March 4, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on March 4, 2004, as a continuation of the March 2, 2004 meeting, at 5:01 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

Chair Higgs advised it is a continuation of the meeting of March 2, 2004.

REPORT, RE: HOUSE BILL 1361 PROHIBITING AD VALOREM LEVIES IN EXCESS OF
AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN COUNTY CHARTER

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board may have read recently in the newspaper that Mitch Needleman is proposing House Bill 1361; it is a Bill to prohibit ad valorem tax levies by counties in access of amounts specified in county charters; it is currently being rewritten; and the point is to get something in writing before the closing of the opportunity for the Bill. He requested a letter of support from the Board for support of House Bill 1361.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the Chair to write a letter on behalf of the Board supporting House Bill 1361.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the fiscal impact; with Commissioner Pritchard responding right now it is in the works. Commissioner Pritchard stated it prohibits ad valorem tax levies by counties in excess of amounts specified by county charters; and the Bill implements the will of the people who voted overwhelmingly at 85% to cap property taxes. He stated the current law usurps the legislative budgetary prerogative of setting caps; and it was the major reason for defeat in the courts in Brevard and Manatee Counties. He advised it will allow charter counties to set caps rather than the State allowing the people the tax relief for which they voted. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is looking at this prospectively, he could support it; he does not know the impact if it is applied retroactively; and he would like to know how it would impact programs if that occurred. Commissioner Carlson inquired given that the 3% cap was deemed unconstitutional two times, and the inability to take it to the supreme court has happened, how would it fit into something like this; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the legislature is trying to undo the court decisions by authorizing charter counties to come up with a cap on millage, and if that law is passed, it will have its own constitutional issues. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what if, as a policy of the Board, it says it wants to apply what the citizens asked it to apply prospectively; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that is fine. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants Commissioner Pritchard or the staff to draft something and put it on a future Agenda. Chair Higgs advised she is not clear what 3 means regarding MSTU. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board sets a policy, it can get into the particulars within the purview of what it wants to do; and the County Manager has tried to get the Board to define its intention early enough so the budget will reflect it. He stated if the Board is going to try to increase its reserves, it needs to decide in what measure and over what period of time, and vote on that as a matter of policy. He noted it could come back to the Board on March 15, 2004. He stated if the Board makes it a matter of policy, it will have budgets that encompass those thoughts; and if the Legislature wants to proceed with the question of whether the State Statutes usurp the Supreme Court, he will let it handle those issues.

Commissioner Pritchard withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Pritchard advised his office will draft a letter of support and bring it back to the Board; and it will work on the wording and make it a collective effort. Chair Higgs suggested Commissioner Pritchard get clarification what is intended in 3, because it speaks of MSTU’s and 10 mills on MSTU’s. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to get involved in the legislation; he wants to get involved in Board’s instructions to the County Manager on what it wants to do; and he does not know what is happening in Tallahassee. He advised if the Board wants to support a Bill of this nature, he will need more particulars; but if the Board wants to create a policy on March 15, 2004, he will do it. Commissioner Pritchard advised he will work on both of those items.

REPORT, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PINEDA PARTNERS V. BREVARD COUNTY

County Attorney Scott Knox requested an executive session on Pineda Partners v. Brevard County case on March 11, 2004 at 11:30 a.m.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to schedule an executive session on March 11, 2004 at 11:30 a.m. or as soon as possible thereafter on Pineda Partners v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ANNEXATION BY CITY OF PALM BAY OF PROPERTIES EAST AND WEST OF BABCOCK
STREET SE, SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO MALABAR ROAD SW, WEST OF
EMERSON DRIVE NW AND PACE DRIVE NW, NORTH OF MALABAR ROAD NW,
AND EAST OF BABCOCK STREET

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated Brevard County has had discussions with the City of Palm Bay on the annexation issues; it has been determined that the enclaves, which appear to have been created on page 13 of the report, Cases A-1 and A-5 are FDOT borrow pits; and those properties are not part of the annexation and do not qualify as enclaves. He stated there is an enclave shown just south of A-3 on page 14, and that is also an FDOT borrow pit; and A-2 on the bottom of map 14 is the highlighted square inadvertently being shifted over and showing what looks like an enclave, but it is contiguous.

