MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

February 2, 2006

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 2, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Gary Gates, Central Baptist Church, Melbourne, Florida. 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough distributed photographs of the Pritchard House showing its condition; advised there was a recommendation to the Legislature to approve $350,000 for its historical restoration; and they need to get an A&E firm with knowledge of restoration of historical buildings.  He requested transfer of $80,000 from the District 1 MSTU for the project.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve transfer of $80,000 from the District 1 MSTU to the Pritchard House; and authorize staff to proceed under existing A&E firm contracts.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised of the reopening of the Mathers Bridge.

 

Commissioner Colon thanked the residents for being patient; and stated Indian Harbour Beach worked closely with the County.  She expressed appreciation to Transportation Engineer John Denninghoff and his staff. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz advised the Board previously decided to have a start time of 4:30 p.m.; but there is an issue with that time because not all of the general public can get to the meeting by that time.  She requested the Board readdress the issue.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to reconsider the Board’s previous action setting the starting time for Zoning meetings at 4:30 p.m.

 

 

Commissioner Colon advised if meetings are lasting until midnight, the Commissioners are not functioning very well, and it is not fair for citizens who have to be at work the next day to be here for late meetings.  She stated people would rather be at the meeting at 4:30 p.m. versus midnight. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board needs to act more efficiently.  Commissioner Colon stated the problem is the number of speakers; the Board wants to allow everyone to speak; and inquired how many hours of testimony has the Board heard from Valkaria.  She stated 100 people spoke on that issue; and it was not that the meeting was not being run efficiently. 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated based on the Board’s previous direction, staff has advertised the March and April 2006 hearings already; and if the Board makes any changes, they would start after April.  Mr. Enos advised there is State law that directs certain types of actions be heard after 5:00 p.m. including some Comprehensive Plan actions and some administrative rezonings, so starting at 4:30 p.m. may cause a problem in managing those. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board also addressed the ending time.  Chair Voltz stated she originally suggested stopping at midnight; and Commissioner Scarborough suggested 11:00 p.m. as the stopping time.  Commissioner Scarborough suggested discussing starting and stopping times; and stated there is always the possibility of more meetings.  He stated he would prefer to come to the Government Center two times rather than try to hear things at 3:00 a.m.; with Chair Voltz agreeing.  Commissioner Carlson stated if there is an issue that is big and there are 100 people who want to speak, they should be heard at one time and not have to come back; and suggested controversial items be taken first and less controversial things can be moved to a second meeting.  Chair Voltz inquired how the Zoning staff sets up the book; with Mr. Enos explaining how items are entered.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Chair has the ability to move things around.  Commissioner Pritchard suggested the Zoning meetings start at 5:00 p.m. and end at 11:00 p.m.  Commissioner Colon stated the next two Zoning meetings will have to start at 4:30 p.m. because they were advertised that way; the new hours would start in May 2006; and expressed concern about the people who are here tonight and may not be heard until 11:00 p.m.  She inquired how will the Board be handling it tonight.  Commissioner Scarborough stated people have to get up in the morning, go to work, and get their children to school; if they were going to be heard by 11:30 p.m., that would be okay, but if they are not going to be heard until 3:00 a.m., they will go home rather than staying; and so there is a point where the Board will be denying people the right to be heard.  He stated the Titusville City Council goes to the early morning hours more frequently than the Board of County Commissioners does, so it is not just a singular issue but one throughout the State.  Commissioner Colon stated at midnight or 2:00 a.m., it becomes difficult to understand things; and she has encouraged large groups to have ten main speakers and have the others stand in support.  She stated that allows the people to hear the Board discussion; and she has encouraged people to do that because it works to everyone’s advantage.  She commented on the Valkaria discussion lasting five hours; and stated they lost 75% of the audience by the time the Board made the decision. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Zoning meetings will be scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may end up having more meetings, but it is much easier to come back a second time rather than hearing items at 3:00 a.m. 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to set the meeting times for Zoning meetings at 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. starting in May 2005.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chair Voltz advised the March and April meetings will be 4:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

 

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised Items VI.A.1, VI.A.2, VI.A.6, VI.B.5, VI.B.10, VI.B.30, and VI.B.34 have been withdrawn from the Agenda. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she thought the request for VI.B.30 was to table it; with Mr. Enos responding a letter was received today withdrawing the item. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about VI.B.31; with Mr. Enos responding there has been a request to table that item as well as several others. 

 

Item VI.A.1.  (Z0507111)  Robert J. and Carol A. Robertson’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 4.6 acres, located on the southeast corner of Dixie Way and Burkholm Road, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.  The item was withdrawn.  

 

 

Item VI.A.2.  (Z0508111)  Forrest Lakes Partners, LLC’s request for change from GU to TR-3 on 76 acres, located on the north side of Pluckebaum Road, west of I-95, was withdrawn by applicant.

 

 

Item VI.A.6.  (PSJ511102)  Thong Dee Godinet’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment (05S.16) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map from Residential Eight Units Per Acre to Neighborhood Commercial and a change from RU-1-09 to RP on .25 acre, located on the south side of LaFair Street, west of US 1, which was recommended for denial by the Port St. John Dependent Special Board.  The item was withdrawn.

 

 

Item VI.B.5.  (Z0601102)  Glenn A. Yost’s request for change from BU-2 to RU-2-10 on 1.25 acres, located on the east side of US 1, opposite of the eastern terminus of Broadway Boulevard.  The item was withdrawn.

 

 

Item VI.B.10.  (Z0601107)  William C. and Andrea Pender’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.35± acres located on the west side of Turpentine Road, south of Lion Lane.  The item was withdrawn by the applicant. 

 

 

Item VI.B.30. (Z0511109)  Laurel Valley Development, LLC’s request for change from AU to EU-2 with a Binding Development Plan on 9.08 acres, located on the north side of SR 46, west
of Fawn Lake Boulevard, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  The item was withdrawn.

 

 

Item VI.B.34. (Z0510302)  North Cypress Reserve, Inc.’s request for CUP for Land Alteration in GU and AU on 353.28 acres, located on Micco Road, east of I-95.  The item was withdrawn by applicant. 

 

Mr. Enos advised Items VI.B.1, VI.B.28, and  VI.B.29  have been recommended for tabling to the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  He advised there has been a request to table Item VI.B.19 to the April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting; Item VI.B.11 is recommended for tabling to the May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting; and there is a request to table Item VI.B.31 based on a new plan with no date specified. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she would like Item VI.B.31 to go back to the P&Z Board since there is a new plan.  Mr. Enos advised it will have to be readvertised.  Commissioner Colon explained if a plan is changed, it has to go back to the P&Z Board; and that applies to everyone. 

 

Mr. Enos advised Items VI.B.32, VI.B.33, and VI.B.35 are recommended to be tabled to the April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.     

 

 

Item VI.B.1.  (Z0601501)  Chatchai Nakornprai and Arporn Nuampatom’s request for change from Ru-1-9 to RU-2-15 on 1.37 acres, located on the south side of Livingstone Lane, west of Wickham Road, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the February 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.   

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.1 to the February 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.11.  (Z0601108)  Richard M. and Valeria D. Pitoni’s request to change from AU to RU-2-15 on 4.3 acres, located on the south side of Dairy Road, west of Old Dixie Highway, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the April 10, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.11 to the April 10, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and the May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.19. (Z0601203)  Gary B. Jordan’s request to change from RU-1-13 to RU-1-7 on .315 acre, located on the east side of Milford Point Drive, north of SR 520, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for denial.   

