The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on March 16, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, Assistant County Manager for Community Development Dean Sprague, County Attorney Scott Knox, and Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner.

Chairman Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

DISCUSSION, RE: NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT LEGISLATION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised, at the Board's request, he prepared a memorandum on the North Brevard Hospital District Board meeting he attended on February 27, 1995, setting out the pros and cons that were brought out at that meeting on the amendment to the Special Act which created the District; the amendment proposes to expand the ability of the District Board to provide health care services and facilities outside of its current boundaries; currently it is limited to providing hospital services within its boundaries; so this would be a substantial change in the authority of that Board. He stated the reasons that were given for the amendment related to the ability to compete with other hospitals that are doing similar things by having joint facilities and joint use of facilities with other hospitals and health care providers which reduce costs and duplication of expensive equipment; and that seemed to be the general thrust of why the legislation is needed. He stated the legislation does not currently permit that because of restrictions to finance strictly hospital facilities within the District boundaries. Mr. Knox advised the opposition relates primarily to what is going to happen with the $60,000,000 surplus the District Board accumulated to provide a new hospital facility in the future; and there was concern about the lack of geographical boundaries where the money could be spent or where the facilities could be located. He noted there was an issue raised whether facilities could be established in Orange and Volusia Counties under the new legislation; and the general consensus was they could be. He stated there is some undefined rule of the side-by-side corporation in providing those facilities which was left in the air and no one was sure what the rule would be; and there was concern that taxpayers' funds would be used directly or indirectly to provide joint facilities with other private entities. Mr. Knox advised Ms. Polk raise the issue of the possibility of having a referendum on whether or not the Hospital facilities should be sold; and that was the issue she brought to the Board at the last meeting. He stated he attached a copy of a proposed bill Mr. Skeldon drafted relating to the possibility of empowering the Board of County Commissioners to call a special election for the purpose of holding a referendum on the issues of whether the Hospital should be sold; and Ms. Polk asked the Board to take a position on that particular proposed bill at the last meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough advised one thing that bothers him is Section 16 where 6/10ths is being turned over to the City of Titusville and 4/10ths to Brevard County for use in the area, provided that it shall be used exclusively in and for the residents of the territory described in Section 1; and since the City residents got their 6/1l0ths, the Board needs to make sure the 4/10ths benefits the residents in the unincorporated area. He suggested Mr. Knox communicate that to Mr. Skeldon if it is okay with the Board. Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Skeldon is a Hospital Board member and not on the Legislative Delegation; and if the Hospital is sold, he does not see anything wrong with the distribution as described with that addition.

Commissioner Cook advised it is difficult for him to know if he agrees with the distribution or not without having an opportunity to review the proposed bill and think about it. Commissioner O'Brien stated there will be a referendum on May 2, 1995 for the School Board; and if the Board moves rapidly on this issue, it could be placed on the ballot on that day rather than people voting twice in one year. Commissioner Ellis stated the School Board's ballot is already printed, but it would be a separate ballot if it is only for one District.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the amendment has to be passed by the Legislature first, so it would be subsequent to any action by the Legislature. Mr. Knox advised what is being proposed is an amendment to the current Special Act which would have to be passed by the Legislature before the Board would be empowered to actually call an election.

Commissioner O'Brien advised if the Legislature acts positively, the Hospital Board could then enter into interlocal agreements and become financially intertwined with hospitals and corporations; and to try and sell the Hospital then could be impossible. He stated the Board could move that if it is passed by the Legislature, then it shall call a referendum election; and that way it would be ahead of the curve rather than always behind it.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when would the Legislature approve a bill like this; with Mr. Knox responding assuming they approve it, it would be May or June, but it may not take effect until such time as the Legislature specifies. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about a referendum before the Legislature acts; with Mr. Knox responding the Board is empowered to call straw ballots on specific issues as long as it calls it at an election that has already been scheduled; however, all it could be is a straw ballot.

Commissioner Ellis advised without the bill it would only be a straw ballot, and the Board would end up doing the same referendum twice. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is done on the same day as the School Board referendum it would not lose anything but the paperwork; with Commissioner Ellis responding but it will not gain anything either. Commissioner O'Brien stated a straw ballot would at least give the Legislature a message of how the public feels; without that they have no guidance expect what the Hospital says; as a business practice they are doing the right thing; however, it is public money that was spent to build the Hospital and now that may be intertwined or spent in other areas. Commissioner Ellis advised he has no problem dissolving the District and selling the assets, but the Legislature will be finished before the School Board referendum in May; and that would be sending a message to a Legislature that is closing up.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board is being asked to go on record one way or the other regarding the proposed legislation that would allow the District Board to go outside of its boundaries.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is to make suggestions on a proposed bill, it should do it next Tuesday with suggested language that makes sense.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table discussion on the North Brevard Hospital District Board's proposed amendment to its Special Act until March 21, 1995 for further review. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: AGENDA POLICIES

Commissioner O'Brien advised Tuesday's Agenda has II.B., II.H., IV,C., V.E. and V.E.; those are topics about ordinances; there are speakers who want to talk about zoning; and those things should be agendaed on the nights the Board talks about those ordinances. He stated there is a person who wants to talk about Playalinda Beach; the Board is not addressing that ordinance until some time in April; so that speaker should not be on the Agenda for Tuesday and should be on the night the Board hears that ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Commissioner O'Brien is right because if the Board allows one speaker this time, the next time there may be two, and the next time there could be five; so it will have a continuing public hearing until it gets to the hearing on the ordinance. He inquired if the ordinance has been advertised for a public hearing, should the Board be hearing it in bits and pieces and the public having to attend every meeting for the next month instead of counting on a certain time and date; with Mr. Knox responding the theory behind public hearings is to have everyone show up and register their complaints at one time.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Item II.H. is the Central Florida Naturists regarding Playalinda Beach complaints statistics; Item II.B. is unlimited development code on storage walls; and those should be on the Agenda when the Board hears those codes and not on the regular agenda. He inquired why Item IV.C., noise ordinance, is not being done on an ordinance night, as well as alternatives to pre-existing use provisions of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan policies for wetlands.

Commissioner Cook stated he concurs that changes can be made to the Agenda policy; but limiting the amount of times people can appear before the Board to once every six months concerns him. Chairman Higgs advised that would only be for the ten-minute personal appearance; and anyone can speak during the public comments or on any other agenda item or an item that has been put on the agenda on their behalf. Commissioner Cook stated it is very rare for someone to appear before the Board more than that, but he hates to restrict it. He stated he concurs with not scheduling personal appearances for people to speak on ordinances that are going to public hearings prior to those hearings because all the input should be heard on the night of the public hearing.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioners can support including in the policy that issues scheduled for future Board hearings should not be granted personal appearances; with Commissioners Cook and O'Brien responding they can support that. Chairman Higgs asked for a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend the Board's Agenda Policy to include personal appearances not be granted on issues scheduled for future public hearings.

Chairman Higgs advised if the Board can direct staff to omit the issues schedule for Tuesday's meeting from the personal appearances, as she was requested to schedule those and would not, but they went to the County Manager who received the request not knowing anyone had refused it, so he had no grounds by which to refuse to give them a personal appearance.

Commissioner Cook amended the motion to include direction to the County Manager to contact those persons and advise them it is the Board's policy to listen to all testimony at the same time when issues are scheduled for public hearings; and Commissioner O'Brien accepted the amendment.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the proposed ordinance is one he would anticipate some litigation over in the future based upon everything he has heard; and one of the things that could be raised as an issue is that the Board actually held a public hearing without proper notice if it listens to that issue at a personal appearance; so from a legal standpoint, he would advise the Board not to do it.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Chairman Higgs recommended personal appearances be for commendations and proclamations, and individuals making requests for actions dealing with issues not otherwise scheduled be put under new business or unfinished business. She stated most of the items that are under personal appearance for the upcoming meeting and other meetings are really items that should be scheduled for new or old business. Commissioner Cook advised he agrees.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Commissioners cannot tell staff to start drafting ordinances; sometimes when he brings an issue for an ordinance consideration, he finds it helpful to have the person who actually experienced the problem to address the Board; so the Commissioners and the County Manager should have the ability to schedule those items, because sometimes it is easier to have the aggrieved party appear and explain the problem. Chairman Higgs advised it is assumed Commissioners can schedule things on the Agenda in any section, and that can be added in there to clarify that it is the County Manager and Commissioners.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to include in the Agenda Policy that Commissioners and the County Manager can agenda individuals or organizations making requests for actions dealing with issues not otherwise scheduled and put those in new or unfinished business and make the personal appearance section for commendations and proclamations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised the next item is to have the public comment section for personal appearances where an individual is desirous of expressing an opinion and no action will be taken other than rescheduling it for new or old business.

Commissioner Cook advised he has a problem tying it to no action, as someone may bring something to the Board's attention that it wishes to take action on; and he would hate to set a policy that the Board cannot act. He stated he is okay with the item except that portion which says no actions are taken except to reschedule; that should be the norm and an understanding among the Commissioners; but it should not be part of a policy.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended saying no action is taken except for those issues which require immediate action, otherwise they would be rescheduled as new or old business; with Commissioners Scarborough and Cook agreeing.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to include in the Agenda Policy that the public comments section be used for personal appearance items where an individual is desirous of merely expressing an opinion and no action is take other than to reschedule as new or old business except for those issues which require immediate action. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised on the Agenda for Tuesday there are two people from the same organization back-to-back expanding their time on one issue. Commissioner Cook stated they requested 30 minutes, but the Board does not allow 30 minutes for personal appearances. Chairman Higgs stated to get around the ten minutes, they scheduled two individuals, and that provoked her. Commissioner Cook stated he will be happy to limit that one individual only speak for one group. He stated one person should speak for one group in the allotted time and not have people trading off time.

Commissioner Scarborough advised when people come and ask him if more than one person can speak, he tells them yes but they have to share their time within the time frame.

Commissioner Ellis recommended the group get ten minutes no matter how many speakers it has; and Commissioner Cook agreed with that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to include in the Agenda Policy that groups can have more than one speaker but will be granted a total of ten minutes no matter how many speakers they have. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board is going to include the six months limit; with Chairman Higgs responding no, she did not hear support for that. Commissioner Ellis commented that is good.

Commissioner O'Brien stated agenda items which affect zoning or ordinances should be on the appropriate agenda event; if the item has effect on zoning, it should be on an LDR evening; and if it affects ordinances, it should be on an ordinance evening so the public has a chance to speak up and it is all together in one place and not spread out. He stated the Board has night meetings for ordinances; however, the noise ordinance is scheduled on Tuesday's Agenda. Commissioner Ellis advised the Board does not have LDR's scheduled on a regular basis; for the last two years there were only a few LDR's; but all of a sudden, during the last six months, they have had a flood of them. Commissioner O'Brien recommended the Tuesday evening meetings be for public appearances and two or three items the Commissioners jointly select; with Commissioner Ellis responding that was the idea. Commissioner O'Brien stated it has gotten out of hand; and last Tuesday night's agenda had items that should not have been on according to that philosophy.

Chairman Higgs stated she thought Tuesday nights were designed for high input items; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes, but half of the items were consent items. Chairman Higgs recommended removing consent items unless they are emergencies; and inquired if the Board wants to move that consent items be limited to day time meetings; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, because sometimes there are items like Frontier Insurance that had to be done that night. Commissioner Cook recommended directing the County Manager to limit consent items to emergencies.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if items that are on the consent agenda and affect zoning can be put on the LDR evening meetings and not on the regular agenda; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Board does not have regular LDR meetings. Commissioner O'Brien recommended they be placed on the zoning meeting agenda. He stated there are issues that belong to zoning; there are Comprehensive Plan changes on Tuesday's agenda; they should be all put together and not spread out because in March the Board would not know what it said in January; and that creates a problem.

Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is at zoning meetings all the applicants are present to speak on their applications; and if the Board does what is suggested by Commissioner O'Brien, it could further back up the zoning items.

Assistant County Manager for Community Development Dean Sprague advised right now staff has quite a few LDR's because they are rebuilding many land development regulations; but they will try to have higher public participation items at the evening meetings and ordinances proposing amendments.

Commissioner Cook advised it may not always be possible, but staff can work towards that.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF FEBRUARY 6, 1995

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board's recommendations of February 6, 1995, which were tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on February 27, 1995, as follows:

Item 4. Lawrence B. and Karen R. Jordan's request for CUP for marina in BU-1 zone also having an SUP for boat storage on 2.39? acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Otter Creek Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Higgs advised there is a memo on the desk; she has not seen the plan, but understands it has been submitted; and inquired if that is correct.

Zoning Official Rick Enos responded yes, the plan was submitted to the Natural Resources Management Office; he has a copy of it; they reviewed it; and with one change, they are recommending approval. He stated the change is no more than nine additional slips; the applicant has agreed with that; so if the Board plans to approve it, it should be conditioned upon no more than nine additional slips.

