April 10, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 10, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Vice Chairperson Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, and Susan Carlson, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley. Absent was: Chairperson Jackie Colon.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough.

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

ANNOUNCEMENT

Vice Chairperson Higgs advised Chairperson Colon is unable to be present tonight, so she will chair the meeting.

RESOLUTION, RE: OPPOSING FLORIDA SENATE BILL 2800

Commissioner Pritchard distributed a resolution opposing Florida Senate Bill 2800 for the Board’s consideration. He stated the bill was introduced by Senator Haridopolos regarding the gambling ship industry that is at Port Canaveral; the bill says “effective January 1, 2004 a person may not allow gambling activity if the vessel embarks from this State and disembarks within this State without making an intervening stop in another state or possession of the United States or a foreign country at which passengers could disembark”; and this would ruin the business of a couple of ships at the Port. He stated the Chamber of Commerce adopted a Resolution opposing Senate Bill 2800; and he made a couple of changes to make it a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to oppose Senate Bill 2800 and its companion House Bill, when filed, and request the bills be withdrawn from further consideration.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has not talked to Senator Haridopolos; but it has always troubled him that one cannot gamble in the State, but can get on a ship, sail out a short distance, and gamble. He stated he wonders to what extent it brings revenue into the County as opposed to people who come and enjoy the amenities of the County. He stated without further information, he is not going to be able to support the resolution.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he cannot quote exact numbers, but he has been told this is a multimillion dollar activity and a benefit to the Port as well as the County. He stated the people who come not only go out on the ship, but purchase gas and other things while in the County; and for some the County is a focal point because of the industry. He stated he does not know if there is anyone present from the gaming ship industry; but it is definitely an asset to the Port. He noted gambling is gambling; bingo falls into this category as does pari-mutuel betting; and the gambling ship industry is a benefit to the County and a way of supplementing revenues so it is not necessary to increase taxes to provide services. He stated the bill is trying to destroy the industry in Florida; it sets a very bad precedent; and if the Board is concerned about the dollars, he can find out the amounts in the next couple of days.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a distinction in the kind of gambling that occurs on ships and the gambling that occurs in the State; and the only reason it can occur is that it goes beyond the State’s jurisdiction. He stated he has always been troubled that there is a full-fledged gambling industry in the State, but one has to get on a ship to gamble. He stated he is not in favor of gambling; it erodes the quality and morality of the community; and he cannot support the increase in gambling, nor does he think it is an appropriate thing to be involved in. He stated he has always questioned all revenues that have been projected from cruise passengers and to what extent that money is spent in the County; someone may get a hamburger and fill up with gas, but that is minimal in comparison to a person who spends a fuller, more wholesome holiday in the County. He stated without additional information, he does not think he can be dissuaded from his position.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is not an increase, but maintaining what is there. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands that, but he was asked how he feels and he is with Senator Haridopolos now.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she does not have sufficient information, so she is not ready to support the resolution tonight.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough on no gambling.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is any additional information the Board needs. Commissioner Scarborough stated people can provide him with any information they want, but he will have questions in return. Commissioner Higgs stated she will always read any information put on the agenda, but she is not inclined to get involved tonight. Commissioner Carlson stated what Commissioner Pritchard has are generalities; and requested supportive documentation in terms of dollars to the community and things like that, which show the true impacts. She stated she does not know if the information will change anyone’s mind, but it would help clarify some things.

DISCUSSION, RE: FUNDING FOR THE ARTS

Commissioner Carlson stated she asked Fran Galey of the Brevard Cultural Alliance to speak to the Board; the State is trying to eradicate the arts in Florida; and advised of a newspaper article that talked about all the different art organizations that would be impacted by potential budget cuts. She distributed a draft letter to the Board.

Fran Galey requested the Board support the arts and cultural groups of the community by sending a letter to the State Legislators; stated these are changing times for everyone, especially in Brevard County; and the people in the arts community are concerned about this. She stated they know they are going to take cuts and are willing to do so; there was a corporate trust fund that included the cultural institutions; and that trust fund has been raided. She stated they have relied on the trust fund for 14 years; and while there has not been a lot of money coming to the County, there was money that helped throughout the State. She stated from the $28 million, the Senate recommended a 100% cut; the House represented a 78% cut; and the Governor recommended a 57% cut, but his recommended cuts are those in the General Fund; so in the General Fund there is no dedicated money. She stated they would like to see a letter of support asking for reinstatement of the cultural institutions trust fund; they are willing to take a 53% cut, which is fair; that is approximately a quarter of one percent of the State’s budget; so it is not like they are asking for everything, but are just asking to keep $14,750,481. She stated the cuts would be almost $600,000 in Brevard County; most groups receive money from a mid-level grants program; and it would mean that the Astronaut Memorial Planetarium and Observatory would not lose $11,945, the Brevard Cultural Alliance would not lose a little over $33,000, the Brevard Museum of Art and Science would not lose $18,322, the Henegar Center for the Arts would not lose $16,738, the Brevard Symphony would not lose $32,329, the Brevard Zoo would not lose $342,778, the King Center for the Performing Arts would not lose $117,000, Brevard Museum of History and Science would not lose $6,000, and the Titusville Playhouse would not lose $13,696, a total of $595,262 that would come into the community. She stated it is sometimes suggested they go to corporate entities; but if their money is cut and they go to corporate, they will be told their local community and State do not support them, so it does not sound good. She stated it is a catch 22 situation; all of the organizations are caught in the middle; they do not mind taking cuts; but they would like the $14 million of the $28 million to be kept in the cultural institution trust fund. She stated there is other supporting information; and if the Board sends a letter, at least it would say the community supports the arts.

Commissioner Carlson stated when Ms. Galey says $10,000 or $15,000 for an organization, it sounds very small; but when the organizations are gone, people will realize the loss. She stated so little is done in the community that when these kinds of cuts are made, there will be a significant quality of life decrease.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairperson to send a letter to the Governor, Florida Senate President, and Florida Speaker of the House, with copies to the Brevard Delegation, requesting support of funding for the arts.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is looking to save $600,000, but just took the position of whacking the gaming industry on cruise ships; and inquired where is the money going to come from. He stated if gaming is a multimillion dollar enterprise, which he is led to believe it is, where is the revenue going to come from to salvage the $600,000 for Brevard Cultural Alliance. He stated this does not make sense; if this was a business decision, they would not survive the stockholders; and he is not going to support the motion because of that.

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: CAPE CANAVERAL HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED
LEGISLATION

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated there was some conversation on Tuesday regarding the hospital district; people from the hospital are present; and inquired if it is possible to get that information.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Manager advised him that Representative Bob Allen had already gotten the word of the Board’s concern and was taking steps to make sure the language the Board found offensive was removed. He noted he has not heard directly from Representative Allen, but it is fantastic that even before leaving a meeting, the Board’s message is heard in Tallahassee and people are responding to the concerns. He stated it is not his desire to tell the hospital how to operate; it is an independent entity; but the problem was that the hospital district had authority beyond the scope of what a special taxing district could have, with capacity to condemn and take lands outside of its jurisdiction. He stated if one reads the bill, the hospital district could condemn land in Jacksonville.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was briefed by Bill Ellis who represents HealthFirst; and he said they took the two amendments and brought them into one and took out the language the Board had a problem with, as well as fixing the original language regarding condemnation.

Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if there is a motion to do anything else tonight.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to send a letter to the Delegation thanking them for the considered rapid response to the Board’s concern. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Representative Allen was phone patched into the meeting as it was ongoing; he was inundated by faxes and phone calls upon leaving the meeting; and things were well underway in Tallahassee by the time he got home, so there is a responsive delegation.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she hopes they are listening tonight as there is concern about what the Legislature is going to do with revenue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Legislature has budget problems; the County wants to work with them; and the Board is always glad to see when the Delegation is concerned about it.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Legislature needs to tell the Board what it wants it to do and give options as to revenue; and the Board is happy to work with the Legislature on that.

DISCUSSION, RE: WITHDRAWN ITEM

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated there were some items that were either pulled or tabled and will not be heard tonight; and requested Mr. Enos advise the people of those. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised Item III.A.3, Yves Clerc, Trustee has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he spoke to the engineer of record on this project who indicated she wanted to come and say a few words. The engineer was not present.

DISCUSSION, RE: CAPE CANAVERAL HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED
LEGISLATION (CONTINUED)

Jane Peltz stated she received information about the expansion of the Cape Canaveral Hospital into the river; and she was chagrined to find out that this particular activity would not increase any beds at the hospital. She stated Cape Canaveral Taxing District is pushing House Bill 601 to fill 8.85 acres of the Indian River Lagoon, facilitate its ability to tax County residents, condemn lands inside and outside of the Taxing District, and avoid complying with the land development regulations of local government. She stated the bill would grant the hospital 8.85 acres of public lands and part of the Banana River Aquatic Preserve in return for 8.5 acres of submerged lands, which the hospital owns but for which it has been denied permits to fill and build. She stated the hospital plans to fill in the Banana River Aquatic Preserve, which is part of the Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance; and the area is also listed federally as critical habitat for the endangered manatee. She stated the planned expansion of Cape Canaveral Hospital will not add a single bed to the hospital; it would increase hospital buildings and add over 1,000 parking spots in the Aquatic Preserve; and according to the hospital’s own needs assessment it currently only has an average occupancy rate of 48.8%, and has never approached full capacity. She stated the bill gives the local taxing district the power to ignore local government’s land development regulations, charter, and comprehensive plan; there will be no local government or voter control to make it impossible for local residents to stop the filling and building in the Aquatic Preserve; and the Taxing District will have the authority to tax, sell, and condemn lands within and outside of its district. She noted the district extends from the Banana River to the Atlantic Ocean, within the cities of Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach in Brevard County; and the bill would set a precedent that would allow other taxing districts the power to ignore plans of other elected governments while taxing its residents and condemning their land. She stated right now the bill is being passed through committees of the Florida House of Representatives; and it will be voted on by the House and then the Senate.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board received the same information; many of the issues were raised with the Delegation; and Representative Bob Allen has responded to some of them.

Bill Ellis introduced Chris Kennedy, President of the Cape Canaveral Hospital and Administrator of the Cape Canaveral Hospital District. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she knows Mr. Kennedy is prepared to make a full presentation, but the Board has heard about most of the issues; and requested Mr. Kennedy address the specifics.

Chris Kennedy stated Cape Canaveral Hospital is a licensed 150-bed hospital; the plan for expansion, with the assistance of HB 601, contemplates a 30-year plan; they have been working for 12 years with the St. Johns River Water Management District to get to a point where they can minimize the impact of the environment and maximize the use of the site; and the latest plan that has gone forward includes roughly another 150 beds over the 30-year period. He stated within the previous several years, there has been a decline in inpatient admissions and a decrease in the number of beds available; it was said as being between 40 and 50% occupied; but the inpatient activity now is at 68%, up from 64%. He stated roughly 50% of the services provided in the health care facility are done on an ambulatory basis and the patients are discharged within a day; those are considered outpatients. He stated it was communicated that the bill would be carte blanche to move forward; and clarified it would still require them to go through the permitting process with the State and federal government. He stated Representative Allen has worked to create an amendment that allows them to stay with the Comprehensive Plans of Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral and work with their charters, with the exception of the land use for the site, for height, density, and filling of submerged lands. He stated there is a process that will provide a facilities plan to the City of Cocoa Beach and then receive comment and work through those issues; and that is a wonderful way of addressing it. He stated of the 8.85 acres, when they are done, there will only be five usable acres; and the remainder will be used for stormwater runoff. He stated the number one issue environmentally will be stormwater runoff; and commented on using close to four acres for stormwater runoff rather than allowing it to go into the river. He stated currently the site is 11 acres; and the 37 remaining acres that were initially deeded to the Special District will be returned to the State.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated as the process goes forward, people can be a part of what happens.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: OCTOBER 7, 2002, JANUARY 6, 2003, AND FEBRUARY 10, 2003
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Vice Chairperson Higgs explained the procedures for addressing the Board, and called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board made at its October 7, 2002, January 6, 2003, and February 10, 2003 meetings, as follows:

Item 3. (Z0301203) Yves Clerc, as Trustee’s request for change from RU-1-11 and RU-2-15 to all RU-2-15 with a CUP for a Residential/Recreational Marina on 9.48± acres located on the west side of North Banana River Drive, north of SR 520, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval as RU-2-15 with a Binding Development Plan limiting density to 68 units, and denial of the CUP for a Residential/Recreational Marina.

Zoning Official Rick Enos reiterated the item has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Cheryl Campbell is the engineer for the Manatee Harbor development; she is not present; and his concern is the withdrawal may mean they could put in
a development of 118 units with no zoning change. Mr. Enos advised as many as 101 units could be put in. Commissioner Pritchard stated the request was for 68 units; the site is going to be developed as something; and to have it go from 68 to 101 units may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. He inquired what issue made them withdraw. Mr. Enos stated staff received a letter late this afternoon; and he did not talk to the person who submitted the letter. Commissioner Pritchard again expressed concern about the number of units. Mr. Enos stated the applicant can at any time resubmit a new application. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that would involve new dollars; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the applicant has withdrawn. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is trying to understand the process; they have been going through a lengthy process but then backed out; and if it is going to cost them a few thousand dollars to get back in, he would like to know why they got out. Mr. Enos stated it would depend on the application they make; if it is the same application, it would be $1,256; but it could be something different, possibly something higher.

Item 1. (Z0210201) Carmen Realino’s request for change from GU to EU-2 on 7± acres located on the north side of Morningside Drive, east of North Banana River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to two residential homesites.

Bruce Moia, representing Newfound Land and Property Development, stated the applicant bought the parcel and wants to have three residential units on it; he is asking the Board to recognize part of the property as a buildable parcel; a previous owner severed a small piece off the west end of the property rendering it as an unbuildable illegal lot; and they are requesting rezoning to allow him to have three lots and negotiate with the Surface Water Department to obtain the upland piece of property to provide for a stormwater management tract. He stated this is in an older area; when it was constructed under the old rules, there was not a lot of regulation or treatment for stormwater; the properties directly discharge into Pelican Creek; and this would provide for stormwater treatment. He stated the applicant is also willing to negotiate with Road and Bridge to provide a ten-foot easement on the north side of Morningside Drive, so when the roadway improvements are done as part of the Unpaved Road Program, there will be additional room for paving and other drainage improvements that would be necessary. He stated the only other issue is access; and what they are proposing is to provide access through an easement, so as to not impact any wetlands on the property. He stated the proposal is to not impact any wetlands, provide for the County to have the treatment facility so there is no direct discharge into the Indian River, and recognize the last parcel as a legal lot through the rezoning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands there was a unanimous vote from the P&Z Board, but it was based on two rather than three units; subsequently the applicant changed from two to three; and inquired if the applicant consented to two at the P&Z meeting. Mr. Moia advised he was not hired by his client until after the P&Z meeting; in talking to staff, all these issues came up about why the lot was not buildable and what things might be needed in the area as far as stormwater treatment and additional easement to improve the roadway; and they renegotiated and revised the binding development plan to bring forward to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated what was recommended by the P&Z Board is different from what is being brought before the Board tonight; and he is at a loss as to whether there is a recommendation. Mr. Moia stated they were not directed to return to the Planning and Zoning Board with the change, but are willing to do that.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the property in question is quite large with two and one-half acres, a little over one acre, and one and one-third acres; and inquired if that was initially going to be two lots. Mr. Moia responded it is two parcels totaling seven acres. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is looking at parcel 2, which is identified as buildable. Mr. Moia stated they understand that if there is a buildable lot, splitting it one time is not an issue; but the applicant would not have that buildability on parcel 3 because it has been deemed an illegal nonconforming lot. He advised the previous owner of all the property, including the piece to the west, took off a 30-foot sliver when he developed a shopping center, thereby creating an illegal lot in the zoning at the time. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Moia is talking about the zigzag portion that he assumed was an easement; with Mr. Moia responding no. Mr. Moia advised the underlying property is cut into two parcels; parcel 3, which is along Morningside Drive, is approximately 2.5 acres total; to the north is the 4.5-acre piece known as parcel 2, which does not have any access; and what they are proposing to do is create the three lots shown overlaid on the survey. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if parcel 3 would be Lot 3; with Mr. Moia responding yes, less the almost two acres the applicant would negotiate with the County for stormwater; and the rezoning would make all the parcels legal. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if what they are proposing is to negotiate with the County for the 1.88-acre tract for stormwater management as well as address the discrepancies on Morningside Drive; with Mr. Moia responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Carlson stated the issue under consideration is school capacity; if it goes to three lots, there are school capacity issues based on the current policy, which the Board will be discussing; there was a lengthy discussion at the P&Z meeting based on details provided through the School Board representative; and inquired what was the discussion regarding school capacity. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a memo that it needs to discuss prior to getting into the school capacity issue.