Chair Higgs advised Susan Hann is representing the City of Palm Bay.

Susan Hann, Deputy City Manager of the City of Palm Bay, stated Mr. Watkins from the Planning Division is present if the Board has any questions.

Curt Lorenc stated the City of Palm Bay has not supplied good roads, sewer, or water; the City keeps going outside its boundaries into Valkaria and other places trying to annex property; and he does not think it is the right thing to do. He stated his reading of Florida Statutes 171, does not allow enclaves. He noted there are 2,400 homes being created on Babcock; there are only two north and south roads, Babcock and US 1; it will have a regional impact; and requested the Board oppose it based on the Florida Statutes. He advised since Palm Bay is continuing to annex property on both sides of Babcock, the County should give Babcock to the City of Palm Bay; and let the City pick up the maintenance on it.

Janis Walters stated the first time she got involved in an annexation issue was the 20 acres on the northeast corner of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road, where the proposed use was inconsistent with the surrounding area. She stated in most cases, the five annexations the Board is being asked to acknowledge today involve basically the same issue, urban sprawl. She stated Annexation Case Number one is obviously a case of urban sprawl because even inside the City limits of Palm Bay that area is largely undeveloped; there are drainage issues and little infrastructure; and the infrastructure that does exist is in need of upgrade. She stated in case number two is infill to make the City boundaries more uniform, but the proposed use is too intense for the surrounding area. She stated case number three, Mr. Scott has cleared it up about creation of an enclave. She advised in case number four is infill of a County enclave, but the proposed use is inconsistent with the existing development of single-family homes on large lots. She noted number five is an enclave; it touches the City of Palm Bay on one corner; and looking at it in conjunction with number one, and the legal advertisement, there would be another enclave created. She stated she does not know which is right, the City of Palm Bay’s legal advertisement or the information the City gave to the Board. She advised she is not happy with any of it; the City of Palm Bay has not come to the table to work out a joint planning agreement with Brevard County; and on the south mainland area it is very critical. She stated southwest Palm Bay planned by General Development is very intense in use; though it has not been built out, there needs to be a scaling down as a person moves outward from those areas; and the proposed land uses on the proposed annexations are not scaling down to become more consistent with the outlying areas that are remaining County. She asked the Board to oppose every such annexation until the time Palm Bay comes to the table and works out a joint planning agreement so this does not have to happen every single time.

Coleman Goatley, representing Bayside Lakes, stated in order to understand those annexations, one has to understand the look and development of the City of Palm Bay as a whole. He advised efforts have been made to develop and infill certain areas of Palm Bay as utilities and roads become available. He stated the City has a plan and it is working that plan. He stated asking for annexation to bring areas in, which are developable provides a much stronger economic base for the City to build on. He noted there is an opportunity to obtain an elementary school that will serve the South Brevard area; the School Board has prepared to build it; they have offered to donate that property; a meeting has been conducted to discuss the feasibility; and it can be accomplished. He stated the annexations are appropriate and result in a stronger economic base for the City; and asked the Board to go along with the annexations.

Commissioner Colon stated when she was with the City of Palm Bay one of the biggest issues was compatibility. She inquired how much acreage is the City of Palm Bay talking about annexing; with Mr. Goatley responding the property south of the City, along Babock, they are proposing a density of 1 ½ units per acre, which is low density. Mr. Goatley advised it provides a good transition of what exists to the north now and what exists to the south. He stated another issue he wants to address in the development of that particular property has to do with the fact the drainage system in the area will be effectively managed much better; it will eliminate some of the problems the Board has had to face; and that would be the long range result of the development. He stated there will be better schools, better drainage, and utilities, and encouraged the Board to consider those factors because it is a major development base for the City. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Goatley mentioned there was a meeting to discuss the school siting; and inquired when is the School Board looking at potentially building a school; with Mr. Goatley responding the School Board expects to have it funded by April 1, 2004; it will be under construction by July 2004; and it will be in operation for the school year 2005. He stated the School Board had anticipated using the site in that area before the annexation was brought to it by the development company.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Goatley has an agreement with either the City of Palm Bay or the School Board regarding the school issue; with Mr. Goatley responding there is no written agreement in place, but it is in the process. Mr. Goatley advised there are a number of issues addressed by Mr. Curry; the meeting brought together the people representing the major factors involved to see if it was feasible; and when the meeting was over it was agreed it could be accomplished. Chair Higgs inquired what properties Mr. Goatley represents; with Mr. Goatley responding the Wheeler property is the principal concern.

