MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

May 28, 2009

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 28, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, Assistant County Manager Mel Scott, and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore.   

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners acts as a Quasi Judicial body when it hears requests for rezonings and Conditional Use Permits.  Applicants must provide competent substantial evidence establishing facts, or expert witness testimony showing that the request meets the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan criteria.  Opponents must also testify as to facts, or provide expert testimony; whether they like, or dislike, a request is not competent evidence.  The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing rules in the Zoning Ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area.  The Board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands.  If a Commissioner has had communications regarding a rezoning or Conditional Use Permit request before the Board, the Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity, with whom the communication took place before the Board takes action on the request.  Likewise, if a Commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the Commissioner must disclose that fact before the Board takes action on the request.  Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless the time is extended by a majority vote of the Board.  The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal.  Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak.  Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak. 

 

The Invocation was given by Reverend Vernor R. Clay, Antioch Christian Fellowship Baptist Church, Titusville.

 

Chairman Chuck Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated there was a wonderful ceremony for the announcement of the Florida Power & Light Solar Center at the Kennedy Space Center; and KSC Director Robert Cabana gave his State of Nasa Speech this morning, which was wonderful.

  

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like to address the Legislative Intent; the Board process for Legislative Intent is for people to talk to the Board first before it starts the process; and that way, staff has clear direction.  He stated the Board has a staff description of an issue in its package that the people of Merritt Island have been trying to address; there are a number of Code Enforcement complaints because of docks; and in particular, docks in corners.  He stated County regulation is kind of cumbersome in that regard because there are small, 15-foot pieces of waterfront; the developer originally sold it as waterfront; now people want to get access to it; for instance, the setbacks are seven and a half feet and seven and a half feet; if someone owns 15 feet, they cannot put anything on that property; and that is the way it is supposed to be.  He stated the problem is that people have put things on those properties; then it turns into Code violations; then the Board has waivers; and there have been many waivers that have gone through the Board of Adjustment, which are typically granted, but it becomes a neighborhood issue.  He stated currently the County does not permit docks where neighbors are in agreement of attaching docks; permitting the docks would allow the neighbors who agree to connect their docks together and kind of share the waterfront, which is kind of cumbersome right now; it would stop a lot of Code complaints; and it certainly deserves discussion.  He stated he would like to ask the Board’s permission to do Legislative Intent, which means it will have to go through the full cycle; it will come back to the Board for discussion; and it will go before the Local Planning Agency.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant permission to advertise Legislative Intent for docks with limited canal frontage.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated Cape Canaveral has initiated a visioning process for its community; Phil Laurian from the Regional Planning Council is the facilitator of the effort; the County has Avon by the Sea, which is a 13 to 16 block area between Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral; and he would like to have a County Planning staff member assigned to attend any meetings for the visioning process.  He stated what is at stake is the section between Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral; both cities have threatened to put up signs saying, “You are now entering the County”, if the Board does not do something; and he thinks the County can come up with some ideas that would benefit both cities as well as Avon by the Sea.  He stated he does not know if the Board needs to give any direction other than asking Assistant County Manager Mel Scott to assign a staff member to attend the meetings of the visioning process and to continue to report back to the Board.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the assigned staff member is to gather information; with Chairman Nelson responding affirmatively.  Chairman Nelson stated there may be some outcomes the Board may want to consider as a result of what the cities are doing in terms of consistent theme of that tourism corridor; and this was brought to his attention by Mayor Rockey Randels of Cape Canaveral, as well as Bob Bougher, who is the Chairman of the Tourist Development Commission. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to appoint Bunny Finney, Duwayne C. Lundgren, and John Porter to the Charter Review Commission.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board received a letter today from Judge Presnell; he would like to discuss the letter at the July meeting to see if the Board has any thoughts as to where to go from here; and he would like the issue to be on the Agenda for July. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with The Bluffs Development Corporation for property located on the south side of Pine Island Road, approximately 0.14 mile west of Preserve Pointe.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board of May 11, 2009; the Port St. John Board of May 13, 2009; and the North Merritt Island Special District Board of May 14, 2009, as follows:

 

 

Item V.B.1. (Z0905101) – Charles W. & Mary Beth Doud’s request for a change from RR-1 and RRMH-1 to AU on 18.83 acres, located east of International Drive, north of Peoples Street, which was recommended for approval, with applicant’s amendment to the application to have the most southwesterly acre remain RR-1.

 

John Evans, representing the applicant, stated Mr. and Mrs. Doud own 18 acres in Scottsmoor; the property abuts Scottsmoor Landing, which the Board purchased a year ago; the property is currently zoned RRMH-1 on 12 acres, which allows one mobile home per acre; and the balance of the property is zoned RR-1, which allows a single-family residence per acre.  He advised the current property at 18 acres would have a density of 18 residences; and his clients are requesting that the entire property, less one acre, be zoned AU.  He stated if zoned AU, the property would be allowed approximately seven units maximum density; the reason for that is to raise cattle, which Mr. Doud would like to do; and the property has to be AU in order to raise cattle.  He stated there was unanimous support from the Mims Community Group; at the Planning   and   Zoning  meeting,   neighbors   Mr.  and  Mrs.   Walder    had    some    concerns

 

regarding the odors that might emanate from the cattle located so close to their residence; and his client has withdrawn that acre of property adjacent to the Walder’s home from the rezoning request so it will remain RR-1; and the balance of the property would be zoned AU.  He stated he met with the Walders today and they are in agreement with the action his client has taken. 

 

James Walders stated he agrees with the request. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired where Mr. Doud plans to house the cattle on the property.  Mr. Evans replied there will be a barn on the back of the property.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the construction of the barn would be far enough away from the Walders residence; with Mr. Evans responding the barn would not be located on the excluded acre. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve Item V.B.1., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item V.B.2. (Z0905102) Andrew G. Barclay & Abby Gresko; and Douglas G. & Jacquelyn J. Barclay’s request for a CUP for a Private Boat Dock Accessory to Adjacent Single-Family Residential Lot, with a waiver from the required 100 feet of river frontage, on 0.01 acre, located east of Indian River Drive, opposite the intersection of Indian River Drive and City Point Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve Item V.B.2., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item V.B.3. (Z0905103) Michael P. & Lori L. Melzer; and I.D.S. International, Inc.’s request for a CUP for a Convenience Store with Gasoline Sales, on 2.37 acres, located west of Grissom Parkway, north of Port St. John Parkway, also having frontage on the north side of Port St. John Parkway, west of Grissom Parkway, which was recommended for approval with Binding Development Plan, providing that the structure will have similar outer finish, landscaping and signage, and that the building have the “green” aspect as those of the Parrish Medical Center; and subject to future consistency determination by the BCC regarding gasoline pumps in Neighborhood Commercial. 

 

Commissioner Bolin advised her staff has talked to Rochelle Lawandales, who is representing the applicant.  Commissioner Infantini advised she has talked to Ms. Lawandales.  Commissioner Fisher stated he has talked to Mr. Lawandales and Mr. Evans.  Commissioner Anderson advised he also has spoken to Ms. Lawandales.

 

Rochelle Lawandales, representing the applicant, stated for the record, it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Evans and the Parrish Medical Center in resolving the issues they brought forth; the issues are very reasonable; there is a Binding Development Plan that with the Board’s approval  today  would  address  several  issues;  and  briefly  she will  go over what details  are outlined in the Binding Development Plan.  She stated the outer material and color finish will be similar to Parrish Medical Center; the landscaping will be native vegetation to the extent possible to minimize irrigation; similar signage to Parrish Medical Center; the lighting will be down-lighting; there will be no parking of automobiles or trucks overnight; and the owner, to the extent humanly possible and feasible, will use recyclable materials.  She stated the owner and purchaser are in agreement; Mr. Evans can attest to his parties being in agreement; the Binding Development Plan covers the entire 2.73 acres; and the applicant is pleased to be doing the development in this manner. 

 

John Evans stated he represents Parrish Medical Center; the Medical Center is in agreement with the request; and he appreciates Ms. Lawandales working with him and his clients.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, approve Item V.B.3., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item V.B.4. (PSJ90501) Kerri Jones’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment (09S.02) to change the Future Land Use designation from Residential 8 Dir. to Community Commercial; and a change from GU to BU-1 on 0.26 acres, located south of Kings Highway, west of Capron Road, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Special District Advisory Board and the Local Planning Agency. 

 

Motion by  Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item V.B.4. as recommended, and adopt Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting for the Second Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2009, 09S.02, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled contents of the plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI(E), entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item V.B.5. (Z0905201) Donna M. Adams, Trustee’s request for a change from RU-1-13 to RR-1 on 7.11 acres, located on the west side of South Courtenay Parkway, south of Plantation Road, which was recommended for approval with a Binding Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

Cliff Repperger, representing the applicant, stated prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting, he submitted a Binding Development Plan (BDP); the BDP has been revised; and staff has a copy of the BDP, which he would like give to the Board and to the Clerk.

 

Christine Lepore, Assistant County Attorney, advised the County Attorney’s Office has not reviewed  any  of the  BDP’s  that  may  accompany the request; and BDP’s  are  subject  to  the procedure in the Code, which require them to go through legal review and come back to the Board within 120 days. 

 

Mr. Repperger advised the development potential in the current zoning classification is 27 units; the owner is seeking to consider available options on the parcel, but would like to keep the property in its current state if possible; and the owner believes the property would be more marketable if there were an allowance for some horses on the property.  He stated there is an existing residential structure on the east side of the property; behind and to the west of the property is a large grove-type area that was a grove at one time with an agricultural exemption, which was given up some time ago; and the applicant’s desire is to market the property in its current state to allow for a certain number of horses to be on the property.  He stated the RR-1 zoning classification would allow four horses per acre; the applicant has no need or desire for that number of horses; the BDP limits the number of horses on the property to seven horses total for the entire property; and the BDP further limits the horses on the property to no less than two-acre parcels if the property is subdivided.  He noted the BDP provides for a number of horses depending on the acreage that is subdivided, which is two horses per two acres, three horses per three acres, four horses per four acres, and five horses per five acres, and up to seven acres, which is the total property as it is today.  He stated no other animals are permitted under that zoning classification; the applicant does not desire to have any other animals other than horses; and he respectfully requests the Board’s approval of the rezoning request.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired of the difference in the current BDP and the one Mr. Repperger provided earlier.  Mr. Repperger replied the current BDP has the limit on the acreage if the property is subdivided; the previous BDP did not include that limit; and the previous BDP did not provide that if the property is further subdivided that there is any limitation.  He stated with the current BDP, if the property in the back is subdivided and is less than two acres, there cannot be any horses on that portion of the property.  Commissioner Infantini stated the previous BDP allowed for one horse per acre, and the current BDP limits it to seven horses total.  Chairman Nelson stated the BDP does not allow horses on less than one acre, which is important; and stated for the record, he met with Mr. Repperger and Ms. Adams on the project.

 

Donna Adams stated she is the owner of a unique piece of seven acres of property; she recently had the property up for sale; she had a lot of interest in regards of what to do with the back acreage; and it came down to either the property would be developed, or there needs to be another use for it.  She stated some buyers were interested in placing horses on the property, but it was not zoned for horses; she went around the neighborhood to ask her neighbors what they would like to see; her intention is to sell the property; and there will be a change coming when that happens.  She advised the property used to be a working grove, but that has changed along with the density laws; she took a poll of the neighbors and what they would like to see in the future; and for the most part, the reception was positive, as the neighbors would like to keep the pastoral look and feel of the property that has been there for decades in lieu of development.  She submitted a map with signatures to the Board and to the Clerk. 

 

Raymond Pecaut stated he is not concerned about there being enough room for horses; but he is concerned that people will want to ride the horses; and the horses will be surrounded by either heavily traveled highways, or residences.  He stated the area has been residential all around the subject property; and going agricultural would be going backwards as far as the development is concerned.  He stated his main concern is that there are a lot of kids in the neighborhood; horseback riding and kids are not a good mix; the horse owners are going to want to ride their horses; he is concerned with people riding horses in the neighborhood with the mix of all the kids; he would hate to see the tragedy of a child being trampled because of a child coming innocently upon a horse; and horses are not the easiest animals to control.  He noted another concern of his is that horse droppings, besides being unpleasant, are good for spreading disease around; and the mixture of that with small children is not a good idea.  He stated he would recommend not allowing horses or other livestock in that area because it would be presenting both health and safety hazards.

 

Clarence Johnson stated he has lived in the area for 45 years; the community is located three miles south of S.R. 520 between South Courtenay Parkway and Tropical Trail; there have never been horses in the subdivision, nor are there any horses anywhere near the property; and it has truly been a residential area.  He stated there are 135 occupied lots in the subdivision that are purely residential; the only access he knows to the so-called grove is an dirt road easement next to Kay Kelly’s home; he has no problem with Ms. Adams wishing to sell her house; but he does not think the subdivision needs to have to worry about horses, horseflies, horse manure, horses traveling through the area, and horse trailers going in and out of the dirt road easement between two houses; it seems to him that it is inconsistent with the good zoning; he is very much against the request, along with many of his neighbors; and he has no problem with Ms. Adams developing her property, but not with horses.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the current zoning will allow 27 houses on the property; Ms. Adams does not need to come to the Board as she could start the development process because that is the zoning; and inquired if Mr. Johnson would prefer 27 houses to be developed.  Mr. Johnson replied he does not have a problem with the development of 27 houses.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated while she sees that the current zoning would allow 27 units, the likelihood of someone putting in 27 units is incompatible and not likely; and she is not worried about someone putting in 27 units.  She stated she agrees; it is a fabulous piece of property; but the first thing that came to mind is that horses are inconsistent with the neighborhood; and she questions where the horses will be ridden.

 

Laura Savas stated she chose to live in South Merritt Estates eight years ago because of its old growth; it is not a neighborhood that has been raised and with planted sticks that she would never see grow into an old tree; it is a beautiful bucolic neighborhood; and she would like to speak in favor of the request for rezoning by Ms. Adams.  She stated circumstances dictate that Ms. Adams put her home up for sale; rather than selling out to the highest bidder, she has gone through a lot of time and effort to market her property in a manner that will not only benefit her marketability, but will  protect the entire  neighborhood from being overly developed; and having one family that may want to move in and have a few horses would be ideal, even though it is not compatible.  She stated normally a family interested in horses will have one or two horses; and they will trailer them to shows or parks to ride them.  She stated she agrees that 27 units is probably not plausible; but the last thing the neighborhood needs is more pressure on the community services, which are facing budget cuts; the area does not need any more development in the area; and even five more houses would be a lot more development.  She stated she is in favor of the rezoning request; horses make great neighbors; most people who keep horses treat them better than their children; horses are expensive and well-kept; and Ms. Adams is to be commended for going above and beyond and not just selling out to the highest bidder.  She noted in the community there are nesting owls, gopher tortoises, and deer, which people in the community enjoy; and she thinks Ms. Adams’s solution is the best way to go.

 

Kay Kelly stated she agrees with former Judge Clarence Thompson and his views of what will happen to the neighborhood and property values if horses are allowed in an area abutting on three sides to South Merritt Estates, which has always been a residential area, both before Ms. Adams arrived in the area and after; it has never been a rural area where horses or agriculture have been allowed; and the residents have chosen the neighborhood because of the beauty of it.  She stated many of the residents have been in the neighborhood for 20 or 30 years; she has been there over 40 years; there are open porches that would border the subject property; they enjoy the outside because of the beauty of the neighborhood; and she cannot imagine having a piece of property abutting three sides into the neighborhood.  She stated the main issue is quality of life; the residents chose the neighborhood for the quality of life; if the zoning is changed for one person who is moving away, it is questionable; and she hopes the Board considers the wishes of so many residents in the neighborhood.

 

Kay Fiorentino stated her property abuts the subject property; she does not want any horses in her neighborhood; she went around the neighborhood with a petition signed by people who opposed the request; and the people who signed the petition do not want any horses in the neighborhood.  She submitted the petition to the Board and to the Clerk. 

 

Mr. Repperger stated Robert Lichtenberg is present on behalf of the applicant; and he plans on calling upon Mr. Lichtenberg later in the discussion.