Mr. Moia stated the only reason they do not have the third buildable lot is because of the piece that was severed by the previous owner; and that is why they think they may be a little different.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are two clauses in the binding development plan dealing with property and easements; there is a lack of commitment but desire to negotiate; and that does not seem to be the sort of thing the Board would want to put in a binding development plan. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised that is not something she would normally recommend putting into a binding development plan; and it should be a separate negotiation following statutory procedures.

Mr. Moia stated they would be willing to amend the BDP to provide that; they cannot provide that to the Board because they would have to provide a waiver to allow for the one item as well as the access through the other two parcels; and they are doing that to avoid any wetland impacts. He stated the applicant would have legal frontage on Morningside Drive, but would have to traverse some wetlands to get to the back parcel; and unless they get the waiver, they cannot commit to it, but they are willing to negotiate with the Surface Water Department on acquisition of the property, which the Board has previously given them approval to pursue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes there are discussions and they move things around; and expressed concern that what the Board is seeing is different than what went before the P&Z Board. He stated it could be convenient to meet the requirements of the P&Z Board and get a favorable approval, which would circumvent further discussion or analysis by the P&Z Board because the concerns have been removed; it does not seem appropriate that a person would come to the Board with a different agenda; so he is inclined to send this back to the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 1 to the April 14, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and May 1, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0301303) Estate of Harry J. Gould’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 4 to Community Commercial and change from TR-1 and BU-1 to All BU-1 on 1.27± acres located on the west side of US 1 south of Snug Harbor Way, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Bruce Cooper stated Dr. Thies, the applicant is also present; this item was tabled two months ago; and the request is to change the TR-1 zoning on a portion of the land that also has a BU-1 zoning classification. He stated the applicant was under the impression he was just rezoning the portion of the parcel that was TR-1; but subsequent to the meeting he found out the whole thing was advertised and the Board would be considering the whole parcel. He stated they were directed to try to come up with some solutions for the neighbors’ concerns; a binding development agreement was submitted revising the BU-1 zoning classification to eliminate certain uses and to try and coincide with the BU-1-A; but the applicant has just advised that he is withdrawing the binding development agreement and is requesting his original application as requested for BU-1 with no restrictions.

Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if the request is for BU-1 and the Comprehensive Plan amendment for community commercial; with Mr. Cooper responding that is correct, with no conditions or restrictions. Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if that would be on the TR-1 parcel; with Mr. Cooper responding that is correct.

Clifford Smith, resident of Snug Harbor Village, stated he is a member of the Homeowners Association; and referred the Board to all the facts and figures that were presented about this case two months ago. He stated the Board has a letter from the Homeowners Association indicating the majority opinion; and requested the Board review the letter and consider the location of the request, the people who live there, and the end result of the rezoning change, if granted.

Pat Reed, Member of the Board of Directors of the Snug Harbor Homeowners Association, stated according to the worksheet for the rezoning review, referring to community commercial, says, “intrusion of these land uses into the surrounding residential uses shall be limited. Community clusters greater than ten acres in size must be located at principal arteries.” He stated he is talking about the intrusion of a BU-1 with a community commercial designation into abutting lands that are residential. He stated Section C says, “In light of the foregoing, the rezoning of this property to BU-1 may qualify as infill rather than an extension of strip commercial zoning. The Board, however, may wish to consider the types of activities and buffering that are anticipated in order to mitigate effect upon adjacent TR-1 properties to the north and west.” He stated there are several other issues, but those are the two key ones; the important thing is how it is going to affect the community and the long-term effect it will have; the portion of the property that is slightly under a half-acre is zoned TR-1; and it could be used as presently zoned. He advised the BU-1 portion of the property is further to the south; if the applicant wants to use that property, it is his privilege; but the portion he is requesting to change to BU-1 from TR-1 can be used as zoned.

Mike Cunningham, Vice President of the Micco Homeowners Association and Legislative Chairman, submitted a series of photos; and stated they were taken on the site in the last two or three days. He stated at the last meeting on this issue, the Board decided to table it for two months to see if all parties could attempt a satisfactory resolution; and the applicant and his representative were advised that it would be in their best interest to meet with community leaders; but that was not done. He stated there has not been a “meeting of the minds” that would satisfy the residents when they are faced with the intrusion of a commercial enterprise into their quiet residential community; they initially objected to the venture on the grounds of incompatibility and incomparability; and their position has not changed. He stated the community and its residents must feel free from intrusion into their quality of life; the representative of the applicant indicated at the last meeting that he was puzzled by the response from the speakers and could not understand why they might have an interest in this issue; but the question is why would they not have an interest in this issue. He stated in March a meeting was held in the Snug Harbor Community Center with a representative of the listing real estate firm, not the applicant or his primary representative; Mr. Duffel advised the assembly that he represented the applicant and would be happy to answer any questions; but it was generally believed by those present that he was more concerned with saving his real estate transaction than with the concerns of the residents of Snug Harbor. He stated there seems to be a lot of confusion on this tract of land, how it is zoned, and whether it is zoned properly for what is being requested.

Bruce Cooper stated he provided the residents with a proposal, which they rejected; they have withdrawn the proposed request for a binding development agreement; and requested the Board consider the original request to rezone to BU-1.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated this property is in District 3 along U.S. 1; the Comprehensive Plan indicates community commercial clusters should be located at arterial/arterial intersections and collector/arterial intersections are acceptable if the roadways serve multiple residential areas; and she does not believe this property meets that criteria. She stated the staff report also talks about the distance to other parcels; community commercial clusters should be two miles apart; and there is a large BU-1 zoned property approximately 800 feet to the south of the subject property. She stated the statement is made in the Comprehensive Plan that the proposed commercial land use extension should not constitute an encroachment into a residential area; and the existing TR-1 parcel, while abutting some BU-1 parcels on the south, is clearly a part of the residential subdivision called Snug Harbor. She stated the initial use of the BU-1 parcel on the south was the showcasing of homes to be purchased and used in the subdivision; that may have been an appropriate use; but she does not think the BU-1 extension or even the existing BU-1 should be there, so cannot support a further extension of community commercial into the neighborhood. She stated her desire would be a motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zoning proposal.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 2.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the difference between BU-1 and BU-1-A; with Mr. Enos responding BU-1 is a community commercial zoning classification that permits a wide array of retail and professional uses; and BU-1-A is much more restrictive, and is intended to apply at the neighborhood level with a scale of uses that would tend to be much lower and more restricted although they are still retail uses. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the difference between BU-1-A and TR-1; with Mr. Enos responding TR-1 is a mobile home subdivision, which permits mobile homes on individually-owned lots.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she met with Dr. Thies some months ago as well as with the residents of Snug Harbor.

Vice Chairperson called for a vote on the motion to deny Item 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0302501) Scott J. Palmer and Robert A. and Sandra Johnson’s request for change from AU to BU-1-A on 0.06 acre located on the north side of US 192 west of Katherine Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Rochelle Lawandales, Lawandales Planning Affiliates, stated this is a 250-foot parcel of land adjacent to other commercial lands located on U.S. 192; she trusts the Commissioners have seen the parcel and staff reports; and she is present to respond to any questions.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated Commissioner Colon is not present, nor has she submitted any comments, and there are no comments from the public.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MARCH 10, 2003

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board made at its March 10, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0303301) William Blair and Catherine A. Hayes’ request for change from BU-1-A to RU-1-13 on 0.29 acre located on the northwest corner of Highway A1A and Heron Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated Mr. and Mrs. Hayes had to leave as their daughter just went into labor; the Board can listen to public comment; and if necessary, it can table the item.

Don Fisher stated he lives next door to the lots being considered for rezoning; and for 14 years, he was under the impression it was an unbuildable piece of property. He stated the property is 69 feet by 146 feet, but has two septic tanks, one near A1A and one in the center of the back of the property; as long as it is kept commercial, it would have to have a 100 foot setback from the septic tank for drinking water; and commented on the nearby bird sanctuary. He stated they would like to keep the Hayes’ property as commercial because they were under the impression it was unbuildable; he wrote to Mrs. Hayes advising her there might be problems with the building, but got no response; and he also called her in West Palm Beach, where she lives, but his call was not returned. He stated for many years he tried to buy the property, but they did not want to sell it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated questions have been raised and Ms. Hayes is not present to respond.

Vice Chairperson Higgs noted staff may be able to respond; and inquired if a house can be built on the property as BU-1-A. Mr. Enos responded yes, a house can be built on the property; the purpose of the application was to reduce the front setback; and BU-1-A has a 50-foot setback requirement for residences while RU-1-13 would have a 25-foot setback, although it would still be subject to the center line setback of 100 feet. Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired how are septic tanks, wells, and those issues dealt with; with Mr. Enos responding that is a State permitting process; the County would not be involved; and those regulations would apply regardless of what the zoning is. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated it may not be buildable; and inquired if that is determined in the permitting; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the request for RU-1-13 is very compatible with the surrounding area; the issues of wells and septic tanks will be part of the permitting process and will be dealt with by the regulatory agencies; and the rezoning will increase the compatibility with the neighborhood and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated one house can be built there now; there would be some difference in terms of setbacks; but it would be better for the neighborhood.

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

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the rezoning request has been approved, but the permitting process will be followed, and the public can be a part of that process to insure everyone’s property is protected.

Item 2. (Z0303302) Barbara Maher’s request for change from GU to AU on 2.545± acres located on the west side of Fleming Grant Road, south of Micco Road, which was recommended by the P&Z for approval with a Binding Development Plan limiting the agricultural uses to those permitted in RR-1.

Barbara Maher stated she has just under nine acres zoned GU; and she would like it to be rezoned to agriculture so she can use 2.5 acres for a future homesite.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated Ms. Maher has submitted a binding development plan that limits density to one unit and the uses to those in RR-1; and inquired if Ms. Maher is aware of what that would mean; with Ms. Maher responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 with BDP limiting the agricultural uses to those permitted in RR-1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Maher stated she was also approached about having it zoned REU, but is not sure what that is. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated staff brought that up; and inquired if Ms. Maher is more interested in REU than what she original requested with a binding development plan. Ms. Maher inquired what would be the difference. Mr. Enos advised the difference is that it would be much easier for Ms. Maher because she would not need to submit a binding development plan; the REU classification is essentially identical to what she was requesting, which was AU with restrictions; and if the Board agreed to REU, Ms. Maher would still be subject to the same restrictions but would not have to submit the binding development plan, which would save recording costs. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board is comfortable; it has the binding development plan; and Ms. Maher has the vote.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would be the difficulty with REU. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the density is what she would want to see, and there would still be recording fees; with Mr. Enos advising they would not be necessary because REU is a 2.5-acre minimum.

Commissioner Pritchard stated REU is RR-1 on 2.5 acres; with Vice Chairperson Higgs advising it is not more intense, so the Board could do that; and inquired if Ms. Maher has 2.5 acres; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated it would save Ms. Maher additional cost. Ms. Maher stated if there is no difference in the restrictions, then REU is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to reconsider the previous motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard to approve Item 2 as REU. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0303303) Sebastian Inlet Group, Inc.’s request for a CUP for a Commercial/Recreational marina in a BU-2 zone on 0.84 ± acre of submerged lands, and 2.16 acres on land, located on the east side of US 1 north of Daytona Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Rick Giteles stated he is the owner of the Sebastian Inlet Marina, and with him is engineer Jim Carter who can handle any technical questions the Board may have. He stated they want to be able to provide their customers with gasoline; the marina is over a quarter century old and has a history of providing gasoline; there were a number of issues including an accident some time ago and a change of ownership; and after he purchased the marina, he found out that he could not just reinstall the fuel, but had to go through this process. He complimented staff for their guidance; stated he asked what the concerns would be; and one concern was impact to the area. He stated they are not expanding anything as they are using existing facilities; the basic configuration has been in place since 1975; and the community grew up around the marina. He stated to the south is a vacant lot; to the north is a river access area for a mobile home park; and slightly to the north of that is another marina. He stated the staff comments said, “existing marina operations are consistent and compatible with the character of the adjacent and nearby properties with regard to their uses,” and “no reduction or impact to the property values would be anticipated from the use of this marina.” He stated they will not be impacting the area at all, especially in a negative way; they run a dry storage marina and boatyard dealing with smaller boats; the boats are lifted and put in dry storage; and many of the customers use the facility because they are either unable or do not care to use boat trailers. He stated they are trying to serve their customers properly by providing them with fuel; but right now they are unable to do that. He stated in the future there may be many requests coming before the Board for more fuel to serve the Indian River Lagoon; and it would make sense to preserve; existing facilities such as his, which is well functioning. He stated the second area of concern is environmental considerations; the Board’s approval of his request will result in environmental benefits; people who launch their boats need fuel; and they have two choices, bringing fuel to the boat in jugs or going to some place else for fuel. He stated he is concerned with spillage with people carry fuel to their boats; they try to oversee as much as possible; but it is being done by amateurs and they do not have the best control. Mr. Giteles stated those leaving his marina to get fuel intensify the traffic in the shallow water areas; and DEP has stressed that it would like to minimize boat traffic in shallow water areas to protect endangered species as well as to minimize bottom damage from props and hulls. He stated they have already purchased a tank because they did not know they were going to have to go through this process; the tank meets all current standards; the system, designed by his consulting staff, is state of the art, safe, and double and triple-walled. He stated they have discussed with the Florida Extension Service the possibility of adapting the marina to qualify for the Clean Marina Program; and explained the Clean Marina Program. He stated one of the benefits is provision of panic programs for almost any eventuality; and advised of training the employees to deal with fuel spills and hurricane preparedness. He stated this is his livelihood; he is making a fair request; and staff comments were essentially favorable with no negatives. He stated he was asked if he is in compliance with the Manatee Protection Plan; but since the plan has been approved but not implemented, it is a non-issue. He stated they run a clean marina; they would like to provide customers with fuel as they have done for a quarter of a century; and they will do a good job of it, with the Board’s permission.

Commissioner Carlson stated staff indicated there was an issue with the property line; and inquired if it has been resolved; with Mr. Giteles responding yes. Mr. Giteles stated there was an issue when he purchased the property; his survey was in conflict with the property owner on the south; there was a title policy that covered it; since the P&Z meeting, the title company has agreed to buy the land from him; and he has a letter confirming that.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated this is an existing marina; it is currently in operation and has been for years; and inquired why are they here tonight. Mr. Enos responded they are a nonconforming marina, meaning they were established at a time when a marina was a permitted use in the BU-2 classification; now a marina is a conditional use permit; nonconforming uses can be maintained and operated indefinitely, but cannot be expanded; so because they wish to expand the use by adding the gasoline service, they need a new conditional use permit. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the only reason that is deemed to be an expansion is because it was out of use for some period of time; and although they historically provided it, now they have to reestablish it. Vice Chairperson Higgs requested Ms. Williams address the items in the Comprehensive Plan regarding marinas, fueling, and site issues; and inquired if Natural Resources Management will be monitoring those issues for compliance. Sherry Williams, Natural Resources Management, stated Policy 5.1(e) requires that prior to the operations of the fuel facilities, a fuel management and spill contingency plan be submitted for review and approval. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated they also have stormwater issues. Ms. Williams stated Policy 5.1(d) talks about new marina facilities. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated stormwater will be part of the compliance plan; with Ms. Williams advising as the building permit comes through, they will be required to provide stormwater management for those particular areas. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated Policy 5.3(a) requires retrofitting or modification of existing marinas within the Coastal Zone to meet the minimum criteria; and inquired if staff is saying that stormwater and detention kinds of things would not be a part of this kind of modification since they are no remodeling the building. Ms. Williams responded it would be whatever they included with their building permit for the permit approval process for the fueling facilities; and they would probably ask for the guidance of Ron Jones for that particular section of the Policy. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated this is an existing marina; they have done the same thing for years; and she would support a motion.