Commissioner Colon advised something that was mentioned was a joint planning agreement with the City of Palm Bay; and Brevard County, City of Palm Bay, and the School Board should meet as soon as those type of projects are in place, not after the fact. She stated she is happy to hear there was a meeting that took place between the three parties; and requested Susan Hann elaborate on the meeting and the joint planning agreement. Ms. Hann advised there was a meeting last week with the Brevard County staff, City of Palm Bay staff, the School Board staff, and Mr. Goatley; and they are excited about the opportunity to work together on providing the necessary infrastructure for the school development. She stated it is a need that is documented in the South Brevard area; the School Board has an opportunity to get funding for the school; and if everyone works together it can be accomplished in short order. She stated it was a fast-track project; and they were excited they were able to get together and accomplish it.

She advised they do have an agreement in the works that will have to be executed by the City of Palm Bay, School Board, and Mr. Jeffries; and it should be before the City Council sometime in April. She noted in terms of joint planning efforts, the City is open to working with Brevard County on that type of activity in trying to address some of the issues that have been raised relative to infrastructure development; but she does feel there is an opportunity for development in the City of Palm Bay that is of a much higher caliber than what it is faced with now with its existing development patterns. She stated the City is dealing with the hand it was dealt; and by annexing the properties, it can provide urban services, transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and the school infrastructure that has been lacking in some of the other areas of Palm Bay. She stated what the City has found with the Bayside Lakes experience is that type of planned community in the City inspires better development in those areas that are already platted. She noted there are bigger homes, property values are going up, and it is allowing the City to improve its revenue base, so it will be able to do more for its existing residents and address some of the infrastructure that has plagued the City for so long. She advised the quality development in Bayside Lakes has been an asset to Palm Bay, and is helping it deal with its problems. She stated by working through some of the annexations and allowing those positive patterns, it will be able to further address the City’s problems.

Commissioner Colon advised one of the things she has a problem with is the lack of communication between Brevard County and the cities. She advised she wants the Board to make it possible for the County to be involved in those discussions; so if there is anything else in the future that the City of Palm Bay is looking at, the County can be involved as well. She stated what is good for Palm Bay is good for Brevard County; and requested Ms. Hann bring that message to the City of Palm Bay. She stated lack of communication creates hardship on all sides.

Commissioner Pritchard advised Curt Lorenc brought up a good point regarding Babcock; it will bisect the annexations; and inquired who will pay for it if it has to be made into four lanes; with Ms. Hann responding as the development proposals come in, the City is required to go through the traffic study analysis and concurrency analysis, and the City will have to cooperate with Brevard County in the effort. She stated it is currently a County road; it has jurisdiction over driveway and access permits; so there would be private contribution to that effort depending upon the impact and what other transportation infrastructure that may be provided. Commissioner Pritchard stated as Brevard County continues to lose its tax base due to annexations, it is still stuck with the roads because the municipalities like to take the taxable valuable property and leave the roads for the County; it reduces the County’s ability to construct or maintain; so when going to the table, it is one of the issues that need to be looked at.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the City of Palm applies a transportation impact fee; with Ms. Hann responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is 100% of what it can possibly have; with Ms. Hann responding the current impact fee is approximately $840 per home, plus any commercial impact fees. Ms. Hann advised the City is currently advertising for a consultant to update the transportation impact fees, as well as the other fees, so it is likely to be changing over the next six to eight months. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the City updated the transportation impact fees when Brevard County did; with Ms. Hann responding no, but it will be. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the City of Palm Bay supports school impact fees; with Ms. Hann responding the City has not taken a position on it yet. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the developer raises the issue of providing a school impact fee would he ask for a fee across per unit like in the County; with Ms. Hann responding her understanding is the County’s school impact fee will be implemented countywide, including the cities; and if that is not the case, the City will have to entertain that issue independently. She advised the City is interested in the school issue; it has been pressuring the School Board to provide the necessary schools in Palm Bay; so it will be a player at the table.

