MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

September 16, 2008

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on September 16, 2008, at 5:01 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Chuck Nelson, and Helen Voltz, and Mary Bolin, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.  Commissioner Jackie Colon was absent. 

 

 

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Voltz.

 

 

Commissioner Bolin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten and the County Attorney’s Office would advise the Board on issues with the Security Services at the Courthouses.

 

Mr. Whitten stated last Wednesday, the Board authorized staff to issue a 30-day notice of termination based on convenience; staff is now asking the Board to authorize a seven-day notice of termination based on performance; and he has provided the Board a copy of the page of the Contract dealing with termination.  He noted there have been a number of issues in regards to service and the coverage that is to be provided under the Contract; and tonight staff is asking to be able to issue a seven-day notice of termination that would cause the Contract to lapse on September 24^th. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired how service will be provided in the interim; with Mr. Whitten responding right now the service is being provided by the Sheriff’s Office at those points which are not covered under the existing Contract; if the current service provider does not cover the three Courthouses, the Sheriff’s Office is stepping in and providing the service.  Mr. Whitten noted the Board previously authorized staff to issue a bid with regards to bringing on a new contractor; in the interim the Sheriff’s Office will provide the service; the bid will be out for a week and someone will be in place within the next month for a three month period with month-to-month extensions, with the expectation that sometime at the beginning of the year the Sheriff’s Office and staff will come back and give the Board a proposal, or options, for a permanent solution.

 

Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated the termination that was previously issued was for convenience; it required a 30-day notice; the termination that is being prepared is the seven days for cause for failure to provide services; today is the first day staff was able to notify the contractor to notify them that they have failed to provide services to two of the Courthouses, which was the Titusville Courthouse and the Melbourne Courthouse; and the contractor provided the requisite amount of security at the Viera Courthouse, but the bottom line is the contractor is not fulfilling the terms of the Contract.   She stated  staff has notified the contractor, but  has gotten very  little  response  back in  terms  of how the contractor intends to remedy the situation; but the provision under the Contract that provides the seven-day notice requires staff to notify the contractor and give a brief opportunity to supply the service; the provision does not provide how many hours or days the contractor has, but based on the lack of response, staff believes if services are not covered tomorrow, staff is asking permission to issue the letter terminating for cause for failure to provide services.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated one paragraph in the Contract reads, “Upon termination the contractor shall only be entitled to compensation for services actually provided’; and stated the services were provided, but the employees did not get paid; and inquired if the Board is still going to pay the contractor even though it is probably not going to pay its employees.  Ms. Wilson stated yes, the Contract is with the company itself, and not the individual employees of the company; with respect to the payments that are outstanding, staff just received the invoice for the month of August because the County pays in arrears; the contractor pays the employees as they work, and the County gets a bill at the beginning of the month for the proceeding month; and the invoice for August is being audited to make sure it is appropriate.  She stated there are guards providing service today, in which the company would be entitled for payment; she has a call into legal counsel to try to establish how the County can assure the guards will be paid as a result of the payment of the invoice.  Commissioner Voltz inquired when Ms. Wilson will know; with Ms. Wilson responding she had a discussion with the contractor’s legal counsel yesterday, but she has not had a response today; stated she placed two more phone calls today; and the contractor’s legal counsel discussed the possibility of the contractor filing for bankruptcy.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board is going to send a check even though the guards may not get paid.  Ms. Wilson advised under the Contract, the County has a responsibility to pay the contractor; and staff is trying to negotiate something that would give better assurances that the guards will be paid.  Commissioner Voltz inquired when Ms. Wilson will know; with Ms. Wilson responding she will know as soon at the attorneys return her call; but advised the attorneys are in California, so there is a time difference.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board has already incurred some costs above and beyond the original Contract; when going out to bid, the Board may end up with a Contract that is more expensive than the other one; and inquired if the Board can litigate that to recover some of the costs.  Ms. Wilson replied under the current terms of the Contract, the County is entitled to offset increased costs that it incurs to cover the services that have not been provided; the difficulty is that the company may be going into bankruptcy; and there may not be much to gain from litigating.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it is not responsible of the contractor; the actions of the contractor go beyond bad checks; the employees were told not to contact anyone about the paychecks bouncing; and the employees were told if they quit they would lose their licenses.  He stated the activities are of criminal nature, and for the Board to write a check for that type of behavior is not responsible; the contractor can sue the Board; and he will be happy to go to court.

 

Motion by Chairman Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve that no check be sent to NCLN20 until the Contractor is willing to meet with the Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize a seven-day notice of termination based on performance.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to waive the 21-day requirement for bids to seven days.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board directed staff write a letter to East Central Florida Regional Planning Council members stating the Board would like to request that the dues be reduced by 11 percent.  She stated the letter she has drafted is for the signature of the Chairman; and at the end of the meeting the Board can decide if it wants to send the letter.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board was also going to put in the letter that since it is freezing its salaries, there should be no increases for salaries and any increases should also reduce the amount of County contributions.  Ms. Busacca stated she will add that to the letter.  She advised the vote is tomorrow, and she has emailed each of the members to let them know of the Board’s note to reduce the dues by 11 percent.

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Commissioners received an email the other day from a citizen; and the email mentions how Brighthouse, in addition to moving the government channels, it is going to charge $1.00 per month for the NASA channel.  He stated he listened to Kennedy Space Center Director Mike Griffin’s interview on the NASA channel; there are people whose jobs are in jeopardy at the Space Center; and it is almost as if NASA is selecting the information most critical to the County and butchering the methodology.  He stated he knows the Board may not have much control over it, but the Board needs to bring these types of things to the attention of the Legislative Delegation; and it may be something the Board can direct SCGTV Director Kim Prosser to put together.  Ms. Busacca advised she has already spoken to Ms. Prosser regarding the issue, and she is working on something for the Board.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Code Section 62-2117, Parking, Locating, and Storage of RV’s and RV Equipment.

 

Bobby Bowen, Code Enforcement Manager, advised this is the final reading of the amendment of Section 62-2117(b), Parking, Locating, and Storage of RV’s and RV Equipment, as it relates to recreational vehicles including boats and trailers on single-family residential lots of one-half acre or less.  He stated in 2005 the Code was amended to the point where it eliminated most if not all of the restrictions in the majority of the Code; however, the Board is only considering Section (b) as it relates to RV’s and RV equipment during this final meeting; there are copies of the  proposed  amendment  in  the  back  of  the room;  and  staff  has  also  provided  copies  of photographs and drawings to the Board, which SCGTV can project onto the screen for everyone to see.  He advised each of the photographs have been labeled A through F, and each of the drawings have been identified as Figures 1 through 5; and Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino would be happy to explain the drawings.