 

Susan Thompson stated Ms. Adams asked her to speak because she is a long time horse person; she lives on eight and a half acres on Parkway Drive in Melbourne; and she currently has two horses, a Llama, five dogs, and five cats; and so she is very much an animal person.  She stated she has been riding horses since she was 12 years old; she is an active equestrian who competes; she is also a realtor; and she is very familiar with people who come to the area that are equestrians.  She stated most people who compete in horse shows have a dressage ring on their property; the horses are jumpers; there would be jumps set up on the properties; and she has never taken her horses off her property, as they are very valuable show horses.  She stated the person who would be interested in the subject property would probably be someone like herself; there are a lot of dressage people who come from Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts; and a lot of people have  stayed with her  who have  since bought property on Tropical Trail.  She advised as for flies, she has never had a problem with flies; anyone who is a horse person will have a fly system in their barn; she does not have a problem with rodents because she has a cat; but the things being discussed this evening she can address as a horse person.  She stated she thinks the person that will buy Ms. Adams’s property is going to be a professional horse person that competes in a different type of discipline such as hunter jumper, dressage, quarter-horse, and reigning; she understands the concerns of the neighbors, but they are not horse-knowledgeable; and the subject property would be perfect for someone moving to the area that has two or three horses.  She stated there would not be a lot of traffic; the issues that have been brought up can be easily addressed; and she does not foresee any problems. She noted there are a lot of horse owners up and down Tropical Trail that have barns. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he considers Ms. Thompson to be an expert on the subject; and inquired if he just wanted to have a horse for recreation purposes, is seven acres sufficient to ride a horse on.  Ms. Thompson replied yes, but based on her real estate experience from selling to people from other parts of the country, the person that is going to buy the property is going to have some type of discipline; a ring will be set up on the property; in the ring will be grass with a number of jumps set up in a pattern; and that is how the horses will be exercised, or there will be a dressage ring, which is square, and that is where the horses will be exercised.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if Ms. Thompson finds that the value of property rises or falls with horses.  Ms. Thompson replied absolutely, the people that have the type of horses that are going to be attracted to the property are going to be in excess of $50,000 to $500,000; people she has sold to on Tropical Trail have been very dedicated dressage people; and a dedicated horse person wants the cleanest barn and happy and healthy horses.  She noted she has residential homes all around her property and she has never had any complaints.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired of the size of Ms. Thompson’s property; with Ms. Thompson responding it is eight and a half acres; and stated at one time she did have up to seven horses she boarded in the winter months.  Commissioner Fisher stated the petition presented to the Board says a zoning change would allow up to four horses per acre; that is what the neighbors signed; and inquired if that is what is being requested.  Chairman Nelson stated no, that is not what is being requested.  Ms. Thompson stated people who have show horses keep them in their stalls most of the time, which are normally equipped with fans and fly systems; and she does not think the problems that were mentioned would occur on the subject property.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Mr. Thompson is comparing what she does with what is proposed; they are two different things; they could be the same, but it could also be different; and there could be seven horses on seven acres, but it could also be two horses on two acres.  Ms. Thompson stated the neighbors are thinking that someone can have up to seven horses, but someone may buy the property that has one horse; and seven horses may never be on the property.  Chairman Nelson inquired if there is any standard to the size of the property compared to the number of horses; with Ms. Thompson responding she usually has two horses per acre for grazing.  Chairman Nelson noted that does not include a house on the property.  Ms. Thompson stated in regards to flies, she has a swimming pool that does not have a screen around it and she has never had a problem with flies; stated she has a guesthouse, house, pool area, and the horses; and at one time she had seven horses.  Chairman Nelson inquired how large Ms. Thompson’s pasture area is; with Ms. Thompson responding approximately a half-acre.  Ms. Thompson advised a lot of times people will have small paddocks because show horses are almost frightened to be out loose in a pasture area; and so a lot of people do small paddocks for turn-outs so they can be outside and graze. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated one of her concerns is that Ms. Thompson is comparing an eight-acre property; and the Board is comparing a seven-acre property that is going to be subdivided.  She stated the plan is that the property can be divided into different parcels rather than leaving it a seven-acre parcel. 

 

Marcia Davis stated she has only lived there for a couple of years; she will not be around in 45 years; and the people who have been in the area for 45 years also will not be there in another 45 years.  She stated some previous speakers have said they do not want life to change; but the very essence of life is change.  She stated as far as the ingress and egress to the property and people not wanting to see horse trailers, if there are even 10 more houses that is a lot more ingress and egress than if there were only six houses on the property; and right now Ms. Adams is talking about a minimum of two horses per two acre, but there is the potential for seven homes on the property; there is talk of being able to build 27 houses on the property; and she can see much more of a problem with 27 houses than with seven houses, whether or not any of those houses have horses.  She stated as far as children being hurt by horses, right now the neighborhood has a real problem with little boys being in go-karts; and she thinks that is a bigger traffic hazard than someone supervising horses, because the little boys in their go-karts are not supervised.  She stated she does not know why people are resisting having a future for that neighborhood that is better than 27 cookie-cutter houses. 

 

Robert Leichtenberg stated he is an MAI appraiser; he has been an appraiser for years; and he provided the Board with his resume.  He stated he has two issues to discuss; the first issue he looked at was two different comparable subdivisions where horses were adjoining to see whether there was any effect on the horses’ proximity being next to a subdivision on value; and he has had horses since he was eight years old.  He stated Ms. Thompson is correct in that the subject property is going to be very expensive; show horses are very expensive and highly trained animals that are not going to ride up and down a street; and show horses perform in a show ring and are pampered.  He stated when looking at a property such as Ms. Thompson’s and others, they are beautiful; no one is going to put a $50,000 horse in a sand pit; and the person who buys the house is going to have to spend considerable money.  He stated he looked at two subdivisions to see what effect horses would have on the adjoining residential properties, which is really the only way to measure; noted there are three properties with horses and several houses adjoining; and he compared the prices of those houses with the prices of houses that do not adjoin the horse property, and there is no discernable difference.  He stated the fact that the properties backed up to a horse area did not matter; the houses are admittedly $125,000 homes; but there was no affect at all.  He stated he went to Chase Hammock Subdivision; and he found the same results as the other subdivision.  He stated show horses live in barns and show rings;  they are too  expensive to take a chance on them running through the woods and being spooked by a car and getting killed; show horses are pampered and well cared for; but he found absolutely no affect on value on the two comparable properties he looked at. 

 

Cliff Repperger stated he would like to address the subdivision issue raised by Commissioner Infantini.  He advised the reason why the applicant needs to leave herself the greatest flexibility with regard to the property is that she does not know what is going to happen with regard to  the sale; access is going to limit what can be done on the back portion of the property; but with the BDP his client tried to leave the greatest flexibility possible in terms of development, and at the same time leave flexibility with the horses and the acreage; and that is why the Board sees the graduated step up regarding the acreage and the horses, and the number of horses.  He stated in regard to the compatibility to the neighborhood, when looking at the lot size in RR-1 as being one acre, that is more consistent with what is developed around the subject property than what is in the current zoning classification, which is limited to a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.  He noted the surrounding lots around the subject property are generally greater than three-quarters of an acre, so the one-acre minimum lot size in RR-1 is actually more consistent with what the Board will find in RU-1-13, which the subject property could be developed into 27 units; and he would submit to the Board that there is greater consistency with the RR-1 zoning classification.  He stated with regard to the petition that was submitted by Ms. Fiorentino, Commissioner Fisher is correct in that the petition was dated prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting and before the BDP was submitted limiting the number of horses to seven; and the petition was also submitted prior to the further limit to the number of acreage versus the number of horses; and he believes the situation has drastically changed since that petition was passed around.  He stated he would also request that the Board consider where the addresses are on the location of that petition; a lot of the addresses are from the farther out locations of the subdivision to the west, rather than to the immediately surrounding parcels of the subject parcel; and he respectfully requests the Board’s approval of the rezoning request pending legal review of the BDP. 

 

Ray Pecaut stated the scenarios painted for the Board of what he would call the-horse-owner-from-heaven buying the property would be very nice if it could be guaranteed that would happen; but the with the zoning change, the buyer could be anyone; and unfortunately, having money does not mean anything, because ya-hoos could buy the property who are rich.  He stated he does have concern that a very rosy scenario has been presented; but there is no guarantee that is going to happen.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she agrees that the scenario presented was the most rosy of cases; right now, the animal cruelty division is investigating a horse that was not properly taken care of; and often times, those do not get properly prosecuted.  She stated as far as the market value, she does not think anyone is questioning that the property value will go up or down; that was not the question; if someone moves into a neighborhood they do so because it is zoned a certain way; there is a certain expectation unless everyone in a neighborhood agrees that the zoning will remain the same; if everyone is in agreement, then the zoning can be changed; but if people   are  not  in  agreement,  then  people   are   going  to  wonder  why  the  moved  into   a neighborhood if the zoning was not going to remain the same; and she understands change takes place, but there is an expectation, which is why there are zoning rules.  She stated she does not feel that horses are consistent; all the photos she has seen shows that horses are not consistent with that neighborhood; and it would be nice if someone bought the seven acres, but that is not the way the BDP works, as it is set up that the property could be divided more than that.  She noted there are a lot of places available where people can buy property that horses are allowed on; and the subject property is not the only place available; but she does not think putting horses on the property is fair to the current residents.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired once the BDP is in place, only the Board can modify it.  Christine Lepore, Assistant County Attorney, replied that is correct; and it would go through the same process as the rezoning public hearing process.  Chairman Nelson stated whatever the Board agreed to can only be changed by the Board and go back through the process; and it cannot be change arbitrarily because the neighbors agree. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated at a zoning meeting, the Board’s job is to sit as judges, because that is what the law requires; the Board has to look at facts versus assumptions; and the Board cannot make assumptions as to the negative effect of horses because an expert has not talked to the Board about the negative effect of horses.  He inquired if the neighborhood has well water; with Chairman Nelson responding the subdivision is on City of Cocoa water.  Commissioner Anderson stated that would eliminate the possibility of feces in the water.  He noted the other issue is consistency; it would not be inconsistent for the Board to approve the request; and at this point he does not see any reason to deny the request.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he does not consider the house on the subject property to be part of the neighborhood, as it is almost a neighborhood itself with the size of it; he would have more of a concern if there were horses proposed just inside the neighborhood along the streets; and he is more worried about what a barn would look like on the property and if it would back up to some of the homes in the neighborhood.  He inquired if the BDP addresses a barn because that might be more unattractive than the horses; he is okay with the zoning; but he is concerned with a barn that may not be compatible with the structure of the house or something that may be gaudy for the neighbors to view that back up to the barn.  Mr. Repperger advised the BDP does not address it, but there are setbacks for barns.  Cindy Fox, Assistant Zoning Manager, advised in the RR-1 zoning classification there are different setbacks for barns than there are for single-family residences; the front setback for a barn would be 125 feet, and the sides would be 50 feet from each property line; and there would be no barn closer than 50 feet to any side property line.  Commissioner Fisher stated the BDP will have to be reviewed by the County Attorney before it comes back to the Board; and Mr. Repperger can address the barn issue in the final BDP.  Chairman Nelson stated it needs to be address at tonight’s meeting.  Ms. Lepore stated if the Board wanted to have setbacks that were greater than what is already provided for in RR-1, it would need to be in the BDP.  Mr. Repperger stated his client is open to that suggestion; and if the Board has a suggestion for a different setback than what is required, he will entertain that. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated one thing that would be helpful would be to have a proposed site plan because the property is unique; the client does not even know how she is going to divide it; and it is hard for the Board to put conditions on it when it does not know what is planned to be done with it.  He stated what he is really opposed to is 27 houses; as much as he would love to agree with Commissioner Infantini, after going through 2002 through 2006, he is not ready to believe that 27 houses would not be built there at some point because South Merritt Island is a desirable place to live; and if someone can get in cheaper on South Merritt Island in a smaller home, then he thinks that can happen; but by the same token, he also raised the issue of the horses leaving the property.  He inquired if Mr. Repperger is able to come up with some concept that the Board could look at; and it is a unique setting that will be difficult for the Board and for Mr. Repperger.  Mr. Repperger replied there are a number of different concerns with regard to giving the Board some kind of conceptual plan; one concern is that with a subdivision no one knows how it is going to work out; the other issues is that depending on the discipline of the horse, no one knows what would be needed or what the setup would be; and he thinks the better idea would be to agree to certain setbacks and then to implement them into the BDP if they are greater than what is in the zoning classification.  He noted that should be protective enough to provide to the residents that are surrounding the parent parcel; but whatever the setback is, is what it is going to be.  Chairman Nelson inquired if there is an urgency that would not allow the Board to continue this issue to the next meeting; it is a difficult process to start, in effect, designing in a way that the neighbors will feel comfortable; and maybe Mr. Repperger could talk to the neighbors to see if there are not ways that both can come to an agreement.  Mr. Repperger stated tabling is better than a denial; and if that is what he is looking at, then he is fine with tabling; but he would love to work it out if possible.  Chairman Nelson stated when he met with Mr. Repperger he got a feel for what he was trying to accomplish; but at the same time, he does not know if there was the kind of testimony that the Board has heard tonight. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would be willing to facilitate a meeting with the neighbors and the applicant to talk about those issues and see if there is some common ground; and if there is not, the Board can make a vote on August 6, 2009. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he does not know that the neighbors’ positions are going to change from wanting no horses at all because if that is their position, then that decision may as well be made tonight. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated with the current BDP, the Board is about to approve a plan that has no actual design of dimensions.  Commissioner Anderson stated the Board’s mandate is to look at rezoning by law; stated he thinks the Board should go with the setbacks because it becomes a property rights issue because the Board is now asking her to spend additional attorney fees; the property is for sale and anybody can buy it; and any of the neighbors who object can make an offer in the meantime.  He stated he does not want to hold up the process; the Board has been very good at moving things along; and he does not want to be like the previous Boards in which things took months to move along.  Chairman Nelson stated by the same token, if the Board  does  not  think  these  things through,  sometimes  it  can make a bad decision; and that is a problem too, because just as it changed between the Planning and Zoning meeting and the Board meeting, there are ideas.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated her concern is two-fold; the petition that went around saying the neighbors did not want the rezoning, did state four horses per acre; she has to almost void the petition in her mind because she would prefer the neighbors had a petition that was in compliance with the suggestion on the BDP; and in that sense, she would like to hold off on making a decision so that the Board can get full understanding from the neighborhood.  She stated her other concern is that she has been in a similar situation with her mother in which horses came in and enhanced the quality of life; and she is not sold on the idea that horses are bad.  She stated she does not feel the Board is prepared at this time with all the evidence to make a decision.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the minimum lot size in order to have a horse is two acres; and that is only three lots.  He stated the setback question is a legitimate question.  Mr. Repperger stated if the Board has a setback in mind it wants to give him, his client may be agreeable to it tonight; he knows the setback is 50 feet in the current zoning classification; and inquired if the Board is seeking a 100-foot setback.  Ms. Fox noted as a point of clarification, RR-1 specifically reads there shall be no barns or stalls within 50 feet of the side or rear; but it also says no barns or stalls within 100 feet of any residence; and so it would be from the home and not just the property line. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the neighbors want to delay the public hearing to have a conversation about setbacks and what the layout might look like; or do the neighbors want to delay the public hearing because they do not want horses.  He stated if the neighbors’ position is that they will not support horses on the property, then the Board is delaying it for no reason; but if there is a reason to work with the neighbors on the layout, then it is fair game.  Chairman Nelson stated his decision would be based on trying to protect both interests; if there are setbacks he could feel comfortable with, even though the neighbors would not, at least they would know he tried from that perspective to look at in a way in which he was trying to protect their interests.  He stated he thinks the 50-foot setback may be a little small given the unique circumstances; and it is 100 feet between the houses, but it is 50 feet from the rear property line, so a pool could be back there.  Commissioner Anderson stated the property is seven acres, so if the Board wants a setback such as 200 feet or 300 feet, then it can do that.  Commissioner Bolin stated that would change the number of horses. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, to deny Item V.B.5.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to table Item V.B.5. to the August 6, 2009 zoning meeting. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what the Board expects to happen between now and then that would move the item along; the question is if Mr. Repperger is willing to meet with the neighbors and have a discussion; and it may come back that under no circumstances do they want horses; but at least that is a point.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated Mr. Repperger advised he would agree to making concessions tonight on a decision about the setbacks; inquired how he will do that; and inquired if the Board would send Mr. Repperger to the hallway to discuss the setbacks with the neighbors.  She stated she does not see where Mr. Repperger can accomplish anything tonight.  Mr. Repperger stated he does not know what the Board’s concern is as far as the distance it wants; if the Board tells him it wants 200 feet or 300 feet, he would talk with the neighbors to see if they are agreeable to that; but he does not think it is a complex discussion, as it is how much distance the Board wants between the barn and the surrounding residents; and he does not see it as a huge issue that needs to be debated for a couple of months, but if that is going to save the application, then he will gladly have that discussion. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to suggest a five minute break in order to let Mr. Repperger meet with the neighbors and come back to the Board. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to formally withdraw her motion.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like Mr. Repperger to go outside with his client and the neighbors to discuss the issues with the neighbors; and if Mr. Repperger comes back with no solutions, then the Board will deal with that.

 

The Board recessed at 6:29 p.m. and reconvened at 6:39 p.m.

 

 

Item V.B.8. (Z0905301) Anthony Lopes and Gene Lomando’s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zoning classification on 0.42 acre, located west of U.S. 1, south of Garretts Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Cindy Fox, Assistant Zoning Manager, stated staff is requesting the Board approve the CUP as an accessory to a restaurant.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve Item V.B.8. as accessory to a restaurant only.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item V.B.9. (Z0905401) CP Venture Five – AV LLC’s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption (beer & wine only) in a PUD zoning classification on 0.062 acre, located in The Avenue at Viera, east of Lake Andrew Drive, on Town Center Avenue, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item V.B.9., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item V.B.10. (Z0905501) Brevard County’s request for a change from GML to GML(H) and a CUP for Solid Waste Management Facilities on 2,980.38 acres, located north of U.S. 192, at the Osceola County line, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item V.B.10., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated for the record he wants to disclose that he went to Desiree Ranch; and they are interested in re-purchasing the property.  Chairman Nelson stated that has been the Ranch’s position since the day it was first purchased.

