The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 24, 1995, at 5:03 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Higgs, Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis, Assistant County Manager Dean Sprague, and Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Ernest Flaniken, Merritt Island Presbyterian Church, Merritt Island. Chairman Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: GIS TRANSFER

Commissioner Cook stated the County Manager is working on an agreement with the Property Appraiser for transfer of the GIS; and inquired if the Commissioners will get a copy of that when it is completed; with Assistant County Manager for Community Services Dean Sprague responding affirmatively.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: LETTER TO DISTRICT 7 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BOARD

Chairman Higgs advised she was contacted by Clarence Rowe of the Central Brevard NAACP regarding the District 7 Health and Human Services Board requesting support for the welfare reform project which will be considered tomorrow. She noted there are no direct costs; it will require staff to be cooperative and supportive; but it is a worthy effort.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the District 7 Health and Human Services Board requesting that a location within Brevard County be selected as the new Family Transition Program site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - BIBBI VAN ORSDALE, R. N., ONCOLOGY NURSING SOCIETY, RE: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING ONCOLOGY NURSING DAY

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a Resolution recognizing the special contribution oncology nurses provide to the public.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the month of April 26 through May 31, 1995 as Oncology Nursing Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SUN SOUTH COMMUNITY CARE, INC.

Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden stated Chief Taggert will advise the Board on what action is being taken; and she has attached a letter to the Legislative Delegation on which she would like direction.

Battalion Chief Taggert advised on Friday the sprinkler contractor for Sun South Community Care, Inc. obtained a permit to install a sprinkler system; as of 4:00 p.m., the system was 80% installed with anticipation of completion within one to two days; and recommended withholding action. Chairman Higgs inquired if action was needed, could it be requested for the next regular meeting; with Chief Taggert responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the Brevard County Legislative Delegation requesting the Legislature take corrective action to provide consistency in the rules. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: LANGUAGE FOR ZONING MOTIONS

Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner advised staff has looked at language for motions for denial and approval of zoning items to identify which documents the Board has before it; and outlined the various documents the Commissioners typically have before them.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the motions outlined in the memorandum are recommended; with Ms. Troner responding they are, and advised of a correction in the second motion. Chairman Higgs stated the language on the first page is slightly different from that on the second page. Mr. Troner explained the differences.

Commissioner Cook inquired if this should be read at the end of the meeting; with Ms. Troner suggesting it be read with each approval or denial. She advised the person making the motion or the Clerk should acknowledge this is part of the motion. Commissioner Cook stated it seems contrived although it may be legally correct. Ms. Troner suggested at some point the public should be made aware of the documents before the Board for consideration; and this is particularly important in the denial of any zoning item. Commissioner Cook inquired why can not these be read at the end of the meeting; with Ms. Troner responding that can be done.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that will allow the necessary information in the record; with Ms. Troner responding affirmatively. Chairman Higgs stated at the end of the entire zoning agenda, a motion will be read for all items.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 6, 1995, ITEMS 4 AND 12

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting on March 6, 1995, as follows:

Item 4. Robert G. and Marie S. Boyd's request for change from GU to BU-1-A on .51? acre located on the northwest corner of Arabella Lane and Fecco Street, east of the F.E.C.R.R. right-of-way, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Mary Smiedala, 949 South Banana River Drive, Merritt Island, declined the opportunity to speak as nothing has changed. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the property off Fay Boulevard is not being used; with Ms. Smiedala responding it was being used by heavy construction equipment, but she has been told a restaurant will be put there.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the property to the front is one of the worst looking on Fay Boulevard; it is a commercial property; and it is an eyesore. He stated while the parcel is directly behind the other tract, it is not contiguous; and on the other side to the east, there is vacant land. He stated because the commercial has not panned out, and there is other vacant land, he will move for denial.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 4.

Commissioner Ellis stated he will not support the motion to deny; it is not fair to hold a property owner hostage because another property owner will not maintain his property; and it would be difficult to sell the property for residential property being between the railroad tracks and a rough piece of commercial property.

Commissioner Cook noted this had a unanimous recommendation of approval from the P&Z Board; and inquired where can commercial be put if not somewhere like this. Commissioner Scarborough responded the policy has been not to put residential next to the railroad track; but in Titusville in LaCita some of the most expensive homes back up to the tracks. He stated there is a justification to go to commercial when the residential is beginning to deteriorate in an area, with the idea being to transition to lift the value of the property; but the reverse is happening in that the commercial is appearing worse than the residential; and this is not the direction the neighborhood is headed at this time.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is not all the commercial. Commissioner Cook inquired if there are other commercial properties nearby. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is not the problem with the commercial as much as the one particular property. Commissioner Ellis stated before you turn to the library, there is commercial property on the south side which is well maintained.

Ms. Smiedala stated to the south, a restaurant is supposed to be built; to the north is vacant; to the west is commercial and industrial; and to the east is owned by General Development Corporation of Miami. She stated all three lots are pie shaped; and two of them are useless to build a home.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the property on the other side of Fay Boulevard is shown on the map as RP; and directly across the track there is a piece of property that is industrial, but nothing has been done.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is abutting railroad tracks, industrial and commercial; it abuts the heavy BU-2 industrial; and he cannot see that as residential.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Scarborough thinks having this property as commercial will degrade the area: with Commissioner Scarborough responding of all the properties in the area, the one that is the worst is the one that is commercial. He advised of the situation in Titusville; and stated he is not convinced that you may be moving commercial further into residential without there being a redeeming cause. He stated if the residential is deteriorating, it may need to move to commercial; but if the residential is carry its own, he sees no need for change.

Commissioner Ellis stated if people start to develop as residential and then the industrial develops as it is zoned, that will be a battle. Commissioner Scarborough stated he goes back to the LaCita issue because this will look better than what is on the other side of the tracks.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to deny Item 4. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Higgs voted aye; Commissioners Cook and Ellis voted nay.

Item 12. Vincent P. and Maria Taranto's request for change from RU-1-9 to TR-3 on 10 acres located 0.19 mile west of A1A and 148 feet south of Sand Dollar Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan providing for no access through Lee Street.

Vincent Taranto, 360 Franklin Avenue, Indialantic, stated in voting on the request for TR-3 zoning for Ocean Pines Mobile Home Park, it is important to remember that Ocean Pines is the only operating non-conforming mobile home park on the beaches south of Patrick Air Force Base that is not zoned TR-3. He advised of the history of the item going back to 1993; and requested successful closure.

Gene Pogalz, 151 Lee Street, Indialantic, advised he has been a resident since 1991 in Flora Beach Estates which is adjacent to the Ocean Pines Mobile Home Park; and he understands the zoning change is for the purpose of allowing Mr. Taranto to make improvements. He stated he supports this plan; if it is maintained as RU-1-9, there would be an opportunity to open Lee Street to enter the park, creating problems and traffic in Flora Beach Estates. He stated if this happened, it would be what people do not want. He stated he wants things that will enhance his property and increase its value; and if the area surrounding the neighborhood is improved, it will enhance his property as well. He encouraged the Board to consider the issue carefully, and vote in favor of the change.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the residents have gotten a copy of the Zoning Official's memorandum; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding he does not believe the residents received a copy.

John Pezze, 132 Lee Street, Indialantic, stated he agrees with Mr. Pogalz that it is important to the people who live on Lee Street that this rezoning be approved. He stated the applicant submitted a Binding Development Plan agreeing that Lee Street will never be opened for general traffic. He expressed concern that Lee Street would ever open up; and explained why the street cannot handle traffic.

Chairman Higgs inquired if a Binding Development Plan has been submitted; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Mr. Enos advised the Plan indicates there will be no access to this park through Lee Street.

Mr. Taranto advised he distributed copies of the Binding Development Plan to many of the concerned owners on Lee Street; and it also states there will be no traffic on Lee Street or Harris Street as requested by the homeowners. He noted Harris Street does not abut his property, but if including it satisfies the homeowners, he is happy to do so.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 12 as recommended with a Binding Development Plan providing for no access through Lee Street or Harris Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF APRIL 3, 1995

Item 1. Miner's Marina, Inc.'s request for a CUP for a security trailer (renewal) in a BU-2 zone on 3? acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of the Daytona Boulevard terminus, which was approved by the P&Z Board for one year with one administrative renewal.

Cliff McClelland, 700 South Babcock Street, Melbourne, representing Miner's Marina, Inc., stated the security trailer has been in place since 1976; it is used by the Florida Marine Patrol as the closest access to the Sebastian Inlet; and the trailer, which is located between two large marinas on A1A, provides security for 180 boats. He outlined the advantages of the trailer; and requested the Board consider a five-year renewal.

Chairman Higgs stated when this was done last year it was for one year with no administrative renewals; at that time the Board was interested in permanent arrangements; and inquired if there have been no permanent arrangements made in the past year. Mr. McClelland advised the Marine Patrol cannot move back in until the Board approves. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is no intent to make permanent arrangements; with Mr. McClelland responding this cost would be passed on to Marine Patrol, and no plans have been made.

Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board directed staff to look at permanent arrangements for security trailers; and suggested this item could be integrated within the guidelines of what the Board is going to do on a permanent nature. He noted the Board can act today; and in several months there may be a mechanism to have a permanent status.

Chairman Higgs suggested approving for one year with one administrative renewal; and then when the new policy comes into play, it would go under that; but it would not be appropriate to approve for five years now.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 1 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Space Coast Investments, a General Partnership's request for change from BU-1 with a Binding Concept Plan to RU-2-10 and removal of the Binding Concept Plan on 2.135 acres located on the west side of A1A, approximately 100 feet north of Wallace Avenue and having frontage on the north side of Wallace Avenue, approximately 230 feet west of A1A, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

The Board acknowledged withdrawal of Item 2.

Item 3. Gus & Christine Pappas, Gus & Anna Janulis, Chris & Hellen Pappas, Harry & Mina Pappas, Carl & Elsie Picola, and Arthur Abramidis' request for change from RU-2-10 to BU-1-A on 2 acres located on the west side of A1A, immediately south of Poinsetta Street and approximately 100 feet north of Waters Edge Lane, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

A. L. Jacoboski, 205 Venice Court, Satellite Beach, representing the owners of the property, stated the present zoning is RU-2-10, medium density, multi-family residential; the property has 570 feet of frontage on A1A and is only 160 feet deep; it is not well suited for residential use; and the portion of A1A between the Melbourne and Eau Gallie Causeways is heavily traveled. He stated the Future Land Use Plan has designated the area as residential which allows the zoning requested; and staff reviewed and commented on the request. He rebutted assertions by staff relating to compatibility; and advised the requested zoning is consistent with the character of the area. He refuted assertions by staff relating to the locational criteria. He stated staff recommended approval as RP; and if the Board does not agree that BU-1-A is appropriate, the owners would accept the staff recommendation of RP.

Mary Gayden, 1995 Highway A1A, Indialantic, advised she lives directly across the street from the property in question; she built her house in 1957, at which time the property was deed restricted to single family residences; and the Board has changed the zoning twice without the knowledge of the property owners. She stated in 1967 a zoning change was requested; the property owners appeared with a petition; and the P&Z Board assured the people it did not rezone deed restricted property; but two years later, she found out the P&Z Board changed the zoning to RU-2-10. She advised the Florida Land Use Plan changed the zoning to RU-3; and the people were not notified until after the change was made. She stated the property is a small strip of land; it was designed residential from ocean to river; houses back up to this property; and there is no shortage of commercial property. She advised of the value of surrounding houses; and advised a petition with 56 names has been submitted.

Tom Nelson, 105 Watersedge Lane, Indialantic, stated he lives immediately south of the property; and he concurs with Ms. Gayden's comments. He explained the orientation of his property and the subject property. He advised he does not want to see commercial property directly out of his dining room windows. He advised of the value of nearby properties; and noted the properties may be devalued 20% if facing commercial property.

Chairman Higgs requested those present in support of the request to deny the Item raise their hands. A group of people indicated support.

Mr. Jacoboski stated he is not aware of any zoning changes without notification of the people. Chairman Higgs stated the County is required by law to notify adjacent property owners within a certain area.

Commissioner Ellis stated the property started as single family; it has already gone to multi-family; and that is far enough. He noted the P&Z Board recommended denial; and he supports that because it does not meet the criteria for neighborhood commercial. He stated everyone needs to be treated equally regardless of the worth of their home.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 3 as recommended.

Commissioner Cook concurred; and inquired if Commissioner Ellis intends to address the Residential/Professional classification. Commissioner Ellis stated the applicant will have to come back on Residential/Professional if that is what they wish to do. Commissioner Cook expressed doubt that the property would be appropriate for residential because of the difficulty of having a driveway on A1A; and noted staff recommended Residential/Professional.

Commissioner Ellis stated the argument for multi-family townhomes is there would be a single cut onto A1A for everyone from a common parking lot.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to deny Item 3. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA Eau Gallie Christian Church of Melbourne, Florida, a not-for-profit Florida Corporation's request for CUP for a school in an AU zone on 6.13 acres located on the west side of Croton Road, approximately 700 feet south of Aurora Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 4 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (continued) Mr. Jacoboski inquired if the owners desire RP zoning, would they have to go another cycle; with Chairman Higgs advising there was no motion to approve RP at this meeting; the motion was to deny; and any further applications would have to come from the owners. Commissioner Cook advised it would have to go through another cycle. Mr. Jacoboski noted staff recommended RP.

Item 5. David W. Houser's request for change from BU-1 to TR-1 on .25 acre located on the east side of Friday Road, approximately ? mile north of State Road #520, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 5 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners' request for change from PUD to GML on 34.54? acres located at the southern terminus of Holiday Springs Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 6 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Reynolds Fiore, Trustee's request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 1.51 acres located on the west side of A1A, approximately 300 feet south of N.E. Third Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Carl Cortner, 1114 Seminole Drive, Indian Harbour Beach, advised this is approximately one and one-half acres on A1A; and the zoning change is being requested to be compatible with the property on the west which is RU-2-15. He stated it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and it will fit into the community.

Frank Reidel, 150 Flamingo Drive, South Patrick Shores, advised he is a homeowner on the west side of the property which requested the change; he spoke with the residents along the street; and they have no objection to this being approved. He stated the residents do object to breaking into the concrete block wall that runs the length of the street; and outlined the problems. He stated the applicant advised he has no intention of breaking through the wall, but prefers to keep his options open. He requested it be approved, but without breaking through the wall.

Pam Brewster, 3000 Coronet Lane, Jacksonville, stated she agrees with Mr. Reidel; her family moved in 1957; she owns a home off of Heron Drive; and she prefers keeping the wall intact.

Mr. Cortner advised the property being rezoned fronts on A1A; the property fronting on Flamingo Drive already is zoned RU-2-15; and he is not talking about rezoning anything that fronts on Flamingo Drive. He stated his intention at this time would be to go to A1A, including the property fronting on Flamingo Drive; but at the time the land planning is done, the Fire Department or Public Safety may ask for something; and he would prefer to keep his options open for that reason.

Commissioner Ellis suggested making that part of the zoning so there will be no problem. Mr. Cortner stated the Fire Department may request an access there; and Flamingo Drive is a public street. Commissioner Cook inquired if under the current zoning, could there be access to Flamingo Drive; with Mr. Cortner responding under the current RU-2-15, the only access would be to Flamingo Drive.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Cortner would be willing to make it part of a Binding Agreement that he would not enter onto Flamingo Drive unless forced to do so by the Fire Department, etc.

Commissioner Cook stated this is a downzoning which will lessen the intensity in the area.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 7 with a Binding Development Plan with no access to Flamingo Drive unless required by the County or an authorized agent of the County.

Mr. Cortner requested an exception to the zoning; and advised he does not want to go through a Binding Development plan, if it is not necessary. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner advised the Binding Development Plan is recorded; it runs with the property, and would place limitations on the record; and it would be necessary to have the Binding Development Plan. Mr. Cortner explained his problem with the Binding Development Plan. Commissioner Cook advised it is part of the motion that there would be no access unless required by the County. Ms. Troner advised the zoning will not be effective until the Binding Development Plan is prepared and recorded; and the applicant will be paying to do that.

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

Item 8. Alberto and Irene Enriquez's request for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages (On-premise Consumption) in a BU-1 zone (also having a CUP for Beer & Wine) on 0.932? acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, approximately 400 feet north of Ruby Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 8 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Chestnut Investment Corporation, a Florida Corporation's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 4.718? acres located 0.76 mile north of Lake Washington Road, 200 feet west of Appaloosa Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 9 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Atlantic Ridge Corporation's request for change from GU & AU to EU-2 on 9.75 acres located on the east and west sides of U.S. 1, approximately 0.47 mile north of 4th Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 10 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Vivian G. Stevens, Trustee of the Trust Agreement of Vivian G. Stevens' request for change from GU to AU on 10 acres located on the south side of Sandpoint Road, approximately 300 feet west of Brabrook Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 11 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. ABC Ventures, Inc.'s request for a Mixed Use Boundary Expansion and change from BU-1-A with a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center and a Binding Development Plan to BU-1 and removal of the Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center and Binding Development Plan on 2.14? acres located on the southwest corner of South Courtenay Parkway and Cone Road, which was approved for the Mixed Use Boundary Expansion and denied for the zoning request by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised there is a request to expand the Mixed Use District boundary to cover the entire property.

Richard Amari, 96 Willard Street, Cocoa, representing ABC Ventures, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Bank of the South, and Drs. George and Ross who have contracted to purchase the subject property conditioned on obtaining the requested zoning, stated the current zoning is BU-1-A with a CUP for a child care center and a Binding Development Agreement; and the request is for BU-1 and removal of the CUP and the BDA. He advised the clients' plans are for a mixed medical adult day care facility on the properties; the intended uses would be a mixed combination of medical uses that might include doctors' offices, health clinics, medical diagnostic services, ambulatory surgical center and laboratory services; and the current zoning will not allow that. He stated it has been suggested his clients can achieve what they desire by having a CUP issued on the property; however, the P&Z Board did not recognize that this presents his clients with an unsolvable chicken or egg dilemma. Mr. Amari stated the uses are only in the negotiation and planning stages at this time; and it is impossible to predict what specific uses ultimately will be made. He stated his clients are unwilling to make such a sizable investment without a guarantee in advance that the property can be used for their intended needs; and the CUP does not provide this guarantee. He advised staff recommended approval; and the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and is compatible with the surrounding land use.

Doug Robertson, 100 Parnell Street, Merritt Island, Florida, advised he researched the zoning request for compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and he found it to meet the requirements and compatibility matrix as well as the locational criteria. He stated the requested zoning is compatible with the existing gas station to the east; to the west is an existing child care center with a ditch serving as a buffer; to the south there is existing commercial use; and to the north there is no access from any residential driveway. He stated at the last meeting the discussion directed itself toward traffic; the BU-1 uses would appear to generate more traffic than the BU-1-A uses; but a permitted use in the BU-1-A zoning is a restaurant of under 30 seats, such as Checkers or Hot 'n' Now which have high traffic volumes. He noted a traffic consultant concurred that the traffic generated by such a facility would be far in excess of a convenience store or a typical fast food restaurant. He stated the current BU-1-A could have a potential use that is more traffic intensive. He advised staff recommends approval.

Mr. Amari advised it is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Regulations, and the surrounding uses of the properties; and there is no reason for denial. He noted the P&Z Board based its decision on the public sentiment of concern for the safety of the children. He stated the concern is that if a convenience store is located on this site, it will generate so much traffic as to provide a hazard; but the doctors have no current plans to place a convenience store, and they have not spoken or negotiated with convenience store operators. He stated the doctors' ultimate uses have not been finalized, and they are unwilling to invest in this property with use restrictions on the property. He stated there have been changes since this item came before the Board previously; and one is that staff is planning intersection improvements at this intersection, including elimination of the diagonal crosswalk. He stated the County contemplates construction of a pedway running east/west across the northern boundary of the property; however, currently the County does not have an easement to do this; and his clients would be willing to grant an easement and construct the pedway to improve the safety of the children walking across the property. He stated the property has 260 feet of frontage on South Courtenay and 376 feet of frontage on Cone Road, enabling location of the driveways far away from the intersection, thus reducing the traffic hazards at this intersection. He stated there is no evidence that the uses of the property, if there was a convenience store, would provide additional traffic; and Mr. Robertson advises the current property could be used as a Checkers, etc. which would produce additional traffic over what a convenience store would produce. He noted the property is owned by a bank which could put a drive-through banking facility on the property, as it is zoned today. He stated evidence has been submitted regarding consistency and compatibility; staff agrees it is consistent and compatible; and the only thing against it is public sentiment. He stated safety of the children is a concern; but requested the Board consider the evidence. He advised the Snyder decision provides that the landowner should not be denied a valid zoning request as a result of public sentiment not supported by evidence. He requested the Board reconsider and approve the zoning request.

Laura Ficker, 479 Falmouth Avenue, Merritt Island, advised she lives adjacent to the area in question; all the children in the neighborhood cross at this intersection; it is a residential area; and requested the Board deny the rezoning. She expressed concern about the safety of the children; and asked to display a video tape showing children crossing at this intersection.

Commissioner Cook stated the property currently has commercial zoning and whatever goes in there will have the same impact. He inquired if the requested zoning would have more impact; with Ms. Ficker responding affirmatively.

Reverend Ernest Flaniken, 116 Gary Lane, Cocoa, stated the property of the Merritt Island Presbyterian Church directly adjoins the property in question on the west side; five years ago, there was an effort to put in a convenience store on the property; and the Board put restrictions on that property that no gas, alcohol or convenience store could be built on that property. He requested that same restriction continue. He noted the doctors indicate they do not have a final plan; it is possible they may change their minds once they get the BU-1 zoning; and the people would be left without any restrictions or recourse. He stated the Church operates a child care center on the property; there are children's activities on Tuesday afternoons; many of the children walk from their schools; there are two schools which use the crosswalk; and recommended denying the request in accordance with the P&Z recommendation.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what if there was a way to have a medical facility and still maintain the restrictions; with Reverend Flaniken responding as long as the restrictions could be maintained, he would have no problem with it except for the traffic problem in terms of the safety of the children. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the major fear is that BU-1 removes the restrictions; with Reverend Flaniken responding yes.

The Board observed a video showing traffic at the intersection.

Marie Venice, 513 Seacrest Avenue, Merritt Island, advised she has been a resident since 1966; her children crossed the intersection when they were going to school; and this area is primarily residential. She stated the only business that is close is the gas station which has been there for a long time; and the children do not have to cross that side of the street because the other side of the street is the designated crossway for Tropical Elementary School and Jefferson Junior High School. She described what happened when this property came before the Board five years ago. She noted here are strip shops to the south; and there is no heavy commercial. She stated five years ago a Binding Land Use Agreement was put together to restrict the sale of alcohol, gasoline and the building and operating of convenience stores on the property, and a BU-1-A zoning was granted in an effort to protect the residences. She requested the area remain residential; and advised BU-1 is not compatible with this area. She advised the Commissioners have received letter and petitions opposing this rezoning. She advised she spoke to a representative of the School Board who also opposes the rezoning. She submitted a petition to the Board. She stated if the Board removes the Binding Use Agreement and someone else buys the property, the people will never have that assurance back; and requested the Board follow the recommendation of the P&Z Board to deny the item. She requested people who oppose the rezoning stand; and a group stood to oppose the rezoning.

Kenneth Steel, 155 Las Palmas, Merritt Island, representing the Merritt Island Presbyterian Church, stated when the application for rezoning came before the Board previously, there were certain conditions acknowledged to exist on this property. He noted there are some changes; the intersection improvements cited by Mr. Amari were in the planning stage five years ago; and staff spoke to the residents about the potential of those improvements taking place. He stated another change is the construction of four homes on the north side of Cone Road facing the Church property; the Binding Development Plan was for the safety of the children using the intersection and the pedway; and children going to Tropical Elementary and Jefferson Junior High School must use the entire frontage of the property on Courtenay Parkway. He stated the Binding Development Plan was issued by the Board to accomplish the protection the citizens desired by forbidding the construction of a convenience store on the property, and the sale of gasoline or alcohol accessory to it. He stated the only major change in the situation is the name of the developers; ABC Ventures has indicated intent to put a medical facility and an adult day care; but intent is the operative word. He noted intent is subject to many factors such as lack of financing, business reverses, etc.; and it can even lead to resale of the property to someone with a different intent. He noted the Binding Development Plan is not a bar to building a medical facility. He stated the Church is as firmly opposed to the uses prohibited by the Binding Development Plan today as they were previously; there are many uses permitted under the current zoning and land use; and they do not want the children to be put at risk by development of this kind of commercial enterprise. He requested the Board continue the Binding Development Plan and the current zoning on the property.

Mr. Amari stated the only issue is safety and traffic; and he is not asking the Board to assume they will carry out the intent. He stated the intent is to build a medical facility; negotiations are taking place; but sometimes intent does not come through. He stated this is the reason his clients are not willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to close on the property without having assurances that if the plans do not work they will have the flexibility to do something else. He stated if a convenience store is placed on the site, it will not provide any additional traffic that the current allowable uses do not provide. He noted other uses that could be placed on the property currently. He noted the opinions of the public are based on emotion and sentiment, but not on evidence. He stated the experts have advised that the BU-1 use would not provide additional traffic than the current zoning in a worst case scenario. He stated the video showed children walking across crosswalks; but there are major intersections which are busier where children go to school; and provided examples. He advised the Public Works Department is currently working on a scope of services for redesign of the intersection; and on completion of this work, the construction will implement the improvements, noting the pedway improvements will also improve the intersection. He stated the video looked across the intersection, not the property; the property is over 360 feet on Cone Road and 260 feet on South Courtenay Parkway; and through the site planning process, it would be easy to locate the entranceways away from the intersection to direct the traffic flow away. He requested the zoning decision be made based on facts; and stated the facts are clear.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the applicant would be interested in maintaining the current Binding Development Plan with the future zoning; with Mr. Amari responding with the capital investment required for this property, it does not make sense to invest with any restrictions; but his clients assure him there are no plans for a convenience store. He reiterated even if there was a convenience store on the property, it would provide no additional traffic impact.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a way to put the medical center in BU-1-A. Mr. Amari explained the problem with getting the CUP which would require identifying the specific uses; and stated the uses are not finalized. He stated his clients wish to close on the property because the contract is expiring and the bank is pressing to close; and they will have to close now or walk away from the deal. Commissioner Ellis stated if the bank does not have another buyer lined up, he does not know why it would be a problem to extend until the CUP is lined up for a medical center under BU-1-A. Mr. Amari advised they would be asking the bank to extend the contract for as long as possible to allow them to negotiate the leases on the property; he does not know how long that would take; and the bank has not expressed a willingness to do that. He stated the bank has allowed an extension this time only to allow the zoning request to go through; and if his clients do not get the rezoning, the contract will expire. He stated it is unknown how long it would take to get the leases negotiated; with Commissioner Ellis noting that is something that would have to be done anyway. Mr. Amari stated if they own the property, they can negotiate the leases; and once they have the leases and zoning, they can put the property to use; but if they do not have the zoning, they would have to come back in a year for a CUP with no assurance they could get it. Commissioner Ellis inquired why they would have to wait a year; with Mr. Amari responding they cannot get the CUP until the uses have been finalized. Mr. Amari noted a clinic is not allowed in BU-1-A; and if they end up with a walk-in clinic, it would not work. Commissioner Ellis advised there could be a change in the Zoning Code to allow a walk-in clinic in BU-1-A; and there are other possibilities. Mr. Amari advised his clients are negotiating right now for a walk-in clinic, an adult day care facility, and an ambulatory day care center; but they do not know what the ultimate use of the property will be; and his clients are being pressed to purchase the property now without knowing what those uses are. He stated it may not be possible under the current zoning to utilize it according to the ultimate uses; and that is why he asked the Board to assume the worst case scenario, that they end up with a convenience store there. He emphasized they do not intend to put a convenience store on the property; but if they did, it would not present any additional traffic flow than the current zoning uses; so, the safety issue is a red herring.

Chairman Higgs inquired why does the Mixed Use District come as far into the RU-1-9 as it does. Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca responded she does not know the reason; but staff can research it to see if there was a previous amendment. Mr. Enos advised the Mixed Use District extends westerly to 70 feet from the west boundary of the tract; and the Board has two actions to deal with. Chairman Higgs stated the zoning has to be compatible with the land use plan; and the Board needs to deal with the Mixed Use expansion first.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the land use could be changed without changing the zoning; with Chairman Higgs responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook stated the Mixed Use District could be expanded, but the zoning denied; with Mr. Enos concurring that is correct. Chairman Higgs stated she does not know what that achieves. Commissioner Ellis stated there are 300 feet in the Mixed Use District and 600 feet out of the Mixed Use District on a single parcel; the part that is not in the District could not be subdivided into anything buildable; and inquired what is the point of leaving 80% in and 20% out when the strip that is outside is unbuildable. Chairman Higgs noted it is unbuildable on a BU-1 use. Commissioner Ellis stated if the owner tried to out-parcel that, it would be unbuildable; and he does not see why the Mixed Use District does not follow the property line of the parcel. Ms. Busacca advised it follows the existing zoning; that was the zoning that was requested by the property owner at that time; and the Board, in 1988, requested that Mixed Use Districts follow existing zoning boundaries. Commissioner Ellis inquired why the property had two different zonings; with Ms. Busacca responding it was at the request of the property owner at the time.

Commissioner Cook inquired if expansion of the Mixed Use District would have any relevance as far as the zoning; with Ms. Busacca responding it would not impact either of the zoning categories.

The meeting recessed at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at 7:33 p.m.

Item 13. Ronald E. and Mary Lou Breininger's request for a CUP for a Single-Family Residential Second Kitchen Facility in an EU zone on ? acre located on both sides of North Indian River Drive, immediately north of City Point Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 13 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. Tom Gregson Development, Inc.'s request for change from BU-1 with a UOR for a ceramic shop to BU-2 with a BDP on 1.63 acres located on the southwest corner of Riveredge Drive and North Avenue, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to deny Item 14 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. Leonard A. LaBombard's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the south side of Bear Trail, approximately 135 feet east of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 15 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Garry D. and Marlene Nichols' request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the south side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, approximately 600 feet west of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 16 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. Heide Silbernagl's request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1.16 acres located on the north side of Breckingridge Avenue, 550 feet west of Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 17 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Arnold Van Batchelor's request for change from AU & RR-1 to RRMH-2.5 on 5.04 acres located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway, approximately 950 feet south of Brockett Road and at the southern terminus of Kingsley Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 18 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Florida Power and Light Company's request for change from GU & PUD to AU on 3.12? acres located east of Grissom Road, approximately 0.21 mile north of Kings Highway.

The Board acknowledged withdrawal of Item 19.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated based upon consideration of the Planning and Zoning Board minutes, exhibits and recommendation, staff recommendation, staff reports, review worksheets, prior zoning history, zoning and land use maps, Comprehensive Plan, character of the area and all correspondence and exhibits on record, the Board of County Commissioners has approved the following requests finding them to be consistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan: Item 12 from the Special Agenda, and Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to affirm approval of Item 12 from the Special Agenda, and Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18, based upon consideration of the Planning and Zoning Board minutes, exhibits and recommendation, staff recommendation, staff reports, review worksheets, prior zoning history, zoning and land use maps, Comprehensive Plan, character of the area and all correspondence and exhibits on record, and finding them to be consistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Mr. Enos stated the Board denied the following requests, finding them to be inconsistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, incompatible, lacking in sufficient infrastructure to support the intensity of development, traffic patterns unsafe, premature growth, and not in character with the area: Item 4 from the Special Agenda and items 3, 12, and 14.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to affirm denial of Item 4 from the Special Agenda and Items 3, 12, and 14 based on finding them to be inconsistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, incompatible, lacking in sufficient infrastructure to support the intensity of development, traffic patterns unsafe, premature growth, and not in character with the area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 13, 1995

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the administrative rezoning recommendations made by the P&Z Board at its March 13, 1995 meeting as follows:

Item 1. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcels 1 (lying west of Highway A1A), 2, 2.1, 3, 4, 4.4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, with current zoning RU-2-8 and proposed zoning GML, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Commissioner O'Brien stated Items 1, 10, 14, and 16 have parcels that are already zoned RU-2-8; they are being administratively rezoned to GML; and this is being done just to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. He stated this is pretending it is something that it is not. Chairman Higgs stated Item 1 involves County-owned land; and inquired why is it not GML. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is it not RU-2-8 like it was. Chairman Higgs responded it is now owned by Brevard County. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why the County bought it; with Chairman Higgs responding she is not sure.

Commissioner Ellis stated the point of Commissioner O'Brien's question is why is there a category called GML; and inquired why the original zoning cannot stay with it. Commissioner Cook stated it is so when people are buying property, they are warned they are purchasing next to a government-owned entity. Commissioner Ellis stated the way it works out is you are worse off with GML because you do not know what the use will be. Commissioner Cook stated he would want to know if he was purchasing next to a government piece of land. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be a solid waste dump or it could be a nice park; and it may be different if you are buying the home next door. Chairman Higgs noted it is certainly not RU-2-8. Commissioner Scarborough suggested it may be necessary to have sub-classifications of GML. Mr. Enos stated in 1988 when the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan, it was required to establish a public facilities land use designation for all publicly-held lands. He stated the County chose to establish the GML classification as appropriate for public facilities land use.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is jumping through hoops to try and satisfy all the maps; and suggested the Board keep it as it was in 1988. Commissioner Ellis stated it is true of many parcels that have been undone. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board keeps moving stuff around; and he does not understand. Commissioner O'Brien expressed frustration at the way the rezonings are being done. Chairman Higgs noted the Comprehensive Plan says zoning has to be consistent.

Ms. Busacca advised of the rationale for Government Managed Lands. She stated Commissioner Ellis's comment that the government has too much flexibility has been discussed by the Local Planning Agency because there are a myriad of uses permitted in GML zoning. She stated the Comprehensive Plan land use is required under Rule 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; but the County can have a series of zonings which are compatible. She advised staff asks the people who are responsible for the government-owned land whether or not they plan to keep the land in perpetuity; and if there are no plans to sell the land, typically the Board changes it to GML. She stated if the Board knows that in the future, the land will be excess, it is not usually changed. She stated if the Board would like staff to look at GML differently or to change the land use category for public facilities to allow other uses, staff can do that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated that is not his argument; but he is tired of rezonings just to affect a land use map, and then have to rezone again to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Busacca advised the change to GML is only made because of who owns the property; and that has been a Board policy which the current Board can alter if it wishes.

Commissioner Cook stated there needs to be some designation so property owners will understand they may be purchasing property that is government-owned. He stated it would concern him if he was buying property next to government-owned lands because anything can go in. Commissioner Ellis stated the average home buyer may believe it is going to be a park forever. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the County going to use the land for; with Chairman Higgs responding it is EEL's property. Commissioner O'Brien stated it should be stated this is for preservation; and a new category is needed to reflect that.

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

Item 2. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 1 (lying east of Highway A1A), with current zoning RU-2-6 and proposed zoning GML, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcels 4.1 and 4.2, with current zoning RU-2-9 and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 3 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 6, with current zoning RU-2-8 and proposed zoning GML, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 4 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcels 12, 13.1 and 13.2, with current zoning RU-2-8 and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 5 as recommended.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired who is Richard King Mellon; with Chairman Higgs responding the Richard King Mellon Foundation is a private foundation which has purchased a number of properties in the Archie Carr Turtle Refuge area for preservation.

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

Item 6. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 15.1, with current zoning BU-1-A and proposed zoning SR. Withdrawn by Staff.

The Board acknowledged the withdrawal of Item 6.

Item 7. Section 33, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 16, with current zoning RU-1-11 and GU and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 7 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Sections 33/34, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 13(a 5' walkway), with current zoning RU-2-6 and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 8 as recommended. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is a direct effect on the condominiums being able to expand or rebuild. Mr. Enos stated the existing condominiums will be able to rebuild as non-conforming condominiums; they may also qualify for pre-existing use which allows some expansion administratively; and any expansion over 15% would come to the Board to be considered in public hearing. Mr. Enos clarified the 15% would not allow additional units, but expansion of floor area for existing units.

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

Item 9. Sections 33/34, Township 28, Range 38, Sand Dollar Condominium, Parcels 18 through 18.C(a.k.a. Parcel 14.1), and Parcel 501, with current zoning RU-2-6 and current zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Higgs advised staff is working with Giedre Snipas on appropriate zoning; and suggested tabling Parcel 501 until that recommendation comes back to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table consideration of Parcel 501 to July 31, 1995.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the point of tabling. Chairman Higgs advised staff is working with Ms. Snipas to develop an appropriate category for Ms. Snipas' property as well as the other two in a similar situation. Commissioner Ellis stated when this originally came up in 1992, Parcel 501 was recommended to stay at six units per acre. Ms. Busacca advised that does not solve Ms. Snipas' problem; the property is still non-conforming at six units per acre; the property was downzoned in 1984; and in accordance with the Board direction of several weeks ago, staff is attempting to solve the problems of the small residential motels that have never been zoned as commercial.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the problem was created in 1984; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not know, and there may have been a previous downzoning. Mr. Enos stated those problems occurred many years prior to that; there was a time when there was no hotel zoning; and RU-3 permitted multi-family as well as hotels. He stated in the mid-1960's the TU classification was established; and that new land use classification is what caused the three properties to become non-conforming.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote to table Parcel 501. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 9, with the exception of Parcel 501. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Sections 33/34, Township 28, Range 38, The Cove At South Beaches A Condominium, Parcels 1.10 through 1.40 (a.k.a. Phases I through IV, with current zoning RU-2-10 and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 10 as recommended.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the condominium is consistent with RU-2-10; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated he would prefer to leave it RU-2-10; with Commissioners Cook and O'Brien agreeing. Mr. Enos advised the purpose of the action is to make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and if the Board chooses not to rezone, then it should direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Chairman Higgs stated she will support the motion to go to SR; it will allow the pre-existing use; the condominiums could be rebuilt; and RU-2-10 would require amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to put it in a Mixed Use District. Mr. Enos advised it could stay in residential, but the density of the parcel would have to be changed. Chairman Higgs inquired what are the implications of RU-2-10; with Mr. Enos responding if it is left at RU-2-10 and change the Comprehensive Plan to twelve units per acre to make the RU-2-10 consistent, that would allow the property to develop to a maximum density of ten units to the acre, and would allow unlimited expansions of any units, subject to the Land Development Regulations. Chairman Higgs stated obviously the public involved with this is comfortable this would allow use of the property; and she will support the recommendation of SR.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board keeps rezoning and rezoning; and it is a circle you cannot get out of which creates work for everyone just to make a zoning classification be consistent. He recommended the Board put a stop to it.

Commissioner Cook stated it is consistent with the current zoning; it is substantially built out, so it will not have an effect on densities in the area; and he does not see why it cannot be left as is.

Chairman Higgs stated she would like to study the difference between what has been proposed, and what the implications are of going with this property as well as others going to the RU-2-10. She stated her preference would be to table this.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has gone through a number of hearings in doing the land use; and now it does not want to change the zoning to make it consistent. He stated the land use issue has made this twice as complex; he sees where the Board wants to go; and it is going to be necessary to do a Comprehensive Plan change.

Chairman Higgs advised of previous actions.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 10 to the next group of Administrative Rezonings projected to be in July, 1995. Motion did not carry. Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien, Cook and Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis stated he has not seen anyone forced into non-conforming use speak in favor of that happening to them; but a lot of people who will be unaffected have spoken in favor of putting others into the non-conforming use.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired when can the Board break the cycle. Commissioner Scarborough stated as soon as this is denied, the Board has to change the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Higgs stated some of the people in this condominium association sat on the Citizens Resource Group; they understand the process and what is going on; and they had no problem with it. Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern that this is a never ending circle. Chairman Higgs stated the Board has never done the administrative rezonings on these properties. Discussion ensued on the changes. Ms. Busacca noted staff made a suggestion in previous discussions concerning pre-existing use; and the Board may be interested in considering separating the idea of existing uses from future land uses; and explained how it would work. She stated this may be a way to eliminate a large number of administrative rezonings and still give people the ability to use their property as they are now, and still give the Board an eye to a future of Brevard County.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not want to be a slave to the Comprehensive Plan; this area is substantially built out; it is not going to change the density; it is still residential; and the current zoning is consistent with what is already there. He stated he sees no reason to change it.

Vice Chairman Ellis passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 10. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with the motion; and explained why.

Commissioner Cook noted the Comprehensive Plan is not a sacred document; and the Board can change it.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to initiate Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 11. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Atlantic Shores subdivision #GH, Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 6, with current zoning RU-2-6 and proposed zoning SR. Withdrawn by Staff.

Item 12. Sections 33/34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivision #GM, Parcel 1 (lying east and west of Highway A1A), with current zoning RU-2-9 west of A1A and RU-2-6 east of A1A and proposed zoning of SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 12 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Sections 33/34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivision #GM, Parcel 7 (lying east and west of Highway A1A), with current zoning of RU-2-8 west of A1A and RU-2-6 east of A1A and proposed zoning of SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 13 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a residence on the property. Chairman Higgs responded she does not know.

Item 14. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivisions #GM, Parcels 2, 11 and 13, with current zoning of RU-2-7 and proposed zoning of SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 14 as recommended.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Parcels 2, 11 and 13 are shown; and inquired where are all the other parcels; with Mr. Enos responding several of the parcels are zoned GML or GU which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan today; and others are associated with other items. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a plan; with Mr. Enos responding the Board is not being haphazard; and explained what is being done. Mr. Enos noted in many cases the current zoning is already consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and they are not included in the agenda. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Parcels 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are already SR; with Mr. Enos advising Parcel 1 is the subject of Item 12, which the Board already dealt with. Ms. Busacca advised Parcel 7 is the subject of Item 13; Parcel 10 is the subject of Item 15; Parcel 3.2 is the subject of Item 18; Parcel 3.01 is the subject of Item 19; and Parcels 3 and 4 are the subject of Item 20. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there would have been a way to put all the parcels together under one item. Mr. Enos explained why they have been separated; and suggested the maps may help. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated his desire to have all maps on 8? by 11-inch paper.

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

Item 15. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivision #GM, Parcel 10, with current zoning of RU-2-6 and proposed zoning GML, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 15 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Beachcomber Condominium of Melbourne, Parcels 9.01 through 9.05, with current zoning of RU-2-10 and proposed zoning of SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Cook inquired if this is consistent with RU-2-10; with Mr. Enos responding this is the same type of situation the Board was discussing on Item 10 where there is a developed condominium with RU-2-10 zoning. Commissioner Cook stated the RU-2-10 is consistent with what is currently there; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the parcel is built out; with Mr. Enos responding it is a developed parcel. Chairman Higgs inquired if additional units could be put there under RU-2-10; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know. Chairman Higgs advised she is familiar with the parcel and the condominium; and she would prefer to table this item. She stated she wants to see if additional units are allowed by leaving it at RU-2-10. Discussion ensued on the consistency of the current zoning. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has to be consistent.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this has been discussed before; if the Board takes this action, it will come back; and the Commissioner of the District is requesting time to review this. He stated in the Board's rush to do the right thing this evening, the Board may wonder later why it is going through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated the Comprehensive Plan rules over the zoning, so regardless of what the zoning is, until the Comprehensive Plan is amended, the zoning is irrelevant. He stated he would prefer to have it all for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the Board will hear it again; and that is where the Board is headed.

Commissioner Cook agreed it will come back; and stated if the Board made a mistake, it can address it then. He stated it seems fair that if the RU-2-10 is consistent and the Board has already done it with the other parcel, that the Board let it flow.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is taking action without public comment; and prior Boards have had public comment.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board will have public comment when the Amendments come back.

Chairman Higgs inquired who is notified in administrative rezonings; with Mr. Enos responding only the owners of the property. Commissioner Ellis noted the adjacent property owners are GML. Commissioner Cook stated he does not think the Board is hurting the South Beaches. Chairman Higgs requested the Board table this item so the Commissioners will have an opportunity to review it to make sure it is the right thing to do. She stated she has no problem leaving it as a consistent zoning if she is comfortable what that means; but she does not know.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 16 to July, 1995. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Higgs voted aye; Commissioner Cook and Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board did not table Item 10; the Board should be consistent; and he voted against the tabling of the item because he knows it would come back, with notification of the people.

Vice Chairman Ellis passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Chairman Higgs stated all the people listed expected RU-2-10 to SR; and the Board can table it so the people can be informed.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if The Beachcomber also functioned as a small motel; with Chairman Higgs responding no. Ms. Busacca advised she does not know, but no one has come forward to discuss whether it is a small motel.

Commissioner O'Brien read from the P&Z Board minutes.

Item 10. (continued) Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reconsider Item 10. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 10 to July, 1995. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Item 17. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Beachcomber Condominium of Melbourne, Parcel 2.01 (a 5' sidewalk), with current zoning RU-2-10 and proposed zoning GML, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 17 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Item 18. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivision #GM, Parcel 3.02, with current zoning RU-2-6 and proposed zoning of GML, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 18 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivision #GM, Parcel 3.01, with current zoning RU-2-6 and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 19 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Revised Plat of Ocean River Estates Subdivision #GM, Parcels 3 and 4, with current zoning RU-2-8 and proposed zoning SR, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 20 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (continued)

Mr. Enos advised considering the action of the Board to table Items 10 and 16, the Board may wish to reconsider Item 9.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to reconsider Item 9. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 9 to July, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SUBCLASSIFICATIONS TO THE GML ZONING

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct staff to develop subclassifications to the GML zoning classifications, so people owning property next to County land will know the property's status.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested there be a subclassification GML-E for environmental lands. Mr. Enos suggested an option would be to amend the EA classification.

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

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )