The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on August 31, 2000, at 5:34 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Steve Schantz, Worldwide Church of God, Melbourne, Florida.

Commissioner Helen Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised on August 29 2000, the Board discussed the Governor's request that counties working on manatee plans submit them by October 9, 2000, when the Governor will hold a manatee summit; and the Board requested further clarification. He stated staff contacted Brad Hartman of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, who had communicated with the Board in April, 2000, that the State felt it was no longer going to be productive to work toward a comprehensive manatee protection plan, and suggested changing the focus to manatee protection strategies; and at the April, 2000 workshop, the Board embarked on a different course, and started laying out certain things the County could do for manatee protection, but not working toward a comprehensive manatee plan. He stated Mr. Hartman indicated the Governor's request supercedes his letter of April, 2000, so the State would like to see the County complete and submit a manatee plan. He stated Mr. Hartman offered several options to consider, which is the substance of the memorandum sent to the Commissioners yesterday, but Mr. Hartman made some minor adjustments to the memorandum; and distributed a revised memorandum. He stated Mr. Hartman suggested the Board approach this by submitting the previous manatee protection plan draft along with the recommendations that were provided by David Arnold; and another suggestion was to submit the 1997 draft with the portion on speed zones deleted. He stated since 1997, the Board has made further refinements, taken public comment, and discussed things that can be improved upon; and recommended the Board include those things in anything presented to the State. He advised the State is increasing efforts in a number of areas, including law enforcement and manatee signage, and will be addressing speed zones; and the Board may wish to consider those areas prior to sending any draft to the State. He stated in April, the Board gave staff a number of assignments, which have been completed, and that information is still useful; but if the Board is going to work toward completion of a plan, it may want additional things from staff when it meets on September 28, 2000. He stated if the Board wishes to be more focused on a plan in September, staff would like guidance in that area; and

staff is prepared to bring to the Board a documented list of all changes that the Board has agreed on.

Commissioner Voltz stated she thought, along with boat speed zones, the State was also going to take on marina siting. Mr. Peffer stated that is harder to interpret; they encouraged the County voluntarily to continue to work on marina siting; that is an area where the County had some challenges in coming to an agreement; and one possibility would be to leave that aside from anything that is submitted, and indicate the Board will continue to work toward development of marina siting guidelines by a certain date. He stated that is not a critical element; the State has the permitting authority; and the County might want to focus more on looking at land uses.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a workshop on September 28, 2000; that is when the Board will provide information to help prepare a document which will have to be adopted by the Board for submittal on October 9; and inquired if the timeline is realistic. Mr. Peffer stated the Governor has modified that position and is no longer asking that everything be completed by that date, but is asking for assurances that the County is continuing to work toward completion of the plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated after September 28, staff has to work on the Board's comments; the County needs something tentative to present by October 9, 2000; and suggested finding an earlier time for a workshop. Mr. Peffer advised of difficulty in finding time for a workshop. Chairman Higgs suggested doing it as part of a regular meeting in September, going back to the 1997 plan with revisions, and hold a workshop at the end of September to further refine it, so it would have a significant document to give to the Governor on October 9. Chairman Higgs suggested directing staff to schedule the issue at the end of the September 13, 2000 meeting; and inquired if there is consensus to use the 1997 plan with the revisions. Commissioner Voltz stated she would have to look at it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the 1997 plan needs a lot of work; at the Governor's Conference on October 9, 2000, the Board may get all new directions on the route the Governor wants the County to travel; and suggested presenting the 1997 draft plan on October 9.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if on October 9, 2000 the Governor is looking for commitment and intent; with Mr. Peffer responding that is his understanding. Mr. Peffer stated the memorandum indicates the Governor would be satisfied to know that counties are making a sincere effort toward completion of a plan, and that he is not longer taking the position that the plan has to be submitted by October 9. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Peffer knows of any major changes the Governor is interested in. Mr. Peffer responded the State has made some changes, and it would be reasonable to reflect those as the Board moves forward with a final draft of the plan; but he has not heard anything that is contrary to the general direction the County received ten years ago.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board has put significant time, effort, and commitment in the 1997 plan and the revisions; the Board can make a substantial commitment and consensus on most of the items by October 9th; and it can point out that it has not completed some areas, but will do so by a certain date. She stated that is consistent with what the Board did in the original Comprehensive Plan and shows the County's commitment to work with the Governor and the State. She stated it would be most unfortunate to not show a real commitment on October 9.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this can be solved by sending the Governor a letter of intent. Mr. Peffer stated he is not sure the Governor even wants a letter, but it would be helpful for the Board to say it has made considerable effort to complete the plan and will continue with that effort. He stated some people at the Florida Association of Counties believe when the Governor made his original request, he was not aware of all the efforts that have been undertaken by the counties; but there has been a considerable effort in developing final document and it is continuing. Commissioner O'Brien stated the tone of the Governor's approach has changed dramatically as he is becoming more aware of the efforts of the counties; and it is just a matter of finishing up minor details and putting the plan in place.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer to draft a one-page letter for the Chairman's signature to the Governor regarding the manatee protection plan, advising of the Board's work on the plan and intention to refocus efforts on the completion of the plan for final submittal by a reasonable date.

Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Peffer suggested sending a letter, but she does not know what the content would be; and it may be better to wait. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a letter of intent that the Board intends to finish the plan in accordance with any guidelines or directions that may be given at the October 9, 2000 meeting. Commissioner Voltz stated the two issues the Board had major problems with have been taken out of the Board's hands; and other than speed zones and marina siting, there were not many problem areas in the plan that could not be ironed out relatively quickly. Mr. Peffer stated the other three areas include habitat protection, which the County is implementing through the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan; education, for which the Board made several recommendations at the last workshop; and law enforcement; and the Board is not that far from resolving the disputed issues. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Governor is going to give more law enforcement officers; in terms of education, the Save the Manatee Club has Sandra Clinger; and the Board has found good solutions. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board can solidify a plan of intent along with the 1997 plan with the additions, it could probably solve the problem at a regular Board meeting and not have a workshop. She stated she does not know why a workshop is needed to rehash what the Board already knows; and if Mr. Peffer can get a list of the things the Board has discussed based on the 1997 plan, extracting the speed zones and marina siting, the Board should be able to get a package to the Governor. Commissioner Voltz stated then if there is a problem, the Board can have a workshop.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff could have a package ready by September 13, 2000; with Mr. Peffer responding staff will bring to the Board a list of all the changes the Board has agreed on that would modify the 1997 plan; and if the Board wanted those included, staff could make those changes at a subsequent time and forward the package to the State. He stated the information that was provided in anticipation of the July workshop is still available; it answered a number of questions the Board had at that time; and the Board might want to consider that as well and bring it to the next discussion on this topic.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize scheduling a manatee protection plan workshop after the regular Board meeting on September 13, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUCCANEER PIPELINE

Commissioner Scarborough advised of a St. Petersburg Times article dealing with Pasco County and Buccaneer; and stated he called the Chairman of the Pasco County Commission, and sent each of the Commissioners a copy of the agreement Pasco County entered into with Buccaneer. He stated the agreement deals with Buccaneer giving the County $125,000 to hire a safety inspector to insure the pipeline is installed correctly, extra valves, and other issues. He stated there were a number of issues that would have never been raised in Brevard County; Pasco County was in the process a long time, and had a lot of public hearings; and it would be prudent for staff to contact Pasco County to see if there is anything that is relevant to Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to contact Pasco County concerning its agreement with Buccaneer, and include relevant information as part of the package when the Board considers the Buccaneer Pipeline. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS OF JULY 10, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider tabled items tabled of the July 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Meeting; and advised of the procedures and time limits for addressing the Board.

Item 1. (Z0007301) Kenneth L. and Diane E. Chapin's request for change from AU and GU to all AU on 11.5 acres located on the south side of Fleming Grant Road, approximately 203 feet west of River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Kenneth Chapin advised he is the applicant. Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Chapin was not present at the last meeting, and that was the reason the item was tabled. Mr. Chapin stated he requested that it be tabled. Chairman Higgs advised she has received no objections and supports the recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0007303) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by William W. Klemann from TU-1(20) to EU on 0.36 acre located on the southwest corner of Delmar Street and Highway A1A, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Chairman Higgs stated Item 2 was tabled because the Board was not clear that the applicant had been notified. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated he has spoken to the property owner; and he has no objection to the rezoning.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 7, 2000

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of August 7, 2000, as follows:

Item. 1 (Z0008101) Donovan M. Bogle's request for change from GU to ARR on 1.22 acres located on the east side of Giessen Avenue, approximately 230 feet north of Eureka Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 2. (Z0008102) First Free Will Baptist Church of Scottsmoor's request for CUP for a Church in an RU-1-8 zone on 1.24 acres located on the south side of Huntington Avenue, the east side of Vermont Street, and the west side of Travis Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 3. (Z0008103) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Edward H. (Sr.) and Lynn H. Chartier from AGR to AU on 1.04 acres located on the east side of Knoxville Avenue, approximately 120 feet south of Dalhi Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0008104) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Susan Hahn and Deirdre Renninger from AGR to AU on 2.02 acres located on the south side of Erica Street, approximately 155 west of Knoxville Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 5. (Z0008105) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Francis J. and Christina D. Shear from AGR to AU on 2.38 acres located on the east side of Florida Palm Avenue, approximately 135 feet south of Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0008106) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Steve and Linda Kastner from AGR to AU on 1.95 acres located on the northwest corner of Florida Palm Avenue and Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0008107) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Patrick J. and Elizabeth F. Moran from AGR to AU on 2.38 acres located on the east side of Florida Palm Avenue, approximately 800 feet south of Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0008102) First Free Will Baptist Church of Scottsmoor (continued)

Leslie H. Hallum, representing First Free Will Baptist Church of Scottsmoor, stated the Church has been on the site for 40+ years; the rezoning took place after the Church was there; and that should have been taken into consideration. He requested the fee be refunded as the Church is a non-profit organization.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Church has not taken any action that caused the problem, and should not be charged. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated it is an existing church that was established prior to the Zoning regulations, so there were no land use regulations governing the development of the Church; in 1958 when the Code was established, the property and the surrounding neighborhood was established as residential zoning; so the property became non-conforming at that time. He stated non-conforming uses can continue to operate, but any expansion of the non-conforming use requires a conditional use permit; and recently the Church indicated a desire to add a carport which brought up the need to add the conditional use permit to the property. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many years has the Church been there; with Mr. Hallum responding approximately 43 years.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive fees for Item 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0008201) L. L. Fleckinger, Sr.'s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 2.5 acres located on the south side of Junedale Drive, approximately 0.26 mile west of Dalehurst Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z0008202) Artemis Georges' request for a CUP for a Group Home-Level III in an RU-2-10 zone on 0.17 acre located on the north side of Kathi-Kim Street, approximately 150 feet east of Range Road, which was recommended to be tabled to September 11, 2000 Planning and Zoning meeting and September 21, 2000 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with no reprocessing fee required.