Chair Higgs stated both Melbourne High School and Palm Bay High School are over capacity at this point; and inquired if those issues were addressed; with Ms. Hann responding that issue has not been addressed; it is of concern to the City; and as it goes through the process with the developers, it will be discussed. Chair Higgs inquired if the City has specifics regarding how it will handle the school overcrowding; with Ms. Hann responding not at this point. Chair Higgs requested Ms. Hann address the Copanos property, the land use, and the zoning that the City of Palm Bay will apply. Ms. Hann stated there is nothing specifically defined; the City has talked with the property owner; and they indicated a mix of commercial, residential, and possibly industrial uses.

Chair Higgs inquired what is the over capacity for Melbourne High School and Palm Bay High School this year, and what the Board, in approving other developments that potentially increased density, has done in the past; with Mr. Scott responding staff handed out the latest status of the high schools to the Board; and the stars indicate the schools that are over capacity. Mr. Scott stated the proposed annexations are numbered A-1 through A-5; so on A-3 Melbourne and Palm Bay High Schools are at 111% and 115% respectively over capacity. He stated it has been the Board’s position in reviewing other municipalities annexations, if it proposes to increase density and the school is over capacity, then the Board has looked to challenge that proposal based on potential inconsistencies it might have with the Comp Plan and the current Board’s policy; and staff has begun with the Board’s direction an investigation of that municipality’s comprehensive plan to investigate if that proposed density increase in the face of an overcrowded circumstance would be consistent with its comprehensive plan as well. Chair Higgs stated most of the annexations have had land use and zoning as part of it; the Copanos property has no specifics listed; so the Board can only assume the individual would be putting increased density there. Mr. Scott stated at some point that property will be required to receive something; and there is a timeframe regarding that issue. County Attorney Scott Knox advised he thinks it stays in effect two years. Mr. Scott stated at some point even if the City does not identify a Comp Plan and a zoning classification, until such time, the County’s plan would remain, even though the property goes into the City.

Commissioner Colon advised she was concerned that schools would be impacted, but that has been addressed. She stated most of the children in this area attend Bayside High School, which is right up the road from that area. Chair Higgs advised looking at the sheet she has been given, it seems the young people affected by A-3 would be in Melbourne High and Palm Bay High Schools; and those are both over capacity. She stated the Board does not know what the plan in terms of land use or zoning is for A-5. Commissioner Colon stated she does not have a problem moving forward with the area being residential on 1.5 acres; this is important to her because she does not want the integrity of the community to be changed; and the biggest thing is there was going to already be a school in that area. She stated the Board needs to put in writing regarding the school impact fees; it is crucial; and everyone needs to pay their fair share. She advised she has no problem with the Board moving forward.

Commissioner Scarborough stated comments from the community were taken for the Titusville annexations; and the Board sent comments to DCA. He inquired how is it different than Titusville; with Mel Scott responding it is similar. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff is sending something to DCA; it is the first submittal just like the Titusville annexations; the Board has some thoughts it wants to share with DCA; and DCA will or will not include it. He stated until the Board gets the joint participation agreements it needs to include its comments to DCA, otherwise it will not be involved in the dialogue. He stated the Board needs to be included in the dialogue because it represents the incorporated and unincorporated people of Brevard County. He stated how it is worded he will leave it up to the Commissioners who are over that area and know the heartbeat of the area.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough regarding comments being sent to DCA, but the joint participation agreement is important. She stated it has been done in some cities and others it has not. Chair Higgs inquired what about the issue of compactness regarding the annexation on A-5; with Mr. Scott responding Chapter 171 defines compactness in general terms; it precludes enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns; and it is left up to the person reading the Chapter. He stated it is ideal to have city boundaries that are squared off when possible; and it would be subjective discussions they would be having if they were to pursue it because State Statute does not define compactness very well. He noted it would leave the Board with a Comprehensive Plan analysis and the School Capacity Analysis as opposed to the State Statutes definition.