Commissioner Cook asked staff to explain why there was a change; with Mr. Enos responding Policy 5.3.C. in the Coastal Management Element requires where marina expansion exceeds ten slips or 10% of the existing number, the marina must provide pump out facilities; there are no pump out facilities planned; and for that reason the applicant has agreed to revise his plan to less than ten additional slips.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 4, subject to no more than nine additional boat slips. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Bombardier Corporation's request for UOR for design, research and development in BU-1 zone on 3.71 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1 across Berry Road and south of Grant Road and north of Barefoot Bay Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board, subject to no more than nine jet powered water craft from the organization in the Indian River subjected to testing at any point and time regardless of whether it is in the area they have indicated or up and down the intracoastal waterway.

Chairman Higgs advised Item 6 has been withdrawn by the applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 6, 1995

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

Item 1. Jimmy J. and Sandra J. Messer and Messer Construction Corporation's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on .25? acre located west of U.S. 1, east of West Avenue and north and south of Aron Street, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Attorney John Evans, 1702 Riverside Drive, Titusville, representing the applicants, presented a map to the Board and advised the property is zoned BU-1, is approximately 40 feet in width, borders U.S. 1 in Port St. John, and on the west side is West Avenue, a low speed road that runs from the Burger King on the south to Fay Avenue on the north, a little collector road. He explained the map of his client's property, and the parking lot for NationsBank; stated the property as presently zoned can be used as a parking lot for automobiles; Mr. Messer has been using it to park cars and boat trailers from the boat ramp across the street; they can park cars there; but once they attach a boat trailer it is considered storing trailers and it is illegal under BU-1 and must have BU-2 zoning. He stated they are requesting BU-2 to establish a parking lot for the vehicles that use the ramp across the street. Mr. Evans advised the boat ramp is a long distance from the north and from the south; there are no other boat ramps near it; and even the opposition will admit the boat ramp in the past has been so crowded that the commercial clammers and recreational boaters cannot use the ramp because of the limited number of parking spaces. He stated by reason of the limited parking spaces, the commercial clammers use the boat ramp area and Mr. Messer's property to park; and recreational boaters who get there in the afternoon, if it was not for Mr. Messer's property, would not have a place to park. He presented pictures showing the NationsBank parking lot, the ramp on Monday morning jammed with clammers, and Mr. Messer's property with approximately 40 cars and trailers parked on the property. Mr. Evans advised the clammers are probably a temporary problem that will go away, but while they are looking to construct a parking lot for those people, they do not envision it to last 10 or 15 years. He stated the nearest overflow parking is .7 mile away; he does not know how anyone can use it; but he imagines they would have to drop their boat off, park their car, and walk down U.S. 1 to the ramp, which to him is not overflow parking. He stated there were several objections at the last meeting; some people thought it was a safety issue with trailers parked in that area; they have submitted a binding site plan to the County with 22 parking spaces, pulling in going north, park trailers, back out within the property and not onto West Avenue, and pull forward to come out on West Avenue; so the concern about backing out on West Avenue will be eliminated. He advised another complaint was potential accidents; this has been going on for approximately four years; there has been no accidents by reason of the trailers parking there; and a person pulling a trailer is probably more careful than someone with just a car. He stated another objection was the aesthetics of the parking area; with the landscaping it can look as nice as NationsBank parking lot; they can put in grass areas, plantings between the parking lot and U.S. 1 as required by the Code; and they would upgrade the aesthetics of the area. He noted another concern by Mr. Ryan is that the County in four or five years is going to put in a parking lot; a private citizen has land that can provide overflow parking for the ramp safely, aesthetically, and at his expense and no cost to the taxpayers; and when the clammers leave it will be Mr. Messer's problem because he owns the parking lot. He stated the Board can ignore the problem of 40 or 50 people a day who want to use the boat ramp and have no place to park; or it can spend half a million dollars to buy land and put in a parking lot, and have the clammers leave then be left with a parking lot that is not needed;. He stated it seems the rezoning with a binding development plan is a logical solution to a problem in the Port St. John area; it will allow parking for the clammers and hopefully more recreational boaters; it will be safe because the site plan will have to be approved by County staff and improvements have to be approved by the staff; and the zoning is a win/win situation for the County. Mr. Evans advised it provides for parking at no expense to the taxpayer; and when the need for the parking goes away, again at no expense to the taxpayer, Mr. Messer would convert it to a vehicle parking lot and use it for other businesses. He stated some people will state the property is necessary to support the businesses across the street; that is incorrect; those businesses, of which Mr. Messer has one, have sufficient parking onsite; and this area is not needed for that. He stated they will argue about the speed of the traffic, but the speed limit on West Avenue is not more than 25 miles per hour; it is very slow; and there is no reason why this parking could not be handled very safely for both the cars and people who have boats and trailers. He requested the Board's support by approving the zoning tonight or request they get back with staff to have them review the binding development plan which has been submitted to them but with no comments to his client, and see if they can come up with a parking lot that is good for the area, aesthetically pleasing, safe, and within the BU-2 zoning spirit.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why does the property need to be rezoned from BU-1 to BU-2; with Mr. Enos responding the Zoning Code states the storage of boats and boat trailers is a BU-2 use; therefore, it cannot fit into the BU-1 classification. Commissioner Ellis inquired how is storage defined, and does it imply overnight; with Mr. Enos responding not necessarily and could include a parking lot like this lot. Mr. Evans stated they were cited by Code Enforcement and he argued that it was a parking lot and not storage of boat trailers; but because staff urged otherwise, the Code Enforcement Board held off any ruling until the Board ruled tonight. He stated legally he does not think parking a boat trailer for a couple of hours is storage of boat trailers. Mr. Enos advised the Code does include parking; Section 62-21.17 says, "parking, storage, or location of covered trailers, boat trailers, open flatbed trailers, etc. prohibited in BU-1-A and BU-1.

Pat Sullivan, 750 West Avenue, Cocoa, advised what they are asking for is unlike the NationsBank parking lot; she understands they will not pave the area and the lot will not be used to supplement the individual businesses that Mr. Messer has in the area like the NationsBank does; and Mr. Messer is requesting a pay for park lot, and have clammers pay for the privilege of parking there. She stated unlike NationsBank, no zoning change would be needed to do what they are using the land for; that type of commercial parking belongs on the east side of U.S. 1 adjacent to the boat ramp and not on the west side; and they deal with the clammers, people parking there and crossing U.S. 1 north and south with no pedestrian overpass. Ms. Sullivan advised the zoning as it is now is to control growth in that area; BU-2 would not add to anything; they pay premium property taxes for the privilege of operating their businesses in the area; and requested the Board protect that by keeping it BU-1. She stated the solution is not to allow the property owner to have the zoning reflect the current usage, but rather to bring the usage in compliance with the present zoning.

Stanley Krzyston, 1097 Covina Street, Cocoa, advised the property is the south part of Aron Street; the first corner lot on West and Aron is a designated parking lot for Mr. Messer's liquor store; it is not paved, no designated marking, no in and out, just pull in any way you want; on the other corner is a fruit stand; boats and trailers are almost 40 feet long; unless it is a mini-car, but they are usually trucks, regular size cars and boat trailers that are at least 18 feet long. He inquired how will they fit that on 40 feet without going over the right-of-way. He stated it should not be zoned BU-2 because later they can put anything they want on there such as storage sheds like he has been building all around Port St. John. He stated as of the last hearing, they stopped parking there; the clammers are getting by; they park further down the road and get on the river at different places; they are temporary; and after they leave, the residents will have to live with, which is not fair. Jennifer Sater, 780 West Avenue, Cocoa, advised as a property owner this concerns her; her husband and she bought the corner lot at 780 West Avenue which is zoned BU-1; they have made a contribution to the community by building a very nice office and are assets to the community; Attorney Evans said this is completely safe; but she would like to invite each Commissioner to their office to stand in the parking lot and see the traffic coming from Burger King and off U.S. 1, down West Avenue; children who ride their bicycles on the street to their office and Burger King, and elderly people who do not drive and walk to their dental office; so the parking lot is not safe. She stated it will be added congestion; the trucks and trailers are not a pretty sight; most are much older and look like they are falling apart; and it is not something she would want in her front yard.

Dr. Craig Sater, 780 West Avenue, Cocoa, advised even though the speed limit is only 25 m.p.h. it is a very small area, but with people coming out of Port St. John Plaza, the Burger King, the other area merchants and their office, it is a traffic hazard; it is a terribly congested area with a lot of pedestrians crossing the road; and if the clammers park there they have to walk across four lanes of U.S. 1. He stated the power plant is south of there and have a big wall near the road; so if people are driving there is not much visibility. He stated if trucks and trailers are going to pull off the tract of land that is about 40 feet wide, there is not proper room for them to safely get on to West Avenue; the other problem is there is lot of water retention problems in the area; in their new dental office they just finished three weeks ago, they were required to have a large retention area and swales on all four sides of the property to catch the runoff and oil skimmer to catch the water; so he cannot see how he can have enough room to build the parking spaces and water retention, keep it looking good, and actually make it a benefit for anybody. He stated it has been a problem in the last ten or twelve months that the clammers have parked there; it is becoming more of a problem; and someone called Code Enforcement and caused this stir. HE stated their property is the southernmost piece of land on West Avenue; they have a road in front of it, behind of it, and to the south of the property; they have a parking lot in front and employee parking in back which only has four spaces; they wanted a bigger parking lot in the back so they could back into the alley behind them which is a no name street with no speed limit, but the County said it would be an unsafe situation because even though it is just an alley, enough people use all the streets so they need proper space for a stop sign, and proper clearance, and felt it was an unsafe situation for a four-car parking lot, not a 22-space parking lot. He requested the Board deny the zoning change for those reasons.

Robert Rupe, 7185 Bright Avenue, Cocoa, Zoning Chairman of Port St. John Homeowners Association, advised they oppose the rezoning because of safety; the Port St. John Plaza which has five restaurants, Winn-Dixie, Eckerd Drug Store, Scotty's, etc. is big and the primary shopping center for Port St. John with a lot of ingress/egress at that area; the access road to the south is also used for ingress/egress; so there is a lot of traffic. He stated the next concern is aesthetics; BU-2 allows semi-tractor trailers and heavy equipment parking; it has to have BU-2 for commercial parking, but BU-1 can be an accessory parking lot; so this is a commercial lot. He stated their final concern is it has been used as an illegal parking lot for years; Mr. Evans mentioned the need for the parking area and said 40 boat trailers are using it; however, they are only building 22 spaces, so there will still be a bad problem in the area, and this lot would not fix it.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if BU-2 is required for commercial parking lots; with Mr. Enos responding they can have a commercial parking lot in BU-1, but it is limited to passenger vehicles; and any kind of parking or storage of heavy equipment or other commercial vehicles, including RV's and boats and boat trailers requires BU-2.

Attorney Evans advised the pay for park is correct; Mr. Messer pays an attendant to come out there every morning to make sure they park properly and not in the right-of-way and are lined up; and they do charge, but that is to pay for the attendants. He stated the other concern is potential use of BU-2; they cannot build any structures because they cannot meet the setbacks with only 40 feet; so the possibility of building any permanent BU-2 structure within the 40 feet is virtually impossible by reason of the limitations of the Code. Mr. Evans advised they have submitted a binding site plan and would be willing to limit it to the parking of cars and accessory trailers; they have no intentions of parking semi-trucks out there or flatbeds or any other construction equipment; the speed limit is 20 mph; he is sorry people break it, but that is a police problem; it is a slow speed area; and people with trailers tend to be cautious when they drive. He stated they had virtually no contract from the homeowners association, so it is difficult to address their concerns; there should be a letter in the file from Michael K. Lyons, one of the partners of the Plaza, and they support this; the clammers used to park in their parking lot early in the morning and cause them problems; this alleviated that particular problem; and he says, "In closing Commissioners, I must admit that the trailers are an eyesore, but until the County can accommodate the clammers, we honestly feel this is a good solution." He stated that is what they are there for; it is not the perfect solution; and he is not going to say a truck and boat trailer is a beautiful thing; but the bottom line is there is a real problem at the boat ramp; if the County eliminates parking in that area it eliminates any recreational boaters using that facility and create a problem with people parking in rights-of-way and other traffic problems; they are the best solution available; and if there was a way to do a special exception or conditional use permit, they would not have a problem with that. He stated the only reason they are asking for rezoning is because they were told that is the only way they could have a place to park cars and boat trailers; so they would appreciate the Board's consideration.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the County has a massive clam problem; he does not know if this will get rid of the clam problem because there is parking across the street that recreational boaters are using it; he would like to think there is a simple solution to this, but the County cannot look the other way around the zoning ordinance and have a resulting degradation to adjoining properties of Port St. John; so he will move to deny.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to deny Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Ellis advised he is concerned about losing the parking spaces; there are good reasons why it should not go to BU-2 because it gets into overnight parking with heavy equipment; and inquired if the Board can work within the Zoning Ordinance to provide some parking. He stated the word "parking" is in the Code; and inquired if the Code could be changed to overnight parking; with Mr. Enos responding the Board can amend the Code which is an option it always has; and it would require an amendment to the Code to accomplish that. Commissioner Ellis stated if it was amended to overnight parking, then the parcel could remain BU-1 and allow the day parking of the boat trailers. He stated they are going to park some place; and if they are making their living clamming and a parking ticket is $25, it may be worth a $25 parking ticket to park wherever they can to go to work. He stated deputies will be there writing parking tickets every day; and there will be a bigger safety problem than having them park in the area with angle parking. He stated the angle parking is the key to making it fit on the 40-foot strip; and if this parking is eliminated, they will park on the rights-of-way which would be more dangerous. He stated if the Code is amended to insert the word "overnight", then the day time parking of trailers would be allowed; and if they stayed overnight it would be a violation. He stated he went through this problem with overnight parking of heavy equipment on U.S. 192; and it was a violation of BU-1.