The Board accepted the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Item 10. (Z0008203) Rojo Corporation's request for a CUP for additional building height in an RU-2-15 zone on 0.64 acre located on the southeast corner of Sunny Lane and A1A, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, and request for variance from the Brevard County Coastal Setback Line.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board made considerable progress on the portion of the item the Board heard on August 29, 2000; but the issue of the seawall was left.

Doug Robertson, representing Rojo Corporation, stated the request is for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a residential building 15 feet higher than the required 45 feet; and the second request is for a variance to allow a 10-foot encroachment into the Coastal Construction Setback line, which the Board heard earlier in the week. He stated the property is located on the east side of A1A on Sunny Lane, approximately three blocks south of where the north and south-bound lanes of North Atlantic Avenue and South Orlando Avenue converge; and they would like to offer a betterment plan. He stated the concept makes the current situation better than it is today; and described the site plan, including location of the old and new buildings. He stated the existing building was constructed in the 1960's; it is totally non-conforming and sits within the Coastal Construction Setback Line; and it does not meet current Building Code. He noted one letter of support referenced the building as being dilapidated; and it has no curb appeal or landscaping that satisfies the existing community. He stated they propose to demolish the old building and construct a new building 85 feet closer to A1A; and it would significantly bring the site into compliance with the Coastal Construction Setback Line, lower density from the existing eight units to six units, and eliminate all of the non-conformities. He stated since the density would be lower, the traffic would be reduced; property values would increase because the building is contemplated to be an extremely upscale building with each floor representing one unit of approximately 3,000 square feet with ten-foot ceilings; and it would create a better physical environment because the new building would be extensively landscaped, and egress and ingress would be better controlled. He stated the breezeway would be significantly increased; the current breezeway is approximately 20 feet; and the new building would allow a breezeway of 58 feet. He noted the higher the building is, the more breezeway there is. He stated the new building will be built to hurricane standards; the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area; Water Ridge Condominium, which is approximately 450 feet to the south is 96 feet tall, so the curve has been established in the area as far as heights; and the increased height will allow reduction of density and provision of the improvements he mentioned. He stated there is community support; several letters have been provided to the Board; the Planning and Zoning Board almost unanimously recommended approval of the project; and requested the Board's support.

Jim Wichlacz stated Water's Edge East Board of Directors unanimously voted in support. He stated he hopes they can get the extra 15 feet they need; that is not an unreasonable request; the building is an eyesore and what is being proposed will significantly improve the site. He stated there are 49 owners at Water's Edge East, and they request the Board support the CUP.

Franklin Hardaway stated he is one of the closest residents to the proposed site; they have made a good effort to increase the breezeway and provide more visual access; and the building will be moved so everyone can enjoy the beach from their beach accesses. He stated right now they cannot see past the building when they are standing on public beach access; the proposed development will better the community; and commented on maintaining breezeways. He stated the County does not maintain its own breezeways on streets that are being built on; the Brazilian Pepper trees grow 10 to 20 feet into the County right-of-way into public walk accesses; and advised of inability to access the river. He stated Rojo Corporation will be paying a high price for water and sewer; and commented on piping of green water. He stated another thing that was addressed at the Planning and Zoning meeting was the drainage problem on A1A; and advised of problems with the size of the grates.

Suzie Biery stated the improvement will upgrade the area; multi-family already exists; and the preliminary plans indicate the building is good. She stated it will increase the tax base in the area; the building is being moved; and the density is being lowered. She commented on the benefits of multi-family development; and stated she hopes the Board will support those who choose to upgrade buildings.

Steve Anderson stated he and another individual own vacant property south of the proposed project that is zoned RU-2-15; and they are in the process of working up a plan to present to the Board similar to the one being presented. He stated the projects are good for the area; and he, his company, and the pre-sale people support the project.

Mr. Robertson stated it is going to be a quality project, and will be good for this particular location. He stated he knows height variances have been difficult for the Board; but in this location it works. He stated they can already build a 45-foot building; the additional 15 feet is insignificant compared to the additional breezeway and the improvement in the area. He stated the community wants this change.

Chairman Higgs stated when Mr. Robertson spoke to her, he spoke about the other item and the package the applicant would be willing for the Board to consider. Mr. Robertson stated at the last meeting when the Board discussed the variance to the Coastal Construction Setback line, there was some discussion regarding the seawall; and in an effort to see a majority vote on the Board, he approached his client with the opportunity to consider taking the seawall down. He stated if that can be attached as a condition to the height requirement, his client is willing to do so; but when the beach renourishment project is done, the wall will be almost covered with only three feet exposed. Chairman Higgs stated the Board received a picture of the property.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Robertson is talking about taking down the front and sides of the seawall. Mr. Robertson stated what they envision is doing this in conjunction with the beach restoration program; the new sand will be taken up to the current dune line which is approximately nine feet; the wall is at 12 feet; and if it can be done in conjunction with the beach renourishment, they can do the grading to make sure it is done right. He noted they do not want to take the wall down until there is sand there; but they are willing to take down the entire wall in conjunction with the sand project. Commissioner Scarborough stated on the beach, it is not possible to see past the seawall.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board takes the opportunity to bring the entire site into compliance, that is better for everyone; and she has no problem coinciding that with the beach renourishment effort as long as it gets done and is a condition of the CUP.