 

Mr. Bowen advised photograph A shows an RV with an extension on the side; the particular RV in the photo is parked in front of a home; the RV is parked parallel to the street totally eliminating the view of the home behind it; and currently, the RV is legal.  He stated the change to the Ordinance would require the RV to be parked perpendicular to the street on a paved surface; it could no longer be parked as it is currently; and the owner of the RV admitted it is being used for other purposes than recreation.  He stated photograph B shows a boat that is currently legal; there is a slight expansion of the driveway on the right side to accommodate the parking of the boat on a trailer on a stabilized surface; and it would be legal to do that with the Code change provided the side setbacks are met on the front of the building line.  He noted the boat is currently forward of the front building line; but it would be legal if the side setbacks were met.  He stated the boat in photograph C would not be legal in the Code amendment; but it is legal in the current Code; and a boat must be on a trailer, unless it is in a slip or in water.  He stated in photograph C it appears there has been an expansion of the driveway near the property line; that would be fine if the setback was still met; and if not, the expansion would have to be on the interior portion of the driveway in order to meet the setback. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the boat was on a trailer and could not meet the setback, if the location of the truck and boat were changed, would it be legal as long as the tongue does not cross the sidewalk.  Mr. Bowen responded yes, as long as the setbacks are met.

 

Mr. Bowen stated the trailer in photograph D is currently legal; it is very close to the neighboring property line; and it may not meet setbacks under the Code change and would be illegal.  He noted it also appears at least part of the tongue is hanging over the sidewalk, which is illegal currently and with the Code change, as a sidewalk cannot be blocked because of pedestrian traffic.  He advised the boat in photograph E is legal today, and it would be legal with the Code change; and it is parked on a stabilized surface on the driveway, on the trailer.  He stated the RV in photograph F is currently illegal because it hangs over the sidewalk and into the right-of-way; it is not only illegal by County Code, but also by Florida State Statute 316; and someone could get a ticket by a law enforcement officer.  He stated if the RV could fit into the driveway without blocking the sidewalk, it would be legal under the Code change because it is on a stabilized surface.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino advised Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of a typical single-family home; it shows that the parking of the RV in the front yard area, provided it does not extend beyond the front property line and is setback 10 feet from the side property line, would be permitted under the new ordinance.  She noted Figure 2 shows another scenario with an RV parked in the front yard area; however, it is parallel to the street rather than perpendicular; and under the proposed ordinance, that arrangement would not be permitted.  She stated Figure 3 shows an RV parked in the side yard area; as long as the RV is parked behind what is referred to as the front building line of the residence, it is considered the side yard area and it can be parked there under the proposed ordinance, with no setback, as long as it is wholly contained within the property.  She noted Figure 4 is an example of a circular driveway;  if an  RV is  parked in a  manor  where it would be  parallel to the  street,  rather  than parked on that portion of the driveway that runs perpendicular to the street, it would not be permitted under the Code change; and the RV would have to be in the driveway that connects the garage to the street.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if someone has a circular driveway and an RV, why would the Board not permit that.  Ms. Sobrino replied with perpendicular parking all that is seen is one narrow face of the RV from the streetscape; with parallel parking, the RV may be large enough to obscure the front of the house where the neighbors feel like they are looking at an RV site.  Commissioner Voltz stated if an RV is parked perpendicular, a neighbor looking out his or her window is going to see the RV anyway; and either the neighbor next door or across the street would be looking at the same thing.  Ms. Sobrino stated the neighbors may still be able to see it, but it would not be up against anyone’s property line on the side.  Commissioner Voltz stated the RV will still be up against the front of the house.  Ms. Sobrino stated that is an issue the Board may want to take under advisement in contemplating the ordinance.  Commissioner Voltz stated it does not make sense, because either one neighbor or the other is going to be looking at the length of the RV; and the person who owns the RV and lives in the house probably does not care as long as the RV is safe and in the driveway.  Commissioner Nelson inquired what the permitting process is that one has to go through in order to have a circular driveway; with Ms. Sobrino responding one would need approval for the connection of the driveway to the street.  Mr. Bowen stated the difference in what the Board sees in the figures as an example, and what was seen in the first photograph, where the RV was parked near the street itself, is that with the RV in the figure there is a larger setback; and the Board may want to consider that the curvature of the paved portion of the driveway sets far back from the roadway.  Commissioner Voltz inquired when someone puts in a circular driveway what is the area in which a car can go from one side to the other.  Assistant County Manager Mel Scott stated he is not sure of the exact minimum turning radius, but there are spacing requirements from the entrance and exit to the side lot lines.  Ms. Sobrino stated as far as a circular driveway on a single-family residence, the County would not be evaluating or permitting the curvature of the driveway itself, but rather just the location of those points of ingress and egress at the street. 

 

Ms. Sobrino advised Figure 5 is compilation of what is allowed under the new proposed ordinance; one RV, or equipment, would be permitted in location A, which is the front yard area, at least 10 feet from the side property line; one RV, or equipment, would be permitted in location B, which is the backyard, without any restrictions as far as setbacks; and one RV, or equipment, would be permitted in location C, which is the side yard behind the front building line, without any setback requirements.  She noted one RV, or equipment, could be located in the front yard, plus one, unscreened, in the backyard; one RV, or equipment could be located the front yard, and one unscreened in the side yard area; and any additional RV’s, boats, or equipment must be stored in the side or rear yard and must be screened on all four sides by an opaque visual barrier.  She stated the proposed ordinance only allows one in the front yard area, but that does not necessarily mean that is all there can be; as long as the RV, or equipment, complies in the front yard, one can also be in the backyard, side yard, and any more than two RV’s on a property would have to be visually screened.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated under the current Code, seven or eight RV’s can be parked across the front of a yard, and it would be legal.  Ms. Sobrino stated that is correct.

 

Joan MacKenzie stated she has lived in Brevard County for 50 years; she sees a deterioration in subdivisions because of boats and RV’s; most boats and RV’s are used for storage; and she thinks it is disrespect for the neighbors.  She stated she feels a residential area should be for residential and not a storage area.

 

El Ellinger stated Figure 5 shows an RV sitting on a property line in scenario C; according to the last information he received, there is a 10-foot setback; and the RV has to be within that 10 feet, which means there has to be 16 feet between the property line and the house.  Mr. Bowen advised any setback established applies to the front building line, forward to the street or sidewalk, not the side.  Mr. Ellinger stated he lives in Port St. John, which has mostly small lots; RV’s cannot be parked on the side or in the back of a mobile home because of the septic tank and drainfield; and inquired why the meeting is being held when a lot of RV’s are owned by Snowbirds, who are still up North.

 

Victor Raynor stated the citizens went through this issue three years ago; to go through it again is needless and an intrusion on property rights; and if someone wants to live in a fancy, gated community, then they need to move to a fancy, gated community.  He stated the unincorporated area of Brevard County is more to the liking of the free-spirited individual; and inquired if one has an RV or boat in the rear yard that exceeds the allotted number, there has to be an opaque screened area, but how high does the buffer have to be, and of what material.  He stated an RV is approximately 10 feet six inches high; if an opaque screen is built to obscure the whole motor home there would be a monstrosity for other people to look at; and inquired if the Board is satisfied with a six-foot privacy fence.  He stated if that is what is being referred to, it should be stated in the ordinance. 

 

Mr. Bowen noted the Code establishes the height in residential zoning classifications for fences as six feet; the word ‘completely’ was stricken from the proposed ordinance to now state just screened by an opaque barrier; and staff realizes a lot of boats and RV’s are going to be higher than six feet. 

