MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

October 4, 2007

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 4, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Mary Bolin, Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten, and Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson.

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Bryan Simpson, Wesley United Methodist Church, West Melbourne, Florida.

 

Chairperson Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson read aloud a resolution commending The Boys of Den 4 of Pack 343.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution recognizing The Boys of Den 4 of Pack 343 for their commitment to Cub Scouting, dedication to being a good citizen and interest in the County government process.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

The Boys of Den 4 of Pack 343 recited the Cub Scout Promise for the Board.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board is very proud of the boys.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson noted the staff recognition will take place at the Board meeting on October 9, 2007. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated relating to the Dredging Project, the Board may recall there was an Agenda Item before it approximately three or four weeks ago; and it was determined the Board could not use the commitment of an ad valorem source to pay off the commercial paper to do the project.  He advised the project is underway for the dredging of some canals serving approximately 200 homes on North Merritt Island; once started, workers have run into the fact that the Hurricanes throughout 2004 and 2005 had silted in the channels further, so there is more material to be removed; and as the Board is aware, the District 2 MSTU actually pays for the  debt  retirement.   He  stated  when  District  2  was  aware  of the  problem, it needed more

money, but did not have the ability to borrow it; and fortunately, Mr. Whitten and Mr. Denninghoff began working on some alternatives to come up with the money to finish the project.  He noted Mr. Whitten and Mr. Denninghoff contacted Finance Director Steve Burdett and came up with a concept to borrow from the Board’s reserves and utilize the MSTU dollars to repay it; and no one else would be paying for it other than the folks that would have been paying for it under the other scenario. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve a temporary loan of $250,000 from the General Fund Reserves for the Road and Bridge District 2 Channel Dredging, utilizing District 2’s MSTU Dredge Funds for debt service; authorize the Chairperson to execute the appropriate change order; and authorize staff to make the necessary budget changes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to thank Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten, Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff, Finance Director Steve Burdett, and Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar, for working hard to come up with a solution.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised several meetings ago the Board talked about the San Sebastian Plat for the Fred George property in District 3; and it was suggested that Planning and Zoning Director, Robin Sobrino and Zoning Manager, Rick Enos, look at all of the previously unplatted subdivisions and see what they could come up with.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Zoning Director, stated Mr. George came before the Board about his property in an old subdivision; he needed to utilize a non-conforming lot of record section of the Zoning Regulations; and that made it difficult for Mr. George and property owners in the older subdivision to develop the last remaining lots in the subdivision.  She advised the Board directed staff to look at the non-conforming section of the Zoning Code and perhaps make some changes to make it not so cumbersome for developers to build upon their lots.  She stated staff started to take a look at land Countywide because a change to the Zoning Regulations would have implications on a Countywide basis; and staff has discovered it is an enormous task and would probably take at least a year to determine exactly what type of consequences might result out of a change in the Ordinance.  She noted since Mr. George has a house under construction, staff felt it needed more of an expedient way of doing something to help address his problem and the immediate needs of the subdivision.  She stated the Board may want to direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the San Sebastian area of the South Mainland area; it is a very unique area, although it is designated two-units per-acre on the County’s Comprehensive Plan; the historic land use and zoning development patterns in the area are more of four or six units per-acre; and that is the challenge Mr. George has been facing.  She advised if the Board thinks it is appropriate for staff to pursue a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it would look in the area  around the San  Sebastian Subdivision and come back to the Board with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that might more closely align the Future Land Use Map with the existing zoning development patterns in the area. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the build-out in the San Sebastian area; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding it is approximately over 50 percent; but there are still a substantial number of lots left.  Commissioner Voltz stated many of the lots in San Sebastian have been subdivided.  Ms. Sobrino advised there was an old plat that was over the area; the way the ownerships have now been developed has been to more or less disregard the plat because there were streets running through it at very odd angles; and future owners of the area wanted to come up with a more conventional block pattern of linear north, south, east, and west types of streets.  She stated as a result, it is very hard for them to get hold of an entire lot that was previously platted and incorporated into a new building site to be consistent with the new pattern that is occurring in the area.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is no increase in density; with Ms. Sobrino responding staff would look to come up with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that should not change what the development patterns have been in the area; and it looks like historically it had been four to six units per-acre.  She stated right now the Comprehensive Plan limits the area to two units per-acre; it is out of whack with what has happened in the area; and staff would like to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the limited area in order to align it more with what has happened historically.  She noted staff feels it will blend more with the area and might further the concept of infill.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be Administrative; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, it would be County initiated. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the San Sebastian area of the South Mainland area, to more closely align the Future Land Use Map with the existing zoning and development patterns in the San Sebastian Subdivision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the Office of Human Resources/Employee Benefits and Insurance Director Gerard Visco to execute a Contract for services with Cornerstone Administrative Services for the administration of the County’s Medical and Dependent Care Flexible Spending account programs.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if there is a safety net in the case of default by the Fire Department; with Commissioner Voltz responding the Micco Volunteer Fire Department has funds coming in through the residents; an annual collection is taken; and the Fire Department makes a lot of money at its Pancake Breakfast every month.  She advised the Fire Department has over half  of the money it will be  putting down on the new truck; the new truck is going to be the biggest truck in Brevard County; and the Fire Department is confident it can continue to raise funds.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution allowing the County Manager to sign as an Executive Officer on behalf of the Micco Volunteer Fire Department so that they may purchase a new fire truck; and action in no way will make the County liable for any money owed in the Micco VFD’s lease arrangement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised Items VI.A.2. and VI.B.5., are tabled to the November 1, 2007 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider items to be tabled, as follows:

 

Item VI.A.2.  (Z0708403) Ronald D. & Norma D. Levy & Casabella’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment (07S.15) to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, and a change from BU-1-A and RU-1-11 to BU-1 on 6.35 acres, located west of Wickham Road, north of Casabella Place, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to table Item VI.A.2. to the November 1, 2007 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.5.  (Z0709104) Janendra Gautam and Harbans Sing Ranshi’s request for a change from BU-1 to TU-2 on 2.88 acres, located on the southwest corner of S.R. 520 and Lake Poinsett Road, which was automatically tabled by the applicant, to the November 1, 2007 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to table Item VI.B.5. to the November 1, 2007 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board of September 10, 2007 and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board of September 20, 2007.  

Item VI.B.6. (Z0709201)  Triple-L Enterprises, Inc.’s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zoning classification, on 1.96 acres, located on the east side of Courtenay Parkway, south of Mustang Way, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item VI.B.6. as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item VI.B.9. (Z0709204)  George H. & Nihla H. Trosset, Co-Trustees’ request for a  CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zoning classification, on 0.13 acre, located on the northwest corner of Hwy. A1A and Sunny Lane, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

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

 

 

Item VI.B.11 (NMI70901) Michael and Sandra Chester’s request for a change from AU to RR-1 on 1.0 acre, located on the east side of Carew Place, south of North Courtenay Parkway, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item VI.B.11. as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.A.1. (Z0707101) Parrish Holder Land Corp.’s request for a change from GU to RU-1-9 on 40 acres, located north of Parrish Road, east of Holder Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board as RU-1-13, with a Binding Development Plan.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated a revised Binding Development Plan has been presented; and he believes he may be able to eliminate some discussion if an agreement has been made.  He inquired if Mr. Steve Lay has had a chance to review the revised Binding Development Plan; with Mr. Lay responding he has an email, but not a Binding Development Plan.

 

Chad Genoni, applicant, stated the latest Binding Development Plan was sent to the Planning and Zoning Office this afternoon with the changes Mr. Lay requested.  Mr. Lay advised this is the first chance he has had to look at the Binding Development Plan; and Mr. Miller and Ms. Day have comments for the Board.  Commissioner Scarborough suggested the applicant and the speakers have a discussion about the Binding Development Plan in the hallway; and then they can all come back and address the Board.

Item VI.B.1. (Z0709501) Daniel J. Wilder’s request for an amendment to an existing Binding Development Plan (Z-11271) in a BU-2 zoning classification on 0.73 acre, located on the southeast corner of W. New Haven Avenue and City Acres Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he has concerns about the durability of a PVC wall and the use of a PVC wall for purposes of separation; the County requires masonry, steel or stucco, which are walls that are going to last for some period of time; and he knows after the hurricanes there were some PVC fences all over the place.  He stated his concern is the fence does not serve the purpose, as the use on the property is going to exist for a long time; and he is not sure the fencing is going to last a long time.  He advised he has a concern of the utilization of PVC as an alternative to required walls in the Code.

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the request is an amendment to the existing Binding Development Plan, which states the development of the property should meet all codes; the Code requires concrete masonry walls, pre-cast solid walls, foam concrete steel supports with stucco finishes; and there is also a provision in the Code which allows for consideration of alternatives to those, but that is through the Land Development Office, which would bring such a request to the Board.  He advised because this issue was part of a Binding Development Plan, staff had to bring it back to the Board as a zoning hearing. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how the neighbors feel about the fence; with Mr. Wilder responding the neighbors are not opposed to the PVC fence other than they were concerned about the drainage and setbacks being the same, as the wall is along an orange grove.   Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Enos had the same understanding with regards to the neighbors; with Mr. Enos responding no one was at the Planning and Zoning meeting in objection to the request; and staff would presume there was no objection to the request.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated his concern is once the Board sets this precedent, anyone in the future who has a similar circumstance can come before the Board and ask for the same consideration; and he does not know if the applicant has proven himself to do the same job as what is currently required in the Code.  He advised he will be voting in opposition to the approval.  Commissioner Voltz stated the applicant always has an opportunity to come back to the Board; and she does not believe it is setting a precedent.  Chairperson Colon stated she does not have a problem with the request; but if the residents were opposed, she would be opposed also. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item VI.B.1., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Nelson voted nay.

 

 

Commissioner Nelson commented on the upcoming item of Gregory & Angela M. O’Leary’s recycling business, which was made to put up a concrete wall; and he thinks the issue will be difficult for the Board in the future. 

Item VI.B.2. (0709101) J. Patrick Schirard, Trustee’s request for a change from GU to SR on 39.09 acres, located south of Panther Lane, south of Tiger Lane, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

J. Patrick Schirard stated he has met with the Mims Community Group; he has thoroughly read the Small Area Study; he understands the intent and desire of the Small Area Study; and to honor what the Mims Community Group is suggesting, which is one-unit per-acre, he has provided an engineered proposed lot layout that would accommodate up to 48 lots, which is just slightly over the one-unit per-acre.  He stated to do what the Mims Community Group is suggesting would cut his project in half; and he would then be looking at a density of less than one-unit per two-acres; and he does not think that is consistent with the neighborhood, as there are many small houses adjacent to the property on one-acre lots.  He advised it is economically unfeasible for him to have a future residential land use; he has owned the property for 17 years; he has operated the property as a citrus grove; and he continues to maintain it, but it is costing him significantly every year.  He stated in 1991 he paid a premium for the property because of the future land use designation in hopes that someday it would be something different than what it is.  He stated he has listened to the Mims Community Group and he has tried to be reasonable; his neighbors to the east and south are in favor of his request; and he would ask that the Board approve his request. 

 

Fred Kusterer stated there are a number of people present from the neighborhood who all live on one-acre lots; the Small Area Study indicates one-acre lots; and the neighborhood would like Mr. Schirard to conform to what is already in the neighborhood.  He advised the Mims Community Group would ask that the request be denied.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if RR-1 would be acceptable; with Mr. Kusterer responding yes, RR-1 would be acceptable.

 

Bill Powell stated he is against the requested SR zoning classification; and he has reservations about RR-1 zoning.  He noted the area is rural, which is one acre lots and above; and he indicated on a map where the subject property is located.  He indicated a parcel on the map which was rezoned last year by Okahumpka Groves; and it was rezoned to RR-1 and it abuts his neighborhood.  He stated Lion Lane is a rural road; a lot of people use the road for exercise; and any night of the week people can be seen walking along the road.  He advised the road is substandard; Road and Bridge has had to come out in the last couple of weeks and rebuild part of the road on the north end because the road is falling into the ditch; and the road is not well- suited for many more homes.  He stated another issue is septic tanks and well water; he knows people who live south of the subject property who have to buy their drinking water; and if the proposed homes have to be on well water there would be salt water intrusion.  He advised when Okahumpka was being considered, it was going to have to be accommodated by a larger water main; and he indicated on a map where the water main ends.  He noted the Okahumpka people were told they would have to put in new water mains all the way to Turpentine Road and Lion Lane; and he believes it would be difficult to get water to the proposed subdivision.  He stated during  the  Planning  and  Zoning  meeting the  applicant  stated his property is serviced by two paved County roads, Turpentine Road and Tomato Farm Road; Turpentine Road stops being paved at Tiger Lane; for 800 feet before Mr. Schirard’s property it is dirt; it then turns into Panther Lane, which is also dirt; and then it picks up Tomato Farm Road at the curb, which is paved.  He stated the main entrance for the groves is Tomato Farm Road because it is paved all the way down; and putting more trips into the area with SR zoning will put a burden on the area.  He advised there are water issues, traffic issues, and road issues; SR zoning is not compatible with the surrounding area; and no one has talked to the neighbors about the request.

 

Mr. Schirard stated he has checked with staff; not only is water available, it is one-half mile up the road; and he has gotten an estimate from staff on how much it would cost to run County water to the site.  He stated he is Okahumpka Groves, along with his grandfather, father, and uncle; and Okahumpka Groves was sold to Vero-Pittsburgh Partners, which is the applicant Mr. Powell was referring to.  He stated he has hauled 100,000 boxes of fruit out of the two roads in the last 10 years; one of the roads is paved to his gate; Turpentine Road is a well maintained dirt road; and he has frontage on Panther Lane for the entire northern boundary of the property.  He stated north of the former Okahumpka property is an extensive trailer park; he is sensitive to the Small Area Study; but all except one of his neighbors to the north are sitting on one acre lots; as expressed in the Planning and Zoning meeting, two of the Board members felt strongly about affordable housing in the area; and to sell a lot in that area for $100,000 is not in the cards.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to deny Item VI.B.2., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Item VI.A.1. (Z0707101) Parrish Holder Land Corp.’s request for a change from GU to RU-1-9 on 40 acres, located north of Parrish Road, east of Holder Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board as RU-1-13, with a Binding Development Plan.

 

Steve Lay advised the neighbors looked at the latest Binding Development Plan, with exception that the applicant still wants to add the site plan as an attachment to the Binding Development Plan. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is going to have the Binding Development Plan come back before the Board; he just wanted to make sure the Board and everyone else is aware of what is being voted on; and when the Binding Development Plan comes back to the Board it will come back to make sure it reads right, but not to discuss the issues.  He stated if the two sides agree on the Binding Development Plan the applicant will give it to Zoning Manager  Rick  Enos;  there  will be additional  time to  submit  to Mr. Enos  the BDP that will be placed on a regular Board meeting Agenda; but at that point, the Board cannot go back and add a new element.

 

Mr. Lay stated he is happy with the Binding Development Plan as long as the site plan remains as an attachment; he thanks Chad Genoni, as he has met the neighbors’ requests; and Mr. Genoni has a 115-foot conservation easement on the east, across from the EEL’s property, which allows for the wildlife.  He stated Mr. Genoni is committed to paving his part of the Parrish Road frontage; and he hopes the County will step in along with Mr. Genoni and help pave the rest of Parrish Road, as it is in dire need.

 

Christine Meister stated she would like to reiterate that Parrish Road is in very poor condition; it cannot hold up to construction vehicles; and it cannot support the nine trips per house, with 86 houses.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Genoni had committed to pave the road; with Mr. Genoni responding he is committed to repaving Parrish Road along the frontage of his proposed development, which is approximately 1,250 feet.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not the developer’s responsibility to go back and pave County roads.  Ms. Meister stated as a result of the development, Parrish Road is impacted.  She stated the number of houses being asked for is much higher than what the property is zoned for now; and it is being compared to two other neighborhoods close to the property; but those neighborhoods were built in the 60’s and 70’s.  She stated the County has come a long way since the 60’s and 70’s with what it knows about water recharge areas and what it knows about water resources; and she thinks the County needs to plan smart about water resources.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated part of the Binding Development Plan waives the 15-foot buffer adjacent to the County Park; and the previous approval of the subdivision to the west does have a buffer.  Mr. Genoni stated on the northern boundary where the park is, the buffer is not being waived.  Commissioner Nelson advised the Binding Development Plan he has indicates the north property boundary is granted a waiver.  Mr. Enos advised the current Binding Development Plan says both west and north; the applicant has stated he is going to remove the waiver on the north side; and that will be stricken from the Binding Development Plan. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.A.1. as RU-1-13 with Binding Development Plan limiting the overall density to 2.19 units per acre, and a  maximum of  86 lots;  the site plan to be attached to the Binding Development Plan; and incorporate all comments and documents submitted to the Planning and Zoning Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Item VI.B.3. Air Resources International, Inc.’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment (07S.16) to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and a change from AU to BU-2 on 4.13 acres, located north of Hwy. 520, west of Friday Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is not an exact description as to the delineation; and inquired if Zoning Manager Rick Enos recalls the discussion; with Mr. Enos responding the Planning and Zoning Board approved BU-2 as far back as the beginning of the wetland, which had not been clearly delineated.  He noted staff has gone back and looked at the original survey for the wetland; and the wetland appears to start approximately 520 feet from the right-of-way line according to the survey.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be preferable to hold the issue in advance until there is more information, or would it be better to describe it at 520 feet; with Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown responding the challenge the Board has with commercial or non-residential zoning is, is it a clear prohibition for impacts for anything other than residential in many cases.  He stated if additional wetlands are discovered, and unless there is an actual jurisdictional determination that is relevant or accepted by SJRWMD, or DEP, they may be vulnerable and have expectations of being able to use the property, excluding inclusions of jurisdictional wetlands. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is the second half of the motion; the first half of the motion is an approval of BU-2 on a portion of property from the south line of wetland delineation; and the Board is taking an action making a particular zoning classification on an unknown line.  He stated the unknown line is where is the wetland delineation; and until he knows that, the Board cannot come in and have a line on a zoning map.  He noted it is not the regulatory issue, but the zoning issue that bothers him.  Mr. Brown stated as long as the applicant has a clear understanding that they are subject to the land development regulations associated with wetland impacts for commercial activities, the line is not relevant.  Commissioner Scarborough advised the line is relevant to him with the zoning.  Mr. Brown stated the way the issue has been set forth, the applicant is suggesting a zoning line to a wetland line; and that is problematic because wetlands are transitional features.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Brown is saying the zoning can change from time to time; with Mr. Brown responding the wetlands can.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the zoning has all of a sudden gotten into a line that may move.  He stated he would suggest 520 feet because it is within the context of what zoning is as opposed to the ambiguity; and inquired if the applicant understands what the Board has been discussing.  Scott Langston, applicant, inquired if the Board is indicating 520 feet from S.R. 520, back towards the north; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively.  

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to clarify the Board is approving BU-2; but the only BU-2 use permitted is heavy equipment storage and sales; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively, as that is the way the Planning and Zoning Board approached the request.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.B.3. as BU-2 520 feet from right-of-way line abutting S.R. 520, with condition that if any wetlands are discovered in this area they are rezoned to EA; approved a Binding Development Plan limiting uses to all those listed as permitted in BU-1, and heavy equipment sales and storage in BU-2; 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 Sixteenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2007, 07.16, 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 VI.B.4. (Z0709103) Ricky E. and Dorothy L. Davis and Kevin E. Scauzillo’s request for a change from RR-1 to AU on 6.35 acres, located south of Sorrel Drive, east of Adamson Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Attorney Rick Torpy, representing the Davis’, stated this item was before the Board in 2005; at that time, the Davis’ had the same home they currently own on 3.28 acres; the request was approved as RR-1 to AU by the Planning and Zoning Board; but it was denied by the Board of County Commissioners.  He stated at the time, Commissioner Scarborough’s concerns were the compatibility of RR-1 and AU; since that time, the Davis’ have obtained a contract to purchase the lot from the Scauzillo’s; and it is important to understand how the property lays out.   He advised it is a single-street subdivision; everything from Mr. and Mrs. Davis’ house, to the dead end, is owned by the Scauzillo’s; and the Board rezoned it to AU a few years ago, because the Scauzillo’s currently board horses.  He stated at the Planning and Zoning meeting last month, two of the neighbors were concerned about the maintenance of the road; there was a question about it being a County maintained road; and for the record, he has a copy of Brevard County’s Road Inventory Field Data sheet, which stated 1,261 feet of Sorrel Road is maintained by the County.  He stated the significance of that is that it ends at the south boundaries to where the Scauzillo’s land starts; and the Davis’ are on the boundary of the property that is currently being used to board horses.  He stated his clients would like to be able to board horses for other people.  He advised the Adamson Country Estates Subdivision, by the deed restrictions, allows the boarding of horses; an issue raised at a previous meeting was the smell of horses; but pages  two  and  three  of  the  deed  restrictions  specifically  allows  the raising and boarding of horses along with barns and stables; and he knows some neighbors are upset about the smell of horses, but they have moved into a horse community.  He advised from a consistency and compatibility issue, to the north and to the west, it is all single-family RR-1 lots; most homeowners can have barns and stables; and the Davis’ would like to be able to have more horses.  He noted with the lot the Davis’ are now acquiring, they can have up to eight horses just by buying the second lot; the Davis’ are willing to limit their number of horses to 15; and they are currently next to an existing operation.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Torpy could indicate on a map where the adjoining operation is located; with Mr. Torpy indicating the property on the map to the Board.  Chairperson Colon inquired of the total acreage of the lots; with Mr. Torpy responding it is approximately a little over six acres with 15 horses.  Chairperson Colon inquired how much traffic is expected; with Mr. Torpy responding the road can handle the traffic; and there is nothing in the staff report that says the road cannot handle the traffic.  Chairperson Colon inquired how many horses the Davis’ currently have; with Mr. Torpy responding they have six horses right now.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Davis’ want to put nine more horses on the property; with Mr. Torpy responding the Davis’ would like to have up to 15; and 15 horses would be the maximum. 

 

Catherine Bonadio stated she is the previous owner of the property the Davis’ currently own; she moved directly across the street in order to downsize; and she is not in favor of the request.  She noted traffic is a big concern; the proposed use is directly across from where she lives; it is on a dead-end street with residential homes; and it is a dirt road with dust being stirred up.

 

Chairperson Colon inquired of the ratio of horses per acre; with Mr. Enos responding under the RR-1 zoning, one can have as many as four horses per acre; and those are to be one’s own horses.  He advised under the requested zoning, there is no limit to the number of horses allowed; the applicant has indicated he will volunteer a limit of 15 horses; and that would have to be done as a Binding Development Plan.

 

Anita Zeps stated she would like to request the Board deny the AU zoning request on the subject property; in November 2005, it was said this is not based on horses, but on zoning; and the applicant is trying to put a business into a residential area.  She stated the reason she objects to the request is the same as it was at the previous meeting; she opposes a commercial horse boarding business using a private dirt road in a residential area; and is also opposed to the intense odor the business would generate.  She stated she is aware the Davis’ have operated the business in the past on the property; and she has a handout that says they were operating a business without a license.  She advised Adamson Country Estates is a residential development; and the AU zoning will allow the applicant to operate a horse boarding business, which will be incompatible with the surrounding area.  She stated at the Planning and Zoning meeting it was mentioned that the surrounding properties are zoned RR-1, with the exception of Limestone Stables at the end of the road, where horses are boarded; and that was changed in 1999.  She stated the use must be reasonable and compatible with the surrounding areas; putting a business in a residential area is not compatible; the road is not a County maintained road;  the  plat  states  the  road  is  not  maintained  by the County; and she does not know why everyone says it is maintained by the County when it is not.  She stated Limestone Stables at the end of the road is the only one to grade the road; and the residents have paid in the past to have dirt brought in and have the road done, but no one maintains the road.  She noted a dirt road cannot handle people coming in and out when it is raining.  She stated Limestone Stables is at the end of the road and it is not visible to anyone’s residence; there is no odor from Limestone Stables; and she has no problem with them being there.  She stated she is opposed to having a business across the street from her; when the Davis’ boarded horses previously, there was an odor; and the odor would impact the resale value of her property.  She stated she would have not bought her house if she knew there was a business across the street; Sorrel Drive is a private, single-lane dirt road designed to handle the minimum traffic of the owners; a business will increase the traffic many times each day; the shoulders and ditches are maintained by the residents; and when the roads are wet, customers use the shoulders.  She advised approval of the request will turn the residential dirt road into a business access for parking, turn-around, trailer loading and unloading, and commercial trail; stated it has happened in the past; when the Davis’ ran a business before they were using the road to unload their horses; and she does not want that to happen again.  She noted a number of horses using the road will also stress the road; the Davis’ have no equipment to repair the road; and apparently has no intentions of doing so based on past experience.  She stated she hopes the Board denies the request.

 

Mr. Torpy stated the Brevard County Road Inventory Field Data Sheet for Sorrel Drive states, which he confirmed with the Road and Bridge Department, that 1,261 feet to the end of County maintained road is a cattle gate at the start of a drive path.  He stated there is a cattle gate at Mr. Scauzillo’s property, which is the south property line of the Davis’ home; and the property the Davis’ are acquiring is beyond the gate.  He stated in regard to the issue of odor, he would like to remind the Board that it is a horse community; his clients are asking to add seven more horses above what they could possibly have already; and on the lot to the south, which belongs to the Scauzillo’s, there are 25 horses.  He stated there are 12 lots counting the two coming in on Sorrel Drive, that lead up to what is now Limestone Stables.  He advised it is a fairly simple request; he understands the neighbor’s comments and concerns; but of the two concerns raised, the road is not private; and there is going to be odor from horses because horses already exist.  He noted the Davis’ love horses, it is their passion, and they would like to be able to board horses in a community that was designed for horses.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many horses per acre does RR-1 allow; with Mr. Enos responding four horses per acre, of personal use.  Commissioner Scarborough stated with six acres, the property could have 24 personal horses; and inquired if Mr. Enos has studied the issue with the road; with Mr. Enos responding staff has not.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is going to be a BDP limited to 15 horses, and could the wording in the BDP state anybody boarding a horse can only access on County maintained roads; with Mr. Enos responding yes, as long as the applicant agrees with that. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the business will be full boarding, or will it be individuals feeding and taking care of their horses; with Mr. Davis responding there will be partial and full boarding; and it  will be up  to the client.   He stated partial  means  he will feed the horses in the morning and the owners will come and ride the horses in the afternoons.  Chairperson Colon inquired if it will just be the people who own the horses, or will it be open for people to come and ride the horses; with Mr. Davis responding it will only be the people who own the horses.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the question of compatibility is broken into two parts; one is the number of horses; and it appears if the Board does not approve the rezoning the Davis’ could have an amount exceeding what is being requested.  He stated another issue of compatibility is access from people of the outside community coming into the community.  He stated there are two points; one is there is a boarding operation in close proximity; and another is the question of if the County has the responsibility of the roads, or could it deteriorate a road that is privately maintained; and with the other contingency in there, it seems the Board has addressed a portion of the problem. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.B.4 with a Binding Development Plan limited to 15 horses, and access to the property be from County maintained roads only.  Motion carried and ordered; Chairperson Colon voted nay.

 

 

Item VI.B.7. Gregory and Angela M. O’Leary’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment (07S.17) to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, and a change from GU to BU-2 on 0.34 acre, located south of Lake Drive, east of Griffin Road, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Attorney Kim Rezanka, representing the applicant, stated the O’Leary’s purchased the subject property in December 2006; the property is three contiguous lots totaling almost five acres; the O’Leary’s purchased the property from Ronald Dixon; and the property had been historically used for over 30 years for commercial use for Dixon Electric and Dixon Construction.  She advised because of a Code Enforcement action the O’Leary’s learned there was a small portion of the property that had never been zoned or changed; the Future Land Use Map indicates a small pink area that is Neighborhood Commercial and a large area in red next to it that is Community Commercial; and on the zoning map, the property is surrounded by BU-2, with BU-1 and RR-1 to the north.  She stated because of the Code Enforcement action, in which it was thought the O’Leary’s were operating in BU-1 and not GU, Campbell Surveying was hired to survey the property; it was discovered it was a 60-foot strip; 247 feet north and south; and it had never been zoned properly due to transfers of property.  She advised the O’Leary’s feel the change request is warranted because there was an obvious error in the past years.  She noted the property has been consistently used for commercial use; the request is consistent with the adjacent land uses and zoning; the property to the west is under design for mini-storage; and there are commercial warehouses to the south and west.  She advised the business currently in operation on the property has been in operation for some time; the O’Leary’s purchased the property at the time there was a moratorium on Code Enforcement in the BU-2 zoning classification   for   outdoor  uses; and  the  O’Leary’s  purchased  it  with the  understanding the Commission was seeking a conditional use process so some uses in BU-2 could be done outside.  She stated the O’Leary’s have installed a 10-foot masonry wall along the north side of the property and a portion along the west side of the property; the business will remain on the property even without the zoning change; but at this time, the GU zoning is inconsistent with everything around it.  She stated Code Enforcement action has been resolved pending the application for a building permit by October 15, 2007; the O’Leary’s have a pre-application next week; and at the same time, the O’Leary’s will be applying for the building permit.  She advised there is no concurrency or compatibility issues identified in the staff report; and the staff report states, “The request represents the applicant’s desire to correct the zoning on a commercially utilized strip of land, and it appears this property was sold, developed, and rezoned, and gaps and errors were made in the legal description.  The property was developed with several commercial and utilized as a recycled materials processing facility.  The applicant’s are working with the Permitting and Enforcement office to bring the site into compliance”.  She stated she and the O’Leary’s request the Board approve the Small Scale Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and rezone the GU strip to BU-2. 

 

Paulette Baran stated she has lived on her property for 26 years; she has never seen any construction on the building on the subject property; Mr. Dixon has owned the electric business; and his father lived across from the property in the other home.  She stated when Mr. Dixon passed away, Mrs. Dixon sent her a letter saying she was selling her property and wanted it rezoned to BU-1 for the new owner; and she had no problem with that.  She stated the subject property is a strip on what was formerly Mrs. Dixon’s home and the current building of Dixon Electric, where he parked his big trucks; and it was not used for dumping aluminum cans in the dumpsters and forklifts.  She stated sometimes when the O’Leary’s are moving tubing, she might hear some noise; and with the warehouses close to S.R. 520 there is also some noise. She stated she agrees that Mr. O’Leary put up a concrete wall; she thought it would be a big wall; but it is not, as it is a small “L” shape with a 50-foot opening in which vehicles come in from the back; and she showed the Board on a map an area where the dumping is done.  She stated all of the activity is projected to her home; she purchased additional acreage in the hopes of keeping people from moving next door, and so she and her husband could have privacy.  She stated she has worked for 46 years; this is her home; and she wants to enjoy it.  She noted at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, five neighbors were represented; and the other neighbors hear the noise also; but it is affecting her in her everyday living, as she cannot sit in her back yard without constantly hearing noises from the subject property.  She stated the subject strip of property is where the work is done and that is what the owners want rezoned; the O’Leary’s have five acres; and they could build something closer to S.R. 520. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if Ms. Baran would like the O’Leary’s to build a concrete wall on a particular portion of the property; with Ms. Baran responding she thought the wall was going to be on the side of the road, so that it would be more of a buffer; but it is not, because the opening where the gates are, are 50-feet wide. 

 

Ron Baran stated there has always been a Dixon Electric, but there has never been Dixon Construction on the property; Dixon Electric was a service industry based in a warehouse; his workers  went to job sites; and there  was no work done  on the property.  He stated Mr. O’Leary was in violation of County Code when he moved to the property and a year later, he is still in violation.   He advised all of Mr. O’Leary’s work is done on the small strip of property he wants to change to BU-2; and he does not believe it was a mistake in the first place, as he thinks Mr. Dixon left it that way as a favor to the neighbors so no business could go there.  He commented on auto body work being done outside the surrounding warehouses.  He stated it is ridiculous a large-scale recycling business is allowed so close to a residential area.  He commented on the heavy trucks and roll-off dumpsters that come in and out of the property; and he asked the Board to deny the request.

 

Kim Rezanka stated the original complaint to Code Enforcement was noise; and Code Enforcement could not find a violation and the O’Leary’s were not cited for noise.  She advised Mr. O’Leary had a sound study done; an engineer came to the property; and there was no violation of the sound ordinances for the County.  She stated there is material being dumped into a dumpster; the first two dumps are the loudest; and Code Enforcement and Planning and Zoning have said the dumpsters are okay.  She stated right now, the 60-foot strip is not being used for anything except for parking; the area along the east side is being used for recycling along with the building in the center of the property; but the 60-foot strip is not being used for anything because of the Code Enforcement action and rezoning issue.  She stated the wall goes along the north edge and all the way down to the opening where people come out; and there is a 40-foot wall that buffers the Baran’s property, which is several hundred feet away.  She noted there is  a fuel  tank  on the strip that Mr. Dixon  used to fuel his trucks; and Mr. Dixon was using the property for commercial uses throughout the 30 years he owned it.  She stated she objects to the hearsay testimony the Board has heard; she would like to point out the Baran’s are the complainant to Code Enforcement; and they continue to complain and harass her clients. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired how the property was created; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding the property originally had been part of a much larger piece; over the years, the property had been split up and rezoned; for some reason, the 60-foot strip was left out of the rezonings that had occurred prior to that; and although it was part of the property, it was never part of any prior rezoning.  Commissioner Nelson inquired how recent the BU-1 to the north was rezoned; with Mr. Enos responding it was early to mid 1990’s.  Commissioner Nelson stated the frustration the Baran’s are having are the continuing operations; he is not sure the 60 feet is the full issue, as the site is not in full compliance yet because the O’Leary’s are not indoors yet; and that is the dilemma.  He inquired if the Board is going to continue to work to get the property into compliance; stated the O’Leary’s have said they are going to do that; the O’Leary’s have told the Board they are not going to be using the 60-foot strip for material handling; and he is going to hold them to their word on that. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if the property required any fencing; with Commissioner Nelson responding it should be covered by the site plan issues currently being dealt with; and he will meet with Code Compliance.   He stated he has recommended a vegetative buffer because he agrees cement is not the best; and to be a good neighbor, a vegetative buffer would be a good idea.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he sees the action moving the BU-2 up further than any of the other BU-2’s; and inquired if it was discussed to increase the dimensions of the BU-1 rather than the BU-2; with Mr. Enos responding one or the other should happen.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it could expand the BU-1 and not the BU-2; with Mr. Enos responding it could be BU-1 and part of the property; but the property would have more limited uses than the BU-2 uses.  Commissioner Scarborough stated as he looks, this is moving the BU-2 up further towards the others; and he has not been out there, but in looking at a zoning map, it is moving the more intense, where you could actually move the less intense and still accomplish the elimination of the AU.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated it raises a question because the basic business is still recycling; now recycling is being done in BU-1; and inquired if the Board is setting a precedent.  Mr. Enos responded it is not unusual to have parcels with different zoning classifications; essentially, all they could really use that property for would be to park automobiles; and they would not be able to use it to park any of their heavy vehicles, or retention, or other support effort; but none of the recycling activities could then occur under the BU-1.  Commissioner Nelson stated currently there is a fuel tank on the property; and inquired if fueling is allowed.  He stated he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough; but he is concerned the Board is setting itself up for some type of inability to continue to perform and create a Code Enforcement scenario.  Mr. Enos advised the Code does not speak to fueling, except if it were as a support facility for the BU-2 uses; if heavy trucks are being fueled,  then those trucks are going to have to be parked there while being fueled; and one could argue that that would not be able to happen in BU-1. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired of the impact of BU-1 as opposed to BU-2; with Ms. Rezanka responding the O’Leary’s would not be able to use the fuel pump that is there that they have been using for their trucks; and she does not think they can store their equipment because it is an accessory use to their building, which prohibits them from using 60 feet.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would be more concerned of the operation occurring in that space as opposed to the parking issues.  Ms. Rezanka stated the O’Leary’s know they cannot do the operation outside; a big building will be put in the middle; and everything will be done inside that building.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would be more inclined to focus on the compliance issue as opposed to creating something that may jump up and bite the Board later.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.B.7. as recommended by the Planning and Zoning 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 Seventeenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2007, 07S.17, 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 amendments; providing legal Status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered; Chairperson Colon voted nay. 

 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired how the Board will keep tabs on what goes on at the O’Leary property; and inquired what kind of accountability is there to the neighbors.  Commissioner Nelson stated there is a Code Enforcement case currently against the O’Leary’s; by October 15, 2007 they have to have their permit; and if they do not, they are in non-compliance and bad things start happening.

 

 

Item VI.B.10 (Z0709205) Terry Rosenberger’s request for a change from RU-2-10 to RU-2-15, on 0.269 acre, located on the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Sundial Court, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Laura Young, Attorney representing the applicant, stated Mr. Rosenberger was before the Board in May requesting a change from RU-2-9 to RU-2-10; his previous application included Lot 18, plus an adjacent strip that ran the length of Westlake Subdivision; originally, Mr. Rosenberger requested rezoning of the whole property in order to build six units on Lot 18 using a transfer density scenario; and that application was only partially approved by the Board.  She advised one of the main reasons it was only partially approved was because the Board was uncomfortable with the idea of six units on Lot 18, using the transfer density scenario; and the current application in no way entails a transfer density scenario, as Mr. Rosenberger is only requesting  a rezoning  of Lot 18 and  that portion already rezoned by the Board.  She noted Mr. Rosenberger is only requesting an additional two units instead of four units.  She stated the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Map; four additional units will not significantly increase the current volume of consumption of services; and the request will not increase traffic to any substantial degree.  She commented on the character of the subject property and the surrounding area, in which the Board can use to consider.  She advised to the east and northeast is RU-2-15, capped at 12 units per-acre; to the south is BU-2 and GML; and to the west is also GML.  She stated the specific neighborhood in which the subject property is located is Westlake Subdivision; and it consists of several lots of two-unit duplexes.  She commented on the area of concern and the predominant use of the area; and there is single-family and multi-family in the area.  She noted both the Westlake Subdivision and the surrounding area is currently zoned medium density multi-family; Mr. Rosenberger is requesting a rezoning within the medium density multi-family zoning category; and the applicant is not attempting to change the character area.  She stated another Administrative Policy the Board can look at is Administrative Policy Three, Criteria C, which states staff can analyze the proposed use is consistent with the emerging pattern of surrounding development by looking at historical land use patterns, the actual development over the preceding three years, and any development approved in the last three years, but not developed yet.  She advised the only new development near the proposed project is Country Oaks; it is a permitted and partially developed project consisting of town homes of six to eight units per building, with a maximum 160 units; and it is a large scale multi-family development.  She stated there is a development north, and far east, which is Whispering Pines of Cocoa; it is currently in the permitting process and has not been developed yet; but if it is, it will consist of five buildings and 150 condominium units on less than 20 acres.  She noted Mr. Rosenberger’s property is differently situated than the lots in Westlake Subdivision, as it is on a corner; it fronts both Sundial Court and Lake Drive; and it is slightly bigger because of the strip,  which was rezoned in July.  She commented on  the  impacts to the area from Country Oaks and Whispering Pines of Cocoa; and stated what Mr. Rosenberger does to his property will not be a detriment to the surrounding area.  She noted Mr. Rosenberger is willing to enter into a Binding Development Plan to limit his access to the two units on Sundial Court to be consistent with Sundial Court; and he would be willing to accept three units instead of four units, in order to be more consistent with the RU-2-15 to the east, which is capped at 12 units per-acre.  She advised Mr. Rosenberger is also considering developing affordable housing or group homes.  

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if Mr. Rosenberger is willing to be rezoned to RU-2-12; with Ms. Young responding affirmatively.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated in the years in which there was a zoning classification RU-2-15 with a cap of 12, there was no such zoning as RU-2-12; but that has since changed.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired of the minimum size of a unit in RU-2-12; with Mr. Enos responding it depends upon the number of bedrooms; and a two-bedroom unit is 750 square feet.  Commissioner Nelson stated four units is too much for the location; and he is concerned about any of the units having access off of Lake Drive. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.B.10. as RU-2-12.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would encourage Mr. Rosenberger to speak to Housing and Human Services about affordable housing.  Mr. Enos inquired if the Board did not want to approve the item with a Binding Development Plan splitting driveways on Lake Drive.  Commissioner Nelson stated it can be considered at the time of site planning.

 

 

Item VI.B.12. (NMI70902) Magruder-Smith Farms, Inc.’s request for a CUP for Land Alteration in an AU zoning classification on 19.88 acres, located south of McGruder Road, west of Simons Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. 

 

Commissioner Nelson advised the request is for a mining operation, which is going to be sand and it will not be fill material; and there will be no blasting required.  He noted the applicant has submitted a de-watering plan, which will have to be approved by the Water Management District; the concept is the applicant continues to hydrate the wetlands without discharging into the canals along Pine Island Road and the others; and he wants to make sure the public understands that.  He stated there was some discussion about the driveway that will be used; it is a private easement that comes out to the east of the property next to Air Liquide; and it does not use any public roadways.  He inquired if the easement complies with the County’s rules related to easements; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding yes, Land Alteration activity must be located with direct access to a collector or arterial roads, except for projects within commercial and industrial zoning.  Mr. Enos stated the commercial and industrial zoning does not apply in this case; and the question is if the use of an easement is adequate to provide that direct access onto a collector or arterial road, or was the intent of the provision that it have direct frontage on a collector or arterial road.  Commissioner Nelson stated in all cases one would not have direct frontage on the road; and he thinks what the applicant is providing is adequate.  He stated Mr. Moia had mentioned surface water; and inquired what was the purpose.

 

Bruce Moia, representing the applicant, stated based on what has been found as the needs of the County, his client is offering to connect the borrow pit, after completed, to the County’s drainage system to provide additional storage in the area where there are some minor flooding issues.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would hope Mr. Moia continues to work with Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown, related to that.  He advised the item was approved by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board with one other condition, which was the hours of operation, which is 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and the applicant will not use Pine Island Road or Simon Road.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Item VI.B.12. as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board should change something in the Code, or leave the Code the way it is in regards to direct frontage.  Mr. Enos responded it is not essential; staff has the Board’s interpretation; and if the Board wants to make it clear and direct staff to proceed with a Code amendment, it can do that as well.  Commissioner Voltz stated she would prefer to do that.  Chairperson Colon inquired what Mr. Enos would like the Board to do; and is it an opportunity to amend the Code.  Mr. Enos responded yes, because it is unclear; and staff can bring it back to the Board at a later date as a Code Amendment.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to direct staff to prepare a Land Alteration Code Amendment to further define direct access, for consideration by the Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is saying a collector and arterial road should be used; and the reason is that one would not want to come through somebody’s single-family lot.  He stated what the Board has is direct connection through an easement; and the easement is an exclusive easement which is not impacting adjoining properties.  He advised he is not going to support this amendment unless it is clear that the Board is not opening up neighborhood streets.  Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees.

 

Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Director, stated there are things of that nature in the Land Alteration Code, and he would like to clean that up so there is some consistency between the Conditional Use Permit language and the Code, because as Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a lot of clarity in  the Land  Alteration Code as to what  kind of roads

they can use for the haul-route itself.  Chairperson Colon stated she thinks that is the way it needs to be done.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the use is a mining operation, which is going to be sand; and there will be no blasting associated with the operation.  He stated the applicant has submitted a de-watering plan which will have to be approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the concept is that the wetlands are continued to be hydrated without discharging into the canals along Pine Island Road and others; and he wants to make sure the public understands that.  He inquired if the private drive complies with the County’s rules related to access.  Mr. Enos responded there is a provision in the Code with respect to the conditional use permit which states, “Land alteration activity much be located with direct access to a collector or arterial roads except for projects in commercial and industrial zoning.”  He advised the commercial industrial zoning does not apply in this case; and the question is if the use of an easement is adequate to provide that direct access onto a collector or arterial road, or was the intent of that provision that it have direct frontage on a collector or arterial road.  He advised it is not clear; and he wanted to point it out in case the Board felt like it needed to discuss it. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated not in all cases will there be direct frontage on a road; what the applicant is providing is adequate; and he does not have any issues with that.  He inquired about water and the future use; with Mr. Moia responding based on the needs of the County, the applicant is offering to connect the borrow pit after it is completed; it will connect to the County’s drainage system to provide additional storage in that area where everybody knows there are some minor flooding issues; and he knows the County has been looking at those areas.

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider amending the Zoning Code to include Child Care Center as permitted use and remove it as a conditional use in the BU-1-A zoning classification.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations”, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division 4, Subdivision VI, specifically amending Section 62-1481 Restricted Neighborhood Commercial, to include Child Care Center as a permitted use in a BU-1-A and removing it as a conditional use and amending Article VI, Division 5, Subdivision III, specifically amending Section 62-1918 to remove Child Care as a conditional use in BU-1-A; providing for interpretation of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairperson to sign the Closeout Report for the Disaster Recovery Sub-grant Agreement between Brevard County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for 2005 CDBG Supplemental Disaster Recovery Initiative Funds.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

         

          (S E A L)