Commissioner Cook stated he has been in that area many times, and recreational boating cannot take place at that park; and he does not know what the County can do to improve that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairman Higgs talked to the Legislative Delegation and presented the concerns of the river and silting damaging the seagrasses; they said they wanted to look at means of investigating to see what damage occurs; and they came to the Port St. John boat ramp problem and said they need to find another location. He stated they had meetings with the Port and representatives from Districts 2 and 4, etc.; the Port is proceeding with a location on SR 528 just over the causeway; and the answer is not to do something that degrades the Zoning Ordinance but to follow through with plans to put in facilities where it is not going to cause traffic hazards and degradation of adjoining property.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be at the Port; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, the area is by Tingley Marina and the cemetery; Representative Ball was at the meeting and was asked for state money; there are a lot of forces going; and there are a lot of favorable attributes going in there and not having to figure out a way at Port St. John. He stated the Port St. John boat launch is incapable of handling the amount of traffic that it has even if they had parking; there are other concerns with manatee congregations around the power plants; so even with the parking, there are other reasons to go elsewhere to put boats in and bring it down to primarily recreational boating. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board gets the parking for the boats on the Barge Canal will there be easy access to the Indian River for the clammers; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Perry McMann, who is a clammer, was at the meeting and said it would be just as convenient to access that way as it is from Port St. John, and in some areas it is even faster. Commissioner Ellis stated if there is not something like that ramp, there is no way to keep the clammers out of the public boat ramp; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they would have a right to come there; the thing to do is answer it with additional launch facilities in appropriate locations as opposed to trying to bring more in; and there may be manatee questions since they tend to be in that area because of the power plants. Commissioner Ellis inquired if a time frame was proposed; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he canceled his appearance before the Port Authority yesterday because there are other issues he wants to bring forward; he knew this was coming before the Board; Commissioner McLouth and he are working diligently; and this will solve this problem and the problem on Merritt Island with Tingleys and the new barge canal bridge because he will not have access to his commercial property once that second bridge goes up. He stated with the exit ramp coming off SR 528, they can go backwards from the cemetery to Tingleys; Tingleys also has a ramp for recreational boating; so this will add to it and start to solve the problem; and that is why he supports the motion. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there will be enough parking in there; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes, there is plenty of room and solves the safety issue with the clammers crossing U.S. 1. He stated the situation in Port St. John has gotten out of hand; it is extremely dangerous because they are parking on that property and crossing the highway; and it is dark when the clammers go out and come back. He stated DOT has agreed with this project.

Commissioner Cook stated it is way over capacity at Port St. John, and the SR 528 launch site is a good area; and the County needs to move ahead and find more accesses to the river throughout the County because recreational boating is at a disadvantage.

Chairman Higgs inquired how soon before the problem is solved; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it is now in the Port's hands; the Port promised to touch base with the Coast Guard which has some jurisdiction; FDOT is involved; and everyone is positive and want to provide it because they realize the Legislative Delegation has committed to make this happen. Chairman Higgs inquired if there will be an interim problem if this request is denied; and if the Board could approve it with a binding site plan for day trailers, or conditional use, or as an interim measure. Commissioner O'Brien advised the Board will be impacting the manatee in that area; that is why he cannot approve of this; there are so many impacts involved; and the solution is not soon, but it will come and will save the manatee and reduce the parking. Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees what has been worked out is a long-term solution; his concern is during the short-term, if the clammers make their living clamming they will park the trailers some place and put the boats in the river; and the recreational boaters will never get a chance to use the ramp. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not the County's fault that the state has not limited the licenses for commercial clammers; and a lot of them do not live in Brevard County. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board could reschedule this item for six more months and hold Code Enforcement in abeyance until the item is re-heard like the fruit stands on U.S. 192. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner advised traditionally they are not allowed to continue with a violation and are requested to stop and wait the final resolution of the zoning; so she cannot recommend the continuation. Commissioner Ellis stated that was done with the fruit stands on U.S. 192 and with the basketball hoops in the right-of-way; and those were held until the Board took action. Ms. Troner stated the Code Enforcement Board action is in abeyance at this time until resolution of this zoning. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is rescheduled to be resolved in three months, the abeyance would continue; with Ms. Troner responding the abeyance of the Code Enforcement action would, but she does not know if that action would allow them to continue that use or give them the authority to continue use in violation of the Code.

Chairman Higgs inquired if they are parking there now; with Mr. Evans responding no, there was a vote to hold in abeyance until after this meeting; then they had a second Code Enforcement hearing and changed their minds and told him to stop. Commissioner Ellis expressed his concern about making a bad situation worse if there is no short-term parking there until a solution is forthcoming. Commissioner Cook stated he concurs they will park anywhere they can, but he does not know what to do about that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a partial answer to a problem; it is not going to solve the problem; and it is substantially larger than Mr. Messer is providing. He stated there are 900 clamming licenses for the area between NASA causeway and SR 528; in that one water body, Body C, 60% of the clams produced in the Southeastern United States are harvested; if they want to go out there they will; but where does the Board begin to start asking the question of what it wants to do for the people who live and pay taxes in Port St. John as opposed to just clammers who want to come in here and mess up the rivers. Commissioner Ellis stated the people who live in Port St. John also need a place to put their boats; with Commissioner Scarborough stating they are not going to get in there with 900 people getting there at 5:00 a.m. Commissioner Ellis stated the recreational boater could use Mr. Messer's property to park; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if he gets there at 5:00 a.m. perhaps he could.

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

Item 2. Brian L. and Elisabeth M. Greer's request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on .67 acre located on the south side of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, west of U.S. 1, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. Janice P. LaFreniere's request for change from AU to RU-1-9 on 2.06? acres located on the west side of Capron Road, north of Elkcam Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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 FEC Railroad right-of-way, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Mary Smiedala, 949 S. Banana River Drive, Merritt Island, representing the applicant, advised she wants to rezone the three lots to open a small gift shop and plant shop; the lots are all on the railroad track and are pie-shaped; and it is not property anyone would want to build a home on or live on. She stated to the north the lot is vacant; to the south they are building Dogs R Us; west of the railroad tracks are commercial or industrial; and property to the east is owned by GDC. She stated she will answer any questions the Board may have.

Robert Rupe, 7185 Bright Avenue, Cocoa, Zoning Committee Chairman of Port St. John Homeowners Association, advised the circled lots on the map are the ones they want to rezone; the lot directly to the south is a restaurant which may not be Dogs R Us; to the east there is GDU property; immediately to the north is all residential area; and this and the east end of Fay Boulevard are the only accesses for all the residents on that side of Port St. John. He stated it would bring the north end of that lot about 500 feet into the residential area; and it would impact Fay Boulevard access road. He stated it is 125 feet from the railroad crossing; there is no left turn lane from the east bound lane on Fay Boulevard; so if one car gets backed up, it basically backs up traffic across the railroad tracks to the west.

Commissioner Scarborough advised to the south is BU-1-A and to the east is vacant; the property Mr. Rupe is concerned about is to the north; the next street has just one lot beside it; the whole area is residential on the east side; and all the traffic from Elkcam south uses those two streets to egress onto Fay Boulevard. He stated when he looked at this, he saw industrial on the other side, commercial, and vacant land, and only the north area is residential. Mr. Rupe stated the concern they have is increased traffic on one of the few access roads that the residents have in there. He stated RP would be better; and a flower shop may not generate that much traffic, but restaurants or other stores definitely would increase traffic. Commissioner Scarborough stated restaurants and flower shops are two different activities; it is low impact in the real sense; he has a concern about intrusion; but being encapsulated to the west, south and east, it should not be intrusive into the residential area. Mr. Rupe stated if it gets approved, they have to look at that from a traffic management viewpoint because they were told they could not put a left turn lane from the west bound lane of Fay because of the closeness of the railroad track; and he is not sure what they would do in that area. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if a traffic analysis was done for this; with Mr. Enos responding there was a basic concurrency analysis done for the project based on the highest BU-1-A use available which would not likely happen; and it was determined that Fay Boulevard could handle the traffic from such high use. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a question of whether Fay could, it is whether stacking at the tracks could; with Mr. Enos responding that type of analysis was not done. Commissioner Scarborough recommended tabling the item to review stacking at Fay Boulevard railroad crossing.

Commissioner Ellis stated they do not stack on the tracks; Sarno has the same situation; if the left lane is stopped, people go down the right hand lane. Commissioner Scarborough gave a scenario about exiting the six-story building in Titusville; and if a train is going by he cannot get out of the parking area and has to back up and stack on South Street or circle around the other way; so the stacking may not be on Fay it may be coming out; and if there is a question he wants to look at it.

Commissioner Cook stated he cannot imagine a gift shop being a traffic generator; and inquired if it would be better with a binding site plan; with Commissioner Scarborough responding once it is rezoned, it can be sold for any use in that zoning category.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 4 until April 24, 1995 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Item 5. Ronald Gross's request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 2.38 acres located west of Blounts Ridge Road, north of Aurantia Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 6. Ruth V. Ganter's request for change from RU-1-11 to BU-1-A on .2 acre located on the west side of Plumosa Drive, south of Merritt Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 7. George W. and Stella M. Lewis and Irving A. and Alice S. Bubeck's request for change from BU-1 with BCP to BU-2 and removal of the BCP on 4.51 acres located west of South Courtenay Parkway, east of South Tropical Trail, and south of Fortenberry Road, which ws denied by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to deny Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. ABC Ventures, Inc.'s request for removal of a BSP in a BU-1 zone on 6.99? acres located on the southwest corner of Wickham Road and Baytree Boulevard, which ws approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Leonard Spielvogel, Trustee, Wickham/I-95 1990 Trust's request for CUP for gasoline service station with accessory uses in TU-2 zone on .20 acre located north of Wickham Road on the west side of George T. Edwards Drive, west of I-95, which was withdrawn by the applicant.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 9.

Item 10. Florida Memorial Cemetery, Inc.'s request for CUP for mausoleum in AU zone also having a CUP for a cemetery on 31.57? acres located west of U.S. 1, south of Viera Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 11. Bucknell University's request for CUP for church in EU-2 zone on 2.03 acres located on the north side of Aurora Road, west of Wickham Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 7. (continued) Commissioner O'Brien advised he did not cite the reasons for denial of Item 7; and to correct the situation, the reasons are because of the P&Z Board's recommendation to deny, and those reasons are set forth in the minutes of the P&Z Board's meeting.

The meeting recessed at 7:06 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m.

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

Vincent Taranto advised he is the owner and manager of Ocean Pines Mobile Home Park; the request is for TR-3 zoning for Ocean Pines; and explained a drawing of the area, and location of the park off A1A approximately 1,000 feet. He stated the request will not allow him to increase the size of the park; the number of the units will stay the same; but the zoning will allow him to remove the accessory facilities and build new ones. He stated they are 30 to 40-year old structures that house the recreation center, laundry, pool area, and office; he wants to build a new modern clubhouse that will house all those facilities; and they will meet the existing Codes and make it safer for the homeowners in the park and surrounding area. Mr. Taranto advised to the North is Sand Pines Subdivision, Brevard County School Board vacant land, The Sanctuary, Flora Beach Estates, and Holiday Inn parking lot. He stated he had excellent support from neighboring communities; but prior to the P&Z Board meeting he found out there were concerns from homeowners in Flora Beach Estates, so he addressed it before the P&Z Board, talked to Mr. Enos, and was told he could do a binding development plan which he has done and submitted to the County Attorney's Office and Zoning Official stating Ocean Pines will not use Lee Street for ingress and egress to A1A. He stated Lee Street is not shown on the drawing because it was not part of his original request for TR-3; and explained the location of Lee Street through Flora Beach Estates to A1A and Harris Boulevard. He stated the binding development plan was part of the approval by the P&Z Board for TR-3 zoning. Mr. Taranto stated this should put to rest any concerns of homeowners in Flora Beach Estates about the use of those two streets for ingress and egress for the Park whether he is the owner or any subsequent owner. He submitted to the Board a petition from the homeowners on Lee Street and Harris Boulevard. He stated of the ten homeowners, eight of them signed; and the biggest concern of all of the homeowners was they would support and do not have problems with the TR-3 zoning but want reassurance that the binding development plan will be part of that approval. He stated the petition says, "As a resident of Lee Street and Harris Boulevard, we request that the attached binding development plan is approved with the TR-3 zoning."

John Pezze, 132 Lee Street, Indialantic, advised he has a residence in Flora Beach Estates and owns a mobile home in Ocean Pines; Lee Street is a dead end street that abuts Ocean Pines; there are mobile homes in the path of Lee Street right now; and their biggest concern on Lee Street was that the road would be opened up, the trailers moved, and Ocean Pines would have access through Lee Street to A1A. He stated the agreement Mr. Taranto has made with the P&Z Board puts everything to rest that the road will never be opened up; and he feels comfortable with that agreement. He stated if the Board approves the TR-3 with the agreement, they will not have to worry about it again.

Harry Martin, 128 Lee Street, Indialantic, inquired if the Board received the letter from the City of Melbourne which does not approve the request; with Chairman Higgs responding yes. Mr. Martin presented a letter from Pauline Ather who could not be here tonight. Chairman Higgs advised Ms. Ather is against the rezoning of Ocean Pines Trailer Park. Mr. Martin requested the Board deny the rezoning to TR-3 for several reasons. He stated it is incompatible with surrounding areas such as Flora Beach Estates because TR-3 is semi-commercial use; and the property values in Flora Beach Estates will be devalued. He stated in 1958 the whole area was rezoned to RU-1-9; they grandfathered in the trailer park but did not intend for it to grow and expand and intended that it would revert back to single-family residences; and he found that in Minutes of previous Commission meetings. Mr. Martin stated the approval of this rezoning would make permanent an existing non-conforming use; it would set a precedence; and if it is approved there will be a rash of requests to rezone RU-1-9 to TR-3 or some other trailer type zoning; and requested the Board deny the request.

Gene Pogalz, 151 Lee Street, Indialantic, stated the rezoning has very little if any impact on Flora Beach Estates; he is the newest resident in the area; and the lot on which he built his residence was at one time indicated as a possible ingress or egress to Ocean Pines; but the owner of that park has abandoned that plan; and because of that he sold him that property. He stated he has also been associated with the owner of the property in a business relationship and has firsthand knowledge on what improvements have developed and taken place in the Park in the last three years; they are too numerous to mention, but one was a tremendous investment in new roads; now they are facing the possibility of the Board's approval of this project to continue with further improvements, tearing down old buildings and putting up new ones; and rather than having the property values in the area decline because of this, it would enhance property values in the entire area because it has been improved and will continue to be improved. Mr. Pogalz advised in the last three years the area in which he lives has been enhanced considerably; so from his standpoint, being a homeowner in Flora Beach Estates and a taxpayer, he would like to suggest the Board approve this for continued improvement at Ocean Pines Mobile Home Park.

Gerard Ruel advised he just purchased a home in Ocean Pines where the street is supposed to be; so if they had any intentions to do anything otherwise, they would not have sold him that home. He stated he bought the home to retire here; he plans to stay here quite a few years; Mr. Taranto is very sincere with what he is doing and is honest; he likes the area and Park; and he will benefit from the rezoning as well as everyone else in the Park.

Laraine Scoma, 116 Lee Street, Indialantic, advised she disagrees with the TR-3 zoning request; Flora Beach originated in the 1950's as a single-family development; and many rentals have come and gone in there as younger families are buying the average size homes and remodeling them and upgrading them for their primary residence. She stated there is a higher tax base with single-family homes and less population per square mile than with trailer parks; changing the zoning to mobile home parks lowers the property values of residents in Flora Beach, keeping the tax base down, and encouraging more transients, not to mention that no more new trailer parks are permitted on the beach side due to the effects of storms. She stated as far as the support of Mr. Taranto, two other men who spoke for the rezoning have business relations with him; two own property in the Park and one is employed by him; so they have an interest other than what is going to benefit Lee Street. She stated they do not know if Mr. Taranto will eventually seek a variance to do what he has sought to do in the past, and that is to open the entrance from Lee Street. She stated the home that is blocking the street is a mobile home and could be moved. She requested, for the young families that are improving the single-family residences, that the zoning be denied.

Mr. Taranto advised the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area states that it is probably compatible; there was a comment of setting a precedent and that will not occur because Ocean Pines is the only operating mobile home park between Patrick Air Force Base and the inlet that is not zoned TR-3; realistically the zoning is not expanding the park, and not putting more units in the park, it is redoing accessory structures; and the Park was there prior to development of practically 98% of everything else around it when it started in 1952. He stated they are looking for the ability to bring the structures up to the standards of today which will improve the area.

Commissioner Ellis advised it is an existing trailer park; TR-3 makes it conforming; the binding development plan becomes an insurance policy against the entrance and exit on to Lee Street; some of the homeowners spoke about going back to RU-1-9; and if they eliminate the trailer park and go back to RU-1-9 and build homes, the legal access would probably be Lee Street rather than the easement they have now to get to the trailer park. He stated the way to insure they have the blockage on Lee Street to the property is to have the binding development plan with the trailer park. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is denied and stays RU-1-9 and the trailer park survives in nonconforming use and things begin to fall apart because they cannot be replaced or maintained, it would be a degradation; the P&Z Board recommended approval with the binding development plan and no access to Lee Street; and he will move that recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the P&Z Board with a binding development plan for no access through Lee Street.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is any other way for the trailer park to upgrade those facilities; with Mr. Enos responding the Board could amend that section of the Code that deals with nonconforming mobile home parks; that is where the prohibition is against expanding or relocating those structures; and if the Board wishes to retain the RU-1-9 zoning and keep it nonconforming but allow the relocation of the structures, it would be possible to amend that portion of the Code. He stated it will take several months but it is a possibility.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why would they go that route with a historic use on the property for over 40 years; and inquired if the Board goes to TR-3, could they increase the number of units; with Mr. Enos responding no, they have an existing site plan which caps the development at 107 units; and that site plan is vested and cannot be expanded regardless of what the property is zoned.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not see why they should wait a few months when it can be accomplished tonight. Commissioner Ellis stated if this would allow them to expand, then they could include another stipulation to limit the number of pads; but regardless of TR-3, they cannot expand the number of trailer lots, so why do it any other way.

Chairman Higgs stated the reason to do it another way as pointed out in the letter from the City of Melbourne, is that the County has a Comprehensive Plan that says it will not allow any additional trailer parks; the policy is sound that the Board would not want any new trailer parks on the barrier island because of hurricane vulnerability; so in considering that and the long-range plan of whether or not to have additional mobile home parks on the barrier island, the changing of the zoning may further the existence of a zoning the Board believed to be not the best way to go. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not a new park; with Chairman Higgs responding she understands that, but by changing the zoning it says it is a permanent existence; but leaving it RU-1-9 and finding some other way to allow the upgrade of the park facilities simply recognizes it is no longer the appropriate land use in that area. She stated she would like to find a way to allow the upgrade of the facilities; that is what is desired; the binding development plan that does not allow the use of Lee Street is in the public interest as is the upgrade of the facilities; but she is not sure it should go to TR-3. Commissioner Ellis stated with TR-3 he cannot expand the park; he could understand the concern if they could redraw the site plan and put in another 40 units; however, they cannot redraw the park, but it makes it easier to fix the facility. Chairman Higgs stated but it legitimizes TR-3 as the long-term use of that property; and since it has been recognized that TR-3 on the barrier island is not advisable use, the Board is then going back to that TR-3 and leaving it as the use. Commissioner Ellis stated the trailer park has been there 40 years, so he does not understand the point of trying to make it difficult. Chairman Higgs stated she does not want to make it difficult; she wants to make it easy; but she is concerned about going to TR-3 on the barrier island.

Commissioner Cook called a question.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion is to approve Item 12 with the binding development plan; and if it is approved, it is saying it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and not in violation of Policy 8.17 which indicates that new mobile home parks are not permitted, but that the Board is not being inconsistent with that. Commissioner Ellis stated this is not a new mobile home park.

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

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board has a staff recommendation to deny; Policy 8.17 and compatibility with surrounding areas because if there is another course of action that is less severe and not contrary to County policy the Board should take that and not create exceptions and problems because the problems get worst; and if they can be limited without violating policies and rules, he would prefer that.

Commissioner Cook stated it does not violate anything; it solves the problem and allows them to upgrade facilities that are in need of upgrading; and does it without taking months and months of changing policies to make something happen and not violate some mythical code that he does not see the purpose of. He stated Commissioner Ellis is correct; it violates nothing; does not expand the existing park; and it allows the gentleman to upgrade his facilities.

Commissioner Ellis stated the binding development plan is what insures there is no access to Lee Street; so if the Board denies the rezoning then there is no binding development plan and opens up the possibility of punching Lee Street into the trailer park; and that is the whole concern of the residents. He stated what the Board is trying to do is better from a paper work point of view; but it is not better for the park; and if he decides to open up onto Lee Street, it is not better for the residents in Flora Beach. He inquired if the County ever uses common sense and get away from the paper work, and repeated previous comments.

Commissioner Cook stated he guesses the idea is to eradicate Florida of all trailer parks; the barrier island nor the mainland is safe when it comes to hurricanes; Brevard County is on the coast; and he does not see the point.

Commissioner Scarborough stated procedurally he has concerns, because eventually the Board will be able to do anything with the rules being pushed this way and that way.

Commissioner Ellis stated there are no other nonconforming trailer parks in the area; one of the worst cases is the park may go to pieces or they bulldoze it and develop RU-1-9 with access by Lee Street; so it is in everyone's best interest to have a mobile home park that is functioning and upgraded. Commissioner Scarborough recommended Mr. Taranto be allowed to speak.

Mr. Taranto advised he heard that staff recommended denial; but if the letter is read carefully it gives two options. He stated he went over it with the Zoning Official very carefully; it gives an option to say yes or no; it states putting TR-3 on the barrier island, in this case, because it is a 40-year old park that is existing, is a matter of interpretation; and the Board has the right to approve it on the basis that even though it states no new parks this is not a new park, it is a 40-year old park that is existing. He stated it is the only park between Patrick Air Force Base and the Inlet that is not zoned TR-3 due to administrative rezoning or zoning by the owner; the basis, which is a conjecture on his part, is that over the years they have moved the travel trailers in agreement with the Zoning Division; the travel trailers have been moved out to accommodate mobile home sites; and that was done twice. Mr. Taranto advised this was not TR-3 a long time ago, because there was a mixed use there; the approved site plans are all of record with the Zoning Division; and the Board is not going against the Comp Plan because it says probably compatible. He stated it is not going against the idea of zoning a new park on the barrier island because it is a 40-year old park that has existed; and all the Board is doing is bringing it more into conformance with existing zoning regulations and not leaving it hanging out there. He stated he has been working for 14 months to obtain a permit to build a clubhouse; he appeals to the Board to try and look at it factually and as it stands; there are subdivisions with extravagant homes that are supportive; the majority of homeowners all around his property are supportive; letters which are in the record from the board of directors of The Sanctuary and petitions from the Sand Pines are supportive; and urged the Board not to overlook the homeowners and people who are in the majority for supporting this; and in the same aspect it is not disregarding the guidelines of the Comp Plan.

Chairman Higgs read staff's recommendation as follows: "Staff recommends a motion to deny;" and stated that is their recommendation. She advised they talk about Policy 8.17 and how the Board would interpret it, but she wants to make sure accurate information is in the record that staff's recommendation was to deny. She inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is Mr. Enos' recommendation or staff's; with Mr. Enos responding the majority of staff recommended denial. Commissioner Cook stated it is a recommendation, but the interpretation considerations staff wrote leaves the interpretation up to the Board; and read as follows: "This request could appear to be inconsistent with the intent of this Policy; however, since this developed mobile home park is the last one on the South Beaches that does not have TR-3 zoning, and since no new units could be added as a result of the approval of TR-3, it could be argued that this is not a new mobile home development and that changing the zoning on an existing mobile home park to make it conforming to zoning does not violate Policy 8.17." He stated he does not believe this application violates that Policy in anyway. Chairman Higgs stated she is not arguing that; it is open for interpretation; but the applicant said staff recommended something else, and she did not want it on the record incorrectly.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand, when someone works that long to do something to upgrade his facilities, and because of some interpretation of paper work, his plans are wrecked even though the alternative is worse, because if homes go in there, it will open up Lee Street.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board needs to do something, because he does not believe it is going to deny the applicant the opportunity to improve his property. Chairman Higgs suggested a motion to ask staff to come back with language that would deal with it as a nonconforming mobile home trailer park and allow it to be upgraded.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if he qualifies under pre-existing use; with Mr. Enos responding no, but if the Board changed the Code it could. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to let the applicant do what he wants to do as quickly as possible without violating the Code; with Mr. Enos responding the quickest way is to approve TR-3 with the binding development plan. Chairman Higgs stated the majority of the Board does not go along with that; and recommended staff find a way to allow him to upgrade the park in the nonconforming status.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to return as soon as possible with language for the Board's consideration on non-conforming mobile home use that would allow the applicant to upgrade his facilities.

Commissioner Ellis advised he hopes when the recommended language comes back the Board will not start up on the issue of other nonconforming trailer parks; and inquired if there are any other nonconforming parks in the County; with Mr. Enos responding there are numerous nonconforming mobile home parks in the County. Commissioner Ellis stated he hopes everyone understands if the Board makes a change to its Code, it will apply to all nonconforming parks and not just this park; and he does not want the Board to come back and say it does not want the change to apply to a park in West Cocoa or Scottsmoor, and this gets killed again.

