September 9, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 4, 2003, at 5:33 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Susan Carlson.

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: TABLED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated there have been a request to table III.A.3, Section 25, Township 29, Range 37, Parcel 764, owned by Villasol Realty Co., proposed for removal of the Conditional Use Permit Z-7909 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, to December 4, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 3 to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.B.4, Rushing Wind LLC’s request for change from AU to EU with a Binding Development Plan limiting density to one unit per acre on 24± acres located south of Micco Road and west of Fleming Grant Road, which was recommended to be tabled to the September 8, 2003 P&Z meeting and October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting, as the applicant failed to appear, with a reprocessing fee required, has been requested to be tabled to the September 8, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 4 to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.1, Section 13, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 510 through 517, owned by Douglas and Theresa Waller, Brian K. and Janina A. Allen, Rodney P. O’Connor, Stefan F. and Mary C. Bergman, and Mark and Nicole Madeux, proposed for change from PIP to RR-1, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, has been requested to be tabled to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 1 to October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated there is a request to table Item III.E.9, Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 50.M, owned by Walter H. Dyer, III, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z9243 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premise consumption), which was recommended for tabling by the P&Z Board to September 8, 2002 P&Z meeting and October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 9 to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised there is a request to table Item III.E.11, Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 01, Lots 21, 22, W. of Milford Dr., owned by William B. and Suzanne H. Moore, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9339 for Aquaculture, which was recommended for tabling by the P&Z Board to the October 13, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 11 to the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.12, Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 50, Block C, Lots 15, 16, & Vac. St. on West, owned by Nicholas Earltinez and Michelle Earltinez, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9323 for Bed & Breakfast Inn & Professional Offices, has been requested to be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 12 to the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: AMENDING MAKEUP OF THE DOG PARK COMMITTEE

Commissioner Pritchard stated at the last meeting one of the items was creation of a committee for the dog park; although the Board talked about the makeup of the committee, it omitted having a representative of the Sierra Club, Turtle Coast Group; and he wants to be sure the Board can have such member included. He suggested amending the committee makeup to include a member of that organization.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct that the makeup of the Dog Park Committee be amended to include a representative of the Sierra Club, Turtle Coast Group. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: MOUNTAIN BIKE CHAMPIONSHIP

Commissioner Pritchard congratulated Gary Stern of Indialantic for placing 7th out of the 55 pro-elite contestants at the 24-hour World Mountain Bike Championship in Vancouver, British Columbia over Labor Day weekend. He stated Gary is the husband of Danielle Stern, Station Manager of Space Coast Government Television, who served as his pit manager for the race.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: INIFINITY
OUTDOOR OF FLORIDA V. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise and schedule an executive session on September 9, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss strategy related to the appeal of Infinity Outdoor of Florida v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING COCOA 9-10 LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Cocoa 9-10 Little League Baseball Team is present today; and requested they approach the podium. He read aloud a resolution commending the Cocoa 9-10 Little League Baseball Team for winning the 2003 State Championship.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt a Resolution commending the Cocoa 9-10 Little League Baseball Team for winning the 2003 State Championship. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to the Team. The Team sang Take Me Out to the Ball Game. A team coach thanked the parents, coaches, fans, and the Team members for their efforts.

Chairperson Colon stated the team has made the County very proud.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT ANDREW BRANDON CAIN

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution advising of the accomplishments of Andrew Brandon Cain, and commending him for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Andrew Brandon Cain for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Mr. Cain. Andrew Brandon Cain expressed appreciation to the Board for recognizing him; and stated he worked hard to achieve the Eagle Scout rank.

Chairperson Colon inquired where is Mr. Cain’s family from; and stated it is impressive that he has been able to travel the world. Mrs. Cain stated she was born in Chile and her parents were from Spain, but she now is an American. Chairperson Colon stated she hopes her son follows in Andrew’s footsteps to the rank of Eagle Scout. Commissioner Carlson stated her son is a Second-class Scout, and she hopes one day he will reach the rank of Eagle Scout.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT TRAVIS JEREMY GOLDBERG

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution advising of the accomplishments of Travis Jeremy Goldberg and his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Eagle Scout Travis Jeremy Goldberg for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Mr. Goldberg. Travis Jeremy Goldberg stated he has enjoyed his time in scouting, and has learned a lot. He stated he serves as a soccer referee so he gets to see the benches he made as his Eagle Scout project being used. He expressed appreciation for the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT CHRISTOPHER A. MILLER

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Miller could not be present; and she will present it to him at a Scout meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution commending Christopher A. Miller for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS FROM APRIL 14, MAY 5, AND JULY 7, 2003
PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDAS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the items tabled from the April 14, May 5, and July 7, 2003 Planning and Zoning Agendas, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0305501) Mattress Barn, Inc.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 15 to Community Commercial; and change zoning from RU-1-9 and BU-1 to BU-2 on 4.28 acres located on the north side of US 192, west of Katherine Boulevard, which was recommended for denial by the Local Planning Agency and Planning and Zoning Board.

Attorney Philip Nohrr, representing the Mattress Barn, Inc., stated this is a request to change from BU-1 and/or RU-1-9 zoning on property on New Haven Avenue, west of Minton Road; to the west there is BU-2 running the full length of the property; and to the west of that is BU-2 to a depth of 675 feet. He stated currently on the property is BU-1 on the south 500 feet; and the retail Mattress Barn currently exists on that property. He stated they are requesting BU-2 on the balance of the property, which is 853 feet; and of that 320 feet is a retention pond in the back of the area, which is going to remain and be a buffer to the lake area in back. He stated one of the concerns that was expressed in the meeting with the property owners to the east was the protection of the waterfront property in back; and the property owners will speak to that themselves. He stated to the west there is BU-2 that abuts the property; and at the last meeting he displayed pictures showing the condition of the property to the east. He stated they have proposed a conceptual plan that would orient any development to the west; they have agreed there will be no outside storage or manufacturing; structures will be single-story; there will be lighting restrictions and prohibitions against hazardous waste; and generally they will have many of the same restrictions as the property to the west. He stated one Commissioner suggested his client might upgrade the room and make it more aesthetically pleasing; and they are willing to do that. He stated there was a question about buffering on the east side; they would agree to a six-foot high fence or opaque screening; if the property owner to the east would prefer, they can irrigate it and make a berm; but if they want a wall, his client would be pleased to do that. He stated they showed that putting a berm or wall up would block the view the neighbor currently has of the property owner to the west, which has outside storage. He stated they have met with the property owner to the east, but have not been able to come to any agreement. He stated they stand ready to take any reasonable step, and perhaps unreasonable steps to buffer and protect the property; they are not trying to introduce BU-2 to the area; it already abuts his client’s property for the full 1,100 foot depth to the west; and they are willing to say that on the back 320 feet, they do not need it, and it will remain a retention pond, so that will not be an issue; and if it offers additional protection, they will be happy to do it. He stated they will meet or exceed the Code requirements; they will landscape; they want to be a good neighbor; but it is not realistic to put general retail on a property of this size going back off US 1. He stated looking west, one can see that general retail to that depth does not work; he failed to bring the parties together; and requested the Board grant the zoning subject to whatever conditions the Board wishes to impose, which can be included in a binding development plan, which can be presented to the Board at the next appropriate meeting. He advised the owner of Mattress Barn is present to respond to questions.

Katrina Parker stated she drove over 400 miles to be here tonight for her grandfather, which shows how important the issue is to them. She stated the property is on US 192; her grandparents purchased the property in 1921; and they have lived there all their lives. She stated Mr. Morris, a real estate broker for Mattress Barn, spoke to her grandfather, but they did not come to a conclusion on what to do about the situation; her grandfather asked Mr. Morris if he built a $250,000 house on the property, would he want BU-2 zoning; the people are going to sell the property; and after it is sold, if it is BU-2, no one can tell the buyer what to put in there. She stated with BU-2 zoning, they could put in a junkyard or auto body painting; and the BU-2 to the east of the Mattress Barn is the Tractor Supply Company, which is retail, and to the east of that is small storage of things like campers. She advised she has been to two meetings prior to this, a Zoning Board and a Citizen Advisory Board; and both recommended leaving the zoning as is. She stated at the first meeting the attorney did not appear; and at the second meeting no one from the Mattress Barn appeared. She stated when Mr. Morris went to speak to her grandfather, her grandfather told him he was going hunting and asked him to call back; but Mr. Morris never called him back as he said he would. She requested this be resolved tonight; stated she cannot continue to keep driving five hours to represent her grandfather, who is not physically able to come; and her grandmother is present to verify what Mr. Morris said to her grandfather. She requested the zoning be left as is; stated it is her grandparents retirement fund; her grandfather is 82 years old; they have worked that land all their lives; and it is time for them to sell and move nearer to her.

Lily Rotgers requested the zoning be left as is.

Attorney Nohrr stated he did not attend the negotiations; he did speak to Mr. Morris who related that Mr. Rotgers asked that they continue the meeting; and he advised Mr. Morris that only the Board could do that, but that he would do what he could to see that nothing occurred. He stated this was relayed back to Mr. Rotgers, but was not acceptable; and at that point they stopped talking. He stated there was a Citizen Resource Board meeting that he could not attend due to a conflict; he asked that it be continued; but the Citizens Resource Board denied that request and went ahead with the item. He stated to the west the BU-2 is the Tractor Supply Company, which does sell products retail; and they want the BU-2 so they can have outside sales. He stated he does not think the Rotgers want outside sales next to them; and they are stipulating there will be no outside sales. He stated their other comment was about all the obnoxious uses there could be in BU-2 such as a junkyard; and they are entering into stipulations so those uses would not be there. He commented on items on the Rotgers property; and stated they will buffer their property and live by all the requirements and stipulations. He stated they are not trying to force themselves on the Rotgers; they would like to work something out; there have been some misunderstandings of what can and cannot be done with the binding development agreement; and he does not know how they can bridge that gap. He stated they have tried to be a good neighbor and will not negatively impact the Rotgers.

Chairperson Colon stated this item is in District 5; and she supports the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0305201) Robert A. Baugher’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-10 on 1.984± acres located on the west side of Highway A1A, north of Crescent Beach Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a Binding Development Plan, limited to an over-55 community, with a maximum of 16 units, and the additional language requested by Natural Resources regarding compliance with all applicable regulations.

Attorney Glenn Sundin deferred to Attorney Nohrr.

Attorney Philip Nohrr, representing Robert Baugher, stated this request has been before the Board before; and he had a chance to meet with each Commissioner about this request. He stated the property is located south of Cocoa Beach and north of Patrick Air Force Base; it is an area in transition; to the north is the Lobster Shanty Restaurant, and to the south is a trailer park; and there is a lot of multifamily development, primarily taking advantage of the ocean or the river, which is what Mr. Baugher wishes to do. He stated the applicant proposes to develop 16 condominium units oriented toward the river; and it is an under-utilization of the density that is allowable under the Comprehensive Plan for that property. He stated the issue has to do with Objective 7; there have been staff memorandums on that; and the question is whether Objective 7, as it is constituted presently, applies to the future land use changes or whether it is going to be applied to zoning. He stated the history of the Board up to this time has been to apply it just to Comprehensive Plan changes and not rezonings; advised of rezoning requests in January 21, 2003, March 2002, and one in 1999; and stated there may be many more in the zoning records. He stated they are dealing with the coastal high hazard area, which includes all of the barrier island, all of Merritt Island, and all property from Barnes Boulevard to the south; and if the Board decides to apply Objective 7 to rezoning, it would be a change from what the Board has done in the past and would catch up a lot of parcels whose owners do not know this is going on. He stated they may be in a holding category of AU or GU; and someday they are going to come in wanting to put some other zoning on their property. He stated a better way would be to have some public hearings and notice to get input from the general public; and then the Board can decide. He stated Mr. Baugher is requesting a change in zoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation, and all of a sudden up pops Objective 7; and he should not be caught up in this by surprise as he has acted in good faith. He noted he is not suggesting the staff or the Board have not acted in good faith; but all of a sudden his client is faced with something that is being applied for the first time; and there is probably a better way of doing it. He stated the whole issue is whether Objective 7 is meant to apply to rezoning and whether it is meant to apply where his client’s property is located. He stated a fair reading of Policy 7.1 under Objective 7 has a specific geographic area; an argument can be made that although the geographic area talks about south of Melbourne Beach, there is other language that means it could have a broader approach to it; and they are far north of the geographic area specified in Objective 7. He stated ideally, they would like to
avoid this issue, and handle it in another way at another time after they have gotten their approval, which would be the fair thing to do. He stated he does not think there are any issues about compatibility. Attorney Nohrr stated the Board can look at the issue on a grander scale; there is a better way to do it; and the property owners who will be affected by this will appreciate the opportunity to be heard because there is going to be a lot of unhappiness when people realize all of a sudden something has happened that they did not know about. He stated Mr. Baugher is present tonight; there is a planner who has also filled out a card to speak; and he would be pleased to answer any questions the Board might have.

Rochelle Lawandales, Lawandales Planning Affiliates, submitted a report to the Board; and stated the area is in transition and is surrounded by a multitude of mixed uses. She stated there are high-rise developments to the east, south, and north; just to the north is the restaurant; and there is a trailer park to the south. She stated the proposed condos are contained within a 45-foot building; it is a good use between the restaurant and trailer park; and this will be an upgrade to the area and a good transition. She stated it is consistent and compatible to the existing established development pattern and to the zoning within the area; and she will be glad to answer any questions of the Board.

Attorney Glenn Sundin stated there have been no objections from the adjacent land owners; and there is an affidavit from the owner of the trailer park who is in favor of the rezoning.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is ready to move on the item, but Commissioner Higgs has comments.

Commissioner Higgs stated in the Comprehensive Plan, it talks about the coastal high hazard zone; and inquired when the definition was changed, what it applied to before then, and what the EAR did to the coastal high hazard zone. Planner Robin Sobrino responded prior to 1995 and prior to the Comprehensive Plan update in 1996, the coastal high hazard area was the barrier island; but Florida Statutes redefined the coastal high hazard area in 1995 to include any category 1 evacuation area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff put into the Board’s package the list of residential rezonings in the coastal high hazard zone; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding that was done by separate memo. Commissioner Higgs stated she just wants to be sure everyone is saying the same thing; Mr. Nohrr talked about a surprise; but she is familiar with the issue of Pettengill, Vistar, and Certified Builders. She stated Pettengill was an existing home in GU, so that was just the establishment and not an increase in the units; Vistar was the binding development plan in BU-1-A that gave some use to the one there; and Certified Builders was GU to SR, which was a one-to-one switch, so they were not density increases on the barrier island. She stated she just wanted to clarify that because it would seem different from having read the document. She stated in 1988 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the Board was not assuming the difference between the barrier island, Merritt Island, and those areas because it was not part of the State’s plan; but following Hurricane Erin, the State relooked at the coastal high hazard areas, the evacuation areas, and the category 1; and that resulted in the change to coastal high hazard. She stated the Board has not been inconsistent in terms of the barrier island.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this touches so much of the County when it goes to Merritt Island; there are questions about the intention; and inquired how does the Board deal with it tonight.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not sure; but she wanted it to be clear that what was done in 1988 in terms of the coastal high hazard zone was a different definition than what the Board is looking at today. She stated the barrier island was termed the coastal high hazard zone in terms of the 1988 plan; but that does not address the issue of whether or not it goes to density, zoning, or the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the more constrictive definition would impact Merritt Island; he does not understand why; and therefore the dilemma is that he cannot read it one way without reading it the other way. Mr. Enos stated under the current definition, Merritt Island is part of the coastal high hazard zone. Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot come out tonight and apply something that would say Merritt Island would have no rezonings. Commissioner Higgs stated whether or not density is an issue on this part, she does not think saying no to this rezoning says no to all rezonings. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has to look at the consistency issue because the last thing it wants to do is walk into a posture of inconsistency; and that would be the most disastrous thing it could do. Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees with that; the Board needs to be careful about saying there cannot be rezonings because there are rezonings that do not create greater density; the discussion about density is in the Comprehensive Plan; the language in the Objective deals with limiting densities, but does not say it is not possible to change uses; and she wants to be sure the Board does not get confused.

Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Lawandales submittal has that the owner has the ability to build 11 units on the BU-1 property currently. Mr. Enos advised it is seven at this time. Commissioner Carlson inquired where did Ms. Lawandales pull her numbers from; with Ms. Lawandales responding she just took the acreage and divided by 7,500; but she did not take out for roads and things like that.

Chairperson Colon stated the recommendation of the P&Z Board is for approval with a binding development plan.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 with a BDP, limited to an over-55 community, with a maximum of 16 units, and the additional language requested by Natural Resources Management regarding compliance with all applicable regulations. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Higgs and Carlson voted nay.

Item 3. Section 25, Township 29, Range 37, Parcel 764, owned by Villasol Realty Co., proposed for removal of the Conditional Use Permit Z-7909 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Item 3 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 4. (Z0307104) Millennium Development of Titusville, L.L.C. and Titusville Holdings, Inc.’s request for change from GU and PUD to all PUD on 1,132.6 acres located on the north side of SR 46, east of I-95, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Attorney David Norris, representing the applicant, stated Walkabout development is in the north end of the County, and has been in the planning stages for many years; the present group of owners acquired the project four or five years ago and started moving forward with development; and they have completed a world class golf facility, which is open and operating. He stated a lot of the compliments for the golf course are for the beauty and the way the golf course preserves the natural and wetland areas. He stated the basic concept for the development is that Walkabout is intended to be an upscale active adult and nature-oriented development; and in order to move forward under that concept, they are asking for several requests. He stated the items are set forth in the zoning application on page 7; they consist of bringing in an adjacent 70 acres into the project, introducing a multifamily component into the project, and increasing densities accordingly based upon those two changes. He stated most, if not all, of the Commissioners have visited the site so they know what it looks like and the wetland areas; one Commissioner requested they make a tape of the development to show the residents of Brevard County what a quality development project is all about; and they have prepared such a tape that they wish to play for the Board tonight. He stated the basic concept for the development is that it is an upscale active adult nature-oriented development; and he wants the Board to keep that in mind when it sees the trees. He stated there are a lot of trees and a lot of areas of canopies and trees; and all of those areas are in the wetland areas of the project. He stated those areas are going to remain just as they are seen on the tape, preserved and undisturbed; and they are an important feature of the development that makes it special. A videotape showing Walkabout development was presented. Mr. Norris stated the wetland areas are the highest quality wetlands in the County, if not the State; they are special; and that is why they are so intent on preserving them. He noted the Board has received the package and staff reports; and advised a couple of items are mistakes. He stated the first item is that staff indicated that the wetland areas that were seen on the tape have been reduced by 53.4 acres; staff bases that on the calculations on the proposed plan versus the calculation on the presently approved plan; but they have surveyed, and done an exact calculation of those areas; and their figure is the exact acreage. He stated the land areas for the wetland areas are identical under the proposed plan before the Board tonight and the approved plan; so there has been no reduction of 53.4 acres. He stated the second item indicated the open space has been reduced by 500 acres; but that is not true. He stated the open space under the approved plan is identical to the open space shown in their plan; there is no change whatsoever; and staff acknowledges that they satisfy all open space requirements under the Code. He stated the third thing that was indicated was that they have eliminated active recreation areas by eliminating basketball courts and soccer fields on the plan; but they have not eliminated the areas. He stated the theme is adult development; basketball courts and soccer fields probably are not the type of recreational areas residents are going to want, so they have eliminated the designation of those two activities; but the areas are still there and will be recreational areas. He stated this gives flexibility for the residents to decide which type of recreation they want provided there; so when they come in with the site plans, they will determine what those recreation types will be. He stated the areas are still there; they have designated additional areas for other recreation areas that are not part of the calculations, but are on the plan; so they have not eliminated, but have provided more. He stated on the last report that staff gave the Board, there is an indication that they are providing boardwalks between wetland area, which they are not doing; there will be pathways; they are trying to keep the natural features of the development as much as possible; the wetland features are the major features and most important assets of the development; and the wetlands expert will speak briefly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is unusual that there are comments entered that staff is not stating things correctly; there are going to be a lot of comments from the public; and it would be best to allow Mr. Enos to respond to the four or five items. Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated staff just checked the plan, and it does say trails not boardwalk; and he apologizes for that misunderstanding of staff. He stated regarding the total amount of open space, it was probably an error on the previous plan; there is often a misconception between what is commonly known as open space and what the Code defines as usable common space; and Mr. Norris is correct when he says all of the open space is still there; but all that open space is not committed and approved as recreation area accessible to the residents, so it is a matter of perspective; but what he is saying is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the soccer fields; with Mr. Enos responding he has eliminated the soccer fields and basketball courts from the plan. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that materially changed the direction of having that for active recreation; with Mr. Enos responding it just means there is that much less active open space. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is his understanding it is being redefined for an older use; Mr. Norris responded that is right, and they are just not designating it for basketball courts and soccer. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is sufficient. Mr. Norris advised it is designated active recreation; with Mr. Enos advising staff is not aware of exactly where that might be. Mr. Norris stated the areas that were previously designated as basketball court and soccer fields will be designated active recreation.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board would need to know precisely where and how that is going to be used.

Marvin Sanders, Sanders Planning Group, advised there are 25 open space parcels, varying from a tenth of an acre to six-plus acres; on the previous plan inside the parcel was shown an area that was labeled soccer field and basketball courts; but they have created similar sized areas through the 25 acres rather than put in a soccer field in someone’s back yard, which would not be consistent with an older population.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired are they designated a darker green color; with Mr. Sanders responding yes. Mr. Sanders advised the open space with the program is a walking pathway system within the right-of-way; the 25 locations would have exercise stations; and it would create a park system emanating at the beginning of the clubhouse and back and forth.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if that was on the document that was submitted; with Mr. Sanders responding yes, the 25 spaces and what they are going to be are there; in addition there were 12 lakes that meet the qualifications under fishing piers; and there are pathways to those with little mini-parks, so there are 37 little park areas.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they are not designating any specific activity any longer; and inquired how will the Board know where there will be any activity except for people walking, and are there activities in mind. Mr. Sanders responded the system is set up on a park horse trails system up to certain points and back and forth for jogging trails and exercise stations. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what about the green blotches; with Mr. Sanders responding those are exercise stations and mini-parks; with Mr. Norris adding those are more adult-oriented. Mr. Sanders commented on connection to the future rails for trails system and having a nature interpretive area; and stated there is an existing road with a sharp incline down into the wetlands, which is a wonderful resource to explain the various flora and fauna; and there will be a small pavilion in the area. Mr. Norris stated the question Commissioner Scarborough is trying to get at is the recreation areas that were previously designated basketball court and soccer fields, but are not designated now. Commissioner Scarborough stated what was said is there will still be active recreation, just different kinds; with Mr. Norris responding that is right, but they do not know what that will be yet. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a difference in having an informational station in a gazebo and having active recreation; Mr. Norris criticized staff because they had inappropriately interrupted something he had done; but staff has not been given enough information to make a determination that it is active. Mr. Norris stated it was not intended as a criticism; he wanted to point out things that were mistakes; they have worked very hard with staff up until now and made a lot of changes based on staff comments; but there were items they felt were mistakes that they wanted to point out to the Board and make sure the Board did not think they were eliminating recreation and not putting anything back in. He stated the change was based on it being an active adult-oriented community; and soccer fields and basketball courts are probably not the type of activities adults are going to want to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think Mr. Norris is making his case; and suggested he proceed.

Chairperson Colon stated she agrees; there is a lot of information the applicant has not given staff; and staff is waiting to get that information to make sure the presentation is accurate. Mr. Norris stated he does not know what information staff is waiting for; with Chairperson Colon requesting Mr. Norris proceed.

Mr. Norris stated he wants to bring up wetlands expert Dr. Richardson to give a brief description of the wetland areas, how special they are, and how the proposal incorporates them in and enhances the wetlands.

Chairperson Colon advised the speaker only has two minutes left. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wishes to have the Board allow more time as this is a very important project; and the Board would be doing a disservice to not extend the time. Chairperson Colon stated they also have five minutes for rebuttal.

Mr. Norris stated Dr. Richardson will make very brief comment; and then he wants to show the differences between the two plans.

Dr. Don Richardson, President and owner of Ecological Consultants in Tampa, stated the overall integrity of the wetlands and uplands is excellent; the edge effect disturbance has been held to a minimum; and most of the wetlands are flooded. He stated the species diversity is high; the canopy trees are old; and it is a very good system. He stated more important and what he finds unique are the oak hammocks and cabbage palm hammocks that dot the property; many of the oaks are 250-plus years; and there is magnificent species diversity in the systems. He stated some of the species that occur in Miami get up into these hammocks because of the limestone outcrops, and provide a unique habitat that the owner have gone out of the way to preserve; and he was brought on board to look at the environmental issues as far as how they relate to the user. He stated they have gone out of their way to preserve and maintain the integrity of the systems; and there is virtually no net loss. He stated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed no net loss of wetlands for the last 20 years; this project is one of those projects where there is minimal net loss of wetlands, which is excellent from a development standpoint because it provides the user with a piece of Florida one does not often see; and he compared the systems favorably with those in Miami and the Everglades. He stated he was hired to help create a buffer system; studies have shown in the last four or five years that the integrity of the wetlands and uplands, in many cases, is directly dependent upon the buffer; so they have decided to create approximately 16 acres of buffer adjacent to the wetlands on the golf course and other areas where wetlands come up to development. He stated they are going to do that by planting over 100,000 units of native grasses at a cost of $100,000 to $200,000 in an effort to do two things; it will preserve the integrity of the wetland by reducing runoff by the golf course and other landscaped areas; and it will provide wildlife corridors. He stated many projects fail to provide usable wildlife corridors for mammals and upland animal species that cannot use the wetlands; in this case, they are creating buffers so that the movement of animals can go north, south, east, and west along the valuable resources; and this project exemplifies what everyone should be doing as far as preservation. He stated environmental education is really important; there will be a walking trail system that will allow the user to get out into the wetland and be face to face with many of the plants and animals with minimal impact to even the uplands because most of the trails will be walking trails; and there will not be boardwalks. He stated the owner has set up a development that is going to be user-friendly so people actually own a piece of what Florida was like in the early 1940’s.

Mr. Norris stated they appreciate the additional time; and Mr. Sanders is going to go through the two plans and show the similarities and differences.

Mr. Sanders displayed a map; and pointed out I-95, the rest area, the County’s treatment plant, Highway 46, McDonalds, the Robinwood and Indian River residential communities, the Florida East Coast Railway that is being considered for rails to trails, the Indian River Plantation, Quail Haven, and Northgate Mobile Ranch subdivisions; and Folsom Road and Pine Avenue. He stated the previous plan did not include the Sharpe parcel, which is 71.32 acres; and including that into the PUD made two major contributions to the plan. He stated it enables them to eliminate the crossover to obtain access to the property, thereby creating a longer natural corridor for migration by wildlife; and it insures that access to the piece would be within the PUD and would not need to cross the former railroad to gain access. Mr. Sanders stated many of the additional units are in parcel 11, which is somewhat disjointed in several pieces to provide an adult congregate living facility; and parcel 4 would have some kind of attached housing as well as parcel 17 adjoining the clubhouse. He stated the original numbers on the prior master plan show the commercial being 2.7 acres; but all they are showing is the small red area at 1.7 acres with the striped area being straight commercial outside the PUD; and they are asking that the buffer be waived so they can develop that as one small commercial piece. He noted it is also commercial on the land use plan. He stated by bringing in the townhome or villa project on parcel 17, they have reduced the clubhouse site from 14.7 acres to 7.1 acres; and there will still be the same size clubhouse that was envisioned to be able to serve the 18-hole golf course. He stated the last time the plan, which has been administratively changed several times, went before the Board was in 1995; the wetland acres were an approximation; the graphic area for the wetland remained the same; but since 1988 when the approximate number was created, they had it surveyed and approved. He stated that is the difference in the 50 acres; but when the total open space is added up, they are providing 40 more acres. He stated in the booklet they provided on page 19 there is a drawing showing the amount of open area contained within the PUD; they are not saying it meets the technical requirements of usable open space because they would have to develop the wetland; an improvement to the wetland could be counted; and the important thing is they have increased the amount of open area. He stated the 30 acres they are increasing by is based on up-to-date surveys, not the approximation of some years ago; and it is more than half the 71 acres they are bringing into the PUD. He commented on the miniparks, exercise stations, and lakes with piers all interconnected with the pathway system.

Mr. Norris stated they would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

Robert Smith stated his comments will be about the loose ends in the proposal that seem to have been overlooked; and the item of most concern is the discussion of the schools and the impact on the schools. He stated Madison Middle School and Astronaut High School are not projected to have a capacity to accommodate students from the additional housing units in the project; in an effort to offset the impact to schools, the applicant has offered to establish age restricted pods for the additional 746 units included in the amended PUD; but the schools are already crowded and the first phases will burst the capacity of the classrooms. He noted there has not been public comment on this; advised of the need in Titusville for a vocational high school; and suggested that might be a solution. He stated his second comment concerns the rails to trails issue; he knows the access issue was canceled; but the rails to trails pass will still haunt the residents of the Millennium development and test the law enforcement resources of the County. He commented on indigents traveling back and forth from the north to the south along U.S. 1, indigents breaking through barriers to camp at Millennium, Planning and Zoning Board not realizing the problem, potential for problems for the County if it has to sue the people, and a civil solution to the problem.

Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Smith’s time has expired. The Board reached consensus to allow Mr. Smith additional time.

Mr. Smith stated aside from the giant oaks, there are precious things in the area that are not catalogued; the plants are valuable historically and aesthetically; and recommended the Board insist on a cataloguing of the flora on the site as a caveat for approval of the project.

Fred Kosterer stated he is going to miss the orange groves and cow pastures, but he cannot stop development that is coming his way; Millennium has a good plan; and encouraged the Board to vote for the PUD.

Chairperson Colon requested Mr. Norris respond to the comments on schools.

David Norris stated the additional units they are requesting will have no impact on the schools because they are providing restrictions so there will be no school-age children.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board needs to identify where the units that will not impact the schools will be; with Mr. Enos responding they have done that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is stipulated on the plan; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many multifamily units have been added; with Mr. Norris responding 414. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is on the 71 acres that the applicant is adding, at a density of approximately six units an acre; with Mr. Sanders responding it is on 49.4 acres so it is a density of approximately eight units per acre. Commissioner Higgs stated in the previous submittal there was no multifamily; and inquired if it is in the tract against I-95; with Mr. Sanders responding yes, tract 4 is against I-95, tract 11 is against I-95 and the plant, and tract 17 is in the middle of the golf course adjacent to the clubhouse. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are any commitments for the plans for that; with Mr. Sanders responding it is just multifamily right now, but the intention is to have tract 11 as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is binding; with Mr. Sanders responding that is what they think it will be, but it will depend on the market. Commissioner Higgs stated she thought it was necessary to nail things down in terms of what is going where; with Mr. Enos responding this is the first he had heard of the ACLF; and if they are going to place an ACLF in tract 11, staff will need to know how many units or beds and the location. Mr. Norris stated they are not saying absolutely that is going to be there; but it is a prime piece of property for that type of multifamily. Commissioner Higgs stated in approving a project such as this and a preliminary development plan, what the Board says yes to is in stone; and what Mr. Norris is offering is not in stone. Mr. Norris stated it is 300 multifamily units. Commissioner Higgs stated an ACLF is a different animal than a condominium or some other kind of project; and inquired if this would be a rental ACLF or will the people own the units. Mr. Norris responded it could be either way; generally there is some type of ownership; an adult living facility may be what the market will want; and all they are asking for in stone is to have multifamily. He stated if when they come back with the site plan, they want an adult living facility, there are certain things they will have to comply with at that time; but right now the question is multifamily.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many stories; with Mr. Norris responding he does not know; and the preliminary plan will not bind them or designate how many stories. Commissioner Higgs stated she is confused; in the past when a preliminary development plan was done, the Board was told that it did not have any ability to change it and it was totally binding; and that is not what she is hearing. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated she thinks they plan to come in with amendments. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is going to do this every time. Mr. Norris stated it really is not amendments; they are asking for a multifamily feature to the development; per the request of staff, they have designated which areas would be multifamily; and certainly multifamily can only be in those designated areas. He stated what type of multifamily is not known now; and hopefully the Board will agree that is not something they would provide for in the preliminary development plan. Mr. Sanders stated they have shown three areas where the multifamily will go, the three portions of parcel 11; there would be a roadway going through; and they would need to come in with a site plan for the three areas. He stated they were just explaining there is the potential to become an ALF or ACLF; and it would be less impacting if they did one because of the traffic and things of that nature; but they are not committing to that or asking the Board to commit to that. Commissioner Higgs stated this does not seem to be consistent with some of the other preliminary development plans, which show heights, uses, and those kinds of things.

Mr. Enos advised the ACLF is a conditional use permit; as far as the PUD is concerned, the preliminary development plan must specifically request uses that are listed as conditional use permits; and if it is not in the preliminary development plan, the applicant could at some later point request the CUP on the particular parcel; but for them to have an ACLF as part of the plan, it has to be specified and approved as part of the plan.

Mr. Norris concurred; and stated if they determine later than an ACLF or ALF is what should be there, they will come back and get the amendment Mr. Enos is talking about.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is not really an ACLF; with Mr. Norris responding that is correct, the Board is not approving one. Commissioner Higgs requested comment on the other multifamily parcels. Doug MacDonald, President of Walkabout, stated he sent the Board a package; parcel 17 is approximately 3.5 acres; and they would like to put 34 multifamily units on it. He stated the plan is to do some rear-loaded units; and he supplied a site plan. He stated they want to focus all of them toward the golf course; he submitted a package on what they want for the permanent clubhouse; and they all fit together. He stated they talked about the amenity areas and what they were going to do with the 24 acres that are spread around; and in one they are going to put a swimming pool for the 34 units. He stated the units will not be rentals; they will be fee simple ownership; they will not be condominiums as he does not build condominiums; and in other words they will deliver title to the units. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they will be attached multifamily; with Mr. MacDonald responding they will be attached multifamily with fee simple ownership. Mr. MacDonald reiterated that he does not build condominiums; the units will be ground-oriented; and they might be two stories; but there will be no high-rises or stacked housing in Walkabout, and everything will have ground floor access. He stated as far as use, he would like to drive it out a little bit as it is a big project; and what he is trying to get is some density so they know what they can work towards. He committed to being ground-oriented, with no massive multifamily or condominium units; and everything will be fee simple. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is a 35-foot maximum height; with Mr. MacDonald agreeing that is fine.

Chairperson Colon stated when she went out there she was very impressed in regard to the preservation; that is something the community is trying to focus on; and they discussed having Mr. MacDonald at the workshop because these are the kinds of things the community wants. She stated she also suggested they make a tape so not only the Commissioners can see it but also the entire community; they want to preserve what belongs to Brevard County; they have a right to ask developers to lean that way; and this project shows that.

Mr. MacDonald stated Commissioner Scarborough asked what kind of housing they were going to build; housing will be upscale housing, which does not mean it has to be 7,000 square feet, but does mean it has to be quality; and advised he requested a letter from the Mayor of Boynton Beach because they have done a lot of projects there. He stated Brevard County does not know him even though he has been here five years, because he has not built anything; and commented on quality construction, having an architectural review board, and having outside builders deliver what they want. He stated they do not just pay lip service, but are sincere and build stuff they are proud of.

Commissioner Pritchard stated his question was answered by Mr. Enos already.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the legal interpretation on Tract G has been qualified; with Attorney Bentley advising they have withdrawn Tract G, so it is not a part of this rezoning and they will not be altering any of the rights. Commissioner Carlson inquired if extracting that affects the property in terms of how the roads are laid out and everything; and is what they see, what they get; with Mr. Norris responding that is correct.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as far as Tract G is concerned, within the agreement, there is to be no utilization of Pine Street; Pine Street can be accessed up to the County facility; but that in no way changes anything. Mr. Norris stated they are not intending to use that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees this is one of the most beautiful pieces of property he has ever seen; and it has the greatest potential; but this is a large complex issue, so he will go through a couple of items. He stated he wants to go well enough through it that he can get the Board to comment; and advised of the Board’s inability to communicate outside of meetings due to the Sunshine Law. He stated the first issue is the road capacity; and requested the Commissioners reference page 5 in the booklet. He stated it shows the SR 46 entrance, which is anticipated; Pine Street, which will not be used to access the property; and Folsom Road. He advised Folsom Road is not traveled unless one lives in a very rural area; there is no analysis of Folsom Road capacity; and there are no triggers where it moves to limiting further development until there is a SR 46 entrance, which is critical. Commissioner Carlson agreed. Commissioner Scarborough stated on number three it is not Pinewood, but Mims Elementary that is impacted; and Mims is overcrowded. Mr. Enos advised Mims is the correct school, but it is not overcrowded. Commissioner Higgs inquired are the numbers correct; with Mr. Enos responding the number for Mims are 735 for permanent capacity and 638 for projected enrollment. Commissioner Scarborough stated he stands corrected. He stated the next item is number four; the Board has thought it appropriate to take a large parcel of property and cluster the densities to keep broad open areas where there can be wildlife and the environment can be maintained; and inquired about the square footage of the adjoining properties. He stated the staff comments indicate the character of the area must not be materially affected by the proposed rezoning or land use application; Commissioner Higgs already touched on the area not having multifamily; and it is, in fact, a very rural area. He stated Mr. Enos has spelled out the square footage; looking at the land development requirements, minimum square footage of a multifamily dwelling can go down to 400 square feet, which is substantially less than anything in the area; and the Board needs to address the square footage of the multifamily. He inquired if this is an upscale area, why should it have 400 units with minimal square footage; and suggested the Board key into Mr. Enos’ comments to a broader scope. He stated single-family is 900 square feet, which may be adequate; but if this is truly an upscale golf community, 900 square feet is not necessarily what most people would consider. He stated to allow the land development regulations to control is an abuse of the concepts of compatibility and the concepts of what the community could and should be. He stated some people came to his office, and expressed concern about the multifamily. He stated this is a wonderful project; it can be a beautiful project; and he does not know if 414 multifamily units are needed in this particular place and time if this is supposed to be an open more rural area of the County.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Suntree PUD has mixed all those uses together quite effectively. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the percentage of multifamily to single-family; with Commissioner Carlson responding she could not say. Mr. Enos advised if all the fee simple townhouses areas are included as multifamily, he would guess approximately 20%; and noted there is a lot of duplex construction in Suntree as well. Commissioner Carlson inquired about square footage; with Mr. Enos responding approximately 1,600 square feet as a minimum.

Commissioner Scarborough stated everybody does not need a large unit; but expressed concern about just using the land development regulations without some parameters. He stated there can be a beautiful project, but if every thing is not watched, a good project can be ruined and lost; and the Board may be dealing with these people today, but the property may be sold tomorrow and there would be different people doing different things for different reasons. He noted this project has been sold a number of times since the Board has been dealing with it.

Chairperson Colon inquired what would Commissioner Scarborough like the Board to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot tell a developer what or how to do things; he is only one Commissioner and has to act through a consensus of the Board; and that is why he had to wait until this evening to discuss it with the other Commissioners. He stated it is a beautiful project that everyone is going to be proud of; but the Board needs to take its time and make sure all thoughts are fully expressed; and if the Board concurs, it will require tabling the item.

Commissioner Carlson inquired in the design of potential multifamily, did the applicant consider minimums. Eugene Gerliche with Walkabout Residential Company, stated they started with the acreage available for the units and used a reasonable density; with their joint venture partner, they have built some apartment units at similar density in Boynton Beach; and those units range in size well above what the minimums are in the Code. He stated if a minimum was required on multifamily, they would use the 1,550 square-foot number; they have the land area and can build multifamily units that are of that size and of upscale quality; but they have not even identified anything to site plan those areas until they got the multifamily approval. He stated the main focus at this juncture was to say how much land they have and what is a reasonable density to use to do an upscale product; and that is how they came up with 414 units.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the size of the units is one thing; but the number of multifamily units is number two; and there needs to be a threshold. He stated there is not a lot of traffic going down Folsom Road; and the Board would not want a lot of traffic going down Folsom Road, although he is not saying that is the applicant’s desire; and he wants to have only a limited number of units until there is access from SR 46. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is talking about no units; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, until the SR 46 entrance is in.

Chairperson Colon stated it needs to be tabled; everything sounds good and she is supportive of this kind of community; but Commissioner Scarborough is correct and he is the Commissioner of the District. She stated Commissioner Scarborough wants to maintain the integrity of his community; and it is not asking for a lot to table this matter to be able to have more discussions so some of the issues can be addressed. She inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wishes to make a motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding others may have some comments, and he wants to deal with all the issues.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the stumbling block is apparently multifamily at 414 units; the applicant has acquiesced to 1,550 square feet as the minimum size unit, whether it is an ALF, ACLF, or duplex; and that is a reasonable size. He inquired about the timetable for the proposed development of the multifamily units; with Mr. Gerliche responding there is a detailed phasing schedule in the book that identifies the first phase of development, which includes a certain number of units and tells which phase and which pods get the multifamily development. Mr. Gerliche advised the first multifamily would be the 34 units around the clubhouse; the next multifamily would be in phase 2 or 3, and then the last pod of multifamily does not come until the sixth phase. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the dates. Mr. Gerliche responded they look on each phase as a year; so in the first year they have pod 9 with 34 multifamily units and 132 single-family homes that access off SR 46; the second year, they continue up to Walkabout Way and add some of the golf course homes; the phasing for the first two years and the construction plans and preliminary plats have been submitted to the County for review; and the Board will be seeing them shortly for Walkabout Roadway. He stated in the first two years, they are talking about 34 multifamily units around the clubhouse and some plan for the portion of the multifamily units in pod 11. Mr. Sanders advised year 3 is parcel 11. Mr. Gerliche stated he was wrong; and clarified the areas to be done in the first three years. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when is SR 46 slated for an entranceway. Mr. Gerliche advised the first public meeting he ever attended was with Commissioner Scarborough in 1989 when this was discussed; the entrance off SR 46 is already approved by DOT and constructed up to the right-of-way line; and the drawings they are bringing to the County for review make the connection. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is not a constructed road. Mr. Gerliche advised there is a driveway off SR 46; they are going to start on the property on Australian Way; and the construction schedule is slated to be November. He noted the drawings and plat were submitted to the County; they had one review comment; they are anticipating a resubmittal; he met with the engineers today; and that should be back on September 17, 2003, in which case it would be before the Board in October with phase 1 of the development. Commissioner Pritchard stated one year is what they are looking at to have the road because the cut is already there on SR 46; then they can begin work on phase 1, which will go on for about a year; and it looks like a six-year project. Mr. Gerliche stated there are six phases shown on the drawing; and those are programmed by year.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would be interested in seeing less multifamily; the ratio of multifamily to single-family changes the character of the development; and the area into which it will fit is not multifamily in nature. She stated it may be possible because of the size of the project to have some multifamily if properly situated, but she does not think the ratio proposed is correct; and she would want to see a ratio of buildout, if there is going to be multifamily, that shows that to be “x” number of single families and so many multifamilies, so the Board can see that kind of scheduling as it goes forward. She stated she is concerned that what the Board is seeing tonight lacks specificity; and she wants to see specifically because of what the Board has seen with other preliminary development plans and found out later it was not what the Board thought. She stated it is easy to say it is going to be an upscale kind of thing; but she wants to see the specifics, including square footage and those kinds of things in the final plan so she can be comfortable approving it; and she is not comfortable with the specifics of this.

Chairperson Colon stated she will be supporting Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs in regard to what they are requesting.

Commissioner Scarborough requested a percentage analysis like at Suntree to see the multifamily complexity and how it works within that type of community. He stated this is some of the most beautiful property he has every seen for possible development; it would be tragic to have people driving down Folsom Road to a multifamily project of marginal quality; and that would begin to back up on the Board. He stated the Board needs to do it right; and by tabling it, they are definitely doing the right thing. Mr. Norris stated he is prepared to deal with the issues tonight. Commissioner Scarborough advised he needs to put some time into this. Discussion ensued on an appropriate date to which to table the item.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 4 to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:53 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
AUGUST 11, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, made at its August 11, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0308101) Space Coast Petro Distributor, Inc.’s request for amendment to an existing Binding Development Plan in a BU-1-A zone, retaining the existing CUP for a Convenience Store with Gasoline Sales on 1.32 acres, located on the northwest corner of Canaveral Groves Boulevard and Grissom Parkway, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the applicant is present; and no response was heard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated since this came with a recommendation for denial, and the applicant is not present, he assumes he conceded the fact that it is going to be denied; and rather than keeping anyone any longer he will move for denial. He inquired if anyone is present to speak to the item; with no response heard.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0308012) George Vincent’s request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the north side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, west of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 3. (Z0308103) Arnold A. and Arlene B. Kaja’s request for change from GU to AU on 1.01 acres located on the north side of Fargo Street west of Knoxville Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 4. (Z0308301) Rushing Wind LLC’s request for change from AU to EU with a Binding Development Plan limiting density to one unit per acre on 24± acres located south of Micco Road and west of Fleming Grant Road, which was recommended to be tabled to the September 8, 2003 P&Z meeting and October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting, as the applicant failed to appear, with a reprocessing fee required.

Item 4 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 5. (Z0308401) Mary Beth Clifton’s request for change from GU to SR on 0.96 acre located on the southwest corner of Otter Creek Lane and Old Dixie Highway, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if this is rezoning to get a fence permit because the lot is nonconforming as it stands. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated it is correct that they need to legalize the lot.

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

Item 6. (Z0308402) Ronald E. and Margaret A. Stafford’s request for change from GU to RU-1-7 on 0.26 acre located on the southwest corner of Aspinwall Avenue and Byham Road, and having frontage on the east side of Turner Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Ronald Stafford stated he purchased the property specifically to build a garage; he recently purchased a 1930 mahogany boat that he wants to restore; and he does not have room at his residence to do that. He stated he wants to build an accessory structure on the property; in the process of applying for building permits, he was informed that this was a nonconforming lot that did not meet the requirements for GU zoning; and he is here to request the rezoning to allow him to build his accessory structure.

Debra Sauerwine stated a couple of weeks ago, she went to Commissioner Carlson’s office regarding Mr. Stafford’s application to build a structure; and she supplied pictures and some literature from people around the neighborhood who have concerns. She stated Mr. Stafford says he has a mahogany boat and wants to build a structure to put it in; and inquired what about the stuff he already has on his property that is down the street from this property. She stated the question is whether the structure would be for a mahogany boat or for more stuff like what is shown in the pictures. She stated this is a small community; there are six houses that face the mess Mr. Stafford already has; and she faces this mess every day. She stated they have a lawn care business; and on the third day of school they almost ran over her son. She stated she does not know if the property is even zoned for a nursery; it is not taken care of and is overgrown; there are workers bringing stuff in and out all day long; and they do not pay attention to the signs. She stated on the morning in question the bus had stopped, the lights were on, the sign was out, and when her son went to cross the street, the workers did not stop; the school is aware of this; and she has spoken to staff in Traffic Management. She stated Mr. Stafford already has stuff in one location; and he should not be allowed to build a structure to put more garbage in because they will then have to look at that. She stated Mr. Stafford also has a home on the corner where he wants to build the structure; it is rented to college students; and she does not know if he asked them about putting in the structure. She inquired if the mahogany boat is going to sit with the rest of stuff that is there; and advised Ms. Lairson provided pictures showing the stuff coming in. She stated Mr. Stafford has not moved the stuff; he has not cleaned it up; and every day more junk is added to the lots, which is not the lot Mr. Stafford wishes to build the structure on. She commented on zoning for the nursery parcel, disposal of palm trees in the waterway, and mosquitoes. She requested Mr. Stafford not be allowed to build the structure; and stated she believes he is only building the structure to bring more stuff into the neighborhood. She advised she has been here since 1992; Mr. Reditt, with whom she shares the home, was born and raised in this neighborhood; the house next door was his grandmother’s; and she moved there in 1958. She stated there is already too much junk that she has to face; she owns the 2.5 acres across the street from where Mr. Stafford wants to build; and requested the Board say no.

April Lairson stated Aspinwall Avenue is a dead-end street; Turner Road is a dirt road curving left off the dead-end; and it is used for residents of Turner and Byham Roads as well as for visitors, mailmen, Federal Express, and such. She stated a structure of any size would cause visual obstruction of vehicles; the properties are not of adequate size; and commented on the setback requirements. She stated many children live and play in the neighborhood; it would be impossible to see around the corner if there was any structure there; and it would not be safe for the children. She requested the Board deny the rezoning; and stated if the residents wanted change, they would not have fought it two years ago when Ed Zatoris bought the property and tried to do the same thing; but the residents stuck together and it was denied by the Board. She requested the Board deny it this time.

Mr. Stafford inquired where he should begin; with Chairperson Colon advising with the business that is being run out of his home in terms of the correct zoning. Mr. Stafford stated he purchased a lot that is not contiguous to this lot; but he did not know that he is not allowed to do what he is doing there. He stated he was informed by Code Enforcement a week ago that he was potentially in violation; a complaint was filed, but Code Enforcement had not checked the Ordinances yet; and he has not been given a citation yet, although he was informed that he would be getting such citation along with the specifics of the violations. He stated since he was notified he signed a contract to purchase a five-acre agricultural piece in the south part of the County, so he can move everything.

Commissioner Higgs cautioned Mr. Stafford to be careful to check that he has the right zoning to operate a business; with Mr. Stafford advising he checked and believes his plants will be okay on the agricultural property.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the nursery is Mr. Stafford’s; with Mr. Stafford responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the lot between that one and one Mr. Stafford is seeking to rezone is not his; with Mr. Stafford responding no. Commissioner Carlson inquired if anyone knows whose lot it is. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Code Enforcement did some research based on the letters that were sent in; Lot 7 belongs to William and Gay Fuqua; and according to Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen, the boat that is said to exist on Lot 8 is actually on Lot 7. She stated the boat has a hole in it, and is considered junk in the front yard; there are additional recreational vehicles stored at the west end of the property; and violations exist there in several forms. She stated there is also an apparent violation of the junk and debris Code, so the Fuquas will be notified shortly of the violations, if they have not been already. She stated Mr. Bowen went out on September 3 to look at Lots 6 and 8; on Lot 6 there is a case assigned, 03-2067; the violation is unpermitted use in General Use zoning, in that no commercial or storage use may be made because the property is currently unimproved residential property; the plants for the nursery are not permitted; the boats and recreational vehicles are considered accessory uses; and the Zoning Code strictly prohibits this type of storage. Ms. Busacca stated Mr. Stafford said he was working on that issue; and there were no Code violations on Lot 8, which is the subject of the zoning request, at the time Mr. Bowen visited. Commissioner Carlson stated Lots 6 and 7 are in violation; with Ms. Busacca advising they appeared to be on September 3. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Stafford already bought five acres in the south end of the County; with Mr. Stafford responding he has not closed on it yet, but he executed a Purchase and Sales Agreement today, calling for closing within 30 days. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Stafford is still interested in the accessory use if he has already purchased five acres; with Mr. Stafford responding the application before the Board for accessory use is on a different piece of property than the one with the violations; and this particular parcel is much closer to where he lives than the five acres so would be more convenient for him to work on his hobby. Commissioner Carlson stated the only concern she has is there is an outstanding Code violation and the applicant is coming in to ask for a rezoning; there is no guarantee that it is not going to happen to the property that is going to have the accessory structure; and that is what the people are concerned about. She stated she does not have a problem with it as long as she sees evidence of what Mr. Stafford has said about closing on five acres and cleaning up the mess that is out there; but she does not think she can make that a condition of the rezoning. Commissioner Higgs advised it could be tabled; with Commissioner Carlson responding that would be her alternative; and inquired if there are questions from the Board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the item before the Board is a rezoning to RU-1-7; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated there is discussion about accessory structures; but one cannot have an accessory structure without a primary structure. Mr. Enos advised there is a house on the property in question; and advised of the reconfiguration of the lots. He stated the current configuration was never a legal lot even though there is a house on it; and the purpose of the rezoning is to legalize the lot in its current configuration because the owner cannot get any more building permits until the lot is legalized. Commissioner Higgs stated the accessory structure has to be a certain size and configuration, and it has to meet all the setbacks. Mr. Enos advised the maximum size of an accessory structure is 600 square feet or half the house, whichever is greater; and the structure has to be set back 15 feet from the north line, 20 feet from the west line, and five feet from the south line. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the lot is only 55 feet wide; with Mr. Enos responding yes, and adding up all the setbacks, there will be less than 600 square feet; but Mr. Stafford will get what he gets. Commissioner Higgs stated there are issues that need to be cleared up before the Board votes.

Mr. Stafford clarified the lot is 75 feet wide by 150 deep, .26 acre, so he has room on the lot to meet the setbacks and build a 20-foot by 30-foot structure. Commissioner Carlson stated the 75-foot width Mr. Stafford is talking about is a redefined lot under RU-1-7; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is having a problem with the accessory structure; when he uses the word accessory it is accessory to and used as a part of; but this is a separate usage because this is a rental property and the accessory use is independent. He stated he is uneasy with the idea of indicating to people that accessory use could mean someone could rent the house out to someone and rent the accessory structure out to someone else to store a boat. Mr. Enos advised he would not be able to rent the accessory structure to someone different than he is renting the house to; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if it would have to be used in conjunction with the house, he has no problem with that.

Commissioner Carlson inquired do the occupants of the house have to utilize the accessory structure as defined in the Code; with Attorney Bentley responding there will be problems with proof although there are ways to get around the issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated there can be neighbors saying there is someone else coming to work on a boat, and it is not the person renting the house. Commissioner Carlson stated since there is a question, she would prefer to table it to the next meeting until the Board gets the Code Enforcement issue settled.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 6 to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with tabling, but is not sure it is a Code Enforcement issue as that is on a separate parcel. Commissioner Carlson stated proof is required that something is going to take place; when there are Code Enforcement violations by an individual who is looking for rezoning, there is no guarantee it will not happen again; and she likes to hold people accountable. Commissioner Pritchard stated he appreciates the concern; but he is not sure the Board wants to hold one thing hostage pending another thing happening; the issue is about the accessory building on a rental property; and that is what makes this wrong. He stated he does not have a problem with tabling that part of it; building an accessory structure on a piece of property that is currently occupied by a tenant and using it for a boat or whatever else by the owner of the property gets into the commercial aspect to the use of the property; and that is his concern.

Commissioner Carlson withdrew her motion to table.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 6.

Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the other things, but the real issue is whether RU-1-7 zoning is the zoning that should be there; and that is the question the Board should focus on. She stated the surrounding zoning is GU; and that is the issue the Board should be talking about.

Commissioner Carlson stated the future land use map shows neighborhood commercial in that area; with Mr. Enos advising it is neighborhood commercial, which could include residential uses. Commissioner Carlson stated she is uncomfortable having an accessory use on a rental property in terms of interpretation of the Code; that is why she moved for denial; but the applicant is trying to make it a legal lot; and inquired if RU-1-7 is really compatible. Mr. Enos advised it is; the character of the GU is residential; the purpose of the rezoning is to legalize a residential lot that for whatever reason has been turned around; and RU-1-7 is the appropriate zoning for this property. He stated an accessory use is a permitted use in RU-1-7 zoning; the use of the accessory structure is subject to the zoning regulations; and there could be Code Enforcement issues associated with that; but the zoning of this property does not have anything to do with uses on other properties owned by the same person. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is legally bound to make the nonconforming lot conforming by applying the zoning; with Attorney Bentley responding no.

Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion to deny Item 6. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0308501) James R. and Sedina J. Bush’s request for change from SEU to RR-1 on 4.57 acres located at the eastern terminus of Laguna Vista Drive, and having frontage on the south side of Lake Washington Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0307201) FBC of Brevard, Inc.’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 2.33 acres located on the southeast corner of 20th Street and Orlando Avenue (Hwy. A1A), which was withdrawn by the applicant.

Chairperson Colon advised Item 8 has been withdrawn by the applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 14, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, made at its August 14, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. Section 13, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 510 through 517, owned by Douglas and Theresa Waller, Brian K. and Janina A. Allen, Rodney P. O’Connor, Stefan F. and Mary C. Bergman, and Mark and Nicole Madeux, proposed for change from PIP to RR-1, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Chairperson Colon stated cards have been submitted; and inquired if the speakers are in support of the item. Doug Waller, Brian Allen, and Anthony Falanga voiced support for the item.

Brian Allen stated originally it was set up that this was going to be changed to agriculture or residential depending on the size of the lots; but now it has come forward that it would only be residential. He stated he was given notice that there may be another way for him to have an agricultural license with the RR-1; and requested clarification.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this needs to be clarified as that is not his interpretation of what they can do for Mr. Allen. Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated he understands Mr. Allen wants a plant nursery perhaps before the home is built; that would require agricultural zoning; and the best approach would be for the Board to direct staff to initiate rezoning to AU on the property. He advised in a sense it will be starting over; it will come back to the Board in December; the property is big enough; and that would be the best approach. Commissioner Pritchard stated this would allow Mr. Allen to have the plant nursery prior to building his house; the County would cover the cost of advertisement; and it is the only way to do it and allow Mr. Allen to have what he likes and be compatible with the neighborhood.

Mr. Allen inquired if that means the whole item would be tabled or just his item; with Commissioner Pritchard responding the rest would move forward and his request would be readvertised to go to AU, coming back to the Board in October. Planner Robin Sobrino advised it would need to go to the North Merritt Island Board for AU; the earlier that can be accommodated would be November 13, 2003; and then it would be added to the Board Agenda, probably in December. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that works for Mr. Allen; with Mr. Allen responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs stated she was not in support of these changes from PIP to RR-1; with the surrounding properties RR-1, there may be some potential incompatibility with AU; the neighbors may not be in full agreement with AU because frequently people with AU and those with RR-1 find themselves in conflict with the uses; so Mr. Allen is starting down a path that may not be as smooth and happy as he thinks. Mr. Allen stated he will take his chances. Commissioner Higgs stated everybody needs to be aware there may be problems.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended, withdrawing Item 1.c.

Mr. Allen inquired if this means his property will remain PIP until it goes through the process; with Chairperson Colon responding yes. Mr. Allen stated if he cannot get it changed from PIP to agriculture, he is not going to be able to build on the PIP land; and inquired what will happen if he cannot get the agricultural rezoning. Mr. Enos stated the best approach would be to approve the RR-1 now, and then proceed with AU zoning. Commissioner Higgs noted that would not be an administrative rezoning; and Mr. Allen would need to do it on his own.

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Allen needs to know he would be on his own and would have to use his money to do that; and inquired how much it would be; with Mr. Enos responding a little more than $300. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Allen would prefer to do that; with Mr. Allen responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard withdrew his previous motion.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 2. Section 24, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 250, 252, 261, and 266 through 270, owned by Cecil E. and Margaret A. Bryan, Scott R. Carswell, Anthony J. and Jenny L. Galanga, Gerard Patrick Floyd, and Henry R. and Melissa B. Rusch, proposed for change from PIP to RR-1, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, with Items 2c, owned by Anthony J. and Jenny L. Galanga, and 2I, owned by Henry R. and Melissa B. Rusch withdrawn by staff.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve as recommended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS OF AUGUST 11, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on August 11, 2003 on administrative rezoning items as follows:

Item 1. Section 21, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 2, Tract 8, owned by Ben C. Storey, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9287 for Towers and Antennas, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling to September 8, 2003 P&Z meeting and October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 1 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the October 2, 2003 Board meeting.

Item 2. Section 41, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AC, Lots 96.04, 115, 116, 134, and 135; Section 40, Township 20G, Range 35, Sub. AC, Lot 97.01, owned by James D. and Vicki Kay Carlile, Louis Taylor Dunn, Trustee, and Lloyd F. and Cheri Z. Scharfenstine, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6096 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home and Z-7129 for Airplane Runways.

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

Item 3. Section 02, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 2, Tracts 3, 4, and 5, west of US 1 Highway (PUD zoned portion only), & Block 3, Tracts 3, 4, 5, and 6, west of US 1 Highway (PUD zoned portion only); Section 03, Township 20G, Range 34; Sub. AI, all Blocks 1 & 4 east of I-95, Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 7 & 8 east of I-95, Block 3, Lots 1, 2, 7 & 8 east of I-95; Block 2, Lots 2 through 7 west of I-95, and Block 3, Lots 2 through 7, west of I-95; Block 2, Tract 4; Section 0-4, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AI, all Blocks 1, 4, lying east of RR R/W also known as Block 1 of Greenwood; Section 37, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AD, Tract 58, Exc. I-95 R/W, Tracts 59 through 61, lying east of I-95, Tracts 97, 98, 100 through 103 & Blocks 142 through 145; Sub. AF, Block 115, Lots 1 to 9, 16, 17, 19 & Block 116, Lots 1 to 11, 18 to 21; Sub. AG, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 4 through 11, 13, 14, exc. I-95 R/W; Block 2, Lots 1 to 12; Block 3, Lots 1 to 4, 6 to 12, Ex, Hwy R/W; Block 4, Lots 1, 2 & 3, lying west of I-95; Lots 5 through 10, Exc. I-95; Block 5, Lots 1, 3, through 10, 12, exc. I-95; all Block 6; Sub. LH, Block 1, Lots 7 through 12, 15 through 17, 26 through 34; Block 7, Lots 1 to 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28 to 34, 36 to 42; Sub. RQ, Tracts A (PUD zoned portion only), C; Sub. 02, Block 13, Lots 1 to 12; Block 19, Lots 1 to 12; Block 25, Lots 1 to 10; Block 31, Lots 13, 14; Sub. 04, Block 31, Lots 1 to 12; Sub. 07, Blocks 128, 129, 130, 131, Lots 8, 9, 10 & 11; Sub. 08, Block A, Lots 1 to 13; Block B, Lots 1 to 13; Blocks C and D; Sub. 09, Block 65; Sub 25, Block 118, Lots 1 to 28; Sub. 26, Block 117; Parcel 1; Sub. 00, Block 1, Lot 1; Section 41, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AF, Block 113, Lots 1 to 10, 17 to 20; Block 114, Lots 1 to 9, 16 to 19; Sub. AG, Blocks 76, 77, 82, 83, 88; Sub. LH, Block 1, Lots 1 to 6, 37, 39, 42; Sub. RQ, Tract B (PUD zoned portion); Sub. 09, Blocks H, I, J. K, L, M, N, O, the North 1/2 of Blocks P, Q, R, S, all Blocks T, U, V, W, ex. Lots 8, 9 of Block W; Sub. 14, Blocks 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85; Sub. 15, Blocks 64, 67, 68, 71, 78 to 82, 84, 85; Block 87, Lots 1 to 4, 21 to 24; Block 74, Lots 1 to 11; Block 75, Lots 1 to 11; Block 88, Lots 7 to 15, 17, 18; Sub. 16, Blocks 64, 67, 68; Block 65, lots 1 through 12; Block 66, Lots 3 through 12; Block 69, Lots 1 to 24; Block 71, Lots 7 to 12, 14 to 18; Block 72, Lots 7 through 11; Parcel 5, owned by Richard 15, L. P.; Walter A. Cerrato MD, Trustee; and Brevard County, c/o Property Control. which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9231 for Water Treatment Plant & Package Treatment Sewer Facility, and removal on PUD portions only on Section 02, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 2, Tracts, 3, 4, 5 west of Hwy & Block 3, Tracts 3, 4, 5, 6 west of Highway; Section 37, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. RQ Tract A; Section 41, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub RQ, Tract B.

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

Item 4. Section 18, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 510, owned by Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4355 for Public Building and retaining Z-8777 for Water Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 31, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. AV, Tracts 80 & 81, owned by City of Titusville and Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8768 for Land Alteration.

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

Item 6. Section 05, Township 23, Range 35, Parcels 250 (south 1/2 of Section 5 only), 500, 503, Section 06, Township 23, Range 35, Parcel 770; Section 06, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Lots 1 through 14; Sub. 3A, Lots 603, 605, 607, 609, 611, 603 through 640, 649, 5651, 653, 655, 657, 659, 661, and 663, owned by the Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc., St. Johns River Water Management District, Thomas J. and Beverly A. Meeks; Frank C. and Joan G. Furci; Paul N. and Oanh T. Harvey; George R. and Shirley C. Bromley; Paul K. and Barbara D. Thomas; Donald B. Greuey and Ann M. Greuey, Co-Trustees; Kirk J. Nelson, Land Planners & Associates, Inc.; Elzner and Martha Brown; Robert L. Gomes; Stanford E. and Martha H. Parris; Allan D. and Margaret C. Morrison; John B. and Margaret K. Medynski; Adele H. McDaniel, Trustee; Barbara Reap and Elizabeth Montagne; Dale E. and Kathryn E. Kottraba; Robert J. and Lois E. Cohrs; Robert Bruso, Trustee, and Xantha S. Bruso, Trustee; Rudolph E. and Donna J. DePalma; Frederick T. and Norma J. Sheperd; Jorgen W. and Birgit Rasmussen; Michael E. and Kathleen J. Klepfer; Frank B. Waites, Jr., Trustee; Danny Lee and Marilyn Sue McCrary; Robert E. and Mae S. High; Albin P. and Ella M. Bukowick; Henry N. Tukey, Jr., Trustee and Sandra J. Tukey, Trustee; E. Forest Foster, Trustee, and Elizabeth A. Foster, Trustee; Ernest A and Claire I. Carlson; Richard N. and Jean F. Crichton; Dennis P. and Dianne W. Walker, Life Estate; Harry E. and Phyllis M. Lavigne; James P. and Adele L. Ilijanich; David J. (Sr.) and Patricia G. Craig; Eliezer and Diane I. Ziv; Kjellarne and Madge Ringbakk; Dorris Mae Reed; Phyllis Paulson Arndt, Trustee; Joseph H. and Carol A. Laws; Charles M. (III) and Linda L. Utz; John J. Grieb; Gary D. and Edith C. Cantwell; James Avallone and Carol Avallone, Trustees; Earlene P. Richardson; Kenneth E. and Jo-Anne F. Buckley; Frank Gillespie Worrall and Sylvia D. P. Worrall, Co-Trustees; Marshall W. and Juanita J. Couch; Harry E. (Jr.) and Barbara Jeanne Tolles; Russell C. (Jr.) and Linda W. Somers, Life Estate; Stanley E. and E. Jeanne Brainard; John E. (Jr.) and Mildred W. Carroll; Kenneth F. and Barbara S. Noyes; Norman S. and Marian B. Berkowitz; Billie M. Taylor; and Richard O. Miller, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8126 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Section 26, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lot 35.03, owned by Brother Auto Repair, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7369 for Trailer and Truck Rental.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 50.G, owned by Publix Supermarkets, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7607 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 50.M, owned by Walter H. Dyer, III, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z9243 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premise consumption), which was recommended for tabling by the P&Z Board to September 8, 2002 P&Z meeting and October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 9 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the October 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 10. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 30, Block 1, Lots 25 to 27, 50 to 53, owned by Mark Sutton, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9265 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

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

Item 11. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 01, Lots 21, 22, W. of Milford Dr., owned by William B. and Suzanne H. Moore, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9339 for Aquaculture, which was recommended for tabling by the P&Z Board to the October 13, 2003 Planning and Zoning meeting and the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 11 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 12. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 50, Block C, Lots 15, 16, & Vac. St. on West, owned by Nicholas Earltinez and Michelle Earltinez, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9323 for Bed & Breakfast Inn & Professional Offices.

Item 12 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item 13. Section 17, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 22, owned by the Old Catholic Church in America in Central Florida, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7663 for Residential Social Service Facility (RSSF) (Group Care Facility).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 02, Tract A, owned by Wingate Reserve Homeowners Association, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9342 for Water Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 25, Lots 1 thru 4, Tracts C, D, E, & Parcel 266, owned by Noel Mountain; William W. and Laurie J. Watkins; Clairene G. Weaver, Trustee; Vistar Realty, Inc.; and Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7296 for Agricultural Pursuits.

Items 15a, 15b, 15c, and 15d were withdrawn by staff.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 15e as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Section 36, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 05, Tract A.1, owned by Transnation Properties, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7343 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 16 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. Section 20, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 17, owned by C. Spellman, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9292 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages (on premise consumption).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 17 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Section 29, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 4 and 7, owned by State of Florida and A. Duda & Sons, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8025 for Public Building.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 18 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Section 35, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 767 thru 773, 775, 777, 780, 784, 785, 786, and 793, owned by KLF Partnership, Michael and Glenda Busick, Corporate Investment Property, Inc., The Pool Center, Inc., D & N Realty, Inc., Elliott G. C. and Brenda L. Leadlay, Indian River Colony Club, Albert J. Veltri and Rose M. Veltri, Corporate Investment Properties, Inc., Steve Sailer, and Rodolfo Toral, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5390 for Radio Tower (on all except Parcel 769), Z-9671 for Metal Salvage Yard & Junk Yard (on Parcels 771, 785 only), and Z-9892 for Metal Salvage Yard & Junk Yard (on Parcel 769 only); and retaining Conditional Use Permits Z-9892 for Metal Salvage Yard & Junk Yard on Parcel 767; Z-5390 for Radio Tower on Parcel 769, Z-9671 for Metal Salvage Yard & Junk Yard on Parcels 780, 786, 793, and Z-7289 for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Products on Parcel 769. Removal of Z-9671 on Parcel 771 was withdrawn.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated Item 19i is a small parcel for a metal salvage yard in the middle of an area that has several metal salvage yards; the owner requested the CUP remain; and the P&Z Board recommended denial of the removal to leave the metal salvage yard.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 19i, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 19, minus item 19.i as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 507, owned by The Pantry, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9239 for Gasoline Pumps & Gasoline Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 20 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 21. Section 11, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. 03, Lots 18 thru 21, 50 thru 53, Tract BB2, & Parcel 2, owned by Richard S. Conway and Martha T. Conway, Life Estate, Marvin R.

and Elizabeth Gibson, Randall D. and Elisa S. Rowland, Gerardo A. and Amina M. Batista, Neal Alan and Tamara Kay Honickman, William J. and Louanne D. Plutt, Thomas J. and Pamela E. Zerbe, Michael S. and Jill L. Klein, Sabal Palm Estates Homeowners, and Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9234 for Water and Sewage Treatment Facility & Additional Building Height (Total 42 ft.).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 21 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. Section 13, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 3.01, owned by Brevard Property No. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5151 for Electronic Assembly Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 22 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Section 23, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 26, Block 14, Lots 6 thru 9, owned by William S. Bubier, Trustee and Willis Slade Bubier and William S. and Betty A. Bubier, Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8737 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 23 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 24. Section 33, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DW, Lot 13.05, owned by Melvin J. and Phyllis J. Woodford, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9320 for Aquaculture.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 24 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 25. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Parcels 792 thru 794.9, owned by Allen L. Slagle and Elizabeth B. Slagle, Trustees; Edna B. Whitten and Katherine B. Crane; Allan W. and Julia Simon; James P. and Theresa M. Cullen; Raymond E. and Louise H. Grossmann, Life Estate; Mary Elizabeth Newell; Robert E. Lane; Gary E. and Dorothea Titus; Nancy L. Perez-Falcon, Trustee; Douglas and Marcia Grattan; Scott S. Shenton and Patricia S. Shenton, Co-Trustees; Terry G. and Theresa A. Whitnell; Stanley P. Williams and Betty S. Williams, Co-Trustees; John H. and Maureen C. Kispert; William A. and Valerie A. Lawrence; Kevin P. Wilkinson and Margaret Wilkinson, Trust; Rose M. Bonitatibus, Trust, and John G. Bonitatibus,

Credit Trust; Rose A. Taranto, Life Estate; Earl Paul Taitt, (Jr.) and Puruca M. Estepa; Jim O'Grady; Fred Weinberg and Adele Weinberg; William J. and Marsha L. Patterson; Susan B. Geertsma, Trustee; J. P. and Danielle Bara; Darrell W. and James R. Rankin; Bill E. and Nancy J. Duke; Virgil C. Ponder, Trustee; John H. and Sara C. Burton; Anthony J. and Geraldine Zagger; and John B. and Bonnie L. Nikituk, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4501 for Townhouses.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 25 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. Section 30, Township 27, Range 38, Sub. 26, Lots 1 thru 38, owned by Robert M. and Karen C. Murowski; Gerard J. and Nancy M. Romaine; Robert L. and Margie A. Toepler; Joseph A. Denicola; Marion D. Herder, Trustee; David S. and Wendy F. Almstead; Roger C. and Christiane L. Brewer; Dale G. and Shirley A. Johnston; Charles D. and Jean D. Finlay; John N. and Marjorie I. Wilkinson; Albert E. and Evelyn C. Greer; Joseph N. and Lorraine B. Dambro; William E. and Karen F. Humphrey; Christen E. Gates; Theresa A. Brooks, Life Estate; Josephine C. McKean, Trustee; Lawrence and Eleanor G. Habershaw; Jacqueline J. Tewold, Life Estate; Joseph A. (Jr.) and Djina A. Sterling; Anne Cominos; Erna M. Fisk, Trustee; Michael and Grace Ditroia; Jon L. Hilton and Lee A. Tait; Michael W. and Elizabeth Coville; Helen Dugan; Paul Baldizzi and Haleh Tabrah; George R. Freeman and Norma S. Freeman, Trustees; Robert D. and Patricia Sobieski; Robert L. and Sara E. Garbaccio; Elizabeth J. Smekar; Douglas J. Mogle; Craig M. and Elsie T. Hall; Antonio Yatauro and Carmela Yatauro, Trustees; Edward J. and Roberta J. Kole; Dennis L. and Barbara L. Jarvis; Dale L. and Henrimae H. Bell; Christian H. Skoppe and Anette Le Pome Cissell; and Eleanor Dunsworth-Moore, Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9348 for Additional Building Height (Total 61 ft.).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 26 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 27. Section 08, Township 30, Range 37, Sub. HF, Block 500, owned by Boruch-David, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7896 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Item 27 was withdrawn due to current use of CUP.

CITIZEN REQUEST - LAURA WARD, RE: STAFF REPORT FOR FEASIBILITY OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Laura Ward submitted packages to the Board, but not the Clerk; and requested they be returned after the meeting. She stated there are three speakers tonight, one from the north end of Riveredge Drive, one from the south, and one from the middle; and they have a request concerning the Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2, protection of residential riverside lands. She stated they live on Riveredge Drive, which is one of the areas specifically mentioned in the Policy as area 1; Riveredge Drive is located below Highway 50 and above the NASA Causeway; and it used to be U.S. 1. She stated in the 1950’s and 1960’s when U.S. 1 was moved to the west, some of the zones that were in place were moved; and this has never been looked at since then. She stated the policy says the County will identify lineal land use patterns that parallel U.S. 1 and the Indian River in order to promote the protection of residential designated lands lying easterly of U.S. 1 and to discourage the expansion and encroachment of non-residential designated lands into those areas; and the Policy identifies three areas. She stated there is a hodgepodge of zoning classifications on Riveredge Drive; the trend of development has been residential; in 30 years there has been no commercial development; and a lot of the BU-1 zoning on the map is actually used for single-family homes. She read a portion of a letter from the most recent purchaser of property on Riveredge advising they purchased waterfront property at the south end of Riveredge Drive, the property used to be a small marina and boat repair business, and they have no intention of offering any type of commercial business, and are building a single-family home on the property. She stated the letter also advises they made application with the County to downzone the property from BU-1 to RU-1 but before the public hearings took place, the County explained to them that they could construct a single-family home under BU-1 without changing the zoning, and they withdrew their request. Ms. Ward stated that is typical of what has been happening on Riveredge Drive; the road is a dead-end local road; only a small portion of it is in the City; the road does not support the kind of intensity suggested by BU-1 and commercial zonings; and some commercial cannot be developed because the properties are on septic tanks. She requested the Board consider implementing the Comprehensive Plan Policy, and direct staff to provide suggestions on how to implement the Policy.

Rose Easley requested the Board direct the Planning staff to consider what steps would be needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan to discourage commercial development on the river’s edge. She stated on Riveredge Drive in Titusville, there is a mixture of zoning classifications on the half-mile dead-end road; she lives at the north end of the road, which has been developed into three separate developments with approximately 60 residences in multifamily dwellings; and she has petitioned her neighbors who are very concerned about traffic. She stated the road is small, although it used to be U.S. 1; and there is no center line, shoulders, or anything. She stated a vacant restaurant on the street has reopened; they have noticed an increase in traffic; and because there are no sidewalks, at certain times of the day, there is danger. She stated there are vacant lots that are to be developed in the near future; since they are riverfront lots, the cost of the land is at a premium; and logically the street should be developed residential. She commented there are no other roads similar to Riveredge Drive, including Rockledge Drive and Riverside Drive in Cocoa; and submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk. She stated they have looked at what other communities in the County have done; and commented on Winchester Cove, which has one road leading back into the subdivision, large executive homes directly facing the waterfront, a community dock, and smaller, less expensive homes closer to U.S. 1. She stated Riveredge Drive could be developed in a residential way; and advised of other developments such as Portofino Bay in Rockledge and riverfront residential developments in Titusville. Ms. Easley requested the Board make the mishmash of zoning into residential so they can get it developed.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the name of the restaurant; with Ms. Easley responding it used to be Harold’s. Commissioner Pritchard stated he ran across this strip of roadway and the restaurant about five years ago; and inquired if there is some type of secured facility on the road; with Ms. Easley responding there is a detention center that is currently unoccupied; and they heard it was being remodeled and a private company would take it over as a drug rehab center. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a State-owned facility; with Ms. Ward clarifying it is a State-owned halfway house. Commissioner Carlson stated there was concern that if the State decided to abandon the use, it could come into the County’s hands; and there were questions about what it would be zoned.

Robert Robinson stated he owns the lot at the south end of the street in Hidden Creek; and he is trying to get a permit to build a home. He stated the old Harold’s has reopened as a restaurant recently; but it was purchased by a residential developer so he may have other plans for that in the long run. He stated most of the existing development along the road is residential; the current zonings are a holdover from when Riveredge Drive was U.S. 1 or Old Dixie Highway; the trend is residential; and there are only two non-residential uses on the whole street now. He stated Riveredge Drive is a dead-end road, a local street, and cannot handle the traffic volume the current zonings would bring if developed under those zonings. He stated there might also be environmental concerns for a portion of the property because Ellis Creek runs through the property; it comes through the Enchanted Forest under U.S. 1 through box culverts; and it actually flows into the Indian River. He advised his lot adjoins Ellis Creek; and just to build a residence, he has been required to give up a large conservation area to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Protection. He stated there is a lot of protected vegetation along the banks of the creek; and if he had to give up areas just to build a residence, he does not think the properties would support a commercial or industrial type use, especially in the vicinity of the creek. He recommended the Board direct staff to implement strategies to protect these lands.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Ward met with him on this; the County has a considerable amount of industrial properties, and there is not a need for more; and then there is mixed zoning, there is a devaluation of property because people do not have the certainty of where they are going to be and conflicts arise. He stated one of the things he hopes the Board can do is add to people’s property values and give them a degree of certainty so they are willing to put more investment in. He stated North Brevard lacks waterfront strips of property; the main track for the Florida East Coast Railway runs all the way along the Lagoon up to Titusville; where it runs through Titusville is not far off the Lagoon; and south of there is problematic. He stated further south there may be very intense use right on U.S. 1, but moving back there may be homes; and that is limited until one gets to Sharpes where the road runs along the river again. He stated what is being requested is reasonable.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to move forward with options for implementation of the Policy.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough means the whole Policy; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, staff will come back with a report and some options; and the Board will share those with the residents so the community can move in the right direction.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the motion covers the entire Policy; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, throughout the County.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DIRECTION, RE: COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA

Commissioner Carlson stated she wants to go back to the Coastal Management Element and the issue the Board denied earlier today because it was trying to figure out how it was applying the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances to the particular piece of property. She stated staff put together a memorandum that talked about several different pieces of property; and she would like to look within the Ordinance to see how that can be clarified so the Board does not have to look at increased densities in areas that have the high hazard designation.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to review the Ordinances and the Coastal Management Element for clarification purposes so the County does not have to look at increased densities in areas that have the Coastal High Hazard Area designation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to see what the policy means. Commissioner Carlson stated there may be some way through the Comprehensive Plan or the Ordinances that the Board has been following on that issue.

Commissioner Higgs noted the Board has not been inconsistent on the barrier island. Commissioner Carlson stated she would prefer to not have to deal with the question again.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

_________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)