Commissioner Colon stated every time the Board has sent recommendations to DCA, it has not come back positive regarding the County; but it is important to show that cooperation and have something on record of some of the concerns the Board has.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he wants to correct himself; and the County Land Use Regulations stay in effect until they are changed by the City. Chair Higgs stated being consistent in regard to the other annexations in Titusville and Rockledge, the Board has sent its objections. Commissioner Scarborough advised he does not like the word objections; at the initial stage it is a moment of comment as opposed to a moment of objection; and it is a matter of opinion. Chair Higgs inquired if the motion would be that the Board express its concerns to DCA on all five of the items and copy the City of Palm Bay as well. Commissioner Colon stated she does not have a problem with it at all.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge Annexation Requests A1-2004 through A5-2004 and comprehensive plan amendments for the City of Palm Bay of approximately 3,758 acres of property located east and west of Babcock Street SE, south of and adjacent to Malabar Road SW, west of Emerson Drive NW and Pace Drive NW, North of Malabar Road NW and East of Babcock Street; and authorize staff to send Board comments to DCA expressing concerns.

Commissioner Carlson inquired in terms of staff direction, is the motion to clarify the Board’s concerns through recommendations; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired what would a recommendation look like; with Commissioner Colon responding the impact fees and the cooperation between the County and City. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is something that staff can draft in terms of recommendations based on the concerns heard; with Mr. Scott responding the term of the report would be one of observation.

Mr. Scott stated staff has identified roadways, the condition of that roadway, and what one might expect to happen to that roadway with X amount of density being developed around it; staff would modify the report to take out the enclave observations which it now knows not to be true; they could point out to DCA the position on the school issue; so with a slight tone modification it could be sent up as observation. Chair Higgs advised she has a different opinion about A-5 because there is no information provided; on A-3 the issue has not been address; and schools are critical. She stated there are a number of folks, including her son, who attend those overcrowded schools; she wants the Board to express its concerns about A-5, as well as A-3; and until those issues are worked out, withhold the Board’s support, but express its concerns. Commissioner Scarborough advised regarding the Titusville annexations, the Board was in a time crunch; and inquired how is the time limit on this item; with Mr. Scott responding March 16, 2004 the comments must be to DCA.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Commissioner Pritchard. Vice Chair Pritchard advised there is already a motion and a second. Commissioner Higgs advised she is going to move to amend the motion. Motion by Commissioner Higgs to delete A-5, and instruct staff to clarify it does not meet the Board’s criteria regarding schools by separate comments since there is no information on A-5.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he is voting in opposition. He stated to say the Board approves would assume it has the authority to deny, which it does not; and it makes an assumption that is not there.

Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his comments were included in Commissioner Colon’s initial motion. Chair Higgs advised she will vote against the motion.

Vice Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Higgs and Scarborough voting nay.

Vice Chair Pritchard returned the gavel to Chair Higgs.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if Commissioner Colon would restate the motion without using the word approve he could support it. Commissioner Colon advised the motion has passed; and she does not want to open that can of worms. Commissioner Scarborough noted the motion did not pass. Chair Higgs advised Commissioner Carlson voted for the motion.

Chair Higgs stated she wants the Board to be advised of A-5 because of the Comp Plan and zoning changes.