 

 

Item V.B.11. (PSJ90401) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners’ request pursuant to Chapter 62, Article VI, Brevard County Code, Section 62-1152, and Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Policy 15.2, the following property is being considered for administrative rezoning:  Property owned by Florida Power & Light, Co., to change from AU, IU, and IU-1 to GML(U) on 47.7 acres, located west of U.S. 1, north and south of Clearview Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item V.B.11., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board can choose Option 1, which is to extend the bonds; and inquired if Ed Fleis is in support of Option 1.

 

Ed Fleis stated he is in support of Option 1.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is not in favor of Option 1 for Items VII.A.1 through VII.A.9; on Items VII.A.2, VII.A.3., VII.A.4. and VII.A.5., she is in favor or Option 2, to make a claim for payment; she has a question Item VII.A.6.; and she is in favor of Option 1 on Items VII.A.7., VII.A.8., and VII.A.9. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated by extending the bonds it gives the Board time to look at the sidewalk ordinance; there are some payments the Board might accept; but those payments may not be enough to do the sidewalks; and the Board may want to be careful about doing that as there may not be enough money in the bonds.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Option 1, allows to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts new policy; and that could be in July, so the Board is only talking about a relatively short period of time.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board is not extending the bonds beyond July; with Chairman Nelson responding the Board is not extending the bonds beyond the Board creating its new policy.  Commissioner Infantini noted some of the bonds have been extended since 2000; some of the bonds are for $1,000, $900; and inquired what the point is in going forward and holding it if there is no more money coming forward.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board might adopt the new policy; and when the Board adopts the new policy it may find out it costs more than $900 to extend the sidewalk and it has already let them off the hook; and the Board may not want to do that.  Commissioner Infantini stated their only liability is the $900.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board can address the whole policy.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve Option 1, (on items VII.A.1. through VII.A.9.) maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve maintaining current policy allowing staff to administratively extend the sidewalk securities until the Board adopts a new sidewalk policy. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve a Settlement Agreement between Brevard County and Jorge Gomez, brought to the Board’s attention on May 19, 2009, in executive session.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Agreements with the Florida Department of Children and Families (FDCF) and the Brevard County Health Department (BCHD) for the implementation of a local child care licensing and enforcement program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Item V.B.5. (Z0905201) Donna M. Adams, Trustee’s request for a change from RU-1-13 to RR-1 on 7.11 acres, located on the west side of South Courtenay Parkway, south of Plantation Road, which was recommended for approval with a Binding Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Board.  (CONTINUED)

 

Ray Pecaut inquired if the current regulations prohibit people from riding horses through a residential area, and if so, how is it enforced.  Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore advised to her knowledge, that is not a prohibition; and if that is a concern, it should be addressed in the BDP (Binding Development Plan).  Chairman Nelson inquired if it is put into the BDP, but someone leaves the site on a horse, how does law enforcement deal with that.  Ms. Lepore replied Code Enforcement would need to be called.  Mr. Pecaut inquired how the neighbors will get Code Enforcement to take action.  Ms. Lepore replied the neighbors would need to file a complaint with Code Enforcement in regard to any provision in the BDP.  Commissioner Infantini stated the problem with Code Enforcement is if they do not witness the event, then it did not take place; and a Code Enforcement Officer actually has to witness the event.  Mr. Pecaut stated then the statement made by Ms. Lepore that Code Enforcement would take action is incorrect.  Ms. Lepore advised no, it is not; if a neighbor files a complaint, Code Enforcement will investigate; and they will talk to the neighbor and the homeowner to gather evidence.  She stated what Commissioner Infantini is trying to explain is that there may be laws in the enforcement process by the very nature of the horses there, or not there, depending on what time of day it is.  Mr. Pecaut stated the chances that someone investigating would be there simultaneously with the horses off the property is somewhat in the same odds of a major meteor strike.  Chairman Nelson stated that may be broad, but it is probably the same as a law enforcement officer having to be there at the same time and see it.

 

Cliff Repperger stated he met with the neighbors in the hallway; the problem they are having is what the Board suspected, which is that the surrounding neighborhood does not want horses; and he tried to talk in terms of numbers or subdivision splits, but that did not work for the neighbors.  He stated he does not think there can be an agreement on that; he is not so sure there is anything to be gained by tabling the item and meeting with the neighbors because it is an up or down for the neighbors; and they just do not want horses.  He stated depending on the Board’s feeling, if it is necessary, what the applicant has represented to him is that she is willing to address the setback issue the Board may be concerned about; the applicant has said she is willing to provide that the language  in the BDP  currently about the subdivision,  that that will go away; and if the property were to be subdivided, whatever the acreage is in the subdivision, that that number of horses would be lost from the parent parcel, horses will remain only on the parent parcel. He stated in other words, if the property were subdivided off into two acres, two horses would be lost and there would only be five horses on the parent parcel; and if four acres were subdivided off, then there would only be three horses left on the parent parcel; and the applicant is agreeable to that, but it is not something that would have otherwise been proposed.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it was a nice gesture on the applicant’s part to try to cooperate with the neighbors; and having only two homes on seven acres is better than 27 homes on seven acres because it helps the density. 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Item V.B.5. with a Binding Development Plan as submitted.

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated neighbors need to sit down with developers to try to work something out; and Ms. Adams and Mr. Repperger tried to do that; but to take the position that the neighbors do not want horses in an all or nothing manner is a selfish position. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired what would happen if the applicant offered to raise pigs.  Chairman Nelson noted the property is just limited to horses and no other livestock.

 

Chairman Nelson stated if the Board is going to allow horses, he would prefer they stay on the entire parent parcel; and if that parcel is subdivided there would be no horses.  He stated if the Board allowed four horses on the property, no structure closer than 100 feet to the property line, and no subdividing of the property, he would agree to that; the horses would go with the full property; if subdivided down from there, horses have to come out of the mix; to him, that is as fair as he can be; and he would provide that as an amendment to the Binding Development Plan, if the applicant would consider it. 

 

Commissioner Fisher requested clarification of Chairman Nelson’s amendment.  Chairman Nelson advised if an owner is going to have horses, no more than four horses allowed on the entire tract, which is over seven acres; if it is subdivided into anything less than that, then no horses; and further, no structure would be closer than 100 feet from the property line, and not from residential structures.  Ms. Lepore inquired if Chairman Nelson meant barn structures; with Chairman Nelson responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the applicant is okay with that amendment.  Mr. Repperger advised his client is okay with the no subdivision, but would prefer seven horses over the four.  Chairman Nelson inquired if there is a reason for that.   Ms. Adams stated from what she has learned from horse owners, the disciplines require a certain number of horses; it is normally six to eight horses; the original zoning allowed up to 28 horses on the property; she went down to seven horses; and her concern is that for the disciplines, a future buyer will need six to eight horses.  Chairman Nelson stated he can live with six horses on the whole parcel, but if it is subdivided, then no horses would be allowed; stated the applicant is asking a community for a use that is not there; the benefit to the community may be that they will not have 20-plus homes behind them, but it is a lot to ask for a community that has never had that; and if it was an area that has always had horses it would be different.  Ms. Adams stated she is fine with the no subdivision; her vision for the property is for it to stay in tact; she is agreeable to six horses and losing that right if the property is subdivided; and she does not want to see the property subdivided. 

 

Commissioner Fisher withdrew his motion.

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Mr. Repperger inquired on the structures closer than 100 feet to the property line, can it be clear that it is stabling or horse related types of housing structures.  Chairman Nelson stated yes, all other setbacks would then apply, and the Board is adding to that setback.  Ms. Lepore inquired if that includes show rings, exercise rings, and pastures.  Chairman Nelson stated he thinks it should include those things. 

Susan Thompson noted a dressage ring is only a few inches tall; and the person it backs up to is going to be able to watch the horses, but it is not going to obstruct any type of view. 

 

Kay Fiorentino stated she can see the whole subject property from the side of her house; and advised the Planning and Zoning Office told her four horses per acre were allowed, but the neighbors thought only one or two horses would be allowed; and the neighbors were against any more than two horses.  Chairman Nelson inquired if the issue is better off than it was; with Ms. Fiorentino responding no because the Board is allowing six, and the applicant had wanted seven.  Chairman Nelson stated there will not be three houses with horses versus a single structure.  Ms. Fiorentino advised the three-house limit was not mentioned until tonight; and she does not know how any houses can be built there because it is a 25-foot easement.  Chairman Nelson stated the owner could build a road that comes off of Courtenay Parkway.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if Ms. Fiorentino understands that the property is not going to be subdivided and there will only be six horses.  Ms. Fiorentino stated she is against any horses; and she would rather have development than horses. 

 

Motion by Chairman Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Item V.B.5. with a Binding Development Plan, limiting horses to no more than six; 100-foot setback for barn structures from the property line; and all other setbacks for structures will apply.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.  

 

 

Item V.B.6. (Z0905202) Curtis Deem’s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption (beer & wine only) in a BU-2 zoning classification on 0.59 acre, located on the northeast corner of Merritt Island Causeway (SR 520), and Rose Street, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

Donna Davis stated she and Ms. Stocks are requesting a CUP at the property located at 440 West Merritt Island Causeway; the building has been vacant for approximately one and a half years; and the building is very old.  She stated the building has an open floor plan; there have not been a lot of renovations; she has estimates from a general contractor on the renovation costs; and she is just asking for a Conditional Use Permit, but she knows there are issues with the community as far as the parking and septic system.  She stated she knows the building has to be brought up to Code and the Fire Marshall will have to be involved; she talked to a lot of people in Planning and Zoning and was told the CUP was the first step; and now she is being told it is the last step.  She stated she has been to two MIRA (Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency) meetings; MIRA’s concerns were the cost because it is an old building that has been there since before 1958; there were also concerns about parking; but there were not any concerns about noise. 

 

Cheryl Stocks stated there was a neighbor in opposition on Magnolia Street; she and Ms. Davis had the property surveyed to see how far that neighbor was from the building; and the survey determined that neighbor is approximately 315 feet away from the building.  She stated the Island Pointe Condominiums have been another issue; and the furthest condo is approximately 496 feet from the building.  She noted she has some pictures of the building for the Board; she plans on landscaping the front of the building, and painting the outside of the building; and she is wanting to make it pretty.  She stated it was brought to her attention that everyone thinks it will be a biker bar; that is not her intention; there is not even going to be a pool table; there will be three TV’s, a bar that will seat 10 people, and tables; and stated she does not want any trouble in the bar, and she plans on controlling what goes on in the establishment.  She provided pictures to the Board and to the Clerk. 

 

Ms. Davis noted there are two similar establishments near the proposed business; one is a block and a half away, which is Wiggles; and the other Doc’s Bait House, which is closer to the condominiums than the proposed business she wants to open.  She stated if from outside the door of the proposed business, there are trees in front of the condominiums; there is a lot of traffic with S.R. 520; people were concerned about Rose Street, but Rose Street cannot even be seen from the condominiums; and traffic should not be a concern because there are two ways into the property and two ways out. 

 

Chairman Nelson noted the owner called his office and talked to his staff.  Commissioner Anderson stated he has had communications with Deanna Reiter and Bob Pierce. 

 

Billy Stocks stated he has been in business in Brevard County for six years; stated when he and his wife took over the building there were people sleeping it the back of it; there was trash such as alcohol bottles and syringes; and he cleaned up the building and the site.  He stated what he is proposing to do is paint the building and put in some landscaping in order to have a nice, friendly environment; he is requesting a CUP in order to finish some upgrading of the site; and the proposed establishment will be great revenue for the County.

 

Phil Finney stated he owns and manages the commercial property located at 423 West Merritt Island Causeway, which is across the street from the subject property; and he also owns and manages commercial buildings and residential apartments on Magnolia Avenue to the south of the subject property.  He stated MIRA was formed in 1988 to take the lead and assist in the redevelopment of properties along the S.R. 520 corridor as it was widened from four to six lanes; he was an original member of MIRA and served from 1988 to 1990; and he has supported MIRA’s philosophies of improvement rather than decline.  He noted since the road widening, there have been no improvements to the subject property; and as an owner and manager of commercial buildings, he requires proof of occupancy licenses, and proof of insurance before signing a lease to be sure the business will comply with restrictions and requirements of Brevard County. He advised the referenced property and building has many deficiencies; the parking area is a substandard dirt lot with broken asphalt lined with timbers, no lighting, and an improved parking lot is imperative to keeping property leased; the subject building is over 50 years old; it is a wood-framed building covered with stucco; it is on septic as there is not sewer available in the area yet; and he questions whether the septic tank would be adequate for the proposed business.  He stated MIRA and the Planning and Zoning Board both voted to deny the request; and he urges the Commission to do the same.

 

Marilyn Finney provided a map to the Board and to the Clerk.  She stated the subject property is an inverted L shaped property; her properties are south of S.R. 520; her properties on S.R. 520 are the commercial properties; those to the south are residential properties; and she also has residential properties south of Magnolia Avenue.  She stated she and her husband have lived and worked for 40 years in the area; she has lived at 436 Magnolia Avenue for 39 years; and she supports the MIRA and understands the challenges the property owners in the area have.  She stated the lots in the area have been chopped up; there is one square property that is 24 feet by 24 feet; and so she understands the challenges of trying to make properties work in the area.  She stated she believes the application before the Board is premature; when the applicants went before MIRA in April, they were tabled and given direction to go back to the County to work through the issues that had been outlined; the application went to the Planning and Zoning Board where it was denied based on the issues not being done; it was before MIRA today where it was denied unanimously because no progress had been made; and the applicants were advised they needed to check into the requirements for an establishment on the property, but none of that work has been done.  She stated some other concerns are that the subject building was initially a house that was turned into an office building, which was used as an office building; while the applicants stated they have occupational licenses and businesses, they did not state that they have a license to run a bar establishment; and there are restrictions on individuals who can get occupational licenses for taverns, so she does not even know if the applicants would qualify for the first step, which is to get an occupational license.  She stated her other concern is that to have the building qualified to explore whether there is enough room to have proper parking, proper garbage disposal, solid waste disposal, handicap/ADA compliance on the exterior, and water retention; the subject property has none of those features that would be expected for a change of use to have; there are two parcels that Mr. Deem has, but they are divided into two; and the one on the northwest quadrant is where the majority of the parking is  shown on  the sketch the  applicants provided;  and  she believes all  of the elements need to be placed within that one parcel in order to be compliant.  She advised the property is actively for sale; the owner stated through his representative that he is only going to do provide a short-term lease; that says to her that the applicants are willing to do the work, but it was implied it is a temporary rental; and the owner has not argued that.  She stated her concern is if a CUP is granted for alcohol it stays with the property, and there are many unknowns; it is a non-compliant structure as far as bar or tavern use; once the CUP is granted it is very difficult to go back and get it removed; and she would appeal to the Board to deny the application.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired what Ms. Finney would like to see on the subject property.  Ms. Finney replied that is not her decision to call.  Commissioner Infantini stated she knows Ms. Finney does not want a tavern; and inquired what she would like to have there.  Ms. Finney noted what she said is that she does not believe the CUP is the step the applicant should make at this point; as a commercial property owner, when someone comes to her to rent, before they can be rented to, the renter needs to assure that the business fits the requirements of the structure, such as proper equipment; and the property owner should go with the renter to get the permitting and assure the building is compliant.  She stated to start with a CUP when it is not known if the building can have handicapped bathrooms and other elements, it is premature to consider a CUP.  Commissioner Infantini stated the applicants are doing due diligence before they go to an architect because she has done things the absolute opposite way in 1994, after she did all her research she was denied her CUP; and she applauds the applicants for being smarter than she was because they are going forward to see if they can do what they want to do before they redesign the whole structure.  Ms. Finney noted what the applicants have is a viable office building and that is what the building has been used for; she had a similar property adjacent to one of her properties; and because of the septic tank, the applicant got a restaurant permit, but the septic tank would only allow a five-seat restaurant.  She stated Mr. Deem has prime property on S.R. 520 available for high and best uses; and to her, another little tavern in a ramshackled shack when there is already Doc’s Bait House and Wiggles nearby, which are not adding to the higher and best use in the MIRA area, is a wrong direction to go in.

 

Michael Kanis stated he lives in the Island Pointe Condominiums; he concurs with what has been said previously; but he would like to disagree with some of the statements made by the applicant.  He stated the traffic will be a problem because a left-turn cannot be made off the subject property onto S.R. 520 safely; there is a lot of noise from traffic and construction; the proposed tavern would add to the noise, especially with people drinking; and it is unrealistic to say there is not going to be additional noise.  He noted he can walk out his front door and see Rose Street; he can see the subject building clearly; he applauds the applicants for cleaning up the property; but as previously mentioned there are already two establishments within walking distance of his condominium.

 

Bob Pirie stated he lives in Island Pointe Condominiums, which are about a stone’s throw from the proposed establishment; there is an issue of compatibility; and inquired if another tavern is needed on the property that backs up to a residential community that has a lot children.  He stated with regard to what goes on inside the tavern, he would expect that the owners would want to  control that;  his concern is what  goes on outside the tavern, which he does not believe the owners can control as easily; people go to a tavern to drink; even with one drink a person is impaired; and for him the traffic issue is not S.R. 520, but Myrtice Avenue and Rose Street, which already carry quite a bit of traffic for as small as they are.  He noted Myrtice Avenue in particular is a short cut to S.R. 520 to North Tropical Trail and to Courtenay Parkway; and Rose Street would become even more of a problem because people who want to turn east onto S.R. 520 from the establishment would probably come down Rose Street to the Condo’s front gate.  He stated there is already litter in the area; his wife has spent many Sunday afternoons picking up litter in the area; much of it is alcohol related; and he cannot see where another drinking establishment would improve on that situation.  He stated he would like to call attention to the email he sent to Chairman Nelson, as it outlines his concerns better than he can in public; and he hopes the Board considers seriously the type of proposed establishment close to a residential neighborhood and that the Board denies the request.

 

Michele Chabot stated she has lived in Merritt Island for 14 years; and that corner of Merritt Island where the subject property is located has been a sore spot for years.  She stated she has had business dealings with the applicants and she thinks they are people of their word; she agrees with Commissioner Infantini who said the applicants should find out what they can and cannot do before they sink money into the property; and she applauds them for that.

 

Paul Faulk stated he agrees with Commissioner Infantini; he has been a contractor and remodeler for the last 18 years; and a lot of clients come to him with what they would like to do on the property.  He noted Mr. Finney stated since S.R. 520 has been widened, nothing has been done to the subject property; but the applicants are tying to make improvements; and they are aware there is an exterior budget they can apply for through the County, and they are trying to do that in order to get a grant to try to improve the building.  He stated as far as the vagrancy and the trash, those things have been there; but the applicants are trying to improve the area, just as with the motel next door.  He stated there are two egresses for the subject property; there is a left-turn lane that was built by the County; the building is on septic; sewer is being installed in the area; and the applicants will not be required by Utilities to tap into the sewer system; but the applicants are willing to upgrade the septic system if needed.  He stated he would like the Board to give the applicants an opportunity to have a business for themselves just as many people would.  He stated he has talked to the applicants about their intentions with the property; the applicants do not want to have exterior activities; as far as the drinking, there is drinking going on everywhere; it is the individual who goes into the tavern that has the responsibility when they get on the road; and he will continue to help the applicants if they are granted a CUP.

 

Deanna Reiter stated she lives in the Island Pointe Condominiums; her concerns about Boneshakers Tavern would be several things already stated such as the sewer, noise, litter, traffic, speeding, trespassing, and property damage; and Mr. Stokes mentioned revenue coming into the County, and she is all for that; but her unit is one of the smaller ones and her taxes in 2007 were $7,400 and in 2008 were $6,700; and multiply that by 185 owners, that is putting nice coins into the coffers.   She  stated when she  chose to  move to  Merritt Island  she had a lot  of faith in MIRA; she understands MIRA voted no today on Boneshakers; and she would like the Board to think carefully about granting the CUP.

 

Spencer Brintle stated he lives approximately one and a quarter mile from the proposed business in Cocoa on Forrest Avenue; he has known the applicants for years; and what the applicants say they will do, they will do.  He stated the traffic has always been ferocious on S.R. 520; and it would not matter if the road was widened to eight lanes.  He stated there are a lot of transients who walk up and down Forrest Avenue, and he does not have a problem with them; and he does not know why the Condo people have problems with transients.  He stated he hopes the Board agrees with what the applicants are trying to do.

 

Tony Morrell stated he lives in the Island Pointe Condominium and he is a condo person.  He stated he echoes everything the Board has heard tonight from the people that are against the CUP request; his concerns are the alcohol related traffic accidents and risks; and there are children and residents in the community who walk the streets for exercise.  He stated he is not sure what the intended use of the establishment is other than to serve beer and wine; the whole area needs to be cleaned up and improved; he bought his condo a year ago knowing what was in the immediate area; and he is hoping the zoning commission would apply improvements that would be more family oriented, such that more alcohol establishments would be limited.  He stated he is against the CUP and he would ask each Commissioner to consider themselves as a resident in the community and ask themselves if they would want that kind of establishment in their backyard; and he would like the Board to deny the CUP request.  

 

Chairman Nelson stated he has the same concerns as Mr. Morrell, that it is his community; this is not a referendum on the quality of the applicants or the owner, it is about compatibility of use in a community; and the Redevelopment Agency today voted unanimously not to approve the CUP, along with the Planning and Zoning Board.  He stated the particular site is going to create the kinds of issues that the Board needs to address; he does not agree that there will not be traffic issues; if there is an 80-seat restaurant, there are going to be traffic issues at that location on Merritt Island; there are times when it is impossible to pull onto S.R. 520, particularly heading into Cocoa; to him, Section 62-1901(c)(1)(a), which is the impact upon adjacent and nearby properties will be significant because of the use of the property; there will be noise; the hours of operation will be late into the evening; and anyone who knows the area knows there will be noise that will travel to the condos.  He stated he also thinks it is a historically bad area; he would love to see the applicants be successful; but that is not the location for them to start a business; and it is not consistent with the redevelopment concepts that have been put forward by the MIRA, and he believes it will do harm to those efforts; and for that reason, he will not be supporting the CUP.  He noted again, it is not about the applicants; he wants them to be successful; it is a bad location; and it is a bad use for the location. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson to deny Item V.B.6.

 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the applicant is allowed to address the Board again.  Chairman Nelson stated yes, and if the applicants would like to comment, that would be fine.

 

Donna Davis stated she understands everyone’s concerns with the age of the building; the owner is not going to sell the building; it is going to sit there continuing to have bums behind it; she has found many pocketbooks behind the building along with other items; and the building is going to stay vacant; and inquired why it cannot be allowed to be useful.  She stated as far as the name of the bar, she will change it; stated it is not a biker bar; and it is just a tavern for people to come in and have a beer.  She stated there are many establishments in Central Florida; she is from North Carolina, and she has never seen so many taverns as Florida has; and inquired what is one more establishment.  She stated Doc’s Bait House is closer to the condominiums than the subject property; there is a strip club nearby called Wiggles that is grandfathered-in; and instead of denying the application, she would like the Board to table it to let her get more prepared.  She stated she and the other applicants did what MIRA asked them to do; but she was also told by Planning and Zoning that they do not have to have certain things to get a CUP; and they are aware the building needs to be built up to Code.  She stated they have renovations costs from a general contractor, the plumbing is done, and they even have the paving cost; all they are asking for is a CUP; and instead of denying the application, she would like it to be tabled.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she agrees that the applicants will be bringing the building up to Code; she is proud of the applicants for coming forward to ask for the CUP before they have invested all the money in Planning and Zoning and other things such as the septic, which is not cheap.  She stated there is no better area for a bar establishment than off of S.R. 520, which is a four-lane road that goes all the way to I-95, she does not see how traffic will be increased; but if traffic does increase it means the tavern is successful. She stated as far as the compliance issues, it is very hard to meet the septic requirements; and the County makes people jump through hoops to get a septic permit.  Ms. Davis stated fortunately, the owner is going to take on that cost for them; and the owner has been great to deal with because he does not just want the building sitting there vacant. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated as far as the argument that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood, she does not see how that argument can be made; the Board is supposed to make sure the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood; just as where some of the Commissioners approved having horses in a neighborhood that never had them before, the Board would be approving having alcohol being sold in a neighborhood where it is already being sold; and she would vote to approve the CUP request.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the CUP is approved and the applicants were not able to pull everything together and have a business there, what would that do to the property.  Assistant Zoning Manager Cindy Fox replied CUP’s that are not established within three years are automatically removed from the property.  Commissioner Bolin stated if the applicant were not able to put together their business plan, then  the property would have a CUP on it for  someone else to look at as a bar or tavern.  Ms. Fox stated that is correct, up until the expiration of the CUP. 

 

Cheryl Stocks stated she and the other applicants have a lease on the building; and they are still going to be in the building.  Commissioner Bolin stated she was trying to establish a situation where if by some freak accident both applicants move to California and broke the lease, what would happen to that property if it were to be approved.  Ms. Davis stated she and Ms. Stocks are not going anywhere, as they have a business in the area.  Chairman Nelson stated they could sell their business to someone who wants to open a biker bar. Ms. Davis stated the proposed business is not going to be a biker bar.  She stated if she had known the name would be a conflict, she would have named it something different; and she is willing to change the name. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated his concern is consistency with the current Codes; in looking at the facts, he has not heard any expert testimony to dispute what the applicants have presented as far as traffic and everything else; and it is a tough decision for him.  He stated he agrees with the neighborhood in that the building may not be consistent with what is currently in the area; but he does not find anything that make the proposed use inconsistent with any of the current Codes. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated if having a bar along S.R. 520 is consistent, then there would be all bars; the reality is that Doc’s Bait House was there long before the condos were, and so was Wiggles for that matter; and so he does not know that that could be used as a test for compatibility, which should be based on the use of the property.  Commissioner Anderson stated it is consistent because there are establishments that serve alcohol up and down the area.  He stated it is not that he disagrees with Chairman Nelson, but on principle, there are Codes, and he is trying to apply it directly to what the Board is doing across-the-board; and he may not be a big fan of what the applicants are trying to establish, but that means the Board needs to revisit its Codes and level of service.  Chairman Nelson stated the question is will there be people outdoors at 2:00 a.m. heading home.  Commissioner Anderson stated that becomes a matter for law enforcement; and it is not something the Board can regulate.  Chairman Nelson stated it is noise at night, which is one of the tests the Board has. 

 

Ms. Davis advised there is a motel next door to the subject property that is being renovated; and she is going to work on getting discounts cards for the hotel so that the tavern patrons can stay at the motel and not have to drive. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is not thrilled about adding another drinking establishment, but right now he does not have anything to fall back on that says that would be inconsistent with current codes.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board is asked to weigh-in on the issues of noise, odors, particulates, smoke fumes, and other emissions; operating hours is one of those issues; it is a facility that will be open until 2:00 a.m.; and access for parking is actually not on the subject property, it is actually on one of properties Mr. Deem owns, but is not part of the CUP; and it  does  dump  onto  roads that dump  onto the  condo property.   He  stated he struggles to believe that a motel would come in and say it wants a bar next to it because it is inconsistent and often competes with each other.  He advised if Commissioner Infantini wants to line A1A in Melbourne Beach with beer establishments, he will help her; but she will find it to be a miserable experience; and there has to be limits on what the Board allows to occur based on the criteria in communities and neighborhoods.  Commissioner Infantini stated if Melbourne Beach’s part of A1A was four-laned, she would do that; but it is two-laned with double yellow lines.  Chairman Nelson stated there are already some establishments in Melbourne Beach, so what is a few more.  Commissioner Infantini stated she agrees; she tried to have an establishment; after she sold her property, two were put in; and that is what she is trying to help the applicants avoid.  She noted the establishment she was trying to form was in front of her house, which is on the river. 

 

Commissioner Anderson he agrees that everyone can assume there will be more traffic, but the Board is supposed to be looking at facts as it sits as a quasi-judicial board; there was no expert testimony provided from any traffic engineers; there was no expert testimony to negate the applicants’ testimony about the noise; he just wants to be consistent; and maybe that is something the Board needs to fix in the Code. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the applicant has to prove that there is or is not a problem with traffic.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the applicant has to prove that the use is consistent with all the Codes.  Chairman Nelson stated the applicant is saying there is no problem with traffic, but they have not shown that there is none; and the Board is being asked to prove the negative, which is that there are traffic issues, which puts the Board in the position of arguing with the applicants.  He inquired who is supposed to speak for the neighbors.  Commissioner Anderson stated the idea behind zoning laws were to take the politics out of it.  Chairman Nelson stated he agrees.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is looking at what the Board currently has in front of it.  Chairman Nelson stated the burden of proof falls upon the applicant to show that these things are compatible; and he does not know that he has seen anything that shows it is compatible. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he understands both sides of the argument; the argument he has not heard either side make is that the property is in a redevelopment area; and inquired if the goal in a redevelopment area is to not start changing the look of that corridor in that area. Chairman Nelson stated MIRA’s purpose has been to improve the viability of that part of the community; MIRA has spent money on the infrastructure that would facilitate that; MIRA has looked at low-impact types of uses that would be consistent with the neighborhoods they are in because there is still some residential scattered throughout this part of the redevelopment area.  He stated the area is the gateway onto the island, so a lot of time and effort has been spent in trying to improve and beautify that area; Waterway Park is a redevelopment project; and now there is going to be a working waterfront.  He stated there has been an attempt by MIRA to create a theme for Merritt Island that is one that gets away from a string of drinking establishments running along S.R. 520; he does not accept that because there are bars on S.R. 520 that there should be more on S.R. 520; and there is residential in the area, which would be impacted.   He  stated Doc’s Bait House  has  been  in the same  location  for  many  years;  the proposed use would be a new use the Board would be allowing in this location; he would like to see something there other than the old Labor Finders building next to a historic Aladdin Motel where there have been many issues with law enforcement over the years than any other place on Merritt Island; and he does not know how the proposed use changes that if not contributing to the continuation of it.  He stated the Board needs to transition out of those kinds of uses in that location into more compatible uses, such as professional offices or retail. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated two weeks ago the Board approved a couple of CUP’s, and he is trying to separate the distance, because he would like to stay consistent.  Chairman Nelson stated in those cases the issues were similar; and like one of the CUP’s approved recently, the current request will impact residential, along with noise issues and hours of operation.  He stated if the Board cannot make a decision with the level of testimony from citizens on both sides, then it is almost automatic that if someone asks for a CUP they will get it.  Commissioner Fisher stated the applicants suggested tabling the request; and inquired if Chairman Nelson is opposed to tabling.  Chairman Nelson stated he does not think anything can change.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the applicant can submit a Binding Development Plan limiting the hours of operation.  Chairman Nelson stated he appreciates the concern by Commissioner Fisher, but he thinks it is an incompatible use. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the applicants would be willing to limit the hours of operation.  Ms. Davis responded yes, she would.  Commissioner Infantini stated if the fear is the bar being opened until 2:00 a.m., there is going to be a working waterfront down the street, which is a huge investment by MIRA and the State; and it is a great location to have a nice establishment.  She inquired if the hours could be changed so that the bar closes at midnight; with Ms. Davis responding that would be fine.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, to approve Item V.B.6., limiting bar hours no later than midnight.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he was trying to understand the redevelopment area and if the use can be done in a tasteful way and have a Binding Development Plan to see what the use would look like; and that will give the Board a chance to look at it.  Commissioner Anderson stated it would also give the residents the ability to bring forth further testimony, as he was alluding to; and that would be fair to both sides.  Commissioner Fisher stated he just wants to give everyone a fair chance; he is not for it or against it; and he wants to be consistent and fair with what the Board has done in the past on some other requests. 

 

Ms. Davis stated at today’s MIRA meeting, one of the members mentioned a BDP and if one could be attached to a CUP; stated she does not think she is jumping her steps; she has to get the CUP before she and Ms. Stocks begin spending thousands of dollars; if they spend the money and then are denied the CUP, then it was a waste of time and money; and they already have invested thousands of dollars.  She stated the Codes in Florida are very strict compared to North Carolina. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the applicants can work out issues such as the hours of operation, the look of the building, and the seating to try to please some people in the neighborhood before it comes back to the Board.  Ms. Davis stated she is agreeable to changing the hours of operation; and the Fire Marshall will dictate the seating. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she believes strongly in the purpose of MIRA; what MIRA is trying to do is change the scope of that area; and she applauds the applicants for wanting to open a business; but she is not convinced that this is the right location.  She stated she is not positive the location is the best location because of the environment and what MIRA is trying to do in breaking the chain there of the establishment.  She stated she is also concerned that if the Board approves the CUP it goes with the property even if the applicants do not open it; and that is why she is leaning towards denying the CUP.

 

Cheryl Stocks stated the location is a great location; the building has a lot of windows; there is a beautiful view of the river; and it is a great location for a bar establishment.  She noted the building also has a historical look; she does not want to open a biker bar like has been suggested; but she is just trying to open a well-known, friendly, establishment where people can have a conversation without loud music. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to table Item V.B.6. to the August 6, 2009 Board meeting. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what will be accomplished by tabling the item.  Commissioner Anderson stated he needs factual evidence to deny the request, or the Board needs to tweak its Codes.  Chairman Nelson stated he does not know what can be accomplished in that period of time because he does not see how it can be made more acceptable because there is still going to be noise whether the closing time is at 2:00 a.m. or midnight; there will still be traffic issues; and he thinks it is an inappropriate use in that location coming onto Merritt Island; and he will not be supporting the tabling. 

 

Chairman Nelson called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Nelson and Bolin voted nay. 

 

 

The Board recessed at 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.

 

 

Item V.B.7. (NMI90301) Merritt Island Development LLC’s request for a CUP for a Recreational/Residential Marina with 30 slips, retaining the existing BDP, in an EU-2 classification on 99.70 acres, located on the northwest corner of Treasure Lagoon Lane and North Tropical Trail, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. 

 

Chairman Nelson advised he did a site visit on the subject property; and stated he has spoken to Marilyn Wetmore, Mary Hillberg, and Jake Wise, and his environmental consultant.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he received several emails, but they seem to be similar emails; and the citizens who sent the email want them read into the record, but he does not know how the Board handles that.  Chairman Nelson stated Board policy is not to read emails into the record, but to include them with the record.  Commissioner Anderson advised he has not had any phone call, just emails. Commissioner Fisher advised he has spoken to Marilyn Wetmore.  Commissioner Infantini stated her staff also spoke to Ms. Wetmore.

 

Jake Wise, representing the applicant, stated he is the Civil Engineer for the project; and it is a project that has gotten a lot of attention.  He advised the project is 100 acres in North Merritt Island that has been vacant for a long time and has had a well-know Binding Development Plan (BDP) on it for a very long time; the decision before the Board is in regards to another Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a marina; and there are a lot of other issues that have been brought up and discussed at the numerous public meetings.  He noted there have been neighborhood meetings, homeowners association meetings, North Merritt Island Special District Board meetings; a lot of issues keep coming into the mix; and he would like to go over those issues so the Board is aware of them; but he is not going to focus on those issues because at the end of the day, what is being requested is a CUP for a marina.  He stated in 1997, the Binding Development Site Plan was approved for the site; it specifically identified a maximum of 120 lots over approximately 100 acres; there is an additional 10-acre piece that goes with it that does not have river frontage; and that is tied into the BDP.  He stated the BDP identifies the zoning, minimum lot size, and other things he is following with the plans; it has been identified that recently North Merritt Island did a Small Area Study (SAS) that was approved; and one big concern from residents is that because of the BDP, the parcel has a higher density than what a lot of Small Area Study’s identify.  He stated the reason is that the owner purchased it knowing that the BDP existed and rides with the land; but to identify the property as being a higher density than North Merritt Island, he looked to the subdivision to the south, Treasure Lagoon, which was permitted a year after the BDP was approved; Treasure Lagoon actually has a higher density than his project; and he believes the project is compatible with the neighbors to the south.  He stated the residents asked how they can stop the project because they do not want the traffic, or they have other concerns; but because of the BDP, the property owners are entitled to the upland improvements that have been shown all along; and ultimately, someday, whether it is his client or someone else, the project will most likely be developed following the BDP that was approved.  He stated his clients are proposing a high-end gated community of 120 lots, with 24 lots proposed along the river, and multiple amenities; most of the lots are oversized as compared to what could be done; and there are a few lots that get close to the minimum sizes, but those are ones that back up to Treasure Lagoon, which has the same lot sizes that he is proposing.   He stated his client is extending the water system that is not looped in the area, or in the proposed subdivision, for fire protection and potable water; most of the area is on septic, but his client is not doing any septic at all; a lift station will be put in; a couple miles of force main will be run to eliminate that because the project is on the river; and that is a great  expense to the  developer to do that.   He  stated his  clients are  donating right-of-way for Tropical Trail; that portion of Tropical Trail is not in the right-of-way; a meandering sidewalk will be constructed down the entire length; almost all of the wetlands on site will be preserved and enhanced; and there will be very minimal impacts.  He stated for the project to be a successful, high-end community, it needs to have some kind of boating element; he has been through all different kinds of efforts and versions to try to include that boating element; there was a neighborhood meeting in March in which the two owners to the north could not attend, but the majority of the owners to the south and some of the other neighbors did attend; and every property owner within 500 feet was notified about the neighborhood meeting.  He stated there was a great discussion at the neighborhood meeting; the neighbors had a lot of good questions; every single neighbor that left the meeting was supportive of the project; and while he knows there are some neighbors that are not supportive, there was support from some of the adjacent neighbors.  He stated once he got past the majority of the issues with the State and Federal environmental agencies to do some kind of boating element, he came to County staff with what is stated in the County’s Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) and the County Code; stated there are discrepancies in the two; and the State and Federal environmental agencies have told him what they want his clients to do.  He noted he has already been before the Board with some Comprehensive Plan Amendments to try to get some items in compliance with the Manatee Protection Plan; the way the MPP is written, there cannot be a pump-out with a marina with that many slips; he did not think that was right and the Board agreed to that.  He stated there was a restriction for any marinas that have more than 30 slips to be commercial automatically, which means a commercial zoning and a lot of other things that could be happening; and those are things he and his clients have done as part of the project to try to identify and eliminate some of those discrepancies.  He stated he is requesting 30 slips tonight; he has shown the Board that he is going to come back for 12 more slips; and he would like the future 12 slips to go to 42 slips in compliance with the MPP.   He stated he has worked with Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), as they own property across the street to the east on the other side of Tropical Trail; FIND has an easement that goes through the subject property; and the details have been worked out with FIND so they can maintain the easement.  He stated through all the meetings and neighbors he and his clients have met with, they have made quite a few concessions from the original application made in December; some concessions are that the boat size has been reduced from 40 feet to 30 feet; his clients have offered to limit lighting on the marina to be one 30-inch high bollard to be shared between every two slips; and the HOA documents are being modified to create a separate sub-committee to enforce the marina rules within the HOA.  He stated some neighbors were concerned about what could be done to make sure the HOA can enforce the rules; there will be no renters or live-aboards in the marina, only the people that own lots can use the marina within the development; the boats are even limited to be quieter four-stroke engines; his clients do not want to create noise; and they do not want to do that to their own project.  He provided a handout to the Board and to the Clerk; the first page of the handout identifies an old layout that he did in 2005 and 2006; and he spent well over a year working on permits to get it approved.  He stated the proposed marina has an internal canal system with each lot that backs up to the canal having its own boat dock and lift; and then the marina is going to come out to where there is an existing private cove that comes onto the subject property; it is an old shipping lane for citrus; the lift was going to actually lift the boats out of the water  and  drop them  in the cove;  and  then  there is a  dredged  channel  that  goes  into   the Intracoastal Waterway. He stated he and his clients spent an unbelievable amount of time trying to permit the marina; the State and Federal agencies came back and said they would prefer a marina out in the water; and stated that is how they will proceed.  He stated his client also tried to do a simple subdivision layout with a private boat ramp at the cove that could only be used by the residents of the subdivision; but between the MPP and the State and Federal agencies, they said no way, no boat ramp, and no control over how many boats can come in and out; and so they cannot do that.  He noted exhibit C in the Board’s package is what is before it today; it is what the environmental agencies said they wanted to see if there is going to be a boating element to the subdivision; and so that is the direction his client has gone because of the different experts that have pushed them to do that.  He noted during the process the State and Federal agencies said no to the boat ramp, but they did not say no to the boat lift; instead, the agencies said they would prefer his clients to go in another direction; and if for any reason his clients are denied the ability to put in the marina similar to what is being proposed out in the water, he will be able to take the denial back to the State and Federal agencies and they will reconsider and likely approve the boat lift with the internal canal system with the boats.  He stated right now there are 64 lots on the layout with boats on that canal that could possibly be coming in and out; stated he believes there is the ability for boats to come in and out of the project, whether it is with a marina out in the water as is being proposed, or whether it is with the lift in the future; and there is the ability to have boats as part of the project.  He stated on the next exhibit in the Board’s package, the river is identified as being two and a half miles wide at the project location; he is asking to be projected out between 500 and 600 feet with approximately a 440-foot long marina; and the Board can see the length of other existing docks that range from 300 to 400 feet, but some go up to 600 and 700 feet out into the water.  He stated there could be 39 individual lots each having the ability to come back later and get a pier or a dock; but his clients are not looking for that kind of porcupine effect.  He stated the next exhibit shows the entire two and a half mile width of the river; it shows the existing dredged channel that was dredged in the 1940’s that would be utilized; with the current proposal, one thing he has heard over and over was that people did not want to see dredging; and any necessary dredging is being eliminated.  He stated because of the shallowness of the water to the north and south, the boats would only be going perpendicular, straight out two miles in the Intracoastal Waterway; and the boats are not going to be going up and down the shoreline because they will not have the ability to do that.  He stated with respect to compatibility, there are three existing marinas within four miles of the site; there are seven within seven miles of the site; and again, the existing channel was dug in the 1940’s, so no additional dredging will be needed.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Mr. Wise will have three minutes at the end of the hearing; stated he has other speaker cards; and inquired if the speakers will be called expert witnesses.  Mr. Wise stated it is a complicated issue; and he has an environmentalist that will speak briefly to some of the issues the Board will hear from other speakers.  Christine Lepore, Assistant County Attorney, advised it is up to the Board.  Mr. Wise stated the speakers can be brief.  Commissioner Anderson stated the Board is obligated to hear the experts.  Chairman Nelson stated if it is expert testimony and it stays focused on the specific issues as they are presented, the  Board  can  hear  them;  but if it  starts  getting off the  specific issues,  then he  will stop the speakers  and the Board will have a discussion; and in no case should the speakers go beyond five minutes. 

 

Mr. Wise stated the ideal situation would be to have the marina centered on the property, but because of environmental conditions, that could not be done; and it would have been a great buffer for the neighbors to the north and south.   He stated the developer is preserving every single native hardwood tree that was surveyed six inches and larger; it provides a great buffer to the two neighbors to the north, so they basically will not be able to see the marina unless they go to the end of their backyard, either on the shoreline or out on their dock. 

 

John Shepherd stated he is with Atlantic Environmental Solutions, and has been the environmental consultant on the project for three or four years.  He stated Commissioner Anderson stated earlier that the Board needed to distinguish between the facts and assumptions; to him, the facts are the rules that are set up by the Manatee Protection Plan, St. Johns River Water Management District, Brevard County, and Army Corps of Engineers; and to date, the developer has gone through the facts and jumped through the hoops in order to get where they are today.  He stated it is not the developer’s first choice to put a marina in the river; however, that is where the different regulatory agencies have steered them; and he would like to briefly go over three things with the Board.  He advised the Brevard County Code, Surface Water Element states, “Marinas shall not be located in approved or conditional approved shellfish harvesting waters or Class II waters”; the code is currently being changed because it is not consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan; therefore, he believes that should be stricken; it will be changed soon; but he will have to defer to staff as to how soon it will be changed.  He noted both the Manatee Protection Plan and the Comprehensive Plan states, “Marinas shall not be located in approved or conditionally approved shellfish harvesting waters or Class II waters or other environmental areas designated by the County so as to substantially and materially having negative impact on these water”; stated he read some emails claiming the developer did not meet that rue; but he does think the developer meets the rule; the developer is following all the rules set forth in the Manatee Protection Plan and Brevard County’s Code; and unless it can be proven otherwise that the developer is having a negative effect on the river, which he thinks would be difficult to do, the developer has met all the rules. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Surface Water Ordinance says, “Shall not be located in Class II waters”; and inquired how the Board can approve the request if that is how the Ordinance reads, even though it may be under consideration at a later date for revision.  Ms. Lepore advised the Board’s Manatee Protection Plan is part of its Comprehensive Plan.  Chairman Nelson stated he is talking about the Surface Water Ordinance.  Ms. Lepore advised the Comprehensive Plan would take control over County Ordinance.

 

Tim Blankenship stated he is with Coastal Systems International based in Coral Gables, which is the consulting engineering firm retained by the developer; he has been retained by the developer to plan and design the proposed private marina; and he is working closely with the environmental consultant to address some of the environmental constraints with the difficult project.    He  stated  as  Mr.  Wise   mentioned,   the  initial  phase for the marina is for 30 slips, although  the final site plan indicates  a total of 42 slips;  the developer has been very open  with all the boards and all the concerned residents regarding the project; and the initial CUP for 30 slips will come back to the Board at a later date to get approval for 12 more slips, making a total of 42 slips.   He stated the marina is designed with an existing dredged area; and there is no dredging required for the project.  He stated the developer has conducted a hydro-graphic survey and sized the vessels with drafts that are appropriate for the water depths currently there; the proposed marina extends between 500 to 600 feet out from the shoreline; one reason it is out that far is to avoid impacts to marine resources adjacent to the shoreline; at that particular location, the total Lagoon is approximately 13,700 feet wide, which is approximately two and a half miles; and at 500 to 600 feet out in the water, the proposed marina is only approximately four percent of the waterway width.  He stated many of the private residences with docks all throughout the area range anywhere from 300 to 600 feet long; and so the length of the marina and proposed dock is comparable with other private residential docks, both on Merritt Island and within the City of Cocoa.  He advised the marina is sized for the maximum length of a vessel to be 30 feet long; the marina will be constructed of concrete fixed docks; all docks will be approximately five feet above mean-high water to also enhance and minimize impacts to marine resources; the developer is proposing to mark an entrance channel from the marina that will extend from its natural channel; and there are going to be navigation markers to ensure that all the vessels entering and exiting the marina stay within the marked channel.  He noted residents have expressed concerns regarding lighting at the marina; the developer is proposing bollard lights, which are very low illumination lights; they are very minimal lights that will be placed about one per two slips; and so there will be approximately 20 to 22 total shore- power pedestals which will have a small bollard light.  He stated the marina is being designed as a modern facility; and it is going to have the sanitary sewer pumps and pump station, which will be tied into the upland sanitary sewer system.  He noted another concern has been noise control; the homeowners association to going to have a marina committee that is going to be responsible for managing the facility, so he does not expect a concern with noise that would be expected from a public-type marina; and the project is a private marina in a private development. 

 

Michael Rodriguez stated he is legal counsel for the applicant, from the firm of Greenspoon Marder; and one of the issues he will address is the concern over how much operational control the development will have over the marina once it is in the hands of the residents.  He stated the property will have a declaration of covenants and restrictions that will run with the land, which will create the property owners association; the property owners associations will manage and operate the private marina; the declarations will be part of the project and will govern who, what and when the marina could be used; and in reflecting the concerns of the neighbors, there will be controls over who can use the marina, who can have a slip, and how the slip can be used.  He advised there is no intention to allow for the rental of slips to third parties who are not property owners; the only way a person can have a boat in a slip is to be either a lot owner,or the guest of a lot owner; either way will not impact boat traffic; there will not be an additional boat coming in because the lot owner’s guest is bringing a boat; and the only way a person can have a boat there is if they have a lot.  He stated it will be worked in the declaration that it is possible to have “x” amount of lot owners to be entitled to a slip; that slip will be an extension of their lot, which will control  the traffic or even  additional impacts that the marina will have on the surrounding community because it is all tied into the already existing impacts that are taken into consideration for the approval of the development; other concerns include someone living on a boat in a slip; and it is important to note that the marina is also going to be subject to the Brevard County Code, so any regulations or prohibitions that the Code imposes upon live-aboard vessels in the waterways will apply in the marina.  He stated there has also been a concern about derelict vessels; the association will have the first attempt to try to correct the situation; it is the equivalent of somebody having an inconsistent vehicle in their lot; the homeowners association will have a right to police that; and the same thing will occur in regards to the slips; but at the same time, the association will have the opportunity to involve the County and the enforcement of the Codes.  He stated it is important to note that there is going to be a mechanism in place through the homeowners association to create rules and regulations of operations of the marina, which will make it compatible with the standards issued for a Conditional Use Permit under the Code. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what Mr. Rodriguez meant by guests being allowed to have a boat in the marina.  Mr. Rodriguez replied it is similar to him having a guest at his house and the guest parks his or her car in the driveway; the guest would have the right to park their car in the driveway; and if he were to have a slip, but not a boat, he would have the ability to allow a guest to park their boat in his slip if the slip is unoccupied.  Chairman Nelson inquired what for what period of time would a guest be allowed to park a boat in an owner’s slip.  Mr. Rodriguez replied for the intent of the visit; and if he owns a lot and is renting it to a tenant, under the declaration that tenant has the right to use the slip.  Chairman Nelson stated as it relates to docks, Code does not allow guest to moor their boat or use dock facilities; and inquired if the dock is specifically for the homeowner.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised a dock is for the homeowner or the occupant of the house; and it could be a renter.  Chairman Nelson inquired if a homeowner and a renter are okay, but not a guest.  Mr. Rodriguez advised the developer could prohibit invitees; that language can be in the declaration; and the developer can be flexible in that way.  Chairman Nelson stated he just wanted to point out that it is inconsistent with Code.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the homeowners association is going to manage the marina.  Mr. Rodriguez replied that is correct, the marina is basically going to be a common area of the community, so the association will be managing the marina, similar to the way they will be managing private roads, private sidewalks, and any other open areas including the environmental and conservation areas; and it is an element of the community.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if there are 42 slips and 120 lots, how does that balance out if a lot owner does not have a boat slip; and inquired if that lot owner is also paying for the slip.  Mr. Rodriguez replied it can be worked out; it is still in the planning stages as to whether it is a limited common element in which a lot owner will pay a premium for a slip; however, the overall maintenance is going to be borne by all 120 homeowners because if a lot owner does not own a slip, he or she should have the right to walk to the end of the dock to watch the sunset, as it is a common area.  Chairman Nelson inquired about assessments; stated homeowners associations periodically do assessments; and inquired if all 120 lot owners are going to be assessed for improvements to the common facility, which only benefits 42 lot owners.  Mr. Rodriguez stated he would disagree as the element is a benefit to all 120 lots; every lot owner will have a right to use the marina or to walk upon it as it is a part of the community; however, those who want to have a slip and moor a boat are the one’s that would be paying a premium; and the declarations can be worded that way.  Chairman Nelson stated he thinks it is a buyer beware situation because if he did not care for boating and did not want the premium, but then gets assessed to take care of the marina because he might walk down there, it would not be fair.  Mr. Rodriguez stated as part of a community, when someone is purchasing, it is the allegation of the association to maintain those, and everyone is a member of the association.  Mr. Wise advised the developer intends to charge the 42 slip owners a higher rate than the other owners for the maintenance of the marina; the marina would be intended mostly for the use of the slip owners; and there will be a common viewing pier that will be opened to all of the subdivision.  Chairman Nelson stated if the marina falls into disrepair, the only option at that point becomes an assessment; 120 owners will be assessed versus just 42 slip owners; while the 42 slip owners paid a premium, they get the enjoyment and use of it, but a lot owner without any access to it other than walking, would be compelled to pay; and inquired if that is how it will work.  Mr. Wise advised the intention is that the 42 lot owners who have a slip would pay a higher rate because of the increased cost to maintain the marina, than the rest of the residents.  Chairman Nelson inquired how the developer will handle a situation in which a storm wipes out a boat and that boat owner says he does not want to boat anymore, but now there is an amenity; and stated it seems like there are some short comings in the concept.  Mr. Wise stated the owners who have a slip would have it because they purchased it up front; but the higher assessments would go to the 42 slip owners; that is the intention; and the slip owners would know that going in.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the marina is going to be kept as a common area for everyone to use; with Mr. Wise responding there is a separate viewing pier to the south; and the viewing pier is anticipated to be utilized by most of the other residents. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated speakers will get five minutes; and requested the speakers not repeat each other.

 

Shaye Williams stated he considers himself to be a neighbor to the future development; he does not want to argue the due diligence that the developer has put in to create the development and the idea of the marina; obviously, that work has been done; but in regards to the community and the length of the Indian River throughout Brevard County, the CUP concerns are character and compatibility.  He stated development goes two ways; a developer can go for quantity or quality; it is designed on a business plan; and the current plan maximizes the number of homes that can be built in the area, which was historically agriculture in citrus; and the developer went for quantity.  He stated incorporating a marina into the development in order to get a better return on their business plan is not what he considers consistent with the surrounding properties; an individual family with a dock extending several hundred feet is dramatically different than a 600-foot structure jetting out 600 feet; the maximum boat size of 30 feet is dramatically different than what is in the community; and the character is not compatible with what is in the surrounding community.  He   stated  the  CUP  reads,  “The  character  of  the  community  is predominantly agricultural”; that rural feel is what brings people to the area; the proposed marina does not fit that; consistency with a marina such as  is being proposed is a  high-density condominium;  and North Merritt Island is predominantly not high-density.  He noted Treasure Lagoon to the south is a fairly small development; it is high-density, but it is not equivalent to what would be seen with a condo or a high-density residential area that would require a marina the size of the one being proposed; and that makes it not a viable option to approve the CUP.  He stated the members of the community are taxpayers; they look to the Board to represent them as well; the type of change being requested is an impact; development will happen; but the proposed development is negative and does not fit the criteria established by the County to approve this type of marina; and he would request the Board deny the CUP request. 

 

Celia Williams stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years; and she considers herself an expert on the neighborhood; she has talked to a lot of people in the neighborhood; and she knows a lot of the characters that live in the neighborhood.  She stated she is opposed to the CUP based on what her husband previously stated; it is incompatible with what is existing already; and she would like the Board to consider the recommendation of the North Merritt Island Special District Advisory Board, which denied the request.  She stated the members of the North Merritt Island Special District Advisory Board are also experts; there are scientists and business people on that board; and everyone on that board has lived in North Merritt Island for quite a long time, and they know what is compatible with North Merritt Island. 

 

Peter Roberts stated he is from St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, which backs up to the subject property.  He advised the church was founded just after the Civil War by the three pioneer families on North Merritt Island; the first chapel was built in 1887, which is the second oldest building on the Island; around the chapel is a cemetery, which was founded at the same time and is home to the graves of many of the pioneers of Merritt Island; and so the church is the last bit of historical part of the Island.  He stated on seven acres there is the church, a chapel, and an education building; the rest of it is open, tree-lined space, and peaceful space; the church has worked hard to preserve the historical character and preserve a place of peace and character of that part of Merritt Island; and the proposed development would work completely against that.  He stated a 600-foot marina extending out into the river is equivalent to the Merritt Island High School Stadium being put out into the river; 600 feet is a large area; and it will undermine the quiet, historical area.  He stated it is interesting that he has been to five meetings and tonight was the first time it has been mentioned that if the CUP is not approved, the developer has an alternative plan; the neighbors were told the alternative plan was to put docks out across the wetland; and now they are being told government agencies would allow an alternative plan to build canals inside the development.  He stated the church recently added a very small addition to the building; during the planning, great care was taken to ensure the addition was consistent with everything else on the property and the surrounding neighborhood; the church wanted to be responsible neighbors; and he hopes the Board holds the developer to the same standards. He stated the Board are the neighbors’ elected officials; and the neighbors are asking the Board to protect the neighborhood.  He noted the developer and the planners have done a good  job of working  with the community to try to work fast; but the Board needs to give them the ammunition to go back and create something that will make them good neighbors and make them fit in with the community to be an addition and not a subtraction.

 

David McDonald stated he is the President of the Intracoastal Estates Homeowners Association; and he is a frequent user of the Lagoon.  He advised the proposed marina with 30 to 42 boat slips will have an adverse impact on the established character of the surrounding properties; the project is in conflict with Ordinance 62-1151 (c)(1) and (3), 62-1901 (c)(1)(a) and (b); on March 10^th, the Board voted to transmit the North Merritt Island Small Area Study to the State to amend the Comprehensive Plan; and the Study details the residents’ desires to maintain rural residential character of 658 acres on the Lagoon.  He advised the Study reads, “The citizens chose to own two or more acres of property in this area because of the rural character”; stated the residents value open space, the history of the area, and the parks; and a concern in the Study is the preservation of the Indian River Lagoon.  He advised Page I from the Small Area Plan reads, “The future land use map recommends lowered density and less intense use for our area”; Page II shows photographs that depict the area’s character and landmarks; and most of the landmarks are within 300 feet of the proposed development.  He stated large marinas are associated with large cities such as Ft. Lauderdale or Miami; the proposed marina would be built behind the beautiful St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, whose 1888 chapel is registered as a National Historic Building; one mile to the north is the historic Sams House being restored as a museum on the EELs property; the subject property is bordered on the north by the Pine Island Conservation Area and to the south by the Manatee Cove Park and 4H Equestrian Center; and the marina is not in character with these area land marks or the surrounding single-family estate residences, and it is in conflict with Administrative Policy III.C.1.  He stated the mooring of large power vessels would not be consistent with the residents’ current use and enjoyment in the riverfront properties in the surrounding community; the residents do not moor or use large motorized boats off their docks because the water is too shallow; and a marina would adversely impact recreational uses of fishing, kayaking, canoeing, and sailing along that shoreline.  He noted people come from all over Central Brevard to enjoy this area, accessing the Lagoon by the canal portage ramp at Manatee Cove Park; the marina site is a primary destination for canoes and kayaks; and the residents feel that the mixing of the two elements of large and small boats is a significant safety risk.  He stated the marina will operate at night with lights; the continuous hours of operation are not consistent with the surrounding residences and will impact the neighbors to the north, only 400 feet away; and on Page III is a night view of the area showing no lights on the shoreline.  He noted Page IV shows the profile of a 30-foot boat; the applicant claims the marina will have a low profile at three to five fee above high water line; however, vessels do not have a low profile; slips can have separate lifts adding higher profile hardware; and although Zoning Code 62-1901(2)(f) says, “Proposed use must have screening or buffering to reduce adverse nuisances to nearby properties containing less-intensive uses,” the residents know there can be no screen in the water.  He stated increased boat traffic, engine noise, and fumes are adverse to public interest and to the long-time residents; the developer has said the marina is essential to attract prospective buyers for the home sites; but economic profit for privately deeded boat slips should not be considered as a reason for changing the character of the  neighborhood to a more intensive  shoreline  use;  and

 

 

the residents trust the Commissioners will vote to disapprove the CUP and maintain the long standing character and quality of life held dear in the North Merritt Island community. 

 

Marilyn Wetmore stated she is the neighbor immediately north of the proposed marina; the large marina is not compatible with the existing pattern of the neighborhood’s shoreline uses in the Indian River Lagoon; and the marina is in conflict with Administrative Policies III.A. and III.C.1. and Ordinances 62-1151(c)(5), and 62-1901(c)(1)(b).  She stated there are no marinas for 10 miles along the eastern shore of the Indian River Lagoon; there are no marinas that go out on a shore line from S.R. 405 to S.R. 520; the proposed marina would extend into the Lagoon the length of two football fields; and the proposed marina does not come close to resembling any dock facility on nearby properties, but will appear like a two-acre parking lot for boats in the water.  She stated the marina does not match any shoreline use for miles in either direction; it is a more intensive use, which will diminish the quality of life, and it is sited too close to the properties on the north side; and an aerial photo of the area and the channel show the size of the proposed marina in contrast with the narrow, short, family docks.  She noted the single-family homes to the north are zoned AU on lots of two acres or more for one mile, with narrow docks extending into the Lagoon of varying lengths; her dock is 200 feet; and there are no motorized boats moored to the north of the proposed marina site, as the water is too shallow.  She noted the applicant stated the marina will hold vessels up to 30 feet in length; and the large boats are not compatible with the nearby properties and docks which do not moor boats.  She advised to the north of her home is the Pine Island Conservation Area; to the south is the 30-acre Manatee Cove Park, whose functions the County’s website describes as being used for non-motorized boat launching and wildlife viewing of manatee, dolphin, and water fowl; and that is compatible with the way the neighborhood enjoys and uses the water.  She commented on pictures she took off of her dock of people fishing in the shallows and socializing on their docks, but there are no boats on the docks; and stated she also has a picture of mangroves along the development’s shore.  She stated there is a mis-stated assertion in the public record promoted by the applicant in previous meetings that the 42-slip marina is preferred to 24, or even 42 separate docks; and requested the Board not be swayed by the false scenario.  She stated few family docks could ever be permitted along the shoreline because it is bordered by the solid mangroves, a very wide wetland, peninsula, spoil islands, and even canals that run along the shoreline; and all of that blocks construction.  She noted furthermore, the narrow, 90-foot lot widths all along the shore, which are used to calculate permissible dock lengths would not allow docks long enough to reach deep water for motorized boats; and any docks built in the shallows could not moor boats.  She noted one mile to the south, another development called Sunset Lakes Island Estates has no boat access to the water along its 0.8 mile of shoreline; it is two-tenths longer than the proposed development; and it is just a natural shore with an observational pier over the shallow waters used by the residents of 469 homes.  She stated power boats are not necessary to enjoy the water or even to sell home sites; nor is there a legal right to power boat access; as an alternative there could be an observational pier similar to Island Estates; the pier could have a portage ramp for water access using canoes or kayaks, attracting buyers who want to live near, observe, and fish in a site with bountiful wildlife using small boats; and that would be consistent with the docks in the neighborhood and the two parks. She stated if prospective homebuyers want a marina for their large power boats, they can go to a city where that intensive use is commonly seen, or they can utilize the existing dry dock facilities at the barge canal and Port Canaveral, thereby supporting local businesses.  She stated  the  residents strongly  urge the  Board  to  oppose  the  permitting  of  the marina  in the neighborhood; when the Board carefully applies the CUP and rezoning laws, it knows the marina is not right for the area; and requested the Board allow the shoreline to stay peaceful and natural.  She stated if the developer has to build boat lifts, she would like to know how big the boats would be; it seems to her that a boat lift would restrict boat size; and that would be a better alternative to her, as the immediate neighbor to the north.  She noted the applicant has said the developer is compliant with the Manatee Protection Plan, but the environmental phase has yet to be done, so that determination has not been made; and furthermore, the applicant has not mentioned that he does not have to request dredging because FIND will dredge for him if needed.  She inquired if covenant communities can change their laws at any time with just a vote; and commented on a case near Stuart in which a covenant community association made a vote to allow residents to move away and still retain ownership of the boat slips and rent them out. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that could not happen in Brevard County; the County’s rules do not allow that in the Zoning Code; but Ms. Wetmore made a good point about utilization; and inquired how far Ms. Wetmore’s property is from the edge of the proposed marina area.  Ms. Wetmore advised her property is 400 feet from the proposed marina site.

 

Mary Hillberg stated she has given the Board, and the Clerk, the Indian River Economic Assessment and Analysis Update Final Report of August 8, 2008; because the study is of substantial size, she has provided only a few important pages for reference; and noted the full study is on the St. Johns River Water Management’s website.  She advised the study was done for the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and St. Johns and South River Water Management District, to update the 1995 study of the economic value of the Lagoon to the five counties involved; and the extensive study demonstrates that the Indian River Lagoon provides substantial revenues for Brevard County through a variety of ways.  She stated construction of the proposed marina in the Lagoon has every potential to diminish the quality of the water and health of vital seagrasses; it would reduce the abundance of fish and impact the safety of passive recreation, which will ultimately reduce the overall revenue advantage for Brevard County; and this is no time to be reducing revenues.  She advised the Indian River Lagoon is shown to have a total annual economic value of $3.7 billion dollars in existing condition; and that was the 2007 condition for the five affected counties.  She stated the benefits of the Lagoon include recreational expenditures, recreational use value, non-use value, real estate values, income earned by residents, restoration, research, education expenditures, and commercial fishing value; the primary recreational activities in order of person days that visitors and residents spend in the Lagoon is impressive; fin-fishing or wading substantially topped the list of nearly one million person days; and other activities such as boating, viewing the Lagoon from the shore, bird watching, canoeing, kayaking, contributed substantially as well.  She advised the economic contribution for the Lagoon for the region includes 15,000 jobs; since Brevard County is documented to top all counties in recreational fishing, commercial fishing restoration, research,   and   pounds   of   fish   harvested  values  it  is  no surprise that it has   the   highest employment dependence on the Lagoon as well; the impact on property values is substantial; Brevard County is by far the highest benefactor of this treasured eco-system; and the estimated annual values of the  Lagoon  to  residents  and  visitors  of  Brevard County is a total  economic value of $1.3 billion and a tax revenue of $13 million.  She stated Federal, State, and local partners recognize that the Lagoon is worthy of protection because of its economic and ecologic importance; on May 26^th former Commissioner Sue Carlson and Mr. DiBello, and others, presented excellent update to the Board on pending economic impacts regarding our workforce, support, and employment stability in Brevard County; at that meeting Commissioner Anderson stated, “A sneeze in one District is felt by all others”; that is very true; and the zoning request for a CUP is a clear example of that.  She stated the Board and the residents must protect the natural resources for the overall health of the County; in addition, the North Merritt Island community wants to welcome the 120 potential new neighbors of the project; the neighbors respect the new neighbors’ rights if their personal property is on the river, as they have every right to have a dock if they get it permitted; and the neighbors believe in property rights and that if someone has property on the river, they should be able to have a dock.  She stated on behalf of the unique Lagoon and all those affected by its health and welfare, she would like to request the Board deny the application.  She commented on the spoil islands that are in front of the subject property; the Army Corps of Engineers dredged the area in 1943; the FIND site is where they pump the stuff out of the inland waterway and pump it into that area.  She pointed to Ms. Wetmore’s property and her dock; and pointed to other docks.  She noted Treasure Lagoon has a boating area inside the community, not out in the Lagoon. 

 

Commissioner Anderson the major objection is that the marina is going to protrude out 600 feet into the Lagoon; the developer has another plan that may be approved in which the boats will be taken back into the community; and inquired if that would still be contrary to the characteristic.  Ms. Hillberg replied she has not seen anything else; she is on the North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board and the North Merritt Island Homeowner Association heard this same presentation; and what is before the Board tonight is what was heard at the previous meetings.  She noted the North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board were told the developer had tried other things, but none of them were allowed; she did not have any idea what the alternative plan involved; and all she is address is what has been asked for today. 

 

Gina Lindhorst stated she would like to review the public interests as well as the environmental adverse affects as the result of a proposed large private marina of more than 30, 30-foot long motorized boats placed well into the Indian River Lagoon estuary; and she would like to remind the Board that the public interest means demonstrable, environmental, social, and economic benefits, which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable and environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action.  She stated the Indian River Lagoon is not a river at all; the waterway is special and occurs in areas where fresh water meets and mixes with salty ocean waters; the Department of Environmental Protection refers to estuaries as protected near shore water such as bays and lagoons; and the St. Johns River Water Management District finds the Indian River Lagoon estuary as a nationally significant body of water.  She noted the Lagoon supports more than  4,300  species  of  plants   and   animals   including  36  that   are  listed as  threatened  or endangered, which is more than any other estuary in North America; Snook, Trout, Mullet, Jack, Grouper, Red Fish, Silver Perch, Spot, Cat Fish, Sheeps Head, Spiny Lobsters, Shrimp, Crabs, Oysters,  and  Clams  are  examples of  the  diverse  marine  animals  dependent upon  healthy estuaries; and she has provided a picture of one of those creatures and how the estuary helps feed the ocean with adult creatures.  She stated the Indian River Lagoon estuary provides breeding and nesting areas, or rookeries, for many coastal birds, including several endangered species such as Brown Pelicans; and the estuary’s role as the ocean’s nursery cannot be over emphasized.  She stated another picture shows manatee that were lounging around and foraging on the seagrasses in the area of the proposed marina; one of the manatees in the picture has a very large wound from a boat strike; and manatees would be impacted by propeller strikes as well as by seagrass loss, which is their primary food source.  She stated the Lagoon is under stress; the cumulative impacts of past over-developments and infrastructure construction have dredged water and sediment quality in the Lagoon;  stated degrading is the waterway of the Lagoon estuary is the release of petroleum products from, and all the derivatives thereof, including gasoline from incidental and normal boat use; and degraded needs to be reduced.  She stated regarding the proposed marina, the water quality in the Lagoon would be further degraded and contaminated due to the leeching of lead from toxic bottom paint on the hulls of the 30-foot boats, and the chemicals that leech out from marina pilings, human waste solids, from routine incidental boat use, and trash, waste, et cetera; seagrass is the measuring stick for determining the health of the Lagoon; and a fundamental objective of the St. Johns River Water Management Lagoon Program is the recovery and maintenance of a healthy and productive seagrass community.  She noted among other factors, sediment quality and physical disturbance, as from boat propellers, also affect seagrass growth and health; seagrass supports a majority of the activity in the Lagoon estuary, but it is easily threatened; when seagrass thrives, so does the Lagoon; when water quality diminishes, so does seagrass. here is a beautiful, colorful, picture for you to review the seagrass coverage in our area.  She stated segments containing largest acreage of seagrass coverage are found around North Merritt Island within, and adjacent to, the NASA/KSC Wildlife Refuge; the Lagoon is a Class II waterway, which means it is healthy and desirable; a seagrass survey of the proposed site for the marina from June 2007 showed an average of 33 percent seagrasses; the Manatee Protection Plan states that five percent of seagrass coverage is significant; and the Manatee Protection Plan states marinas shall not be located in areas containing 10 percent or more seagrasses.  She advised results of the habitat trend analyses have shown substantial loss of fisheries habitat throughout Florida; this is due to over-development in some areas according to the Manatee Protection Plan; and the St. Johns River Water Management District gives an example of reduced and poor seagrass coverage from Cocoa to the Palm Bay area.  She stated in summary, the Indian River Lagoon estuary is one of the areas greatest natural resources, but it can be destroyed; beyond the competent and substantial evidence, the proposed marina is not compatible with the shallow and fragile estuarine waters; and it would be a precedent-setting decision and would be against all aspects of the public interest.  She stated in other words, the proposed marina is incompatible with the environmental character of the rural community in the immediate area and the entire fragile Indian River Lagoon.  She stated she would like the Board to remember that they are all stakeholders in the common environmental property where everyone lives in Brevard County. 

 

Bill Hillberg stated his letter reads, “Even though I am not fortunate enough to have riverfront property, I do feel very strongly considering the protection of the water quality in our Indian River Lagoon.”  As a 30-year resident of Brevard County I am very concerned about the large marina proposed to be constructed in the North Indian River Lagoon.  It seems to me this would essentially be a boat parking lot and not at all appropriate for this fragile estuary.  This marina is proposed to be built in Class II waters, which is inconsistent with our Manatee Protection Plan, our Coastal Management Element, Section 10 of our Comprehensive Plan, our Surface Water Element Ordinance, and Ordinance amendment 2007-13.  They all clearly state marinas shall not be located in Class II waters.  In addition, this structure would be incompatible with the surrounding area for Administrative Policy III of the Administrative Policies for the Future Land Use Element, inconsistent with the established rural character of the surrounding neighborhood, the single residents’ docks to the adjacent residences, and all those on the North Indian River area, per Administrative Policy IV of the Administrative Policies for the Future Land Use Element.  Please also consider the historic economic, employment, and environmental value of the Indian River Lagoon for Brevard County and the negative impact and precedence such a structure may well have upon the future economy and ecology of the entire County.  I respectfully request denial of this item.”

 

Maureen Rupe stated before she speaks to the issue, she would like clarification on the Ordinance on marinas.  She stated the change to the 2007 Ordinance was the general criteria related to marina development such as compatibility, marina location, and maximum slip capacity appropriate at the zoning action process; however, more specific criteria related to water quality, and habitat are better applied during the permitting phase; and she inquired if the Board is taking into consideration the environmental concerns, or is it being done at the permitting stage.  She noted there is no public hearing with the State agencies; and citizens may have input, but it is not before an elected body.  She stated she feels the applicants have already been working with the State for two or three years on the project; she is intrigued to hear the applicant say the Federal and State agencies will overrule the County Commission; she could understand it if the applicant said he would sue the County; and inquired if the Board is taking into consideration the environmental concerns.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what aspects of environmental issues are the Board allowed to consider related to the Conditional Use Permit process.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the specific Conditional Use Permit for marinas makes reference back to Objective V of the Conservation Coastal Element; so yes, as it relates to that policy, or that objective in the Coastal Element, the Board can make decisions based upon that as well as the general standards of review for all Conditional Use Permits that are in the Zoning Code.  Ms. Rupe expressed appreciation to Mr. Enos.

 

Maureen Rupe stated she is the President for the Partnership for a Sustainable Future; and the Partnership opposes the proposed marina as being totally incompatible.  She noted in Brevard County’s 2009-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, comments stated the definition of residential marinas was being modified to allow for them to include more than 30 slips; that allows residential projects to install marinas with more than 30 slips without requiring a rezoning and land use change that would, in many instances, not be compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses; and unfortunately this modification also allows residential projects to install marinas with more than 30 slips when it really should be requiring a rezoning and land use change, especially when it is not compatible with surrounding zonings and permitted land uses.  She stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment modification is not in the best interest of the County if it will only benefit an applicant at the price of the surrounding property owners; she used Microsoft 3-D mappings to see where marinas such as the one requested, are in the County; stated she looked at the waters of the length of the County and there was a dozen similar marinas with only a handful being non-commercial marinas; and there is nothing similar in the County in secluded residential areas.  She stated the lighting on the proposed marina the size of two football fields is much different than lighting serving docks in most areas of the County; at night the lighting would be a distracter for anyone on the river looking inland; and also for those on land looking at the river.  She noted the project is being presented as multiple residential docks; the project should not be considered in the same light as working waterfront; the slips can only be rented to homeowners within the development; the property owners cannot lease their marina space to commercial fishermen, which could aid the fishing industry in Brevard County; the project is just an extremely large private marina that will do damage to the Lagoon; and if it is approved, it will set a precedence for even more concentrated damage in other secluded areas along the Lagoon shoreline.  She advised a marina such as the one being proposed is of no public benefit; the overriding public benefit is to leave along the extremely fragile Lagoon without damaging its system more than it already is; and she requested the Board deny the request based on incompatibility. 

 

Sandra Pesce stated she would like to read a letter on behalf of Christopher Cook who was unable to attend.  “Dear Brevard County Commissioners, as a voting resident of North Merritt Island I am very concerned about the potential for this large marina to be constructed in the North Indian River Lagoon for at least four reasons:  1.) The North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board, which was set up specifically to advise the County Commissioners on North Merritt Island zoning issues, voted unanimously to deny this request.  2.) This marina proposes to be owned and operated by the development homeowners association, the HOA;  the HOA’s can change their bylaws at any time for any reason. They also have high rates of bankruptcy and enforcement of proposed rules may be very difficult.  3.) This structure is not compatible with the surrounding rural community in this Indian River Lagoon area, per Administrative Policy III, of the Administrative Policies for the Future Land Use Element.  And last but not least, 4.) This structure is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, the single-resident docks of the adjacent residences or all of those in the North Indian River area, per Administrative Policy IV of the Administrative Policies for the Future Land Use Element.  Please also consider the historic economic and environmental value of the Indian River Lagoon for Brevard County and the negative impact and precedence such a structure may impose.  I respectfully request your denial of this item at the scheduled May 28^th Zoning meeting, due to the issues as referenced above and that my request be read aloud, into the record, at this meeting.  Best regards, Christopher Cook of 1520 Pine Island Road, Merritt Island.”  Ms. Pesce advised for the record, she is in full agreement with Mr. Cook’s letter and has the same concerns. 

 

Kim Smith stated she is on the board of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association; when the CUP request was before the HOA, the shoreline was considered; stated she looked at the shoreline and the existing moorings, docks, and things like that; she looked at aerial photos over the last three years; and she looked from Pine Island Conservation Area down to the Barge Canal, which was about five miles of shore line.  She stated visible on the aerial photos were approximately 31 private docks; few of the docks have boats moored at them all the time; there are 17 docks above the subject property, and 14 docks below; there were zero docks under 100 feet long; eight docks were approximately 200 fee long; nine docks went to 300 feet long; and there are no docks that go beyond 300 feet.  She noted below the subject property there are three docks 100 feet long; four docks approximately 200 feet long; five docks 300 feet long; and there are two docks at extend approximately 40 feet; but she did not see any docks that extended more than up to 500 feet or 600 feet.  She stated the project is a big development in an easily impacted area; therefore, a 30 or 42-slip marina that extends out 600 feet into the Indian River does not conform to historic and present neighborhood characteristics; that is just one of the reasons the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association recommended denial of the CUP request; and she hopes the Board does the same. 

 

Jack Ratterman stated he is the President of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, which has 3,600 members including everyone from NASA engineers to astronauts; the basic fact is a 600-foot dock with 42 boat slips with lifts that will accommodate a 30-foot boat; and inquired who will control the marina and the boat traffic when it doubles and triples.  He commented on trying to reach several different law enforcement agencies to take care of two boats docked illegally under the SR 528 bridge; and inquired how a HOA is going to control the boat traffic and the potential for illegally docking and mooring boats.   He stated the developer has another project on Merritt Island; and inquired if that project has gone under.  Chairman Nelson stated no, it is actually moving forward.

 

Linda Behret stated she does not live on Merritt Island, but she is concerned about the Indian River Lagoon; and she would like the Board to deny the CUP request for a 600-foot long marina. 

 

Jim Egan stated he is the Executive Director of the Marine Resources Council, which he has been running for the last 10 years; the Marine Resources Council is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of the Indian River Lagoon; and the Marine Resources Council was the group that established the Indian River Lagoon as an estuary of national significance.  She stated the Marine Resources Council includes conservationists, boaters, fishermen, and shell fishermen; many different groups are part of the Council; members of the Council are concerned about preserving the Lagoon; but they are also big into access to the Lagoon.  He advised for a boat to be effective at repelling organisms attaching to it, bottom paint must leech toxins; there is some very experimental stuff out there that nobody can use right now because it’s expensive; but there is a certain amount of toxics that have to be released in order for boat paint to be effective; and a couple of boats here and there does not make a difference, but as a result of congregating boats in a marina, unfortunately there are some impacts that are unavoidable.   He noted a  professor  at F.I.T.  recently did  a  toxic  inventory  of  the  Indian River Lagoon; he confirmed the results where what he had gotten in similar toxic inventories he did in the 1990’s; there are heavy metals in the Lagoon associated with marinas; and so, marinas as a whole have those kinds of impacts.  He stated other kinds of impacts that can be expected has to do with boat wake; the natural boat wake in the area tends to create turbidity; the deeper channels tend to get filled with defined mucky sediments; and as a boat travels through, it will stir up the sediments.  He advised that is important because of the seagrasses; the area is dense in shallow seagrass; that seagrass is important to the fishery; and it produces a tremendous amount of economic value and ecological value.  He stated the area in question has special importance for the Florida Manatee; there are the warm water refuges across the river at the power plants, but they do not have a lot of seagrass; the seagrasses are on the east coast, on the other side; and because the area has publicly owned areas to the north and south, there is a tremendous amount of valuable seagrass.  He stated to bring in something that is going to increase the number of boats in this area is going to be creating a lot of conflict with the Manatee use because there is a corridor that the manatees use; they tend to use the same channel; this is a high frequency used area; and the basin where the marina would be placed is also a very high use area for the Florida Manatee.  He stated besides direct boat impacts to the manatee, the destruction of seagrass in the area would be very critical for them because it is such an important part of their diet; something to also keep in mind is the developer is proposing 24 waterfront lots, yet he is talking about 42 slips for large vessels in the Indian River Lagoon; and the developer is comparing the 600-foot marina to the size of some docks along the river, the longest being approximately 300 feet; the typical 300-foot long dock is a narrow structure that goes out that far because it needs to get into deep water; and that is the only reason such a long dock would be permitted.  He stated if the developer is taking advantage of the channel that is already there, there would be no need to extend the dock so far out in order to get to deep water; and so having a large structure in order to have larger ships would necessarily create impacts in the critical area.  He noted another thing to consider is that because the area is shellfish harvesting quality waters, it means it is exceptionally good water in the area; the minute a marina is built in the area, not only will it eliminate the shellfish harvesting area, it will actually cause the surrounding area to also be banned for shellfish harvesting because of the effects of the bottom paint, the heavy metals, and those types of things; and he has spoken to shellfish harvesters in Brevard County about this issue and they are very concerned.  He stated there is a lot of good fishing habitat in the area; there is fabulous habitat for the manatees; the channel is problematic because of the heavy manatee use; the shellfish harvesting industry is very important in the community; and protecting the waters that are good for shellfish harvesting is something of concern for everyone. 

 

John Schantzen stated he enjoys riding his bike daily from Pine Island Preserve at Sam’s Creek, which he visits daily to watch the manatees; he has seen up to 10 manatees in Sam’s Creek, which is north of the subject area; then he rides his bike to Manatee Cove where he observes manatees; and everything in between is where manatees go because that is where the grass is.  He stated he was employed by Florida Power and Light for many years; one of the reasons the manatees are in the area is because the two power plants keep the water between the two bridges extremely warm year round; and Florida Power and Light is spending millions of dollars when it shuts down the  old  plant, to  keep the manatees in the area.  He noted  also  on the property is a free-flowing fresh water source that runs into the Lagoon, which the manatees got to, to drink fresh water; they seek out fresh water for hydration; and that is another draw for them to the subject property.  He stated he would like to ask that the Board votes negative on the CUP request. 

 

Maureen Simmons stated she is a neighbor to the north of the subject property; it is a beautiful area; she walks four miles daily past the subject property; there is only enough room on the road for a person and a car; if more people are going to be added to the area, the road will have to be widened; there is also school buses with kids; and adding 120 units will add a lot of traffic. She stated on her walks she has seen not only a bobcat, but the Florida Panther; the reason that kind of wildlife is in the neighborhood is because at night there are not lights, it is pitch black; and as a neighbor she would encourage her new neighbors to turn off the lights at night to let the wild animals come out.   She stated she has become a sailor; she sails out of Titusville and Eau Gallie; when she first heard about the marina she thought it was a good idea; but after thinking about it she realized in order to have a marina, there should be a fueling station or a convenience store, but that will not happen in the subject area with the developer’s plans.  She stated also, a boaters keel or propeller can get easily stuck in the sands if the waters are shallow; having a pathway to come out of the marina does not mean a boat will stay with it, as the winds may blow a boat in the sands.  She stated she would like the Board to think about all that she and others have described and why the people who live in the area love it so much; the shoe does not fit because the shoe is inappropriate; the development is inappropriate; the marina is inappropriate; and she hopes the Board will consider that. 

 

Julio Gonzales stated being part of the community made him realize what neighbors really need to do when in doubt about things such as is being proposed.  He stated the other speakers have already covered many of the things he wanted to talk about; his wife is going to speak next; and he has a deep feeling in his heart that the right decision is going to be made.  He stated he is glad to live on Merritt Island, especially across the street from the cove; and he wishes the developer well, but the shoe does not fit. 

 

Mary Gonzales stated it is really important to her to maintain the character of the area, as well as preserve the natural beauty of the river and its wildlife; and this is important enough for her to get up and speak tonight.  She stated first the neighbors were told there would be no guests at the proposed marina, then they were told guests would be allowed; and now they are being told there will not be guests again and the homeowners association is going to be the one responsible for policing it.  She noted the only access to the marina is by the river; there is not access at all through the subdivision; and it can be considered a boat parking lot 600 fee out into the water.  She commented on a friend who lives in a condo with a full-time, live-in property manager who is responsible for policing who gets to park in the parking lot, but he cannot do it alone.  She stated the marina is likely to be completed before all the houses are sold, so some of those slips will be empty; a resident could request that a family member or friend could use or rent one of the slips, because as everyone knows, those documents can be changed; that leaves it to enforcement from another area; and that is hard to do, as Mr. Ratterman pointed out.  She noted those factors could lead the marina to becoming more public than private; and it would violate Administrative Policies III.C. and D., IV.A. and V. for the Future Land Use Element.  She stated another negative impact is the cost to the County in the event of a hurricane; stated Section 163.3178(1) of the Florida Statute states, “It is the intention of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster.”   She noted the same language is mirrored in the goal for the Coastal Management Element for the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated in 2004 and 2005 hurricanes destroyed a lot of docks along both the Banana and Indian Rivers; many of those docks have never been rebuilt because of the cost; in the proposed marina, the homeowners association would be responsible for maintenance; user fees are going to cover some of that maintenance; but it is still a common area, so if the dock is harmed or destroyed, it is hard to see that everybody in the homeowners association is going to pay to rebuild it; and it is possible it may not be rebuilt.  She stated such a large, damaged, marina would be an eyesore to everyone that uses the river; also, the marina will have wet slips, and/or boat lifts, at each slip; during the recent hurricanes many private boats were not properly secured when the hurricanes hit; and the shoreline and river were littered with boats afterwards.  She noted the proposed marina would ultimately have 42 boats; at least some of those boat owners would not be there during the hurricane season, especially if the designers of the project are trying to attract an upscale boating community of people from elsewhere, and not full-time residents; even if full-time residents, boat owners are the ones responsible for securing their own boats; if the owners are not there, the boats are not going to be secured during a storm; and they could do great damage to other boats as the marina as well as the dock and the shoreline, especially if the boats are in lifts.  She stated many people simply do not secure their boats; removal of derelict boats is currently costing the County about $5,000 per boat to remove, which is a cost eventually passed onto taxpayers; derelict boats could also cause irreparable harm to the rivers from gas and oil they leak; and in addition the marina would have two pump-out stations that can be damaged and allow untreated sewage to go directly into the river.  She stated the impact of a large marina such as is being proposed could have a devastating impact on the natural and fragile waters, which is something the County is charged with preventing in the conservation element and the coastal element of the Comp Plan, along with that Section 163.3178 of the Florida Statutes; the goal of the conservation element of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect, enhance, and maintain, and appropriately natural resources and environmental systems, maintaining their quality and contribution to the quality of life of Brevard County; and that should include maintaining the quality of life for the existing residents of the area.  She stated she respectfully requests the Board deny the CUP request.  She noted Mr. Wise mentioned that after the meeting in March, everyone who left the meeting was in favor of the proposal as presented; she talked to someone in Treasure Island and they were in favor of the proposal because they though all the homes would be on one-acre or more; and when they were informed the homes would be on much smaller lots, they were not in favor.  She could not attend that meeting, but her neighbor did, and he was not in favor of the proposal; and so not everyone was in favor.

 

Amy Tidd stated the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, and the North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board voted to deny the CUP request; and all the nearby homeowners have spoken to request the Board deny the CUP.  She stated the applicant presented very good evidence as to why the request should not be approved, because it is in Class II waters; and he recommended denial so he can bring back a better plan.  She stated she would like to add her voice to everyone else’s who spoke; she is a member of the Conservation Committee with the Sierra Club; and she would like to conclude by saying she agrees with everyone who has spoken. 

 

Jake Wise stated he does not mean any disrespect to the speakers, he has done the same presentation at every meeting except one; he has gone through the minutes word-for-word of one of those meetings he could not attend; and so he feels like he has a pretty good idea of what he said.  He stated he talked about the two scenarios he has provided to the Board with the residents at every single meeting; the ramp was discussed, but there is no way the ramp can happen; he was told the lift was not preferred to happen; the expert environmental agencies wanted the developer to build the marina out in the water; and that is why he is in front of the Board.  He stated at that particular neighborhood meeting he asked every resident if they were in support of the project or not, and they all said yes, they were; but people can change their minds; and he does not blame them, as that was in March.  He stated the developer has made multiple concessions, trying to be as good a neighbor as possible while keeping the marina as part of the project; and he will not get into the upland development, traffic, or lot sizes because the developer has the ability and entitlements for that.  He stated one of the first things he looked at was shellfish harvesting; the southern one-third of the site and further south is a shellfish harvesting area; St. Johns River Water Management District confirmed there is absolutely no leasing or any shellfish harvesting areas in the Lagoon system; they looked at that in great detail; and the developer looked at that as well.  He stated he basically heard two main objections over and over which are environment and compatibility; there are six expert permit agencies the developer has to go through; those six agencies geared the developer to what the Board is seeing tonight; the agencies said no to the ramp, and they said, “we prefer not to do the lift, we prefer you to do the marina if you’re going to have the boating element”; and that is what has brought him before the Board tonight.  He advised there are no seagrass impacts proposed at all, except for the 100 square feet; it is not part of the boating area, but just a walkway with some shading; and there is going to be an open-grade type of dock if approved, so that the sunlight would go through.  He stated there are three existing marinas within four miles of the project; there are seven within seven miles; three of them are down near S.R. 520 come out into the river; he identified all the docks within the area of the project, and they vary in length with most of them being 300 to 400 feet; there is one dock that is 640 feet long, and another that is 725 feet long; and so there are structures out in the river that are similar to what is being proposed.  He stated he heard over and over that other piers and docks in the area do not have boats because they do not have the water depths in most of the areas; he would suggest if they did have the depths, they would probably have a boat; but his project does have the depth; and the developer has the ability to do it with the Commission’s approval.  He stated the area has over 4,200 linear feet that is undeveloped because of the subject property; there are seagrasses, there are manatees,  and there is some beautiful kayaking;  except for a narrow area for the marina, all that will stay the same; and the developer is not going to prevent kayakers from going up and down the waterway.  He noted compliance with the Manatee Protection Plan is on the developer; it would be premature to go through the whole review prior to knowing if they could have the CUP or not; if the CUP is not approved tonight, the developer will go back to the boat lift because that is the direction the environmental agencies geared them; and that would be staff approval and would not have to come back before the County Commission, and would not go through public hearings.  He stated the neighbors talked in detail about keeping things in compliance with the shallow waters; from what he heard earlier, it sounds like the developer is consistent with it because what is being proposed is in the deeper area, as it is already dredged; the channel is 150 feet wide at it narrowest point; and it is pretty deep out there.  He stated the river is two and a half miles wide at that point of the proposed marina; the 600 feet the marina would project out is approximately four percent of an impact; it is not as significant when looking at the whole river that way; if the developer does the boat lift, there can be greater than 30-foot boats; and lifts have the ability to lift greater than 30-foot boats.    

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if it is Mr. Wise’s belief that if the marina concept was denied, that the environmental and permitting agencies would allow the lift-type of project.  Mr. Wise responded yes, he does believe that.  Commissioner Anderson stated that could be more detrimental as far a boat traffic because there would be 64 boat slips.  Mr. Wise stated that was the plan that was provided to the agencies previously.  Commissioner Anderson stated that would increase the boat traffic into the channel and into the seagrass beds.  Mr. Wise stated yes, but there is not a guarantee every single homeowner would have a boat. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired where the lift system would be on the property.  Mr. Wise replied the lift would be at the cove, so the developer would have to dredge out the cove to make it deeper because it has silted over time, and then have a lift that would lift a boat up from the interior canal system and drop it into the cove; and the developer already has approvals through the letters he mentioned earlier.  Commissioner Fisher stated a comment was made earlier that the developer would not have to come back before the Board for the boat lift system.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos replied no, the individual docks on the individual lots are not marinas, and they do not require a Conditional Use Permit; and it would be like individual docks on the canals. 

 

Darcee McGee, Natural Resources Management Office, stated staff found out this afternoon that the developer may be going back to the other design; she is not 100 percent certain, but from conversations staff has had with the State, they may consider a boat ramp, in which case it would come back before the Board; but she does not know if the State would consider it to be a boat ramp; and that is something staff needs to check into.  Mr. Wise stated the he looked at a ramp and a boat lift; they area two separate reviews at all State and Federal levels; and he does not mean to disagree, but that is the process the developer has gone through already. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he appreciates the work put in by the residents and the developer; and they are  both  to   be   commended for   their  time  and effort.   He stated he feels a bit sorry for

Mr. Wise because of what he has gone through with the permitting agencies; but unfortunately, that is kind of the nature of it; and it would have been helpful the agencies had said early on what the rules are, and let the developer deal with that.  He stated  he is not going to support the marina concept; marina concepts in general are a good tool because there are places in which they can work; but the devil is always in the detail of looking at where it makes sense; multiple docks scattered along the shoreline literally can be more damaging than the marina communal set up; but it comes down to the subject property; first of all the fist 12 percent of the site is on the edge; and there is an impact from that.  He stated the issue goes back to noise, odors, and other issues; had the channel been in the middle of the property it may have been a tougher decision, but it is not, it is where it is, which is on the northern section of the property; and there was some mis-information related to the homeowners association because the County Codes do prohibit some of the things the Board has heard; and the Codes can be more restrictive in dealing with those issues, but that is not a point.  He stated he believes that in this particular setting, being that far out in the water, being that far north, is not going to be conducive to good land use decision; he does not think it is compatible; and he believes it negatively impacts the northern neighbors beyond an extent.  He stated he also believes the marina will create issues of utilization of the property, such as hours of use; hours of operation that close to an edge is going to be very difficult, so he is not going to support it; and he will make a motion to deny. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she agrees with Chairman Nelson; the water is not deep enough to support boats in the marina; she wishes the developer were allowed to have a boat ramp; but she cannot approve the marina. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to deny Item V.B.7. as recommended; and direct staff to prepare a Findings of Fact. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Mr. Wise expressed appreciation to the Board for its time, as well as the neighbors.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is still concerned that 64 boats might be there in the future; the Board may have no choice but to allow it to happen; and directed staff to gather information regarding the environmental permitting for the different agencies, and find out what the feasibility of that actually occurring is.  Ms. McGee inquired if Commissioner Anderson is referring to the boat lift in the canal system; with Commissioner Anderson responding affirmatively. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated County staff can keep in contact with the developer through the process because contact at various times with various agencies got confusing; and it would be helpful if staff could hear the same things Mr. Wise hears and at the same time.  Mr. Wise stated he and staff have been doing that throughout the process, and he would be happy to continue. 

 

  

Chairman Nelson stated he would like to thank Commissioner Fisher for his efforts on behalf of the project; the project was at $3 million, and now it is $2.2 million; and Commissioner Fisher did a good job of working through the issue.  He stated one misconception that he has heard is that the project is a stormwater project; it is actually a project to encourage economic development of a portion of the community first; the way that is being accomplished is through creating this stormwater project; in effect, the project will treat water from sites that currently cannot meet the regulations or will lose a significant portion of their land to meet regulations in a redevelopment setting; and as a result of that, land will not be able to be fully utilized in an already developed area, which is something the Board has tried to encourage.  He stated the project will also drive the requests for height, which is always a concern on Merritt Island, because if land has been lost to stormwater treatment, then a developer will want to build up to recapture some of that value; to him, it is an exciting project; and in addition to the economic impact it is going to have, which is also going to increase the tax base, there will be some benefits to the stormwater and Lagoon, and also to the Veterans Center.  He stated he would appreciate the Board’s support; it is a great project; and the project can be the poster child for meeting stormwater requirements while encouraging economic development of some more of the depressed areas.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she does not like moving forward with an Option Agreement with having a purchase price without having appraisals; the price was reduced, but she did not want to limit the liability for the seller to $50,000 for environmental assessment damage; and she cannot approve the item for those reasons. 

 

Greg Lugar, MIRA Director, stated that is why staff is at an Option Agreement; staff has 120 days to do due diligence, at which time staff will come back to the Board and report what the mediation plan requires in terms of cleanup; and if it is significantly higher, it gives the Board the option to walk away from the Agreement.  Commissioner Infantini stated she had never seen one of the past Boards walk away from an Option Agreement that they agreed to; and she will not approve the item.

 

Chairman Nelson the Board has letters from the appraiser saying the value will not be less than a certain number; the big fear was that the Board would go out for an appraisal and have a contract price; and the appraised price would not support the purchase price.  Commissioner Fisher stated originally Pulte said they wanted to sell the property at discount; and he had a concern that he wanted Pulte to give the Board a number, so the Board would know what the discount is, versus the Board going out and getting an appraisal because the concern was that once the appraisal was done, that was the number Pulte was going to try to use.  He stated the Board tabled the conversation and Pulte came back with a number of $3 million; the Board disagreed with that number; after negotiations Pulte is down to $2.5 million; and the $50,000 Commissioner Infantini is making reference to is that the Board is going to spend $50,000 on an engineering phase II study to figure out if there is any contamination; and if there is contamination and the contamination exceeds $250,000 the Board does not have to buy it, and Pulte will reimburse the County for the engineering study. 

 

Christine Lepore, Assistant County Attorney, advised Pulte Homes is putting the money up-front.  Commissioner Fisher stated the property comes back less than the appraisal, then the Board has the chance to drop the price again.  Commissioner Infantini stated she does not know the Board has a need for quite so much land; even if it is a bargain; and she believes it is too much and is overkill.  She noted Mr. Benson has done numerous appraisals for EELs, in which she frequently had questions; and she will be voting nay.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the other part that has not been discussed is that the Board is creating a stormwater utility which will recapture some of the value of the land from the development community; and over time, the Board will be recovering and setting up a trust that will manage and maintain it. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to authorize the execution of the Option Agreement for Sale and Purchase between Brevard County and Pulte Homes, Inc. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.  

 

 

Ms. Lepore advised there is also the Interlocal Agreement with MIRA that was approved this afternoon by MIRA; and the Interlocal Agreement basically sets up the relationship between MIRA and the County in setting up the utility services the Board describes for stormwater.  Mr. Lugar stated the Interlocal Agreement tells the Board how much it is paying for it; and MIRA is going to transfer the funds to the Board.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Interlocal Agreement will only go into effect if the Board purchases the property; with Mr. Lugar responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board is approving it subject to the final purchase; with Mr. Lugar responding affirmatively.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to authorize an Interlocal Agreement and related documents with the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) to provide a contribution in aid of construction by funding the purchase of land by the County for the construction of stormwater facilities serving MIRA.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Infantini voted nay.  

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the Board has not read the Interlocal Agreement.

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she thought the item preempts what she is working on because the Board knows she is working diligently for local preference in regards to the bidding process; and she thinks the item is premature until she can come back in July with her proposals. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the problem is that right now the Board has $66 million worth of contracts that it does not have to go out to bid for; the Chairman is permitted to sign any renewal contracts over $100,000 in an annual value; and some of the contracts go up to $17 million, so it does not get any discussion or come back to the Board.  She stated if the other Commissioners want to go back to their constituents and tell them they do not want to provide oversight because it is burdensome to the Board.  Chairman Nelson stated that is unfair and not accurate.  Commissioner Bolin stated she objects to Commissioner Infantini’s statement; and stated Commissioner Infantini is characterizing the Commissioners unnecessarily.  Commissioner Infantini stated on August 28, 2008 and Agenda Item was passed that stated, “Approval of this action will eliminate Board action, granting permission to purchase common items and services, and will eliminate several thousand individual purchase order transactions, also it will expedite the  award process.  The County Manager currently has Board authorization to solicit, award, and execute contracts up to $100,000.”  Chairman Nelson asked Commissioner Infantini to read the requested action; and stated it says, “Solicit competitive bids, quotes, and negotiate competitive agreements;” it does not say to ignore County Policy.   Commissioner Infantini stated it also authorizes the Chairman to execute contracts and contract renewals over $100,000 in annual value; and stated they do not have to be re-bid.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, to table Item VII.A.12. to August 7, 2009.  Motion failed for lack of a second.

 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if Commissioner Bolin’s local preference item will be a Workshop.  Commissioner Bolin advised she is going to be having meetings that are going to involved the builders and the Chambers of Commerce; and there will be a workshop with her staff and the other communities; but if the Board wants it to be a Workshop, she will be happy to schedule it.  Commissioner Infantini stated the problem is the timeframe, which is the only reason she placed it on the Agenda; there is a $1.8 million contract with the organization that maintains three golf courses for a whole year; and it is just automatically renewed annually.  She stated she found out that when it comes back to the Board in July, it will not have enough time to put it out to bid to start with a new contract when the current one expires in November.  She stated she does not know why the Board would resist putting items out to bid.  Commissioner Anderson he does not disagree with Commissioner Infantini, but he needs time to digest and do his own research.

 

Commissioner Fisher commented on the owner of the Complex Café wanting to do some expansion, but stated he was concerned about spending the money if the Board was not going to renew his contract.  He stated the owner has a good argument, and he would hate to see him leave.  Commissioner Infantini stated that owner actually got his business by taking over someone else’s business; originally, the prior owner has a contract for three years; staff asked the Board to renew the contract, which it did; and then that person sold out that contract to the new owner that is there now. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he agrees the contracts need to come back to the Board in a more timely fashion; but he thinks it needs to be on a case-by-case basis, and not just across-the-board.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board can take individual items back to bid.

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated what Commissioner Infantini read was an arrangement where the OEMs are put out to bid to gain some administrative advantage in terms of processing time; but he would like to talk about the golf course maintenance agreement.  He stated the golf course maintenance agreement is in the second year of a two-year optional renewal period; staff will come back in July with specifications that allow the Board enough time to determine whether or not it wants to renew or if it wants to bid out those specifications; and staff will accept the criticism that it has been slow in some instances in bringing those back before the Board in a timely manner.  He stated he can promise the Board that staff will be back at the first meeting in July with the maintenance contract; and the Board will have the option of renewing it, or bidding it out. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that is not the only contract, it was just an example.  Mr. Whitten stated there are hundreds or thousands of examples where the Board is actually bidding out services and commodities; there are also examples in which staff has been delinquent in coming back before the Board; nothing is ever perfect; but that maintenance contract, as an example will be back before the Board in time for it to make that decision.  Chairman Nelson stated he would prefer to deal with the local preference issue at a regular Board meeting.  Commissioner Anderson stated that is fine. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board had indicated a willingness to increase the court surcharge fees from $15 to $30; and it would generate potentially $900,000 additional.  Commissioner Infantini stated she does not want to be increasing fees right now.  Commissioner Anderson stated traffic citations are in place to create corrective actions so that behavior is not repeated; it is not a fee generator; and based on principles, he will not be supporting the item. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Agenda Item is to advertise a public hearing.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to advertise the advertisement of an ordinance proposing amendment to Section 38-7(a) and (b) of the Brevard County Code of Ordinances, pursuant to Florida Statute 318.18(13)(a) as amendment by SB 2108 (2009) increasing the State court facilities surcharge from $15 to $30. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for a vote on the motion; motion failed; Commissioner Bolin, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     _________________________________

                                                                                    CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN                                                                                                           BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

         

          (S E A L)