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

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the applicant needs to be sure he reviews his plans with the Natural Resources staff and others.

Item 4. (Z0303401) Robert G. Weber and Mary Elizabeth Pluckebaum Weber’s request for change from AU to EU-2 with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to five single-family residential homesites, with a minimum living area of 2,000 square feet on 4.851 acres located on both sides of Rockledge Drive, north of Coquina Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan as submitted.

Commissioner Carlson stated before the Board discusses this particular item, it would be appropriate to have the discussion on rezoning and school capacity. She stated she brought a letter to the attention of the Board from Melissa Hoaglund, President of Citizens for Responsible Growth, who had a concern that the Board’s policy on school capacity was not being followed from the LPA perspective; this issue was well discussed and commentary was made by the School Board representative who now sits on the LPA regarding the school that is being built in Viera; and suggested the Board readdress the current policy on school capacity to see when there is an instance where the density might impact an overcrowded school, if it wants to consider a school that is under construction. She stated in this particular case Williams Elementary is the school that is over-capacity and would be impacted by the zoning item, but there is no impact at the middle or high school level; currently there is a school in Viera being built that will be open on August 7, 2003; and the question is whether to consider that. She stated staff has provided various options to consider; and she would like to hear from other Commissioners how they would like to approach the policy. She stated one option is to review it in consideration of schools under construction or whether or not construction contracts have been issues; the second option is to consider schools under construction that are substantially complete, such as 75% constructed, when making a capacity determination; and the third option is to consider schools that are under construction and are scheduled to be completed within a specified time period. She noted the Board could maintain its current policy; it has been the Board’s intent to understand the School Board’s position; the Board put the policy in place because of the school overcrowding issue and all the discussion that occurred with the Sawgrass issue; so the Board is in a position to consider putting additional words in the policy that would consider the construction of a school at some point.

Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if staff needs to add anything about what the Board needs to do in regard to the policy. Mr. Enos stated Commissioner Carlson described the three options staff is presenting; and any of the options is a change to the current policy. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the current policy is if the seats are not there, the Board does not approve any kind of zoning change.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson brought up a very good issue; if the intent is not to provide overcrowding, and a school is under construction and going to be completed at or about the same time as the subdivision or house, the Board has accomplished its goal in providing a seat in a classroom for the student; and he does not see any reason to wait beyond that. He stated it is something the Board needs to approve.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the P&Z Board now has a School Board representative; but his problem with the School Board representative taking a position is that he is just an individual, and the position did not come from the School Board. He stated with the changes in the Florida Statute, the Board is supposed to take the school into consideration when doing any planning; and recommended sending a letter to the School Board asking for input. Commissioner Carlson stated that would be fine; but the Board will need to table a couple of items. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would hate to make a decision tonight; he understands everyone has a position; later the School Board may instruct its representative this way or that; Chairperson Colon has attempted to create meetings with cities and is trying to set up one with the School Board; and he would like to get School Board comment before taking action. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees because the School Board may have additional information it would like to share or include in an addition to the current policy.

Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired how many items will be affected by the policy; with Mr. Enos responding two, one of which the Board has already tabled and this one. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she would want to know what the School Board’s position is and have it clarify that; there seems to be some room for the Board to consider these options and do something that would be reasonable if a school is under construction; but she would prefer to have the School Board give that information.

Commissioner Scarborough stated conceivably the School Board may prefer not to say anything and let the Board make the call, and that is fine; but it is appropriate for governments to talk to each other.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board could present the options and indicate its intent to move forward in a certain way; and request additional guidance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not care how the letter is worded; it can give some historical perspective of where the Board is and the options before it; and the main thing is the Board would appreciate hearing the thoughts of the School Board before taking any further action.

Commissioner Carlson stated whatever consideration the Board provides, staff should explain that if there is an elementary school under construction, but the middle school and high school are overcrowded, there is still going to be the same outcome as the original policy; Item 4 is the perfect situation because there is an elementary school being built, so there will not be an overcrowding issue at Williams Elementary, and there is not an overcrowding issue at McNair Middle or Rockledge High Schools, which are the other two feeder schools; and inquired if a motion is needed to send this issue to the School Board for input.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to send a letter to the School Board requesting input on options for residential rezoning requests as they relate to school capacity.

Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if the Board wants to adopt a position tonight, which would allow the Board to go ahead with the next item; with Commissioner Carlson responding no, it is important to get the School Board’s input.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is an almost completed school; someone is saying they have to have action tonight; and he does not know why he is being forced to make all these decisions if a school is under construction and will be completed in less than a year. He inquired why the Board is being drawn into this discussion when the real, more complex issue is that the schools are drastically underfunded. He stated the educational system is slipping away; the Board is calculating months when a developer can break ground; but that is not the most relevant issue. He stated he does not have a lot of empathy for someone who needs a decision tonight because at worst they could come back in a few months and get their permit. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not always true because there are construction loans pending, lower interest rates, and other things. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands everybody wants to do something today; but by the same token there are overcrowded schools and roads; and as the community becomes overcrowded, there is a degradation of quality of life for all current citizens.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that is true, but there was a situation on Merritt Island where an applicant wanted to use a parcel increasing the density by 17, but could not because Tropical Elementary School was overcrowded; the school is having classrooms built now that will be finished by June or July; and his position was that the classrooms would be finished before the construction is finished, so the goal is accomplished. He stated time is of the essence; developers like to buy things when it is most advantageous for them to buy; and three months could mean not having a viable development.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the overcrowding issues have occurred because of freedom of choice; one of the most overcrowded elementary schools in the County is Mims Elementary even though the County has issued zero building permits; and it is because of people moving into that area. He stated some overcrowding problems can be easily solved by changing the school boundaries, but that is a very political issue; the Board is walking into a school issue; somehow it is going to be part of the bigger dialogue; and he would be more comfortable sending this over to the School Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have a problem asking the School Board for input on this; but whether it is boundaries or not is not the issue; the issue is whether there is a classroom for the students; if the timeline of the development matches the timeline for construction of the school facility, then the Board has done what it set out to do; and he is concerned about second guessing the representative of the School Board. He stated the person is the representative of the School Board; if he makes a statement, that is, in essence, the School Board’s position; and it then comes to the Board because he is a member of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Legislature has chosen to put a School Board person on the Local Planning Agency for a good reason; there is also School Board staff there; and inquired if that is correct; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to directly ask the School Board if what is heard at the LPA is the decision it will accept.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a difference between a staff position and a policy decision; policy makers can only make a policy decision in a public meeting where it is before them for public discussion; if taken in any other format, it is not a policy decision of an elected body; and inquired if the School Board has met and taken a position; with Ms. Busacca responding no, the School Board has not made a policy. Commissioner Scarborough noted if someone asked Ms. Busacca to make a policy decision, she would advise she is not here to make policy decisions, but to carry out the government on a day-to-day basis.

Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Busacca supplied a memo on the school issue; and the Board did ask for some confirmation from the School Board. She stated she does not know if that was documented; the Board has chosen to review thresholds and have permanent capacity as the determining factor; the Board has gone to the School Board to ask questions like that; and the School Board has some formulated thought on that. She stated the Board is now thinking about the determining factor in allowing density increases to occur based on construction in process; and commented on long-term plans of the School Board. She stated she appreciates what Commissioner Pritchard is saying, but unless the Board absolutely knows a school is going to be built, there are no guarantees.

Commissioner Pritchard stated in the situation which he spoke of earlier, the school was under construction and would be completed. He stated he does not want to bird dog every decision the School Board representative makes; that is the School Board’s responsibility; and the appointee is not an employee or staff member, but a representative of the School Board. He stated he agrees with getting clarification on the authority the representative has so the Board does not feel the need to run to the School Board every time the appointee says yes, to find out if that is what the School Board really meant. Commissioner Carlson stated she would agree with that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has not run to the School Board at all; there have been legislative changes that require this type of communication; and it is expected under the new legislation. Commissioner Pritchard stated this is new; and the School Board never had a representative; with Commissioner Scarborough advising that is because the law changed. Commissioner Pritchard stated it does not matter what has happened in the past; now there is a School Board representative who is part of the P&Z Board; and the authority that representative has needs clarification. He stated if the School Board wants to be involved with every decision after the fact that is fine. Commissioner Scarborough advised that is not his question; the Board needs to feel comfortable with the decision coming from the LPA as something the School Board is okay with; the person is an appointee, not an elected official; therefore, there is less clout in terms of making a decision for the Board to be comfortable with; and he does not have any problem getting clarification back. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is not compelled to change its policy regardless of what comes down; the change of policy is being considered at the Board level; and it should not be influenced by an appointee, just as his appointee to the P&Z Board should not impact something a municipality does. He stated a body of elected officials meeting as a group with public comment is totally different than people who are appointed to various boards developing policy for the County. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board’s attempt to change policy should be based on common sense; and if the facility is available at the time the developer catches up with it, then the Board has accomplished the goals it set out to do.

Ms. Busacca stated there were several discussions before the School Board made a decision on whether to appoint a citizen or staff member; and there was concern about any direction that the School Board may give the appointee. She stated she described in a letter to Dr. DiPatri how the Board makes Local Planning Agency and other appointments, but does not specifically direct the decision of each of those appointees; that gives them a certain amount of flexibility in the way they operate; and the School Board intended to operate as the Board does with its appointees to other boards, with the person carrying forward the interests of the School Board, but not necessarily the specific policy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he appoints someone, he tells them not to call him because they are the ones on the advisory board; it is not the decision of the policy making board; and that is important. Mr. Busacca stated that was the intent of the School Board as well.

Commissioner Carlson stated the only reason she brought it up was because the LPA was straying from common policy; because of the input of the School Board representative, the current policy was taken to a different level; and something was approved that would not have been approved before the Board. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board has disagreed with the P&Z Board many times. Commissioner Carlson stated the reason it was brought to her attention is the inconsistency and worry that it might be questioned or potentially challenged in court; and she would not like to see that happen.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to send a letter to the School Board on history and options for residential rezoning requests as they relate to school capacity. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she will offer Mr. Weber an opportunity to speak; but the Board will want to get the letter back before moving forward.

Robert Weber stated he and his wife own the property; and commented on the American dream, getting in line, and the way things are done. He advised Mr. Curry and Mr. Strickland have indicated in the past that there would not be a problem with impacting school capacity. He stated if the Board decides it does not want to do something, he wanted to be in line instead of someone getting ahead of him.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board is going to get a letter over to the School Board very quickly and try to get input back to clarify if the Board is making the right policy decisions; and Mr. Weber will be first in line for consideration as soon as the Board gets that letter back. She suggested it be tabled for 30 days.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 4 to May 1, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:12 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.m.

Item 5. (Z0303402) The Viera Company and Loren and Fawn Von Riesen, Co-Trustees’ request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designating from Residential 4 to Community Commercial on 3.50 acres and change from GU, AU, EU, RU-1-7, and PUD to all PUD with an amendment to the Preliminary Development Plan on 210.40 acres located on the south side of Viera Boulevard, west of Holiday Springs Road, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and P&Z Board.

Ed Fleis, Fleis and Bennett Engineering, representing the owners and developers of the property, stated Attorney Phil Nohrr and Clayton Bennett are also present to make short presentations. He stated they are requesting approval of an amendment to an approved Preliminary Development Plan for St. Patrick’s Planned Unit Development (PUD); the site is 210.40 acres and includes the 159-acre parcel known as the St. Patrick’s PUD and a 51-acre parcel located between St. Patrick’s PUD and Viera Boulevard; to the west of the property is Indian River Colony Club; to the east is Holiday Springs; and to the south is County property that was used for percolation ponds and a conservation area. He presented a visual representing the PUD that was unanimously approved by the Board on February 3, 2000, showing the lot layout, and stated it was approved for 835 residential units, of which 177 were multifamily. He stated there is a neighborhood commercial tract of 3.5 acres located to the north of the parcel immediately to the east of the entrance road and adjacent to the multifamily parcel; BU-1-A uses were approved for the neighborhood commercial; and the Board approved restaurant use with up to 150 seats and a CUP for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages for Onsite Consumption. He stated the access to Viera Boulevard was through a 100-foot access easement to Viera Boulevard; and the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan by the Board contains several conditions that were acceptable to the applicant to address boundary conditions that were concerns of the adjacent property owners. He stated along Patriot Street on the west side of Indian River Colony Club the residents asked for and the applicant agreed to construct a six-foot high masonry wall, similar to the wall along Murrell Road; the 25-foot building setback would be vegetated with 14-foot high trees, both hardwoods and softwoods; only one-story buildings would be constructed in the first tier of lots; and the residents also asked to preserve the mature trees in the forested wetland, which is located on the southwest side of the site. He stated along Holiday Springs, the 25-foot building setback is to be vegetated; lot widths are to be at least equal to Holiday Springs’ lot widths; and only one-story buildings are to be along developed lots. He stated this is what is approved now and what they have been proceeding on with construction drawings and regulatory permitting. He stated the amendment covers the expansion of the area of the PUD and the boundaries of the PUD to include the 51-acre parcel that is located north of the PUD and south of Viera Boulevard; the layout of the amended preliminary development plan for the PUD has considered the boundaries and area of jurisdictional uplands and wetlands on the property; and extensive environmental work has been done by consultants to define scrub jay territories and wetlands, which was not done when the first PUD was submitted and approved. He stated they have now come up with a design that preserves the uplands, scrub jay territories, and wetlands. He stated the proposed number of residential units within the new expanded boundaries of the amended PUD does not increase the number over the number of units presently approved for the two parcels; and the amendment provides for a transfer of residential units from within the boundaries of the approved PUD to within the area of the annexed parcel. He stated the Future Land Use Element allows up to four units per acre and five units per acre, when public sewer is available; the existing zoning on the property is EU, GU, and AU, and provides for up to 101 residential units on the north parcel alone and 835 on the parcel of the approved PUD for a total of 936 residential units; and the amended preliminary development plan has been put together based on a maximum of 877 units for the overall site. He stated the density of the 51.11-acre parcel with 240 units will not be more than 4.7 units per acre; within the St. Patrick’s preliminary development plan, they are transferring some residential units; the number of overall units would drop from 835 to 676 units and the density would be reduced from 5.24 units per acre to 4.24; and they are preserving extensive areas with the existing PUD. He presented a graphic showing the lot layout plan; stated it is similar to what was first displayed; and it depicts what they are trying to accomplish on the site. He stated they are working with preserving extensive uplands and occupied scrub jay territories; on the north side, they are adding buffers in between to add continuity of vegetated corridors; and they are extending that all the way to the south property line. He advised the wetlands are being preserved; they are creating a 12-acre lake; the active and passive open space on the overall site is to be a minimum of 67.78 acres versus the 43.2 acres that would be required for the site; and approximately one-third of the site is preserved in uplands and wetlands. He stated they have an active open space with bicycle paths that start at Viera Boulevard and extend all the way through the property, coming around the southwest side and the boundary with the bridge connecting the two subdivisions; they are connecting communities with bicycle paths through some of the preserved areas; and people can access the recreational amenities or Viera Boulevard with bicycle paths going throughout. Mr. Fleis stated community recreation is proposed; and there will be a community building that is a minimum of 250 square-feet, swimming pools, tennis court, and a pitch and chip green. He stated the amended PUD proposes to relocate the neighborhood commercial from the north part of St. Patrick’s PUD to the northeast corner of the expanded PUD; the area remains at 3.5 acres; he was proposing BU-1 uses, but after talking to some people with the Citizens Resource Group, he has modified that to limit it to BU-1-A uses; and they are still asking for approval for the specific use of a 150-seat restaurant with on-site alcohol sales. He stated they have reduced the retail commercial, which was originally approved for 40,000 square feet to 35,000 square feet; the access will only be from the main entrance road from Viera Boulevard; and there will be no curb cut on Viera Boulevard. He stated in terms of compatibility, the property is adjacent to another piece of property that is zoned BU-1-A, another is zoned industrial; kitty-corner to the property is all industrial land; and they are adjacent to BU-1, so it also provides a buffer.

Vice Chairperson Higgs indicated the speaker’s time has expired; with Mr. Fleis requesting additional time to address the Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated it would be important to listen to the people who have come tonight; and it may be better to preserve rebuttal time. She stated she is sure there will be questions; and Mr. Fleis will probably have his entire presentation one way or another.

Phil Nohrr stated currently there is an existing PUD; there is neighborhood commercial at 3.5 acres; and they are suggesting 40,000 square feet of commercial be moved north approximately 1,000 feet and to the east. He stated in return they will keep it so there would be no direct access onto Viera Boulevard; the only access would be interior off the roadway that connects with Viera Boulevard; and there would be a reduction of approximately 12% from 40,000 square feet to 35,000 square feet. He stated to the east they are adjacent with BU-1-A; and they are not introducing commercial into the area. He stated the original PUD was negotiated and approved two years ago; the amendment accomplishes a reduction in density; there is the benefit of the PUD on the entire parcel running up to Viera Boulevard; and this is in keeping with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and offers a chance to do a master development of the entire parcel up to Viera Boulevard.

Ed McMahon, representing Indian River Colony Club, which abuts the proposed St. Patrick’s PUD, stated the original zoning for the Von Reisen portion of the property was for mobile and manufactured homes; he contacted Commissioner Carlson in 1999 to see if it could be rezoned; and she agreed to try to do it administratively. He stated at this point a planned unit development was proposed by David Civil; and after discussion with Commissioner Carlson, the Planning and Zoning Department, and the Natural Resources Management Department, it was agreed that with a wall and planted barrier, this was the best choice rather than mobile and manufactured homes. He stated the conceptual plan was approved by the Board in February 2000, but was rejected by the environmental agencies; they then reviewed their options and found that the EELs Program had this land on its list to attempt to purchase; and also they found there were a large number of endangered species on the land as well as protected land to the north and south of it. He stated if they had known that, they would have objected to the original PUD requested by Mr. Civil; Mr. Civil submitted another plan to the environmental agencies, reducing density and leaving the wetland area in the northwest corner, but that was also rejected; and at this point, Mr. Civil dropped the project. He stated another developer from Vero Beach initiated a modification of the PUD, which was not accepted; and Mr. Fleis and his associates in 2002 submitted another modification of the PUD on an informal basis to the environmental agencies, which was not accepted. He stated to date they do not find that a final site plan approval has been given for Mr. Civil’s original PUD or any subsequent modifications; but they are now asking to add additional acres to the original PUD in an attempt to mitigate onsite for wetland destruction and get the approval from the environmental agencies. He stated the parcel that would make up the complete PUD is a natural wildlife corridor between protected lands to the south and north with an abundance of wetland, wildlife habitat, and endangered species; and the Board has a unique opportunity to revisit this proposal. He stated by denying this request, the project will revert back to the original PUD that has not, after many attempts, received the approval of the environmental agencies; and the Board can stop its development and protect the land in perpetuity.

Henry Evans, resident of Indian River Colony Club, submitted a petition with over 450 signatures; and stated he is well aware of the wildlife and animals that occupy the Von Reisen and Viera Company properties. He stated Mr. Fleis wants to grandfather a rezoning of 210 acres based on the original 160 acres through zoning; the Board changed the zoning of the 160 acres in 2000; however, there is confusion about whether a final development plan was approved. Mr. Evans stated Mr. Civil, the developer, had problems meeting the St. Johns River Water Management District and Army Corps of Engineers criteria; and the application was subsequently withdrawn. He inquired why are they continually endangering our Florida wildlife and environmental system in favor of supposed progress; and stated rezoning lands and developing the property in question will be a giant step backwards. He stated in 1995 a scrub conservation development plan was developed, which encompasses scrub jay habitat in the County; there were only 24 birds at that time; the scrub jay is still on the endangered list; and pointed out the habitat and corridors for nesting on his chart. He noted the largest area for the scrub jays lies in the subject area; Mr. Fleis claims he has left enough corridor space for the birds to migrate north of Viera Boulevard; however on the north side on Barnes Boulevard, their nesting is interrupted by a new housing area that is being built. He advised there would be environmental impact on the wildlife and the residents of the Indian River Colony Club because of noise from excavation, building homes, the inherent traffic from the proposed shopping center, and smoke from burning of vegetation while clearing; and it would destroy the peaceful environment the senior residents now enjoy. He commented on preservation of property, Satellite Beach setting aside 140 acres of beachfront for preservation, and the EEL’s Program. He stated if the application is approved, the scrub jays, other wildlife, and ecological environment will disappear from Brevard County. He advised of his time in the Army, tours of duty in Korea and Vietnam, and persuading soldiers to have inner strength to endure combat. He stated while the troops are in Iraq, everyone should maintain the pristine County and its balanced micro-ecological system, and not give in to the profit takers by destroying the land. He requested the Board deny the request.

George Harris, resident of Indian River Colony Club, stated the residents have concerns with the proposed development; the proposed clearing of land and trees to build more than 800 homes insures destruction of the ecology and habitat for wildlife; and commented on noise levels and clouds of dust generated by earth moving equipment, large bulldozers, graders, scrapers, and power tools. He stated air pollution and noise will cause problems for the elderly residents; the proposed development abutting the homes along Patriot Drive will disturb the quiet environment of the area; and the controlled environment was the reason the majority of the residents moved into the quiet gated community. He stated there will be a loss of privacy due to the changing grade levels; street lighting shining into windows of certain houses will disturb sleep patterns; and the increase in traffic and congestion due to the commercial center will be felt by those in Indian River Colony Club, Heron’s Landing, and Holiday Springs. He stated he has seen estimates of a doubling in traffic caused by the access in and out of the new development and the new shopping center; and they do not know what type of community the new development will be. He stated this ambiguity, loss of quiet, and change in the micro-ecosystem will cause depreciation of their property values; and this is their retirement investment. He commented on development of Indian River Colony Club for veterans who served the nation; stated another generation has gone into harm’s way defending the nation’s rights; the Board is being asked to make a decision as to whether the needs of a program for profit or the needs of those who served the County are paramount; and requested the Board withhold approval of St. Patrick’s PUD or any amendments thereto, and deny permission to proceed with the project.

Ford Garvin, resident of the Indian River Colony Club, submitted paperwork to the Board; and stated this is a case of misuse of a special, unique ecosystem. He stated the diversity of animals, birds, and reptiles in this small area is incredible; he takes his grandchildren to the area; and this is what will be lost. He stated there may be a corridor for the scrub jay, but what about the deer, wildcats, pigs, turtles, etc.; and advised of teaching his grandchildren the difference between various animals tracks, how the rattlesnake and gopher turtle live together in the same hole, and how when the fires come, rabbits, squirrels, mice, and snakes all get in the same hole to wait for the fire to go by. He commented on wild turkeys and raccoons in his yard, and seeing a picture of a bobcat taken just a few houses from his. He stated the entire area is unique and unfit for housing; and it should be put in the EEL’s Program and have nature trails. He reiterated there is a diversity of wildlife habitats on this parcel; he knows people are coming to Florida and have to build houses; but this is not a good piece of land for development, and should be preserved.

Barry Schmoyer, resident of Heron’s Landing, stated he is present to address the small 3.5-acre parcel that is being put in as commercial, and the issues of traffic density and the accident potential. He stated he has lived in the area for ten years; there is a lot of traffic going up and down that route; there is an industrial area with large trucks; and there is unauthorized traffic coming out of that area from US 1 to go through to I-95. He stated there is a lot of increased traffic due to the natural expansion of Viera; now they are proposing to develop the parcel with 840 units; and all of this is contributing to a lot of traffic. He stated keeping a small mall out of the development will reduce another element, which would be a lot of people coming into Viera to access the area; the restaurant already exists on the plan; and the commercial area is part of the back. He stated the second issue is the accident potential; he has seen a lot of accidents; people have been seriously hurt on various areas of Viera Boulevard and along the access to U.S. 1 and Viera Boulevard; and keeping the mall where it is today, if approved, will increase the density even more and cause more accidents.

Richard Jeffery, resident of Heron’s Landing, read aloud a petition protesting the zoning approval authorizing the moving of commercial zoning to Viera Boulevard due to presence of 40-plus acres of commercial property seven/tenths of a mile west as well as a large portion at the corner of Holiday Springs Road and Viera Boulevard just two/tenths of a mile east of the subject property. He stated at the time the PUD was approved three years ago, he lived in Suntree; the Suntree paper reported it was converted from mobile homes to residential; and everybody was pleased. He stated the residents were unaware of the zoning change, and were shocked to find out that a portion had been approved for commercial and multidensity. He commented on other commercial development in the area, road configurations, addition of 35,000 square feet, and noise issues. He stated the original portion of 3.5 acres has already been approved; and if it must be kept, it should be kept where it is so it can be used as community commercial. He stated the setback reduction and street reduction could cause a problem for emergency vehicles in the area; when giving the zoning approval, Mr. Selig stated the developer had done a lot of work and should be approved; but that is not a valid reason for the best of Brevard County. He requested the Board turn down the application and request the plan be totally redone.

Barbara Barnett, resident of Heron’s Landing, urged the Board to opposed the downzoning of the property from residential to commercial on Viera Boulevard; stated they bought a house in Viera because it was a beautiful planned community; but now there is a gas station and supermarket. She stated there are empty stores on the west end of Viera Boulevard, a proposed restaurant on a beautifully landscaped road, and more multifamily at the east end, which is less than two miles away. She stated there are three big apartment complexes on Murrell Road; that is where multifamily belongs; and requested, in the interest of good planning, the Board vote against the downzoning.

Sue Holland, resident of Heron’s Landing, stated the County needs to be protected from overcrowding; many other areas of Florida have become too dense; and the County needs to protect quality of life and scrub jays. She stated the new thrust of tourist is to attract the eco-tourist; every time they change the zoning, they become more dense and are acting counter to the new thrust; and requested the Board not be impressed by the highly visual presentation by the owners of the property. She stated they have spent money and time for the presentation; but that does not mean the residents should not be taken just as seriously. She stated they do not intend to stop progress; they only ask that progress be monitored taking other things into consideration besides quantity of units that can be crowded on an acre of land. She stated scrub jays do not know boundaries and pathways; they only know when their space has been compromised; the residents of Viera also know when their space has been compromised; and requested the Board not grant the rezoning.

Jack Slupecki, resident of Heron’s Landing, requested the Board deny the request. He stated he and his wife moved here from Atlanta two years ago; he can tell firsthand what unplanned growth and development can do; and Atlanta is a classic example with traffic, crowded schools, and everything else that comes from too much growth. He stated they bought into the Viera dream; he was impressed with the mixture of nice residential homes, some commercial development, and a lot of preserved area; and he thought Florida had it together, appreciated the environment, and had growth, jobs, and homes, but did it right. He stated the parcel on Viera Boulevard is beautiful; there is a viewing stand at Holiday Springs to look at the preserve area; and he does not understand why anyone would want to take that away. He stated the Board just talked about school overcrowding with a request for five properties; and inquired what will apartments do on this property. He stated there are apartments on Murrell Road already; there is also commercial development; and requested the Board consider all these factors and keep the dream that is shown on the billboards on I-95.

Bob Peltz, resident of Springs of Suntree, submitted a petition from the homeowners asking the Board to deny the requested change; and stated Viera Boulevard is the only boulevard left in the County; and they do not see any reason to have industrial development there other than to line the pockets of the developer. He stated there were two additional panther sightings last Friday and a week ago Saturday, which they have not documented yet. He advised of Mercedes Homes taking over the assets of the bankrupt General Development or Atlantic Gulf Properties, outnumbering the residents, and dissolving the board of directors and setting up their own board on which they had a majority; stated they set up an amendment that gave them a vehicle for replatting; they changed from eight homes to ten in the same area, which allowed them to put a lot more homes in a given space; and they also reduced the width of the roads and the setbacks. He stated as a result, on Coral Springs Road or Hill Street, the houses are jammed close together; the setbacks are not adequate to park a large car between the garage and the street; and he would not like to see this happen to his neighbors who will be there in the future. He stated it may be possible to circumvent some of the overcrowding, high noise levels, and greater potential for accidents; and these are issues that are over and above the ones of ecology, pristine development, and a great area in which to live.

Pat Kelly, resident of Heron’s Landing, stated she is aware of Viera’s promises; she paid $10,000 additional for her lot because it backs up on the sanctuary area; and the lake with the fountain behind the Viera sign is right behind her house. She stated she does not want to see this area developed; it was supposed to only be on the south side of Viera Boulevard; but now it is moving to the north so the sanctuary area that was never going to be developed will be developed. She stated they also want to take the commercial out of the neighborhood; it would be like the restaurant at the golf course within the neighborhood; it is not putting it out for the general public to come in; and people who do not live in the neighborhood would not be coming to this commercial area. She stated she had some bad experiences recently; Saturday night she had to call the police twice because of bands playing in the industrial area; the first time they went, there were three bands playing, but they left; however, there was another one still playing, but because of the zoning, there was nothing he could do but ask him to stop. She stated she does not want to listen to this at ten and eleven o’clock at night; when it can be heard over the radio on her patio, it is offensive; and it is offensive when she is having company for dinner and is sitting on the patio. She stated she is awakened every morning by the crushing at six in the morning, and has to listen to it all day; and she does not want any more commercial.

Don Harry, resident of Heron’s Landing, stated right now his back yard faces Viera Boulevard; he knew they would eventually widen the road and develop, but never thought about commercial; half of his yard backs up to the Viera sign with all the trees, which is nice, but is also a haven for kids to play in and hide out; and he had to replace his screen quite a few times; He stated intrusion of commercial into a residential area could lead to more; he heard talk about apartments; and the last thing he wants is to sit on his patio and look at a three-story apartment complex. He stated there are apartments at the other end, and that is where he would like to keep them.

Beverly Pinyerd, resident of Viera East, stated across Viera Boulevard is a 600-acre conservation area with scrub jays, gopher tortoises, and sand hill cranes; and she is afraid if they attempt to cross the road, they will become road kill. She commented on community commercial and restaurants at various golf courses not being viable; and stated she has no problem with a restaurant in the interior of the subdivision; but putting it on Viera Boulevard will set a precedent opening it up to commercial. She stated a 150-seat restaurant with a liquor license is inappropriate; community commercial is supposed to be located no closer than two miles apart; and Murrell Road is a mile and a half away so this is not needed. She stated she is surprised by how many people are attuned to wildlife; and suggested the Board have a referendum asking taxpayers if they are willing to allocate more money for a trust fund for land acquisition in the County. She stated she understands property rights and that the developer has a right to make a profit; but if there was opportunity and tax money to purchase properties before they are all gone and paved over, this is a particularly beautiful piece of land with scrub jays. She stated it is probably a given that it will be developed; but the restaurant is not needed; and requested the Board make that concession to the residents.

Craig Bock, resident of Heron’s Landing, commended the applicant for the effort done to make the project work and preserve wetlands; but stated he is opposed to the commercial property being moved to Viera Boulevard. He stated they already have the ability to build a restaurant in the community and have a liquor license; and the move would be for more accessibility, which would mean more traffic. He stated there are four lanes on both sides of Murrell Road; at U.S. 1 it narrows to two lanes; the Sheriff is frequently running radar right where it goes from 45 to 30 mph; and it has been known to have quite a bit of traffic. He stated Commissioner Carlson walked around the area during reelection time and may have noticed that it is possible to find pieces of bumper, glass, etc. on U.S. 1; and he does not know if that is because of the drivers or because it is overcrowded. He stated there is a church over 300 feet from the property; he is sure there is concern about a BU-1 property with the potential to be a bar; and he would be totally against that. He stated the applicant must have some idea of what he wants to build there; and requested the applicant work in good faith by limiting some other things and telling the people what is going to be built on that property. He stated since there are no plans to four-lane Viera Boulevard for another eight years when it will have access potentially to I-95, there are traffic problems; and he is shocked at the development that is going to be built and the number of cars that are going to be coming that way. He stated Wickham Road has the access from the south, but Viera Boulevard is not capable of that; having BU-1-A or BU-1 in the area will set a precedent; and inquired where will the line be drawn. He stated it would not be far from residences in the community; depending on what it was, it could be very disruptive; and he would be against any commercial development being moved out to Viera Boulevard; but he is realistic. He stated they have a permit to build; he is pro growth when it is done wisely; they have done it within the Planning and Zoning regulations; and now they are asking the Board to bend those rules to change the zoning. He requested the Board deny the request.

Maurice Barnett stated he moved here from Long Island three years ago; and commented on the conditions in Long Island. He stated changing the zoning from residential to commercial does not help anything. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers have turned down a lot of things on that piece of property; the applicant spent a lot of money on drawings; but downzoning areas is only asking for trouble in the future. He stated it used to take him 15 minutes to drive to work when he moved to his house in Smithtown 33 years ago; but 14 years later it took him 35 minutes to get to work; and downzoning will only make traffic worse.

Larry Hughes, resident of Indian River Colony Club, stated his property abuts the wetlands; and the developer has not obtained the approvals necessary to proceed. He commented on the two scrub jay families that were found on the property proposed for a school and the mitigation terms. He stated the commercial property being proposed would contribute to the traffic on the Boulevard; the commercial property is less than two miles from existing commercial zoning; and the County’s policy prohibits additional commercial property that close.

Clayton Bennett, Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida, stated tonight the Board has heard from the public regarding many concerns with environmental and engineering issues; and the applicant is sensitive to those issues as well, which is why they are proposing a number of changes. He stated he will compare the two plans and show how they are working with them and addressing the issues; and he will start with what was approved. He stated lots were proposed completely across the north property line of the original PUD; there are conservation areas to the north and south; and what they are proposing is a greenway corridor. He stated originally along the Indian River Colony Club there were four tiers of lots and two roads; that would have more construction along the property boundary; and with the revised plan, they are limiting it to a single tier, reducing the time construction would be occurring over that area. He stated they are not asking for any relief from any environmental regulations; they recognize that permits will need to be obtained; they will be obtained through the County through the subdivision process, and through preliminary plat and final plat approvals; and they will need to get an environmental resource permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District. He advised they have a revised application into the District and are working to address the District’s concerns; they had several meetings and have a plan that is close to being approvable; and they also need to get permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He stated the plan proposed tonight would reduce impacts from what was originally approved by the Board; and granting this approval will provide the landowners with a reasonable use of their property.

Mr. Fleis stated when they first got involved with this project in March 2002, they went through due diligence with the project, finding out what the assets and limitations are of the project, and utilities and drainage issues; and one important part was what has been approved for the project and the attitude of the neighbors. He stated this has been through a rezoning; he got copies of the Minutes of the meetings of the Planning and Zoning Board as well as the Commission; Mr. Civil at that time spent a lot of time with the neighbors at Indian River Colony Club and Holiday Spring and addressed their issues; and Mr. Cliff Lynch, the General Manager, gave them a lot of credit that they had met a number of times. He stated there was a meeting with 200 residents present; their particular concern was that a wall be constructed, that a buffer would be vegetated, that only one story buildings would be built on the first tier of lots, and that the trees in the wetland or hydric hammock area on the southwest side would be preserved. He stated those were the conditions of Board approval; those are the things they have looked at; and with their cooperation on the four issues, the Indian River Colony Club would endorse the development to go forward. He stated that is what they were looking at when they got involved with the property; and there has been a lot of good will and effort between the developers of the property to address the concerns of the neighbors. He stated Mr. McMahon who was one of the first speakers tonight also indicated he is a resident of Indian River Colony Club; he said he would like to see the property remain in its natural state, but if that is not possible, he supports the change from TRC to PUD, which is in their best interest with the inclusion of a buffer wall, plantings, and agreement to have single-story adjacent to other lots. He noted Mr. McMahon said since all the residents who abut the area could not attend the meeting, he contacted all but two of them and they agreed with the statement; the owners of the home north of his have a problem with flooding and wish to make sure there is a promise to address the engineering concept plan; and one resident had to have a retaining wall built to keep his back yard from being flooded. He stated Mr. McMahon advised if for some reason federal or State authorities find the project not to go forward, he would like the County to purchase the property under the EEL’s Program; and he commended Mr. Civil for his approach to discuss the plan and for working with them to provide a buffer between the two communities with different life systems. He stated Mr. McMahon said this type of communication should be encouraged by the County so that neighborhoods are compatible; and the proposed PUD classification was the best way to do it because it does not happen with the development to the west side of the community. He stated in doing due diligence it was a matter of the attitude of the neighbors toward the proposed development; that development was what they were looking at with 835 residential units and lot layout; and they have now invested, based on this, time and money; and they also met a number of times again with the Indian River Colony Club to assure that the conditions that were agreed on before are still in agreement. He stated they have come up with others that have already been discussed, such as a fence along the golf course and moving the wall five feet to raise the elevation of the wall to make it a visual barrier. He stated speakers pointed out that the St. Johns River Water Management District, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have rejected the concept plans that have been presented; he has done at least 50 concept plans on this project because the idea is to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and to jurisdictional uplands; they meet with the agencies, which kick it back and say not enough has been done yet; and they keep trying to figure out how to do a plan that preserves the upland and wetlands. He stated what the Board is seeing is the result of a great number of meetings with the agencies and the County; their goals and efforts initially were to do an extensive study of the environment of the site because they know it is sensitive; they are preserving one-third of the site; and he wonders if the speakers were aware of that. He stated most of the vegetation has been preserved; and there is also a landscape buffer being preserved north of the residential units. He stated the only place the restaurant works is on Viera Boulevard; and it does not work internally.

Vice Chairperson Higgs advised the speaker’s time has expired.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard to, allow two minutes to finish the presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Fleis stated where it talks about community commercial, it talks about BU-1 uses being two miles apart; it is intended to be more than neighborhood commercial; their objective had been to be neighborhood commercial and transfer uses that have been approved on the interior of the site to the exterior of the site; but unfortunately they have run into the rule that says they now have to call this community commercial. He stated a 150-seat restaurant does not work inside; he does not know whether it would work on the outside; but if the restaurant is the problem, they will delete the restaurant and will go with the BU-1-A uses as something else. He stated there was some comment about this being the beginning of a lot of other commercial development, but there are no sites available.

Commissioner Carlson stated this is a complex development; and she would like to give an update on the environment because she has worked hard to try and preserve this whole area, which is approximately 1,400 acres of scrub habitat and wetlands. She stated they have applied for dollars from the State through the Florida Communities Trust through the EEL’s Program; the application was approved for one year, but was conditioned upon getting appraisals and getting the owner of the property to allow the purchase; but nobody in that area wants to sell their land for the amount that the County can buy it for, which is the appraised value. She stated the status today is that the one year has gone by, so the FCT application is gone; the property is still under the scrub habitat property under the EEL’s Program; and it is listed under the Florida Forever Program. She stated the property is on the A list for purchase; there is no time limit involved; but it is necessary to get the owner of the property to allow the purchase at the appraised value; and that has not occurred. She stated when Mr. Civil came in and provided the original planned unit development, everyone thought it was good because he was trying to preserve and do something similar to what was approved in the Open Space PUD; but that failed. She commented on the EEL’s process, inability to purchase the property outright, and inability to come up with $14 million for the purchase. She stated staff has concerns, which have been cited in a memorandum; and the first point talks about the fact that this item needs to be tabled due to additional details, ambiguities, and some of the submissions of the applicant. She stated there have been quite a few revisions to the plan; the Board was handed a new amended preliminary plan application tonight; in her briefing with staff, there were a lot of ambiguities and problems with the numbers; and she would want to table the item to get further comment and some answers. She noted she received a lot of email from the people in Heron’s Landing; she also talked with the Indian River Colony Club; and it is important to have communication with the community. She stated the movement of the commercial tract is to make the property work, and it is external to the PUD; the whole idea of the PUD is to have those things be internal; the idea of having the commercial tract was to benefit the PUD; and what they have now goes against the policies of the Future Land Use Element, which do not allow for the commercial area in that particular location. She stated she would like to hear from other Commissioners to see how they feel about some of these issues.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in his packet is a summary; and inquired if it elaborates on the summary that was in the back of the packet or are there new concepts. Mr. Enos responded the memo that was provided today is a response to the preliminary development plan amendment that was provided by the applicant a couple of days ago; and that response was to original staff comments. Commissioner Scarborough stated on page 42 at the bottom of the page, it says summary; but in reading it, it is a little different although it seems to track the summary. Mr. Enos stated the new memo received today includes the remaining issues from the original summary, so it should be a lot of the same words. Commissioner Scarborough inquired are any new concepts there that are not contained in the summary; with Mr. Enos responding no, everything that is in the original summary is in the new memo.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the summary deals with the January 10, March 6, or April 9 submission; with Planner Robin Sobrino responding it relates to the submission that was received on April 8, 2003; but what is in front of the Board today is dated April 9, 2003 that was delivered this afternoon at 4:00, which staff has not had a chance to review.

Commissioner Scarborough stated while the Board is seeing different things, the staff comments have remained fairly consistent as to the basic concerns.

Commissioner Carlson stated staff might be able to answer that with a couple of specific issues; staff was concerned about the definition of open space, how much open space is required on the property, and of that, how much should be passive and how much should be active; that number has been altered over time; and staff is looking for details and justifications for that. She stated there are other things in terms of the drawings that staff would like to see to best assess what the applicant is trying to do; and the issue of creating more emphasis on multifamily residential housing versus just residential has also been an issue. She stated the application of the 25-foot buffer along the Indian River Colony Club and Holiday Springs property lines has been an issue; there are a lot of things staff is still not comfortable with; and she is not comfortable if staff is not.

Commissioner Scarborough commented on zoning and planned unit developments; and stated there are continuing concerns.

Commissioner Carlson stated one of her basic concerns is there is an existing PUD; the developer can build in the PUD, based on whatever he gets in terms of development orders, although they may not get all they want built out the way they would like it; but then the amendment is added, which is a significant portion of land; it is changing the flavor of the original PUD; and inquired should the Board look at the whole and see what the impacts are as a whole or just look at the amendment. She noted there were waivers given in the original; waivers will be expected for the amended piece; it is a hard thing to get ones arms around when looking at one piece in existence and an amendment that is another piece of similar size; and it is a different ball game.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board needs to deal with the commercial entity tonight; and that can probably guide where the developer goes, if it does not deny the other part. She advised of problems with a development on Merritt Island with a preliminary development plan where certain assumptions were made; and stated until staff goes through the submittal thoroughly, the Board should not approve anything, but she is ready to do the commercial tonight. She stated she has seen this map since 1993; she spent three years trying to develop a habitat conservation plan for all of the County for the Florida scrub jay; and if that had been adopted, the Board would not be here today considering this, as the corridor would have already been preserved. She stated it is frustrating to be dealing with this issue when it could have been done; it would have saved money for the developers, preserved the environment, and saved time for everyone; it was a great idea; and she is sorry they were not successful. She stated she does not support the amendment to put the additional commercial on Viera Boulevard as it does not meet the Comprehensive Plan.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny change to Community Commercial.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Fleis visited with her; when something is internal, it is serving the PUD and will not generate traffic or impact the neighborhood; and it is a mammoth jump in the whole philosophy when it is put out on the Boulevard. She stated it will attract people to it; she cannot support that because it changes the fundamental nature of Viera Boulevard; and it could impact how the Board has to respond to other similar adaptations, which could change the PUD concept.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she talked with Mr. Fleis as well, and her comments are summarized; and she also met with Mr. Evans and Mr. Harris, and has those comments.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he also met with Mr. Fleis and knows many of the people who live in the neighborhood; he has enjoyed the comments and can appreciate what the landowner and developer are trying to do; they are looking at preserving one-third of the acreage; but it is not yet at the point where it is a win/win situation. He stated staff raised some good questions; and he has questions that fall in line with staff’s considerations. He stated it is unrealistic to think that nothing is going to happen on the property; eventually it is going to be developed in some fashion; and it is just a question of what is going to happen there. He stated the part about the commercial on Viera Boulevard is probably an accurate reflection of what Viera Boulevard should be for that area; and he is not comfortable supporting the commercial withdrawal at this time. He stated rather than take a position he is uncomfortable with, he would abstain from voting on that portion. Vice Chairperson Higgs advised Commissioner Pritchard cannot do that. Commissioner Pritchard stated he will vote in opposition then. He stated the point he is making is something is going to happen; he would like to see it be in the best interest of the people in the neighborhood; and he would like more answers from staff and make this a win/win situation so everybody can walk away with some satisfaction.

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the second question is what to do about the amendment to the PUD.

Commissioner Carlson stated tabling it and having all the questions answered would be productive; and it would also be productive to get the community together with the developer to make sure all the questions are answered before it comes back to the Board. She stated whether or not the original PUD should be reopened to accept the additional property is a question for staff; and she does not know where the threshold of change occurs before it trips the need to reconsider the PUD. She requested Mr. Enos advise of any criteria in that regard. Mr. Enos stated the reason this came back to the Board is because they added lands to the north of the PUD, so it had to be reconsidered; they also reconfigured some of the land uses inside the current PUD; and it would need to come back for that even if lands had not been added. Commissioner Carlson stated at this point the Board is looking at an amendment to the original PUD; and she would vote with the understanding they are not going to do anything different to the existing PUD. Mr. Enos advised that is not true; and since the original PUD is part of this application, it is under consideration as well. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the whole thing is open for consideration; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson advised she was not under that impression. Mr. Enos advised if the Board denies the application, the current PUD is still valid.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated with the development on Merritt Island, there was some lack of clarity as to what was on the binding development plan; and she is assuming that the original PUD and PUD preliminary development plan that was approved some years back is the blueprint and letter of the law, if the Board is going to go back. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is a vested right and they have acted in reliance thereon. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board is acting in reliance; and it may be a two-way street. Commissioner Scarborough stated two things need to occur. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated it works both ways; if the developer acts in reliance on the preliminary development plan that was approved, then the Board acts in reliance as well, so nothing changes on the preliminary development plan until the Board approves it. Mr. Enos advised that is right; if the PUD is amended, the entire project is amended; but if the Board denies the application, the current PUD on the south part of the property stays in place and the current residential zoning on the north part would stay in place.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board denies what it sees today, which is the existing PUD and the amendment, would it revert back to what was there previous to Mr. Civil’s application; with Mr. Enos responding no, it would revert to Mr. Civil’s approved PUD. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is opening that up now; with Mr. Enos responding yes, it is. Commissioner Carlson stated if it was denied, it would no longer exist; with Mr. Enos responding that is not true; the current zoning is good; if the entire property was SR but was asking for RU-1-7, if it was denied, it would still be SR; and it is the same thing in this case.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated what the Board established with the Merritt Island decision was the preliminary development plan was the blueprint; so the preliminary development plan that

Mr. Civil had that was approved by the Board is what will be in effect and what will be developed unless the Board amends it and has another preliminary development plan; with Mr. Enos responding exactly.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that means they could change the 25-foot Indian River Colony Club buffer if they wanted to in this process; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated she is going to move to table the item and get a community meeting together; and she thinks they can come to some kind of an agreement.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 5 to May 22, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the plan that comes back, if the Board approves it, will be the plan with every detail needed to be the absolute end-all, be-all.

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for a vote on the motion to table to May 22, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

Item 6. (Z0303101) 71 Main Street Realty Corporation’s request for change from AU to EU-2 on 0.949 acre located on both sides of Indian River Drive, north of Briarwood Lane, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Vice Chairperson Higgs advised she spoke with Michael Greenen.

Michael Greenen stated he is seeking to change the zoning from AU to EU-2; and his intent is to raze the existing house and build a new house on the property, which is currently an illegal lot.

Commissioner Carlson stated in her briefing they talked about the difference between EU and EU-2; and suggested EU would give the same number of units but would be a more compatible zoning. Mr. Enos stated if he is just looking for one house, then his lot size is adequate for EU zoning and it would be more compatible with the area.

Mr. Greenen stated all he is trying to do is put one house on it right now; there is a good possibility of utilizing the two houses; but he is resigned to the fact that he can only put one house on it, so if the decision is for EU, he is okay with that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Greenen has modified his request to EU.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 6 as EU. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MARCH 10 and 13, 2003

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its March 10, 2003 meeting, and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District made at its March 13, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 62. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lot 1.10, Parcel 1, owned by RR Developers of Brevard, Inc. and Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial of removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7333 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes on 62A and for approval on 62B.

Charles Moehle, representing RR Developers, Inc., submitted paperwork; and stated the packet includes a notice that RR Developers received advising of the intent of the County to remove the Conditional Use Permit for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes; a letter from the President of RR Developers objecting to that removal, advising of the intent to use the property for the intended use within the next few years, and authorizing him to speak on the company’s behalf; a page advising where the site is located; the location shown on the Property Appraiser’s map; and a portion of the survey showing the property with 250 feet on U.S. 1 and 240 feet along Bellwood Street. He stated the removal of this Conditional Use Permit will result in loss of value to RR Developers; and the existing permitted use has been on the property for several years prior to the Ordinance that amends the uses and conditional uses in BU-1. He stated the property is limited in its appeal to people; it was originally part of a larger piece of property, which RR Developers was negotiating to buy and included the Manatee Park; this would have been the same sales site for it; but the County bought Manatee Park for Parks and Recreation use. He stated although there was some controversy, RR Developers backed off that and let the County go ahead; and it ended up with the property in question. He stated the only interest they have in this property is for the sale of mobile homes or recreational vehicles, but that has not come to fruition, although there has been some interest in it; the CUP predates the 1999 revision of the Ordinance; and it also predates 1996, which is when the Bert Harris Act was adopted. He stated there was lengthy discussion about it at the LPA meeting; and a motion was ultimately passed recommending denial of the CUP. He stated staff said that RR Developers was not losing any of the use of the property with the removal of the CUP, which he does not believe is true; ultimately it was brought out that it is allowed in the revised Ordinance, but with conditions; the conditions are that it is attached to a mobile home park operation; but RR Developers no longer has that and cannot meet that condition. He stated it appeared to the LPA early on that it was compatible with the area, had vested rights, and there was no reason not to keep it there; however, discussion ensued on RR Developers not losing anything; and when staff was asked if RR Developers could sell mobile homes there, it said no, which generated more discussion. He stated there is a problem with the procedure; the Assistant County Attorney, after motions were made to deny it, told the LPA it could not vote that way or make such a motion, but could only vote to keep it; and inquired why is the County going through these hundreds of conditional use permits and consuming the time of the LPA if it can only vote to eliminate them. He stated he talked to several people who went through the procedure, and they said there was no option; he obtained a copy of the new Ordinance and does not see any provision to revoke the CUP; staff said at the meeting that a CUP is automatically revoked in three years; but that only applies to CUP’s issued after August 1999, and does not talk about the ones before them. He stated pages 6 and 7 of the Ordinance give the authority to the Board to modify or revoke CUP’s under certain conditions, and includes two pages of conditions; it says the Board “may” do it and there are conditions; so it does not automatically revoke it. He stated RR Developers would appreciate the Board keeping the CUP on the property as it is well suited for the use, has frontage on U.S. 1 and on the street corner, and is in a compatible neighborhood.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated staff is satisfied with the action of the Planning and Zoning Board in every case by 62A; and if the Board wishes to make a motion to approve the entire Agenda as acted upon by the P&Z Board except for 62A, that would be good. He stated on 62A staff believes that since the conditional use permit has been eliminated from the Code, that this cannot be established; the conditional use permit section of the Code was moved to the permitted uses with conditions section of the Code; and Section 62-1901 says that all conditional use permits that have been removed from the Code or from the applicable zoning classification are subject to this revocation process. He stated in addition, conditional use permits prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 99-43 in August 1999, which remain unused three years or more after the effective date of the Ordinance, should be subject to this revocation process.

Item 1. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 20, owned by Oliver A Simmons, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7457 for Church.

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

Item 2. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 54, owned by West Lake Drive Homeowners Association, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7317 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

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

Item 3. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 250.1, 277, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7583 for Public Buildings.

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

Item 4. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 269, 286, owned by Sky King Unlimited, Inc. and Mark Miner and Karen P. Miner, Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7722 for Agricultural Pursuits (Growing of Nursery Materials).

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

Item 5. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 773, 775, 776, 777, 779, 780, owned by Paul T. Morris; Yuko Matsuda and Yoko Osawa; Coast to Coast Trucking, CTC Trucking, Inc.; Keiko Hosaka; and Yuko Matsuda and Hitoshi Nogami, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7721 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

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

Item 6. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 252, owned by Dayton Hudson Corporation, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7283 for Adult Congregate Living Facility.

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

Item 7. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lot 7.04, owned by George N. Hutton, Jr. and Martha B. Hutton, Co-Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7281 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

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

Item 8. Section 26, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lot 35.08 (Easterly 356.76 ft. only), owned by Kathryn Brown and Charles A. Norwood, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7640 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 9. Section 27, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 753, owned by Peter W. and Gina C. Scholer, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7183 for Servants Quarters.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Section 31, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 500, owned by Jack L. Moore, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7660 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

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

Item 11. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 53.05, owned by Merritt Island Storage Ltd. Partnership, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7381 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 12. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 256, owned by Pamagrant Associates, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7328 for Public Buildings and Professional Services Office Buildings.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Section 18, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 75, Lot 12, owned by Robert A. and Jane E. Huber, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7371 for Guest House.

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

Item 14. Section 12, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 290, owned by Leway, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7186 for Gasoline Pumps Accessory to a Convenience Store.

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

Item 15. Section 25, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lot 22, owned by Christopher H. Demars and Aniela Jan Borowski, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z- 7668 for Guest House.

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

Item 16. Section 25, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lots 19.01, 20.01, and 20.04; Section 30, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. CS, Lots 19, and 20.05, owned by Peter C. and Marilyn Y. Deeks, Gary C. and Betty J. Greenway, James L. and Belinda P. Smith, Rafael A. and Leslie I. Bustamante, and Jimmie Dale Wright and Delores Jeanenne Wright, Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7109 for Guest House, except for Lot 16a, which was recommended for denial.

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

Item 17. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 25, Block I, Lots 1 through 6, owned by Steven Lee Cayer, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7310 for Residential Social Service Facilities.

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

Item 18. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 50, Block C, Lots 9 through 13, owned by Frank M. Wolfe, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7192 for Professional Offices.

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

Item 19. Section 18, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 264, owned by E-Z Serve Convenience Stores, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7249 for Gasoline Sales Accessory to a Convenience Store.

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

Item 20. Section 21, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 22, owned by Palm Bay Storage, LTD, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7643 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 21. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, all of Subdivisions 80, 81, and 82, and Parcels 757, 757.1, and 789, owned by Floridron (Indian Landing) Limited, Inc.; State of Florida (DOT); Robert and Zoraida Cook; Carl Keith and Carol L. Eckart; William J. and Violet Conway; Edward Gerald and Joan M. Gardiner; Gary C. and Natashia A. Tabler; Vincent G. and Anna L. Ingenio; Arnold M. and Sharon A. Bushner; James A. and Karen A. Giuliano; Pasquale and Honora Bellucco; Irvin and Barbara P. Gelman; Carol A. Kueppers; Robert E. Marquand, Sr., Trust; Lester M. and Dorothy A. Stuzin; Howard and Kathryn Goldstein; Robert A. and Paula E. Lechten; Robert K. and Kathryn M. Thompson; Howard L. and Claire Neville; Gregory D. Davis and Angel M. Davis; George W. and Jane B. Merryfield; Dennis R. Hanlon; Denis P. and Florita Whalen; Joan P. Rhodes; Jerry P. Hansen and Connie S. Hansen; Andrew A. and Mary R. J. Richards; David P. and Deborah A. Matchett; Jose Giuseppe and Stefania Colucciello; Marjorie A. McArthur and Steven R. McArthur; Robert J. and Sandra L. Froelich; Emil (Jr.) and Laura Balusek; John A. Plofkin and Ruth G. Walsh; Clifford G. and Lesa W. Hirsch; Frank and Mary E. Recher; Richard P. and Jane A. Organek; Denis P. and Florita Whalen; John P. and Kim M. McKenna; James H. (Jr.) and Betty J. Englishby; Peter F. and Annette M. Bavaro; Dominique and Rejeanne St. Pierre; Gordon and Pauline Rousseau; Jerry J. and Georgiana D. Kazlun; Thomas R. and Roberta M. Glasser; Carol A. Devault; Theodore H. and Kelly J. Stranz; Harry L. and Linda B. Freeman; John M. and Donna M. Derrig; Robert T. and Patricia McElhaney; Floridron (Indian Landing) Limited, Inc.; Brevard County, c/o Property Control; Ronald J. and Lisa M. Robledo; Andrew S. and Monica A. Zapotsky; Gerald W. and Dorless C. Easley; Edward M. and Barbara A. Felis; William and Karen A. Deneka; Richard J. Coppola, Jr.; Theodore C. and Louise F. Karabatsos; David C. and Deanne C. Beagles; Deborah A. Judy and Frederick L. Hushla; Martin E. and Frances E. Grozan; Thomas O. and Ute E. Chewning; Floridron (Indian Landing) Limited, Inc.; Lori DiMaria-Benvenuto; Robert A. and Lynne L. Basler; Michael D. and Cynthia C. Kenemuth; Susan M. Dessler; Keith E. and Deann A. Baker; Mildred A. Corritore; Michael C. and Jaci J. Masztal; John W. and Helen M. O'Donnell; Edward J. and Carole L. Whitet; Frederic W. (III) and Margaret Susan Holcomb; Donald A. Buckley; Christa B. Wiese; Michael and Rosalie Michaels; Donald M. and Diane L. Crossman; Floridron (Indian Landing) Limited, Inc.; Michael J. and Rosalie Michaels; Robert and Zoraida Cook; Gordon R. and Leanne Fiedler; George M. and Barbara A. Frank; Joseph A. and Louise P. LaScola; C. Vance and Susan S. Brand; Frank J. and Patricia A. Padula; Phillip D. and Ceclia M. Barksdale; Odd F. and Hanne M. Johannessen; Roger M. and Kathleen A. Cohen; and The First Baptist Church of South Beaches of Melbourne Beach, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7577 for Water Plants and Sewer Facilities.

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

Item 22. Section 16, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 50, Lot 5.02 (Easterly 200 ft. only), owned by Daniel and Arlene Ortone, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7144 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

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

Item 23. Section 23, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 75, Block 4, Lot 1, owned by Roy Harold Mann, Jr., Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7405 for Bait and Tackle Shop.

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

Item 24. Section 34, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 524, 537, 547, and 549, owned by Joanne K. Nelson, Trustee; and Kirk W. and Georgia H. Nelson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7595 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

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

Item 25. Section 34, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 528, and 544, owned by Kevin D. and Kim M. Crowe and Kevin Gallagher, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7587 for Boat Sales and Service.

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

Item 26. Section 34, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. HC, Block 7, Lot 45.01, Parcel 501, owned by Kevin Chittenden, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7251 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 27. Section 09, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 250, 253, 254, and 255, owned by Barefoot Bay Water & Sewer District, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7201 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 27 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 28. Section 11, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 504, and 504.1, owned by Frangar LLC, Inc. and John L. Boncek and Bonnie Sue Hartline, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7103 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 28 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 29. Section 11, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 509, 509.1, 514.2, 541, 543, and 544, owned by Barefoot Bay, LLC, Brevard County, c/o Property Control, Memorial Plaza, LLC, and The Brevard Alzheimer's Foundation, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7176 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes on Parcels 509 and 543 only and Z-8179 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes on all parcels.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 29 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 30. Section 11, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 518 (BU-2 portion only), owned by Ronald Jay and Jane Ronnette Priep, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7493 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 30 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 31. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. HH, all Blocks 1 & 6, Vac. 6th St. Adj. on N. & Vac. 15th St. Between Blocks 1 & 6, owned by Bill Auble, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7662 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 31 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 32. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. HH, Block 7, ex. lots 7 through 10, 14 through 18 and 23, and 24, owned by M H of Brevard, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6999 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 32 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 33. Section 23, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 259, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7227 for Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 33 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 34. Section 23, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. HI, Lots 13.1, and 13.2, owned by Carol Gibson and Wayne Paul Tourniere, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7702 for Guest House.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 34 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 35. Section 23, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 578, owned by Allen and Joyce Fritz, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7377 for Telephone Switching Facility. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 35 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 36. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, Block 29, Lots 9 through 16 & E. ½ of vacated Third Street; Block 30, Lots 10, 12, & 16, & vacated Second Street, owned by Friendship Fellowship at Pineda, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7523 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 36 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 37. Section 19, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 519; Section 30, Township 26, Range 37, Parcels 251.1, 255, and 257 (BU-2 portion only on Parcels 519, 255, and 257), owned by Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy, Inc.; Brevard County, c/o Property Control; Splash Tropical Car Wash, Inc.; and Florida Inland Navigation District, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6492 for Sewer Facilities on all and retaining Z-10615 for light poles in excess of 32 ft., bulbs in excess of 400 watts, more than 3 luminaries per pole, and a lighting source in excess of 50 foot-candles in BU-2.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 37 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 38. Section 27, Township 26 Range 37, Parcel 2 (N. 15 ft. of the W. 25 ft. of E. 75 ft. only), owned by Trinity Presbyterian Church, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7426 for Telephone Switching Facility and retaining Z-6086 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 38 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 39. Section 01, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 754, owned by Talwil Corporation, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6876 for Zero Lot Line Subdivision.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 39 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 40. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 519, owned by Bobby Lee and Kari Fawn Goree, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7167 for Guest House.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 40 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 41. Item was withdrawn.

Item 42. Section 01, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 51, Lots 145 through 159 & 189 through 192, exc. Hwy R/W, owned by Duane Watson, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7623 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 42 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 43. Section 13, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 26, Tract D, owned by Carriage Gate Homeowners Association, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7386 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 43 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 44. Section 13, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 50, Block 138, Lot 35, owned by Bertram Schild, Trustee and Frederick J. Zacharias, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7163 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 44 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 45. Section 15, Township 28, Range 36, Parcels 751, and 752, owned by Florida Power & Light Company, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7331 for Power Plants & Substations.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 45 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Section 12, Township 30, Range 36, NW ¼ of the SE ¼ and the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the SE 1/4, owned by Willowbrook Farms, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7597 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 46 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 47. Section 21, Township 20g, Range 34, Sub. AM, Block 8, Lots 6 through 9, owned by First Baptist Church of Aurantia, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7264 for School.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 47 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 48. Section 21, Township 20g, Range 34, Sub. AM, Block 8, Lot 21, owned by Ronald C. and Susan K. Tucker, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7571 for Guest House.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 48 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 49. Section 13, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 757 (W. 200 ft. only), owned by Ravi International, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7005 for Service Station.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 49 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 50. Section 06, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 270 (E. 300 ft. only), owned by Raymond A. Brooks, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7610 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 50 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 51. Section 06, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 275 (S. 200 ft. only), owned by Marilyn M. Browning, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7682 for Outside Sales of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 51 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 52. Section 07, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 11, and 90, owned by Oscar and Michelle Rodriguez Dones, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7018 for Cabinetmaking and Carpentry and Z-7625 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 52 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 53. Section 08, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 765 through 769, owned by Margaret Abercrombie, Greater Works Christian Center, and David LeVar, Jr. and Roberta Bland LeVar, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7404 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 53 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 54. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 26, Lots J6.01, owned by Michael Imparato and Evelyn Imparato, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7409 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 54 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 55. Section 06, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 269 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Donald C. and Martha S. Loftis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7553 for Automobile & Motorcycle Repair and Paint & Body Work.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 55 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 56. Section 20, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 27, Lots 1 through 167, Parcel 13, owned by James Clyde Sutton and Doris L. Sutton, Trustees; D. Ronald and Dorothy R. Boyd; William F. and Martha D. Eberle; Carol McDougal; Joseph C. and Barbara J. Walker; Chuck and Saran Miles; George E. and Carol J. Crowley; Robert Terry Perkins; Willow Lakes RV Park, Inc.; Reynald Charest; Dennis W. (Jr.) and Joyce L. Ryan; John G. and E. T. Monteson, Life Estate; Randall W. Jordan, Jr.; Henry A. and Rosalind Spiegel; Linda Kay Kennington and Katherine Kay Kennington; Karen Marie Serra and Linda Kay Kennington; Scott Flanagan; Duane E. Melius; John Roney and Daryl Roney; Robert A. Mitchell and Doris A. Mitchell, Co-Trustees; Norman Melius, Jr. and Duane Melius; Alfred and Violette Dubois; James B. (Jr. ) and Kathleen J. Morrison; Michael J. Jardine, Trustee; Robert F. (Sr.) and Mary A. Hoke; Victor L. Lund; Donald R. and Candace E. L. Godin; Robert C. and Patricia A. Gruber; Homer Philip and Nigel V. Broyles; Oran W. and Freda F. Noble; Gerald L. and Judith R. Crump; Ira F. and Una C. Laster; Edel R. and Caridad M. Fernandez; Donald S. and Carolyn L. Dyer; Joseph S. (Jr.) and Betty L. Meyers; William George (Sr.) and Evamay Remy; Daniel A. and Loretta C. Hylle; Nettie J. Gruber; Joe D. and Susan S. Ramseur; Chester and Patricia F. Dyer; I. Natty Faye Walker; Mervin A. and Betty L. Lehto; Randy L. Lund; Marjoreen Dembsey, Trust; Don Sweeney; Kevin and Karen Golden; Charles J. and Judith A. Gritt; Gordon and Marge Dembsey; Charles J. and Eileen J. Hess; Pat E. (Jr.) and Ellen L. Spelce; Raymond K. and Beverly M. Van Gorden; James M. (Jr.) and Linda M. Gibson; Joseph R. Parker; Donald A. and Kathleen Dane; Robert E. and Sandra I. Legrow; Joseph A. and Mildred B. Walker; Billy E. and Mary E. Simpson; Dennis Arthur and Margaret Anne Underhill; William H. Payne; Robert W. and Joan M. Meredith; Alfred and Christine Hennessy; Gregory R. and Patricia J. Davis; David M. and Jean A. Muntz; Rex Lee Church; Jimmy G. and Barbara Bledsoe; Violet and Arby Foster; and Larry F. and Jennifer S. Rhoades, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7211 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 56 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 57. Section 26, Township 22, Range 35, Parcel 511, owned by C. R. McCotter, Jr., Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7067 for Automobile & Motorcycle Repair and Paint & Body.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 57 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 58. Section 28, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 66, Lots 12 through 17, owned by City of Titusville, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7126 for School.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 58 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 59. Section 26, Township 22, Range 35, Parcel 502.3, owned by Mile and Zelzko Rudan, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7278 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 59 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 60. Section 01, Township 23, Range 35, Parcel 8, owned by Michelle Chatterton-Oliveto, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7349 for Motorcycle Repair.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 60 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 61. Section 01, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Lot 10.03, Parcel 7, owned by Elinor T. Clore, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7576 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 61 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 62. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lot 1.10, Parcel 1, owned by RR Developers of Brevard, Inc. and Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial of removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7333 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes on 62A and for approval on 62B.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 62B as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 63. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 03, Lot 2.05 (E. 300 ft. only); Sub. 06, Block 24, Lots 6 through 11, and 15 through 18, owned by TJ Enterprises, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-6440 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes or Trailers on Sub. 03, Lot 2.05 (E. 300 ft. only) and Z-7066 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes on Sub. 06, Block 24, Lots 6 through 11, and 15 through 18.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 63 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 64. Section 12, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 759 (IU-1 portion only), and 765; Section 07, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 525, owned by Yorke Doliner & Co.; Brevard County, c/o Property Control; R. Richard Ott; and Yorke Doliner & Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-7649 for Metal Salvage Yards and Junk Yards on Parcels 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, and 765; Z-8620 for Solid Waste Disposal Facility on Parcels 750, 751, 753, 754, 765, 759 and 525 of Section 07, Township 24, Range 36; and Z-8777 for Solid Waste and Disposal Areas (Metal and Junk Yard) on Parcel 752, and retaining Z-6929 for Metal Salvage Yard on Parcel 525.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 64 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 65. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 752, 758, 761, 764, 765, 766, and 768, owned by David Ouellette, Teen Missions International, Inc., and Glenn E. Pitts, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7563 for Landscaping Business.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 65 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 66. Section 06, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 760; Section 07, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 1, owned by All-Shores Construction Supply Co. Inc. and RJ & E Witek, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7323 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 66 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 67. Section 08, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 528, 529, 530, 531, owned by Colony Park Mobile Home Village, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7498 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 67 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 68. Section 08, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 544, owned by Douglas and Linda Lathem, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7174 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 68 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 69. Section 06, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 251, owned by David S. and Barbara Y Moody, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6686 for Permanent Commercial Entertainment & Amusement Enterprises.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 69 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF NORTH
MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT OF MARCH 13, 2003

Item 1. Section 15, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 251, and 252, owned by James H. and Patricia Ann Black, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-4810 for Tenant Dwelling (mobile home) and Z-9052 for Boarding of Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 513, and 525, owned by Calvary Chapel of Merritt Island, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5616 for Sewer Treatment Plant, retaining Z-5693 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 516, owned by Sarah Nacca, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-5674 for Mini-Warehouses and Z-8256 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Section 01, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 75, Lots 63 through 83, 115, 116, 150 through 200, 236 through 251, 280 through 288, Tracts A, B, C, D, E; Sub. OK, Lots 13, 15, 16 through 39, 43 through 62, 201 through 222, Tract 3; Sub. OX, Lots 84, 85, 86, 113, 114, 117, 141 through 149, 252, 253, 270 through 279; Section 12, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. OX, Lots 118, 140, and 254, Parcel 3, owned by Jon C. Windhorst; Leon J. and Cheryl M. McGovern; Donald Gene (Sr.) and Shirley Jeannette Riggs; Edward J. Rodowicz; Dave S. and Cindy L. Holmes; David W. and Kathleen Robertson; Scott A. and Rosann M. Hubbard; Ronald J. and Doris D. Lucas; Kevin W. and Kimberly M. Bogle; Gerald R. (Sr.) and Carolyn S. Wyles, Trustee; Paul A. and Elizabeth M. Rabe; Anthony J. Heinz; Matthew and Monique Klynoot; Gordon Eugene and Barbara Jo Pinter; John D. Moore and Carol Moore; Todd A. and Debra S. Smith; William J. Sokol; Thomas W. Hebein; Samuel R. and Nanci Ann Dettra; Paul J. and Lynne B. Brod; Bruce W. and Debbie K. Brownfield; William M. Gillen; William F. McDaniel; Margaret L. Calaunan; William J. and Marsha L. Endy; Donald J. and Ann C. Finlay; E. Calvin and Ada J. Palfrey; Ralph B. and Margaret L. Stocker; Robert J. and Pamela L. Wilson; Beate L. Pollei and Eugen Erhardt; James B. and Liane D. McDede; Irene S. Gilbert, Trustee; Russell M. (Jr.) and Carol A. Scott; David G. and Deborah J. Bradford, Kim Loughlin, William E. and Terri L. Larson; James and Lori Weller; Ronald R. and Gloria V. Purcell, Timothy W. and Selena G. Anderson; Samuel C. and Janice R. Hawkins; Ronald M. Montgomery; Pasquale and Sarah Nacca; Keith A. Lowe and Constance S. Lowe, Co-Trustees; Richard K. Krause and Constance K. Arvidson-Krause; Benjamin H. Braddock and Virginia Eleazer Braddock; Christopher J. and Diane M. Comerford; Gilbert and Doris Persley; Curtis W. and Sarah Diane Hardener; Bruce D. and Sandra R. MacLeod; Mark and Janet E. Whalen; Donald A. and Charlene S. LaFerriere; Robert W. and Joan Becker; Gerald D. and Virginia M. Barker; W. E. and Janice L. Leonard; Michael F. and Nancy M. Fahey; Steven C. and Jeri L. Snyder; William A. and Carol A. Harding; C. N. Lukinovich, III; Michael J. and Janet M. Franzese; Daniel W. and V. Mae Mangieri; David M. and Margaret M. Cotner; Richard W. and Janice C. Eastes; Lawrence W. and Jean W. Bryan; Joseph B. and Elaine B. Joyce; Joseph Charles Sepe and Dorothy Edna Sepe, Trustees; Richard A. and Kelly L. Martinson; Thomas E. Dorn; Edwin D. and Judith A. Thompson; Andrew E. and Lois Vincur; Joshua C. Travis; Edward J. Rodowicz; Frederick Carl and Mary Joanne Garbotz; Robert E. Moore; Woodrow Brian and Connie S. Longacre; James M. and Ann M. Sexton; John F. Corfield and Alix I. Mulaniff; Deak Family Partnership Ltd; Michael S. and Sofia L. Hayner; John W. (Jr.) and Anita K. Sigh; Thomas W. and Carmen M. Prior; George L. Dutt, Jr. and Nancy J. Baker Co-Trustees; William C. and Susan L. Stead; Ralph and Ingrid Locurcio; Kristen L. and Evelyn N. Fitzgerald; Alan A. and Laura E. Smith; Wolfgang Frederick and Christine Ann Koch; Edward D. Todl, Jr.; Ronald G. Lust; Mark T. Buchness and Diana H. Kamenitzer; Priscilla Tingue and Ethel J. Brother; Garand J. and Mary J. Prebay; Eric C. and Christine M. Purcell; Randall B. and Stacy Rigdon; William A. and Maria M. Gartland; Grover and Regina Jennings; Clarence and Mary Prosser; James M. and Karen A. Beeman; Harold J. Flaharty and Marjorie L. Flaharty, Trustees; David Scott and Linda Stark Otto; Brevard County, c/o Property Control; Norman J. Bauman; Lisa C. Nary; Todd R. and Dale Corey; John T. and Sandra K. Hawkins; Cary L. Wood; Gary J. and Pamela J. O’Neil; Clarence V. and Loretta R. Greene; Karl and Karin Krauter; Richard L. and Barbara Evans; Donald and Joan Shooks; Robert T. Hamilton, Jr.; Ira D. and Marie Morgan; David B. and Deborah L. Marshall; Richard M. Dawson; Wade Alan Krieger; George W. Pickle, Trustee; Arthur O. (Jr.) and Gloria P.Norton; Robert G. and Margaret A. Johnson; Allie G. and Gladys M. Smith, Lief Estate; Michael E. and Karen E. Tournade; Gary T. Ridenour; Paul J. and Yoshiko Snyder; Kathleen V. Mayer; Kurtis A. and Lynn M. Hopf; Thomas E. and Laura L. Neal; Mary Bonasera, Life Estate; Galen B. and Jennifer E. Graber; Roy M. And Cynthia M. Greene; Michael J. and Kimberly H. Wheeler; J. Kenneth and Susan Dee Smith; Michael D. and Pamela L. Storm; Gary H. and Judith G. Spears; Michael S. and Ann M. Raphael; Sam R. and Linda F. Lewellen; Mark Louis and Paula J. Brave; Robert C. and Bertha J. Armbruster; Francis and Theresa A. Villalpando; Robert V. and Shirley M. Reed; Michael A. and Linda L. Morgan; Robert J. Blake; Robert and Patricia Bloom; Henry Theodore and Jane Frances Keene; Dale L. and Nancy S. Holt; Tyrone H. and Brian T. Power; Ronald Robert and Karen Patrick Bobay; Richard Champon; Gisela Remieres; Richard and Garnet Arlene Gerber; Howard G. and Lanfang H. E. Levine; Howard B. and Denise J. Bolos; Norval D. and Dayna E. Martin, Life Estate; Michael and Margret A. W. Kromker; James A. and Marti W. Schlegler; Edward W. Roth; Richard and Doris Westerfield; Harold L. and Donna J. Neely; Joseph C. Travis and G E N Travis, Trustees; Julian Petranin; William B. and Billie J. Ingham, Life Estate; Richard K. and Marjorie H. Rock; Alfred J. and Marion S. Bodine; Anita Williams; Mahmoud I. Mansour; Thomas B. and Pamela E. Vaughan; Albert L. and Geraldine B. Bonavito; Catherine A. Hurst; Edwin J. Fletcher; Robert L. Kittleson; Randy and Kimberly J. Serfozo; Shirish R. Patel; William J. and Pamela A. Delancey; John Lauter; Robert and Saffrone Emerson; Joseph J. Hartnett; Kevin C. Hoshstrasser and Lisa A. Malone; Jay A. Williamson and Shelly L. Harriger; Donald T. and Barbara M. Greenslade; Robert W. Dennis and Karen Dennis Loggins; Heather M. Bennett; Arthur F. Wildmann and Kathrn J. Wildmann, Co-Trustees, Harland C. and Erika E. Sherman; Mark C. and Heidi A. Tillett; Ralph N. and Sondra K. Wilkie; Marie Grassano; Eric S. and Kimberly S. Russo; Gerald E. Woodcock; William C. (Sr.) and Margaret S. Stanton; John G. Dusch, Jr.; Lauren Homes, Inc; Walter R. and Donnita J. Ivey; Nicholas R. Eremita; Edward Anthony Gates and Margaret Jamieson Gates; John D. Taylor and Deborah Randolph Doxey; Todd R. and Karen Lucht; Kennetta L. Campbell; Randy and Joan O’Connor; Gregory H. and Sarah E. Prosser; and Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-5698 for Tenant Mobile Home, Z-6271 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home and Z-6168 for Storage of Hazardous Wastes (Parcel 3 only).

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 23, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 500, 501, 534 through 539, owned by Anthony W. Brown, Jr.; Harvey’s Indian River Groves, Inc.; Edward Bollenback; Jerry R. Robbins and Joan J. Robbins; Charles R. Norwood; James P. Iseman and Andreas E. Alford; and Mable D. Price, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5904 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Section 10, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 503, 504, 750.1, and 775, owned by Sarah Kathrine and William D. Hodge, Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6052 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Section 15, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 752, owned by Ronald E. Dimenna, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6211 for Duplex Modular Coach Units.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Section 35, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 503, and 516, owned by Sun Communities Operating, LTD, Partnership; and Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6268 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in Recreational Facilities, Duplex Modular Coach Units, and Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 511, owned by Kabboord Properties, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6468 for School.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Section 25, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 501, owned by Paul Fernald, Trustee, and Bertha Tellez, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6483 for Tenant Dwelling (mobile home).

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 10 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Section 10, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 75, Block 3, Lots 1, 1.01, owned by Hawkins Enterprises, Inc. and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6839 for Telephone Exchange.

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

Item 12. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 520, owned by TUA systems of Florida, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7107 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Section 14, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 302, owned by Jeffrey L. and Natalie L. Coffey, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7182 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. Section 11, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 503, and 504, owned by Beryl m. Bashore, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7220 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. Section 22, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 750, owned by Daniel Carew and James T. Carew, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7391 for Cabinet Making and Carpentry.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 15 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 62. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lot 1.10, Parcel 1, owned by RR Developers of Brevard, Inc. and Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial of removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7333 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes on 62a and for approval on 62b.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is uncomfortable with what staff is saying it could defer this to the next meeting and have a memorandum from staff. He stated it is not a burning issue; and the Board could do it at the next meeting because Mr. Moehle has brought some points up that need to be responded to in a complete manner.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 62A to the May 1, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting; and direct staff to provide a report addressing Mr. Moehle’s concerns. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Sixth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2001 (01S.6). Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the amendment has been withdrawn.

Planner Todd Corwin stated the owner of the property requested the amendment be withdrawn; the Board approved a vested rights application on March 18, 2003, which effectively did the same thing the small scale amendment proposed; and no action is required.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2000B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS

Vice Chairperson Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the 200B Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Dwight Severs, City Attorney for City of Titusville, stated pursuant to a faxed letter he received on April 8, 2003 at 4:29 p.m., the City was asked to respond concerning the proposed future land use amendment; and the Board should have his response. He stated he understands the Board received responses from two other City Attorneys asking for additional time to review this matter; he is also requesting additional time to review the matter; and he is not certain when the next meeting of the Water Supply Board is to occur, but it would be appropriate to get the input of that body on this issue. Commissioner Pritchard advised the next meeting of the Water Supply Board is April 24, 2003.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when is the next amendment cycle; with Planner Todd Corwin responding the next amendment cycle that is currently underway is the 2003A Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle; and it is currently scheduled for transmittal hearing on May 6, 2003. Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if it is transmitted to DCA, how long do they have it; with Mr. Corwin responding DCA has 60 days from the date it receives it; so it would probably have an adoption date in September.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he had a conversation with Mr. Severs who felt that the May 6, 2003 date was acceptable to the City. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated it will not be in effect if it is wanted as a mechanism in regard to other issues. Commissioner Carlson stated the question was whether there was enough time to cultivate both things. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated that is not what was said. Commissioner Carlson requested the Attorney speak to the issue. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated if the Board is concerned about whether or not it is critical to the other issues the Board is dealing with, it would be helpful, but is not critical like the ordinance is critical. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has time on the ordinance; and inquired if the Miami folks have a hearing in May 2003; with Ms. Bentley advising she does not know about the timing.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated they have until the Summer with the Public Service Commission, but the Board will not be able to adopt any future land use amendments until September.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the City Attorneys are writing to the Board, he has to defer to their opinions; otherwise the whole thing falls apart; and they might not have a cap. He stated he wants to bring the County together because there is going to be a point in time when everyone is going to be very pleased that they have this entity and work as a team; and it is not team spirit to go ahead.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she was appointed to the Water Supply Board; and she made those recommendations, and will continue to make them in the best interest. She stated she was sent to do a job, and is trying to do it right; and this is the right thing to do.

Commissioner Carlson stated her concern is the third party objection; if the Board is going to put something that is really strong enough in the Code, it needs to make sure it is not going to be objected to; and if it is going to be worthwhile, the County does not want to have to worry about that. She stated Mr. Gougelman is correct; he cited the Statute that said the County cannot regulate non-development construction; and the Board may be overstepping.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she does not think so; the County Attorney did not speak to that; and requested Ms. Bentley speak to the issue. Ms. Bentley stated that can be cured fairly easily by adding at the beginning the wording, “to the extent allowed by law”; and then if it is prohibited to look at it, the County will not. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated it sounds like there are not two votes to move this forward; and suggested taking out the water system amendment and moving it to the next cycle and moving the remaining amendments.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that would be put on the Agenda for May 6, 2003; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct. Mr. Corwin advised the next transmittal hearing is May 6, 2003; and DCA has 60 days to review and the County has 60 days to adopt, so there is a four-month delay in between.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is any way to expedite DCA’s period; it says up to 60 days; and inquired if the Board can ask it to do it quicker as it is a very small amendment. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may find there are players who are not going to be happy. Commissioner Carlson stated she was talking about the next cycle.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County; entitled “The Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth Plan Amendment 2002B; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XI, entitled the Future Land Use Element; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XIII, entitled the Capital Improvements Element; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled the Future Land Use 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.

RESOLUTION, RE: ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH’S
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions of the Brevard County Commission pertaining to the denial of a request for conditional use permit for a church by Old Catholic Church in America. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: CAPE CANAVERAL HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated there was discussion concerning the Cape Canaveral Hospital; and several people are present who wanted to be part of that discussion, but were not present at the beginning of the meeting.

Janice Scott stated she served for five years on the Cocoa Beach City Commission until November 7, 2002; and she knows a little about the subject including the fact that three years ago there was a large contingent of residents who went to Tallahassee to lobby that there be no dredging and filling of the Banana River. She stated the Banana River is classified as an aquatic preserve; nine acres are filled; and filling another 8.8 acres would result in a large

18-acre parcel in the river. She stated she has been characterized as being against health care; she is a senior citizen and values health care as much as anyone; but she is concerned about House Bill 601. She stated while she was on the City Commission, there were extensive negotiations with the hospital over building heights; Cocoa Beach lowered its building height to 45 feet; the hospital indicated it needed to go to 85 feet, and the City said fine; and ten days later, the hospital came back and said it needed to go to 130 feet. She stated she had a responsibility to respond to her constituents who had sought those issues of no filling in the river and building height; and while the negotiations were ongoing, she never received a copy of HB 601. She stated at that time the City Commission had not drafted any proposal to go before the Legislative Delegation; the last time the Delegation met in the County on December 5, Cocoa Beach had no issues; and she was quite surprised. She stated she has been asked why she never said anything about this legislation; it was because it was kept secret even though it was advertised on January 21, 2003. She stated the Cape Canaveral Hospital was built as a tax district hospital in the early 1960’s and was leased by a private corporation called Cape Canaveral Hospital, Inc. around 1985; in 1995 it was again leased by Health First Inc.; and now the legislation is going to become totally subordinate because it is operated by a private corporation, which advertises Cape Canaveral Hospital as part of the Health First Inc. chain of large health care providing hospitals. She stated the legislation has been passed by the local Delegation and Local Government Committee; it is going to be carried out by a private not-for-profit corporation; and she is concerned. She stated she was in Tallahassee and spoke with the Legislators who said the County Commission has a person who keeps track of those issues; the City of Cocoa Beach is one of the County’s municipalities and part of the tax district that is being affected; and described the tax district boundaries. She stated one of the things the hospital is asking for, which has not been removed from the legislation, is the power to condemn property within and without of the District. She stated she got a copy of the bill this morning; it says it needs an amendment to remove the supremacy clause; and that clause only has to do with preempting everyone else’s comprehensive plans, so that has been done.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that was mentioned at the Board meeting on Tuesday May 20, 2003 because the right for condemnation has never been exercised outside of a jurisdiction; and that is unusual and dangerous. He stated the hospital could condemn property in Jacksonville because it is a State bill; and there could be Cape Canaveral Hospitals all over the State as it condemns property to build hospitals.

Ms. Scott stated it is a powerful piece of legislation; it will empower what will actually be administered by a private health corporation with the power of condemnation inside and outside of the District; and not one bed is being added to the hospital with the expansion. She stated the expansion only has to do with high-tech facilities; the occupancy rate has not exceeded 50%; she has never seen people in the halls; and if there is only one doctor working in the emergency room, there is a long wait. She encouraged the Board to do something about the bill until such time as the local community can hear it.

Pat Davis read aloud an email she sent to all the Representatives of the House on April 7, 2003, as follows: “Dear Representatives, As a Commissioner of the City of Cocoa Beach, I wish to communicate with you my very serious concerns about the pending legislation about The Cape Canaveral Hospital District;. News of this ongoing legislation seems to be a well-kept secret. The first news of this legislation came to the Commissioners of Cocoa Beach on March 17, 2003. Although it apparently has been ongoing since at least February of 2003 or even December 2002 when Representative Allen recently said just a few days ago that he had announced it before the Brevard County Commission. There was no article in the local paper either in December 2002 or February 2003 nor any other time, which is very surprising since Cocoa Beach City politics are followed closely and followed regularly by the local paper. Only after our City Attorney discussed the topic at a special Commission meeting on March 25, 2003 did the local newspaper pick up the topic and have an article on this legislation on March 27, 2003. Additionally I believe I am correct in saying, and this was written on April 7, that the Brevard County Commission has not publicly discussed this issue either. The Internet until March 26 said the legislation was pending and inactive. What a surprise to discover that this was not true and it was scheduled to be heard April 3 and was currently being reviewed by the Veterans and Local Affairs Committee at the House. Please know that I am appalled by these behind the scenes tactics to circumvent the voice of the people and the citizens of Cocoa Beach without even informing them publicly. Reportedly Representative Allen did discuss this issue but only with the Mayor of Cocoa Beach who it should be noted is a doctor in the ER at Cape Canaveral Hospital. I have heard politicians at the State level say how important public input is, how important it is for the public to be kept informed. This has certainly not been the case, and certainly not through one proper channel, the City of Cocoa Beach duly elected Commissioners. The bill’s amendments attempt to usurp local government and avoid the dredge and fill issue, neither of which are trivial issues. Additionally the Cocoa Beach City Commission has spent numerous hours in good faith communication and meetings with the hospital to discuss the issue, and within the past seven months the Commission fully supported allowing the hospital to expand upward as the hospital saw fit to even 100 feet or higher as needed. We fully supported working with the hospital to do whatever was necessary to have this occur. Instead behind our backs the hospital has gone to Representative Allen with these amendments. The hospital’s request to dredge and fill the river has been opposed by citizens and the Audubon Society, and twice hearings have been postponed by the hospital. Now it seems apparent why. The hospital can simply circumvent this too. Please consider the negative precedent this legislation would set for all municipalities, not only the City of Cocoa Beach. I look forward to hearing from you and hope you will communicate all my concerns to those who have a voice in this legislation. Thank you for consideration of this important matter. Pat Davis, Seat 5, Cocoa Beach.” She stated she just got back from Tallahassee; she thought they would make it, but apparently the issue was moved forward so they did not get a chance to hear what was said. She advised she is speaking only as one Commissioner and does not represent the full City Commission; but there seems to be a breakdown in communication. She inquired if the Board did or did not know about this issue, and if it did, when did it know; and is it correct that the Board has not yet discussed House Bill 601, and when will it discuss it since it affects the City and the County. She inquired in what way did the Board communicate to the elected officials of Cocoa Beach that the bill was in the works since November or December of 2002; and stated she is disappointed to learn this is how government works. She expressed shame to those politicians condoning political games, which seem to move an issue along without public input or fair and public notice to elected officials.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he got a call and an email from Jim Egan on Monday; and it came up during discussion at the Board meeting on Tuesday. He stated the Board was talking about Tico Airport Authority; the issue was brought up and the Board was interested; and they left that day with the understanding that the Delegation was already responding to the Board’s concerns. He stated he is not capable of designing a hospital; and all he wants to do is make sure Cocoa Beach maintains jurisdiction and power of eminent domain. He stated he has never seen in Florida law where anyone can condemn outside the jurisdiction; that is an anomaly that changes the basis of Florida Law; and he is concerned. He stated the Board talked about it earlier tonight; there were representatives from the hospital present who spoke; and he was under the assumption that everything was taken care of.

Ms. Davis stated they did not get notification.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Cocoa Beach City Commission voted on it; with Ms. Davis responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the vote; with Ms. Davis responding it was three to two. Ms. Davis stated she felt strongly about this issue; there was the option by the person who brought up the amendment to make it mutual; and she would not vote because it is against her conscience to vote in a negative way. She stated the way the issue was handled offends her; she did not vote to make it mutual; it would have been a mutual non-involvement of the City; and it was three to two in favor of support of the hospital.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Davis saw the revised language that was presented to the Board yesterday and today. Ms. Davis responded the first available copy they could get was this morning; and she has not read the language, but understands it deals with condemnation. Commissioner Carlson stated condemnation was in the body that they were recodifying, and they supposedly have taken that language out.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has assurances that his concerns have been taken care of; but if that is incorrect, his concerns still lie. Ms. Davis stated she hopes it is not going to pass without them even having a chance to look at it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Legislators are very much aware that there are concerns.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated other than Tuesday when it came up before the Board and then today, she does not recall the Board discussing it. Commissioner Scarborough stated he never heard anything about it. Ms. Davis inquired if there is something wrong with that; she does not think anyone is going to be looking at a one by two-inch ad in the commercial advertising section; but that is the way the public and the elected officials were notified.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Pritchard brought up some questions about changes to the Tico bill; he had a conversation with Jim Egan and threw that issue on the table; otherwise the Board would not have talked about the hospital bill at all. Ms. Davis stated they were told it is almost a done deal and has been out there since last year; and that is shocking to her.

Eric Fricker, Vice Mayor of Cocoa Beach, stated he did get a copy of the bill, and talked to staff in Tallahassee; he got a copy of the language for amendment three; and amendment one passed but amendment two did not go forward. He read aloud a statement, as follows: “Dear Commissioners, Thank you for addressing the issue tonight. The good news is that the most odious part of the bill, the annexation, failed to move forward at the House Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committee. The mediocre news is that the compromise on HB 601 was accepted. An amendment was added to the bill giving the hospital the right to preempt the City’s height and density restrictions. Part of me likes this since it takes the headache of the Cocoa Beach height restrictions and how they affect Cape Canaveral Hospital away from us, but then I think maybe we, as the local governing body, should be the ones to make the local decisions. I asked the City of Cocoa Beach to fax you, the Commission, a copy of the Resolution we passed in November 2002, Resolution 2002-38 directing City staff and the City Attorney to work with the hospital to allow it to build above the 45-foot height limit up to 130 feet. I just wanted to show you that we have been trying to work with the hospital to expand upwards and allow them to go up avoiding the need to expand and fill the river. Since that November Resolution, we have heard nothing from the hospital in regard to moving forward with this action until this house bill. Instead of working with the hospital to change the Comprehensive Plan, and our City Charter, we find out there is this House Bill 601. The bad news is that the condemnation of lands outside of the district still remains because that was actually part of the main bill itself, which I have a copy of the main bill. The worst news that I have is that they are also given the right to preempt Cocoa Beach City regulations regarding the filling of submerged lands, so not only did amendment three give them the ability to avoid the height and density restrictions, it gives them the ability to avoid any kind of input from the City of Cocoa Beach regarding filling of submerged lands. Also amendment one, which passed, expedites the land swap required to fill eight acres of the Banana River, and that’s still part of the bill. With the river fill in the bill and all the secrecy involved, I see it as just an end run around the City of Cocoa Beach. I got blindsided by this bill. We had to call an emergency meeting to discuss it before the subcommittee voted in the House. We were able to vote but it was very close there before the subcommittee even voted. The City is divided on this issue 3 to 2. I am part of the current minority on the issue. However, the House is being told the City supports the idea. Yesterday afternoon the full House Committee voted on this bill and the County has only now been able to discuss it. Something this important should have been better advertised and discussed locally. I guess the question tonight is should the House give an independent entity the ability to preempt a local government’s comprehensive plan, and that’s what amendment three is doing, is it gives them the ability to preempt height, density, and the river fill issue, and I say no to that. If Valkaria or Merritt Island Airport were leased by a private corporation, would it be appropriate for the State to preempt the County’s Comp Plan, if the County and that entity was not successful in their negotiations? I do want to be accommodating to the hospital, however, I do want to keep local control.”

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board appreciates the speakers staying and making those comments; if the Board is not fully informed and the condemnation issue is still there, she has no problem with communicating to Representative Allen the Board’s concerns.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested asking for clarification from Representative Allen and Senator Posey as to their understanding of what is happening; previously the Board did not get its letter off before they were responding to its comments; but he does not know if all the concerns have been answered. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was told by Representative Allen Tuesday night that language had been removed dealing with condemnation outside the Hospital’s District.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the other issue was whether they were under the Cocoa Beach Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is one thing to go to a specific thing and say the hospital will be allowed to go to 130 feet; but to henceforth and forevermore never have to comply with anybody’s Comprehensive Plan, he does not know what that could grow into. Commissioner Carlson stated amendment three is talking about looking at the Charter and Comprehensive Plan of Cocoa Beach except for height and density and filling submerged lands; and otherwise they will consider the rest.

Commissioner Pritchard stated they are not going to get the authority to fill any more than has already been filled. Commissioner Scarborough stated Cocoa Beach is not in charge of the filling; and there are many other entities they will have to deal with.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the real difficulty is the Board never had this on the Agenda; it did not have people here to talk about it so everybody could be clear; and she does not see any problem with communicating with Representative Allen and Senator Posey that the Board has concerns and requests clarification of the issue on the Comprehensive Plan and condemnation .

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize sending letters to Representative Bob Allen and Senator Bill Posey requesting clarification of HB 601 in terms of condemnation and comprehensive plans.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can also express appreciation for their prompt response to the Board’s concerns.

Commissioner Carlson stated sometimes it is very difficult to give the hearing notice one would want to give to allow the City to have input. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated she thought there were local bill procedures that would have taken care of that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Pritchard brought up the Tico bill, which had all kinds of weird things coming down the path; and probably the Board needs to do a lot more tracking of local bills that deal with special taxing districts as a whole. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board has not asked the Legislative Coordinator to do that kind of tracking.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested writing the directors of those entities to ask them to copy the Board with any proposed amendments to their enabling acts. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated there is nothing wrong with that, but she does not want to be critical of the current Legislative Coordinator because the Board has not asked for that tracking, nor has it expected it.

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

Vice Chairperson Higgs requested staff draft it so it can be sent out tomorrow under the County Manager’s signature.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have the Coordinator provide more than just a line item regarding bills or specific interests. Commissioner Scarborough stated these things do not come out of nowhere; they take some time; and when the entities take these things to the Legislative Delegation, the Board would like copies of what is being presented and any amendments as it progresses. Vice Chairperson Higgs noted the Board is not following every city’s bills either. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is less concerned with the cities’ bills because those have a degree of autonomy; but in the case of Tico, the Board appointed the people to the Tico Board who are changing the rules without the Board knowing about it. Vice Chairperson Higgs stated there may be local bills by the cities that affect the Board as well.

Ms. Scott stated she visited all of the Representatives’ offices including those of the other committees that have been assigned to review the bill; everybody has told her it is on a fast track and is a done deal because it was a unanimous delegation bill; and even though it has no Senate companion bill, they expect things to go flying right by them with no objection because they have the impression everyone is behind it.

Vice Chairperson Higgs stated the Board has not taken any position on the bill; and what is being heard tonight are the questions the Board has. Ms. Scott advised of the schedule for the bill.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the County Manager’s letter could be faxed to Tallahassee.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

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

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK
(S E A L)