APPROVAL, RE: 2004 FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS PACKAGE

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Board only has to prioritize two of the items; and that is Beach Restoration and Archie Carr reimbursement.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to do that, he has to understand the rest of them will be formatted in a bullet type concept. He stated back when the shuttle missions were being shifted, the Board was supposed to get a bigger share of the money; the rumor is there will be financial changes in the program; and the Board should rate it high on the list. He stated he wants to see them bulleted.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board has consensus it needs for the Beach Restoration and Archie Carr. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is going to get dollars for a seven mile area of the beach once it figures out what it is doing in terms of the biological issues; what she is seeing from the federal level it does not appear they will be funding beach re-nourishment; so she does not know if it is a moot point at this time. Chair Higgs stated it has not been in the federal budget a few times; so if the Board wants it, it needs to be prioritized and go forward with it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Kennedy Space Center can be put at the top of the list; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the 2004 Federal Requests Package; and prioritize requests ranking first beach restoration matching funds, and second reimbursement of cost for property purchased for Archie Carr National Refuge. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST – GEORGE FREEMAN, RE: REVIEW OF CLARIDGE OCEANFRONT
CONDO SITE PLAN SP-03-12-001

George Freeman, representing the Majestic Shores and Royal Palm Condominiums, stated he was before the Board three years ago; since that encounter he has kept an eye on the smaller lot next to Majestic Shores Condominium; and everything was fine until he saw a board advising the Claridge Oceanfront Condominium was being built. He stated the groundbreaking will be April 2004; and it will be completed by the end of year. He advised he called some of the contacts for the County; the site plan was submitted on February 25, 2004; and staff will make a decision by March 11, 2004 if it will be approved. He stated he has a verbatim transcript from the meeting three years ago; there were 11 speakers on 11 topics; there were 30 people each night in attendance; and the press tagged them as the Condo Commandos. He stated they did everything they could; and they celebrated the night the Board gave the disapproval of the former application. He stated the problem is the height and the shadow effect; and presented an aerial map of the area to the Board but not the Clerk. He stated halfway down the contractor’s map it points to Majestic Shores Condo and the Majestic Shores pool area; and the scratched in part is the proposed Claridge Oceanfront Condo; and further down is The Dune, which is a five-story building and the shadow that it casts. He stated the shadow completely engulfs the pool area; and they cannot enjoy the pool with the sun blocked out. He noted they were told on the little lot, which is more than 100 feet wide, that there would be nothing they could build other than a one or two-story townhouse. He noted at that time is when the press came out and they had pictures of the new deal; and they came out with pictures in the press showing a ratio of 2 to 1, meaning if its shadow encroaches on the pool area, there must be a setback of 110 feet for a five story building. He noted it almost shows no height can be put there; a townhouse the roof can be sloped; so they are before the Board to seek its help and advise on what can be done. He advised the decision must be made by March 11, 2004; they want to do whatever is necessary to have a review of that; and they are willing to work with the people. He stated he wants to refer to the page behind the picture; and wants to read the Board the last few sentences. “May we suggest that a compromise be reached by allowing construction of a one-story townhouse type project with garage under, in order that it show a profit on its investment, and the property values of myself and the residents affected will be held to a minimum by all parties accepting this compromise. The shadow cast on the Majestic Shore Pool area will be reduced about half, thus minimizing the lifestyle affect to an acceptable level.” He stated looking at the site plan, it is fine to be used somewhere else, but this is a huge five-story building going on a 100-foot lot; and it will crowd everyone in there like a can of sardines. He stated he appreciates the Board’s time.