Chairman Higgs stated she will make no guarantee, when staff brings language back, that she will not find it unacceptable; she understands what Mr. Taranto wants to do and remembers his issues when she served on the Board of Adjustment; she finds him to be an honorable man and what he has done with his park has been good; so she has no reason not to try and find a way for the mobile home park to be upgraded; however, she makes no promise tonight that whatever language comes back she can support it. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants everyone to understand that whatever language comes back applies to all nonconforming trailer parks.

Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than deny this application, it should be tabled and brought back after staff returns with proposed language; and if Mr. Enos says it is more problems than it is worth to handle it, and this is the only way to do it, he will go this way; but if there is an easier way he will support that.

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

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to reconsider Item 12, and table it to April 24, 1995 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Zoning Official's Report. None.

Item 14. The Richard Meenan Trust's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 1.0 acre located east of U.S. 1 north of Rockledge Drive and U.S. 1 intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board with a binding development plan requiring a 25-foot landscape buffer.

Richard Meenan, 2331 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, advised he asked the County Land Development personnel and members of the Zoning Board for their recommendations and requirements regarding the zoning change for storage units; and he has a copy to give the Board. He stated he made a 25-foot buffer zone, there is a concrete block wall going in there, and he will use all the shrubbery he is required to do.

Linda Dunyan, 106 N. Oakledge Drive, Rockledge, advised she is representing her husband Robert and Dr. Fritz Thompson and his wife who are as strongly opposed as she is to the rezoning. She stated the property is 210 yards from the corner of Rockledge Drive and U.S. 1; on the corner of Rockledge Drive is low-rise multifamily residential; she lives in a residential area which is single-family; there is a satellite dish and temporary trailer on a piece of property zoned BU-1, but she is not sure if that is the subject property; and there is a historical marker one block in from U.S. 1 on the right side of Rockledge Drive which is quite monumental and has a concrete base and bronze plaque of approximately three feet by three feet. She stated the plaque says, "The scenic drive dedicated by the Florida Legislature, 1965." Ms. Dunyan advised she has lived in Brevard County for eight years and been a member of the Board of Brevard Heritage Council; they tried to highlight and renovate properties that are of historic significance; those properties along Rockledge Drive are beautiful, and it is the most attractive area in Brevard County; and the applicant is asking to put mini-warehouses 210 yards from the corner which is the entrance to the scenic drive, and that is somewhat unconscionable. She stated the use is not compatible; there is multifamily residences, single-family residences, and properties on the river worth from $100,000 to $500,000; and they are talking about putting mini-warehouses, landscaped or not, in direct proximity to these homes which would be unfortunate. She stated the mini-warehouses will lower the property values of her home if she decides to sell it, and the homes of other property owners; it is a dangerous precedence to set on the east side of U.S. 1; there has been argument in the past that there is an industrial area to the west of the tracks on U.S. 1; they are there, but they are a peripheral view; the entrance to her home and the other homes on the river are right next to the mini-warehouses; and that is what they will see wall or not. She stated that is a real mistake for the County to allow this rezoning to take place; Code Enforcement has been for fencing around the existing property on the corner of Rockledge Drive; and the satellite dish and trailer located next to the multifamily residences cannot be compatible even with BU-1 zoning in terms of the nature of the facilities there. She requested someone check into those two items; and urged the Board to reconsider allowing the property rezoning with a landscape buffer and wall, as BU-2 zoning could be auto repair shop as well as mini-warehouses, both totally incompatible with the area.

Jayne Tyre, 150 Oakledge Drive, Rockledge, advised she does not support the rezoning from BU-1 to BU-2; her concern is it will affect property values in their area; and she is concerned about what could go in there. She stated if the zoning is changed, properties north and south of the parcel could be brought up to change from BU-1 to BU-2.

John Fox, 148 Oakledge Drive, Rockledge, requested the Board deny the rezoning because he lives too close to it.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the applicant has anything to say in response.

Mr. Meenan advised it is on U.S. 1 and it is not close to Rockledge Drive because he lives on Rockledge Drive; and his property runs from U.S. 1 to the River.

Commissioner Cook advised the P&Z Board recommended approval with the binding development plan, but he will move to deny it because it is not in character with the area east of U.S. 1.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 14 as it is not in character with the area on the east side of U.S. 1.

Chairman Higgs stated she will support the motion because she does not believe it is compatible with the adjacent residential zoning, and it does not appear to be consistent with Policy 4.7.

Commissioner Scarborough stated since it is tremendously transitional from the west to the east side of U.S. 1 then down to the river, the Board has to be careful about the movement of any nature to preserve property values in there. Commissioner Ellis stated BU-1 is not too strong a use because with U.S. 1 frontage facing industrial use, BU-1 is more of a transition; however, BU-2 may be too strong. Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is looking to the west side of U.S. 1 rather than to the river in trying to establish the classifications; and it should be the most conservative to establish a classification rather than the most liberal. Commissioner Ellis stated residential would not be of value on U.S. 1 either. Commissioner Scarborough stated but that is what they are trying to preserve and not industrial.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: 1995A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the 1995A Comprehensive Plan Amendment transmittal.

Planner II Mike Konefal advised the Comprehensive Plan Amendment transmittal hearing is Part 1 of a two-part process; the same hearing will take place between August and October this year; so the decisions tonight by the Board can be considered as an interim decision; it is not a final decision; any approval tonight will be considered again by the Board; and all the people who were noticed will be noticed the second time. He advised there are four items; and he wants to talk about the difference between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning items. He stated in Brevard County land use is regulated by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; the land is regulated by two different maps; it is law through Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, that all zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and that means the Comprehensive Plan map has to be the same as the zoning map. He stated the next four items the Board will deal with are situations where the zoning map and comprehensive map are different; the zoning may be one thing and the Comprehensive Plan may be another thing; and the Board will be looking at the Comprehensive Plan items and trying to get them to be consistent with the zoning items.

Item 95A.1

Mr. Konefal advised Item 95A.1 is a land use change from residential to mixed use district; it is located in Section 29, Township 24 South, Range 35 East on SR 520 at the intersection of Satellite Boulevard; staff recommended denial of the change from residential to mixed use district because of traffic concerns, potential traffic being generated by the proposal, and environmental concerns with reference to the floodplain; the Land Use CRG review ed the proposal and recommended approval as a mixed use district; and the Local Planning Agency also recommended approval as a mixed use district. He stated if the Board chooses to deny the change, it should discuss what the appropriate zoning should be for the property; zoning and the Comprehensive Plan go hand-in-hand; if it denies one, it should have some idea of what type of zoning it would want on the property; and he has some recommendations in that regard.

Doris Bramlett, 1216 Myrtle, Cocoa, advised she owns Lot 4 on the east side of Satellite Boulevard adjacent to the three lots zoned BU-1-A; she bought her property in 1972, as commercial property with the hopes of some day owning a valuable piece of property on busy SR 520; and she would prefer her zoning stay BU-1 because that is what she bought it as and what she has paid taxes on for 20 plus years. She stated somehow it was changed to residential with no notification to her and no change in her tax status; now she is retired and has a dream of owning a business on SR 520; they are in the process of four-laning the strip in front of her property, from Satellite Boulevard to SR 524; and she cannot conceive of anyone wanting a residence on a busy four-laned highway. She stated she wants her zoning to stay BU-1 or changed to BU-1-A like the three lots next to her property.

Commissioner Cook advised it has historically been a commercial area and it is appropriate; the Local Planning Agency approved it 7:0 for mixed use; and this is not an unreasonable request.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he was concerned about having strip commercial; SR 520 is already fast; and if there is strip commercial with a lot of entrances and exits it will be a problem. He stated the property is fairly deep; and if the Board approves it, staff should be instructed to get some road configuration and make permitting subject to having people enter on Satellite or a frontage road, otherwise it would be a disservice. Commissioner Cook stated that is an excellent idea and his motion will include that.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve transmitting Item 95A.1, changing residential to mixed use, and direct staff to return with road configurations as it goes to permitting to ensure there is a frontage road to the back.

Commissioner Ellis stated a frontage road would be a recommendation from staff; a frontage road is great if there is one owner; but if there are multiple owners, owners to the east and west may not have access through adjoining parcels to get to Satellite Boulevard. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board cannot have conditional Comp Plan approvals; with Mr. Konefal responding it cannot, but the direction is to speak to different owners to determine if there is a possibility of having a frontage road. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know how to combine the two except to ask staff to work on the frontage road as a separate issue. Commissioner Cook stated it could be approved with direction to staff to work with the property owners regarding a frontage road.

Chairman Higgs stated she will not support the motion based on the number of new trips that will be generated to SR 520 at buildout which is estimated at 16,741; the current volume related to the maximum volume is 84%; this proposal will result in a volume of 230% on the roadway; there are specific lots that may be located below the 25-year and 10-year floodplain; and commercial uses within the 10-year floodplain are prohibited. She stated Policy 4.8 of the Future Land Use Element states, "Appropriate locations for commercial strip development, or those in which the pattern of development is established;" the majority of lots are vacant, and there is no existing pattern of development in this area; so she will not support the motion.

Commissioner Ellis stated realistically to have residential with a driveway on SR 520 is not practical. Commissioner Scarborough stated some developments actually reduce impact; it will not be a massive development; and as it occurs, it will serve that community and may not generate additional traffic but limit it by having commercial in the community.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 95A.2

Mr. Konefal advised Item 95A.2 is a proposed land use change in Sections 12 and 13, Township 24S., Range 35E., and in Sections 7 and 18, Township 24S., Range 36E.; the existing land use designation is Planned Industrial Park (PIP); and the proposed land use designations are 54 acres to heavy and light industrial and 10 acres to public facilities. He stated the proposal also includes an amendment to Policy 5.4 which would grant an exception to the 660-foot setback requirement from SR 528; and staff, the Land Use CRG and Local Planning Agency recommended approval.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve transmittal of Item 95A.2 as heavy and light industrial on 54 acres and public facilities on ten acres.

Commissioner O'Brien advised there is not much else they can do with that land; Cidco Park is in the area; neighbors on the other side of SR 528 have complained that they do not want this to happen; the Board has to be realistic; and realism indicates the whole area is an industrial park, planned or otherwise.

Phil Freeland, 3205 Nottingham Lane, Cocoa, Community Development Director for the City of Cocoa, representing the City Council, stated he faxed a letter to each Commissioner this afternoon, and if they did not receive it, he has extra copies. He stated at the City Council Meeting of March 14, 1995, the Council unanimously passed a motion to oppose the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the 22 lots south of Grissom Parkway; the entire area being considered is directly adjacent to the City's northerly boundary across SR 528; and the best single-family housing in the City including Coventry, Cocoa Pines, and Cocoa North are across SR 528 from those parcels. He stated the City's comprehensive land use designation for its area is medium density residential or low density residential; and the City does not believe there is justification for a heavy industrial land use designation adjacent to the single-family designation of the City. Mr. Freeland advised the current County land use designation of planned industrial park and the 660-foot industrial setback restriction provides a proper buffer between the City's residential areas and the County territory; they are not opposed to industrial development in that area, as it is an industrial area; however, the heavy industrial designation translating into heavy industrial zoning allows such uses as fertilizer plants, gypsum, lime, plaster of Paris, asphalt and asphalt products plants, livestock yards, lumber mills, rendering plants, and soap manufacturing facilities; and those uses are not conducive to the development of the area or the residential land use in the City. He stated the staff report did not have findings to make a change in the Comprehensive Plan to the new designation; they believe it is an industrial area; and because this is not a final determination, the City could work with the County Commission, staff, and property owners to find a way to eliminate those types of uses that would be in total conflict with what they see as the proper designation for the area; however, the current recommendation of the City Council was to deny this on the basis of incompatibility, and that the Board come up with an appropriate land use designation that would not negatively impact the City and its residential areas.

Commissioner O'Brien stated because the City Council has come forward with this opposition, and represent a great population of citizens, he will withdraw the motion.

Chairman Higgs advised Commissioner O'Brien has withdrawn the motion; and the Board may want to give the City time to meet with the County staff to work it out. Commissioner Cook stated he wouldlike to hear the rest of the people and will be prepared to remake the motion if it is withdrawn.

Shirley Sohmers, 3012 Coventry Court, Cocoa, advised when the air blows, with heavy industrial in that area, none of them will be able to breathe; and requested the Board reconsider what can be put on that property.

Alice Tisthammer, 3006 Dunhill Drive, Cocoa, President of Coventry of Cocoa Homeowners Association, advised she appeared before the County hearing in February where they discussed the recommendation to accept this rezoning effort, and the staff notes and plan amendment they published make no mention of the 204-unit residential development of Coventry immediately south of SR 528, nor Cocoa Pines, Trails End, and Cocoa North; and no mention was made of the possible impact of an asphalt plant,r a gypsum plant, junk yard facilities, or other uses mentioned that would be allowed under heavy industry upon the air quality of the adjacent residences; nor did they address the possible effects of those enterprises on property values. She stated staff is willing to agree to an exemption to the restriction in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element, as far as developing within 660 feet of the roadway; between some of the lots of Coventry and the roadway there is approximately 50 feet of tree line; and if they have to rely on 50 feet of trees to protect them from the enterprises that may spring up on those properties as a result of this amendment, they will not fair well. Ms. Tisthammer advised the Association requests the Board reconsider rezoning the area to include heavy industry; the notes refer to an existing residence located in the area which is currently nonconforming; and if there are some possible binding contracts, they could be nonconforming also rather than changing the zoning of that entire area. She stated as far as she knows there are no binding contracts contingent on the rezoning; and she understands the policy has not been to change the zoning to coincide with the usage, but rather to change the usage to coincide with the zoning. She read the petition with 247 signatures of registered voters within Coventry, Cocoa North, Cocoa Pines, and Trails End as follows: "We the undersigned do hereby register our objection to the proposed rezoning of properties in Sections 12, 13, Township 24, Range 35 and Sections 7 and 8, Township 24, Range 36, otherwise known as File 95A.2, from Planned Industrial Park to heavy and light industrial. We further object to the granting of an exemption from Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element which restricts these uses within 660 feet of State Road 528. We feel this action on the part of the Brevard County Commissioners would allow construction of facilities which would result in a decrease in the air quality and property values of the adjacent residential areas, an increase in the noise pollution, and a risk to the fragile wetlands and aquifer recharge areas located within the 22 lots;." She presented the petition to the Board.

B. B. Nelson, 3535 North U.S. 1, Cocoa, advised his office has been there for the last 30 years; it is normal procedure of the Board to hear the applicant first; and he would like to request time for rebuttal.

Chairman Higgs advised she had no information who the applicant was; and it was not her desire to ignore him. Mr. Konefal advised the applicant in this case is the County; and i he amendment has been generated by the County and not by Mr. Nelson.

Mr. Nelson stated what the County is trying to do is change the Comp Plan to the zoning; this has been an industrial park for 35 years; it is a heavy industrial park; there are a lot of things in there that are necessary for everyone to survive; and they are not asking for a zoning change, but that the Comp Plan be adopted to fit the zoning that exists today and what it is being used for. He stated the separation from the residences, by the aerials and plats he presented, from Westminster down in Coventry to Grissom Road, is about 1,900 feet; there is a long distance in there between any residences and the industrial lands; none of the property owners north of the Beeline are asking for any change; they are asking that the Comp Plan conform to the existing zoning because there are people who cannot get a site plan approved. He stated they have to go through state zoning and County zoning to conform to the little square boxes the Board put them in. Mr. Nelson advised the City of Cocoa blocked the drainage ditch to the South and will not let the County equipment clean it out; Mr. Minneboo has agreed to go in and clean the ditch out because it causes flooding; and it did flow to the south to the river, but it does not now and has not for about a year. He stated he asked the City Engineer for cooperation and was refused; he asked the City Manager for cooperation and was refused; Mr. Minneboo agreed to go in and clean it out if they would allow him to do it; it is an existing easement, but they are flooding the landowners; and that is the type of cooperation they are getting from the City of Cocoa. He stated the City tried to annex, but they do not want to annex into the City; and requested the Board approve the amendment to conform to the zoning they have had for a number of years.

Attorney John Kabboord, 1980 N. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, stated he respects those residents from the City of Cocoa relative to their property rights, but it is critical to understand the people before the Board including him are affected property owners; and they own the property in question. He stated 17 years ago, when he was looking for industrial property, he went to Cidco Industrial Park not Cidco residential park and to where the industrial development was concentrated; they purchased the property, paid their taxes, and lived within the guidelines established; and with the adoption of the Comp Plan it was them who were critically affected more than anyone else. Mr. Kabboord stated they lost valuable property rights; they were situated in an established industrial park with established industrial uses surrounding them; and the Board should support the County's recommendation that it is suitable, apparent, visual, bounded by natural barriers that separate it from the residential concerns. He stated they have some significant rights, and there are sufficient guidelines and standards that exist that will regulate and give those other concerned property owners adequate protection under the law.

Commissioner Cook advised the reason he is going to move approval is to bring the Comp Plan into compliance with the zoning; nobody likes heavy industrial uses, but they have to be somewhere; the residential areas sprung up around this property knowing the zoning and what is there; and just down the street is heavy industrial use. He stated this is an industrial park; when people bought their homes, it was there and has been there for quite some time; and it would be like a taking to deny someone the use of their property when they bought it with the understanding it was an industrial park. He stated this is a prime example of property rights for someone who wants to use the property for what it was intended; it is a rarity having staff, the CRG and the Local Planning Agency recommending approval; so he will move approval of the item.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Ellis, to approve transmittal of Item 95A.2 as heavy/light industrial for 54 acres and public facilities for 10 acres.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Commissioner Cook is right that people should have the use of their land; when it was zoned planned industrial park, the landowners knew that; but he received a letter from the City of Cocoa tonight, speaking as the local government ; and it would be irresponsible not to listen to their message which has nothing to do with the ditch. He stated he represents the City of Cocoa; they have come forward with a strong letter saying to leave it as Planned Industrial Park; so he cannot support the change to heavy industrial.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the property is PIP, will they still have the 660-foot setback; with Mr. Konefal responding yes, but there is not a 660-foot setback for buildings; that is not the intent; the intent is that heavy and light industry designation is 660 feet away. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no 660 feet in PIP. Mr. Konefal stated there is no 660-foot setback for buildings, it is for the use whether it is heavy industrial use or planned industrial use. He stated the setback is 50 feet from the right-of-way for PIP and 100 feet for heavy industrial. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Policy 5.4 applies to PIP; with Chairman Higgs responding Policy 5.4 says they cannot have heavy/light industrial within 660 feet of SR 528. Commissioner Scarborough stated separate classification; and Policy 5.4 is not a PIP problem. Mr. Konefal responded Policy 5.4 relates to heavy and light industrial uses, not building setbacks; and building setbacks are established in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is no setback for PIP; with Mr. Konefal responding not the 660-foot requirement; and there is no setback requirement for a PIP use. Commissioner Ellis advised the letter from the City of Cocoa states the 660-foot distance limitation for industrial development should be maintained; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Cocoa does not understand the County's Plan and he probably does not understand its plan. He stated the 660 feet is important; the reason it is there is not to keep PIP away from the major roads, but to keep certain types of industry away; and staff said when people come into Brevard County they will get a certain image.

The Board discussed the 660-foot requirement, Policy 4.5 requirements, PIP, heavy/light industrial, and building setbacks.

Mr. B. B. Nelson advised he reserved time for rebuttal. Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Nelson he is not the applicant. Mr. Nelson stated he is a property owner, and the Board is taking their properties and rezoning it PIP. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Nelson is the applicant; with Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner responding Chairman Higgs has the control, and if the Board does not wish to allow further discussion by the public, there is no requirement for due process that it be allowed. Chairman Higgs stated if someone wants to ask Mr. Nelson a question they may do so, but she will not permit him to speak. Commissioner Cook requested the Board allow Mr. Nelson to make a brief statement since he is a property owner. Mr. Nelson inquired what is the minimum requirement for PIP; with Mr. Konefal responding ten acres for lot size. Mr. Nelson stated the Board is taking most of the lots in there; part of them are only 200 feet deep between the Beeline and Grissom Road; and if the Board wants to buy all of it they will sell it; but it is taking the lots by this rezoning. He inquired if it is true that the Board is taking the property by zoning it in a way they cannot use it; with Ms. Troner responding the property owner would have a nonconforming lot of record and would be able to put use to his property. Mr. Nelson stated the minimum is 10 acres, and several of them do not own 10 acres in there; with Ms. Troner responding if they have an existing zoning, they would have a nonconforming lot of record. Mr. Nelson stated the amendment to the Constitution says if the Board takes his land they must pay him for it.

Mr. Konefal advised the minimum planned industrial park size is ten acres, but the minimum zoning size is one-acre lots. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there are ten owners with one acre each, how could they form a planned industrial park; with Mr. Konefal responding they would have to combine the ten lots into a planned industrial park designation. He stated this area is 54 acres of heavy and light industry; the minimum planned industrial park size should be 10 acres; but individual zoning on lots can be one acre as a minimum. Commissioner Ellis inquired what if they went PIP on the west and industrial on the east; with Mr. Konefal responding the area to the west is above the ten acres and they would be able to do that and leave the east with heavy and light industrial.

Discussion continued on location of the parcels, property rights, tourists, and scenic beautification.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board is deliberating on people's livelihoods, investments, and properties; and he does not feel comfortable trying to dictate what kind of vegetation or what will make their property look nicer. He stated the property historically has been zoned for industry; people bought it with that in mind; residentail sprung up around it; like it or not, there has to be areas for heavy industrial use; and that is why he supports the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in some context Commissioner Cook is right and in some he may be wrong; it appears by the conversation there may be a second way of looking at this; and if there is, he will move to table it.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien to table Item 95A.2.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired until when; with Commissioner O'Brien responding before the second hearing. Ms. Troner stated there is certain time requirements for transmittal and adoption, one alternative is to put it in another amendment cycle which is 95B; or the Board can continue this hearing to another date and all the amendments would not be transmitted until this issue is revolved.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs to continue Item 95A.2.

Commissioner Ellis stated if this item is continued all the items are held up, and he does not want to hold the rest up. Commissioner Cook inquired if there will be an impact; with Mr. Konefal responding there is no impact on delaying any of this package; and if it is to be continued, it should be to a time certain so the residents are aware.

Commissioner Cook stated he had a motion to approve that had a second; and inquired if that needs to be disposed of before the motion to continue; with Chairman Higgs responding that may be right, but if the motion was to table it would take precedence.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion on the floor is a motion to approve the item.

Commissioner Ellis recommended the eastern strip as PIP and the western strip as heavy/light industrial use. Commissioner Cook recommended disposing of this motion. Chairman Higgs stated the motion is to approve as presented. Commissioner O'Brien requested Commissioner Cook withdraw the motion; with Commissioner Cook responding he would rather vote on it and if it fails Commissioner O'Brien can make his motion. Chairman Higgs stated the other choice is to go back to the motion to table which would take precedence over the motion to approve and would be to a time certain. Commissioner Cook inquired if the second still stands; with Commissioner Ellis responding yes because he wanted to discuss the issue. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is tabled, will it require re-advertising; with Mr. Konefal responding if it is tabled without a time certain then it would need to be re-advertised; but if it is continued to another meeting date, then they would not have to re-advertise. Commissioner O'Brien recommended tabling to the next LDR meeting. Ms. Troner advised the amendment has to go in one package; so if the Board approves the others for transmittal, this item would have to wait until the Board is ready to do 95B, because it is only allowed two amendment transmittal in one year cycle unless it is a small scale amendment.

Commissioner Cook called a question on the motion. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to approve.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will vote in favor because if the Board does not do that it will have committed an unfairness to the property owners, and also unpleasantry to the City of Cocoa which he hates doing. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner O'Brien is voting in favor of the motion; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he does not want to deny the property rights of Mr. Nelson and everybody else if the Board does not have a Plan B or another choice, and is not willing to hold the whole package up for 30 days to find a Plan B. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff said there is no rush in transmitting; so it can discuss the others tonight and take care of them and come back to take care of this item later.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion was to approve; Commissioners Ellis and Higgs voted nay; and inquired what Commissioner Scarborough voted; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Chairman Higgs stated the motion fails; and she assumes Commissioners O'Brien and Cook voted yes. Commissioner O'Brien stated procedurally he has a problem; and inquired if he can continue the whole package for 30 days, how does he do that if the motion passes or fails. Chairman Higgs responded to continue the item, the Board needs to deny the motion then move to continue the package or the item to later. Commissioner O'Brien stated he will vote nay.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Ellis, to continue Item 95A.2 to the next LDR meeting on April 11, 1995.

Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca inquired if the motion is to continue the entire 95A package to the April 11 meeting; with Chairman Higgs responding yes, but the Board is not finished with the rest of the package. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board will hear the rest of the package but not transmit until after the April 11 meeting; with Chairman Higgs responding yes.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board could consider an option of PIP on the western strip and heavy/light industrial on the eastern strip; with Mr. Konefal responding they can review that option and a second option with the property owners of possibly limiting those heavy industrial uses that citizens have concerns with.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion is to continue until April 11, 1995; and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:24 p.m.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was confused when it said an exemption from Policy 5.4 does not mean they would exempt that parcel, but SR 528 would be exempt as a total and would not have the 660-foot removal of heavy industrial use along its corridor; and inquired if that is correct; with Ms. Troner responding it would be a policy in the Comp Plan that would address the whole corridor. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought it was for this property, but it is much more profound than that; and it would take SR 528 off that policy; with Commissioner Cook responding only if that classification was on other lands on SR 528; and it would still apply to that classification.

Item 95A.3

Mr. Konefal advised Item 95A.3 is a Brevard County generated application; the location is in Section 22, Township 25S., Range 36E; the proposal is to change Area A, 12 acres, from heavy and light industrial to residential and to change Area B, 20 acres, from heavy and light industrial to planned industrial park. He stated in this case, Area A consists of 12 lots, some have homes and some are vacant; there is an existing insurance office that recently came into operation; Area B consists of Rockledge Air Park; and the staff, Land Use CRG and Local Planning Agency all slightly differ. He advised staff recommended the 12 lots fronting Murrell Road be changed to residential and the Air Park be changed to Planned Industrial Park; the CRG recommended the 12 lots become residential and the Air Park stay heavy and light industrial; and the Local Planning Agency suggested the 12 lots become mixed use district with the Air Park being Planned Industrial Park. Mr. Konefal advised in addition to this proposal, there was a request by a landowner for waiver of fees for BU-1-A zoning; and in that case all three bodies recommended against any kind of waiver of fees. He read into the record a letter from C. D. Thomas who owns Lot 265, one of the 12 lots that front Murrell Road, requesting his property be designated mixed use district similar to the Local Planning Agency recommendation.

Attorney Mike Minot, 319 Riveredge Boulevard, Cocoa, representing the owners of Parcel B which was the Rockledge Air Park and is now the Space Coast Industrial Flight Park; stated the Rockledge Air Park has been in existence and used and zoned industrial for over 35 years; in December, 1994, there was a change of ownership and his clients became the new owners; and prior to that it was an air park but was not being used because it went out of business. He stated prior to the transfer, the new owners did a lot of investigation and came to the County asking what took place with respect to the Comp Plan and zoning and the surrounding neighborhood to make sure the industrial land use was intact and was going to be used for the future and there would be no challenge as to that. He stated Tom Myers with the County said the property to the east was zoned industrial, was in the Comp Plan as industrial, and there were no plans through development orders to do anything other than remain what it was which was vacant land. He stated when his clients purchased the property that was not true; they found out the City of Rockledge annexed that property and changed their Comprehensive Plan for that property to residential; and they rezoned the property to residential and had a preliminary plat approval for lots and blocks, etc. He stated things had changed and the County for some reason did not transfer the information as to the annexation which took place 12 to 18 months ago to the P&Z Department; and the P&Z Department gave improper information or misinformation to his clients. He stated the concept his clients had for the Rockledge Air Park was not just to fly planes in and out; it was to use the property for IU purposes; and since the purchase there has been a declaration of condominium for an industrial condominium complex which was approved by the state and recorded in the Brevard County Public Records as a condominium complex whereby individual units are set out for warehouses or hangars 35 feet in depth and 45 feet in width with 83 units; and six are under contract and have various uses proposed for them. He stated those uses will be inconsistent with the PIP that is proposed by the County. Mr. Minot advised the existing structures will also be considered inconsistent with the PIP; there is an above ground fuel tank with 14,000-gallon capacity; and there is an existing truck to take fuel from that farm to individual planes either tied down or in hangars. He stated the property to the west also has homes, but they rely on the air park because many have their own private hangars and airplanes and want to see the air park stay where it is; and if something changes to the IU use, it will destroy the concept of the condominium complex. He stated for the six units that have been sold already, there is an airplane manufacturing company out of Argentina which is going to build airplanes on the site; that type of activity would not be allowed in PIP; one is an airplane hangar; the other is proposed to be a trailer parts warehouse which has nothing to do with aviation; so some aviation use warehouse and some being used for aviation purposes was the plan proposed by the new owners. He stated they would not have purchased the property but for the information the County gave to the owners. He stated the staff recommendation suggests that the PIP would be a better classification because it is a better use from industrial to residential areas; it is a possible avoidance of intense industrial uses of IU; but the property to the east came knowing that there was IU zoned property next to them in the form of the air park; therefore, they wanted to be annexed into the City of Rockledge and zoned residential. He stated they came knowing that and his clients did not know that; the property has been used for IU for a number of years; the net effect of any change to what is going on, including to require rear parking for PIP which is not required in IU and the other different uses that would be inconsistent and eliminated such as delivery trucks, loading, fuel trucks, warehouse storage, engine sales, freight and trucking terminals, fruit storage, contractors offices, contractors storage, etc. will not be available to the park which will basically shut it down.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if his concern is if they get down zoned they would lose a lot of uses currently planned for the property; with Mr. Minot responding absolutely. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they just recently purchased the property; with Mr. Minot responding the date of purchase was December 2, 1994. Commissioner Cook inquired if his clients were acting in reliance of information they obtained from the County; with Mr. Minot responding yes Tom Myers was the person, but he did not know any better because his maps showed Comprehensive Plan IU and zoning IU with the property next door. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is left IU there would not be a problem.

Mr. Konefal advised Mr. Myers informed Mr. Feiner and his associate the property to the east was zoned IU and designated IU based on the information he had on the current mapping; the reason the mapping was not changed is because they did not receive any formal notification from the City of Rockledge that the annexation process was complete or that the zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment process was complete; therefore, they had no information and their mapping did not change.

Nick Rahal, 1830 Laurel Oak Drive, Rockledge, representing C.D. Thomas who is one of the owners who believed he was purchasing industrial property, requested permission to read the letter. Chairman Higgs advised they have the letter. Mr. Konefal stated there is a new letter that is very similar. Commissioner Ellis stated he has Mr. Thomas's letter; with Mr. Konefal responding Mr. Thomas wrote a second letter that was faxed in today. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the parcel fronts Murrell Road; with Mr. Rahal responding yes, it is Parcel 265 on the map. Mr. Rahal read the letter as follows: "To Whom It May Concern: Because of the following reasons I kindly request that the Board not to change the zoning of my lot from industrial to residential. No. 1. I bought the lot with the understanding that the lot is zoned industrial. East of my property is zoned commercial and the new Winn-Dixie Plaza is proposed and will be built soon. West of my property is the air park which is zoned industrial. South of my property, which is the corner of Barnes and Murrell, is zoned commercial. My lot is surrounded by either commercial or industrial. Very soon Murrell Road will become a major artery connecting Rockledge, Viera, and Suntree, creating heavy traffic. The best use of my lot is not residential but commercial; therefore I kindly request of the Board not to change the zoning of my lot from industrial to residential, instead change the industrial to mixed use district which will allow me commercial use." Mr. Rahal advised the Rockledge territory ends where the fire department is and the entire east side of Murrell Road is all zoned industrial according to their Comprehensive Plan; no other residential is on the east side anywhere; and if the Board changes the zoning to residential and encourages any more people to build along Murrell Road which is a five-lane road, and as industrial gets developed, there will be more semi-trucks and traffic; and he would hate to see families moving into that area with the idea that this growth is not going to take place, particularly so close to the intersection of Murrell and Barnes which is going to be a major commercial center being so close to I-95 and U.S. 1.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if mixed use would allow industrial; with Mr. Konefal responding it will allow residential and commercial classifications but not industrial classifications. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants them to understand that mixed use will allow commercial but not industrial.

Bill Simmons, 2555 N. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, representing the landowners of Rockledge Air Park, advised they were mis-led in their zoning requirements; he subscribes to the plat maps; they rely every year on the new plat maps that come out; the Rockledge Air Park and adjacent property that was zoned IU; in their marketing and sales campaign they represented those as IU zoning off the plat maps; when they took the contracts they took hard contracts and deposits, he would hate to think of the legal ramifications if they have to violate those contracts and return the deposits. He stated one client, Mr. Carlos Perrera is moving his entire factory up from Argentina; and with the guidelines he gave him on the contracts and conditions, that was IU zoning. He stated they have been looking at the situation in the state; there is need for more jobs; the light industrial area concept they developed for Rockledge Air Park is something like a mom and pop operation; the building and land it sits on they will own fee simple in the Condominium Association for stated Rockledge has a large industrial zone north of their property; the problem is by the time they buy the acreage and put the building up they are out several hundred thousand dollars; it does not allow the type of operation they envision; so keeping that in mind Mr. Perrera and the other prospects they have spoken to, intend to run mom and pop operations out of the industrial buildings which would add significantly to the employment situation.

Steve Robertson, 3525 Murrell Road, Rockledge, advised he has an insurance office at 3265 Murrell Road and has an option to buy the property; he would like to go on record as being in favor of mixed use on the Area A parcels and in favor of the existing zoning on Area B which is the heavy/light industrial, so the man can enjoy the property for which he bought it and was told he could use it for. He stated he interprets the letter to mean that the other property owners can at their option use their property as residential or an office; he thinks it means if they want to operate a small office in their house they can do that; however, he does not know if they have the ability to lease the house to somebody to operate an office. Mr. Konefal advised if the County changes the land use designation from heavy and light industrial to residential, it allows the property owners different zoning opportunities; the current zoning on the 12 lots is rural residential; however, they can petition the County through a rezoning amendment to change the property to residential professional, RP, or ask for zoning amendment to BU-1-A which is neighborhood commercial. He stated they would not automatically be able to lease property for commercial purposes; they would have the option of going through a zoning amendment process in which they would have to pay fees and have the option of BU-1-A, RP, or some form of residential zoning. Mr. Robertson stated then his request stands for mixed use in Area A and leave Area B alone and let him do with his property what he paid to do.

Dick Boskind, 115 Gus Hipp Boulevard, Rockledge, advised the airport has not been closed at any time contrary to something he read in a document handed out tonight, since Green Airpark; while the operators have redeployed and regrouped from time to time, the airport has always remained open; therefore, it deserves every right to remain unchanged; and requested the Board recommend no change on that parcel and the associated parcel. He stated an airport stands out as a useful tool for a community; it promotes jobs and in this case as many as 90 jobs; if the Board cuts down the jobs and brings homes in there or downgrades adjacent uses then it further inhibits the grandfather position it is in and stifles potential value and development. He stated the airport is a foundation to the community of Rockledge and it seems like anytime they encroach upon the zoning it becomes less of a foundation, less of a pillar and therefore enter a lose/lose situation. He recommended not changing the zoning because the inhabitants lose, the community loses, and most businesses lose.

William Squires, 3635 Murrell Road, Rockledge, advised he has been at the airport for quite a while; he purchased the property in 1976 and generated a large flight school and business which he later sold and held the mortgage on it; and part of the condition on that was that it remain an airport. He stated it was thoroughly licensed; when Mr. Feiner bought it everything was intact; there may have been some things that happened around their property, but nobody was notified including he who was the airport owner at the time or the property owners next door; and as far as he is concerned they are in the County. He stated rural residential is one acre per house and one horse; and some houses have deeded taxi rights which he gave them when he sold the property to the people. He stated he originally had 40 acres and divided it; everything is intact and fine and not broken; and nobody has to tinker with it. He stated originally when he saw the plans there was 1 through 11 and now through 12; those were equally divided one-acre lots he sold; the one on the corner he retained; it is one and a half acres and commercial; he does not plan to build a house on the corner because it is not feasible; so he does not know how he got involved in that. Mr. Konefal advised in reviewing the Code, the 1 through 12 lots are zoned RR-1; and the Comprehensive Plan shows heavy and light industrial. Mr. Squires stated if he is RR-1 the County needs to pay him back the tax money he has been paying at $2,800 a year for one acre with no house; so it is not

RR-1.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Squires is supporting residential in Area A and heavy/light industrial in Area B; with Mr. Squires responding the airport is fine; everyone who bought there, bought there with homes; and if they want to buy on a five-lane highway that is fine. He stated somehow the zoning changed, but he was not involved; it was changed to industrial in 1988 and nobody informed him; he does not live there and they can do anything they want; but as far as living on the busy highway that is up to the people who want to live there. He stated he talked to Mr. C. W. Thomas by phone and it was his impression he was going to build a house there, but if he wants to change it now fine it is more money. He stated the lot that he owns is not adjacent to the lot on the corner; there is one more lot owned by Tom Edwards; and that is also RR-1.

Commissioner Cook stated he is very familiar with this area and passes it every day.

Barry Ranew, 514 N. River Oaks, Indialantic, owner of property on 2535 Murrell Road, stated he originally requested the zoning change to put in an intern's office; he was approved and has opened the office since then; and he would like to see Area A go to a mixed use. He stated he has his and developed it; the two people who opposed it have withdrawn their opposition; and they both complimented him on the way he developed and fixed it up and cleaned it up to make it look like a reasonable place. He stated he prefers Area A as mixed use and Area B left as heavy and light industrial; they all live and work there knowing there is an airport and that the zoning was that way when they purchased; it is not offensive to them; and all the residents were tickled to see the airport purchased and back up and running in good condition. He stated he brought a letter from the property owner at 3565 Murrell Road that he will give the Board for the record; it is from Robert Dowdy and says "Dear Barry, I'm sorry I cannot be at the meeting tonight. Would you please let the County staff know that I would like a mixed use zoning in our area. I would oppose single family zoning. Yours truly, Robert Dowdy." He presented it to the Board for the record.

Rex Garner, 3675 Murrell Road, Rockledge, advised he bought his lot in 1985; he is a private pilot and bought it with taxi rights so he could build a home there and eventually put a hangar up and keep his plane there; in 1989 he built a house, settled in and made it a home; and they bought it as residential and did not know it was changed. He stated all of a sudden they get a notice in the mail about the future land use; now it will be zoned industrial; and he wants to go on record saying he bought it as a residential lot and made it his home and as evident by the insurance office there is a way for people to get variance or whatever to put a business in there, but it is restricted and it keeps it more residential. He stated he is next door to Mr. Thomas who said he had industrial all around him but he has a home on one side and that is his. He stated he would like to see the airport zoning stay the same; Mr. Feiner bought it with plans to do something; he had wrong information it was not his fault; he bought it in good faith; and it should remain the same for him. He stated there is a proposal by the CRG which seems to want to see it residential and heavy/light industrial; it has been working great for years; and there is no reason to change it now.

Paul Millett, 3625 Murrell Road, Rockledge, advised he owns two of the one-acre lots and always understood there were 11 lots and not 12; he is delighted to see the way most people speak; he has used the airport for 30 years and love it there; and he would like to see it remain as it is. He stated Mr. Feiner appears to be a fine person; and he will do a lot with the airport if he is not restricted. He stated regarding the Thomas acre, he sold that acre for a friend of his and he knew at the time it was RR-1. He stated he would like to see it remain residential because they have the opportunity to change it any time they want if they want to pay the fee; and if that is true, he would like to see it remain residential.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Millett supports residential; with Mr. Millett responding he understood it could be changed if they want to come to the Board and express a desire to change it and it would cost between $600 and $1,000; it could be changed to mixed use which he may want to do if it was kept residential; and he understands it would be restricted which would be fine.

Commissioner Ellis advised mixed use will not preclude residential use.

Commissioner Cook stated he drives by this every day; it is a five or six-lane highway now; it is a hub with Viera East running down Murrell; and he could go into all the other issues, but since it is late he will just make a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 95A.3, with Area A as Mixed Use District and Area B as heavy/light industrial.

Mr. Konefal advised a gentleman talked about the corner lot and whether it was zoned commercial, residential or industrial; and the corner lot is actually zoned IU, light industrial on the northeast corner of Murrell and Barnes.

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

Item 95A.4

Robert Connor, 5101 West Eau Gallie Boulevard, Melbourne, advised he has a business on Eau Gallie Boulevard; he was on Wickham Road for years and traffic got so bad he decided to sell and find another piece of heavy industrial property on Eau Gallie Boulevard; that is where he has been for 12 years; and likes his neighbor to the east, Brevard Truss, which he got to move next to him and sold him five acres. He stated his area has heavy equipment and lots of trucks; he would like to see the area stay like it is from I-95 around the flea market and back to their place; and he would appreciate it if the Board will consider working with them on it.

Mr. Konefal advised Mr. Connor owns Parcels 505, 504, and 506. Commissioner Ellis inquired if all those parcels are recommended for heavy/light industrial; with Mr. Konefal responding no, there are multiple recommendations; the staff recommended 504 and 506 change to heavy/industrial, and 505 stay as is; the CRG suggested 505 become heavy/light industry; and the Local Planning Agency also recommended Parcel 505 become heavy/light industry. He stated staff's recommendation is to leave Parcel 505 as residential. Commissioner Ellis inquired why would staff pick residential next to industrial; with Mr. Konefal responding staff is only recognizing existing uses and not going through and changing the entire three-mile square study area. He stated Parcel 505 also contains wetlands and is in the 100-year floodplain but above the 25-year floodplain.

Daniel Platt, 4905 W. Eau Gallie Boulevard, Melbourne, advised he owns property in the subject area and after looking it over thoroughly, he agrees with Map 1 in its entirety; since the County has created an enclave residential is not good; St. Johns is talking about a large office complex; the federal government is talking about a postal distribution center; highway patrol; etc.; on the interstate there would be a 250-foot setback because of power lines; and he is in favor of Map 1 and the CRG recommendation in its entirety.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Platt's parcel is Parcel 256; with Mr. Platt responding 256 is his home, and Parcels 1, 3, 750, and 761 are all his. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the green parcels are being purchased by Solid Waste; with Mr. Platt responding yes, it is a completed deal, and he assumes they will go into conservation which is a good idea.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff's recommendation on Parcels 751, 750, 761 and 256 is to take that to residential; with Mr. Konefal responding staff's recommendation is to let it remain the same and not amend it.

Chuck Griffin, 2089 Seawind Court, Indialantic, advised on the maps in blue is Parcel 752; that is the parcel he acquired and visited with the Board on several times; one of the recommendations on Map 2 is to leave it as a mixed use district; and the other two parcels in the red circle are the truss plant parcels. He thanked the Board for inviting them to most of the meetings to try and get it figured out; he met with the Planning staff on several occasions; and for the future he wants to get the whole area settled early instead of piecemealing it like it is and changing the zoning from one place to another. He stated this will help the existing businesses be in conformance with the current zoning. Mr. Griffin advised his and Mr. Connor's properties were industrial, and now they are residential; he hopes to change the zoning back to industrial use from mixed use; it was industrial before 1986; the County changed all of its properties to GML that used to be industrial; and it has an incinerator permit on it which is basically industrial. He stated in 1994 when he last appeared before the Board, it approved the zoning to BU-2 mixed use from residential; at that time it was the highest zoning available and fit his need for truss storage; since that time, the business has increased; and it is apparent they will need to expand. Mr. Griffin advised with mixed use he cannot expand on the property the County sold to him; and he cannot perform any truss manufacturing, so he is trying to cultivate the area as industrial use. He stated industrial zoning would be the best plan for the future and would not require the County's time coming back each time he needs to increase production; staff's view may not be what the area is today; they call it a rural area; but the adjacent parcels can best be described as mixed industrial because the Humane Society is directly across the street along with the Park and Ride and Florida Rescue; and six of the nine owners use their lands for industrial activities. He noted there is city water on the easement at the front of the property; they are dealing with the Water Management District on the wetland issue; and requested rezoning Parcel 752 to industrial so he can expand his business and create new jobs. He stated their only by-product is 100% recycled wood.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Parcel 505 is wetlands; with Debbie Cole responding it shows on the resource maps as wetlands, but she has not walked the site; however she drove by it and believes it is wetlands. Chairman Higgs inquired if the entire site is wetlands; with Ms. Cole responding yes.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a dike between Parcels 500 and 505; with Ms. Cole responding yes. Commissioner Ellis advised the property has had historic use as industrial; across the street is the animal shelter; they tried to move it to Sarno Road at the landfill; but they had to move it all the way to the other side of I-95 because that was the industrial area. He stated he cannot see locating residential properties next to heavy/light industrial areas; and Parcel 505 makes no sense as residential. Commissioner Cook stated whatever it is classified, if it is wetlands it will not be permitted anyway. Chairman Higgs advised the Comprehensive Plan says that wetlands will not be given a land use designation of commercial or industrial. Mr. Konefal advised the Wetlands Policy of the Comprehensive Plan does not allow for commercial or industrial development. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board has been through that issue; it was continued for more information; and it is waiting to come back and address it again. Commissioner Cook advised without a real assessment of the property, there may be parts of it that could be developed. Commissioner Ellis stated that is a permitting issue. Commissioner Cook stated if they cannot get a permit it will not be used. Commissioner Ellis inquired how should the Board vote on this item; with Mr. Konefal responding the Board can take the CRG's recommendation or the Local Planning Agency's recommendation and add parcels or delete parcels from those.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Parcel 256 abuts I-95 and if the Board were to go to heavy/light industrial, is there a policy for the 660 feet; with Mr. Konefal responding heavy/light industrial land use designation would not be permitted within 660 feet of I-95. Commissioner Scarborough stated the 660 feet is not a setback; they cannot designate it as heavy/light industrial, but it can be classified anything else. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Parcels 1 and 3 and Parcel 3 south of the flea market would not qualify for heavy/light industrial because of their proximity to I-95. Mr. Konefal advised Map 1 reflects the CRG's recommendation; Map 2 reflects the Local Planning Agency's recommendation; and suggested the Board start with one of those two maps that is closest to its thoughts on development for the area. Chairman Higgs inquired what is staff's recommendation; with Mr. Konefal responding it is in the report and reflected on Maps 1 and 2; Areas A, B and C include staff's recommendations on both maps; and he would like to apologize for the confusion in reference to this matter, but there was no way to make it easy. Chairman Higgs inquired what is staff's recommendation on the pink area; with Mr. Konefal responding staff's recommendation stopped at Areas A, B and C and did not go as far as the CRG and Local Planning Agency; however, both of those agencies used staff's recommendations as a starting point and continued on.

Commissioner Ellis recommended Map 1 as it is more reflective of the area at the end of Sarno Road.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit Parcel 505 as heavy/light industrial.

Commissioner Ellis stated residential is not appropriate next to industrial. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Wetlands Policy will be in effect so the property is not developed; with Mr. Konefal responding the Wetland Protection Ordinance would be in effect and they would have to comply with that. Ms. Troner inquired if compliance means there would be no development or procedures which will allow them to use the property; with Ms. Cole responding there are some qualifiers they would have to meet in order to develop, and there is a possibility they would not be allowed to develop.

Chairman Higgs stated she will not support the motion because Parcel 505 is wetland and would be inappropriate to change it to heavy/light industrial because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board will violate a policy by classifying it as industrial. Ms. Troner inquired if there is an avenue in which the property owner could develop the property with the zoning consistent with the land use designation of heavy/light industrial; with Ms. Cole responding they would have to meet qualifiers outlined in the Comprehensive Plan such as no feasible alternative location, minimize impact, public benefit associated with the development, etc. Ms. Troner advised the Board has to allow use of the property; and if there is criteria to allow them to use it, they have to meet the criteria, otherwise it cannot go to heavy/light industrial. Chairman Higgs advised the Comprehensive Plan says the Board does not allow commercial and industrial development in wetlands; staff said it is wetlands; and inquired how can the Board change the land use.

Commissioner Cook stated Ms. Cole said she looked at it and thinks it is wetlands, but a comprehensive wetland assessment was not made. Ms. Cole stated it was interpreted from aerials and the National Wetland Inventory Map. Commissioner Cook stated there has not been a real wetland assessment, and part of the property may or may not be wetland. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff believes it is wetlands; with Ms. Cole responding she believes the majority of the site is wetlands, but without official determination, there is always a possibility of uplands.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is anything improper with proceeding and letting later things determine the use; with Ms. Troner responding there will have to be use provided on the property, but they would have to meet the criteria or qualifications; and if there are no uplands, the Board would need to re-address it with a different land use. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it does not work out for them, they would have a right to another use; with Ms. Troner responding that is correct.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to approve heavy/light industrial for Parcel 505. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit Parcels 275, 501, 502, 503, 504, and 506 as heavy/light industrial. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit Parcels 750, 751, 752, and 761 as heavy/light industrial.

Chairman Higgs advised staff recommended residential, and the Local Planning Agency recommended PIP and MUD. Mr. Konefal advised staff did not recommend residential, but rather made no recommendation to change it. Chairman Higgs stated her notes say leave pink as residential; with Mr. Konefal responding staff is saying residential should remain there. Commissioner Ellis stated it is between the industrial park and flea market. Commissioner O'Brien stated the pink area on Map 2 was supposed to be residential. Chairman Higgs stated Map 1, Parcels 750, 751, 752, 761, and 256 are recommended to remain residential; and the motion is to change those to heavy/light industrial.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that violates Policy 5.4 with the 660-foot requirement; with Mr. Konefal responding he is not sure and would have to measure it.

Commissioner Scarborough offered an amendment to the motion that to the extent those parcels intrude into Policy 5.4, the line would be drawn to show that portion as PIP; and inquired if Commissioner Ellis will accept the amendment. Commissioner Ellis accepted the amendment to the motion as it would not be legitimate otherwise; and Commissioner Cook agreed.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit South Parcel 3 as PIP. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit North Parcel 3 as Mixed Use District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit South Parcel 1 as heavy/light industrial. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Cook voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit Parcels 250, 500, 750 and another 250 as conservation areas. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Konefal advised Parcel 256 is a residence and was not included in the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to transmit Parcel 256 as heavy/light industrial. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the green area is supposed to be wetland mitigation for the property the County purchased at the landfill, and if staff told the Board it had to buy the property to mitigate wetlands when it came before the Board; with Chairman Higgs responding the Board knew it had to mitigate. Commissioner Ellis stated the property west of the landfill was purchased to expand the landfill because there was not much choice; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he does not recall it coming before the Board to purchase the property for mitigation. Commissioner Ellis stated it may have happened before Commissioner O'Brien was on the Board.

Mr. Konefal advised in Item 95A.3, there was a request by a landowner to waive fees; and the Board did not take action on that request.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny the request from Mr. dowdy for waiver of fees to apply for BU-1-A. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Sanitary Sewer/Future Land Use Elements Amendments

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the Local Planning Agency's recommendation as presented for transmittal of the Sanitary Sewer/Future Land Use Elements Amendments.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it is for the Port St. John area; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Chairman Higgs advised since the Board is continuing an item, she would like to request this item be continued for further review.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report until April 11, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amendments to the Capital Improvements and Programs Element

Mr. Konefal advised the amendments to the Capital Improvements and Programs Element are related to the Annual Monitoring Report.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the amendments to the Capital Improvements and Program Element until April 11, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Traffic Circulation Element, Policy 1.1.11

Mr. Konefal advised the Traffic Circulation Element Policy 1.1.11 deals with bicycle and pedestrian ways; the Board directed staff to examine the Policy to allow more flexibility; staff discussed it with the Local Planning Agency, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the Construction Advisory Committee; and they are of the opinion that it is better to delete that Policy from the Comprehensive Plan and re-write it as a separate ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to delete Policy 1.1.11 relating to bicycle and pedestrian ways from the Comprehensive Plan, and authorize a separate ordinance to regulate bicycle and pedestrian ways. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK