November 1, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 1, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Chambers, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough.

Commissioner Nancy Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 3, 2001 AND SEPTEMBER 10, 2001

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board's recommendations of March 3, 2001 and September 10, 2001, which were tabled by the Board of County Commissioners as follows:

Item 1. (Z0103410) A. Duda and Sons, Inc.'s request for change from PUD (expired) to RU-1-13 with BDP limiting density to 2.37 units per acre, on 84.348± acres located due east of St. Andrews Isles Subdivision and due south of Waterford Place, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan (BDP) as offered by the applicant, and tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on April 5, 2001, May 24, 2001, August 2, 2001, and October 4, 2001.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the most recent change, according to the binding development plan that was submitted, is that they have reduced the density slightly to 195 units which results in 2.31 units per acre. He stated they also agreed to increase lot sizes or lot widths along the perimeters of St. Andrews Isles Subdivision, and Waterford Place Subdivision, to match the lot widths against those Subdivisions; and they have agreed to access the project onto the Pineda Extension. He noted there might be some others as well.

Attorney Jack Kirshenbaum, representing the applicant, advised the process began in February, 2001; when the application was originally filed, there was a binding development plan submitted with it; and since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. He stated they are trying to respond to the community; it appeared that the community did not appreciate or did not understand what they were trying to do with the offer to the Brevard County School Board of a school site; and that created a lot of misunderstanding, confusion, and concern. He stated after reevaluating where they were and where they are now, it seems that the school was driving the requirement that St. Andrews Drive be immediately paved and constructed from the Pineda Extension to Interlachen; and that required the school being sited where it was. He stated they are suggesting those two items be withdrawn from the mix; the School Board donation previously made is withdrawn; and they are not suggesting a school be placed adjacent to the property sought to be rezoned. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated all the issues that were raised the last time by homeowners and people in the neighborhood are gone; the most important issue is the access to the development for construction and otherwise, which is being suggested to be obtained from the south, from Pineda Extension; and those two issues eliminate a lot of the controversy that was existing. He stated if the project is accessed and developed from the south, the traffic counts and issues would no longer be present. He stated they have a draft binding development plan; they will match the lot lines of the neighbors; they will get the buffers in place; and they agree to a maximum of 195 lots. He noted there will be no school site, which should eliminate a lot of the concerns and problems expressed at the last meeting. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised the request is reasonable; the rezoning is a preliminary step in the land use and land development process; they have an expired PUD; and they have come forward with a proposal. He stated it is not a site plan or a plat; it is a conceptual beginning of the process; no building permits are being sought and no wetlands are being impacted; and they will demonstrate to the Board for its approval as required by law and by fairness. He stated the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; it is compatible with the surrounding properties; there was concern about the school capacity, but they will demonstrate there are adequate stations for all the children who would generate from the project; and they believe there is no legal basis to deny the request based on the school issue which is very different than the Orlando situation. He stated the Orlando case was based on two things: (1) there was a specific Comprehensive Plan policy that provided for school concurrency; and (2) the court points out that a representative of the school board came to their meeting and said redistricting and moving the students around between the schools is not a viable option because all the schools are crowded. He stated that is not the case in Brevard County, which they will demonstrate to the Board. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised the Commissioners are sitting tonight almost as judges and have to weight the evidence; just because a report is typed up or put into a book and handed to the Board, or an opinion is expressed by an expert or non-expert does not mean it is competent substantial evidence; and the Board has to determine which of those are based on facts or assumptions. He stated there is an assumption that St. Andrews Boulevard is immediately going to be a through road from its southern extension at the Pineda Causeway extension all the way to Interlachen; if that is an assumption in one of the reports, that report is no longer valid; and what the Board will hear tonight needs to be weighed against those opinions it heard the last time and then decide if the evidence is substantial or competent. He stated the standards are, is the request consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and is concurrency an issue; and they believe the Board will determine it is consistent and compatible, and that concurrency is not an issue. He advised the Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve the request by a 7 to 3 vote based upon staff's recommendations. He stated another standard is, is there any competent substantial evidence to the contrary on any of the issues; and they believe when the Board weighs all the evidence, which it must do, it will find there is no competent substantial evidence that there are compatibility, concurrency, and consistency issues. He stated their expert is Sans Lassiter, who will discuss traffic issues and demonstrate there are no impacts to St. Andrews Boulevard as a result of this rezoning; Jim Hall is a planner who will demonstrate the project is compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Hank Fishkind is an economist who will demonstrate the project is good for Brevard County financially, is not going to cost the County, and based on the School Board 's own estimates and figures, there will be no negative impacts to the school system if the rezoning is granted. He noted they will have reports to present to the Board; requested the Board listen to the opinions of the experts, weigh them against the opinions of those who testified at the last meeting, and decide which opinions make more sense based on facts as they exist at the present time.

Chairman Carlson advised she told the applicant he had ten minutes to make his presentation; now she has pink cards from all the experts; and inquired if it is normal procedure to allow the experts five minutes each; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding it is up to the Board; and it may have been a misunderstanding and not deliberate. Chairman Carlson advised when the homeowners came forward, they had a deliberate testimonial; and she does not know if the Board would be going in a different direction if it did not allow the experts to speak; so, she will allow it.

Sans Lassiter, registered professional engineer with the firm of Ghyabi Lassiter & Associates, and Vice President, advised a copy of his resume has been provided to the Board to substantiate his experience of over 23 years with transportation in Central Florida and throughout the State, along with two reports they prepared. He stated he has been conducting traffic studies and design studies in Brevard County for over 20 years; several projects he has been involved with include the initial alignment of the Pineda Causeway Extension, toll facility removals for the Pineda and Bennett Causeways, as well as Dairy Road Pedestrian Bridge over I-95 in Titusville and original traffic engineer for the entire Viera development and all the planning that went into that since 1987. He stated he prepared two analyses that have been provided to the Board; and one is a rebuttal to traffic analyses prepared by Tipton Associates, Inc. and Mr. Jim Bennett. He stated in general he agrees with everything Mr. Tipton did; his analysis correctly anticipated trip generation; but now their density is lower than he originally anticipated. He stated Mr. Tipton did a traffic count on St. Andrews Boulevard, which appears to have been accurately presented; and he correctly subtracted construction traffic and did show the total traffic, which is approximately the same as what the County has counted in its concurrency program. He stated Mr. Bennett analyzed the situation and used a report out of context; there was a report written in 2000 by Bob Kamm, co-authored by Richard Thompson and sent to Bruce Moia, which stated the conditions that could occur on St. Andrews Boulevard if the Pineda Causeway were not extended; and in fact the Pineda was extended. He noted that was a supposition memo; and reliance on it in terms of being fact is erroneous; so he will go through the analysis they did for concurrency purposes of Sawgrass South, Phase III. Mr. Lassiter explained a graphic of the area, identified I-95, Pineda Causeway Extension, access to the site, location of Sawgrass South, Phase III, Interlachen, St. Andrews, Pinehurst, and Wickham Road. He stated they performed an analysis of the condition of adding the project's access solely to the Pineda Causeway Extension, and obtained the current concurrency information from the County's Planning Department; the analysis of anything that loads onto the Pineda was conducted on Wickham Road north and south of the Pineda Extension; and they did a concurrency analysis of the two segments of roadway and found that they meet concurrency. He stated there is capacity sufficient to handle the project; there is no impact posed to Suntree; and the project will load entirely onto Pineda Causeway Extension.

Jim Hall with the planning firm of Canin Associates, advised he has been a planner for 18 years; is Vice President of Planning at Canin Associates, which is a 45-person planning and design firm; and he has done myriad projects all over Central Florida and the State. He stated his clients include the Cities of Melbourne, Sebastian, and Orlando; Orange County, South Florida Water Management District, Duda & Sons, Marriott, Hilton, Arvida, Avatar, and Trimcro; and they are highly regarded in the planning community. He stated with the changes in the proposal, the project is not part of Suntree any more; it is an extension of Grand Haven with access off Pineda Causeway Extension; and densities in Grand Haven are vis-à-vis the densities proposed for the project. He stated he reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, all the Administrative Policies, the different Elements, the County Code, and State Statutes considering concurrency and found the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hall advised the density in Grand Haven is about 2.7 units per acre on a net basis; the density for the subject project is about 2.7 units per acre; and the access is from Pineda through Grand Haven and no access from Suntree or St. Andrews. He stated the lot widths on the perimeter of the Suntree properties are going to be the same; if there is a house that backs up to St. Andrews Isles or Waterford Place, it will be the same size; so there will be compatible and consistent housing against each other. He stated there is no impact to Suntree or St. Andrews because the access will be onto Pineda; Administrative Policy No. 6 talks about what consistency is; and to be consistent they have to follow that policy and the Future Land Use Element and meet all the objectives. Mr. Hall advised the State says they will be consistent if their land uses, densities, and intensities are compatible with what goes on around them and they meet Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code criteria; the land use of the project is exactly the same as surrounding property; it is single-family; the lot sizes against the existing lots will be the same; so it is consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. He stated the density is exactly the same as what is occurring in Grand Haven. He stated Administrative Policy No. 4 talks about the character of the neighborhood; the character of the project is going to be the same as the character of the neighborhood; it is going to be single-family next to single-family; and price point of the housing is going to be the same if not a little higher; so the character stays the same. He stated it also talks about traffic and not materially changing the type or intensity of traffic; the traffic will be the same and in fact will not be in the Suntree development; so, that is also consistent. He stated Administrative Policy No. 5 talks about impacts on transportation facilities; Mr. Lassiter just presented that and there is no concurrency issue; so, the Board does not have a problem with any concurrency coming out of the roadways. He advised all the utilities are there; the roadways are in; water and sewer are going to be provided; solid waste can be accounted for; so there are no concurrency issues with the project. Mr. Hall advised Administrative Policy No. 7 talks about drainage and environmental issues; there are not going to be any drainage problems; it is not going to flood the other properties; and they have to go through all the Water Management District and County regulations, and not substantially affect the surrounding properties. He stated there were a few wetlands on site; there is not going to be a significant impact on those wetlands; there is an eagle's nest right off the property; and the eagle's nest is being preserved, which actually provides a great deal of open space. Mr. Hall stated the project is consistent with the Administrative Policies and the Future Land Use Element that talks about density; and it talks about whether infrastructure is in place. He stated the first goal in the Comprehensive Plan is to avoid urban sprawl; this is an infill project and is the exact type of project that the County would want; there are no new extensions of utilities; and it meets all the standards, zoning Codes, and is consistent and compatible especially with abutting lots being the same and access off Pineda. He noted it is also similar to the development occurring in Grand Haven.

Hugh Evans, representing the applicant, advised Mr. Fishkind has been delayed, so he will speak next. He stated it has been a very difficult zoning issue because they have not been able to zero in on all the concerns, but through the hearing process, they have heard from the community regarding their issues; and the major concern they identified was the road issue. He started they all realize St. Andrews, at the point of construction of the interchange at Pineda, will be connected; it is a reasonable traffic pattern and something the community will need in the long-term; and in the short-term the impact of the project will only be through the Pineda Causeway Extension and not an impact on existing St. Andrews Boulevard until the interchange has been completed and the rest of St. Andrews is built. Mr. Evans advised the other issue they have struggled with is the school issue; they removed the school site from the table because of the controversy that it created; and another reason they did that was the realization that in the immediate vicinity they have an overcrowding issue in the two elementary schools, but systemwide there is not an overcrowding issue. He stated the report sent to Peggy Busacca from Ed Curry includes statistics prepared in May regarding school capacity permanent stations in Brevard County; the biggest concern they had was in the elementary school area; in the elementary schools, the permanent capacity for satisfactory student stations is 41,329; the current enrollment was 37,280; and the projection for 2001-02 current enrollment is 37,055; so that indicates they do not have a problem other than a redistricting problem that the School Board is going to have to wrestle with. He noted articles in the newspaper talking about moving children from one place to another; stated some of those students in the immediate area next year will be going across to schools on the beachside that have capacity; so it is their position that there is not an overcrowding at the elementary school level throughout the County. He stated students from Cocoa are being bussed to Viera now to fill those empty seats in the new Viera School; those things are going to have to change as the population changes; those are issues that the School Board has to wrestle and deal with; and as the developer, those issues are outside of their control. Mr. Evans advised they believe they are consistent throughout the process with the Comprehensive Plan; they are consistent in the compatibility issue by offering all the surrounding lots that abut St. Andrews will be the same lot width of 90 feet; and on the north boundary they will be 85 feet. He stated the existing 50-foot right-of-way that is there now will not be cleared and will be maintained in its natural state; they tried to address the issues as clearly as they could; and urged the Board's consideration and approval for the site through the process of its deliberations tonight. He stated it has not been an easy issue; they have looked at a lot of different things over the course of eleven months or so that they have been working through the process; but what the Board has before it tonight is a reasonable plan that is compatible and addresses major concerns of the citizens.

Commissioner Higgs advised the 2001-02 Student Accommodation Plan shows the high schools at 102% capacity; in Mr. Evans' testimony, he said the schools were only overcrowded due to redistricting; but the high schools are at 102% of the permanent capacity; with Mr. Evans responding he was addressing specifically the elementary schools because those are the major impacts they have with the project. He stated the School Board has allocated about $50 million for construction of new schools, are hopefully will adopt the plan at the end of this month; and once that is done, there is a new high school for Viera in the plan. He stated they do not know if the School Board is going to leave that school in or take it out; they do not know if the School Board is going to build a new elementary school in Viera; and the only thing they can address are specific issues. He stated the School Board is somewhat hamstrung regarding over- capacity issues; and they have to be 20% over capacity in order to get the State funding to build new schools, which seems an oddity and creates a situation of overcrowding in schools. He stated that is something that needs to be looked at in the long-term because it is not the best for students or the best planning process that is out there; however, they are State mandates and requirements. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Evans' statements were based on the overall capacity of all the schools at various levels, but acknowledges the high schools show they do not have capacity and are over permanent capacity; with Mr. Evans responding yes, but there are portable capacities that are not calculated. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is dealing with permanent capacity; and the high schools are shown as over capacity; with Mr. Evans responding yes, for the projection in the report they are.

Mr. Kirschenbaum requested the Board allow Mr. Fishkind to make his presentation when he comes in. Mr. Kirschenbaum gave Ms. Busacca the Superintendent's Facilities Recommendations dated September 24, 2001. Commissioner Higgs inquired when is it scheduled for consideration by the School Board; with Chairman Carlson responding she thinks it is November 20, 2001.

Thomas Grimms stated the Board has his resume so he will not go into it much; he has been in planning about 24 years; his concentration is in comprehensive planning, zoning, annexation, and redevelopment; and advised of his educational background in planning, political science, bsueinss administration, and international relations. He stated his comments are a reemphasis of what he said the last time; the proposed development appears to be compatible with the surrounding development upon first examination of the concept plan and proposed binding development agreement; but it does not fully address traffic and access impacts on property values and schools. He stated the proposed density for Sawgrass South, Phase III appears to be too great; St. Andrews Isle located to the west of the project has an approved zoning of RU-1-13, but has a cap of 67 dwelling units on 45 acres as specified in the binding development agreement; and that limits the development to a density of approximately 1.49 units per acre. He noted applying the same limits to Sawgrass South, Phase II, would limit the development to a maximum of 125 dwelling units; and the additional homes beyond compatible density levels would increase traffic on St. Andrews Boulevard and add to traffic problems. Mr. Grimms advised the two submitted traffic reports that address traffic volumes and demands on that segment of St. Andrews Boulevard from Interlachen south to the proposed development reveal that the additional traffic created by the proposed development will be significant; the total estimated daily traffic, including existing trips and trips attributed to approved lots and to the proposed Sawgrass South development will be 9,452 per day per Table 10; and that is a significant impact for any limited access collector road or local road. Mr. Grimms stated typically a limited access road safely handles vehicle capacity of 5,000 per day as referenced by the Traffic Circulation Planning for Communities by H. Marks, Gruen Associates; and the projected traffic will exceed that by two or three times. He stated to estimate the traffic split between Wickham Road and Pineda Causeway Extension if St. Andrews Boulevard were to be connected to the Pineda Causeway Extension, per Contingency 2 of the developer's donation letter of September 19, the traffic data by Tipton Associates, Inc. was reviewed; projected Suntree/Sawgrass traffic at buildout per that study will total 9,452 trips per day; and Grand Haven is estimated to generate a total of 8,261 daily trips, with 60% or 4,956 trips per day expected to enter St. Andrews Boulevard. He stated in talking to various transportation planners, their view is that Mr. Bennett's 5% pass through is probably on the low side and should be around 9 to 12%; and using a 10% figure, the additional estimate would be 5,987 trips per day that can be expected to be added to St. Andrews Boulevard if it is connected to the Pineda Causeway Extension. He noted adding that estimate to the estimated total shows that there will be a projected total daily trips of 19,495 on St. Andrews Boulevard. Mr. Grimms stated the design capacity of St. Andrews Boulevard, between Turtle Mound to St. Andrews Isle, was not available from Brevard County MPO, but the MPO staff indicated the maximum acceptable volume of traffic is 16,000 vehicle trips per day; the total daily trips of 19,495 on St. Andrews Boulevard exceeds the maximum acceptable volume of traffic of 16,000 trips per day by 3,495 trips; and that is clearly a significant impact on St. Andrews Boulevard and to the residents of Suntree. Mr. Grimms advised property values are subject to many influencing factors, which include scarcity of developable lands, improvements, assemblage, zoning, taxes, degree of traffic congestion, distance to commercial, and many individual choices and preferences of buyers; those can all cause similar properties to have different values; and sometimes the factors can be offset by sudden changes in the market, such as demand. He stated it is difficult to estimate the impacts of development on property values, but there is consensus in the real estate business that certain factors like increased traffic could impact property values. He stated the proposed development of Sawgrass South will create additional impacts to an already overburdened road and to the residents of Suntree; traffic accidents and incidents will likely rise to five or six times per year or four times existing accident estimates; St. Andrews Boulevard will likely need to be widened and lanes and sidewalks added, especially if a new school is built; and that will pose additional inconveniences, traffic delays, and safety concerns for the residents. He stated based on the developer's proposed means of addressing school capacity problems and other concerns, such as environmental, compatibility, property values, and drainage, it is evident the proposed development plan does not warrant a rezoning as requested; therefore, the Citizens for Responsible Growth request the application for rezoning be denied.

Commissioner Higgs advised it was presented by the planner that the development would basically be a part of Grand Haven as opposed to Suntree; and inquired, based on Mr. Grimms' knowledge of real estate and planning, would he assume that; with Mr. Grimms responding he would not assume that, as it is a separate project not intimately related to Grand Haven.

Anne Salemmo, resident of Suntree and member of Citizens for Responsible Growth, stated she listened to the applicant's speakers and saw a copy of the proposed binding development agreement, and has concerns about two points in the agreement, one which talks about the road not being connected to St. Andrews Boulevard, and the other that the owner agrees the only construction access point shall be from the existing Pineda Causeway Extension. She inquired why are they talking about construction traffic if the road is only going to be from the Pineda Causeway Extension. She stated their concern is once the zoning is approved, what changes may come to the binding development agreement that they have not anticipated. Ms. Salemmo advised at the October 4, 2001 Board meeting, they provided a copy of the internal County memo written over 19 months ago by Bob Kamm and Dick Thompson; they described St. Andrews Boulevard as a major collector roadway for Suntree, designed to accommodate the residential traffic levels that Suntree would generate upon buildout; and they further stated there is generally limited ability to accommodate substantial new traffic generators for such roadways because of the resulting negative impact the additional traffic would have on surrounding residential developments. Ms. Salemmo stated at prior meetings, utilizing the Planning and Zoning Department's ITE project factors, they presented the Board substantial competent evidence that when all approved developments have been completed, there would be nearly 7,500 trips per day along the one mile stretch of road; and utilizing the County's projection factors, they calculated an additional 2,300 daily vehicle trips that would be added to the road if it were to be connected to the Sawgrass South developments. She advised they engaged Tipton Associates, Inc., a certified traffic engineering firm, to conduct a traffic study showing the implications for their community if St. Andrews Boulevard were to be connected to the project; and the results of the traffic engineer's study were within 8% of their original projections and indicated an additional 2,177 trips to be generated from the Sawgrass South projects for a total of 9,000 trips per day. Ms. Salemmo advised they provided the Board with expert testimony from a certified land planner who said regardless of the maximum acceptable volume of the two-lane road, residential roads of the character of St. Andrews Boulevard can safely handle a vehicle capacity of 5,000 trips per day, a number significantly below the number projected by the traffic engineer's report. She stated when considering rezoning applications, the Board is charged by several criteria in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to consider among others whether the proposed use would have traffic activity that would significantly diminish the enjoyment of safety or quality of life in existing neighborhoods, whether the proposed use would materially and adversely impact an established neighborhood by introducing intensity of traffic that is not already present in the neighborhood, and whether the projected traffic impacts of the proposed use would materially and adversely impact the safety and welfare of residents in existing residential neighborhoods. She requested the Board listen to the voices of its constituents who live in the area and who will be the ones impacted by the decision made tonight. Ms. Salemmo requested the rezoning include a mandatory condition that all access must be solely, exclusively, and permanently by the Pineda Causeway Extension where it abuts the southeastern edge of the project, and that the condition be in writing in such a way that no future connection of the parcel to St. Andrews Boulevard can or will be considered or permitted. She stated given the data they have presented showing that St. Andrews Boulevard will already carry nearly 1,900 vehicle trips per day, more than the 5,000 daily trips recommended by the land planner for the type of residential road, they oppose any extension of St. Andrews Boulevard from its current terminus; and request that all Sawgrass South developments, including Phases I and II have access off the Pineda Causeway Extension only.

Bob Rogan, resident of Waterford Place in Suntree, stated he supports the efforts of the Citizens for Responsible Growth, and will summarize some of the incompatibilities of the proposed Sawgrass South development with numerous portions of the Comprehensive Plan; and provided an outline for the Board to follow, but not to the Clerk. He stated the first group of Comprehensive Plan criteria on the written summary he provided relate to school capacity; as the County Attorney advised in his May 21, 2001 memo, Chapter 12, Intergovernmental Condition, Element Policy 1.3 and Chapter 13, Capital Improvements, Element Policies 1.3 and 5.2 establish the legal basis for the County's denial of the rezoning request based on school capacities. He stated as Mr. Grimms indicated in his response to a question from Commissioner Higgs at the October 4, 2001 meeting, a County's Comprehensive Plan serves as a legal basis for zoning decisions, and zoning decisions should be generated based upon compliance with that government document. Mr. Rogan stated the second group of policies has been mentioned at various times throughout the testimony provided by their group and relates to consideration of existing neighborhoods and natural resources; and that group of Comprehensive Plan policies also provides a basis for denial of the request. He stated Chapter 9, Transportation Element, Policies 2.3B and 2.4A(9) indicate that compatibility with existing neighborhoods, neighborhood preservation, and project impacts to natural resources, including wetlands, groundwater, natural communities, and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened are all factors to be taken into consideration in planning for future land use; and they presented evidence demonstrating impacts of the proposed project in all of those areas. Mr. Rogan advised the third group of policies concerns impacts of proposed land use on roadways and traffic; Chapter 9, Policy 3.2 indicates land use changes may be considered as a means to reduce transportation demand when providing transportation improvements has significant community impact; and that implies the acceptability of land use change for the parcel due to the impact of connecting it to St. Andrews Boulevard through Suntree. He stated Chapter 9, Policy 3.7A indicates that land development shall minimize points of conflict along local roadways from driveway connections and other access points; and the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that roadway access for the parcel via St. Andrews Boulevard would exacerbate conflicts along the road through existing Suntree communities as a result of increased volume. He stated Chapter 11, Future Land Use Element, contains numerous criteria which would not be met by the proposed rezoning request; and Administrative Policies 3A and 4A clearly indicate that compatibility of rezoning requests shall include evaluation of whether they diminish the enjoyment of, safety, or quality of life in existing neighborhoods within the area, that the character of the area must not be materially or adversely affected by the proposed rezoning or land use application, and the proposed use must not materially or adversely impact an established residential neighborhood by introducing types and intensity of traffic that is not already present within the identified boundaries of the neighborhood. Mr. Rogan advised they presented the Board with extensive evidence of the negative impact on their community of the proposed roadway access to the requested development via St. Andrews Boulevard; Chapter 11, Administrative Policies 5B through 5G of the Comprehensive Plan, state that the impact of the proposed use or uses on transportation facilities that either service the site or are impacted by the use shall be considered; and they have submitted substantial proof that it would occur if St. Andrews Boulevard is used as access to the proposed development. He noted the County Attorney has already advised the Board of its legal basis; and requested the Board deny the request for RU-1-13.

Sue Sawyer, resident of Suntree and member of Citizens for Responsible Growth, stated they have presented their substantial objections to the ill-planned rezoning proposal; they did everything that was asked of them; they provided substantial competent evidence; and they provided expert testimony regarding the devastating impacts the continued growth would have on their entire community. She stated they showed the Board that the devastating effects would impact all communities around them due to the fact that many North Melbourne schools are overcrowded and cannot take the huge influx of students that the developer is attempting to bring in. She stated they support the Board's desire to work with the School Board to control the overwhelming overcrowding, and assisted by coordinating and providing some much needed information regarding the statistics of current school impacts; and they provided the Board with personal and photographic testimonies showing that the developers have a history of distorting and ignoring past binding agreements with its own customers, the surrounding communities, and even governmental agencies to serve their own needs. Ms. Sawyer stated Mr. Evans spoke to the lack of overcrowding in the public schools; the Facilities Plan to which they alluded is by no means a done deal; there are absolutely no guarantees that funding will be available to sufficiently take care of the overcrowding that already exists, much less the mess they are about to create; and they have brought the Board hundreds of people, current residents, who do not wish to have their property values, safety, roadways, and children's education further devastated by the proposed communities. She stated they have yet to see anyone other than the developers come forward to say they welcome the intrusion into their community. Ms. Sawyer stated they sat in on other Board meetings and watched as much smaller neighborhoods came to the Board with emotional outpourings regarding their fears of damaging proposed development; they watched while the Board responded with great sympathy and empathy to their plight by saying they have the right to expect that the community they bought into not be changed by shortsighted developments; and they watched as the Board immediately denied the zoning that would affect the neighborhoods. She stated they have been more than patient, supportive, and helpful; the facts, current laws, Comprehensive Plan, and guidelines have all been laid out on the table; and the current residents, the Board's constituents, are before it tonight ready to demand that their rights also be protected. She stated they again ask that the Board deny the rezoning request, zone the parcel GU, and provide any future access or egress from the subject properties known as Sawgrass South, Phases I, II, and III, from the southeastern end of the Pineda Causeway Extension only.

Marc Sawyer, resident of Suntree, stated the Board has heard comprehensive, compelling objective, and unbiased expert testimony stating that granting the zoning request will have significant and irreparable negative impact on their community. He stated other than the special interest representation of the applicant, not one single private citizen has come before the Board to speak in support of the zoning request or for the connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway Extension; and the desire of the citizens to decline this request has been made abundantly clear. He stated the Board has allowed the applicant more than ample opportunity to present arguments supporting his zoning request; the Planning and Zoning Department's mission statement is: "Our mission is to serve the public by providing quality planning and zoning services in a professional, efficient, and acceptable manner, considering the health, safety, and welfare of the community in every task that we undertake." He stated in the spirit of that mission statement, he implores the Board not to react to the forces of special interest, but act in the interest of the citizens of Brevard County by declining the zoning request.

Melissa Hoagland, resident of Suntree Estates, representing Citizens for Responsible Growth, stated this is the fifth time the item has been before the Board for consideration; the matter has been tabled four times, three times following the developer's request; and a total of 43 public speakers have raised concerns and voiced opposition to the proposed rezoning prior to this meeting. She stated the Suntree Masters Homeowners Association Board of Directors presented a statement on behalf of over 4,500 homeowners in the Suntree community opposing any further extension of St. Andrews Boulevard; on October 4, 2001, over 600 concerned residents attended the hearing on this matter; documents have already been submitted for the record; and she will summarize the evidence given to the Board from the public over the past seven months. She stated Ms. Salemmo and Mr. Grimms have already summarized the studies they submitted regarding traffic impact in terms of approved construction in the area and in the event of a connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway Extension; and despite the developer's offer to connect only to the Pineda Causeway Extension, their concerns remain valid. Ms. Hoagland advised in order to say the property does not have to consider compatibility with the Suntree community, it would have to never be connected; and inquired if the Board is prepared to state that St. Andrews Boulevard will never connect into Suntree and never make the community a part of Suntree. She stated the Board heard on October 4, 2001 and this evening from their certified land planner, that while RU-1-13 zoning proposed for the parcel is the same as the zoning of St. Andrews Isle and Waterford Place, the proposed Sawgrass South III density is well in excess of surrounding densities; therefore, the proposed plan is not compatible with existing development. She stated a compatible density would limit the maximum number of houses on the 84-acre parcel to 125; and Mr. Rogan summarized various portions of the County's Comprehensive Plan and proposed violations of those portions. She stated they have provided expert testimony showing conclusively that a severe overcapacity problem exists in the area schools, that it has a significant negative impact on the quality of their children's education, that building of a new school in the area will not resolve the problem, and that the analysis of the School District's Budget shows it would not have sufficient funds to administer new schools. She stated recent events impacting the State's budget will only exacerbate the local budgetary shortfall, which was described by Dr. Sheuerer on October 4, 2001. Ms. Hoagland stated the Board heard from the developer that the Superintendent's Facilities Plan removes the compatibility issue from their application and there is not an over capacity problem in the County; the Superintendent's Plan is just that, a plan; no action has been authorized by the School Board, and nothing about the school capacity problem in their area has changed. She stated she paged through the Facilities Plan and counted 15 elementary schools that are currently over capacity; it is not an isolated problem; the fact that there are schools not over capacity does not negate the existence of overcapacity schools; and the County's children are not vegetables to be sorted out to wherever there happens to be an open bin. She stated there is not enough capacity at the two schools they are proposing to bus students from new construction that is planned in the area to accommodate those students; according to the information in the Facilities Plan, Holland and Sea Park Elementary Schools have 457 student stations available as their permanent design capacity; developments they are proposing to be picking up students from comprise a total of 2,694 homes; and using the School Board's figures of one student per three homes, those homes will generate 896 new students. She stated there is not enough capacity at those two schools to accommodate all the new students that would be generated; the zoning decision has been delayed three times to await input from the School District representatives to provide a resolution of the issue, April 5, May 24, and August 2, 2001; and in each case, no remedy was forthcoming. She stated it is past time for the Board to decide the zoning issue based on the applicable school information currently provided to the Board by the School District and not on the applicant's hopes for future School District action; the Board heard from representatives of the Sierra Club and Audubon Society about the impact the development will have on wetlands and existing native wildlife, including the nesting bald eagles on the south end of the property; and in a letter dated October 24, 2001, counsel for the Sierra Club raised significant issues regarding the rezoning request's incompatibility with the regulatory requirements of the County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated the Board requested and they have provided substantial competent evidence that the proposed rezoning should be denied, the property zoned GU, and access to the all the land south of the current St. Andrews Boulevard terminus be limited now and in the future to ingress and egress from the Pineda Causeway Extension only to avoid further traffic load to St. Andrews Boulevard.

Greg DuFour, resident of Waterford Place in Suntree, stated the map shows the subject site but not that Grand Haven is already in, which is extremely significant; today Grand Haven has homes within 100 feet of the lot lines in Waterford Place; Grand Haven is going to fill in the majority of the open space that exists out there; and there are existing plans that have been approved. He stated consistency includes quality of life; the Board approved the Grand Haven development on September 22, 2000; and read Item 12 as he did the last time, as follows: "There will be a minimum 100-foot buffer between the property and Waterford Place." He stated the developer submitted a plan and said they were consistent with the existing neighborhoods; and he disagrees with that. He described a development, noting the lot line is more than 100 feet from the back side of Grand Haven; and stated to have any consistency would require the developer, at a minimum, to be consistent with what Grand Haven has already done, which is over 100 feet to their existing lot line.

Scott Price, attorney for the Coalition for Responsible Growth, stated after hearing what the applicant presented and all the testimony the neighbors have given as well as the experts, his legal arguments would be duplicative of what the Board has already heard. He stated the issues of compatibility and school overcrowding have not changed from the modifications the developer provided tonight; and he wanted to reiterate that.

Herbert Greeley, resident of Crystal Lake in Suntree, stated this issue is about people like him who hoped to find a community like Suntree and now see their dreams being torn apart by the spectra of four-lane highways, people possibly being hit by cars, and everything they hoped would not happen in their retirement years. He stated there are a lot of people who are not seniors, but young people with families; he talked to them before coming into the meeting, and they feel exactly as he does; the Board has been more than fair to the developer; but the developer has been unfair to them. He stated they planned all their lives to be here; and they love it and do not want it to change.

Hank Fishkind presented handouts to the Commissioners but not the Clerk; and stated his presentation will be on the economic and school issues. He stated the proposed development will be 185 to 195 luxury single-family units priced at about $350,000 for home and lot; units of that value will create a significant tax base; there are costs and revenues with any land development project; and his analysis of the net cost and revenues to the County indicates the property tax revenues will be over $525,000. He stated looking at the costs associated with the project, it is fair to say it will have a positive fiscal benefit; the homes will more than pay their own way; and he does not think, from an economic perspective, it could be deemed as urban sprawl, and it makes good use of existing facilities. Mr. Fishkind stated the school issue is a critical concern of everybody; the School Board projects that there will be 67 students; and his analysis is consistent with that. He stated they looked at the last projections from the Census and did a survey of the surrounding area; they find that the average is about .334 school-age children per household; so they came up with the same number of students that the School Board did, and he has a graph that shows the projections over the expected six-year life of the buildout of the project. He stated the School Board data indicates there are 41,424 permanent student stations and 36,464 students; so from a global perspective, there is some excess capacity; but what they are dealing with are boundary issues, which are difficult. He stated the capacity is more than satisfactory in middle schools; the capacity is over 14,000 and 11,000 students are enrolled globally; high school is more difficult; and that is what is over capacity globally. He stated high schools have 20,383 permanent student stations and 21,152 students, or 2 to 3% over capacity. Mr. Fishkind stated Long Leaf Elementary is currently over capacity; with no changes, it will be 17% over capacity in the next few years; but with relocatables it can be brought well into conformance; and that is the School Board's plan. He stated Johnson Middle School, the middle school that would be affected, has significant excess capacity, so there would not be an impact there. He stated Eau Gallie High School, which is the high school that would be affected, is about 1.2% over capacity with the project; and relocatables have been suggested as the answer. He advised the Florida Department of Education Statewide generally requires that new schools be built when existing schools are 20% over capacity; and they do that so they do not begin to fund schools before they can be filled up on a funding basis for operational purposes. He stated there are solutions proposed by the School Board prior to the proposed rezoning of the project; and he offers each of the solutions in the next few slides as the School Board's recommendations. Mr. Fishkind stated, from an economic perspective, the project will more than pay for its own way relative to the cost and revenues to the County; whether the Board approves or denies the rezoning, he does not think that changes the fundamental issue with the school capacity; and there are not enough students coming from the project that would make a fundamental difference in his opinion as an economist.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Fishkind did an analysis of what the break-even price would be or what the value would be; with Mr. Fishkind responding it is about $170,000 for a typical residential unit allowing for homestead exemption. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Fishkind stated the sales value is $350,000; the binding development agreement says a minimum square footage of 1,900 square feet; and that would not seem to be realistic to produce a $350,000 house; with Mr. Fishkind responding he would agree on the square footage basis, but that is the minimum; and the value he quoted is the value the developer expects to be selling those houses for. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Fishkind estimates the houses would be much bigger than the minimum; with Mr. Fishkind responding yes.

Commissioner Colon stated in Mr. Fishkind's conclusion, he said Sawgrass would not attract new residents to Brevard County and it is simply an alternative to existing developments; and inquired what does he base that on; with Mr. Fishkind responding the County's growth is not going to be augmented due to the marketing of the project because it is simply too small to affect the total amount of growth that will come to the County with or without Sawgrass. He stated he believes the land will be developed, whether it is with the current plan based on the rezoning or some other plan; if the County chooses not to accommodate the population growth that will be coming in at this location, it will go somewhere else in the County; and that has been his experience in Florida and in Brevard County. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Fishkind agrees that schools are getting overcrowded and that the students are coming from somewhere; with Mr. Fishkind responding yes, schools are definitely becoming overcrowded because of the natural population growth in the State and the attractiveness of the County. He stated the point he is making relative to the schools situation is the property will be developed in some form for residential development and the County will continue to get population growth; but the project is not going to accelerate that, in his opinion, nor will it change the parameters of the school overcrowding issue.

Commissioner Higgs requested an explanation of what Mr. Fishkind defines as break even and his methodology for the $170,000 price; with Mr. Fishkind responding Commissioner Higgs asked him what would be the value of a house standing by itself, not accounting for the associated commercial development that it would support, that would be a break even for the County; he took the County's budget and used the modified per capita approach, which is the acceptable professional approach for calculating the cost and revenues associated with land development activities; and he assumed that 100% of the housing units would get the $25,000 homestead exemption, so that is approximately what the break-even price would be. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Fishkind assumed that 100% would get homestead exemption; with Mr. Fishkind responding yes, to calculate a proper break-even price for the Board. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Fishkind again define break even; with Mr. Fishkind responding where the cost equals the revenues to the County he believes was the question asked by Commissioner Higgs. Commissioner Higgs stated she just wants to be sure they are talking about the same thing; with Mr. Fishkind responding he does also.

Commissioner Colon stated in the conclusions they have that Sawgrass' high taxable values will not be a drain on County resources; one thing they have learned, even with redistricting that is going on right now in Brevard County, is that there are instances where the fire or sheriff's departments have to draw new boundaries in regards to the level of service they need in the Viera/Suntree area due to growth; and that is not because they relocated from Palm Bay or Melbourne. She stated those numbers are real; and folks come into Brevard County, which has caused the Board to be diligent about its finances. She stated growth does cost the taxpayers a lot of money; they have to pay for new firefighters, new sheriff deputies, and new teachers for new schools; and she has a concern with that.

Mr. Fishkind stated the County's budget is separate from the School Board's budget; the County funds police and fire through general funds; and the revenues that would accrue from the houses of the value they expect at the development were compared to the costs of operating and capital that would be required based upon the current budget and current levels of service. He stated he is confident that the project will more than pay its own way relative to the County. He stated for the School Board, the issues are more complex because of the way in which school funding occurs in the State; the operating monies that each School Board receives are equalized by the State under the Florida Education Funding Program; so no county and no development may have a direct effect upon that. He stated what developments do are affect school capacity; in Brevard County the School Board does have a millage for its debt service; and if he applies the debt service millage against the value of the houses and capitalizes that as the School Board normally funds, there would be sufficient capital. He stated unfortunately schools do not come in small economy size; they only come in the large size; so the timing issues are important; and that is where the 20% policy of the State comes in because they do not want to provide new funding until there are sufficient students to fill up a new school.

Commissioner Colon advised because of growth the Board is looking at the Pineda Causeway Extension; and inquired if Mr. Fishkind calculated the millions of dollars that are going to infrastructure, the Pineda Causeway Extension, and widening of Wickham Road, etc. caused by the growth in the area. She stated it does affect the citizens in the County, whether it is fire service, emergency service, or infrastructure. Mr. Fishkind advised growth definitely costs the County money in terms of resources required, but it also generates revenue; and that is the balance that is important.

Frank Rockwell, resident of St. Andrews Isle in Suntree, the Subdivision most affected by the Sawgrass development, advised on October 9, 2001, the residents of St. Andrews Isle took over the management of the Homeowners Association from the developer; they elected a board of directors, four of whom are here today; and he was elected to be the president, so they asked him to reiterate their concerns stated to the Board two meetings ago. He stated St. Andrews Isle is blessed with a lake; the Association owns the lake; that means they are responsible for maintaining the lake and have full liability; if someone falls in the lake and drowns, it is their neck and not the County's; and the Sawgrass development will double the risk of their liability. He stated two sides of St. Andrews Isle are lake and have no development on it; typically very few people transit that area; there are animals in there that make it unhealthy to go in there too often; so they do not do it, and pretty much protect them on those sides. He stated with the addition of Sawgrass, that will change; there will be houses abutting the St. Andrews Isle property; the entire lake is within the boundaries of St. Andrews Isle; and the outer perimeter of the lake has land from five to fifteen feet that extends beyond the lake boundary. Mr. Rockwell stated he sees no evidence in the developer's initial plans that he has taken into consideration that his property that he wants to sell does not go down to the lake; and he is not selling waterfront property, he is selling property that is away from the lake. He stated the last time they were at a meeting, they requested the Board require in a binding development agreement that the developer set aside a 20-foot buffer with a six-foot berm with obscuring vegetation on the top primarily to prevent access to the lake and increase of their liability. He stated the Board has taken up a measure to modify Section 62-4062 of its Code to add a subparagraph (d) requiring a 15-foot buffer around each new subdivision between existing subdivisions and new ones; he does not know what the status of that is; but he sees no evidence that the developer has taken either of those into consideration in putting together his development; so there is a strong possibility that the people who will own the property abutting St. Andrews Isle will trespass on it and cause an uncontrollable situation. Mr. Rockwell advised there is a wetland, part of which is in St. Andrews Isle; there is still a possibility of damage to that wetland, which they would like to protect; and although he knows the eagle's nest is supposedly protected by law, there is a stand of trees immediately south of St. Andrews Isle that the eagles use. He stated the eagles perch on the trees and look down into the lake for fish and other critters; that is where they use to do their hunting; and that stand of trees will be history if the development comes into play because it is right in the middle of houses at this point. He stated there will be a significant impact to St. Andrews Isle; and requested the Board deny the rezoning and rezone the property as GU.

Robert Leichtenberg advised he is a State certified general appraiser, member of the Appraiser Institute, holds an MAI designation, and testified as an expert witness in California, Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida, in circuit and county courts as well as federal courts. He stated he owns a firm that has done approximately 40,000 appraisals in Brevard County; he has been asked to look at the site; he heard talk about how it would impact the value negatively; and he cannot see any way possible that it is going to impact surrounding property, especially under the current plan, in any way except positively. He stated the lots are going to sell in the $70,000 price range; the houses are in the $250,000 to $350,000 price range; most of the houses are 2,500 to 3,500 square feet; so minimums are very rarely economically possible on a 70,000 square-foot lot. He noted that is what really controls it; and in his professional opinion, there is no way the project will impact the values of properties other than perhaps positively.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the $75,000 lot and $350,000 total price are realistic in the market, in Mr. Leichtenberg's professional opinion; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding they are realistic; and it is a very nice neighborhood. He stated he remembers when Suntree was nothing; some of the people then had the same objections to the places they live in now; but they are very nice and very realistic; and that is what they are selling in the first phase of Sawgrass. He noted he looked at several of the houses.

Attorney Kirschenbaum advised it is very seldom that they get the opportunity to go into the issues in depth and sincerity that everyone has; it has been a struggle for everyone; and thanked the Board for the opportunity. He stated he wants to address the evidence, what is considered substantial competent evidence, on what issues, and what has to be considered; and first he would like the Board to consider the traffic issue, what is the substantial competent evidence on that issue, and who are the experts. He stated Mr. Tipton, Sr., who has a report in the Board's book that was handed out at the last meeting, is the only expert professional engineer and traffic engineering expert who testified; and what he testified to were traffic counts and trip generations, but did not analyze that. He stated the report of Mr. Bennett is not from a professional engineer with expertise in traffic engineering; it assumes certain facts that are not in evidence, that being that St. Andrews Boulevard is going to be immediately constructed all the way through from the Pineda Causeway Extension to Interlachen; those reports are not substantial competent evidence; but Mr. Lassiter's is, and his opinion states no impact. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised another issue is density; to be consistent and compatible under the Comprehensive Plan it does not have to be the exact same thing as the neighbors; what they are talking about is 2.7 or 1.9 units per acre next door under the binding development plan; and the difference between two houses and three houses on an acre is ten feet or so in the size of the lot and the width of the lot. He stated that is compatible and consistent; and that is the substantial competent evidence as to that issue. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised regarding the school issue; they are talking six years and maybe 67 children spread out over three schools in twelve grades; that is the School Board's projections and Mr. Fishkind's testimony; and that is the evidence before the Board. He stated 67 students over six years spread out over 12 grades is not substantial impact and is almost negligible. He stated they cannot control what the School Board is going to do, but there is not a significant negative impact on the schools; and the Board does not have a concurrency provision in its Comprehensive Plan in that regard. He stated the Board is talking about not wanting to rezone if school facilities cannot handle it; there is nothing significant about a few students over that period of time that violates the plan; the lots are going to be the same size and will be compatible; they are going to be consistent with all the County's plans; they are not putting houses in wetlands, and are not tearing down trees; they are not running over pedestrians; and it is not a platting issue but a rezoning issue, and the Board will see the people many times again on development issues. Mr. Kirschenbaum inquired if GU is a reasonable use of the property; stated he understands the issue of unbridled and too much growth; but to not zone the property as requested is to stop growth and stop development. He stated the people may want that if they want a big park in their backyards; and everyone loves to live on the end of a cul-de-sac, but in this case, it is not reasonable to freeze the property. He stated it is the last big piece of property in the area; it has been previously zoned at a higher density; and if he could have a park in his backyard for the rest of his life, he would love that; but the property is going to be developed; and it is up to everyone to develop it responsibly so that growth does not negatively impact the County or the neighborhood. He stated there is no substantial competent evidence that the traffic from the rezoning will affect one resident next door or one citizen in the County; and there is no substantial competent evidence in the record that there is a great impact on the school district. He requested the Board be reasonable and rezone the property according to the application.

The meeting recessed at 7:04 p.m., and reconvened at 7:25 p.m.

Chairman Carlson stated in her opinion, there has been substantial competent evidence on both sides of the issue tonight and at previous meetings; she does not see any guarantees regarding the overcrowding that currently exists in the schools going away any time soon; but that is a School Board issue and unfortunately, it is also a State issue. She stated she stands by the issue of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and would support GU zoning, but would like to hear from the other Commissioners and see what their thoughts are.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue of school quality deals with more than capacity, though capacity is a component; and the Board, at a regular meeting, on direction from Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley, had extensive discussion on how it would get into additional discussion that has not occurred tonight. He stated if the Board looks at capacity beyond an individual school, it would be inappropriate; and Mr. Curry with the School Board said he cannot transport from South Brevard to North Brevard and provide quality education due to the amount of time to transport students. He stated the other issue is the tax revenues generated by a particular unit and the break-even point; the Board needs to recognize that library capacity, road capacity, and other capacities may be at the point where it does not only have operating costs but substantial additional costs because of capacity on component parts; and because of that, there are additional costs beyond just operating cost that must be taken into consideration. He noted the evidence was inadequate in discussing that subject.

Commissioner Higgs stated the evidence regarding compatibility of the neighborhood also needs to be discussed; the allegation that the development would find its ties to Grand Haven across the Pineda Causeway was not validated in any way; so the Board has to look to the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. She stated the presentation did not deal with that adequately; so in terms of density, for it to be compatible with Suntree needs additional work, at least in terms of the RU-1-9.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Fishkind, albeit every professional person repeated that the portable classrooms would bring the schools into capacity; it was later said the first phase would create 67 more students, which also creates three additional portable classrooms; and the purpose for considering school overcrowding is to improve the quality of education for the children by drastically reducing the pressure on the schools and student bodies by reducing the number of portables being used and subsequently reducing or eliminating school overcrowding. He stated Florida is ranked 47th in the nation for education; its potential can never be reached if it continues to educate in this manner; everyone has a responsibility to give all the children a better chance; and the community is now stepping forward and demanding a change to the way the County does business. He stated it is not only the group from Suntree that has stood up and demanded change; and it is every family, parent, and conscionable person who knows the Board can affect dynamic change and improve not only the quality of life, but the quality of education. Commissioner O'Brien stated Brevard County does not have to be the same as the rest of the State, near the bottom of the barrel in the nation; it is going to take a lot of people in a lot of places throughout the State to start standing up and demanding better than this; so the Board has the responsibility to consider overcrowding; and that part is paramount to him. He stated he put three children through schools on Merritt Island and all were always overcrowded and had portables; every time there was a lightning storm, they had to evacuate the portables and put the students in the hallways in the structured school; and that is no way to run a school and no way to educate the children. Commissioner O'Brien advised the presentation said ingress/egress for the project would be on the Pineda Causeway; the MPO, when discussing the Pineda Causeway, said it was to be a limited access highway, and not a suburban street; and if the County is going to pay to build the Pineda Causeway Extension, he does not think the taxpayers want to build a road for a bunch of subdivisions in the area. He stated they understand that building the Pineda Causeway Extension is to provide an evacuation route to I-95 and relieve the pressures that are presently on Wickham Road to get out because of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters; and inquired if the Board allows the project to access onto the Pineda Causeway Extension, what would it do about the development to the west that will be there sooner or later. He inquired what will happen when the south side of Pineda Causeway Extension starts to grow; will they also connect to the Extension; and stated if so, the County will have nothing more than another city street; therefore he cannot support the Pineda Causeway Extension, its funding, or its creation because then all the Board is doing is attracting more growth and paying for it. Commissioner O'Brien stated he had problems in a few areas; one is the Administrative Policy 4 and 4.b.1 and 4.b.3 on page 2 of the presentation; someone brought up the commercialization of the area as being compatible; and after thinking about it, the opposite is really occurring. He stated he has problems with Administrative Policy 5 and 5(e) and consistency on page 7, which is (d); and he cannot support any entranceway on the Pineda Extension. He stated he cannot support any further overcrowding of the schools; the policies are written very well and are easy to understand; and he does not think the project as represented identifies with Administrative Policy 4 or 5 or with consistency. He noted how to solve the problem he does not know, but those are the problems he has with the project.

Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to reiterate that the Board has in hand the Superintendent's Facilities recommendations; it has no final action by the School Board putting in place any action to remedy the situation around the proposed development; so her motion would be to zone the parcel GU and direct the County Attorney to bring back findings of fact in 30 days so the Board can take final action on the request.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Colon, to rezone the property GU and direct the County Attorney to bring back findings of fact to the Board in 30 days so it can take final action on the request.

Commissioner Colon inquired if requesting finding of facts will open it up again for discussion; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding it depends on the Board's direction; if it directed the findings for presentation to the Board and no further public hearing, that is how it would want to make its motion.

Commissioner Higgs stated that would be her motion.

Ms. Bentley inquired if it would be the meeting in December or November 29, 2001; with Chairman Carlson responding November 29, 2001. Ms. Bentley inquired if the Clerk can get the minutes done by then; with Deputy Clerk Berni Talbert responding December 4, 2001 would be better. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it can be done in 30 or 45 days; with Ms. Bentley responding she needs a date certain to bring it back to the Board. Chairman Carlson inquired what date is the December zoning meeting; with Ms. Talbert responding there is no zoning meeting in December. Commissioner Higgs recommended bringing it back at a regular meeting. Chairman Carlson stated December 4, 2001 would be okay.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to state some of the facts; the proposed single-family residential development, which is Suntree, Phase II, is proposed for the last remaining undeveloped tract in the Suntree area; and that is very critical. She stated the subject development was originally part of the Waterford Planned Unit Development, which has expired and has been incrementally rezoned and developed with single-family residential subdivisions; and it is the last remaining undeveloped parcel located within approximately two square miles and will encompass 84.35 acres. She stated compatibility to residential densities and house sizes are similar in the proposed development as found in surrounding subdivisions can vary; some of the concerns are how it is going to affect the neighborhood; and underlying land use and zoning restrictions which address height, bulk, yard, and density within the proposed development are also issues the Board needs to consider. Commissioner Colon stated the Board talked about schools and how the project would affect them; traffic issues are also of great concern; a lot of people have shared a lot of different numbers; and the total estimated daily trips, including existing trips to that area would basically be in the thousands. She stated the Board also has to consider that because eventually it will affect how the Board does things. She stated the testimony, studies presented, and all the information everyone has given the Board at previous meetings will be taken into account; and she wants to make sure for the record that the information given to the Board on October 4, 2001 is shared as part of the exhibit, which she feels is critical because it talked about a lot of information, which she knows the applicant has a copy of; and it is very critical for that information to be there. She stated those are a lot of hours and a lot of testimonies from Scott Price, Anne Salemmo on school capacity, and Jim Bennett on traffic; and there is some data that is very important even if the entrance was through the Pineda Causeway Extension. She stated Tom Grimms, a planning expert, also had issues regarding the existing neighborhoods and development of schools; Dan Scheuerer, educational expert, needs to be added to the school capacity issue; Raymon Rogers, education expert, also on school capacity, and Sharon Chinoy, certified human factors engineer, talked about issues that affect the children and their behavior. She noted Melissa Hoagland gave the Board a summary of statements; and she wants to be sure all of those things are on the record. Chairman Carlson stated those are on the record.

Commissioner O'Brien amended the motion to include that access to Pineda Causeway Extension cannot be part of the planning of any of those parcels.

Chairman Carlson advised based on the agreements, there were supposed to be two cuts to Pineda Causeway Extension that would keep it limited access; and she does not know if the connection they had requested would have changed that or not because that was in the plan since the beginning. Commissioner O'Brien stated Commissions before this one gave up a lot of right-of-way that the County had for the original Pineda Causeway; now the road has to swing down and come back up as an Extension; and it is supposed to be a very limited access highway. He stated the Board needs to make a motion on how many cuts will be allowed either tonight or at the next meeting. Chairman Carlson stated it may be advisable to bring it back and get clarification via a report to find out exactly what access points there are on it.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend the motion and say not only that a report be brought back, but that the Pineda Causeway Extension be put on the agenda as a regular item to discuss how many cuts there shall be on the Extension.

Chairman Carlson inquired if that is an amendment to the motion; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he wants to put it in right now. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to handle it some other way because this is a zoning issue. Chairman Carlson recommended taking care of the motion on the floor; and if Commissioner O'Brien wants to make a motion after that, the Board can deal with it. She stated before voting on the motion, it is critical to understand that both sides have a lot at stake; and thanked the Citizens for Responsible Growth and the applicant for coming forward with all the effort they have provided, and all the documentation, etc. She stated the Board is putting a lot of weight in its Comprehensive Plan, but if it goes to the courts, it may come back and may not be what the people want. She stated there are no guarantees.

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

The meeting recessed at 7:44 p.m., and reconvened at 7:51 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: CUTS ON PINEDA CAUSEWAY EXTENSION

Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants to make a motion that the Pineda Causeway Extension be put on the agenda for December 4, 2001 to discuss the number of cuts to that highway.

Commissioner Higgs stated before putting anything on the agenda, the Board should request the County Attorney provide the legal documents, read those and their analysis, then see what the Board really wants to do. She stated the Board should review the legal document and see where it is before putting anything on the agenda. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what legal document; with Ms. Bentley responding there is a donation Agreement that addresses the number of cuts. Chairman Carlson stated that is what she was referring to when she said two cuts. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board can put something on the agenda; with Commissioner Higgs responding there is no reason to put it on the agenda until the Board reads the Agreement. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is put on the agenda, it will give the Commissioners a change to read it and if there is no further discussion, the Board can move on; and if not, it can make some decisions. He stated the Board should not drag its feet any further because there will be other developments along that route that will have a direct impact upon the conceptual idea of a highway to I-95 from the beaches.

Chairman Carlson advised Commissioner Higgs is requesting a report, which is what she would recommend because she has seen the document, but cannot say exactly how many cuts are in the donation Agreement. She stated as far as she can tell, everything between Wickham Road and Pineda Causeway to date has pretty much been zoned; the last parcel was just zoned GU; and there was a request for a cut, but she does not know if that cut would work or not. She noted there were many discussions on the number of cuts, legitimacy of them, and everything else. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is time to nail it down. Commissioner Higgs stated it is nailed down. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is nailed down, then the Board needs to start deciding where they are going to be. Chairman Carlson suggested getting the report, and if Commissioner O'Brien still feels uncomfortable that it is not nailed down, he could submit an agenda item for it and the Board could discuss it then. Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien can put it on the agenda after he gets the report; it is tied down pretty much; so he may find that a lot of his questions are answered. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board needs to define it a lot better. Commissioner Higgs stated it is defined in the Agreement.

Item 2. (Z0109201) Cape Canaveral Hospital Foundation, Inc.'s request for change from GU to EU on 1.53± acres located on the east side of S. Courtenay Parkway, north of its intersection with S. Tropical Trail, which was recommended for approval as SEU by the P&Z Board.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 2 by the applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS
OF OCTOBER 1, 2001

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on October 1, 2001, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0110301) Henry K. and Grazyna Podsiedlik's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (01S.21) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial to Residential, ten dwelling units per acre; and change from GU, BU-1, and TR-1, to RVP on 5.58 acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Valkaria Road, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Grazyna Podsiedlik advised the RV Park is a family-owned business; it has been there for about 20 years; they purchased part of it a year ago and additional lots six months ago to have 5.6 acres; and they applied for rezoning because the five lots have three different types of zoning. She stated they want to have a small RV park with about 50 sites for travelers who come here with their RV's, motor homes, and trailers; their neighbor has an RV park with 200 to 300 sites; and they want to stay small and provide decent service for travelers, most of which average 65 years of age or older. She stated the property is in a commercial district; on the north is a marina, on the south is a canvas business, on the west are railroad tracks, and on the east is U.S. 1; so the property has easy access for people traveling north and south. She stated vacationers come with money and they would like for them to stay and spend money in Brevard County; they come during the winter and go to different places; and they want to attract those people to stay in Brevard County for a day, week, or season to generate tax revenue and business for local restaurants and shops. She noted she hopes the Board agrees.

Commissioner Higgs stated they have done a wonderful job upgrading the existing park; the Board visited the park with issues years ago; the RVP seems compatible with the area; but she has concerns about the small scale plan amendment, and will deal with that separately.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve RVP zoning for Item 1, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the small scale plan amendment asks for ten dwelling units per acre; the maximum density in the area is four units; and requested staff explain what transpired with the Comprehensive Plan change and what staff will be bringing to the Board.

Planner Robin Sobrino advised when the Future Land Use Element was updated, Policy 4.11, which dealt with locational criteria and density allowances for recreational vehicle parks, was deleted from the Comprehensive Plan; at that time staff thought the existing zoning regulations already contained all the criteria and allowances that the Future Land Use Element had and that it was duplicative; so it was deleted. She stated upon further study, they saw that the standards in Policy 4.11, which dealt with an allowance for ten units per acre in commercially designated property, did not get carried over to the zoning regulations; while the maximum cap is ten units to the acre, there are further restrictions that say it shall not exceed the density allowance of the residential area in that area; so on that basis, they would not be allowed to go to ten units an acre. Ms. Sobrino advised since the property is designated neighborhood commercial and community commercial, there is a provision in the current Future Land Use Element that encourages residential use in commercially designated areas and provides for a density bonus where they may go one density category higher than the nearest adjacent residential zoning; and based on that policy, the property, if zoned RVP, would be permitted a maximum of six units per acre. She stated when staff recognized that Policy 4.11 had gone away and was not properly addressed through the current zoning regulations, they initiated an ordinance, which they plan to bring to the Board for permission to advertise on November 20, 2001, and part of that ordinance seeks to take the provisions that were lost from Policy 4.11 and insert them in the zoning regulations. She stated if that ordinance is approved, it would allow approval of ten units per acre for this property and other RVP's that are located in commercially designated areas.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if that would be an administrative procedure; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, if the zoning is in place and the regulations are amended to allow up to ten units per acre in commercially designated areas, applicants can submit a site plan and would be permitted, through staff review, to go up to ten units an acre. Commissioner Higgs stated if the request for a small scale plan amendment is tabled until February 7, 2002, the process of the ordinance change could occur, and the Board would not have to make the change to the Future Land Use Map. She stated her concern is it will put a very different density on the map than is in the area. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is Commissioner Higgs trying to accomplish; with Commissioner Higgs responding the request is for ten units per acre, which is very different from the density on surrounding property, so she is reluctant to do a Comprehensive Plan change giving a density of ten units per acre because four units is the maximum in that area. She stated if the Comprehensive Plan change is tabled, and the ordinance amending the zoning regulations is passed, they would qualify for what they are asking for, but the ten units per acre would not be on the Future Land Use Map for that area. Commissioner O'Brien stated an RVP at ten units per acre is not ten houses, but more like ten Winnebagos; with Commissioner Higgs responding it will show ten units per acre density on the map.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table the request for a small scale plan amendment (01S.21) for Item 1 until February 7, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0110302) Kenneth L. and Diane E. Chapin's request for change from GU to AU on 4.81± acres located northwest of Thompson Road and southwest of Fleming Grant Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. (Z0110303) Thomas W. and Patricia B. Panton's request for change from BU-1-A to RR-1 on 0.18 acre located on the west side of Highway A1A, north of Flamingo Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, excluding horses and livestock.

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

Item 4. (Z0110304) M. B. Four Limited Partnership's request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-8 with removal of the existing CUP for commercial entertainment enterprises on 3.71± acres located on the west side of SR A1A, south of Oak Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Clayton Bennett with Fleis & Bennett Engineering, requested rezoning of a 3.7-acre site from BU-1 to RU-2-8 with a maximum of 29 units. He stated County staff determined that the proposed zoning would reduce the traffic from 1,553 vehicles per day to 187 vehicles per day; and that is an 88% reduction. He stated with the school issue, the developer has agreed to enter into a binding development agreement to restrict the development to 55 or older in accordance with the Fair Housing Act and Housing of Older Persons Act of 1995; and presented copies of the draft agreement to the Board, but not to the Clerk. He stated in the binding development agreement, the developer would deed restrict the property such that it would be an adult only community, 55 or older, with minimum permanent residents age of 21; therefore the development would have no effect on the K-12 education system.

Commissioner Higgs advised she has concerns regarding removal of a large parcel of BU-1 property; the property backs up to GML, which is the sewer plant; to the north is a car wash; to the south is a 7-Eleven Store, and there are condominiums to the east; it is surrounded on three sides by intense development of commercial and almost industrial use with the sewer plant; and compatibility of a residential use in the area concerns her. She stated the applicant referenced reduction in cars from the site in the staff's report; while there may have been some relevance, the plan adopted in 1992 set aside certain areas for commercial; and this property is one of the few BU-1 uses that was set aside. She stated it is a fairly decent size tract at 3.7 acres; preservation of commercial use actually results in reduction of traffic on A1A, particularly further north; so there is reason to leave the property as BU-1, both because of the small area plan that documented future needs for commercial and because surrounding properties that have intense commercial use. She stated the Board would be setting up incompatibilities if the rezoning is approved because of the existing uses; so her recommendation is not to approve the change.

Mr. Bennett presented and explained an exhibit of the subject property, depicted the 7-Eleven Store to the south, and the sewer plant; and stated there are two parcels zoned commercial to the south that are vacant; Driftwood Shopping Center is approximately two miles south of the property and has a number of vacant stores on the north side of Publix; and there is a commercial outparcel for sale. He stated they have found that there is no market to justify the use of the property as commercial; the property had been proposed for commercial use in the past; but the cost cannot be justified compared to the rent that would be generated from the commercial property. He stated there is vacant property that is available and is not being used north of the property into Melbourne Beach; most of the area is built out; they are not generating a significant number of new units; and right now they cannot justify having commercial use, as there is no other large-scale development that would justify that. He stated with the amount of vacant commercial property that is there now, the portion he showed, and Melbourne Beach being two miles from the property, they do not see a real need for the commercial property.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Bennett's firm is involved with Indian Landing; with Mr. Bennett responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many units are going in there; with Mr. Bennett responding 154. Commissioner Higgs inquired if South Shores is to the south of there; with Mr. Bennett responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many units are in there; with Mr. Bennett responding he does not know as he was not involved with that project. Commissioner Higgs stated that has not been built out yet; with Mr. Bennett responding he believes they got the last building permits and are in the final stages. Commissioner Higgs stated that does not include occupancy; with Mr. Bennett responding it is very close. Commissioner Higgs inquired about Aquarina and how many units are still to be built in that development; with Mr. Bennett responding he does not have that number off hand, but the projects being quoted are significantly further south of the Driftwood Plaza. Commissioner Higgs stated the traffic count at the location indicates most of the people who may live there would go north; and inquired what is the traffic count at the property's location. She stated the volume is 14,000 now, so they are coming from somewhere; and that is likely to increase with the additional units at Aquarina. She inquired if staff knows how many units are still left to be built in Aquarina; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding he does not recall but believes it is in the hundreds. Commissioner Higgs stated her point is that there are significant number of units yet to be built. Mr. Bennett stated most of those would continue going north all the way through Melbourne Beach and not into the Town of Indialantic; and in the Town of Indialantic, there are a significant number of vacant commercial properties, which this rezoning would not affect negatively.

Chairman Carlson inquired when was the Small Area Plan for the South Beaches done; with Commissioner Higgs responding it started in 1991 and was completed in 1992. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a process involved in those plans where they reassess the different densities and uses in the area at a future point; with Commissioner Higgs responding in the mid-1990's, the Board decided it would not do as many small area plans; and since the South Beaches Plan, they have done Valkaria and are looking at Viera; but those are the only two since then. She stated there were others done for Merritt Island and one in District 1, but none of them have been revisited. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the small area plan was looked at for build out and was projected based on the amount of traffic the road could hold. Chairman Carlson inquired if the density of 29 units equates to the density the area plan is suggesting; with Mr. Enos responding the request is for eight units per acre; and that is the maximum available by policy in that area.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 4 based on the character of the existing area, the need for commercial uses, and creation of incompatibilities with the north, west, and south properties.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board gets into discussions like this, it would be nice to have some data based on the number of units, need for commercial, etc.; but nobody has taken the time to put that data together. Commissioner Higgs stated they have that data. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have it before him this evening, therefore, he cannot intelligently get into the item as much as he would like to. He stated there are some things to say about it being commercial because it backs up to the sewer facility. Commissioner Higgs stated there was an extensive analysis done on the need for commercial use, the number of roofs, and other things that were part of the study; and this property was left in place as BU-1 and deemed to be a valuable parcel.

Chairman Carlson stated, for future reference, the Board could ask staff to provide more data when these kinds of things come to the Board with area plans that have been in existence for a while; and requested that be added to the net item that comes back in that regard so the Board can make a better judgment call.

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

Item 5. (Z0110401) State of Florida Department of Transportation's request for a CUP for towers and antennas in an AU zoning classification on .07± acre located at the northwest portion of the intersection of I-95 and Wickham Road in the FDOT right-of-way, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Patrick Healy, representing Lodestar Towers, requested the item be tabled to November 29, 2001, as he made arrangements for the engineer from Nextel to testify, and he was not available this evening, and because The Viera Company filed a legal brief in opposition, and he needs additional time to respond to the items in the memorandum in opposition that can be addressed by the engineer. He stated for example, the opponents cited the fact there is an antenna, which apparently did not appear in the database the County's consulting engineer used, that has not been considered in his analysis, and that leaves a hole in the analysis that they would like to fill before the Board makes a decision on it. He stated there is some possibility that his client can solve some of the objections that The Viera Company has to the application; and he needs additional time to explore that possibility. He advised they have not requested tabling previously; he informed staff it was intention to do so; and he informed the representatives of The Viera Company that it was his intention, to eliminate any inconvenience they and their constituents would have. He stated his client has spent a considerable amount of money on the application including over $6,000 for the County's consultant; and requested it be tabled so they can have a fair hearing.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the request for tabling is to the next zoning meeting; with Mr. Healy responding or to whatever day is convenient for the Board. Chairman Carlson stated based on the lack of the expert here, and four other people signed up to speak, can the Board hear the speakers, then table it at the end of the testimony; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding the Board has done it both ways, and it can table the request or hear testimony, then table the request. Chairman Carlson inquired if the four speakers wished to speak this evening or wait until the item comes back.

Thomas Boyle, Vice President of Wickham Lakes Homeowners Association, presented a petition to the Board in opposition to the tower. Chairman Carlson stated the tower is on the other side of the interchange from Wickham Lakes. Mr. Boyle stated yes, but they can see the hotel and big lights across the street; and if they put the tower up, they will be able to see that also. He stated they moved to Wickham Lakes to get away from those things, and are opposed to the tower. Chairman Carlson advised the petition will be part of the record.

Kim Rezanka requested the Board ask Mr. Dickman to look at the other towers within the radius, as he did not do that because he was not provided that information. She requested the Board direct him to look at approximately 16 towers in a four-mile radius to establish if there is an existing tower that could be used as co-location under Section 62-1953(f)(6).

Commissioner Scarborough stated the proposed tower is in proximity of I-95 six-laning; he called Mike Snyder, District Director for FDOT, and Mr. Snyder had a person call him, who may have been disoriented because he kept talking about Wickham Road even after he was told it was near the off ramp of I-95. He recommended FDOT be requested to undertake a traffic analysis; it is their request; and if they want to put in a tower, they need to know the traffic hazard issues. He stated he would like to see it come back with a detailed traffic analysis from FDOT and have that person present as part of the motion to table. Commissioner Scarborough stated the request is not a horrible violation of FDOT's rules; and they have not even looked at it. Chairman Carlson stated it would also be nice to add to the request the program FDOT is undertaking to look at tower locations along I-95; and if they have a program to do that, she would like to know what it is.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 5 and not have further consideration until FDOT is prepared to present a full traffic analysis of the impact of safety hazards by having a tower in close proximity when I-95 is six-laned and the ramp is two-laned ramp as required by The Viera Company.

Ms. Bentley inquired if the item is tabled to November 29, 2001; with Commissioner Scarborough responding FDOT would not have the analysis by then, so it should be tabled for a year to give them plenty of time, and if not a year, then six months. Chairman Carlson stated she does not think the Board can do that. Commissioner Higgs suggested 60 days. Commissioner Scarborough stated they will not have it in 60 days, but the Board can table it for 60 days. He stated they should withdraw the request once they understand what a mistake they made.

Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion to include giving FDOT 60 days to see what it can tell the Board, but also request the County's consultant look at other options regarding co-locations, which were not analyzed.

Ms. Bentley advised the Board needs to specify a date certain. Mr. Enos suggested February 7, 2002; and Commissioner Scarborough agreed. Chairman Carlson requested the motion include the programming that FDOT is undertaking to place towers along I-95 because Brevard County is not the only place they are putting those up. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not germane to the issue. Chairman Carlson stated if they have a program in place to establish those sites throughout I-95, it would be nice to have that information if they are looking at other sites in the County. Commissioner Scarborough suggested it be a separate motion because he would like to get that information regardless of whether or not they withdraw the application.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs added looking into the necessity and co-location; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion to table Item 5 until February 7, 2002, and request FDOT undertake a traffic analysis and have a representative at the meeting to present the full traffic analysis on the impact of safety hazards of having a tower in close proximity when I-95 is six-laned and the off-ramp is two-laned as required by The Viera Company. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to request FDOT disclose all sites that may be considered for towers along its rights-of-way in Brevard County.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it appears that FDOT is trying to commercialize the site instead of using it for its needs; and emergency communications for FDOT is one thing, but to use it for rental income is quite different. Chairman Carlson stated their initial interest was to find tower locations then go out and look for business; that is her understanding; but the Board will get the information and find out specifically what the intent is.

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

Item 6. (Z0110402) The Viera Company's request for CUP to allow bulbs in excess of 400 watts, more than three luminaries per pole, and lighting source in excess of 50 footcandles in a PUD on 14± acres located on the north side of Clubhouse Drive, east of Murrell Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson advised the Board has done this before; it has looked at it for Parks and Recreation's needs and uses, the Suntree tennis courts that recently went up, and Holy Trinity; so she does not see any difference in terms of what is being allowed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board discussed not talking about watts, but about lumens because they could have low wattage that is very bright; and inquired if staff is in the process of doing that; with Ms. Busacca responding the consultant is working on it.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated what is in the Ordinance presently that would allow the Board to do something if the light goes beyond the property line; with Mr. Enos responding there is a provision in the CUP that places a limit on the amount of light overspilling the boundaries; and this request is only onsite lighting that is being waived. Commissioner O'Brien stated Code Enforcement is not proactive and will not go out there and see if the light is spilling off the property and write them a citation; and inquired what would the County do about it; with Mr. Enos responding if Code Enforcement is not proactive, they would do nothing. Ms. Busacca stated the neighborhood has been very active in the area of complaints about lighting; and the standards say the light will not go off the property. Mr. Enos stated they need to design the lighting in such a manner, and show staff their photoelectric plan that will prove the lighting will not exceed the standards at the property line.

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

Item 7. Withdrawn.

Item 8. (Z0110404) Aleta K. Sinclair, Trustee's request for CUP for security mobile home renewal in AU zoning classification on 13.43 acres located south of SR 520 and west of Lake Poinsett Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for three years with two one-year administrative renewals.

Chairman Carlson requested staff described the issue about time limits; with Mr. Enos responding the Code permits new security trailer renewals for a period of up to three years with two one-year renewals; and the Board can approve any amount up to five years. He stated this security mobile home has been on the property for about 20 years or so; however, the Sinclairs are recent purchasers of the property and have owned it for less than a year, so they would like to extend the CUP. He stated the property is large enough that they could place a permanent mobile home on it; the problem is they would have to locate it at least 200 feet from all property lines; the mobile home is very close to the southwest corner of the property; so if this application is denied and they were to take advantage of the permanent residence, they would have to move the mobile home.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Sinclairs intend to move the mobile home; with Aleta Sinclair responding they have changed their plans and would like to leave it as a security trailer and build a permanent structure; and it would take some time to get the right location and build a house on the property. Chairman Carlson inquired if Ms. Sinclair wants to keep the trailer; with Ms. Sinclair responding not after the time limit.

Commissioner Higgs stated the trailer has been on the property for a long time; the Code says the purpose of the CUP is to alleviate an urgent temporary need or allow time for permanent facilities to be constructed; those go with the land and not the individual; and if the Board is going to approve it, it should be for a shorter period of time to alleviate the urgent need, then it has to go because that is not what the CUP is about. She stated it is a 13-acre parcel; and if they want the mobile home, they should put it on the property in conformance with the Code.

Chairman Carlson inquired what term the Board would want; with Commissioner Higgs responding one or two years. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Sinclair will be ready to move it in two years; with Ms. Sinclair responding she thought it was three years and two additional years after that. Chairman Carlson stated it has been there a very long time. Ms. Sinclair stated it is irrelevant to them because they just purchased the property within a year and are trying to establish what they want to do with it. Commissioner Higgs stated the CUP goes with the property and not with Ms. Sinclair as the owner. Ms. Sinclair stated she did not understand that in the Code, but that is fine; they want time to build a home and find the correct position to put it on the property. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Ms. Sinclair is living in the mobile home; with Ms. Sinclair responding no, they want to have a security person living there to oversee the horses and equipment on the property, but there is no one living there now. Chairman Carlson stated two years is sufficient.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 8 for two years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Withdrawn.

Item 10. Withdrawn.

Item 11. (Z0110102) James L. Blalock's request for change from GU to AU on 1.01 acres located on the northwest corner of Knoxville Avenue and Geona Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. (Z0110103) Norman G. and Carrie L. Earley, Trustees' request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (01S.20) to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 2 to Community Commercial, and change classification from AU to BU-1, retaining the existing CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption on 1.1 acres located on the south side of SR 520, east of St. Johns River, which was tabled by the LPA and P&Z Board to November 5, 2001.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item 12 as recommended by the LPA and P&Z Board, to November 5, 2001 P&Z meeting and November 29, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Withdrawn.

Item 14. (Z0110202) Grace Johnson Meadows' request for change from GU to RR-1 on 4.6 acres located on the west side of Friday Road, south of Ranchwood Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board limited to two lots.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is no school overcrowding issue.

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

Item 15. (Z0110203) Estate of Robert L. Clager's request for change from GU to RR-1 on 3.48± acres located on the south side of Rayburn Road, west of Cox Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien advised there is no school overcrowding issue.

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

Item 16. (Z0110204) Doris S. Dewees, et al, as Trustees' request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (01S.19) to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 15 to Community Commercial, and change of classification from RU-1-9 to BU-2 on 3.45 acres located on the north side of Cone Road, east of S. Plumosa Street, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board, with a binding development plan stipulating to providing a 15-foot landscape buffer on the south property line, and a 70-foot landscaped buffer on the east property line, and to meet all landscape requirements of the Code.

Attorney Robert Beals advised he represents the applicants.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 16 as recommended by the LPA and P&Z Board; and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan"; setting forth the nineteenth small scale plan amendment of 2001, 01S.19, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled contents of the plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI(E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. (Z0108401) SBA Properties, Inc.'s request for change from RR-1 to AU and CUP for towers and antennas to rebuild a 500-foot guyed tower and removal of existing CUP for towers and antennas (616-foot tower) on 2.5 acres located on the east side of Harlock Road, south of Carolwood Drive.

The Item was withdrawn by the applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 62-1334.5, ARR ZONING
CLASSIFICATION

Chairman Carlson called for the final public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 62-1334.5, ARR zoning classification.

Jerry Wall of West Canaveral Groves, advised the ordinance addresses a proposed amendment to the ARR zoning classification; the meeting started with the Pledge to the flag; the flag represents many ideals upon which our country was founded; and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He stated many ordinance changes under consideration infringe upon those pursuits; he has his property, zoning, and certificate of occupancy; his property lies in the 100 and 500-year floodplains; and his concern about ARR is a matter of community and neighbors who may not have achieved their goals. He stated while he is for growth control, the proposed change will severely restrict potential growth in the paper-platted West Canaveral Groves area; and it will also impact other areas in the County. He requested the Board consider fairness and the American dream, which in their case, is a rural, rustic, and viable community. He suggested the Board listen to public comments, and table the item until after the floodplain management workshop or workshops are completed, results made public, and hearings held if necessary.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board had a workshop yesterday and addressed the 25-year floodplain and danger of putting mobile homes in that floodplain; while ARR combines two elements of agriculture and mobile homes, the Board would like to say no mobile homes at all in the 25-year floodplain regardless of the zoning; that has yet to go into a draft ordinance; and even if the Board took no action here, the conversation will move it in the direction where ARR will exist but will not allow mobile homes in the 25-year floodplain because there are other ways to do it. He noted all it does is prevent people in the 25-year floodplain from having mobile homes because it is not if it is going to flood, but when it is going to flood; the impact to a mobile home is more than a stick built structure; and therein lies the logic.

Mr. Wall inquired if mobile home includes doublewides; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, it is how it is constructed, and manufactured home is a way to describe it. Mr. Enos stated mobile home, manufactured home, whether single or doublewide, if they are built to the Department of Housing and Urban Development standards for manufactured homes, that is how the Code defines mobile homes. Mr. Wall inquired if manufactured or doublewides would not, be allowed in the 25-year floodplain; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they would not because when that type of structure is inundated with water, the damage is substantially greater than with a stick built house; and that is what the Board heard at its workshop yesterday. Mr. Wall stated he has been in Florida since 1946 and was in the 1947 flood in Broward County where virtually the entire county was under water; and if a manufactured home or doublewide is properly sited, his preference would be to be in that type of dwelling rather than a site-built house based on what he experienced as a youngster. Mr. Wall stated the 25-year flood is eventually going to happen, but nobody knows when; and when that happens it will affect a large part of the County, and not just the 25-year floodplain.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County,

Florida; amending the ARR zoning classification by amending Section 62-1334.5; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code of Ordinances.

Commissioner O'Brien advised page 2, paragraph 1.b. eliminates landscaping business as a permitted use with conditions; and inquired where can they go. Mr. Enos advised that was based on Board direction when the ordinance was first presented; and landscaping businesses will still be permitted in AU zonings on five acres or more. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are not allowed in ARR on two acres or more; with Mr. Enos responding no, it would not be permitted at all.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not the landscaping business but the utilization of a manufactured structure because AU and manufactured structures were combined in ARR; and landscaping was a permitted use incidental to that. He stated the whole thing is going to be rendered moot if what the Board talked about yesterday is put into an ordinance, because nobody will be putting a manufactured house in there anyhow; and ARR is going to exist, but only in dryer areas as the Board gets into the floodplains issue.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is confused about why the Board eliminated landscaping business and still allowed temporary living quarters during construction of a residence; with Commissioner Higgs responding that can be done in almost any zoning classification, but a landscaping business cannot be operated in residential zones. Mr. Enos responded it was the Board's direction to eliminate the heavy agricultural uses from the ARR classification. Commissioner Higgs stated it does not mean they cannot have a trailer, truck, or cargo trailer. Mr. Enos advised it is a lawn maintenance business which is not a landscaping business where they have a lot of heavy equipment for earth moving and land clearing; lawn maintenance is still a permitted home occupation in any classification; and it is in the home occupation section of the Code and not in any zoning classification.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is not prohibiting landscaping businesses in flood-prone areas; nothing was discussed yesterday about doing that; that may be a use that could exist there; and it is the type of structure that is driving this discussion. He stated the Board was about to wipe out the entire ARR classification, but the issue came up about allowing a mobile home in AU zoning; and businesses are incidental uses connected to it. He noted if the Board follows through with the floodplain, it will sort of wipe out this Ordinance. Commissioner Higgs stated there is still ARR zoning in other places of the County. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Ordinance says no ARR in the 25-year floodplain, but it does not say no mobile homes in the 25-year floodplain. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board discussed eliminating it totally from the floodplain.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 62-1102, 62-1344,
62-1481, AND 62-1837.1, LEARNING CENTERS

Chairman Carlson called for the final hearing on an ordinance amending Sections 62-1102, 62-1344, 62-1481, and 62-1837.1, relating to learning centers.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-1102 relating to the addition of learning center to the list of definitions; amending Section 62-1344 relating to the addition of learning centers to the list of permitted uses with conditions; amending Section 62-1481 relating to the addition of learning centers to the list of permitted uses; and creating Section 62-1837.1 relating to the enumeration of the conditions of an RP learning center; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING SIXTH SMALL SCALE PLAN
AMENDMENT OF 2001 (01S.6)

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the sixth small scale plan amendment of 2001 (01S.6).

Planner Todd Corwin advised the applicant is currently meeting with staff; he came in on Friday to set up a pre-application meeting; and staff recommended tabling the ordinance until November 29, 2001, to give the applicant time to complete the pre-application appointment.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing on an ordinance adopting the sixth small scale plan amendment of 2001 (01S.6) until November 29, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.

ATTEST: ________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)