 

Mr. Raynor inquired if a fence is the same thing as an opaque screen; with Mr. Bowen replying a fence would be an opaque barrier, as well as plants or shrubbery.  Mr. Raynor inquired is an opaque screen would be a fence.  Mr. Bowen answered he is not sure if Zoning Codes or Building Department Codes would allow a screen.  Mr. Raynor stated if that is the case it should not be worded that way in the ordinance; and the ordinance should clarify a six-foot high opaque fence.  Mr. Bowen clarified the ordinance states there must be an opaque barrier.  Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Bowen has said there can be plant material that would qualify as an opaque barrier as well.  Mr. Raynor inquired how long it takes for plant material to grow 11 feet high.  Chairman Scarborough stated it does not have to be 11 feet high.  Mr. Raynor noted the ordinance reads that on all four sides there shall be an opaque screen; and the ordinance does not specify how high. 

 

Ms. Sobrino advised if a six-foot fence is adequate for screening purposes, then six-foot hedge material would be adequate also; and not planted at two feet and say in another few years it will reach six feet, but rather it would have to be put in at six feet.  She stated the language in the Code was intended to provide some flexibility in the owner being able to select whether they want to use an opaque fence, a vegetative buffer, or a storage shed.   Chairman Scarborough stated  the problem only occurs when going with options A, B, and C, on Figure 5;  and  stated it is okay to have scenarios A, C, and A, B, but why can there not be a B, C, scenario.  Commissioner Nelson stated there can be a B, C, scenario if it fits.   Chairman Scarborough stated the way he reads the language is the fencing is triggered if there are three RV’s; and inquired why the B and C scenario is more offensive.  Mr. Bowen stated what staff heard in the testimony from the public is that people wanted to be able to put two to five RV’s or boats on their lots.   County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the thought was in the front of a house facing the street, it is less impactful on the neighbors than it is on either a side yard or back yard. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated someone would not want to put plant material around something that is going to be moved in and out on a regular basis; and inquired if the plant material is to be put on all four sides in pots.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is the choice of the owners.  Mr. Raynor stated the question had to do with the height of the opaque screen.  Commissioner Nelson stated clearly the opaque screen is six feet; and he would like that to be clarified in the proposed ordinance.  Mr. Raynor stated six feet would be adequate for a boat on a trailer, but it would not be adequate for a motor home that is 10 feet tall.  Commissioner Nelson stated one thing the Board is dealing with is what is currently in place; right now, anyone can park as many as will fit on their property with no screening whatsoever; the Board is trying to put some qualifications on it so that it becomes more neighbor-friendly; that is where the six-foot barrier came into play, which is better than nothing; and Mr. Raynor is saying a person has to go to two different places in the Code to get there.  Ms. Sobrino stated staff can add it to the Code. 

 

Stephen Hickey stated he lives in Port St. John and has a motor home; inquired why RV’s have to be parked on a solid surface; and stated he can park his car on his lawn, but not his motor home.  Commissioner Nelson stated there are a lot of people who park RV’s in the lawn and only use it twice per year, and during that period of time grass grows up through it and it is not maintained; and the reason for that requirement in the ordinance is to take care of some level of maintenance around the RV’s because it is easy to mow around them and not under them.  Mr. Raynor inquired if the different Cities have the same rules as what the Board is trying to pass.  Commissioner Nelson noted the rules in the proposed ordinance are less restrictive than what the cities have; and most cities are more restrictive than the County.

 

Jeff Theoux stated in the pictures he has seen it seems like the Board is being discriminatory, because the pictures are of houses with garages; he has a .10-acre lot in Port St. John; he has a dirt driveway that runs along his property line; and he bought the property for a place to park his boat and his truck.  He stated the community is a fishing community; he pays taxes on his boat, truck and property; now the Board is telling him he cannot park his boat on his property; and he has no other place for him to park his boat and trailer, especially when his culvert is against his neighbor’s property.  He stated it could be a safety hazard to have an RV between two houses; if there is a fire next door, a window might be blocked by an RV; and emergency personnel may not be able to reach the backyard because of an RV blocking the way.  He stated the Board needs to do major modifications on the ordinance; he is losing his privileges and liberties; he maintains his yard, boat and truck; and he is going to have to sell his boat because he cannot afford to store it anywhere.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Theoux’s RV is currently legal, so that is not a change that comes  with  the amended  ordinance;  and  inquired  of  the  methods of  stabilization  that  are permitted.  Mr. Bowen replied rock, gravel, concrete, asphalt, and shell, but mulch is not included.  Commissioner Nelson Mr. Theoux may need to do some stabilization of his driveway. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the stabilization material is complex; with Mr. Bowen responding Mr. Theoux is fine on the stabilization, but it would be difficult to assess without looking at the property itself.  Mr. Bowen inquired if the fence Mr. Theoux is referring to is his neighbors fence; with Mr. Theoux responding it is his fence.  Mr. Bowen inquired how close Mr. Theoux is from his property line to his neighbor; with Mr. Theoux responding approximately 10 to 12 feet.  Mr. Bowen stated it sounds like Mr. Theoux is in compliance, and the setbacks have not been established yet, but it sounds like Mr. Theoux is going to be okay.  He stated it would be impossible for staff to write a Code that would address every situation possible, but he would be happy to visit Mr. Theoux and look at his property.  Mr. Theoux stated if people are concerned about four or five trailers in their neighbors yards, then they need to move into a neighborhood that has a homeowners association.  Commissioner Nelson stated someone cannot create a homeowners association that can be enforced; it would have had to be done when the subdivision was originally created; a lot of subdivisions have allowed homeowners association rules to lapse and become unenforceable; and communities that had rules at one time cannot be enforced now.   He stated there is no mechanism to go back and correct a homeowners association’s rules; and that is the dilemma the Board is faced with.  He noted another problem is that the size of boats and motor homes have gotten progressively larger; that was never envisioned when a lot of subdivisions were built; and the Board is trying to create some reasonable breathing room between neighbors.  He stated that may be something he and Mr. Theoux disagree on, because he does not know how five trailers in a front yard can be acceptable; and he does not think the requirements in the proposed ordinance are horrible.

 

Richard Lee stated he thought in 2005, when the ordinance was re-written, the perpendicular parking was for homes that were on corner lots; he agrees that parallel parking is not good; but his main concern is the 10-foot setback on the side yard; and he has traveled the County extensively and there are few properties he has seen in which the 10-foot side yard setback could be met.  He stated in his instance there is 10-foot, six inches between his house and his neighbor’s property line on one side, and nine-foot, five inches on the other side; he can park his RV beside his garage, but he cannot get it all the way back because then he cannot open his door; in 2005 he poured a slab beside the garage so that he could park his RV; he cannot park his RV in the driveway because it is too short; and that is what he found with a lot of the homes he looked at in subdivisions will smaller lots.  He stated he has checked into storage for his motor home and it is between $60 and $100 per month, which he cannot afford; and the proposed ordinance is going to cause chaos because a 10-foot setback cannot be maintained on a small lot. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated to clarify, what Mr. Lee is saying is that it is not really the side yard setback, but the side setback in front of the house.  Chairman Scarborough stated it looks like Mr. Lee is adopting the C configuration on Figure 5; however, it extends beyond the front of the house; and when an RV extends in front of the house, there is a 10-foot setback.  Ms. Sobrino inquired if Mr. Lee would be able to move his RV in order to extend beyond the rear building line, rather than the front building line; with Mr. Lee responding the door to the RV is on the right side.  Ms. Busacca inquired if a car could be parked closer than 10 feet to a neighbors house; with Mr. Bowen responding yes.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board could say that as long as the protrusion  was  not  more  than  eight feet beyond the front building  line,  it would be permitted. 

 

Mr. Lee stated it would be nice if the ordinance was written to give people in situations like his some leeway.

 

Mark Nathan stated the last time the issue was brought up he was surprised at the outcome, which essentially gutted County Codes.  He noted since the suspension of many County Codes, parts of his neighborhood looks like a junk yard; he sees all types of commercial trucks, trailers, buses, boats, RV’s, jet skis, metal buildings, couches, dumpsters, and 40-foot travel trailers in which some have people living out of them; he stated some of the vehicles have not moved in years; and it is probably not what the Board had in mind, but it is what happens when individuals are allowed to make the rules.  He stated the new County Codes will not prohibit most vehicles and boats, but will only try to gain control of an out of control situation; and although he does not live in a gated community, homeowners still have every right to expect fair and reasonable code restrictions for the common good of the neighborhoods; and he believes home values are affected by the anything-goes codes.  He stated the rights of a few should not overshadow the rights of many; the proposed ordinance is overwhelmingly supported by most homeowners; and the proposed ordinance is fair and reasonable.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Nathan’s neighborhood looked better before the Code change in 2005; with Mr. Nathan responding it has gotten much worse since 2005.

 

Glen Tuley stated the problem with Figure 5 is that his house is 50 years old; the eaves from the carport make it difficult to park his RV on the side; he cannot park his RV in his back yard because of the septic tank; and for his house, the only option is to park his RV in his driveway.  He stated his neighbor has an airboat and a trailer, but his house sits back far enough on his lot that there is nowhere to put anything behind his house because 90 percent of his lot is in front of his house, and he can fit all three vehicles on his driveway; but he has no back yard as an option.  He inquired how much of the tax dollars are budgeted for appealing court challenges to the ordinance.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board never knows when it is going to be in litigation; but the County has lawyers available in case of a lawsuit.  Commissioner Nelson inquired what would be the basis of a lawsuit; with Mr. Tuley responding it is denial of due process.  Mr. Tuley stated the Board is taking away his ability to have an RV parked on his lot without due process.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would argue that when the Board made the original Code change, it took his right away to enjoy his property; he has had emails from citizens who said they moved to the unincorporated area because they can do what they want to do; but the reality is that until 2005 that was not true, so that argument does not hold any value.  He inquired if Mr. Tuley could switch where he parks his RV with where he parks his car; with Mr. Tuley replying there is not enough space to maneuver the RV to park it on the other side of the driveway without blocking either the front door or the well.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if Mr. Tuley’s cars already do that; with Mr. Tuley responding his car is a Honda Civic and is much smaller than his RV. 

 

Candace Smith stated she lives in subdivision on Merritt Island that has a homeowners association; she knows the Board is talking about RV’s and boats; but in the past there has been discussion on cars and commercial vehicles parked in driveways; and in her area there are all kinds of junk cars, trucks, commercial vehicles, and commercial trailers that are not only in the driveways, but are in side yards, front yards, and in the street; she does not feel government should tell people what they can and cannot do on their own property; and if people are not happy in the unincorporated areas they can move to an area where there are restrictions.

 

Jean Freeman stated she is the area director for 300 homes in North Waterway Estates in Satellite Beach for residents of the South Patrick Residents Association.  She stated the South Patrick Residents Association represents approximately 3,000 residents on the beachside; and she is working to change the present ordinance, as she wants to improve the safety and the quality of life in her neighborhood.  She stated many lots in Waterway Estates are only a quarter-acre and do not support the same ability to accommodate several trailers, recreational vehicles, or large work trucks as does a five acre parcel in Mims; the present ordinance allows large vehicles to park anywhere on a piece of property, including the front lawn parallel to the street; and it is not considerate to the neighbors in the closely knit neighborhood. 

 

Captain Harry Phillips stated he currently lives in Cocoa Beach where he cannot park a boat on a trailer; but he is moving to Rockledge in 30 days; and Figure 3 is a prime example of his house configuration.  Chairman Scarborough stated if Mr. Phillips lives in Rockledge, he will need to go to the City of Rockledge.

 

Robert Nesbitt stated he would like clarification of the side setback requirement; and inquired if side parking is going to be allowed, as in Figure 5, with scenario C, then why should the Board bother with a side setback on the front half of the yard.  Chairman Scarborough stated scenario C can be right next to the fence, but with scenario A there has to be 10 feet from the neighbors yard; and inquired why, once past the building, is there the ability to go up to the fence. 

 

Mr. Bowen advised the majority of complaints Code Enforcement has fielded pertains to the front yard area where there is a motor home, and the neighbor cannot see to get out of his or her driveway.  Ms. Sobrino stated traditionally, Zoning Codes recognize front yard areas as being areas that are the most restrictive on the property in terms of what can be done with it; for example, a shed could not be placed in front of the home, as that area is meant to be open to allow light, air, visibility, and spaciousness between homes.  She stated the purpose of scenario A was to say if a motor home is going to be parked in the front yard area, since it can almost assume the proportions of a structure, then it needs to be made to observe a certain setback; and once behind the front building line, the Zoning Regulations tend to relax somewhat, and staff was trying to accommodate that opportunity for using the side yard area. 

 

Mr. Nesbitt stated if a motor home was parked in scenario A and perpendicular to the road, there is going to be the same issue of a neighbor not being able to see around the vehicle, whether it is in the driveway or along the property line; and he thinks it would simplify the Code to just eliminate the side setback all together and limit the number of vehicles.  He stated it sounds like the Board is only trying to fix part of the issue by singling out boats, trailers, and RV’s; but he can park 10 Cadillac’s across the front of his property and not have a problem; and he would suggest the Board look at a complete solution as opposed to a partial one.  He inquired who will have to pay for enforcement and how will enforcement be handled.  Mr. Bowen advised enforcement would be handled on a complaint basis; and the citizens would pay for it.  Mr. Nesbitt inquired if Mr. Bowen has any idea what the cost would be; with Mr. Bowen responding no.  Mr. Bowen noted prior to the Code change in 2005, the Code was more restrictive, and the case load was up; and when the Code changed, the case load went down. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he has seen occasions when motor homes and travel trailers are parked against the property line and does not allow grass to grow in the neighbors yard; one reason homes are not allowed to be built from property line to property line is to allow a breezeway and some relaxation between houses; and it was never a consideration because it would be a way to hide other stuff.  Mr. Nesbitt inquired if there will be something in place that will allow his neighbors to say they do not mind the vehicle being parked in a certain location.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to talk about that in the discussion after the public speakers.

 

Doug Bartlett stated he is a two-boat owner in Merritt Island and he has an issue with scenario’s B and C on Figure 5; he has five feet available on either side of his house; and he is not able to park his vehicles in the back yard, which burdens him because he can only either put it in the middle of his property, or pay for a storage facility.  He stated he would like to get rid of the 10-foot side setback, so he can park his smaller boat on the side of his house, and his bigger boat in the driveway.

 

Carl Holland stated there are a lot of driveways in which there is not 10 feet between property lines; the Board has said he can park a car or a commercial vehicle within 10 feet of his property line, but not a boat; and inquired why.  Mr. Bowen replied the Code only addresses RV’s and RV equipment.  Mr. Holland stated his neighbor can have three work trucks in his front yard or within 10 feet of his property line, but he cannot park his RV in his driveway.

 

Mr. Bowen stated the issue regarding the RV’s and the RV equipment is the fact that the equipment is being stored there on a daily basis and hardly move as opposed to a passenger vehicle, which is probably used several times per day; and the RV’s and equipment are stored on the property.  Mr. Holland stated his RV is used more often than some commercial trucks that are parked at properties; and a lot of people are not going to have 10 feet to spare on the side of their property.  He stated the Board’s drawing of a house with a circular driveway shows the house having a garage; but not everyone has a garage.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated some lots are 50 feet wide with the driveways next to the property line, with not much in between; and even though something is parked on the driveway, it is still going to be illegal because it is not 10 feet from the property line.  Ms. Sobrino advised under the proposal, that is correct; the idea is that the driveway area should be widened away from the property line so that a car can be maintained, but that the other vehicle, or equipment, be parked at least 10 feet, so it would be on the left side of the passenger vehicle.  Commissioner Voltz stated also on the left side of the driveway there could also be the septic tank lines coming in; and chances are that might not be able to be done.  She stated to put someone through the expense of expanding their driveway out that far just seems way too much for the citizens to bear.

 

Tania Hanlin stated she lives in South Patrick Shores, which is basically a series of neighborhoods that are small subdivisions; most of them are older; and many residents in South Patrick Shores are concerned by the number of cars now parking in the street because the driveways and lots are full of all types of trailers, RV’s, boats, and vehicles.  She stated the lots in the area are smaller than a quarter-acre or less, and it is beginning to become an eye sore, as the homes are becoming dwarfed by the large vehicles; the views outside homes are disappearing,  and  the sidewalks are blocked  by over-sized  vehicles and trailers; and  with the sidewalks blocked there is no vision when pulling out of a driveway because of the large trailers.  Ms. Hanlin stated now that the streets are full of parked cars, the trash collectors have a hard time coming down the street to collect trash; and had the County approved the Waste Management contract last year in which the garbage trucks would collect trash from the curb, it could not have happened in areas such as South Patrick Shores. 

 

Pat Blaha stated she is glad the County is trying to get back to some reasonable ordinances and codes the way it used to be 30 years ago; she lives in Melbourne Shores; and she gets the impression that people think if they live in the unincorporated area they can do anything, but for 30 years it was not like that.  She noted she is mostly concerned with the side yard, and not the front yard side setback, but the actual side yard; and she would like to see that very large vehicles not be parked in that area.  She stated the view from her kitchen window is a 40-foot bus, 11 feet high; it is right on the property line; and it towers above the privacy fence, and there is nothing she can do legally because she is not allowed to put up an opaque structure.  She inquired if it is still going to be legal to use RV’s as guest quarters.  Mr. Bowen advised the majority of the Local Planning Agency voted, and the proposal is that it be eliminated from the Code, and that RV’s are not to be used for that purpose.   Ms. Blaha inquired if an opaque structure is only required when a vehicle is parking in the side yard; with Mr. Bowen responding that is correct.  Ms. Blaha stated the proposed ordinance also states that an unlimited amount of vehicles can be stored in a garage or other enclosed structures; and inquired what are other enclosed structures.  Mr. Bowen replied most garages will only fit two vehicles; if the zoning code will allow another structure to be built, then an additional structure could be built on the property, with a roof and four walls.  Ms. Blaha stated in other words, any other structure would have to comply with zoning law; with Mr. Bowen stating that is correct.  Ms. Blaha inquired about the opaque barrier, and if it also has to follow zoning laws, or if someone has an RV in their backyard, can they just build something around it.  Mr. Bowen stated the fence requires a building permit, and the height of the fence is limited by zoning laws; and in addition, an opaque barrier could be plants, shrubs, hedges, and those types of things.  Ms. Blaha stated she would like to see that only smaller vehicles are allowed in side yards, otherwise, she is glad to see the County get back to some reasonable ordinances for the unincorporated neighborhoods.

 

Bob Harper stated he is against the proposed ordinance; he stated the ordinance is similar to people moving to an area near an airport; and people encroach on airports then complain about the noise.  He stated he looks at unincorporated Brevard County the same way; and people move to unincorporated Brevard County and do not look at additional rules to be placed upon them.  He stated a lot of money comes to Brevard County because of boating; and a lot of people already said they will eliminate their boats and RV’s.  He advised in 2007 $18.4 billion was the boating economic impact for Florida; the total number of boats in 2007 in Brevard County was 40,407; the economic impact per boat was $17,916; the economic impact for all boats in Brevard County was $723.9 million; and assuming 10 percent will sell their boats because of the new ordinance, it will be an economic impact loss of $72.4 million.  He stated the reason there is a larger number of problems with boats and RV’s in the County is because there are more boats and RV’s; more people want boats and RV’s; and he wants the Board to consider the fact that the majority of the citizens want more boats and RV’s, and the Commissioners represent the majority of the citizens.

 

Wayne Dickinson stated from the years 1948 to 1970, 90 percent of all the homes built in Brevard  County were single-car garage houses; most of the pictures that have been  shown are of houses that have a two-car garage; but if the ordinance is changed he will not be able to park his  boat  on the  side  of his yard.   He  stated  most  homes are  older homes and do  not  have enough property to park a boat or RV; and that is discrimination against average, or poor, people. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated today Mr. Dickinson can park his boat in the middle of his yard and it is legal; and under the new ordinance if he puts concrete or gravel under it, he can park it right in the middle of his front yard.  Mr. Dickinson stated that is not true; and Code Enforcement does not allow a boat to be parked on grass, sand, dirt, or mulch.  Commissioner Nelson stated those were not the choices; and if a boat is parked on asphalt, gravel, or concrete, it can be parked in the middle of a front yard.  Mr. Dickinson inquired if he can park seven vehicles in his front yard as long as they are on concrete; with Commissioner Nelson responding only one can be parked in the front yard.  Mr. Dickinson inquired where he is supposed to park his RV; and inquired if Commissioner Nelson is against motor homes and boats.  Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Dickinson can move his RV over, and that is what most people will end up doing; it comes down to convenience; and the question is if Mr. Dickinson takes the impact, or is the impact put on the neighbor.  Mr. Dickinson stated he has lived in his house for 50 years and he has never had any trouble; and inquired who is impacting whom.  Commissioner Nelson noted until 2005 Mr. Dickinson could do all those things; the Board gave a window of opportunity; now it has become an absolute right; and what the Board is trying to do is get the ordinance back to where it makes sense. 

 

Thomas Ubl stated he moved his mother to an unincorporated Merritt Island neighborhood that has a homeowners association, which has consistently maintained its covenants and bylaws to include trailers and recreational vehicles.  He stated his main concern with how the ordinance is written is with regard to the socioeconomic discrimination; and inquired how the half-acre language came into the ordinance. 

 

Assistant County Attorney Kristen Dorsey stated if someone had an acre of property and wanted to park vehicles in the side or back yard, it is not going to aesthetically affect the neighbors as much as it would if it was a smaller lot; and a boat on an acre of property is not going to be seen as much as an RV would be seen on a quarter-acre lot.  Mr. Ubl stated he would challenge the Board to consider the risk mitigation going forward in terms of what is fair and reasonable to everyone; and the Board should take into consideration potential grandfather clauses.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Board is going to talk about that issue.

 

Nancy Bass stated the lots in her neighborhood are a half-acre or less; there used to be deed restrictions in her neighborhood, but they have lapsed; and when the ordinance was reversed in 2005 it allowed people to do whatever they wanted to.  She stated in her neighborhood there are RV’s parked in front yards parallel to the street; when RV’s are parked that way it is an eye sore and damages the integrity and safety of the community; and she wants her neighbors to be able to enjoy their RV’s, but she wants them to be considerate of the neighbors also.

 

Richard Scalise stated he lives at 380 Sagamore Street; two years ago the residents at 2330 Sagamore Street pulled a fifth-wheel onto their property; it is on the left side, perpendicular to Indiana Street; it sits on grass, is continuously hooked up to water and electric; and for a while it was hooked up to a septic tank.  He stated there have been many complaints about people living in the fifth-wheel;  and  he understands that the ordinance has been amended to  stipulate that  people  can  no longer  live in RV’s or fifth-wheels.  Mr. Bowen stated that is correct; some RV’s can be hooked up to electricity to keep the refrigerator running; but people are not allowed to actually be living in an RV or fifth-wheel. 

 

Nancy Swickert stated she was at the first hearing because she was chosen as the poster child for having a motor home in the front yard; the first picture that was shown to the Board was her home; and the day the picture was taken was the day she ordered a cover for her golf cart; but the golf cart is back under the carport.  She read a letter to the Board.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how often Ms. Swickert moves her motor home; with Ms. Swickert responding they use it once per month; and last year she took it to West Virginia a couple of times. 

 

Pamela Davenport-Worth stated she has a 26-foot travel trailer in her front yard; her travel trailer is approximately 30 feet from the street, it is not a safety hazard; and if she has to park perpendicular, it will block views. 

 

Douglas Worth stated his 26-foot travel trailer is parked in his front yard; it is 30 feet from the street and eight feet from his neighbors side property line; and it is parked parallel to the street and does not block the front view of the house.  He stated parking perpendicular or parallel to the street is a matter of personal preference and not a safety or quality of life issue; however, there is a psychological connotation to the phrase parallel parking, which normally means parking a vehicle parallel to the curb of the street; and a lot of people think there will be parallel parking next to the curb.  He stated persons with a circular drive, or a large side yard, should be able to park parallel; the current Code says, “Must be perpendicular to the street”, and that is too restrictive in the context in which it was written; and parallel and perpendicular is a personal preference and should not be legislated.  He noted the 10-foot side setback requirement is too strict considering most houses only have a seven and a half-foot setback, or a five-foot setback.  He stated the size of vehicles should be considered if the number of vehicles that can be parked in front of a house are going to be limited.  He stated the proposed ordinance has a requirement that an RV can only be parked in front of a house on a driveway, and defines driveway as a stabilized surface between the street and garage; but what about homeowners who have poured a separate driveway that does not connect to the garage; and the Board has caused them a lot of trouble for no apparent reason and no apparent advantage.

 

Ayn Samuelson stated as President of the South Patrick Residents Association (SPRA) she was approached by many residents to speak on the issue; and the Board cannot possibly represent every single person’s ideas.  She stated she was specifically approached in regards to parking large recreational vehicles on the front lawn in the parallel position; in 1988 she could not even park a small boat trailer in her side front yard; in 2005 the Board changed the ordinance drastically; and everything was basically tossed out.  She stated the communities depend on fair ordinances based on how they actually affect citizens; and in 2005 there were a lot of citizens who were not fairly represented.  She stated ensuring that all citizens can use and enjoy their property is critical to freedom; but what she does next to her neighbors does affect them; and if she parks a large RV across her front lawn it can adversely affect her neighbors with visual pollution and affect their ability to sell their property.  She stated many residents live in older subdivisions with small lots and rely on County Ordinances as a first line of defense; SPRA  supports  the  less  is   more  philosophy  codes  with  reasonable  changes  that  ensure residents’ freedom to enjoy their homes and toys without curtailing their neighbors rights to enjoy their property as well. 

 

Jeff Sink stated he does not see the difference in parking an RV on a property line and 10 feet from the property line is really going to fix the problem; and everyone will be back in two years to look at the ordinance again.  He stated he is disappointed to be back before the Board so quickly; the will of the people the last time was very clear; he did not hear about this hearing until this afternoon; and it was not as publicized as the last hearing was.  He stated he chose to live in unincorporated Brevard County so he can have a boat on his property; he appreciates the Board allowing him to keep his boat at his property; but unincorporated Brevard County was built over a period of time; and there are several pockets throughout that were built under different zoning regulations.  He noted the standard boat trailer starts at eight feet; and that is why one-size-fits-all rules do not work well in unincorporated Brevard County.  He stated he has many friends who cannot fit a boat on the side of their house or in their back yard; not all houses were built equally; and most of the houses with that problem are under a half-acre, which is what the proposed ordinance applies to.  He stated more rules equals more enforcement and more money; there is not enough money now; and the proposed ordinance is going to drive up the case load for Code Enforcement and it will not fix any of the problems.

 

Commissioner Nelson noted Mr. Sink stated the proposed ordinance would not fix any of the problems; and inquired if Mr. Sink is suggesting the Board go back to the 2005 rules.  Mr. Sink stated in 2005 there was more of a turnout because the meeting was noticed properly; and Chairman Scarborough was not in favor of the ordinance in 2005.  Chairman Scarborough stated he felt the Board went too far in 2005 and he is not surprised that there are now many more complaints.  Commissioner Nelson inquired what Mr. Sinks specific circumstance is; with Mr. Sink responding he has a seven foot side setback; and his driveway starts two feet over; and when he first bought the property he parked his boat in the driveway and he had three cars; he began parking his boat off the side of the driveway; it does not block the view of the house, but it is within the 10-foot setback; and if he moves his boat he either has to park a car in the yard, block the view of traffic, or move the boat to the middle of the house, which his neighbors will not like.  Commissioner Nelson stated he likes boats and RV’s, but there has to be some limit on how it is done; and that is what the Board is trying to achieve.  He stated there are going to be people who call him who still have issues because the Board is not going far enough.  Mr. Sink stated there are always going to be people who abuse whatever rule the Board makes; most people are going to follow the intent of the rules; but there are a select few that are going to try to push button.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the issue made newspaper headlines a few years ago because anything Commissioner Ron Pritchard did the newspaper made a heyday with; and that is why the meetings were well publicized.

 

Paul Partlow stated he understands there needs to be some balance and rules; but he is opposed to the proposed ordinance.  He stated someone brought up the fact that some homeowners associations’ rules have sunsetted because they have not enforced their rules; but that should not impact him because he chose to live in an area that did not have a homeowners association.  He stated he and his neighbor park their boats parallel to the street; both boats are behind  a  shrub  and  cannot be seen from the street; the main issue he has with the  proposed ordinance is the parallel parking; and if a boat or RV is far enough from the front property line there should not be an issue.

 

Matt Wilson stated he has a motor home in his driveway and a boat next to it surrounded by shrubs; if the ordinance is passed, he will have to cut down 30-year old trees in order to park his boat on the side of the house; and it will be an eye sore.  He stated it is obvious the Board has made up its mind and he is wasting his breath. 

 

Dail Bennett stated Brevard County is a boating community; people retire and come to Brevard County to be close to the water; people also retire to Florida while maintaining a residence in another state; a lot of people come to Florida in motor homes; and if people are offended by boats, then they should not live in a boating community.  He stated most people in the country want less government involvement and not more; and he would ask the Board to think twice about infringing on peoples rights and property rights.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the subject of property rights comes up at every Zoning meeting; but the Board is allowed to try to strike balances; and the idea of a balance is that one is allowed to do as much as they want with their property, but when it begins to harm the other person’s enjoyment and value, there are property rights on all sides.  He stated it is a difficult thing to balance; some things the Board is dealing with tonight may be more arbitrary and not really adding any benefit to the neighbor, which he thinks needs to be explored; but to say the issue has passed without comment would be incorrect; and he knows there are boat owners who are concerned, but it needs to be understood that there are people on the other side. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated housing setbacks were not set because of RV’s; the housing setbacks were set because of the enjoyment of property of neighborhoods; there are rules; and the Board is the governing Body for unincorporated area of Brevard County.  He stated when he was campaigning he ran into people who would show him what was being done in neighborhoods; he had the opportunity to look at a variety of instances which were just wrong in which someone cannot grow grass in their yard because their neighbor parks a 30-foot motor home; and the Codes do not allow a four-foot fence in that area, but a 12-foot high motor home is okay.  He stated on a half-acre lot, the setbacks are greater, and those lots have plenty of room to deal with RV’s and motor homes.  Chairman Scarborough stated if someone has a larger lot, why should they not be able to look at a 10-foot setback; and inquired why should people with half-acre lots be exempt from the 10-foot setback.  Commissioner Nelson stated the reality is that most of the half-acre lots do not have the issues in terms of driveways being immediately adjacent because the setbacks are already different than smaller lots; and there are a variety of reasons that allow half-acre lots the ability to accommodate RV’s and boats, plus, the neighbors are not right on top of them.  Chairman Scarborough stated in Figure 5, the parking is perpendicular in front with a 10-foot minimum setback, but that would not apply to a larger lot of over a half-acre; and somebody who wanted to be arbitrary could park on the property line even though he or she has a large tract of land; and inquired if it is not allowed on a quarter-acre lot, then why would it be allowed on a half-acre lot.  Commissioner Nelson stated the impact to the neighbor has been reduced because the setbacks are greater on a larger lot; there are five-foot setbacks between houses in some Zoning classifications, and that is not the case with larger lots; and if someone puts an RV in those larger setbacks, it is not near the neighbor because the neighbor is not allowed to build next to it.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would be willing to discuss the 10-foot setback and look for some consistency with the Zoning classifications; there are seven and a half setbacks and five-foot setbacks on some lots, but he would not want to go less than a five-foot setback; and he does not there should be a zero lot line.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board could approve either/or, which ever is greater.  Commissioner Nelson stated he had a discussion with staff, which was the setbacks for an RV or recreational vehicle would meet the zoning side setbacks and in no case be less than five feet.  Chairman Scarborough stated it is still close, but it may work for a few more people.  Commissioner Nelson stated the other concern he had was people being able to get in and out of their vehicle by being in compliance with the setbacks; and he does not know if he wants to support an arbitrary distance because the location of the door is different on each motor home.  He stated one speaker said he was able to park his RV on the side of his house, but he will not be able to get in and out of it if he does that, so his RV will extend out about eight feet from the front of the house in or out.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board could approve an RV extending a few feet from the front of a house; it would be different for each motor home; but most doors are not 50 percent the length of the RV.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if an RV was allowed to be forward of the front building line sufficient to exit the vehicle, is that something staff can add to the ordinance.  Mr. Bowen stated based upon that scenario, the owner is meeting the intent of the Code by trying to get the RV on the side of the house; and there has to be some kind of compromise.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if that is administrative, or does the Board need to put it in the Code.  Mr. Bowen stated staff would prefer to see it in the Code because it becomes an enforcement nightmare.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board could approve an RV could protrude to the extent necessary to enter and exit the vehicle.  Commissioner Nelson stated that will work. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired why scenarios B and C would not be acceptable on Figure 5.  Mr. Bowen replied he does not see that as an issue.  Chairman Scarborough stated it could become an issue because it would then throw in an opaque barrier even though the number of vehicles is not three, since it is not in an AB or AC scenario.  Ms. Sobrino advised the way the Code is written, staff can make it more clear that a BC scenario would be permitted.  She noted the only time screening comes into play is after there are two vehicles on a property. 

 

Commissioner Voltz noted scenario C in Figure 5 depicts an L shaped house; and inquired what if there is a scenario C on the other side of the house that protrudes from the side of the house, but it is not really protruding from the front building line of the house.  Ms. Sobrino stated the Board can see from the diagram where the front building line is; and that does not relate to the entire front of the house with all of its various curves and turns, but rather it relates to that portion of the residence that is most forward of the residence.  Commissioner Voltz stated that needs to be clarified in the proposed ordinance.  Commissioner Nelson stated as long as a vehicle is behind the imaginary line it is legal, as long as it is not perpendicular.  Ms. Sobrino stated that is correct if using the front building line as the defining point. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she is not in favor of parallel parking an RV in front of a house; and she agrees that the one example the Board saw in the pictures that were submitted was very nice; but that is only one example out of hundreds that are not going to be like that.  Commissioner Voltz stated if someone has a circular driveway they should be able to park something on the front; but the definition of driveway says, “Driveway access means a path for a vehicle to get access from abutting property to a road”; and stated someone could build a path out  of a stabilized  material for their RV  or recreational equipment.   Mr. Bowen stated that gets into expansion; it would be adjacent to the existing to expand it on the interior portion of the existing driveway; and there would have to be another curb cut, which would not be permitted at all.  Commissioner Voltz stated if there are no sidewalks, one could just drive up onto the property.  Mr. Bowen stated it is access to the roadway.  Commissioner Nelson stated if parking behind the front building line, that does not constitute needing a driveway; in other words, if parking in front it has to be contiguous to the driveway; but if parking behind, it does not necessarily have to come through a driveway to get there.  He stated a driveway is only required if a vehicle is only parked in the front.  Mr. Bowen stated if someone is accessing from off of their property onto the roadway, whether there is a sidewalk or not, it is going to require a curb cut; and it is going to require permitting. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to add a scenario D to Figure 5 on the other side of the house; and inquired if there could be a CD option, which is parking on both sides of the house.  Mr. Bowen stated that was part of the discussion a couple of meetings ago, of whether or not people would be permitted to block access on both sides; it was discussed if the Fire Department could get in there; and someone suggested that the RV’s and equipment are mobile, and not like a shed that could not be moved.  Chairman Scarborough stated that needs to be added to Figure 5.  Ms. Sobrino advised the primary intent of the ordinance was to address the front yard area because that is the most visible area; any other locations other than the front yard area, staff did not intend to say there could only be one vehicle.  Chairman Scarborough stated staff did say two vehicles without getting into additional vegetative buffer issues.  Ms. Sobrino stated staff did not say there could not be two vehicles in C, if there was a lot configuration that permitted that; and staff was saying the front yard area is the most prominent area.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Sobrino was saying there could be two vehicles in scenario C, and in B there could be more than one vehicle; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, but once there are three vehicles at least one of them would need to be screened.  Mr. Bowen stated the staff had a dilemma in trying to strike a balance and concentrate on the area that receives the most complaints, which is the front yard.  Commissioner Voltz stated if there is a fenced-in half-acre lot, someone could park as many vehicles as they want back there.  Mr. Bowen advised that is correct.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how high a vegetative buffer can be.  Ms. Sobrino replied the fence could only be six feet in height, therefore, to say shrubs have to be taller than six feet might appear to be equitable; and she would say that any opaque buffer would have to be a minimum of six feet in height. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board is coming to the conclusion that there could be A, B, C, and D scenario.  Commissioner Nelson stated there is a house on Merritt Island that had three boats and two cars parked in the front yard; those examples are out there and they are the ones that are going to be using the ordinance; and the Board is thinking about motor homes, but it applies to boats also. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not know if a neighbor is going to call Code Enforcement to complain about the RV’s and boats that are illegal, but the Board needs to realize how many properties are going to be affected; and a lot of people have boats, but there is no place to store them.  She stated she is not going to support the changes; and she thinks the Board will be dealing with the issue again a few years down the road. 

 

 Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to incorporate that there would be a six-foot barrier to height; and she agrees with changing the setback from a 10-foot minimum to meet the zoning side setbacks, but no less than five feet.  She noted the Board should take into consideration an option “D”, and not have it ruled out completely; and with those changes, she would support the proposed ordinance. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the proposed ordinance says, “All multiple-family developments of 30 dwelling units or more shall provide at a minimum once such space for each 15 dwelling units”; and inquired what it is currently. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Nelson is looking at Commissioner Bolin’s suggestion as a motion; with Commissioner Nelson responding he would like to understand all the ramifications.   Ms. Busacca stated the setbacks in scenario A would meet the side zoning setbacks, but in no case less than five feet; and the opaque barrier would be a minimum of six feet.  Commissioner Nelson stated a minimum of six feet sounds like a fence could be higher.  Ms. Busacca stated a vegetative buffer could be higher, but after that a fence would have to be consistent with the fence requirements.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board cannot dictate how high shrubs can grow anyway.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would not want anyone to think the fencing could be higher than six feet.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board can stipulate the six-foot requirement to non-vegetated.  Ms. Busacca stated there are a lot of different combinations that could be included with having two vehicles, but at three vehicles, there would have to be a six-foot high opaque barrier.  She stated the previous requirement was that there had to be something in A before going to B and C; and now the Board is saying there does not have to be something in A before moving something to other locations. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there could be a scenario CD combination; and stated he would like a Finding of Fact that will come back to the Board to ensure it is not missing anything.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated he can get a transcript of the minutes to make sure every detail is correct.  Chairman Scarborough stated it is a wordsmithing to make sure the Board does not use the word vehicle instead of location, because if it did that, it would be doing something substantially different that what is discussed.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board would vote on the intent; with Chairman Scarborough responding the Board will vote on the intent just as it does on a Zoning meeting; and stated the Board cannot come back to this hearing without re-advertising the whole thing, but it will have the ability to make sure that the written words are inline with what the Board votes on.   Attorney Knox inquired if the Board is authorizing a re-draft based upon its motions, and if that is going to be brought back to the Board, but not in a public hearing.  Chairman Scarborough stated it is not a public hearing, but it is the same thing as a Finding of Fact.  Ms. Busacca stated basically, it would be a confirmation of the Board’s intent.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board just wants to make sure the correct words are used; it would be a County Commission meeting, but the Board will not be changing what it is doing today; and it would be a matter of making sure it did not say something it did not intend to say.

 

Ms. Sobrino advised the multi-family section of the ordinance has been in the Code since prior to 2005; and that disappeared with the other changes.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is going to be put back in the ordinance; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, it is being reinserted.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how that is gong to affect a development that is already completed.   Ms.  Sobrino  replied  anything  that  has  been  approved  by  the  County  prior  to enactment of the ordinance would be considered legally non-conforming; if approved, any new site plans or subdivision plans that fall into this description would need to comply with it.  Commissioner Voltz stated there may be someone out there who has their site plan completed and they turn it in only to find out they have to allot for a couple of spaces; and that makes a big difference for their plans.  Ms. Sobrino stated it is not mandated, it just allows for it.  Commissioner Voltz stated the proposed ordinance says, “Shall provide at a minimum one such space for each 15 dwelling units”; and “shall” means must, so it does make a difference.  Ms. Sobrino stated yes, at the beginning when a development chooses to do that, then they can assign an area for that.  Commissioner Voltz stated that in doing this, the Board may be affecting a whole lot more than just parking boats or RV’s.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to consider language changes for Section 62-2117, Parking, Locating, and Storage of RV’s and RV equipment as follows:  1.)  Setbacks in Area “A” shall meet the side Zoning Code requirements, but not less than five feet;  2.)  Minimum six-foot opaque buffer, not to exceed the standards required under the fencing Code;  3.)  Area “C” could be forward of the front building line sufficient to exit the vehicle; and 4.)  More than two vehicles would require a six foot opaque buffer.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he gave each Commissioner a copy of a letter to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, requesting an 11 percent reduction in dues, which he would like for everyone to read.

 

 

 

George Theriault stated a few weeks ago he asked the Fire Chief to inspect three wells in South Brevard County; the well in Little Hollywood was the only one to pass inspection; the well on Riverview, inside Micco Park, had to have a shut-off valve in order to get it working; and he feels the fire hydrants are very important because the area is not on City water.  He stated in the 1970’s the Fire Department was moved from 11^th Street to Barefoot Bay; when that happened, the only source of water was the hydrants; and they need to be inspected on a periodic basis.  He noted there are two hydrants on Primrose Drive that were inspected; one is inside a compound; and the other one faces the street, which was not looked at; but the one inside a compound had a broken head and was not tested; and the one that tested good was the one at Farm Avenue, which was 800 gallons per minute. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it would be beneficial for the Board to get a report on the fire hydrants.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board will follow-up with Chief Farmer and make sure all the fire hydrants are inspected. 

 

   

 

Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board is satisfied with the letter, he will sign it and it can go to the Council. 

 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        _________________________________

TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)