Jim Peeples stated he is a partner on the 150-foot parcel that is immediately north of Sunny Lane; and they are in favor of the request. He stated he is not familiar with the seawall, but if there is a master plan, they would like to participate. He pointed out his sister's 100-foot lot; and stated the two condominiums which were built are nice, even though they are taller than what is being permitted now. He stated they are familiar with the developer, and have no objections to the request.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a good project; he has no problem with the variance on the setback; but he has never supported additional height along the beaches, and cannot do it for this item. He stated the citizens do not want Ft. Lauderdale-type development on the beaches; and if the Board approves it for this item, it will have to do it for others.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 10 as recommended.

Chairman Higgs stated she is not excited about the height either, but is supportive of removal of the seawall which is an impediment to the public use of the beach. She stated she cannot support additional height under any other circumstances, but when the whole package is put together, it is attractive.

Commissioner Voltz stated in the Ft. Lauderdale-Miami area, there is no breezeway; an extra few feet allows for a great breezeway; and along with all the other amenities in the package, it is a great project. She noted none of the neighbors are objecting to it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the neighbors are happy with moving the building, and the fact that they will have a beach they can walk on with the removal of the seawall. He suggested Mr. Peeples look at a picture taken from his property. He stated he does not understand the sequence of motions; and requested Attorney Bentley guide the Board. Chairman Higgs inquired if the removal of the seawall could be a condition of the additional height and the variance; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding it can be done that way. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there must be separate motions or can they be taken as one; with Attorney Bentley responding it can be one, but it needs to be made clear that it is Item II.B.10, and II.F.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve CUP for additional building height, and grant variance of no more than 10 feet to the Brevard County Coastal Setback, both with the condition of removal of the entire seawall in conjunction with the Beach Renourishment Project.

Chairman Higgs stated that is with the understanding that the project for Beach Renourishment as currently understood proceeds; with Commissioner Voltz agreeing.

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

Chairman Higgs stated there are other seawalls along the area; and if people come in, the Board will consider the same sort of condition.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of a series of stories in Florida TODAY concerning the future of Brevard County and what may be happening to the beaches. He stated the article indicated that within 20 years, the water will be so high, there will be no beaches; and commented on protecting construction.

Item 11. (Z0008301) Frederick H. and Marie W. Kittel's request for change from GU to RR-1 on 4.33 acres located on the northeast corner of Brabrook Road and Mount Pleasant Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it is the applicant's intention to subdivide the property, and if so into how many lots; with Diane Alagood responding yes, into four lots. Chairman Higgs stated the area has RR-1 on both sides; she has not always supported AU to RR-1, but it would be consistent with the area, so she would support the recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 11 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. (Z0008302) Melvin J. and Phyllis J. Woodford's request for a CUP for Aquaculture-Case II in an RR-1 zone on 2.46 acres located on the west side of Highway A1A, approximately 1.27 miles south of Aquarina Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Attorney James Beadle, representing Melvin and Phyllis Woodford, advised the Circuit Court reversed the prior decision of the Board denying the request for a Conditional Use Permit; in the interim the Board has amended the Conditional Use Ordinance; and although they object to having to comply with the items in the amendment, his clients, in reserving their rights under the prior Ordinance, are prepared to address the particular items included in the present CUP Ordinance. He stated there are no detrimental impacts indicated in the staff report; as far as evidence presented to the Board, they will rely on the record that was previously presented on the issues that were dealt with at the prior hearing; and in light of the holding of the Court that there was no substantial competent evidence to deny the permit, Mr. Woodford, his son, a realtor, and an appraiser will speak to the various issues in the proposal. He stated an issue that came up today has to do with the location specifically of the site for the CUP; and he spoke with Attorney Bentley about that.

Chairman Higgs stated the issue of the location and the site plan are part of the Ordinance regarding aquaculture; so it would be proper for the Board to discuss the Binding Concept Plan. Attorney Beadle stated he does not know how far he should get into that particular issue in light of the other matters that must be dealt with based on the specifics of the Ordinance; and he spoke with Attorney Bentley regarding the site issue. He stated one of the issues relating to the Stormwater Ordinance gets into whether or not the items that the Woodfords are going to place constitute structures, and if they do, where they have to be in relation to the waterline; and those are issues that are delegated to the Department of Natural Resources. He stated if everything else is appropriate as far as the Board is concerned, his clients request that a motion be made to approve, subject to moving the box consistent with the setbacks to comply with the site plan requirements of the Ordinance. He stated whether or not those are structures which have to comply with the 25 or 50-foot setback are issues delegated to the Department of Natural Resources; and Attorney Bentley has some input on how to address that.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Woodford and two other members of his family have submitted cards; usually the applicant gets ten minutes and then five minutes; and inquired if all cards from the family are considered part of the applicant's presentation. Attorney Bentley stated it can be, but if they need additional time, the Board can grant that. She stated typically the applicant gets 15 minutes; the speakers are all part of the same package; but if they need additional time, she would urge the Board to consider such a request. Attorney Beadle reserved the right to make such request.

Attorney Beadle provided information concerning other CUP's the Board has granted in the area of the application as well as the vacant property that surrounds Mr. and Mrs. Woodford's property. He stated another issue that has changed since the last application is that the Woodfords are constructing a residence on the property.

Melvin Woodford stated he is present to request approval of an Aquaculture-Case II Conditional Use Permit; and he is prepared to show that he meets all requirements for the CUP. He stated the information in his application is based on 12 years of experience in operating a similar facility; the application contains data from the nursery/hatchery now in operation at his home on South Tropical Trail; and presented letters of support. He stated Ordinance 93-26 governs Aquaculture-Case II Conditional Use Permits; the first item under the Ordinance considers the number of persons using the property; as stated in the application, there will be no more than two or three people working for time periods varying from one hour to six hours once or twice a week; and for the foreseeable future those people will be him, his wife and his son Steven, who will reside on the property. He stated producing the number of clam seeds that can be grown in a 1,200-square foot area is not a labor intensive activity; most of the time the clams sit unattended in the raceways; and it is like a vegetable garden which sits unattended most of the time. He stated this is a benign activity which has been permitted and operated in a variety of sites in the County including small canal-front lots and crowded residential areas with no complaints recorded by Code Enforcement; his property is highly screened from adjacent properties by dense natural vegetation; presented a slide of the site plan; and described the property and area of the CUP. He stated the boardwalk that is shown is fully permitted by DEP and the County; the pumps would be located at the end of the dock, which would put them 100 feet from the shoreline; the wetland area extends to the east for 1,000 feet; and there is approximately one half-acre of upland area where the house is almost complete. He stated the upland area extends to the north; the lot to the north is owned by the church, which is located further to the north on a lot that has been filled from A1A to the shoreline; and the lot on the south has also been filled, and the owner expects to construct a house in a few years. Mr. Woodford stated the neighbor to the south would be the only one close to the location, so there should be no problem screening the area from the adjacent neighborhood. He stated there are a number of other requirements in Ordinance 93-26 that have been treated adequately in the application; and he is willing to answer questions concerning any other considerations on noise, odor, particulate, smoke, fumes or other emissions, increase in traffic, adequacy of ingress and egress to serve the use without burdening adjacent and nearby uses, impact on solid waste disposal level of service, screening from glare and lighting, hours of operations, height of proposed use, and impact of off-street parking and loading areas. He stated the new requirements under Ordinance 99-43 requires pumps to not exceed a noise level of 45 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; and he has submitted a report prepared by a registered professional engineer from the University of Central Florida Sound Laboratory showing that he meets the requirement with two pumps operating at full load at the same time. He stated he met the requirements for the CUP when he came before the Board one and one-half years ago; he still meets the requirements; and even though there is legal precedent to say he does not have to meet additional new requirements, he has submitted data to show that he meets those requirements as well. Mr. Woodford submitted maps of the area.

Chairman Higgs stated she has pictures which were submitted during the hearings several years ago; and inquired if they are representative of the structures he will be putting in. Mr. Woodford responded they are fairly typical of what some people use, and there are similarities to what he will use. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Woodford's are not attached to the house; with Chairman Higgs advising they are next to the house, but not attached. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Woodford indicated his would be approximately 400 feet away.

Chairman Higgs stated the applicant's 15 minutes have expired; and inquired if the Board wishes to provide additional time for the other two speakers.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to allow additional time for the speakers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Steve Woodford stated he and his wife will assume residence at the site within the next few weeks; this will be a "mom and pop" operation; read aloud from letters of support from James Peo and Eileen and Max Taylor; and advised they have received at least 21 other letters of support. He submitted copies of the letters.

David Botto, Chairman of the Marine Resources Council of East Florida, read aloud a letter from the Council in support of the Woodfords.

Katherine McGehee, Certified Residential Real Estate Specialist, read aloud a letter advising of her previous and continuing support of the Woodfords. She noted she is the listing agent of the home adjoining the property; there is only 25 feet from the project to the property line; and there has already been a full price offer on the home, so there is no effect on sales.

Karen Brown, State Certified Residential Appraiser, advised of her background; and commented on the impact of Sarno Road on properties in that area. She stated she researched sales in South Melbourne Beach around Max Taylor's existing facility; and there is no data supporting less value. She stated the property just south of the Woodfords sold for $180,000, and just resold for $250,000 even though the person who purchased it knew the Woodfords were in the process of trying to obtain a CUP. She advised of research done on South Tropical Trail, and inability to see the aquaculture facility in that area.

Mr. Beadle stated Mr. Woodford or the other witnesses have covered the items in the new Conditional Use Ordinance; and based on the information that has been provided to the Board and the requirements of the Ordinances, the Woodfords have submitted sufficient information to provide for the granting of the Conditional Use Permit.

Chairman Higgs stated when the Woodfords came by to talk to her some time ago, they showed her the plan which showed the location of the structures in the Shoreline Protection Buffer; she raised the question with the Woodfords at that time, and they did some research; according to the Shoreline Protection Ordinance, it seemed to be in violation; and there have been several questions about that. She stated the Woodfords have to submit the site plan as a requirement of the CUP; and inquired if it is proper for the Board to look at the plan and location, or is that a staff function. Attorney Bentley stated the Aquaculture Ordinance does require submission of a Binding Concept Plan (BCP), and if the Board is seeing a BCP that staff thinks violates the Code, then it would be appropriate to ask for a change to the BCP to come into compliance with the Code; and if it is a situation where the Concept Plan is so general that the Board cannot determine whether or not what they are planning to put there would violate the Code, then it would become a staff issue at the time of development or when items are placed on the site. She stated if the items violate the Shoreline Protection Buffer Ordinance, Code Enforcement could go out there; but if there is a Concept Plan that shows structures in the buffer area, and staff believes that to be a violation, she would urge the Board to ask them to change the Concept Plan to meet the Ordinance or get some kind of review by the staff on that issue. She stated if they cannot make a determination now, then the property owner may be able to say they would move those items out of the buffer area.

Chairman Higgs distributed two pages from the Shoreline Protection Buffer Ordinance; and read aloud 62-3668 (5), "development within the Shoreline Protection Buffer is limited to fences, docks, boats, boat ramps, pervious walkways, and elevated walkways." She stated the next page says, "for residential lots, platted or established by deed, prior to September 8"; and according to Ms. Coles this property falls in that. She stated it says, "structures may be built within the Shoreline Protection Buffer only if it can be shown that there is insufficient lot depth to allow the development of primary accessory structures permitted and defined by the existing zoning classification of the property." She inquired if Section 8 of Chapter 62-3668 is being applied; with Natural Resources Section Supervisor Debbie Coles responding they would be applying Section 8 if the raceway are structures; and the structures may be built within the landward 25 feet if all other requirements are met, and if there is insufficient lot depth to construct the accessory use. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is Ms. Coles' opinion that this is a structure; with Ms. Coles responding this type of operation is not specifically mentioned in the Ordinance; it does not have a rigid location on the ground which is part of the requirement for a structure, but it does cover an area with the table part of the raceway; and only in that light would it be considered a structure. Chairman Higgs stated the question is whether it is a structure or not; and inquired if the answer is it is not. Ms. Coles stated she hesitates to call something temporary a structure, but it could be defined that way. Commissioner Voltz stated in that case a tent could be considered a structure. Ms. Coles stated the intent of the Code is to apply to roofing over screen porches, gazebos, and those types of covered areas; and this type of operation does not fit in the box that well. Chairman Higgs stated if it is a structure, the Woodfords would be in a position where they would have to show that there is insufficient lot depth to allow the development of the structures permitted, and that they have eliminated all other possible remedies; but staff is not defining this as a structure. She stated the intent was the operation would be part of the house; but based on what staff is saying, it has met the Code; and she seriously questions the application staff is making.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Ordinance was applied to the Taylor facility, and is it similar; with Ms. Coles responding she is not familiar with the Taylor facility. Chairman Higgs stated it is not in the Shoreline Protection Buffer, but the Ordinance was in place at the time it was permitted.

Commissioner Voltz stated she was at the Woodford property when the Board addressed this; the "structures" are mobile and can be lifted and moved; and it is almost like a giant picnic table. She stated the operation could not be seen from the road or the water; nothing could be heard; and it does not seem that any of the "structures" were designed to be permanent or would be considered according to the Ordinance to be a structure.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Ms. Bentley's opinion concerning the word "structure." Attorney Bentley stated the Code talks about rigid location and attachment to the ground, but then it also talks about any other covered area; so it may be a situation where it may depend on what they actually build; and the Concept Plan she saw did not provide detail of the construction. She stated Natural Resources staff has seen proposed drawings but not final plans. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if an animal cage is a structure; with Attorney Bentley responding there is a problem with where is the line; and that is why the covered area issue becomes important under the definition, because she would not consider a picnic table a structure, but if it had a roof, it would be a structure under the County's definition.

Chairman Higgs stated the County's definition of structure is anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires rigid location on the ground or attachment to something, having a permanent location on the ground, including but not limited to supporting walls, signs, covered screen enclosures, and other covered areas. Commissioner Voltz stated it is not a covered area; with Chairman Higgs advising it could be. Commissioner Voltz stated she was out there and there was nothing covered. Chairman Higgs requested Commissioner Voltz look at the picture. She stated in the court case, which reversed the Board's previous decision, it says the petitioner's operation requires a marine bivalve facility general permit issued by the State; the structure in which the operation was to be housed was similar to tables; there was no cover on the tables; a six-foot high fence together with natural vegetation provides for the structure; and the structure was to be located on a small upland area. She stated there is a reason to question; and they have to comply with the law.

Mr. Beadle stated the Woodfords realize if the CUP is granted, they will have to comply with all of the regulatory parts of the Land Development Code; if staff determines something to be a structure, they may have to seek a modification of that part of the plan for the CUP; and if there is some way to do what they want to do without it being deemed to be a structure, they would like to have that flexibility. He stated the photographs that were shown may be one way to do things, but in order for them to meet this part of the Code, they may be able to build them a different way; and the way DEP or St. Johns River Water Management District defines a structure may not be the same as the Code.

Chairman Higgs stated that is why she asked Mr. Woodford if the picture was similar to what he would be using. Mr. Beadle stated they understand this issue, and there may be ways to construct so they do not constitute structures for purposes of the County Code; there may be a way to move the box around; if the Board determines that it is necessary to come back before the Board in order to move it to comply with that part of the Code, the Woodfords would be willing to do that; but if there is some flexibility to allow staff to let them move the box, they would request that be done so they do not have to come back before the Board.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board could say, in approval of the conditional use permit, that the moving of the structure or non-structure, depending on whose definition is used, that staff could approve the amendment of the site plan administratively if staff agreed that it was less intrusive into the Shoreline Protection Buffer.

Attorney Bentley stated that could be done, or if other regulations required adjustment within the western portion of the property, as long as all setbacks are met. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would support that.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Brien.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 12, and authorize staff to adjust the location of the hatchery equipment if it brings the hatchery further out of the Shoreline Protection Buffer.

Commissioner Higgs stated what she is trying to do is protect the resource which the Woodfords depend on, and not to have things injurious to the water.

Vice Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman O'Brien inquired if Mr. Peffer has a question; with Mr. Peffer responding he was going to propose an alternative, but the Board has already taken action. Commissioner Higgs stated staff has the ability to take care of this.

Vice Chairman O'Brien passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to look at some of the definitions; and the Shoreline Protection Buffer may need some work.

The meeting recessed at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:35 p.m.

Item 13. (Z0008303) Richard A. and Patricia A. Gemberling's request for change from BU-2 and RU-1-9 to BU-1 with a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages On-Premise Consumption on 0.65? acre located on the southwest corner of U.S. 1 and Rose Avenue, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval of BU-1 on the entire site and CUP on existing restaurant only.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is any way to limit the CUP to restaurant use only; with Attorney Rick Torpy responding it is for a restaurant and that is all they are requesting. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is beer and wine; with Mr. Torpy advising it is full liquor. Mr. Torpy advised it is a private club, members-only fraternal organization; and it is already existing approximately one-half mile up the road. Commissioner Carlson expressed concern that it should only have a CUP if it is a restaurant. Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Torpy is asking for a CUP for the club; and it could be approved contingent on it remaining a private club. Mr. Torpy stated they have no problem with that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will include that provision as part of the motion. Commissioner Voltz affirmed her second.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the name of the restaurant; with Mr. Torpy responding Basil's. Chairman Higgs stated in the current location there are hour limits; with Mr. Torpy advising they are consistent with Code. Commissioner O'Brien stated the operating hours are listed as 7:00 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Saturday, and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. Chairman Higgs stated the operating hours will be part of the conditional use permit; with Mr. Torpy advising they are.

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

Item 14. (Z0008401) Central Brevard Humane Society's request for change from GU to IU on 4.66 acres located on the west side of Cox Road, approximately 0.45 mile north of Wright Street. Withdrawn by Applicant.

Item 15. (Z0008402) Park Place at Suntree, L.P.'s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages On-Premise Consumption in a BU-1 zone (Units #105 and 106 only) on 7.08? acres located on the north side of Wickham Road, approximately 500 feet west of Forest Lake Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation is to approve, but she would like to have the Conditional Use Permit only for the restaurant; and inquired if it will be beer and wine. Gina Pierce stated it will be beer and wine only; there is no bar; it is non-smoking; they close in the afternoon between 2:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.; they close at night at 10:00 p.m.; and it is a family-style, full-service restaurant. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the applicant will have a problem with the CUP conditioned on just the restaurant and beer and wine only; with Ms. Pierce indicating that is acceptable.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 15 with the Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant only and limited to beer and wine. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. (Z0008501) CPO Development, Inc.'s request for a CUP for Additional Building Height in an RU-2-15 zone on 2.10 acres located on the east side of A1A, approximately 0.43 mile south of Eau Gallie Boulevard, which was recommended to be tabled to September 11, 2000 Planning and Zoning meeting and September 21, 2000 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with reprocessing fee required.

The Board accepted the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Item 17. (Z0008502) Robert and Della E. Gamerl's request for change from AU to BU-1 on 0.14 acre located on the west side of Katherine Boulevard, approximately 117 feet north of U.S. 192, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 17 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. (Z0007404) The Glidewell Corporation's request for a ROU for a dry cleaning business in a BU-1 zone on 1.03 acres located on the north side of Pinehurst Avenue, approximately 320 feet west of Wickham Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Robertson and Mr. Houston, along with other representatives of the company, met with her today. Commissioners Scarborough, Voltz, O'Brien, and Carlson advised they also visited with them.

Doug Robertson, representing The Glidewell Corporation, stated Lang Houston and his sons Keith and Kevin are present; the family has been in the cleaning business for 35 years; and the request is for a review of use, specifically whether a dry cleaning facility that performs dry cleaning onsite is allowed in a BU-1 zone. He stated 20 other stores are in a similar situation, already in BU-1 zones in the County or comparable zones in the cities; and a precedent was set in 1993 with approval of a similar request at Lake Washington and Wickham Roads, with condition that the dry cleaning unit that services the store be sealed. He stated the one issue is whether the intensity of the use is appropriate for a BU-1 zone; the Planning and Zoning Board felt the hours of operation were consistent with any other operation in BU-1; there will be no increase in traffic; and the use is no more intense than convenience stores, auto repair, or restaurants that would be allowed in BU-1. He stated another issue was whether the use is safe because a solvent is used in the cleaning process; that raised some concerns in the adjacent community; and in order to work with the community to take the issue off the table, Mr. Houston changed the type of solvent to a hydrocarbon-based solvent that is much more benign. He stated they met with the community with Commissioner Carlson's help; and he feels they have reached an understanding with three conditions, one that the solvent be hydrocarbon, that the facility serve only one other pick-up store, and that the access for the site be from the east entrance as opposed to coming off Pinehurst Avenue.

Commissioner Carlson stated the citizens who came forward had three concerns, the chemical that was being used because of its toxicity, traffic, and noise; and all of those issues were accommodated. She stated creating a plant at this location will diminish traffic because they will be building another dry cleaning pick-up facility at Post Commons; and they were asked to not service any more than the two areas.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 18 with the following conditions: (1) hydrocarbon-based solvent to be used and only used in a particular machine, (2) serve only one other retail dry cleaning pick-up station in addition to the current location, and (3) all transportation vans and supply vehicles shall use the east driveway only to access the site.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired are they only allowed to go to the other site to bring the clothes there. Commissioner Carlson stated they have a site off Pinehurst, where they pick up and everything else, then they take from that site to another plant to actually clean it, and some is done onsite; and they are going to be constructing one at Post Commons which will be similar to the one at Pinehurst. She stated the review of use is for a plant, not a pick-up service; various precedents have been set; and dry cleaning plants are not handled well in the Code.

Commissioner Voltz stated she had questions about that because there will only be one extra vehicle coming in. Commissioner Carlson stated the concern was the number of vehicles and the traffic. Commissioner Voltz stated traffic is not going to be an issue; and the plant capacity is what the Board needs to look at.

Mr. Robertson stated right now the cleaning at the Pinehurst store is being taken to Cocoa; if the cleaning was done there, then there would be one other store bringing clothes to this store, so the trips cancel out; and traffic is not an issue. Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to know why it has to be one. Mr. Robertson stated if too many pick-up stores are being serviced by a plant, the plant becomes more of a BU-2 type use than if just one was serviced. Commissioner Scarborough stated it relates to the size of the operation. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Robertson and Mr. Houston have no problem with the conditions; with Mr. Robertson responding they are happy.

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

Commissioner Carlson requested staff come back with some means of identifying where in the Code dry cleaning plants should go, so the Board does not have to have a review of use every time.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to come back to the Board with a means of identifying where dry cleaning plants should be located. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: LAND DEFAMATION

Sarah Ayres stated she and her sister came to the Board about a six-month to a year extension because they need time to clear up legal issues, straighten out the land, and get their money out of the trailer; and advised of the original cost and current value of the RV. She inquired about the posting that is supposed to be done in 30 days; advised it could mean a terrible loss and could cause her sister to lose the land; and outlined the various fees. She inquired if the intention is to make her sister homeless and destitute; and advised of discussions with the County Manager concerning rights under the Constitution and Florida law and land defamation. She advised her sister is the child of a veteran; and inquired why something is not done for her. She commented on the 20-year old will and rights to the land; and stated they have lived on the property since 1955, have signed declarations of domicile, and it takes time and money to prepare the kind of legal presentation the Board is asking for. She commented on vandalism to the property, hate crimes against her, neighbors wanting the property, rights in and outside the estate, and Florida common law. She stated there has not been a tax sale to her knowledge; and how their documents manage to disappear from the books is a federal and criminal legal issue which clouds everything. She advised over 20 records are not on file anymore; stated this has hindered their efforts; the County should be ashamed that the records are not safe; and they have been lucky enough to finally recover some of them. She submitted photographs and a check for Property Appraiser Jim Ford to try to get garbage pickup reinstated; and advised of difficulties with garbage pickup. She advised of attempts to talk to Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen; and stated they told Mrs. Skanes their address so she does not know why this case was even started. She commented on other Code violations in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff has been working with these ladies; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes, a number of times. Ms. Busacca stated they have two outstanding Code Enforcement violations; they have been to the Special Master who gave them a period of time to comply; they requested additional time, but she is not sure whether the Special Master has provided that; and staff has no problem making a recommendation to the Special Master. She stated the two issues are the maintenance of the property, which is overgrown; and the second is that the sisters are living in a large RV that is not legal, and has no electricity or septic tank connected to it. Ms. Ayres stated they were told if they did that, it would be illegal.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the zoning on the property does not allow living in an RV; with Ms. Ayres responding they would require an exceptionality. Ms. Busacca stated staff has talked to the Ayres sisters about the zoning; and there are a number of issues, but the most difficult is without ownership of the property, they are unable to make application. Commissioner Scarborough inquired who is the owner; with Elizabeth Ayres responding it is in their grandmother's estate. Sarah Ayres advised they have legal rights outside the estate, and there is the question of the estate, so there is a dichotomy going along. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the deceased grandmother is still the title owner; with Ms. Busacca responding according to the information she has seen, it is shown as the estate of Elizabeth Sarah Wilgis. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about assistance from Legal Aid; with Elizabeth Ayres responding Legal Aid will not assist them because it is too complicated. Sarah Ayres advised of problems getting the Clerk of the Court to file certain papers to clear this up and difficulty paying fees. Sarah Ayres advised the Clerk's Office in Indian River County and people in Tallahassee have indicated they would file the papers to clear the situation, but the Clerk in Brevard County has refused. Elizabeth Ayres advised the Special Master gave an additional 30 days, which goes to September 5, 2000. Sarah Ayres stated they were not told whether they are supposed to clear two acres; and Zoning staff told them to clear the right-of-way.

Chairman Higgs requested Attorney Bentley see if there is something that can be done in regard to legal assistance through Legal Aid. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the title was cleared, that would assist them; but there are still basic things like electricity and septic tank; and inquired how those things can be dealt with. Ms. Busacca advised staff has met with the Ayres sisters on a number of occasions and provided several alternatives; they have been in housing, but that did not work out successfully; and staff has talked to them about the First-Time Homebuyers Program, but the Ayres would prefer to stay on their own property, and the County cannot assist in putting a home on the property without the title problem being solved. Commissioner Scarborough stated if an attorney handled that, it could be resolved. Ms. Busacca stated people are assisting them to get medication which is needed by one of the sisters; and staff has been dealing with their needs as they identify them, but sometimes they run into a brick wall and cannot go any further. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about Habitat for Humanity, noting that would also require clear title. Ms. Busacca stated staff has identified a number of options, but the clear title is still an issue. Commissioner Scarborough suggested staff provide a memo to the Board; with Ms. Busacca responding she would be happy to do so.

Chairman Higgs inquired what action will occur on September 5, 2000; with Ms. Busacca responding at that time the lien will begin to accrue if the violations have not been corrected. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is the Board's discretion to waive fines. Chairman Higgs suggested Sarah and Elizabeth Ayres go back to the Special Master to request additional time to work this out; with Ms. Busacca advising they can do that by going to the Code Enforcement Office and requesting to be put on the agenda. Chairman Higgs inquired when the Special Master will meet again; with Ms. Busacca responding she would guess September 14 or 15; with Sarah Ayres advising it is on September 5 or 7, 2000. Chairman Higgs recommended Ms. Ayres go back to the Special Master.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.

ATTEST:

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

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)