John Wilkinson stated he wants the Board to turn back to the meeting on Monday. He stated there were several speakers; and the general topic of conversation was quality of life. He advised this is about lifestyle, nothing more, nothing less; and it is why he is here to support Mr. Freeman. He stated he wants to read the presentation the Board has in front of it for the sake of the verbatim record. “The same developer, Claridge, applied for permission to construct a seven-story building on February 1, 2001. This application was denied by the Board of County Commissioners at this meeting. Subsequently, the CUP criteria was drastically revised by the Board of Commissioners. At that meeting representatives of Majestic Shores and other interested parties made that case basically by rebutting the notion made by the developer that a) there would be no decrease in property values to Majestic Shores, b) the lifestyle of the residents of Majestic Shores will not be affected, and c) that the same developer be allowed to allow his sales agents to inform perspective purchasers that because of the small lot the only type of structure that would be allowed would be a townhouse type development.” Mr. Wilkinson stated the last statement was presented at the meeting by several speakers, and is on record in the verbatim transcript; those three issues form the basis of their opposition to this application; and he wanted to refer the Board to the lifestyle issue. He stated an aerial photo was made available at the February 1, 2001 meeting; it clearly showed the shadows cast by the then proposed building extended well into the north of their pool area; and the same criteria still applies to the revised application of the same developer. He stated the shadows cast by the revised structure will still obliterate the sun in the pool and recreation area; the lifestyle issue, if disregarded, would also have a big impact on property values as pointed out in (a) above; and feels it is difficult to separate the two items as they are both extremely intertwined. He stated he would skip to the end of the letter and read the last portion. “Though this is a compromise we are suggesting, may we suggest that a compromise be reached by allowing the construction of a one-story townhouse type project with garage under, in order that a) the developer may show a profit on his investment, and b) the property values and the lifestyles of the residents affected will be held to a minimum. By all parties accepting this compromise, the shadow cast on Majestic Shores pool area will be reduced to about half, thus minimizing the lifestyle affect to an acceptable level.” Mr. Wilkinson stated the building from back to front is approximately 63 feet; and he determined that because he was in the construction business. He stated if they take 1/3 more of the room, a person will end up with approximately 100 feet; and that is what they are trying to put on this ridiculous five-story building. He advised the acreage involved is just a little more than ¾ of an acre; and he requested the Board consider the lifestyle issues of Majestic Shores and the residents.

Commissioner Colon inquired what is the staff’s recommendation regarding what the Board can do; with Mr. Freeman responding he has worked with Land Development and with Cynthia Fox in Zoning. Mr. Freeman stated Ms. Fox answered a letter they sent to Gwen Heller. He stated the Claridge Oceanfront Condo meets County requirements of a 45-foot high building; that is part of the criteria; but the impact of the shadow effect on the Majestic Shores pool is not being considered.

Commissioner Colon inquired where is staff regarding this situation; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding for appealing a site plan, it would have to be approved, and then there is an appeal process. Ms. Busacca advised in the event Mr. Freeman wanted to appeal the interpretation of staff on this, she can provide the Board with a report. She stated staff feels it meets the Code. Commissioner Colon inquired what is the date when the site plan was approved; with Ms. Busacca responding it has not been approved. Ms. Busacca advised there was a rezoning request for a Conditional Use Permit for additional height; it was denied; so the development has come in without that CUP. Commissioner Colon inquired how soon can the Board get a report; with Ms. Busacca responding by early next week. Commissioner Colon inquired when is the next meeting; with Ms. Busacca responding March 15, 2004, but it is quite full. Ms. Busacca stated once the site plan has been approved, there is a process to appeal; right now there is no site plan approval to appeal; so Mr. Freeman does not have a mechanism to appeal that decision.

Chair Higgs inquired if staff will notify all interested parties when any action is taken so people will be aware of it; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca advised staff can have a report finished by early next week, but when it could be on the Agenda is up to the Board. Chair Higgs inquired when does staff anticipate action will be taken on the site plan; with Ms. Busacca responding she will have to ask Ms. Fox. Planner Cynthia Fox advised the next deadline is March 11, 2004 for the last set of comments from Brevard County to the developer; and if everything is met that is required by the County, it will be approved at that time. Chair Higgs inquired if a person will have 30 days to appeal; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding the Board has 30 days from receipt of the written request for the appeal to schedule it.

Commissioner Carlson advised there was a long and lengthy discussion regarding the shadowing of the pool at Majestic Shores; the Board assumed the developer had the right to develop it to the five-story level; but she does not believe the County can stop the site plan process. Chair Higgs advised staff will notify all interested parties if and when the site plan is approved; when that occurs, the next step is to file an appeal of the site plan approval; and then it would come back before the Board.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )