailer (renewal) in AU zoning classification on 5 acres located south of SR 520 west of SR 520 and Lake Poinsett Road intersection, which was approved for two years with three one-year administrative renewals by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Fiske-Mar Land Trust's request for change from AU and RU-1-7 w/BDP to BU-1 on 17.423 acres; and change from AU to SR w/BDP on 3.007 acres located on the northwest corner of Fiske Boulevard and Martin Road, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Paul Gougelman, representing the applicant, advised he would like to make a verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning hearing and a set of Exhibits which were made available to the Planning and Zoning Board and will be made available to the Board, part of the record, Exhibits 1 through 15, including two additional items. Chairman Cook advised with no objections they will be part of the record. (See pages_____for Transcript and Exhibits 1 through 15.)

Mr. Gougelman advised the property is 17.4 acres zoned AU; there is a portion to the north of the property that is also zoned AU; and they are attempting to get it rezoned to BU-1. He stated it is a mixed unit development; they are trying to get the area to the north rezoned to SR which will allow two units per acre with a binding development plan; the binding development plan is included in the package as Exhibit 12; and it would set up a zoning that is similar to the zoning of Wellington Station Subdivision which is just to the north of the applicant's property. He stated the buffer area where SR zoning is, is 199 feet owned by the applicant; they are proposing an access road and landscaping, trees, buffering, or the same description with a possible row of houses which would furnish additional buffering; and that would be two units an acre which is compatible and similar to what is in the Wellington Station Subdivision. He stated between SR and another parcel is a 100-foot stormwater detention/retention pond that is part of the Wellington Station Subdivision; however, it does have some value as buffer; so they are talking about a distance of 300 feet from the actual dry lots where Wellington Station Subdivision is before they get to the commercial property. Mr. Gougelman advised the mixed unit development designation was the subject of lengthy hearings in 1991 and 1992; the MUD proposal became nothing more than a ping pong ball between P&Z, this Board and DCA; the Board finally approved the MUD and it went to the DCA; and the owner of a significant amount of property across the street filed an administrative action with DCA for determination that the MUD was not in compliance with the Growth Management Law. He stated the order is included in the package as Exhibits 6A and B; and in it the DCA, after a two-day hearing, made a determination that in fact it was. He stated the Board will find significant discussion analyzing that the 17.4-acre property is appropriate for commercial land use. He stated it is their contention they are on the tail end of the process that started in 1991 and 1992; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; it is compatible with adjacent land uses; it meets the concurrency test; and the buffer that has been presented will have quite a bit to do with it. He stated another factor that is important is that the property to the west is also owned by the Fiske-Mar Land Trust, so they have a vested interest to make sure whatever they do on the property is properly planned; and it will be developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have to go through the rezoning to get two units per acre. He introduced Bob Leicatenberg who is an MAI appraiser with Hanson Appraisals; and stated Mr. Leicatenberg's resume is Exhibit 15; and after him he would like to bring on Doug Robertson whose resume is Exhibit 8 and who has over 20 years experience in planning and zoning. He stated he would like to have them recognized as experts in the field of planning and zoning, appraisals, and compatibility studies. Chairman Cook advised he is not sure if he is in a position to certify that, but the comments are on record.

Robert Leicatenberg, 315 Lakeview Lane SE, Palm Bay, advised he was asked by Mr. Gougelman to look at the property; the central focus of his analysis was the effect of the zoning change and a possible shopping center development on the property values in Wellington Station; and in order to do that, he looked at all the latest shopping centers that were developed, including Publix Center at Suntree which was recently built and backs up to rental apartments and has a nice buffer, although no where near the 200 feet proposed for this property. He stated with all his experience with shopping centers and zoning, they cannot be built right to the line; so when they talk about a buffer, they are not talking about 200 feet here and an additional 100 feet of water; and a properly designed shopping center will have another 50 to 100 feet to the edge of the building which far exceeds anything he has seen that was recently built. He stated he provided aerial photographs of a scale of 1" equals 300 feet; he looked at Driftwood Plaza in Melbourne Beach, and paid particular attention to what happened to the values in there before and after the center; and he found houses that were next door to one another, one sold in 7/94 and one in 3/95 after the center, did not go down in value and the one that was built after the shopping center, sold for $15,000 more in spite of the fact it was 100 square feet less; but there are other factors involved, better quality, etc. He stated the point is they did not go down as a result of the shopping center; that was a big contention at the time; he looked at Winn-Dixie in Suntree that backs up to Oak Park, but has quite a bit of distance to Oak Park; he has seen nothing there to indicate problems with value; he looked at Winn-Dixie in Palm Bay; that buffer is similar to this project in that it has a canal to the south, a retention pond to the east, and was built in 1989; and there is no indication, in examining sales and resales of property that they went down in value, and if anything they went up. He stated he looked at Walmart in Rockledge and there seems to be a problem there; it is obvious why; there are houses 40 feet from the wall; and if it is not a proper buffer it can cause a problem. He stated people should be concerned; it is a legitimate concern; but what he has been able to form an opinion on is that if the buffer is proper it will enhance the values of properties along the Wellington Station because it takes away the unknown. Mr. Leicatenberg stated someone looking at the houses and sees a 200-foot right-of-way with mixed use district next to it, has got to think the worst; but once it is in place and there is a binding site plan, they will have the water, then the tree wall, and another 75 feet or so of green area, shrubs, landscaping, etc., then the road; and the road will be a boulevard- type road with a partial tree wall through it and then another 75 feet of green area; then another tree wall; then it will go on another 50 to 100 feet before the building actually starts; and that is more than any buffer he has seen in any shopping center. He stated the second scenario would be to have houses similar to those in Wellington Station backing up to it; so there is no way that would not put at ease a buyer of property. He stated he also considered Mr. Gougelman's fact that he owns all the other property which makes it unusual; the developer is very experienced and will not do anything that would hurt him; and he has the biggest vested interest.

Mr. Gougelman advised Exhibit 14 is the appraisal that Mr. Leicatenberg referred to; introduced Doug Robertson; and noted they will make part of the record a reduction of the photograph labeled Exhibit 2 in the package.

Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wishes to give the applicant additional time.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant the applicant two additional minutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Doug Robertson, 100 Parnell Street, Merritt Island, advised he was asked by Mr. Gougelman to review this rezoning request with regard to planning issues such as the three C's, consistency, concurrency, and compatibility. He stated with regard to consistency, in his opinion the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; they are below the 20-acre requirement set up in the Comprehensive Plan; and they are consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of mixed use development. He stated they meet the locational criteria with regard to being on an intersection of a collector and arterial street with Fiske Boulevard and Roy Wall Boulevard which is under construction at this time and will be completed in the near future. He stated when it is completed, it will function as a collector road servicing the subdivisions along Fiske and actually making it the easiest way to get to the new Rockledge Park that is being developed at this time; so his opinion is that consistency is not the issue; and County staff has also come to that conclusion. Mr. Robertson stated in regard to concurrency, it is the same thing; the Concurrency Section reviewed the request for potential impacts on public facilities; and it found all levels of service will be maintained if this request is approved especially as it relates to Fiske Boulevard and traffic. He stated lastly compatibility is really the issue; the first is surrounding land uses; all the area in red directly across the street is currently zoned for commercial purposes; the FPL building is there; further up is a restaurant; there is a motel, plans for a shopping center, and ice skating rink; so the commercial character across the street has been established. Mr. Robertson stated the Boulevard is a four-laned major road; to the south they are adjacent to Knights of Columbus which is a commercial structure akin to a nightclub; to the west the owner owns that land and has the potential to internalize impacts there; and to the north they share a boundary with Wellington Station where the people have expressed their concerns about the request. He stated they met with them and tried to work out an agreement with a buffer; it is a 200-foot buffer, and 300 feet if the retention area is counted; and that is enough to mitigate any adverse impacts to Wellington. He stated in his opinion, it is consistent, concurrent, and compatible.

Mr. Gougelman advised that completes their presentation, and they will answer any questions from the Board, and would like to reserve an opportunity to respond to any comments that are made.

Chairman Cook advised the Board will give Mr. Gougelman a few minutes after the public has spoken, to respond; and inquired if there are any questions. Commissioner Ellis stated no, but he will have questions later concerning the legal case on the Comprehensive Plan amendment.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised it may be appropriate to announce whatever correspondence the Board received; he has copies of correspondence from some of the citizens living in Wellington Station; and for the applicant's benefit, he needs to know that is out there and part of the record. Commissioner Higgs advised there are a number of letters in the packet; and inquired if copies were furnished to the applicant. Chairman Cook stated staff will furnish copies to Mr. Gougelman; and the Commissioners all received essentially the same thing.

Dan Fowler, 1465 Victoria Boulevard, Rockledge, representing Wellington Station, advised he lives at Wellington Station and is an attorney; and the Homeowners Association asked him to speak in opposition to the reclassification. He stated Wellington Station is a residential area of 70 homes or more adjacent to the property in question; the popular sentiment in the area is overwhelmingly opposed to this reclassification; and the official determinations to this date have all been opposed to this reclassification. He stated at the P&Z meeting they presented over 140 letters from surrounding residents opposed to the rezoning; and he has copies of many of those and more that he would like to put into the record from citizens directly affected by this who are opposed without reservation. He stated the City of Rockledge tendered a letter to the Board and is on record in opposition to this reclassification; and it pointed out that the proposed property rezoning to commercial is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Rockledge. Mr. Fowler stated Wellington Station is within the city limits of Rockledge; and his concern is basic and personal for their homes and families. He stated it is always true that the largest single investment anybody makes in a lifetime is in their home; and it is an important investment and one that should be safeguarded. He stated it defies common sense and common experience to believe that a commercial development next door is going to enhance the value of their properties; and they do not believe that. He stated the applicant wants to reclassify it to sell it; he is not going to be the developer; the residents have no guarantees what will happen there; and at the P&Z Board meeting they emphasized a 300-foot buffer, but they were including part of their back yards and a lake that is part of their development. He stated in terms of investments in the County, if the Board takes in the aggregate of the homes, it is looking at somewhere between ten and fifteen million dollars of investment; the property was agriculture in nature; it was purchased as agricultural property, and probably in speculation that someday it could be developed as commercial; and they should not be burdened with having to pay for someone else's speculation. Mr. Fowler advised at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting it was pointed out by a member that a disproportionate ratio of commercially- zoned property exists in Brevard County; the number was about 53 times what is normal or usual; it was also pointed out that the proposed project is on the edge of Rockledge; and they would have to look no further than on the other side of Rockledge at Searstown Mall to see what can happen on property that is commercially zoned and developed at the edge of a city. He stated they are not advocating that somebody's property rights be taken away; but again it was bought for speculation; and they were not speculating when they purchased their properties. He stated when it was reclassified as mixed use, they were assured then it does not mean it is going to be developed commercially; they feel like inch-by-inch, step- by-step, little-by-little it is being developed under their noses; and one day something is going to be there that they never would have approved or wanted. He stated since the petitioners employed experts to speak on behalf of their petition, the Homeowners Association also consulted an expert Mr. Roy Cowell who has 30 plus years of public and private sector planning experience and has a Masters Degree in urban design. He stated Mr. Cowell has been accepted to testify in the courts in this district as an expert in planning; and request he be permitted to summarize his analysis and conclusions with respect to this matter as well.

Roy Cowell, 455 Pauma Valley Way, Melbourne, Director of Planning for Stottler, Starmer and Associates, advised since the statements were made regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment, it is important to respond to some of those; there is no question that mixed use classification, as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, is an acceptable determination; however, some of the presentations regarding why it should be mixed use and why it should be commercial leaves them to oppose that. He stated he will speak directly to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the rezoning, and will make no suppositions as to whether the property is going to be developed or not. Mr. Cowell advised Criteria 4.1 and 4.2 deals with allocation for commercial property in the County; it has been stated in a white paper that is not part of the Comprehensive Plan as of yet, although it has been directed to staff to provide that information, that at the present time the standard for commercial property is approximately one acre per 1,000 population; and Brevard County has approximately 53 acres of commercial land per 1,000 population, over one-third of which is undeveloped. He stated one of the other policies states community commercial should not be located within a two-mile radius of existing commercial property; the graphic before the Board indicates the subject property in yellow north of Martin on Fiske; the dashed circle is the two-mile circumference from the center of that property; the red is property that is developed or under development at the present time; and the orange is property that is presently zoned but not currently developed. He stated the bottom acreage within that two-mile radius of the subject property constitutes 307 acres of either zoned or commercially developed property; if the standard as indicated by staff in the white paper that the Board directed them to prepare is true of one acre per 1,000 population, that would mean a population of 307,000 people would be required to adequately respond to this commercial activity. Mr. Cowell stated the central mainland planning area of the Comprehensive Plan, which encompasses from Port St. John through Canaveral Groves, the City of Rockledge, the City of Cocoa and Viera, has a total population projected for the year 2020 of 132,636 people; he got that number from the County's Planning Department this morning; in other words this request is severely over any standard for the amount of commercial acreage to serve the population of the community even in the year 2020. He stated one of the other contentions of the approval of this rezoning is that the property is located at the intersection of two major collectors or arterial roads; there is no question that Fiske Boulevard is such an avenue; however, there is serious question as to whether Roy Wall Street, which is the extension of Gus Hipp Road, falls within that classification. He stated letters on file from the City of Rockledge strongly oppose this application and indicates that Roy Wall Street was designated as a collector road simply for the purpose of funding; the County's criteria in its Comprehensive Plan, under Transportation Element, Goal 1, Policy 1.1.7, indicates the right-of-way for a collector road shall be 100 feet; and Roy Wall Road is around 85 to 87 feet. Mr. Cowell advised the other contention was that it will be connected with Martin Road; that is not true; there is not a straight connection; there is probably an 80-foot offset; and Martin Road is not a collector road. He stated it is their contention that when talking about commercial property at an intersection it does not mean an intersection across the street; that large commercial tract of 17 acres should be provided with at least two street frontages for the purposes of convenient and safe access; and it does not meet that. He stated there is no indication from the applicant as to any performance standards provided for in Objective 4, Policy 4.1; there are nine items the application has not responded to; and they are "must be commensurate with commercial acreage; 4.1.d. and 4.1.e locational criteria, development standards shall be met; 4.2, periodic commercial allocation, a through d; 4.4, locational criteria, minor arterial intersection; and community commercial cluster shall be spaced at least two miles apart." He stated the parcel is acceptable as mixed use, as a land use classification that permits a variety of uses; residential, recreational, etc; however, the parcel does not meet policies of the Comprehensive Plan for a commercial zoning classification as it will violate numerous policies of the County's Plan.

Chairman Cook advised he does not know if the applicant has received correspondence that he received from the Wellington Station Homeowners Association and City of Rockledge; and inquired if Mr. Gougelman saw those; with Mr. Gougelman responding he has seen the City of Rockledge letter but not the Wellington Station correspondence.

Linda Haney, 1482 Wellington Circle, Rockledge, President of Wellington Station Homeowners Association, advised there are other subdivisions that also surround them that are opposed to the rezoning; she hopes the Board will have an opportunity to hear from them; she has spoken to all of them; and they are also not in favor of this change. She stated the matter has been addressed about a year ago, and before it came to the P&Z it was withdrawn; they were in opposition then and are still in opposition now; some of the reasons are they have children in their Subdivision; there are two schools, Hans Christian Anderson, and the Montessori School within 1,000 feet of the property proposed for rezoning; and the change will increase the danger to children attending those schools and to children in the Subdivision. She stated the difficulty they have entering and leaving Wellington Station to get on Fiske will only increase with the addition of a shopping center; the additional noise and lights are not suitable for a residential area and would reduce the quality of life in their neighborhood; and many of the neighbors have invested their life savings in their homes and have a sincere and valid interest in not having their property values decreased. Ms. Haney advised the City of Rockledge has always been opposed to changing of the property; at the City Council meeting of November 4, 1995, the Council voted unanimously to oppose the rezoning; the change is inconsistent with Rockledge's Comprehensive Plan which calls for residential on the west side of Fiske Boulevard; and there is presently only residential, schools, churches, and the Knights of Columbus which is a meeting hall on the west side of Fiske, from Barton Boulevard to I-95. She stated they are not comfortable with the buffer zone; the 300 feet is less than 100 feet because the Wellington Station property owners own 100 feet of the water and 15 feet on the other side; that is not enough of a buffer if they are to have commercial next to them; and it would not cut down on the lights or noise of a commercial development. She stated since the BU-1 zoning includes a long list of allowable commercial establishments, they have been given no guarantees as to what type of commercial development would be built on the property, as Fiske-Mar Land Trust is selling the property; and they are strongly opposed to any commercial use on that property. She stated they feel it should be rezoned non-commercial as all the other properties on the west side of Fiske Boulevard are presently zoned; a shopping center is near completion at the corner of Barnes and Murrell Road, less than one mile from the property in question; and inquired if they need another site with another shopping center when they already have a vacant Searstown and when Winn-Dixie moves, they will have a vacant Winn-Dixie in Rockledge. She stated those are some of the reasons they are strongly opposed and wish the Board would deny the rezoning.

County Attorney Knox inquired if it is Mr. Cowell's intent to move the Exhibit into evidence; and if it is, someone needs to announce that. Someone from the audience spoke but was inaudible. Chairman Cook stated the Board will accept that.

Haim Bar-Navon, 1308 Gem Circle, Rockledge, advised he is President of Enterprises International which owns commercial land on the east side of Fiske Boulevard; he is here to impress upon the Board that there is too much existing undeveloped commercial property in the vicinity; and they have a legitimate right to request that no additional commercial land be added to the area. He stated that point of view is in line with the County's Comprehensive Plan Policies 4.1 and 4.2, and the criteria; they bought the property in 1971, 24 years ago; the total commercially-zoned land they owned was about 40 acres; of that about 28 acres are still available, as only a few buildings were built on the property; so there is still a lot of land which they own, let alone other undeveloped properties. He stated there are eight acres above their land and other small parcels, and there is a lot of property at the intersection on both sides of Barnes Boulevard and on the west side of Murrell Road; so they do not need more commercial property. Mr. Bar-Navon advised they are involved in development of several residential projects in Rockledge which are served by Fiske Boulevard; they are concerned that the commercial development will adversely affect those projects; and they have control over the type and quality of the development of their commercial property, while there is no telling what kind of commercial development will occur across the street, as the applicant expressed several times the intention to sell the property and not to develop it. He stated there was an objection at the level of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment when they said the County should not change the Comprehensive Plan from residential to mixed use; they argued that under mixed use they probably would wind up with commercial; and they objected to commercial, but were denied that. He stated at the Meeting of the Commissioners on February 27, 1992, the discussion was that it was not the time to discuss whether it is mixed use or not, or if it is commercial or not, because it would be discussed at the zoning level, and at that time the Board would address whether it is commercial or not because mixed use could be residential, recreational, institutional, office buildings, and so on. Mr. Bar-Navon stated that was the contention of the applicant's lawyer at the time, Mr. Kabboord; when it went to the hearing, the hearing officer did not say it is commercial; he said under mixed use there could be some uses that they can have; therefore, the County was right to make it mixed use, but it does not mean it should be commercial. He stated there was no decision to make it commercial; they were told the Board would come back to zoning and then discuss it, which is where they are at now; and they would not object to other uses under mixed use, but object to have 17 acres added as full commercial. He stated they could have any uses, not only a shopping center; it could be a hodge-podge of all kinds of things; and once the Board grants the zoning, there is no way of knowing what will happen there. He stated when they arrived in the area 24 years ago, the land was zoned AU; it was upgraded to residential; under residential it could be multifamily high density; they would not object to that; so the applicant is not having any major setback. He stated they are asking the Board not to give the commercial zoning; and the applicant can have some other uses which are higher than residential, but not commercial.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Bar-Navon represented Enterprise International as the petitioner in the DCA case; with Mr. Bar-Navon responding yes, and they lost primarily because it was not the time to discuss it, mixed use was okay, and lets see what comes under mixed use; and Commissioner Schmitt said give them mixed use, and when they come back, the Board will determine what happens. Commissioner Ellis stated only Commissioner Scarborough was on the Board at the time, so they have not been through this before.

Boaz Bar-Navon, 1305 Gem Circle, Rockledge, advised he is President of Wentura Corporation and has an office building across the street; the Board has heard and will hear many reasons to oppose the zoning change; but it has not heard a single reason to approve it. He stated the applicant is attempting to make the best profit he can off the property; they do not begrudge him that; however, any one of the reasons on his list is sufficient grounds to reject the request, and together they amount to an overwhelming case in opposition. He stated the property is incompatible with the surrounding residential land uses; it is incompatible with the character of the area because everything on the west side of Fiske Boulevard is residential; and staff comments at every meeting, from the CRG, through the Local Planning Agency several times and to this Board, stated until Roy Wall is built, the character of the area is residential in nature, and it would be inappropriate for commercial. Mr. Bar-Navon advised Mr. Kabboord at the time, and it is on record, specified the property would most likely not be developed as community commercial; so the residents of the area lack a certain sense of trust as to what gets said and what actually gets done. He stated the request is opposed by the City of Rockledge; and if the property was within the City, it would not receive commercial designation because the City specifically prohibits that. He stated it is opposed by over 150 residents; the Board has the petitions from surrounding residents opposing the change; and it does not meet the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated Roy Wall is not built; it is not a collector road and will not function as such; it does not meet the spacing requirements of the Comprehensive Plan which requires a minimum of two miles from another community commercial cluster; and there is not sufficient buffers. Mr. Bar-Navon advised the applicant stated he tried to get the 200-foot buffer, but he is requesting two types of site plans; and if he develops the buffer with a sliver of residential, then there will be absolutely no buffer between commercial and residential. He stated there is no need for this change based on population projections; there is no need for it based on existing commercial lot allocations specifically controlled by the Comprehensive Plan; and all those decisions have to be based on the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan for any commercial designation request. He stated there is no binding site plan for any commercial development; the applicant has made it clear he is not the developer of the property and is looking to sell it; and once the zoning is granted, there is no say as to what can or cannot be done with the property because there is no binding site plan. He stated there are existing mixed use districts that are significantly more conducive to potential future development; while it is not shown on the map, the entire intersection with I-95 which is presently zoned AU has a mixed use designation; and if any of those areas were to eventually become commercial, the appropriate location would be at the intersection and not further up separated by other zoning and leapfrogging into areas that are not commercial on the west side of Fiske Boulevard. Mr. Bar-Navon advised this is not a battle between property owners; they do not begrudge the applicant his right to request and change the AU zoning; but they are unequivocally opposed to any additional commercial uses at that location. He stated if the applicant were to request a residential designation, even multifamily residential, or RP, residential professional, they would not be opposed; but commercial is out of the question.

Howard Brand, 1435 Victoria Boulevard, Rockledge, advised he lived and worked in Miami for 36 years, and when he retired, which was recently, he took his savings and moved out of that type of environment where he saw a lot of this type of zoning changes and a lot of skeleton and empty buildings in residential areas. He stated he is very comfortable and happy in the peaceful and restful community of Wellington Station in Rockledge; it is one of the reasons why they are there; he built a lovely home for his family and looks forward to his golden years in the area; so he is really opposed to the rezoning and hopes the Board will consider their efforts in putting a halt to that type of development in the area. Otto Fischer, 1451 Victoria Boulevard, Rockledge, advised he lives in Wellington Station and his home represents the biggest investment he has made in his life time; and for that reason and all the other reasons stated tonight, he requests the Board to deny the rezoning.

Jack Williams, 1433 Victoria Boulevard, Rockledge, advised he lives next door to Howard Brand, and their properties back up directly to the property to be rezoned; he had a lot of good ideas to oppose the rezoning, but they have already been spoken; and the only thing he would like to do is ask the Commissioners to vote as if the property was being rezoned directly behind their homes.

Kevin Oates, 1434 Victoria Boulevard, Rockledge, advised he is vehemently opposed to the rezoning request; he has two small boys, ages 7 and 5; the traffic right now is extremely congested; and Hans Christian Anderson School and the Montessori School is near their development. He stated they have churches on the street and the traffic is enormous; Winn-Dixie is moving out of Village Green and going to Barnes Boulevard; Publix in Rockledge Square is possibly moving to Goodings Shopping Center; and Walmart has also expressed an interest in moving; so they are opposed to any development behind them in the event it may be vacated.

Brian Brady, 1458 Wellington Circle, Rockledge, advised for the aforementioned reasons he is adamantly opposed to the rezoning, and hopes the Board will respect their wishes.

Chairman Cook advised the Homeowners Association may have called and talked to a member of his staff; one of the applicants may have called; Mr. Gougelman talked to him; and he indicated he preferred not to talk about zoning items except at the public meetings. He stated he thinks all the other correspondence Mr. Gougelman has seen; and inquired if there is anything else he wants to make part of the record. He stated to the best of his recollection, that is all he can recall; and advised Mr. Gougelman has an opportunity to wrap up.

Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca advised staff would like to make the Comprehensive Plan part of the record, as it has been referred to in staff's comments and routinely considered during discussions. Chairman Cook advised if there are no objections, the Comprehensive Plan will be made part of the record.

Mr. Gougelman advised he would like to sum up and have Mr. Robertson reflect on some of the comments made by Mr. Cowell. He stated the letter from the City of Rockledge is a statement of opinion more than anything else and needs to be taken as such; at the November 1, 1995 meeting of the City Council of the City of Rockledge, the City Manager Mr. McKnight stated as follows: "I personally, as a planner for one thing, would feel it would be inconsistent for us to oppose this because it is consistent with the mixed use category. It would be like the County opposing something that we find consistent with mixed use category. Something's going to go there one day. I think they have made every effort, that I can see, to put buffers in there. Maybe they should be bigger, I don't know, but I don't see it as an inconsistent request with Council as planned, that it's adopted by the County; and therefore, I would wonder what our basis would be for objection if we objected to it." Mr. Gougelman advised he will make the transcript a part of the record. He advised while he understands the position of the many people who appeared and what is in the Board's package as far as letters, the buffer zone is far more than the type of buffer zone that the Board would deal with or that the P&Z Board deals with; it is 199 feet wide owned by the applicant, and an additional 100 feet for the retention/detention lake or pond, or whatever the Board wants to call it. He stated that is probably a greater distance than Dan Marino could throw a football on a good day. He stated the letters of objection, while they respect their opinions, they are just that; they are statements of opinions and do not constitute competent evidence; none of those individuals are expert witnesses nor did they offer any evidence; and zoning is now a quasi-judicial proceeding. Mr. Gougelman advised the claim made by a number of people that there is too much commercial strikes right at the root of free enterprise; and if the Board is going to limit commercial in the County it needs to be very careful about the limits it puts on the free enterprise system. He stated the individuals who has the biggest investment is Fiske-Mar Land Trust; they are not going to do something wrong with the property; and if there are allocation standards that are going to be applied, they should not be applied until they have gone through the Comprehensive Plan adoption procedure and have an opportunity to be tested by all parties. He stated regarding the traffic statements that were made, the only expert on traffic that have appeared is Mr. Robertson who stated it does pass the concurrency test; and concerning the buffer not being wide enough, Fiske Boulevard is roughly 200 feet in width, the buffer area between mixed use district and Wellington Station is 300 feet, so it is greater than the buffer area across the street to Mr. Bar-Navon's commercial property.

Doug Robertson advised Mr. Bar-Navon was good enough to provide the P&Z Board most of his concerns in writing, and that is what he went through tonight with the Board; he has prepared a response to those concerns which he would like to give to the Board; and most of those are also the ones Mr. Cowell talked about. He stated he heard a lot about commercial allocations for acreage; the County has no allocation for commercial acreage; it is not in existence; and the allocation of one acre per 1,000 people that came from the white paper would give the City of Rockledge 18 commercial acres; so obviously that is crazy, is not based on reality, and the market could never operate under such a standard. He stated the white paper has never been a part of a legal document in the County that he is aware of; and he knows when it was done and is aware of it. Mr. Robertson advised when talking about real available sites, it is different than looking at the colored map; the applicant is talking about a community commercial site, not strip commercial or tourist commercial; the areas up and down Fiske Boulevard are eligible and active for strip commercial and small commercial projects; and the ones around the interchange, even though they have significant environmental wetlands issues, are also well located for tourist commercial uses; however, the subject site is the only one on Fiske and only one of two in the City that can actually meet the requirements and support a community commercial shopping center with a food store and drug store. Mr. Robertson advised there has never been performance standards established by Brevard County for mixed use districts; and regarding a collector road, there is no doubt when that road is done, it will not offset, it will be a neat intersection. He stated they are working with the City on that; it will definitely connect two arterials and service the surrounding subdivisions; it will function as a collector road; and there is no question about that. He stated the buffer area is a 200-foot buffer in addition to the lake, making it 300 feet; the new shopping center under construction that was mentioned approximately two miles away only has a 50-foot buffer; and clearly the developers of the subdivision and commercial site see no problem with that buffer. He stated Rockledge has one vacant building; it is a fast-growing City; the south part of Rockledge is one of the fastest growing in the County; and there is a need for another major commercial site. Mr. Robertson stated staff comments on the possibly incompatible uses on the north and west side come from a matrix that is used as a guide to them; it is a generalized tool; and when there is more intense site specific review, such as this one which can provide the buffer to mitigate the incompatibility, those issues go away; so they feel like they have addressed the incompatibility issues. He stated their plan is binding; it is a binding development plan for the buffer; all the schools in the area are to the north; all the migration from the schools is to the north; and it would have little if any impact on school children.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he has notified the Chairman that he may have to leave the meeting because has mother was just taken to the Hospital and is in serious condition.

Chairman Cook advised he has some real concerns with this item; Rockledge has expressed objections; the Wellington Station homeowners expressed objections; his concerns include whether Roy Wall Road is qualifiable as the type of intersection that would permit this type of commercialization of the area; and Rockledge has expressed a desire to keep the west side of Fiske Boulevard a residential area, and has commercial centered on the other side. He stated the P&Z Board recommended denial; and for all those reasons, he has a real concern about designating the area as requested.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Ellis stated it will probably end up in the courts, but his concern is although the City of Rockledge comes out with a paper that says it is in opposition, it does not lend the court case any help by having all the commercial zoning across the street. He stated he does not know what will happen after it goes to court, but if the County loses, will the issue come back to the Board; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it depends on how the court resolves it. He stated generally the courts will send it back to the Board to do something that is consistent with the zoning based upon substantial evidence which may not necessarily be the application; it could be something else; but that will depend upon what the court sends back to the Board. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be possible at that time to take the parcel and trade width for depth which would increase the buffer size; with Mr. Knox responding at that point if it was a new application filed for a different consideration of the property, the Board could consider it. Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees with the motion to deny, but thinks when it goes into court the County needs to be thinking ahead of what its position is going to be because it will have a difficult time since the City has all the commercial property right across the street.

Chairman Cook advised if it comes back to the Board, it would have to address other options, but this particular request is not appropriate for the site. Commissioner O'Brien stated the City of Rockledge has no effect on his decision; Mr. Cowell put on an excellent presentation that pointed out all the areas where the criteria is not met at all; and because of that, he will vote to deny as well.

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

The meeting recessed at 6:50 p.m. and reconvened at 7:03 p.m. Commissioner O'Brien's absence was noted for the remainder of the meeting.

Item 4. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners's request for change from SEU w/SUP for overnight camping on four sites and SUP for TV tower, EU and GML to all GML and removal of SUP for overnight camping on four sights and SUP for TV tower on 26? acres located north and south of the western terminus of Lake Washington Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 5. B. W. Simpkins Trust and F. A. Sheriff Trust's request for change from BU-1 to TU-2 and CUP for additional building height and CUP for gasoline service station on 9.98 acres located on the southeast corner of Wickham Road and I-95, which was approved as TU-2 and CUP for additional building height to 60 feet by the P&Z Board; and applicant withdrew request for CUP for gasoline service station.

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

Item 6. Steven L. Eber, Trustee's request for change from BU-1-A and RU-2-10 w/BSP, to BU-1 and removal of BSP on 7.39? acres located on the north side of Wickham Road, east of Turtlemound Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 7. Steven L. Eber, Trustee's request for change from RU-2-10 to BU-1-A on 4.00? acres, and from RU-2-10 to RP on 5.40? acres located north of Wickham Road, east of the intersection with Murrell Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board with BDP as proposed by applicant.

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

Item 8. Donald E. and Virginia Foley and Holiday Trust Agreement's request for change from GU and EA to RR-1 on 2.78 acres located on the west side of SR A1A, north of River Oaks Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board as GU, and EA to be adjusted administratively.

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

Item 9. Gary J. Coppola's request for change from PUD w/CUP for water treatment plant to RU-2-4 on 198.7? acres located at the west end of Senne Road, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

David Cragg, 103 Signature Drive, Melbourne Beach, representing the owner of the property, advised at the P&Z Board Meeting of November 6, 1995, he did not present a site plan or development plan for the zoning change request to RU-2-4; and it is his understanding they are not required under the Ordinance. He stated several residents of neighboring properties voiced questions as to the intended development; he attempted to answer the questions, but the P&Z Board said that he should address the residents outside of the meeting; and without detailed discussion of the zoning request, it voted a unanimous denial. He stated subsequently, they discussed the questions and concerns with members of the Boards of Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor; last week they presented a preliminary site plan and details of their current development plan to the residents of Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor; lengthy question and answer periods followed; they stated they were going to change the zoning request from RU-2-4 to a lesser classification of RA-2-4; committed that no building would contain more than two units; and limited the overall density to 2.5 units per acre, rather than the 4 units per acre allowed under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and RA-2-4 classification. He stated they listed a number of items they would include in a binding development plan to accompany the change in zoning; and as a result of those meetings and discussions, and to accommodate their neighbors as much as feasible, they amended the request made at the P&Z meeting, from RU-2-4 to RA-2-4 which is a residential zoning classification that permits fee simple ownership of individual attached units and unattached units. He stated the inclusion of a binding development plan which includes no building will contain more than two living units; the entire 199 acres will not exceed the density of 2.5 units per acre; there will be no access through Snug Harbor or Barefoot Bay unless required by Brevard County for emergency vehicles only; the development will not affect the stormwater drainage of Snug Harbor or Barefoot Bay and will be designed and constructed in accordance with all State and County regulations; if onsite sewage disposal systems are utilized in the community, they will meet all requirements of State and County Health Departments, and the effluent will not encroach into the neighbors' irrigation wells and/or potable water wells; Snug Harbor's drainage easement that is currently on their property will remain in tact, and the developer will insure that during construction the drainage system from Snug Harbor does not back up, and will promptly repair damage, if any, to the system caused by the developer; a six-foot high wood fence will be erected on the property lines of each lot or common area abutting Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor before construction commences on each phase; the developer will require that each lot owner maintain the fence by including same in the recorded homeowner documents; the homeowners association, which will be legally formed prior to completion of Phase 1, will maintain the fences on the common areas; and potable water will be provided to each lot from a central water system. He stated during their meeting with the neighbors, the major concern was the onsite individual sewage disposal systems; and he distributed a paper at the meetings that reviewed the design and construction standards, the agencies involved in setting the standards, and the permitting process for those systems. He stated the Board will hear objections to the use of those systems, but it is his understanding the engineering plans are submitted during the development review process, which is at a date subsequent to this zoning hearing; and the matter of waste disposal is appropriately addressed by the County at that time. He stated there is no central wastewater treatment plant in the area that is available to the property. Mr. Cragg advised he read in the paper today that a study in Brevard County of the affects of individual wastewater disposal systems will be completed by this summer by the EPA; and as a result of the lengthy time needed to engineer, permit, construct, and market this development, most of the houses, if not all, should be constructed in accordance with whatever new regulations, if any, might result from this study. He stated they are requesting a change in zoning to be acted upon by the Board which is consistent with the Future Land Use Designation; the density is less than the maximum allowable residential density, 2.5 units versus 4; the proposal maintains acceptable levels of service; and the request is a compatible classification with all surrounding land uses. He stated the property is in a zoning classification of Planned Unit Development, comprehending a plan which includes and requires additional land not owned by United States; and the result is they are in a state of limbo and cannot use the property without a change in zoning. He stated since it is a preliminary plan, he will go over it very briefly; and explained the plan depicting Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor borders, undeveloped lands, U.S. 1, entry to the property through Sunny Road, main entrance to the property, recreation area, and water treatment area. He stated every lot on the plan is a minimum of one-quarter acre; so the density is much less than the neighbor's density to the south; it is a very simple plan; he supposes there will be some changes; but conceptually he is confident that it is the plan they will be going with.

Mary Dobek, 5387 Hammerstone Court, Micco, in Snug Harbor, advised on Friday she spoke with Eric Aubry of Consumer Health Services of her concerns about the use of septic tanks for the Crystal Bay Development; Health Services does have concerns that it would adversely affect the Indian River; and today, as the developer stated, the Florida TODAY paper reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a first of its kind federal program to determine the extent septic tanks have on the pollution problem to the Indian River Lagoon. She stated because of the high water table, the contaminated water could rise to the surface providing a breeding place for mosquitos; the contaminated water contains bacteria; bacteria is responsible for many illnesses, including meningitis; meningitis is now a major concern in South Florida because of confirmed cases, some resulting in death; it is a clear and present danger; and there must have been a very good reason for the present PUD zoning to have been enforced in the past. She stated she wants the present PUD zoning which has a stipulation of sewage treatment plant not changed.

Marie Bergamini, 7660 Great Bear Lake Drive, Micco, in Snug Harbor Lakes, advised she is opposed to the development; they were here three years ago when Avatar presented its plans; they agreed because he had certain stipulations that he had to adhere to, primarily to watch the drainage easements which were turned over in perpetuity to Brevard County; and the second item was that he had to put in a sewage treatment plant. She stated Mr. Cragg has told them he has changed his mind about the zoning; they heard several remarks about the kind of housing; in the course of one of the conversations, he mentioned that some of them would be three bedroom homes; three bedrooms would indicate family; family would indicate two or three children, possibly four; and that is a lot of flushes going into a septic tank. She noted adding a teenager who washes her hair three times a day adds more flushes. Ms. Bergamini stated the gentleman also said all septic tanks would be in the front lawns; where the leaching fields will be, she cannot understand; she lived with a septic tank system for years in Connecticut; and its difficult to figure a septic tank on such small acreage; but nevertheless that is the ruling. She stated the reason they are not going to touch the back yard is because people might want to put in pools; that will use more water; plus they are taking a lot of earth away that has no where to go; and if the development goes through with all of those septic tanks, the Board should really stop and think about it and watch what it is doing to them. She stated they have been there 18 years, have lovely homes, and put all their money into them; and they would like to keep them that way. She stated the gentleman has not mentioned a performance bond which Avatar was required to put up; furthermore it is wrong for their development. Ms. Bergamini stated years ago nobody knew Micco existed; they were ignored; they never got any amenities or anything; fortunately Commissioner Higgs has changed that; and suddenly everyone wants to build in Micco. She stated in the 8 years she has lived there, she has never seen a truck come in to pump out a septic tank; she does not know how they can figure it is not going to impact the Indian River; and it has to impact them. She stated with all the flooding they have had, they have to have surface water coming up; it has to contaminate their wells; there is no other answer; there is no septic tank that is that good to compete with the water table; and they have a very high water table. She stated she would be curious to know when the perc tests are going to be done, because that is where she would like to be; and she cannot believe that they are going to do a perc test for every piece of land, but they should. She stated she hopes the Board will consider holding off on this request; obviously they are not the only ones worried about septic tanks if the Federal Government is going to spend $150,000 on the survey; and requested the Board table it or deny it.

Ben Krom, 1324 N. Oleander Circle, Barefoot Bay, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Barefoot Bay Recreation District, advised the change in zoning entails the legal permitting of septic tanks; and septic tanks today are the primary concern of the EPA, DEP, and all the rest of the people who are interested in the infrastructure. He stated until such time as something can be shown where the County will not be permitted to put a septic tank in, to change the zoning would be inconsistent with the proper use of the Board's powers. He stated the developer talks about a wooden fence; wood is not exactly a thing to make a fence out of in Florida; a six-foot high solid fence would prevent air flow; and it would prevent people from seeing what their normal area would be. He stated if the Board admits the change, a chain link fence would be more feasible; the developer at their meeting talked about having the wood fence put up as each separate lot or home is built; and to put up a section here and a section there does not make sense. Mr. Krom stated they would have to install the fence all at once; it would have to be done at once or it would not be effective; so he would ask the Board to hold off making a decision on this until more can be found out, primarily about the possibilities of doing something different with the sewage rather than septic tanks.

Donald Miller, 708 W. Bougainvillea, Barefoot Bay, President of Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association, advised in addition to what has been said, their main concern is the septic systems that were proposed to go into the development. He stated the developer said there is no wastewater treatment plant within the area that could handle the new development; Florida Cities Water Company services Barefoot Bay; they could, with the help of the County and the Public Service Commission, expand their service area; and they could take the new development into the plant that exists with very little modification. He stated it would require more lines perhaps to and from, but they could handle it; and the Commissioners, in their wisdom of looking forward to the abandonment of the septic systems in the County, should put something in the provisions, if it approves this, to see that the developer hooks up with the disposal system that is already in existence. Mr. Miller stated if it could not be worked out that way, the County could buy the Florida Cities Water Company and operate that system as a regional system. He stated if the County expands the area five miles south to Sebastian River and to Babcock Street on the west and Grant Road on the north, it would have a good size area that could be serviced and would accept additional development and still keep it environmentally sound. He noted he would think that the EPA would endorse it 100%, and the people of Barefoot Bay would also.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how much capacity is left in the Avatar plant; and stated it is not a problem for the Board to move lines as far as service areas go, because the Comprehensive Plan allows them to move other developments into a private facility and to move the lines. Mr. Miller stated when Avatar asked for the PUD with the stipulation it would use the plant, there was capacity to handle it; at this stage it would not take a whole lot of modification to handle it; but this is a matter of whether the developer would want to do that and whether the Board would want him to do it. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not the Board's decision not to allow him to expand the service area; and inquired if the PUD was done when they discharged into the Sebastian River; with Mr. Miller responding yes, but it was done after they had gotten the order that they could not do that any more. Commissioner Ellis inquired if their capacity is still the same; with Mr. Miller responding according to the latest data he has, which was given out by Florida Cities Water Company, the usage has dropped considerably in Barefoot Bay; therefore, their revenues have dropped; so that would be an added incentive for the Company and the developer to go into it. Commissioner Ellis stated if they have capacity, they should welcome the additional hookups; with Mr. Miller agreeing.

Commissioner Higgs advised she has two documents; she met with David and Anita Cragg and their engineer Leigh Stewart along with Katherine Martin of her staff on November 30, 1995; the question on septic systems did come up in that discussion; Ms. Stewart provided her with a memo on December 1, 1995 which said that according to Mr. Good, the Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plan expansion is complete and ready to go on line, and the new plant is designed and permitted to handle their current franchise area which is Barefoot Bay only. She stated the franchise area does not include Crystal Bay; neither the water treatment nor wastewater treatment plants have capacity to handle additional connections; and in order to service Crystal Bay, they would have to apply to the PSC for expansion of their franchise area which would take approximately six months, then undertake the design permitting and construction of the plant expansion for another six to nine months optimistically. She stated she asked Mr. Good if he would jot that down in a memo to her on his letterhead so she could clarify that to the Commission, as Mr. Sansbury left her with the impression that connection was possible in the near future. Commissioner Higgs advised she received a fax directed to Ms. Stewart from Larry Good, who is the Regional Manager of Florida Cities Water, which states, "This is to verify our phone conversation this date concerning Florida Cities Water Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Florida Cities Water Barefoot Bay Wastewater Plan would be on line in January, 1995, and is designed and permitted at 750,000 gallons per day, which will handle only the present franchise area of Barefoot Bay. We would be willing to extend our franchise area to include other areas, but our wastewater plant would have to be expanded to handle the additional flow. If I can be of further help in this matter, please feel free to call me." She stated she followed up the letter with a question to Mr. Sansbury to clarify that the expansion could be handled; the developer would have to pay for the expansions; but they could be expanded; and the expansion of the franchise area would also, as specified in the previous memo, have to be handled by the Public Service Commission. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they have a cost estimate for the expansion; with Commissioner Higgs responding she did not ask that.

Malfada Walker, 7515 Boxelder Road, Micco, in Snug Harbor, advised she wants to go on record as being very much against the rezoning of the property to RA-2-4 from the present PUD; in 1992, Avatar had a total of 268 acres zoned for a subdivision under PUD zoning; because Snug Harbor has easements through the property, they were all very much concerned and attended the August 24, 1992 meeting to voice their concerns; and she will not go into detail because the Commissioners have access to those minutes. She stated the Board unanimously approved that the developer transfer the drainage easements to the County in perpetuity for drainage and stormwater management, and post a performance bond with the County to insure the stormwater system works. Ms. Walker advised under the PUD zoning, a water treatment plant and sewage system was to be built; and now three years later, Mr. Coppola is requesting that 199 acres of the original 268 acres be rezoned to RA-2-4; that zoning would mean septic tanks would be legal; and that would be about 402 septic tanks. She stated they were told the units would be one family attached homes individually owned; if the 199 acres are rezoned, what will happen when Avatar that still owns 58 acres or more to the right of Mr. Coppola's property comes to the Board for rezoning to RA-2-4; and since it would mean no sewer system, he would most certainly obtain that change and it would be compatible with the other 199 acres, and the installation of septic tanks would rise to about 500. She stated she understands a property owner has a right to develop the land, but should it be at the expense of others already living in the area. She stated Gary Coppola is an investor, and his interest would be how his money can make him more money. Ms. Walker advised they were told a six-foot wooden fence would be built on the property lines of each lot abutting Snug Harbor as they are built, and the property owners would be responsible for maintenance of the fence; but having fences scattered throughout the subdivision does not make any kind of sense; so if this rezoning goes through and a fence is put up, it should be more than a six-foot wooden fence and should be put up before any construction starts. She stated they do not want access for people to get into their community; the Park is strictly an adult community; and since Phase I of the development abuts Snug Harbor, they are very concerned. She stated if the rezoning is approved and the project fails, Mr. Coppola will be worrying about his money and will probably sell lots to individuals whether they intend to build today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now; and there are too many questions and concerns. She stated the Commissioners should have received letters from the residents in Snug Harbor and she hopes they read them because they are against it 100%. Chairman Cook stated all those letters should be part of the record.

Rocco Siniscalchi, 7581 Cedar Bark Road, Micco, advised Ms. Walker said all the things he wanted to say except about the fence; if a person puts up a fence and 20 lots down another person puts a fence in, there will be nothing in the middle; and inquired what if the people leave the area and the house is vacant, who will take care of the fence. He stated wooden fences do not last in Florida; so he is totally against the plan and hopes the Board votes it down.

Larry Resnick, 7679 Great Bear Lake Drive, Micco, advised he is the Director of Snug Harbor Condominium Association which has over 400 units; and they are in opposition to the request being made. He stated RA-2-4 is not compatible with surrounding properties; the adjacent property of Snug Harbor is zoned TR-3; only single-family houses were built in Snug Harbor on minimum 5,000 square-foot lots; and the 5,000 square-foot minimum was filed with the State when the condominium was incorporated. He stated to allow attached housing adjacent to a single-family development would be a terrible disservice to the residents of the single-family development; while the developer stated attached housing would constitute only 20% of the development, a zoning change would permit 100% attached housing; and there will be nothing the Planning and Zoning Board, the County, or Snug Harbor can do about it, only suffer the consequences of congestion and invasion of private streets, and perhaps lower property values. He inquired who wants to live next to row housing except other row housing dwellers; the current zoning is a PUD with a conditional use permit for water treatment plant; the PUD designation meant there would be a great deal of open space; and this developer wants to eliminate the open space and rezone the property so there would be no open space requirements. Mr. Resnick advised the developer wants to eliminate the CUP for a water treatment plant that is currently required under the PUD; what he wants is to install hundreds of septic systems because Brevard County allows it; and what he will do, if permitted by the County, is to pollute the Indian River Lagoon with underground seepage from those hundreds of septic systems that will be only a few hundred feet away from the water's edge of the lagoon, as well as impact or pollute Snug Harbor's potable water system. He requested the Board bear in mind that Snug Harbor is a single-family retirement community of approximately 500 houses; the community meets the criteria for a federal adult community designation which means that most of Snug Harbor's residents have put all their retirement housing savings into their properties which will be their last homes; and they cannot easily pick up and move away because their neighborhood changed for the worse by allowing adjacent attached row housing and probable sewage problems. Mr. Resnick requested the Board not allow it to happen and to reject the proposal; but if it is inclined to grant the change, they would like to have a six-foot stucco cement block wall as a divider between the communities as a condition of the change. He stated there will be little compatibility between adult single-family lots and an attached units family housing development; and Snug Harbor would have to spend a great deal of money to keep new families from walking their dogs or riding their bikes on their private streets. He requested the Board keep their community intact as it is now.

Frankie Schott, 3545 Heather Lane, Micco, advised she does not live in Snug Harbor or Barefoot Bay; she is a resident of Micco and very concerned about the community; a few years ago they came before the Board when Avatar tried to develop the property because they were opposed to them tying into the sewer plant at Barefoot Bay which was under capacity; and at this time Avatar has Florida Cities Water dumping 600,000 gallons of effluent into the Sebastian River every day. She stated they do not like it but the new plant they are putting on line is the secondary treatment; it will not increase the capacity, it will make it a littler better, but their holding ponds can still overflow into the Sebastian River; and they are doing that legally with consent orders. Ms. Schott stated they do not want anyone else tying into the Florida Cities Systems because the river is badly polluted, and they do not want any more pollutants going into the river. She stated the development can have families; and inquired where is the recreation and community center, and can Columbia Elementary School handle more children. Commissioner Ellis stated the elementary schools in Palm Bay are pretty full. Ms. Schott stated they do not have schools in Micco; their children ride the bus for more than an hour to get to school now; and if it is going to have families, there are going to be more school buses and more portables because the School System cannot build schools since the bond referendum did not pass. She stated the septic tanks being legal would be pushing it to the limit; they are trying to stop polluting the rivers; she has been there 27 years and has seen the quality of the water decrease greatly in those years; and they are trying to reverse it and improve the natural resources, so they ask the Board to please deny the rezoning tonight.

Commissioner Higgs stated she will read some things into the record so Mr. Cragg has full knowledge of them; and as she said before, she met with Mr. and Mrs. Cragg and Leigh Stewart, and wants to make that a part of the record. She stated the meeting occurred on November 30, 1995; and read as follows: "Mr. Cragg went over the history of the zoning request, including the P&Z Board meeting, meeting with Rick Enos, meetings with the residents of Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor. He advised that he would ask for a change to his original request of RU-2-4 to RA-2-4 with a density of 2.5 units per acre which would mostly be single family with some duplexes. I asked why they wouldn't want to go ahead with the PUD zoning currently in place and if they were familiar with the new PUD Ordinance. Mr. Cragg indicated that they were, but the RA-2-4 zoning fit their needs and the PUD zoning required a development plan be filed in advance and more up-front costs." Commissioner Higgs advised they discussed his site plan as well as his proposed changes to the zoning request, and she will make that a part of the record that was given out this evening. She continued reading as follows: "We discussed the issue of septic systems. I asked about hook up to Florida Cities Water, and they indicated they had met with officials of Florida Cities Water and were told they could not hook up. I indicated I had spoken to Bill Sansbury at Florida Cities Water prior to the November 30th meeting and was told it was possible to connect to Florida Cities Water with the expansion of their service area boundary and plant. Mr. Cragg expressed concern about the cost of sewer lines and reuse lines and about the requirement for 100% reuse. He stated in order to cover the cost, they would have to ask for maximum density of four units per acre. We discussed stormwater runoff and Snug Harbor's drainage easements. Mr. Cragg confirmed that they would adhere to the regulations requiring containment of runoff on site and would not impact Snug Harbor's easements. He stated language addressing this would be placed in the binding development plan which he gave to me and which I will put in the record. I also expressed concern about our staff's experience with runoff during Tropical Storm Gordon and their experience of water flow from the property north of Barefoot Bay into Barefoot Bay. Mr. Cragg also advised that they would not allow through traffic from their development to go through Barefoot Bay or Snug Harbor; and if Fire Rescue required an additional access besides Senne Road, they would put a chain across the additional access making it available only for emergency use. We then discussed potable water and I was informed they would have their own water treatment plant. Mr. Cragg mentioned that he was planning a six-foot high privacy fence between his development and the Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor developments. He stated he would improve the fence with berms at the base to allow for a more aesthetic buffer. This was the extent of our conversation." She stated she read that into the record because when they have conversations outside the public forum, it is necessary to put them in. She stated she had other conversations; Mr. George Ritchie from Barefoot Bay expressed his concern about the project; a lady whose name she did not know at a Library reception expressed her objection to the septic systems; she spoke on the phone to Marie Bergamini who expressed her concerns; and those are the conversations she had outside the meeting and will put in the record.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the density of the PUD; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding the previously approved PUD had a density of approximately 2.3 units to the acre. Commissioner Ellis stated it would not matter if it was PUD, the density is about the same if the concern is the number of people.

Mr. Cragg advised he wants to clear up the PUD; the property was part of the PUD; Avatar still owns part of it; the missing ten acres is mainly the stormwater drainage for Snug Harbor; and they did not purchase that piece. He stated the fences were not their idea; some of the neighbors are fearful of dogs, people, and so forth crossing back and forth; so he agreed to put up a fence along the border. He stated he has since changed that and will construct that fence prior to the development of the project; that will be the first thing they will do, so there will not be gaps in the fences; and that will be in the BDP. He stated as to the sewer, when Avatar was doing it as a PUD, it was going to construct its own sewage plant and not hook up to the existing sewage plant; that is probably why it finally dropped the project; it had a golf course and 50-foot by 80-foot lots; and in order for his project to hook up to Barefoot Bay, he would have to increase the density to four units per acre. He stated the reason it is at 2.5 units per acre is because a quarter acre is the minimum lot size allowed to have potable water and septic tanks; so if he could hook up, the site plan would not be the same, as he would present smaller lots and increased density. Mr. Cragg advised they are planning an extensive recreation area; and their marketing will be geared towards all adults; however, they have not made a decision yet because they are in the preliminary stages whether to go with the all adult designation that Snug Harbor has, but they are thinking about it. He stated in one of their projects, which is basically all adults, there are no basketball hoops allowed or things that are not compatible with adults; and they can see this development as being an adult community.

Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to clarify for the record and Mr. Cragg that prior to their meeting last Thursday, and after receiving the memo to Stewart today, she did talk to Florida Cities Water and inquired if it was his understanding as it was hers from the follow up conversation today that although the process would require expansion of the franchise area and expansion in the wastewater treatment plant capacity, they could hook up to those; with Mr. Cragg responding from their answer he assumes they have room but does not know that. He stated they would have to get EPA approval which will take a great deal of time; and the ones he has been involved with have taken years. He stated they are asking for a zoning change; he would certainly talk to them more; but from what they have heard now, they would have to come back and get another zoning change and not limit themselves to 2.5 units per acre if that could happen. He stated as it stands now and what he sees in the foreseeable future, Florida Cities is in a rate case fight right now and cannot do much of anything; the EPA will not do anything until they solve the rate case; that was the initial reason he got from them before talking to Commissioner Higgs as to why they could not expand; and after they talked to her, he called them up and they said they do not have capacity. He stated he is confused, but the bottom line is no sewer is available there.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the status in the transition of the new PUD Ordinance; with Mr. Enos responding the new PUD regulations have been adopted by the Board and can be used; the current PUD on the property has expired; and even though it is still on the zoning maps, the preliminary development plan is no longer active.

Commissioner Ellis inquired where does that leave the County; with Mr. Enos responding the developer would not be able to develop the property until there is a rezoning of some kind on the property or parcels outside of the project which still have the PUD zoning. Commissioner Ellis inquired where does that leave the Board; with Mr. Enos responding the Board will have to eventually approve a different zoning classification, either the current request or some other request that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or it may be possible that a developer could come in with a new PUD. Chairman Cook inquired if the Board has to approve some type of zoning for the property and it is just a matter of what the Board chooses; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it could be a new zoning or new PUD; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs requested all the people from Snug Harbor and Barefoot Bay stand so the Board will have an indication of the people who are here. Commissioner Higgs stated she appreciates that they are here; there are a couple of things they need to keep in mind in looking at this request; while the existing PUD may have expired, she does not believe it is an unreasonable use of the property; and it could be developed under a PUD with other site plan approvals. She stated Policy 1.4 of the Sanitary Sewer Element states, "Brevard County shall permit the use of onsite sewage disposal systems only in areas where a sewer system is not available, and then only when the system is consistent with the regulations found in Chapter 10.D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code." Commissioner Higgs advised the Administrative Code outlines the particular regulations in regard to construction of septic tanks; however, the first part of the Policy is important to consider tonight, that the Board allow onsite sewage disposal systems only in areas where a sewer system is not available. She stated based on what she was able to determine, although it may not be available today, sanitary sewer is available at that location; so the request would be inconsistent with that Element of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the people here tonight have pointed out a number of concerns; she is not ready to approve the request tonight; and if there is a desire to continue to try and work it, the Board could continue the request and allow the applicant additional time to work on the proposal; but it is her intent to allow a continuance or to deny the request. Mr. Cragg advised they will accept a continuance to look into the sewer system and thinks that is appropriate.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue Item 9 until January 29, 1996 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board needs to get something worked out because it cannot hold it perpetually; the important thing is to resolve the issue with the sewer and find out if they would come back with a new PUD. Chairman Cook advised the Board will be prepared to make a decision one way or another on January 29, 1996; and the Board has been informed by staff that there is some use of the property that will have to be designated by law.

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

REPORT, RE: MICCO COMMUNITY CENTER

Commissioner Higgs advised the Micco Community Center is on the Agenda; some of the people may be interested in that; and inquired if the item could be brought up at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to advance the Micco Community Center on the Agenda. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how many cards does the Board have on that item; with Chairman Cook responding quite a few. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board does zoning it is supposed to do zoning first; and if it starts breaking up zoning with other items, it is unfair to the people who have come here for zoning; so it needs to complete the zoning issues. Commissioner Ellis indicated the people should know the rest of the Agenda may go fairly fast.

Item 10. Beulah V. Brady's request for change from AU to RU-1-11 on 2.2 acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Shell Pit Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wishes to proceed with District 2's items or defer them; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it should handle the non-controversial ones.

Item 11. Frank DiResta's request for extension of Mixed Use District and change from AU and BU-1 to all BU-1 on 1.88? acres located on the east side of North Courtenay Parkway, south of Chase Hammock Road, which was approved as BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. Jeff C. and Carolyn Woods, Marilyn Reuter and Jeffrey A. and Julia A. Hite's request for CUP for aquaculture in RU-1-11 zoning classification on .21 acre located on the west side of Milford Point Drive, north of SR 520, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

The applicant withdrew Item 12, and the Board accepted withdrawal.

Item 13. Joyce D. Johnson, Trustee's request for change from SR to AU on 50 acres located on the north side of Hall Road, east of SR 3, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 14. Lennar Homes, Inc. and National Health Investors, Inc.'s request for change from AU and RU-1-9 to RU-2-12 and CUP for convalescent Home on 8.26 acres located on the north side of Crockett Boulevard, east of Abbeyridge Drive, and also having frontage on the south side of Heather Stone Drive, east of Abbeyridge Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board with BDP as proposed by applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page ___for Binding Development Plan.)

Item 15. Robert McNeely and Josephine McNeely's request for interpretation of a home occupation pursuant to Section 62-1155(b)(1) in RR-1 and RU-1-9 zoning classifications on 1.27 acres located on the west side of Dalehurst Drive, south of Yorkshire Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board with a stipulation of no sales or advertising on premises and home occupation be transparent to the neighborhood.

Mr. Enos advised the Item does not require Board action.

Item 16. International Master Builders, Inc.'s request for approval of six flag lots in RU-2-15 zoning classification with cap of 11 units per acre on 19.7 acres located on the northeast corner of Burnett Road and Lake Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 17. Peoples Southwest Real Estate Limited Partnership's request for CUP for alcoholic beverages on-premise consumption in BU-1 zoning classification on 2.95 acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Pam-Lem Street, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

William Fanning, 4828 Bridge Road, Cocoa, advised he was the First President of Port St. John Eagles over a year ago; they searched frantically to find a home for the members they had; the Board approved five other Eagles Clubs in the County; and they have to try and keep their home between SR 405 and SR 528 with respect to their brothers to the north which is Titusville Eagles, and their brothers to the south which is Cocoa Eagles. He stated they cannot find a home where they would not upset the Homeowners Association of Port St. John or any other homeowners associations, so the only other location he found was at the Cocoa Commercial Center. He stated he called Zoning and the staff told him everything meets the qualifications for a private club; however, there was a drawback because there was a church on the property; it is not really a church and more of a bible study group; they said they would allow it if the Club was 300 feet from front door to front door; so they paced it off and exceeded the 300 feet. Mr. Fanning advised after they were denied because of the church, he looked into it further and was told they went 300 feet as the crow flies; they had to walk around the building to get to the front door at that location; at the meeting there was nobody from the public objecting to it; and since then he spoke to the pastor who is for approval of the Club. He stated he obtained a description of a church, presented it to the Board; and read it as follows: " A church means a building used for nonprofit purposes by a recognized or established religion as its place of worship. Such buildings may include residential area for the pastor or minister of the sect." Mr. Fanning stated he spoke to the pastor who was going to be here today to represent them; unfortunately, Pastor Buch's wife took ill and he could not make it; and gave the Board the pastor's phone number and work number as he works for FPL. He stated it is not a recognized denomination; it is a group that gets together and studies religion; basically he is asking to reverse the decision because they have 150 members who go all out to raise money for different organizations; and Gayle Barnett will explain that. He stated they have no other location they can go to; and it would be a big shame for all these people who raise money for charitable organizations to have to demise. He stated they recently did a Toys for Tots campaign; although the Government was shut down the day they did it, and the Marine Corps could not be there, they represented the Marine Corps and raised all the toys; and the Board can check with the Rockledge recruiter because the toys are all in his office. He stated they had a food drive for North Brevard Charities; and they do a lot in the community. He requested the Board consider changing the decision of the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was some discussion of whether it was or was not a church; and inquired how did staff ascertain that it was a church; with Mr. Enos responding he had one of his staff call the church and asked them if they were a church, organized and recorded with the State of Florida as a church; and they stated they were a church; and that is all the information staff has. Mr. Fanning stated they are not even on the tax roll. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes there can be some confusion; the gentleman who is in charge of the group is alleging they are not a church; staff has rules to live by that were created by the Board; and suggested a motion to approve, subject to a determination by Mr. Enos that it is not a church, so it would not have to return to the Board. He stated they may have to have a certain status to be exempt on the tax records with the Property Appraiser; and if they have not taken the steps to get that tax status, then that may be indicative that they have not been able to establish as a church. Mr. Enos stated he would not object to that if there is no legal objection, but there is another option the Board may want to consider. He stated there is a disagreement whether they are 300 feet away; what they have are three units that go through the entire building; they have a series of units on one side and a series of units on the other side; they call their front west; but they also have a door on the east side; and it is the east door that is within 300 feet of the church, but the west doors are not. He stated if they closed up the east door and did not use it for access other than emergencies, then it is possible to be considered. Mr. Fanning stated they use that door for fire exit only.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to overrule the P&Z Board and approve Item 17, subject to the east door not being used except for emergency access. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Roger M. Boatman, as Trustee of the Roger M. Boatman Trust's request for CUP for land alteration in PIP zoning classification on ten acres located on the south side of Grissom Road, west of Industry Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 19. Roger M. Boatman, as Trustee of the Roger M. Boatman Trust's request for CUP for land alteration in PIP zoning classification on 7 acres located on the south side of Grissom Parkway, west of Industry Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 20. 4 G's of Brevard County, Inc.'s request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 2.24 acres located on the south side of Suntee Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 21. Cougar Ridge Properties, Inc.'s request for change from PUD and AU w/BSP to PUD on 1053.8 acres located on the east side of I-95 north of SR 46, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 22. Carl W. Kuehner and Stephen A. Sawyer's request for small scale plan amendment and change of classification from GU to AU on 6? acres located north of Curtis Boulevard at the northern terminus of Song Drive, which was approved as Small Scale Plan Amendment by the Local Planning Agency and AU by the P&Z Board.

Maureen Rupe, 7185 Bright Avenue, Port St. John, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, advised the Association is adamantly opposed to the small scale plan amendment and the change in classification on the property in question, because it will drastically expand the uses allowed on the property. She stated besides the uses allowed under General Use, the AU zoning allows 11 additional uses, 6 additional uses with conditions, and 20 additional accessory uses; so the change is most unsatisfactory. She stated they heard from P&Z that the land may be used for horse boarding; Port St. John is a heavily populated and still growing residential community; the property is almost centrally located in Port St. John; all of their roads are incompatible with horse riding as they are two-lane roads with small rights-of-way; and the property is only accessible by trailer unless they are allowed to ride in the streets or across residential properties. Ms. Rupe advised horses are not the only reason they oppose the small scale plan amendment and zoning change; the change would allow many things incompatible with the community; among the expanded uses and conditional uses which are incompatible are fowl raising, bee keeping, sanitariums, private clubs, crematoriums, cemeteries, drive-in theaters, farmers market, golf driving ranges, hog farms, mausoleums, pet kennels, and zoological parks. She stated approximately one year ago the Port St. John Homeowners Association Board of Directors was approached by a property owner in that general area to rezone to SR stating their show horse and possibly another horse would be located on the property; and they stipulated that no horse would be ridden into the community, only trailered in and out; the Association's Board voted not to oppose the SR zoning because of the limited nature of the request; however, this request far exceeds that SR zoning. She requested the Board disapprove the changes to the property; and stated if the current zoning is changed, it does not automatically change back if the property owners' purpose goes under; it stays until the property owner wishes another change; zoning should be consistent with the area; and AU is not compatible with the center of Port St. John. Chairman Cook inquired if Ms. Rupe is speaking on behalf of the Homeowners Association; with Ms. Rupe responding yes.

Carl Kuehner, 1402 N. Lakemont Drive, Cocoa, advised he and his partner purchased the land from a realtor; they were told the front ten acres are agriculture and the back six acres are GU; and when they purchased the land, the realtor told them it would not be a problem to have horses on GU. He stated he does not know anything about zoning, never have and never will, but when he pulled a pole barn permit for the six acres, he was told he could not have a horse on it. He stated they purchased the land for horse raising; they can have horses on the front ten acres; they want to build their houses and put a barn in the back; and they also lease more than 18 acres from Florida Power & Light Company, so there is a total of more than 34 acres. Mr. Kuehner advised all the land to the north is AU; at one time it was all AU with orange groves, etc.; they own 16.18 acres, 10 of which is AU and they want to rezone the six acres of GU to AU to have their horses and homes.

Commissioner Ellis stated GU is a holding category, and the Board should not hold people to that. Mr. Kuehner stated Ms. Rupe is opposing anything she does not want, and he does not know of any bees that keep anybody awake. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not in the middle of town because there are a borrow pit and railroad tracks. Mr. Kuehner stated there is not a home within 500 to 600 feet from the property; he was born and raised in Brevard County; they could keep horses in their backyards before zoning became an issue; they bought the land with the intent of keeping horses and assumed it was all AU; and he is sorry he does not know the zoning laws, but they want to change the six acres to AU. Commissioner Ellis stated there is a lot of land between the property and Port St. John, and on the other side are borrow pit and railroad tracks. Ms. Rupe stated their biggest concern is the horse boarding and if they are going to ride horses on the roads in Port St. John. Commissioner Ellis stated it would be dangerous to the horses. Mr. Kuehner stated he cannot speak for anyone else, but he does not intend to ride his horses over there. He stated they want to put both homes on the six acres and must have a minimum of 300 feet width or depth for GU; they do not meet the width requirement in the back because they only have 254 feet; but if it is changed to AU, they can have the two homes without a variance and will meet the requirements.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Enos explain the PIP situation to the Board; with Mr. Enos responding the first part of the request is a Comprehensive Plan change because the current Comprehensive Plan is planned industrial; so the current GU is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be changed to planned industrial classification barring this application. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Comprehensive Plan says PIP; Mr. Kuehner is asking for AU which is a less intense use; and suggested tabling the request to let the applicant and homeowners visit with the possibility of doing a binding development plan. He stated since Mr. Kuehner said he would not do certain things, perhaps they could bring it back with some limitations and make it a part of the record. Mr. Kuehner stated there is RU-1 with horses already; it borders his property that he is requesting the rezoning for; and if he cannot do something, what would keep that person from riding his horses in Port St. John and the people blaming him for it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are some limitations that could be put on the rezoning that would be reasonable, because AU encompasses many things beyond what he anticipates and needs; with Mr. Kuehner responding the front ten acres are already AU; if he had planned to have other uses he would have them already on the front ten acres and would not need the back six acres for bees or a pig farm; so it is silly to say he can do it on one part of the property and not on the back part; however, he does not plan to have a pig farm. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Kuehner will say that as a matter of record; with Mr. Kuehner responding he will not have a pig farm on the back six acres. Commissioner Scarborough recommended tabling the item until January to set forth limitations in a document that Mr. Enos will work with Mr. Kuehner on and perhaps make all the parties happy. He stated the Homeowners Association understands it is PIP property; the request will keep it rural in nature; and if Mr. Kuehner went back to them, they may see the benefit of having limited horse usage as opposed to PIP. He stated both sides have been educated tonight, and in January they can come together with an understanding rather than a conflict.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not know why the Board should drag it out; Mr. Kuehner has a good buffer between his property and Port St. John to the west; to the east are power lines, borrow pits, industrial area, and railroad; so he does not understand why it should be dragged out. Commissioner Scarborough stated everyone has his own views on things; and if they can bring the parties to a point of greater contentment, it is worth the wait.

Chairman Cook inquired if the homeowners were aware it is a down zoning from what is designated for the property; with Ms. Rupe responding yes, but they were under the impression it would be light industrial. She stated it is 350 feet from Curtis which is a kind of main artery in Port St. John; it is not out there on its own; but they would be willing, with the limitations, not to oppose it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue Item 22 to the January 29, 1996 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to schedule Item 22 as the first item on January 29, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Eugene G. and Martha L. Rollins's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.00? acres located on the north side of Burkholm Road, east of U.S. 1, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 24. Robynne Hester-Dew and Mary S. Brown-Rolle's request for change from AU to BU-1 on 1.15 acres located on the east side of Harry T. Moore Avenue, south of Main Street, which was withdrawn by the applicant.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 24.

Item 25. Zoning Official's Report. See minutes of P&Z Board meeting of November 6, 1995. (See pages_____for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 2, 1995

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendations of October 2, 1995, on items tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on October 30, 1995, as follows:

Item 26. James A. Schoenthal's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1.00 acre located on the north side of Bear Trail, west of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 27. James Schoenthal's request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1.14 acres located on the west side of Charles Place, south of Breckenridge Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 27 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages____for Zoning Resolutions.)

The meeting recessed at 8:38 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER IN MICCO

Peter Player, 3685 Main Street, Micco, advised this is a good old fashion argument, but because he is on one side of the argument and some people are on the other side, it does not make them bad people. He thanked Commissioner Higgs and the rest of the Board for the time and effort they have put into looking into the situation, the Micco Homeowners for dedicating their time, and the South Mainland Advisory Committee for putting in their time also because that is what a community is all about. He stated there are $242,000 to build a community center and purchase land; they will not be able to do it for $242,000 unless they build it where it was supposed to be built; and that is at Micco Park.

Cheryl Bruns, 9737 Riverview Drive, Micco, advised she has lived in Micco for 15 years and met Rebecca Hume who was born in Micco and married her husband who was also born in Micco; when she told her she was coming to the meeting tonight, Ms. Hume asked her to bring a letter and read it to the Board; and she read the following: "Brevard County Commissioners. My name is Rebecca Hume. I was born and raised and own a home in Micco. My mother was President and Co-founder of the Micco Park Association back when our park first came to be. They used to hold turkey shoots, bring your own gun, where the ballfield is now, to raise money for improvements. I've closely followed this whole fiasco concerning our community center at Micco Park. At first I was thrilled that our forgotten little tail end of the County was finally going to get some money, grant money to build a modest community center at Micco Park, maybe even a little left over for an improvement or two. Then up cropped these grandiose plans to buy acres and acres and build this whole entire complex. That poor little grant money has been harassed to tatters. Our lake at the Park has been a mud hole to swim in for years, reason, lack of money for maintenance; and they knew well. When things go wrong or need repair it takes forever, reason, lack of money. Everything comes down to the same thing where Micco is concerned. We do not receive a lot of money and never have from Government programs; and now certain people want you, our Commissioners, to approve spending almost all of our grant money to buy land for this envisioned complex when not one single person has the vaguest idea where, when, or how the vast amount of money needed to build it will materialize. I also want to say that myself and a friend were both mis-led and signed a petition against building the community center at Micco Park. My friend was told that if the building went in the Park everyone will have to start paying to use the Park. I was flat out lied to when presented with the petition. I was told it was about keeping the building in our Park. The person with the petition turned out to be against the Park. I wonder how many other people signed the petition that was falsely presented. Commissioners, we're a tiny rural piece of a large County that doesn't need or want two parks or a large sports complex. It took 15 years for the County to find the money for a new well at Micco Park. It's a nice Park with lots of relatively inexpensive potential. I beg of you don't vote to waste our money. Don't vote to spend our grant money buying a piece of property that we can't possibly afford to develop any time in the near future. Please think dollars. Please don't vote to spend money we don't have." Ms. Bruns stated her personal feeling is there is plenty of property adjacent to Micco Park if a soccer field, gymnasium or tennis courts were to be added; and if money was to be provided, there is adequate space in the Park for a community center. She stated a road appeared almost overnight this summer where the new central site is being considered with newly platted homesites; and the property adjoining the Park is non-buildable because of the road situation, so it will not likely be developed. She stated they are increasing the taxable value, but the property around the Park will not likely increase in value because it cannot be developed; the central site, a large percent of it was just recently platted into homesites which can be developed and increase taxable value; and if it is taken off the tax rolls it will have no taxable value. She stated her main issue concerns the children's safety; the meetings at the Library frequently come to a halt because of the train horn and rumbling as it passes; and they accept that, but what they cannot accept is the hazard and distraction the noise will create while their children are playing by the railroad tracks. She stated Central Avenue, Riverview Drive, and Main Street intersect in between the two proposed parks; most children live south of the three-way stop and would have to walk or bicycle through what is the busiest intersection in the neighborhood; the Central site is being promoted as a compromise; but the children is all that is being compromised, their safety and their future. Ms. Bruns stated money is a major issue; it is not here; it is time to revoke the Government's credit card; business as usual is not working; and please give the Community Development Block Grant back to the Micco homeowners.

Charles Burke, 9605 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, representing the Micco Homeowners Association and 450 people of South Micco who signed the petition, advised he lives there and maintained a home for the past 23 years; all his taxes are paid to date; and as President of the Micco Homeowners Association he had a part in every aspect of the community center fiasco with one committee or another. He stated they are here to settle the matter one way or another; he has two plans for the Board to consider; the first would be to build a community center in Micco with $242,000 that has been voted on and approved by the CDBG Advisory Board and this Board; and the building be large enough to take care of their present needs. He stated the Micco Park site approved for the community center would be their first choice; it will take care of the children's programs and all activities involved with a community center; and if the Board rejects the first plan and goes with the Central Avenue site, rather than lose the grant, they would recommend Micco Park be sold. He stated they do not need two parks; the money from the sale of Micco Park could develop the Central Avenue site which is undeveloped with no facilities and a high water table; mitigation will be required; and with the funds from the sale of Micco Park, it can be accomplished. Mr. Burke stated he thought the Micco Homeowners Association was doing a great job of making things better for the people of South Micco; never did they intend to get into a controversy such as this or he would not have been there; and if their proposal had been allowed to progress without interruption, they would have a community center by now and would probably be meeting there.

Harriett Williams, 3990 11 Street, Micco, Vice President of Micco Homeowners Association, advised they have given a set of petitions in favor of Micco Park to each Commissioner with accompanying letters of the petition gatherers; they had very positive enthusiastic responses in support; and they were told another petition in opposition to a community center in Micco Park exists. She stated they have not seen the petition, and request it not be considered until they have time to review and comment on it.

Frankie Schott, 3545 Heather Lane, Micco, advised the Micco Homeowners Association invited Commissioner Higgs Friday night to inform the residents on what is being proposed for a community center in Micco; and she would like to review with the Board the information that was given to them at that time. She stated the South Mainland Community Center Citizens Advisory Board will be recommending to this Board to purchase approximately 13 acres for $224,000; if the Board approves it, and if the land appraisers agree with the asking price, and if the owners accept the contract, the land will be purchased; and maybe less land will be purchased and maybe more will be purchased at a later date if the land is still available. She stated mitigation cannot be addressed at this time; they do not know if the wetlands can be incorporated into the design; but the environmental issues of wetlands and scrub jays will not stop the project. Ms. Schott stated after the land is purchased, an architect will be selected; if the money is available, the South Mainland Citizens Advisory Board will recommend a 17,000 square-foot building; and maybe a smaller building of 2,000 square feet will be built to start with and enlarged at a later date when the funds are available. She stated there is a problem in putting bikepaths connecting the two parks; and if resolved, and if money is available, they will put in bikepaths. She stated it is 16 months after the Board approved the Micco Homeowners Association's proposal, and all they have is a handful of ifs and maybes; they have one definite, and that is the $242,000 available now; and she has another definite she wants to present to the Board tonight. Ms. Schott explained a drawing of Micco Park as it exists today; advised she and Mr. Koraly measured the whole park to create the scaled drawing; and identified the parking lot for 100 cars, softball field, basketball court, children's play equipment, shallow swimming lake that needs to be improved, two pavilions, a restroom, an exercise trail, and a path that goes around that is not paved but can be driven on to the back pavilion. She stated except for the trees and path, that is what is there today; the argument is there is no room in Micco Park for a center; when they started the project, Parks and Recreation told them they needed a 5,000 square-foot building to accommodate Micco; the scaled building she has is 4,950 square feet; and it can be put in the Park without interfering with anything except the path. She stated they can put a parking lot in and have handicap parking at the building; and identified areas for soccer fields, basketball court, tennis courts, and a gym. She stated there is plenty of land around the Park that is available for sale; since Parks and Recreation has done no capital acquisition in Micco for 39 years, she would like to see it show them they are not the forgotten stepchildren they feel they are, and buy the land around Micco Park; and the CDBG funds could put the community center on it. She stated there is room there for the future, and they are looking to the future.

George Koraly, 9868 Riverview Drive, Micco, representing the Micco Homeowners Association, apologized for submitting their file on the community center at such a late date, but they were under the impression it was going to be discussed on December 12, 1995; and he submitted a copy of what was given to the Board to the Clerk with photos. He stated the Micco Homeowners Association applied for and was awarded a HUD grant for a community center at Micco Park; opposition said the park was too small; they suggested purchasing a few acres and placing it adjacent to the Park; and the traffic issue was raised and it is a problem. He stated the road infrastructure is a zoo; it is very difficult to correct; the Committee came up with a site for another small park approximately 2,000 feet north along a narrow street; and it will exacerbate the traffic problem by exposing children going from one park to the other. He stated vandalism was brought up; they suggested incorporating a Sheriff's facility in the center; and in the long run that would be very cost effective. He stated they were chastised for not looking to the future; they should have a site that will be large enough for a gymnasium and other facilities; and the information they presented shows that almost all the property west and north of the park is vacant and for sale, approximately ten additional acres. Mr. Koraly advised the opposition said the property was too expensive; the information shows that after land preparation and mitigation, the Central Avenue site could be considerably more expensive; and maintenance of a small park is almost as expensive as maintenance of a large facility. He stated the logistics, costs, and man hours lost loading and unloading equipment and moving between two small sites is impractical; it is understandable that the Board may feel it is a District 3 issue and should be resolved in District 3; however, the HUD grant funds for the land acquisition, and continual maintenance costs for the proposal is not free; and everyone will continue to pay taxes for it. Mr. Koraly advised the opposition has no practical reason to block the facility from being placed in Micco Park; it is a perfect location for a community center; and if the opposition sways the Board to its point of view, they, in the name of fiscal responsibility, recommend steps be taken to sell Micco Park and the proceeds be committed to one facility at the Central Avenue site.

Jeanne Osborne, 100 Cherokee Court, Barefoot Bay, Chairman of the South Mainland Advisory Committee, advised the committee that is being referred to as the opposition grew out of a large meeting called by Commissioner Higgs, Joan Madden, and Parks and Recreation because they decided there was a little more money in the grant than they had originally thought; and at that meeting they decided to appoint a committee to determine what to do and how to use it to the best advantage. She stated Commissioner Higgs picked nine people for that committee; Mrs. Schott was a member and has since resigned; and four others from the area around Micco Park were members. She stated there were members from Snug Harbor, Riverview, and Barefoot Bay; it was truly representative of the entire region of Micco; and they all pay taxes to Brevard County as well. She stated they were all appointed by Commissioner Higgs under Resolution 95-37 and tried to meet and come up with a plan that would satisfy the charge that was placed upon them; they were told primarily by the CDBG staff that they should put in their application everything they saw down the road, even 20 years, because that was how the applications were filled out; and they did that. Ms. Osborne advised around the third meeting, it was brought out that they wanted something in Micco Park period because all they wanted was a place to meet; and they were told CDBG would not fund two programs, so they proceeded to try and find the best place. She stated they worked to compromise; looked at five different pieces of land; came up with what they thought was a good compromise, not too close to Barefoot Bay and close to central Micco; and it is in the center of the target area where the poor homes and low-income people are. She stated they feel they did a good job and would like to commend staff for helping them. Ms. Osborne advised she said what she wanted to say as Chairman of the Committee, and would like to now speak as a member of the Committee and a taxpayer; they never discussed a 17,000 square-foot building; the building they discussed for a community center was less than 5,000 square feet; it was 4,895 square feet; and the total area was 17,000 square feet, so that statement is in error. She noted Commissioner Ellis had some concerns about what it was all about; she met with him and he asked about different options; she agreed to look at those and get some figures; and she sent them to him. She requested he share those with the Board. Commissioner Ellis asked Ms. Osborne if she had the numbers; and Chairman Cook asked Ms. Osborne to read them. Ms. Osborne advised it was something she and Commissioner Ellis worked out, but it has not gone through the Advisory Committee; and the Committee is committed to the Central site, but may be willing to make adjustments. She stated they were looking at approximately 10.34 acres; 3.3 belongs to the County now; the land they would have to purchase would be 1.66 acres at $26,560; and if they purchased that piece, they will be given 3.38 acres for $6,020 which are immediately adjoining it. She stated the total price, which could be less because they went with the higher numbers for the individual lots, is $87,580; they have worked hard and tried to come up with a compromise; and they are well-meaning people who are volunteers and not mean-spirited.

Wally Kramer, 9606 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, presented a petition to the Board of over 300 names; and explained the petition was obtained by sending one person to do all the homes around Micco Park; he took Barefoot Bay south of Micco Road; they did Little Hollywood which contains Micco Park; and they did downtown Micco around Main Street. He stated the people around Micco Park were solidly against putting a building in the Park; the two streets he did in Barefoot Bay was unanimously against it; Little Hollywood was almost unanimously against putting anything in Micco Park; the homes in Little Hollywood are worth more and assessed much higher than homes around the central site; and the people with homes south of Micco Road pay a lot of taxes and do a lot of voting. Mr. Kramer advised there was a comment that the central site is wet; a Micco homeowner went out and took a post hole digger to reveal the startling fact that there was water 26 inches below the surface; it was a perched water table; and if the Board has the engineering report, it will see that it could not be more positive about that site. He stated Ms. Osborne covered the Advisory Board nicely; if the Board makes the Park more attractive, whether it is Micco Park or the central site, it is going to draw more people and cars for the SNAP program, meetings, and other programs; and he got a jolt when he looked at a report Commissioner Higgs brought with her Friday night. He stated the County did a traffic count on Riverview Drive on November 20 and 21; in 24 hours there were 2,138 vehicles; on the same day at the same time Micco Park had 540 vehicles; and indicated it is not the place to put little children with increased traffic volume caused by people wanting to go to the Park. He explained a chart with dots representing vehicles at Micco Park and the Central site, and stated that alone should stop the center from going into Micco Park. Mr. Kramer stated no matter how much land they buy around the Park, they cannot exit except on Riverview Drive; they might somehow get to Parker Drive, but at this time it does not look promising; and the Main Street crossover has three stop signs, a narrow road and a hill with one blind entrance; so it will be tough for the children. He requested the Board put the community center at the central site.

Ed Arens, 3700 Bay Street, Micco, advised he has been in Micco for 25 years, is a taxpayer like everybody else, and watched the area try to grow; it has not always been what they wanted, and they are neglected road wise; but when the community center issue first started, he was in favor of putting it in Micco Park if they could get more land around the Park. He stated now that he has seen the central site, he believes it is the proper place to put the center with vision for the future. He stated no planning for the future has been a problem in South Brevard; and if they can get enough acreage it will be wonderful. He stated he understands Commissioner Higgs has an idea to connect the two parks by a bikepath, maybe not immediately, but in the future; and that is what they have to do, look to the future. Mr. Arens advised they should start with a 4,800 square-foot building at the central site and not try to cram something in a five-acre park; Parks and Recreation Department has plans to do further things in Micco Park; there was an idea to sell the Park; and he would not say it is not entirely feasible and would not rule it out sometime in the future. He stated he is speaking for many residents of Little Hollywood; he is Past President of the Homeowners Association and was on the Board of Directors; he attends meetings of Micco Homeowners; and he does not always agree with everybody, but he would like to see them come together on this issue. He noted the Committee did an excellent job narrowing down the site, and they owe it a great deal.

Donald Miller, 708 N. Bougainvillea Circle, Barefoot Bay, stated there are about 1,026 homes in the target area of Barefoot Bay south of Micco Road; that is probably as many homes as there are in the rest of Micco and Little Hollywood; and he does not know how many children they have in there, but there are a lot of them south of Micco Road getting on the school buses. He stated the central location which the Committee came up with would be accessible for the children from Barefoot Bay as well as the children in Micco and Little Hollywood; the parking would be much better in a larger location; a parking lot for 100 cars would not take care of one softball league; and when they have softball games in Barefoot Bay, they have about 75 to 100 cars there just from their area. He stated the central site will be much better and it gives an opportunity for expansion as the area grows; and that is something that has to be addressed; so he would recommend the central site.

Bill Sansbury, 9830 Honeysuckle, Micco, advised he is a member of the South Mainland Community Center Advisory Committee and a resident of Micco; and everything has been said tonight; however, he would like to thank the Board for allowing them additional time to work with the community, homeowners associations, County staff, and Commissioner Higgs. He stated they met for two months each week and took public input; they made site visits; they worked in the spirit of cooperation with the community; and they came to a conclusion unanimously to choose the central site. He stated they are still working to come up with a means to provide a community center in Micco; it is definitely needed; and thanked Commissioner Higgs for her help.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired where is the target area; with Commissioner Higgs responding south of Micco Road, and Mr. Koraly pointed out the area on a map. Commissioner Scarborough stated Reverend Buckner was going to speak on behalf of the CDBG Board.

George Koraly advised they have a serious traffic problem; the site is more centrally located to the target area; but two or three blocks up there is a development with a community center and swimming pool. He explained a map depicting developments and community centers, an area where a school bus picked up 12 children, an area he drove through, an area where he almost had an accident with a child on a bicycle, etc. He stated it would be better to have it on one site and not have them going back and forth between the two facilities.

Commissioner Higgs stated the site off Fleming Grant Road is not the proposed site; the proposed site the Committee is recommending is off Allen; and the parcel the County owns is off Allen. She stated the traffic count indicated as Daytona Boulevard is also called Central Avenue; that was 643, 589, and 411 vehicles; the traffic count near Micco Park is on the second page which is Riverview; and the third page shows the count at Harry T. Moore Center. She stated the proposal by the South Mainland Committee is for the parcels before the Board; and the letter from Ms. Osborne is her communication as an option, but it is not a proposal because the Committee has not met since it considered the proposal before the Board.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Committee proposes to buy all the land; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Committee?s proposal is part of the package staff sent to the Commissioners and totals $223,580. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what money would be left to do the improvements; with Commissioner Higgs responding they would not have money for improvements and would have to wait and see if CDBG would fund improvements on the site. Ms. Osborne stated three other members of the Committee are here if the Board wants her to poll them; she does not want to do anything to get in trouble with the Sunshine Law which is why she has not done that; and they have not had time to call a meeting since she met with Commissioner Ellis.

Commissioner Ellis stated the proposal submitted to him by Ms. Osborne was a scaled down land acquisition; by not buying so many developed lots and leaving out two large rectangles to the north, it would bring the cost down to about $85,000; and that would leave money to begin work on the building. Ms. Osborne stated she thinks it is doable. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Parcel No. 7 will not be purchased; with Commissioner Ellis responding Parcels 1, 2 and 3 would not be purchased and they would buy 5, 6 and 7 or a combination thereof to extend the road to the large rectangular parcel. He noted the small lots are more expensive; and this option would give adequate land to put up a community center, but not enough to expand for soccer fields and little league fields. He stated if they have to go into wetlands and scrub for soccer fields, they will have a lot of mitigation costs.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if anyone considered selling Micco Park to use the money for the central site; with Commissioner Ellis responding no because it cannot be sold for enough money to duplicate what is there now, and they could not duplicate it at the central site because of environmental considerations.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would oppose selling Micco Park; it is a wonderful park for the community; they support it and invested their time and energy in the Park to develop and sustain it; and she would not support selling it. She stated Micco is one CDBG area that has not acquired a community center; Woody Simpson on Merritt Island had $851,000; Cuyler Park in East Mims had $967,000; and Cocoa West had 1.2 million dollars spent on it; they are asking for $242,000 for the Micco Community Center, and may have to go back to the CDBG Board to ask for additional funds to complete the initial building; but what Commissioner Ellis is talking about with less land is not out of line. She stated it starts with three plus acres the County owns and adds to that with reasonably priced land. Commissioner Ellis stated the danger of trying to do it in stages is slipping out of being a target area; and Commissioner Scarborough stated he lost a target area north of Cocoa, so they can be lost.

Chairman Cook advised if the Board does anything other than what was originally submitted or recommended by the CDBG Board, it should go back to that Board; and if this Board changes the plan, the CDBG Board should review it.

Reverend Buckner advised he is concerned about the practice of putting the CDBG Board against the Board of County Commissioners with the funds awarded for a community center; acquisition of property is within CDBG funding; but it should come back to the CDBG Board if this Board is making a request to buy property. He stated Commissioner Higgs talked about the other community centers; however, those centers did not acquire property; they were put on property the County owned; and there is nothing wrong with acquiring property, but the principal is the funds were granted for a community center; and for this Board to take the funds and do anything other than that with it would minimize any effect the CDBG Board has, because that is the purpose of the CDBG Board. Reverend Buckner advised HUD requires communities to participate; the Board did not vote to take any money from Micco, but said that HUD requires communities to have input and benefit from the funds; and until the community can get together and benefit from the funds, the CDBG Board would hold it up. He stated if it needed the funds for another project, it would use it, but would fund Micco Center later; right now it is stagnate because the community is not together; and it needs to go back to the CDBG Board with a recommendation from this Board. He stated they are talking about acquiring property, but he does not know whether the funds will be given another year or a couple of years; and if the Board proceeds with this pattern, then it does not need a CDBG Advisory Board. Reverend Buckner advised the CDBG Board has taken projects into communities and funded them in phases for the past four or five years; the original intent was to build a center at Micco Park; and if they take the $242,000 and build that center, and in another year take Phase 2 and add property around it, they would not have a problem because the original intent would not change. He stated his concern is the original request was signed off by the community, the Commissioner, Recreation Department, and everybody else; and if it had not been, the CDBG Board would not have voted to fund it. He stated they requested $42,000, but there was surplus money, so the Board gave Micco the $200,000; there is no problem that Micco will not get funded; but when CDBG funds come into a county, it is not a pie where everybody gets an equal slice. He stated HUD has three main objectives for those funds; if the area does not have slum and blight, it would not get funds; Micco is a target area that should get funds; but it does not have as much slum and blight as in other Districts because it is not an old established area; and it is a new growing area and not old enough to have that stuff.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what if the land was purchased with General Fund and the $242,000 go toward the center, although realistically no matter where the center is put they will have to buy some land; with Reverend Buckner responding it would be in line with what they have done with the rest of the centers; but to take the $242,000 and buy land would set a precedent that was not done before for community centers. Commissioner Ellis stated it would in a way obligate the CDBG Board to follow through with more funds for the center if they used the money to buy the land.

Commissioner Higgs advised when this item was heard the first time, she had hoped they could come up with something everybody could support and come back with one proposal, but they do not have that today. She stated various advisory boards make recommendations to this Board; the P&Z Board sends recommendations to this Board; in more cases than any other advisory board, the Board takes the advice of the CDBG Board; and in this case it may differ with the CDBG Board, but that does not mean it does not need the advice of that Board. She stated the option Commissioner Ellis talked about is reasonable; the traffic counts are reasonable to look towards another site; Riverview has traffic problems and will be a very difficult road to improve; so the central site will work and will be an asset to the community. Commissioner Higgs stated maintaining Micco Park as well as the central site where the community center will be is a good plan; perhaps if there is a motion to approve funding from the General Fund for the land, she would support that; and she would support the $242,000 be allocated to the acquisition of land to supplement the County?s land.

Commissioner Ellis stated it went astray when it considered a regional park concept for Micco; at least it is back to the community center; and it is reasonable to use General Fund for land acquisition whether at Micco Park or the central site to acquire what is needed for a community center. He stated Commissioner O?Brien talked about using money at mid-year supplement, so there will be money available to do that regardless of which site they choose; but he wants to see the center built and not have it fall apart and the people end up with nothing in Micco.

Chairman Cook advised if the Board is going to consider General Fund, it should be put on the agenda to be considered since it is a departure from this item; and in the meantime, it could send this item back to the CDBG Board. He stated the difference with the CDBG Board is that per HUD regulations, it is made up of members from target communities unlike other boards; there is a specific reason why that was done; and if the Board is going to have a CDBG Board, it should at least have the courtesy to send it back to that board if it is going to change the intent of the original funding. He noted that is what the Board will be doing if it acquires property with the $242,000. Chairman Cook advised it does not mean when it comes back to the Board it is mandated to accept the recommendation of the CDBG Board; but it should give it the opportunity to review the new proposal and change of the original intent. He stated if that does not work, and in mid-year the Board wants to consider other funding options, it could do that; but at this point it should get another recommendation from the CDBG Board. Commissioner Ellis stated if General Fund is used for land acquisition, it would not need to go back to the CDBG Board; with Chairman Cook responding no, but it needs to be an agenda item because it is a departure from what the Board was going to discuss today. He stated he is not saying it is a bad idea, and he would be happy to consider it as an item on the agenda at another meeting so people can have input and know the Board is not only considering CDBG funds, but also considering using General Fund.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board spoke about one million dollars from contingency to get all the roofs done; most of the roofs that have to be done are in Central and North Brevard; so it is not unreasonable to have a portion of those funds go south for land acquisition. he stated if the Board was able to commit ahead of time on the roofs, then it could commit to buying the land. Chairman Cook advised he is not saying it is a bad idea, but the funds are for a specific reason; and if it was on the agenda as an item to change the funding from CDBG to General Fund, the members of the public would have an opportunity to address it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is talking about $90,000 he does not have heart burn about that; people in Port St. John voted a tax on themselves for recreation; and inquired if Micco has an MSTU. He stated if the precincts would allow voting in the target area, he would not mind putting the proposals together so they can vote on it; he talked to Reverend Buckner about that, and he said it sounds fair; and he has never seen people get upset when they lose at the polls.

Chairman Cook stated he would not have a problem with that, and maybe that is the best way to go; and repeated previous remarks about placing it on the agenda. He noted people pay a recreation tax on top of a regular tax in District 4. Commissioner Ellis stated if they live in Cocoa they get a break on their city millage.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to allocate $87,580 from the General Fund to acquire property in Micco outlined in Commissioner Ellis? proposal.

Commissioner Ellis stated the money would come from the contingency when the Board gets to the mid-year budget supplement. Chairman Cook inquired why the Board does not divide it up now; with Commissioner Ellis responding it was decided at budget time to put the million dollars in there and divide it up later. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is going to be enumerable projects when the Board gets around to that; hopefully it will have some surplus; $90,000 is not going to be a big problem with the budget if the Board moves off center here; and if the Commissioner of the District is convinced it is the way to go, and does not want to go to referendum, and the $87,000 will move things forward, he does not have a problem with it. Commissioner Ellis stated it may not be that much; they may be able to negotiate and buy the small lot for the road and not have to deal with Lots 5 and 7; and in that case, they could save another $45,000.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board can move the project forward it is better to go ahead; if it is delayed until budget time, the Board will be talking about major things; and extracting the $87,000 from the discussion may benefit rather than detract from the dialogue. Chairman Cook stated $90,000 here and $90,000 there adds up to real money, so he cannot support that now; and repeated previous comments about putting it on the agenda. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the point, but there are people here who have been to the Board on previous occasions and are ready for a decision to be made; Reverend Buckner?s concern about the acquisition of property will be taken care of in this case; and the Micco community will have the support of the CDBG Board in moving forward and getting the facility built. She stated she understands the concern, but it is time to move forward with this item. Commissioner Ellis stated they need to have a site plan drawn up to make sure it will work before they close on the land. Chairman Cook repeated previous comments that it should be on the agenda. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will vote in opposition because procedurally the Chairman is correct.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Ellis and Higgs voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough and Cook voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table Micco Community Center until December 12, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the agenda item will be to acquire the property indicated on the drawing; with Chairman Cook responding the property in Commissioner Ellis? proposal via the General Fund. Ms. Madden advised she did not hear a motion on the item on the Agenda, only the funding portion; with Commissioner Ellis responding unless they can buy the land they cannot follow through with the CDBG funding.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX REFERENDUM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance authorizing an infrastructure sales surtax referendum for January 9, 1996. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not have the item and cannot vote for it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a problem waiting until December 12, 1995 because each Commissioner should scrutinize items of this significance; and if Commissioner Higgs is not happy, then he is not happy.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to rescind previous motion and table permission to advertise public hearing on ordinance authorizing an infrastructure sales surtax referendum for jail improvements/expansion until December 5, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF BALLOT LANGUAGE, RE: INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX REFERENDUM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table approval of ballot language for infrastructure sales surtax referendum for jail improvements/expansion until December 5, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITIES FOR JAIL

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he was instructed to meet with the cities to get interlocal agreements before the Board came to a conclusion on a referendum for the jail project; in order to do that, it would have to be done by January 9, 1996, which may be physically impossible; and recommended, assuming the Board decides to go with the proposed ordinance, it does not take effect until the referendum is approved and the interlocal agreements are entered into. He stated if they went to the cities after the referendum, assuming it is approved, it will be difficult.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to go out there and play games with the cities; it would be horrible; and he was there before and feel like he was double crossed. Mr. Knox stated they will try to get it done in 30 days.

REPORT, RE: LETTER FROM HOLLAND & KNIGHT ON POTENTIAL CONFLICT

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he handed out copies of a letter from Holland and Knight which basically request the Board to waive a potential conflict of interest; they were asked to represent Display Resources of America on a potential industrial development revenue bond which would come before this Board; and since they are the Board?s bond counsel, and serve the purpose of reviewing those things for economic feasibility and legality, in this case they would be acting as bond counsel for the applicant. He stated he does not see any inconsistency with that position if the Board wants to waive it.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board will be asked to make the bonds tax exempt; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if a question did arise, would the Board turn to Holland & Knight for answers; with Mr. Knox responding theoretically yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support the waiver and will move to deny.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny the request from Holland & Knight to waive a potential conflict of interest for bond counsel to represent Display Resources of America on a potential industrial development revenue bond issue which will come before the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: HEMP AWARENESS GROUP LITIGATION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised Mr. Campbell and the Hemp Awareness Group sued the County; it is a civil rights claim which means the County has a choice of sending it to FACT or representing it in-house; they asked for $20,000 in damages which is not going to be justifiable in his mind; so the issue is whether the Board wants to send it to FACT and face the possibility of it settling the case with the County?s money or letting his office represent it in-house.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the County Attorney to represent the Board in the suit filed by Mr. Campbell and the Hemp Awareness Group. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board was to get information on the arrests at Wickham Park and never got it; and inquired if the Board can still get that information; with Assistant County Manager Joan Madden responding that report is ready and she is sorry it has not been sent to the Commissioners, but will get them out tomorrow.

LETTER OF APPRECIATION, RE: SEPTIC SYSTEM TASK FORCE

Chairman Cook advised he was asked to write a letter expressing appreciation to the Septic System Task Force for their efforts which resulted in excellent recommendations. He stated if there is no objection, he will sign it and send it to the members.

The Board authorized the Chairman to send letters of appreciation to members of the Septic System Task Force for their hard work and invaluable efforts.

DISCUSSION, RE: DEFINITION OF OPAQUE

Chairman Cook advised in the County?s Ordinances, opaque is not defined; there is a commercial center going in right now that backs up directly to residential homes; and somehow they have gotten approval to put a chain link fence between the commercial and residential properties. He stated the people whose homes back up to it are not happy; the Ordinance says opaque and that means impenetrable by light; so he does not understand, even if they put a few bushes out there, how a chain link fence would qualify. He recommended the County Attorney look at the Ordinance and find out if the Code has been interpreted correctly and see what can be done before the fence goes up between the commercial center and residential homes. Commissioner Ellis stated he thought they were required to have masonry walls. County Attorney Scott Knox inquired what center is it; with Chairman Cook responding Promenade which backs up to Viscaya.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to hold the certificate of occupancy for the commercial center until the County Attorney comes back to the Board with the interpretation of opaque.

Commissioners Higgs stated the Board cannot do that because it did not advertise it so the public can address it. Commissioner Scarborough stated once a CO is given, the County will be lost; with Commissioner Ellis responding if it holds a CO it better have a valid reason. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could end up with it already done, and will not be able to do anything but send it to Code Enforcement.

Chairman Cook recommended immediate action before the chain link fence goes up because they have claimed they have approval for it and it meets the Code. He stated if the Code allows that, the Board needs to change the Code; but the intent to say opaque was to mean some sort of wall.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney to investigate the situation of a commercial center installing a chain link fence and return to the Board as soon as possible with recommended action. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - CARL KUEHNER, RE: DONATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN PORT ST. JOHN

Chairman Cook inquired if the Board can talk about something that has been tabled. Mr. Kuehner advised it is not a zoning issue; he wants to give the Board a drainage easement; and it does not relate to the zoning application. County Attorney Scott Knox advised if it does not relate to the zoning, the Board can hear it.

Carl Kuehner, 1402 N. Lakemont Drive, Cocoa, advised he owns part of a lake; the whole TICO basin drains under Kings Highway into the lake which acts as a retention pond until it gets so much water it cannot hold it; and there is a ditch which he assumes was dug by GDC because it was part of Port St. John, but it was never platted. He stated he has a 40-foot easement that runs almost half a mile through his property; and he is trying to get the County to take over the easement so it can clean the ditch. He inquired if he needs to talk to Mr. Minneboo about it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he should talk to Road and Bridge about it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to refer the offer from Carl Kuehner to donate a proposed 40-foot drainage easement in Port St. John to the County to the Road and Bridge Division for comment and review; and to put it on the Agenda for acceptance or rejection. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.

ATTEST:
						_________________________
							MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN
						BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
							BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

__________________________
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
     (S E A L)