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.19 to the April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.28. (Z0601307)  American Dream Homes International, Inc.’s request for change from BU-1 and BU-2 to RU-2-6 on 10.51 acres, located on the west side of US 1, south of Shell Pit Road, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the February 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.28 to the February 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

Item VI.B.29. (Z0511307)  Irving and Bette Betrock’s request for change from SR with an existing Binding Development Plan to EU with amendment to the BDP on 4 acres located on the west side of Highway A1A, north of Sea Dunes Drive, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the February 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.29 to the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.31. (Z0511206)  Douglas P. and Ethel P. Jaren; Ethel L. Jaren; Frederick E. Tredway; Bobby and Melissa Martin; Carla Martin Loggins; William and Yolanda DeCosta; Douglas P. Jaren, II; Kathy L. Jaren; and Banana River Marine Services, Inc.’s request for change from RU-1-11 and Bu-2 to PUD with CUP for Residential Marina on 17.25 acres, located on both sides of South Banana River Drive, north of Orris Avenue, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for denial.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to review the item, and tabled Item VI.B.31 to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.32. (Z0511304)  Algo Investments, Inc.’s request for change from GU and AU to RR-1 on 44.99 acres, located south of Micco Road and East of Fleming Grant Road, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to table to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.   

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.32 to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.33. (Z0511306)  Frangar, LLC’s request for change from IN(L) to RU-2-6 on 5.22 acres and change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 14.58 acres total, located on the west side of US 1, north of Barefoot Boulevard, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.33 to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.35. (Z0507303)  Hampden Ridge Corporation’s request for change from GU and AU to RR-1 on 161.87 acres, located on the east side of Fleming Grant Road, south of Tamarind Circle, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.35 to the March 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Port St. John items had to be readvertised as there was no quorum.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may need to address some rules.

 

Discussion ensued on the issue. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will bring it back to the Board with a full report. 

 

 

 

Chris Scheetz stated the homeowners of the Merritt Island area respectfully request a Small Area Study for Newfound Harbor Drive and South Banana River Drive, south of SR 520; and they would also like to request that it be started at the first available opportunity as the area is in dire need.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has spoken to the Homeowners Association and Planning and Zoning to ask when such a study can be initiated; Planning and Zoning is suffering a staff shortage at this time; and they have not been able to finalize the North Tropical Trail Study, but they will get to it. 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meetings on July 11, August 8, October 10, and November 7, 2005, and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its meeting of September 15, 2005, as follows: 

 

Item VI.A.5.  (Z0511102)  Darroll W. and Paula Rae Higginbotham’s request for change from AU and RR-1 to RU-1-11 on 9 acres, located north of the western terminus of Eola Avenue, west of its intersection with North Carpenter Road, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.  The applicant amended the request to RR-1.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Higginbotham and the adjoining property owners met in his office; and he thinks there is a plan.

 

Darroll Higginbotham stated his request was to rezone his nine acres to RR-1; there is RR-1 and AU around his property; and some people were for it and others were against it.  He stated when they finished the meeting, everyone was for the change to RR-1. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issues involve the road and water retention; and requested Mr. Higginbotham describe what the BDP will say as to those two elements.  Mr. Higginbotham stated an engineer walked the area and advised how it would be divided into one-acre lots; and the BDP will say the road will be in a certain area, plus or minus.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the BDP will come back to the Board with more specificity as to the road; and there will be a retention pond that will also be described.  He inquired if there is any more input from the neighbors; and no response was heard.   

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.A.5 with Binding Development Plan.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of January 9, 2006, as follows:

 

Item VI.B.2.  (Z0601502)  Walter F. Kormann’s request for change from GU to AU on 5.13 acres, located on the north side of Willowbrook Street, west of Babcock Street, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for  approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.2 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.3.  (Z0601503)  Mitchell W. Greenberg and Christina L. Senft’s request for change from GU to DU on 1 acre, located on the west side of Riverside Drive, north of Watson Drive, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.3 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.4.  (Z0601101)  Wilbert R. and Arma J. Durrett’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 3.41 acres, located on the east side of Osprey Avenue, south of Cangro Street, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.4 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.7.  (Z0601104)  John W. and Audrey V. Steinmetz, Co-trustees’ request change from GU to ARR on 2.02 acres, located on the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.7 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.8.  (Z0601105)  Sherri Ashman and Donald D. Gooch’s request for change from GU to ARR on 1.01 acres, located south of the eastern terminus of Doug Williams Avenue, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.8 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.13.  (Z0601110)  Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Section 62-1152, authorized administrative rezoning of 22.39 acres owned by James R. and Carol E. Glover; Anita M. Rohrer; Leroy Conner; Ira Zager, Trustee; State of Florida IITF; Harold Peters; Jacqueline Osteen, Estate; Michael R. Fitzgibbons and Stella J. Fitzgibbons, from SR with existing Binding Development Plan to GU and removal of existing BDP, located north of Grissom Parkway and Camp Road intersection, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.14.  (Z0601111)  Veronica Estates, Inc.’s request for amendment to an existing Binding Development Plan in an SR zone on 118.9± acres located 1,700 feet east of Grissom Parkway, and north of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.14 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.15.  Readvertised for March 2, 2006.

 

 

Item VI.B.16.  Readvertised for March 2, 2006.

Item VI.B.17. (Z0601201)  Franklin D. Lambert’s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 on 1.27 acres located on the southeast corner of Lucas Place and North Tropical Trail, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item VI.B.17 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.20. (Z0601204)  Thor Merritt Square, LLC’s request for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zone on 0.15 acre located on the north side of Fortenberry Road, east of Sykes Creek Parkway, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.22. (Z0601301)  Sunset River Properties, LLC’s request for change from BU-1 and RU-1-13 to all RU-1-13 on 0.50± acre located on the east side of US 1, south of Shell Pit Road, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.22 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

Item VI.B.23. (Z0601302)  Brevard County Board of County Commissioners’ request for change from PBP to GML(I) on 10.62 acres located on the east side of Valkaria Road, opposite and immediately south of Gradick Drive, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.23 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.24. This item was removed from the Agenda.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  TABLED ITEMS  (CONTINUED)

 

Item VI.A.3.  (NMI50702)  George A. and Barbara H. Ogle’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 21 acres, located on the northeast corner of North Tropical Trail and Church Road, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special Board. 

 

Attorney John Evans, representing the applicants, stated there was a presentation before the Board in October 2005; they requested land on Church Road and Tropical Trail be rezoned from AU to RR-1; and the land use classification was two units per acre.  He advised Mr. Ward testified as an expert witness in planning and zoning; he testified that the requested zoning was compatible with the land use designation and the surrounding zonings, there were no concurrency issues, and it met all criteria for rezoning; and they introduced a map into evidence highlighting all lots that are less than two and one-half acres.  He stated the neighbors wished the property to remain as AU; the surrounding properties are to a great extent two and one-half acres or less; and the vast majority are acre or half-acre lots.  He submitted exhibits to the Board and the Clerk.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is Attorney Evans submitting and has the Board been previously provided this information; with Attorney Evans responding it is a map that the Board has been previously provided; and they are not going to introduce further evidence.  Attorney Evans stated they have met the criteria as required by Florida case law and Florida Statutes; he understands it was postponed for a Small Area Study, which has not been adopted; and requested the Board vote on the item tonight.

 

William Huminski, Linda Noble, Darleen Hunt, Celia Williams, Daan Van Alderwerelt, Shaye Williams, Simone Spiess, Jim Stone, Mary Hillberg, and Pam Pack commented on the requested rezoning. 

 

Attorney Evans advised Mr. Ogle was asked to resign from the CRG Committee because he had pending zoning, and he agreed to do so.  He encouraged the Board to recall the testimony of Mr. Ward, which provided substantial and competent evidence for the rezoning; and to look at the staff report, which indicates there are no traffic, water, or sewer issues.  He stated there is nothing in the staff report about drainage; but as Mr. Stone said, it is common knowledge that
when putting in a subdivision and corresponding retention, it improves drainage rather than hurting it; they have met the legal burden to have the property rezoned; and requested support for the rezoning proposal. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the current zoning is AU at one unit per two and one-half acres; the Future Land Use Map is two units per acre; and the area encompassed in the study goes far beyond the area shown on the example map, going down another half mile or so.  Attorney Evans noted it goes north quite a bit too.  Commissioner Pritchard advised it goes from Porcher Road all the way to the bend; the study area is comprised of a lot of different sized properties; and Treasure Lagoon, which is property Mr. Ogle used to own, has lots that are approximately .33 acre and to the north is 100 acres that has a PUD that is one unit per acre.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the lots on the west side are one-acre lots.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they have to operate on facts; this is a zoning issue; the infrastructure problems mentioned have nothing to do with zoning; and that is what they have to focus on.  He stated the CRG also recommended that the PUD development of one unit per acre be changed to one unit per two and one-half acres.  He inquired what is the implication of changing a PUD of one unit per acre to one unit per two and one-half acres as recommended by the Advisory Board.  Mr. Enos advised if the Comprehensive Plan is amended to one unit per two and one-half acres, any existing lots that are smaller than that will become nonconforming lots of record.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they would be nonconforming, but could still be built upon, so it would not change anything; and law is law and that is why the Board sits as quasi-judicial.  He inquired if the same thing would apply to Mr. Ogle’s property; with Mr. Enos responding he is in a different situation as his property is still zoned AU.  Commissioner Pritchard stated just down the road there is one unit per acre; Treasure Lagoon is at .33 acre; along Church Road are one-acre properties as well as EU, SR, GU, and AU zoned properties; and the neighborhood seems to be compatible with the request.  He stated he has been told that the opportunity for litigation is there, similar to the eagle issue at Sawgrass where the Board denied the request, was taken to court, and lost, costing the taxpayers $40,000.  He stated before making a decision, he wants to be sure the Board has its ducks in a row and if it has to go to court, it might win; and he would like to hear discussion on why the applicant thinks he has a right to build on the property and why the Board has a right to say no, it wants to keep the property at one unit per two and one-half acres.  He stated he does not want to spend taxpayer money if he can avoid it. 

 

Attorney Evans advised of a case called Parker Family Trust vs. City of Jacksonville; stated it says, “landowners seeking to rezone property have the burden of proving that a proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and complies with all procedural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and at this point of time the burden shifts to the governmental board to demonstrate that maintaining the existing zoning classification with respect to the property accomplishes a legitimate public purpose.  The Board has the burden of showing that refusal to rezone the property is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable; and if the Board carries this burden, the application should be denied.”  He stated one of the reasons lawyers bring extra witnesses is because the courts place a lot of weight on what an expert witness said; and Mr. Ward, who has 40 years experience in the business, analyzed the situation from a planning point of view and testified that this proposal was consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and met the zoning goals.  He stated they have submitted maps showing that it is consistent with the surrounding zonings; and described the surrounding area.  He stated there was a zoning in 2004 due west of the property where the Board rezoned an AU property to
RR-1, so there have been consistent actions of the Board to allow this kind of zoning in this area, but now because the neighbors have become upset, that has come to a halt.  Attorney Evans stated that is arbitrary and capricious; nothing has been demonstrated by the residents that would indicated the rezoning would damage the neighborhood; and the expert testimony is to the contrary.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the AU to RR-1 was done due to hardship on the family and necessity to move relatives into the parcel; and the group opposed that rezoning; but the Board supported it. 

 

Attorney Evans advised their property has burned out groves and is not viable as agricultural. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want to create another situation like there was with Sawgrass where the Board got involved with litigation and lost.  Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated the Board’s responsibility in this case is to look at just the substantial competent evidence that has been presented regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and existing rules in the Zoning Ordinance; and it can consider both expert and public testimony to the extent it is competent and involves consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.   

 

Chair Voltz inquired what about compatibility; with Attorney Richardson advising the Board can consider compatibility and character of the area, but overall it is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance that control. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the purpose of the Future Land Use; with Attorney Richardson advising it is a planning mechanism; he does not think it is intended to be a designation of what belongs there or is most compatible or consistent; but rather it is an overall future planning tool’ and it provides some guidance, but it is not meant to direct the Board as to what is appropriate on each parcel or property under the current circumstances.  Mr. Enos stated the land use density designation is a maximum that can be considered; it is not an entitlement; and the Board must also weigh the other factors that are associated with compatibility, concurrency, and consistency with other policies and Comprehensive Plan Elements, such as the Conservation Element.  He stated compatibility is a major issue and should be part of the consideration.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to hear comments from the other Commissioners before moving further. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long would it take to complete the Small Area Plan; with County Manager Peggy Busacca responding approximately two weeks.  Commissioner Scarborough recommended waiting for the Small Area Plan.  Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees; compatibility is critical in this area because there is a mix; and all the infrastructure issues need to be looked at.  She commented on the Small Area Plan and right sizing the Land Use Plan.

 

Planner Todd Corwin advised the product with all staff comments will be ready in two weeks, but there will be a review after that.  Chair Voltz inquired if it will be ready by the next Zoning meeting; with Mr. Corwin responding affirmatively.

 

Commissioner Colon stated two weeks will not make a difference; she will not be supporting the request because it is not compatible; and commented on drainage.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does infrastructure have to do with zoning; with Mr. Enos responding it does not have a lot to do with zoning except from the perspective of concurrency.  Mr. Enos stated the Comprehensive Plan does say that concurrency should be applied to zoning applications; staff does review concurrency issues such as traffic and capacity of roadways; and there was not a concurrency issue with traffic on this application.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired about concurrency issues on the application; with Mr. Enos responding there are no deficiencies on the roadway.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the Small Area Plan is going to take longer than two weeks; and it will probably be 90 days before it comes back.  He stated there are approximately 134 people in the survey area; there were only 34 responses; and he would have expected a higher level of response. 

 

Discussion ensued on how long to table the item. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.A.3 to the May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting to allow completion of a Small Area Study.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.A.4.  (Z0508109)  Forest Village Florida Group, L.C.’s request for change from TR-3 to RU-2-15 on 32.75 acres, located on the west side of Tucker Lane, south of SR 520, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval with a BDP, limiting density to 266 units.  The applicant amended the request to TR-1-A. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a reduction of density, moving from 164 units to 130 units.  Attorney Philip Nohrr, representing the applicant, stated that is not correct.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the evaluation shows the number of lots will be slightly more than what would be permitted under the existing TR-3 zoning; and the reason is that TR-3 has an open space requirement while TR-1-A does not, although lot sizes are comparable.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many more units are they talking about; with Mr. Enos responding approximately 20.  Mr. Nohrr advised they would be happy with 164 units.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he has questions concerning the dynamics of moving between TR-3 and TR-1-A. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.A.4 to the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened at 7:23 p.m.     

 

 

Item VI.A.7.  (Z0510205)  Wasim Niazi’s request for change from IU to PUD on 13.03 acres, located on the south side of Cone Road, east of Plumosa Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and zoning Board.

 

Chair Voltz advised everyone wearing green shirts supports the project. 

 

Doug Robertson, representing the applicant, submitted paperwork to the Board and the Clerk; stated currently there is an inconsistency between the property’s zoning and the Future Land Use designation; it is currently zoned IU; and it has a designated land use designation of Residential 15.  He stated the request is to change the IU to PUD; it would make the property consistent with the existing Future Land Use designation; the property is located north of the Merritt Island Airport with access from Cone Road; and the property is approximately 13 acres.  He stated Dr. Niazi who is a pilot, is proposing to construct a residential condominium project on the site, which will be marketed to pilots; and commented on compatibility with the airport, residential zoning currently around the airport, and the large parcel separating subject property from airport and acting as buffer.  He stated the Courtenay Springs high-rise is comparable in terms of distance from the airport to the proposed project; so they are asking for nothing more than what is there today; and commented on the existing townhouse project near the runway.  He advised the project will provide residences for pilots and their families so noise complaints should not be a factor; the proposed zoning is comparable and compatible with surrounding zoning and residential uses; staff has identified no concurrency issues; the request makes the subject property consistent with the Future Land Use Map; and the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval. 

 

Jake Wise advised he is the civil engineer on the project; and displayed a color rendering done over a black and white aerial.  He commented on the site, preservation of wetlands, conservation easement, meeting or exceeding all County requirements, open space, amenities, buffers, usable uplands, no lighting on tennis courts, and no objection of neighbors.  He stated they are requesting PUD zoning because the purpose and intent is to encourage and permit variations of residential development through ingenuity, flexibility, and imagination; they feel strongly they have done that with the proposal; and the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval. 

 

Attorney John Evans submitted paperwork to the Board and the Clerk; and requested everyone who supports the project to stand.  A large group of people stood in support.  He stated the airport is going to argue that Chapter 333, Florida Statutes, which discourages or prohibits residences within a half the distance of the longest runway, applies in this instance; the project is within half the distance of the longest runway from the airport; and advised of a letter dated February 11, 2005 outlining the position of FDOT that based on its review of the property’s location relative to the airport, the proposed zoning change from industrial to residential would be inconsistent with the intent of the chapter, but not saying it is illegal.  He advised the letter goes on to say if the zoning change is approved, FDOT urges the County to acquire appropriate sound attenuation construction as well as avigation easements in order to protect future residents as well as the airport, so FDOT has left the door open to the project being approved provided the County is doing certain sound attenuations.  He stated the binding development plan would provide for sound attenuation in all units, provide for an avigation easement, and address all the issues FDOT would like to have addressed.  He stated the County’s Airport Ordinance says nothing about half the distance of the runway for residential units; and commented on Chapter 333, Florida Statutes, the five criteria required, interim land use compatibility zoning regulations, and what is mandatory and what is not.  He stated the omission
from the County’s Ordinance does not make the project in violation of Chapter 333, Florida
Statutes; the rezoning is required; and advised of a legal opinion that says once a piece of land
is given a land use designation, the County is required to adopt a zoning regulation that is
compatible.  Attorney Evans noted the land has been designated Residential 15 for probably 20 years; and Chapter 163.3194 says after a Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the government agencies in regard to the land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted, which means the County must give the property a residential zoning.  He stated if he was the Airport Authority, he would be submitting noise complaints; noise complaints are included in his submittal; there are very few of them, none of which are from Courtenay Springs; and they do not believe noise is really an issue.

 

Wasim Niazi displayed a picture showing the location of the property, buffer zone between the property and the airport, and traffic pattern for single and twin-engine airplanes, which shows that there are no airplanes overflying the development.  He commented on a letter from the FAA, which determines the proposed structure does not pose any hazard to air navigation; and advised the project will be a community for people who have an interest in living close to the airport.  He advised he is a pilot; the airport is the focus of the project; and the project is not against the airport, but for it.  He commented on restrictive covenants that are part of the binding development plan including that anybody living in the condominiums cannot object to the noise of the airplanes, the Statute, numerous developments around the airports within the half-runway length, and Courtenay Springs.  He presented pictures of Courtenay Springs and the airport; advised there have been no issues with noise and no plane crashes; there are houses right along the fence of the airport; and it is a very light traffic airport.  He stated there were only 15 noise complaints in the last five years; many of them were when a couple of people were trying to do arobatics.  He commented on the noise from a single-engine airplane, noise from an ambulance, sound level ranges, noise from the airport being less than street traffic, noise footprints of various airplanes, runway being too short to accommodate jet landings, distance of the property from the two runways, and helping future existence of the airport.  He advised of inability to extend runways or build proposed 4,400-foot runway because of the river and Courtenay Parkway; and commented on residential designation, doing what staff told him to do, developing plans according to RU-2-15, density calculation, support of pilots in Merritt Island, and benefit to the economy.  He displayed a picture showing the property, Courtenay Springs, and the wetland area that cannot be developed.  He stated the project will insure the continued operation of the airfield; they are going to improve eight acres of wetland; they are not impacting any wetland; and they will conserve the trees.  He advised they filed the application for the zoning change as requested by staff at the end of 2004; at that time the Director of the Airport Authority wrote a letter of objection; he met with the Director who suggested he sell the property to the Authority and buy it back so the Authority would control it; and he responded he could not do that.  He commented on meeting individually with each member of the Authority, presentation to the Airport Authority in March, Authority neither approving nor disapproving, making a second presentation in July and Authority again taking no position, and noncompliance of the Titusville Airport Authority with Chapter 333, Florida Statutes.  He advised of the Authority allowing a development within the half-runway of the Titusville Airport, deleting planned runway, shortening extension to current runway, and buying land from developer; and stated there was some deal, which is clear, but the Board can read between the lines of the Authority’s minutes.  He advised of a meeting between the City of Titusville and NASA that indicated the Authority was not complying with Chapter 333; and stated the noise concerns,
which were the primary objection of some of the Authority’s members, are inapplicable.  He
stated they have FAA clearance; they have support from local pilots; there is support from local businesses at the airport; and it will have a positive impact on the future of the airport and the economy.  He advised they are not impacting wetlands; it is consistent with the Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan; it is not in conflict with the Brevard County airport regulations; and it is going to bring $1.5 million to the County in tax revenues.           

 

Commissioner Carlson stated in the minutes there are comments indicating the FAA did not have a problem with the building height, but did have an issue with land use compatibility and had put the airport on notice of the need to comply with grant assurances; and requested comment on the issue.  Scott Carr, Executive Director of the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority, submitted paperwork including the letter.  Discussion ensued on order of the speakers. 

 

Dr. Niazi commented on the letter from the FAA, and revised position of the FAA not objecting.

 

Don Rumaas spoke in support of the rezoning.

 

Scott Carr advised of meeting with Dr. Niazi on the project; and commented on fly-in communities not being on public use airports, inability of property owners to buy property adjacent to airport with access, and meetings held at which issue was discussed.  He outlined the Airport Authority Board’s reasons for opposing the rezoning including comments from FAA letters, obligation of Airport Authority under Grant Assurances, incompatibility of land uses, public safety, FDOT review, and high activity level of Merritt Island Airport.  He advised FAA, FDOT, and the Airport Authority have put in over $5 million in improvements; they want to protect their investment; and requested denial of the rezoning.

 

Dave Rickerson, Ricondo and Associates, advised of his experience; and commented on defining pilots, deed restrictions, land uses in vicinity of airport, setting precedent, encroachment of residential uses, avigation easements not eliminating noise complaints, and restrictions due to encroachment of residential uses on airports.  He recommended bringing the Comprehensive Plan into conformity with the existing zoning. 

 

Mike Arnold, Environmental Science Associates, advised of the firm’s experience in environmental planning and land use compatibility as well as serving as noise consultants for various airports; and stated he is also the Airport Consultants Council’s Planning Committee Chair.  He commented on incompatibility with noise restrictions, residential encroachment, 7460 review, incompatibility of fly-in communities with public airports, easements not precluding political action, project in Ormond Beach being stopped, types of aircraft that can operate at the airport, and jets on smaller airports.  He stated a fly-in community is great at a private use airport, but has no place at a public use airport.     

 

Attorney Tim Pickles, representing the Airport Authority, commented on compatibility, lack of buffer, description of area, Chapter 333 of the Florida Statutes, lack of interim airport zoning regulations, lack of noise study, and whether the Board can consider a residential exclusion in approving or denying the request.  He stated FDOT is not the enforcement mechanism for local zoning; and requested the Board consider all the facts, relevant law, and surrounding uses in denying the application.  He stated if this is to be a residential development, it should be restricted to pilots; but it will be important to determine the definition of “pilot” and provide for enforcement in the future. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the noise study; with Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson responding the Board did not adopt a specific restriction against noise; therefore, the Statute controls.  Mr. Richardson stated if a 150 study had been performed, then the residential restriction would follow the contour lines of the study; but in this case, a 150 study has not been performed, so the Statute defaults to one-half the distance of the longest runway.  Commissioner Scarborough stated how the Statute is interpreted is critical.  Attorney Richardson stated under Chapter 333.03, F.S. there are two requirements for political subdivisions; Brevard County complied with the first in that political subdivisions must adopt airport zoning regulations for hazard areas including things like safety and height restrictions; the second provision is airport land use compatibility zoning regulations; and the County’s Code is silent on this issue, although the Statute directs that political subdivisions are to adopt land use compatibility zoning regulations.  He advised there has been no noise study, so residential construction is not to be permitted in the buffer zone.  He stated the Statute is not controlling; the County should have adopted it and should look into it going forward; but the restriction could be considered to be competent substantial evidence regarding the consistency of the proposed development with the existing development in the area, which is the airport.  He stated it is something the Board must consider in terms of consistency; but the Board is not bound to follow it since it failed to adopt it, although the Statute clearly mandates adoption of land use compatibility restrictions including that restriction. 

 

Attorney Pickles advised he is in agreement with Attorney Richardson; but his argument is the Board would default to the language in Chapter 333.  He stated as far as compatibility criteria, the Statute is relevant.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County does not adopt, it defaults to the Statute; that brings up the issue of the study; and if there is no study, it goes to the statutory criteria, which is a compatibility issue.  Attorney Pickles stated the statutory criteria clearly restricts this development.  Attorney Evans advised he agrees with Attorney Richardson’s interpretation, which is consistent with the letter from FDOT that says it is not illegal, but may be inconsistent; and commented on Courtenay Springs, the Airport Authority, and waivers for Sculptor School. 

 

Discussion ensued on FAA grant assurances, waiver of claims; complaints about airport activities; conflict provision in Statute; buffer zone; Courtenay Springs; industrial area; grant assurances; intent of Chapter 333, Florida Statutes; sound attenuation; distance from airport to existing homes; Willow Creek; lack of appropriate noise study; failure to adopt land use compatibility zoning regulations consistent with Chapter 333, Florida Statutes; correcting oversight to adopt provisions of the Statute; and differences between Willow Creek and proposed project.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired about the Airport Authority’s attempt to buy Dr. Niazi’s property; with Attorney Pickles responding he has no knowledge of it.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the Authority has taken any action; with Mr. Carr responding there have been discussions about purchasing the property; and staff has spoken to the applicant about the feasibility of purchasing the property.  Mr. Carr commented on fly-in communities, direct access to airport, and only way to have a fly-in at a public airport being to sell the property to the airport.  Commissioner Colon
stated the Board is not going to be able to solve this problem today.  She inquired how many acres and units are they talking about; with Attorney Evans responding 112 units on 13 acres or approximately nine units per acre, the vast majority will be preserved wetlands, and the land use
allows 15 units per acre.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the three parties have come together to see if they can reach a compromise; with Attorney Evans responding they met with the Airport Authority, but not with the Assistant County Attorney.  Commissioner Colon advised of the need to work closely with the Airport Authority; with Attorney Evans responding they welcome the input.  Commissioner Colon stated the three attorneys were agreeing on a lot of things; and it may just be a matter of tweaking some things.  She commented on working together, Dr. Niazi’s desire to work with others, and not being for or against the project.  Attorney Evans stated he would welcome the County Attorney acting as a mediator to come up with a favorable solution. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired have there been any noise studies; with Mr. Carr responding no.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there have been noise studies at any airports; with Mr. Carr responding not at any of their three airports. 

 

Frank Kinney, former Tico Airport Authority member, commented on Titusville-Cocoa Airport, airports and residential units not mixing well, difference between Courtenay Springs and proposed project, definition of pilot, and setting dangerous precedent. 

 

Veronica Clifford, Tico Airport Authority member, commented on meetings, 6-1 vote against the condominiums, members appointed by County Commission, school near the airport, inability to work something out on project, and incompatibility.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Clifford was not in favor of the school being located in proximity to the airport.  Ms. Clifford advised she was in favor of parents being given the statistics about accidents; Willow Creek is a completely different issue with different rules; and she would like to account for all land around airports so they do not have these issues. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Authority discussed adoption of Chapter 333 prior to this; with Ms. Clifford advising she has been on the Authority a short time, there have been meetings with the County and the City, and the issue is on the Authority’s list.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the other two airports are within the jurisdiction of the City of Titusville, which has been more proactive in responding to these needs than the County. 

 

Jay Schenck, Tico Airport Authority member, commented on Willow Creek, residential encroachment, working with the developer and City, creating an airport/industrial/commercial buffer, and using Chapter 333, Florida Statutes to protect future of Merritt Island Airport. 

 

Discussion ensued on noise study, Chapter 333 not being a prohibition, fly-in community, hangars, access to airport, and bringing all parties together.

 

Dr. Niazi stated Merritt Island Airport is a public airport with public access; the airport and the County will benefit economically from the project; and advised interaction with the Airport Authority over a one-year period.  He commented on restrictive covenants, doing everything the Airport Authority requested, Airport Authority’s desire to buy the property and lease it to him, expiration of the real estate listing, and the Statute applying to all properties around the airport. 

Commissioner Colon stated this is supposed to be a fly-in condo; only pilots would be tenants; and inquired how Dr. Niazi can guarantee that.  Dr. Niazi stated they offered to put some
restrictive covenants; there is a high demand by pilots who want to be close to the airport; and this development will be a hybrid, with the condo owners using a public airport and paying taxes to the County.  Dr. Niazi noted the residents would have to abide by the restrictive covenants; and the airport is the focal point.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the covenants would go with the property if it was sold; with Dr. Niazi responding they would be part of the condominium bylaws, which the residents would have to abide by.  He stated the Airport Authority can control certain elements, so it can protect the airport in the future.  Attorney Evans advised it is typical that a condo association has to approve purchasers, so they would include in the condominium documents that in order to purchase one would have to be a licensed pilot; and they have agreed that provision could not be amended in the condo documents without approval of the Airport Authority. 

 

Discussion ensued on ownership by pilots and what happens if the pilot dies. 

 

Sal Dettore, Rose Dettore, Liz Erickson, and Clarence Phaneuf expressed support for the rezoning. 

 

Bill Perdue commented on an article in Popular Science concerning approval of small jets; and inquired if that will affect the noise level of the airport.  He noted they expect 20,000 of the small jets to be built in the next ten years; most will be able to land at Merritt Island Airport; and inquired what will happen if people complain and the FAA shuts the airport down.  Chair Voltz stated the Board cannot answer that question. 

 

Phil Beach, Bob Keesee, Lou Furlong, Wes Houser, David Boden, Charles Downing, and Don Runaas expressed support for the rezoning.

 

Paul Godke advised he is a police officer, lives next to Rockledge Airport, and has answered no complaints concerning noise from the airport; however, there have been complaints about the noise of the train and other things of that nature.  He advised he supports the rezoning. 

 

Robert and Kimberly Ullius, Lynnette Miller, Nick Wrander, Carlin Godke, Andrew Burfitt, Jeff Marshall, Douglas Fadok, Donald Smith, Pamela Burfitt, Francis Olomu, Naomi Marshall, R. Watts, and Paul Bevilacqua expressed support for the rezoning.

 

Jesse Carver stated he supports the rezoning but recommends caution.  He stated he lives on Plumosa Street; and commented on common sense, posting of the property, density, traffic on SR 520, need for small area study, road improvements, height limit, plane crashes, Dr. Niazi’s application for variance for a helicopter pad at his house, and unsuccessful attempts to sell his house.

 

Jodie Magrino, Jessica Mills, Michelle Scherff, and Ibrahim Salejee expressed support for the rezoning.

 

Barbara Lasher stated she opposes the rezoning; and inquired how many of the supporters are licensed pilots. 

 

Michael Katz, Tony Yacono, Robert Good, and Michelle Cholewa indicated support for the rezoning. 

 

Leo Kerwin commented on the Savannah Airport, the Airport Authority, and support of the airport by the pilots; and requested Board approval of the rezoning.  He stated with property costs rising, the industrial zone will not remain there; the people who have little homes and businesses there will sell those properties; and there will be houses there.  He recommended working with the Airport Authority to do this properly. 

 

Attorney Evans stated there is concern about the new jets; but they have agreed in the development agreement to put in sound attenuation, avigation easements, and other controls to insure the residents will not be negatively impacted.  He stated if jets are going to be landing there, it would be better to have residences with modern attenuation things to eliminate noise problems; and the buildings will be constructed to eliminate any noise issues for the residents.  He stated in the development agreement they have agreed to putting a 25-decibel reduction from the outside to the inside for every unit; and they do not believe there will be any problems with noise.  He stated the project is for the pilots; it is great for the community; and Courtenay Springs to the south is a mirror image project that clearly demonstrates this development will not have a negative impact upon the airport.   

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he supports the development; the P&Z Board supported it unanimously; the project is for the pilots; and the Airport Authority should be operating for the pilots.  He stated Merritt Island Airport has all types of development around it including multi-million dollar homes; so the encroachment issue is not a valid concern; Chapter 333, F.S. deals strictly with noise; and the developer has said the building will be very noise attenuated.  He stated the people who will buy these units will be those who want to be near an airport; and compared it to people buying on a waterway.  He commented on the number of new airplanes that will come to the airport, ratio of boats to homes in a marina community, Ft. Lauderdale airport, and benefit to the County; and he does not see where the Statute prohibits moving forward with this plan, and he will support it.

 

The meeting recessed at 9:43 p.m. and reconvened at 9:51 p.m.

 

Commissioner Pritchard reiterated his position on the rezoning. 

 

Motion  by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.A.7

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item VI.A.7 to the April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as recommended by the P&Z Board.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated Dr. Niazi indicated he has been working with the Airport Authority for a year; and requested he elaborate on what he has been doing.  Dr. Niazi advised submittal of an application in November 2004, receipt of a letter of objection from Scott Carr, Mr. Carr’s
suggestion to sell the property to the Authority and lease it back, and willingness to spend money to improve the FBO at the Merritt Island Airport.  Dr. Niazi commented on Mr. Carr not agreeing to that because the Authority wanted the entire control, denial of requests to bring the issue before the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority Board, meetings with each Tico Board member; cancellation of meetings, presentation before the Tico Board, need for additional information, Attorney Pickles’ advice that Chapter 333 had not been adopted but a binding development plan might be worked out, change in the Tico Board, and July meeting at which a vote was not taken.  He stated in the meantime his application expired; he lost several thousand dollars; he refilled the application; and at the P&Z meeting Attorney Pickles and Mr. Schenck asked him to allow the item to be tabled so they could work something out.  He stated the pilots want the project; he asked the P&Z Board to table the item; Mr. Schenck promised to have a special meeting in October; but that promise was not kept.  He stated they met in November; they drafted restrictive covenants and bylaws which were agreeable to him and to Mr. Carr; but at the meeting Mr. Carr made a negative briefing.  He stated the recommendation of the P&Z Board was unanimously to approve; he has made every possible effort; he met all the demands of the Tico Board; and all materials have been submitted to the County. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she is disappointed that the Tico Board did not work with Dr. Niazi.  Mr. Schenck stated the Tico Board voted prior to the meeting unanimously to oppose it; during the meetings when Dr. Niazi approached the County Commission, they did ask for it to be tabled so both parties could get together to research the issues; and both parties did research it; but the problems are with the covenants and bylaws.  He stated he understands the condominium association in the future can change those bylaws; so it is a good marriage now, but the question is what will it be in ten to twenty years.  Chair Voltz inquired if they talked to Dr. Niazi about that; with Mr. Schenck responding no, nor did Dr. Niazi ask for an audience with him.  He advised the only times he met with Dr. Niazi were at public meetings.  Chair Voltz stated Mr. Schenck asked for the item to be tabled so they could work this out; Dr. Niazi tried to work it out and made up some covenants; Mr. Schenck was not happy with them; but he did not go back to Dr. Niazi.  Mr. Schenck stated he does not look at it that way; he is one of seven; it was brought to their board each time; and he never met with Dr. Niazi between those times or called a special meeting.  He stated the rationale of what Dr. Niazi is trying to do to appease the airport would not work in the future, so he continued his opposition to the project; and he never talked to Dr. Niazi in private.  Chair Voltz inquired about ability to change the covenants; with Attorney Evans advising there is a declaration in the Board package; and read aloud, “condominium homeowner documents shall further provide that they would not be amended to delete the declaration of covenant and waive of claims as an exhibit without express written consent of the Titusville Airport Authority.”  He stated when they were asked to limit it to licensed pilots only, they agreed; but the Tico Board voted to oppose it anyway.  Attorney Pickles stated there are two issues; the first is whether the condominium association can amend its documents in the future; Attorney Evans says they cannot remove the declaration of covenant and waiver from the property in the future; but it does not say they could not change the pilot issue in the future.  He stated the Tico Board is concerned with the amendment process as well as the waiver issue, which is that if it is not enforced, after a period of years, someone could challenge and the covenants could be waived.  He stated this is a particularly dangerous situation when one is dealing with a restriction on ownership; and commented on possibility of selling to someone who is not a pilot in six or seven years if the restriction has not been enforced.  He noted in November at the P&Z meeting, he and Mr. Carr requested a tabling to see whether some of the
issues could be worked out prior to going to the P&Z Board; and a good faith attempt was made to clear up the situation; but it was not sufficient to give the Airport Authority the feeling there could be protection in the future.  He stated in the interim while they were working out the process and setting up a meeting, another P&Z Board meeting took place; the Airport Authority did not make any verbal opposition to the application; but unfortunately no resolution could be made.  Chair Voltz stated she does not think they have worked together in good faith. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated looking at this as a zoning and compatibility issue, the Comprehensive Plan shows industrial due south of the property; there is an incompatibility issue there; and there is incompatibility with the airport.  She stated due north is a potential PUD, which is compatible with the applicant’s request; and due east is a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated her concern is mainly with the airport and with the industrial property; if the industrial piece develops before the residential piece then there will be a problem with compatibility; but nothing is developed on the properties right now, so all they have to deal with is the compatibility issue in the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated she will not support the application for that reason. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue of compatibility has been addressed; it is compatible with where the neighborhood is going; and described developments that have been approved and are being built.  He stated a lot of the buildings adjacent to airport property on the north side are old and many could use a good razing; and whatever comes out of that, even if it were commercial or industrial application, would probably have more of a residential look.  He stated the issue about covenants is a smokescreen; he has seen covenants that do not allow one to park a pickup truck in the driveway at any time or what color to paint the house; and they are legal because the owners buy into it.  He stated covenants are legal documents; when it is tied into the Airport Authority having the ability to say no to any change in the covenant, it is an exceptional attempt to work things out in a viable manner; and he is disappointed because this has been intentionally put on the slow track by the Airport Authority.  He stated this is for the pilots; he thought the Airport Authority was for the pilots; but maybe he was wrong.

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised this is a complex issue; the Airport Authority wants to keep the airport, but is arguing with pilots; and inquired where is the discussion going.  He stated if this proceeds further, he has a problem; and commented on deed restrictions and covenants not being enforceable except by others with similar deed restrictions.  He stated people have come out in green shirts wanting to keep the airport; airports are closing all over the country; as soon as they bring people in, they begin doing things differently; and commented on conversations with Frank Kinney.  He stated there was a reference to what happened in Valkaria a week ago; they were asking to do an airport plan; and the opposition was they do not want to look at planning at the airport because they do not want an airport to be there.  He stated what they normally have is a neighborhood and then something comes in that is more intense; in that case, the Board says it is not good and protects the residential from the more intense use; and the Board never thinks about the problem of protecting the more intense use from the residential.  He stated the residential wins in public forums; and commented on those who came to the meeting this evening.  He stated Commissioner Colon has talked about some issues; Commissioner Voltz talked about some issues; and he thinks there is a fundamental flaw in what has been offered.  He stated there are methodologies where the airport has the ability to maintain the integrity of the airport by preventing people from taking title to property;
that has not been offered yet; and if it is not, the pilots are walking the wrong way and will lose their airport.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if he votes to support the motion, he is voting to close the Merritt Island Airport; and recommended tabling the item to be sure that what has been said and what is happening is the same thing.           

 

Commissioner Colon stated she does not have a problem with putting a condominium there; but she is concerned over the height and making sure there is a good relationship with the Airport.  She stated the Airport Authority is an advisory board that answers to the Board of County Commissioners; its ultimate goals should be to make sure it is working with the aviation community; and if this is to the point where both parties are so sensitive with this issue, the Board may want County staff to work this out to see if it can be resolved.  She stated she does not want to deny it; but she is not comfortable approving it tonight because they have not been able to answer a lot of the questions. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item VI.A.7 to April 6, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners, Scarborough, Carlson, and Colon voted aye; Commissioners Pritchard and Voltz voted nay. 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated this time the County will intervene to try to put both parties together. 

Commissioner Voltz stated up to this point she is not sure the Airport Authority has worked well with Dr. Niazi; it has not compromised, but just said no; and suggested both parties work together with Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson.  Commissioner Colon stated the Zoning Manager and County Manager should be involved as well.   

 

 

 

Item VI.B.6.  (Z0601103)  William and Carine Graham’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.19 acres, located on the north side of Flounder Creek Road, east of Dixie Highway, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for denial. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item VI.B.6 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

  

Item VI.B.9.  (Z0601106)  Okahumpa Groves, Inc.’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 78.98 acres, located west of the western terminus of Lion Lane, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval with a BDP limited to a development of single-family homes, minimum unit size of 2,000 square feet, with lots abutting Citrus Pointe Plat containing 2,500 square feet; maximum dwelling units of 61.

 

Michael Katrick expressed support for the rezoning. 

 

William Powell, Jr., representing the Citrus Point Homeowners Association, advised the majority of the homeowners in the Association have said it is a good plan, consistent with what is existing, and the proposed binding development plan is generous.  Speaking as an attorney for Mr. Rowell who owns 117 acres in the area, he expressed concern about the pump on the west side of Okahumpa Groves that is flooding Mr. Rowell’s property; and stated as long as the developers deal with the drainage problem and quit pumping water onto his property, Mr. Rowell does not mind the RR-1 development with a binding development plan.

 

Steve Jack, representing the Mims Community Group, expressed support for the project.

 

Ronald Penfold expressed concern about deterioration of quality of life, flooding, and need for an unbiased environmental impact study.

 

Alan Towne advised of the applicants working with the residents; and expressed concern about the number of homes and flooding.  He recommended the binding development plan include limiting the number of homes and making sure there are no watershed problems; and advised of other environmental issues.  He advised the development will be on County water; a lot of people in the area have no County water; and he does not want to see an impact on those people either. 

 

Diana Coffin expressed concerns about flooding, development in her backyard, need for significant setback, infrastructure, schools, emergency services, and location of the entrance to the development.  She advised of sightings of a Florida panther and gopher turtles; noted the west end of the property abuts the Salt Lake Reserve Area; and reiterated her concerns about flooding. 

 

Rick Roberts stated he does not have a problem with the development; but expressed concern about water quality and additional septic systems.  He requested the Board direct staff to study whether County water can be extended.

 

Todd Peetz, Miller Legg and Associates, representing the applicant, advised of meetings with the residents; and stated some of the issues did not make the binding development agreement because they were pre-existing off-site issues that were not related to their development.  He stated the density is 1.3 units per acre gross density; there are wetlands on the northeast and northwest part of the site; a drainage canal for the grove goes through the middle; there is an overhead utility line that goes through there; and they did not want to limit themselves too much, which is why they did 61 units.  He stated County water runs to the south part of Citrus Point; it just needs to be extended, but that is a pre-existing situation so it needs to be extended by the residents that live south of there.  He stated there is a sharp turn at Tomato Farm Road and Lion Lane; as part of the binding development agreement, they included modifying the intersection to make it a safe T-intersection; there will still be a turn, but traffic will be stopped to make sure people make the turn safely.  He stated SR 46 is less than 50% capacity; Turpentine Road is not experiencing the pressures he sees in other parts of the County; and he does not think there are any traffic congestion problems currently or that the project will create any conditions that will set it over the level of concurrency they need.  He stated some environmental issues were raised; and advised they will have to go through various agencies
and will do some environmental analysis.  Mr. Peetz commented on existing wetlands, the existing grove, and relocation of whatever species are out there.  He stated Rodney Honeycutt is present to address the drainage issues. 

 

Rodney Honeycutt stated all of the drainage issues will have to be dealt with in the permitting process; one gentleman mentioned the pump; there are two pumps in the rear and the larger one does not work anymore; and the grove owner has a conditional use permit, which is to keep the groundwater table low enough that the grove will work.  He stated as far as flooding, the subdivision to the south has no stormwater tract; it is all on the easements that are in the rear yards; when they have a storm, the water rises in the rear of the yards; the houses are well above it; and all those things will be addressed when they go through permitting. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on North Merritt Island and Deer Run; and inquired if provisions can be put in the binding development plan that would keep water onsite and not have water directed in certain directions.  Mr. Honeycutt stated Citrus Point discharges to the south and their development will discharge to the west away from them.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the applicant would commit to discharge only to the west because people to the east have expressed concerns; with Mr. Honeycutt responding yes, they will have no discharge of waters in any direction other than to the west.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if they would have to have stormwater ponds anyway; with Commissioner Scarborough responding water can move in a lot of directions, but Mr. Honeycutt has said water will not move in the directions where the concerns came from.  Mr. Honeycutt stated they have stormwater management; but there is still discharge; they would limit the discharge to what it was pre-development; and they will design it so it only discharges to the west.  Commissioner Scarborough stated some places already have profound flooding problems, which is relevant to additional density in the area if it makes the problem worse; and agreeing to not discharge in any of these directions where the people have indicated concern will help with that problem.  He requested Mr. Peetz further describe what they are going to do with the turn; with Mr. Peetz responding it is address in number seven.  Mr. Peetz described the change to a T-intersection.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired about number of units in the proposed development and the development to the south; with Mr. Peetz responding there are 32 units to the south on 40 acres, and they are asking for 61 units on 79 acres or 1.25 acres per unit to the south and 1.3 acres per unit for their development.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired about septic tank systems; and commented on problems in Deer Run.  Mr. Peetz responded that would be more of an engineering question; but he believes they would need to raise the pad up to make sure it is not in the water table and does not flood.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on raising the lots and problems that have occurred in Port St. John where something that was workable became the water retention area for the block.  He stated they did not develop uniform elevations throughout that would support the septic system and not impact the adjoining properties; Mr. Honeycutt has committed to not draining to the south or the east; and he would like to see internal integrity as to lot elevations so all can build out at the same lot elevation so there will not be individual septic system failures.  He inquired if that can be added as part of the binding development agreement; with Mr. Honeycutt responding they can do something for that because the pictures that showed the flooding show that the houses in the adjacent subdivision are all built up and will be at least that high or higher.  Commissioner Scarborough commented
on problems in Deer Run; and requested the applicant add a uniform overall methodology for handling the drainage issues, which will preserve the integrity of the septic systems in a major rain event; with Mr. Honeycutt responding that is okay. 

 

Discussion ensued on high performance septic tanks, mound systems, lots of at least one acre, septic tank permits being issued individually, buildings destroying the capacity of the neighbor’s septic systems, and overall design for quality throughout the system.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is any way they could use County water/sewer on the project; with Mr. Honeycutt responding they will be using County water, but sewer is not available.     

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.9 with a Binding Development Plan limiting discharge of water only to the west, addressing the problem with the sharp turn, providing a methodology for drainage issues that will preserve integrity of the septic systems in a major rain event, and agreeing to connect to County water.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.12.  (Z0601109)  Deanna J. Kokoszka and Ross L. Neubarth’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.24 acres; and Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use from Residential 1 to Residential 2 and from AU to SR on the remainder (total acreage 3.25 acres), located on the north side of Black’s Road, west of Indian River Drive, and having frontage on both sides of Indian River Drive, north of Blacks Road, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval and by the LPA for approval of Small Scale Plan Amendment.     

 

Ross Neubarth advised of his request for rezoning, homesite remaining unchanged, frontage on Blacks Road, and four homesites. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no opposition present; but this went through the planning process.  Planner Todd Corwin stated in July 2004 the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that included this area; the residents of the area approached the Board; and the Board directed staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment, which changed the area from Urban Fringe at four units per acre to two units per acre on those properties built to two units per acre, kept four units per acre for those that were built at four units per acre and on AU properties, it was reduced to one unit per acre.  He stated the residents came before the Board because they were concerned about higher densities.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board took certain action because the community came forward and requested change; and now the Board is finding itself doing something contrary.  Mr. Corwin stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reduced densities; and this zoning request increases densities.  Commissioner Scarborough stated this is more than just this issue, but also includes what the Board did in July.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the map in the packet is a display of the Small Area Plan; with Mr. Corwin responding the existing Future Land Use Map will reflect the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was adopted.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.B.12 to the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 

 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Neubarth was involved in this eight months ago; with Mr. Neubarth responding no, he purchased the 2.01 acres from the homeowner who owned the 3.25 acres; and he had no understanding of any prior amendments.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to involve Mr. Neubarth completely in the discussion; and if the Board approves this, it may mean that everything that was done previously needs to be revisited.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he will meet with Mr. Neubarth. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion to table.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.18. (Z0601202)  Siesta Mobile Home Park, Inc.’s request for change from TR-3 to RU-2-15 on 2.67 acres, located on the east side of Palmetto Avenue, north of SR 520, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Bruce Oropeza stated there is no place on Merritt Island to which they could move due to the age of their trailers; and advised of improvements to his trailer. 

 

Mark Oropeza stated he and his brother own trailers in Siesta Mobile Home Park; and commented on the age of the trailers, other parks not taking older trailers, and Florida Statute not allowing rezoning of a trailer park without relocating the residents. 

 

Karen Andreas commented on living near the trailer park, condition of Palmetto Road, putting a condominium on an inadequate street that services the back of a large shopping center, and low traffic in the trailer park.  She stated if the rezoning passes, the population will be put on the streets.  She advised the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) approved the item; two of the members of the Planning and Zoning Board also serve on the MIRA board; and the review process was skewed as MIRA has not met a condo, a condo waiver, or a trailer park eviction that it did not like.  She stated it is time for all public bodies to take into account the fact that a significant portion of the community is being displaced by the condominiums; the responsibility for that has to fall on someone; this is the second trailer park that MIRA has put out of business in favor of a new development; and the people from the last trailer park are living in the woods as there is no place for them to go.  She requested the Board deny the rezoning; stated the people who live in the trailers have taken care of them; and the run-down trailers are owned by the owner of the trailer park.  She stated this is a case of an inadequate road, surrounded by a car parts business, a retention pond, and a shopping center; and it is not an appropriate location for a condominium.  She stated if the Board approves this, some consideration must be given to where the people are going to live; at some point the bodies making the decisions that are displacing the people need to take responsibility; MIRA, whose main focus is business on Merritt Island, is having impact on homeowners; and it needs to step up to the plate.  She commented on an open FDOT ditch on the road, attempts to get FDOT to close the ditch, and MIRA being unaware of the state of the road; and requested the Board help stop building condominiums on narrow roads in Merritt Island and start paying attention to the working poor who are being displaced by this type of public policy.

 

Tim Wallace commented on Florida Statute not allowing rezoning without availability of places for owners to move their trailers, phone surveys, inability to move his trailer, money from State being less than appraisal on his trailer, and cost to move his trailer.  He stated he cannot find a place to move his trailer; he has called every place within 45 miles; he has thousands invested in his trailer; and the park owner knows that.  He stated last year Mr. Conlon put $10,000 into his office; and inquired if he is going to tear it down.  

 

Jennifer Melvin advised her child starts school in August, and she would like more information tonight. 

 

Craig Conlon advised of the location of the property, purchase of the property by his father over 20 years ago, operation of the mobile home park since that time, existence of the park since 1964, and majority of the trailers dating back to that time.  He stated blight is apparent; when his father died eight years ago, no one was eager to run the mobile home park; everyone wanted to sell it; but he chose not to, and tried to do his best to run the park.  He stated it is not his intention to speak negatively about his property, his business, or his tenants; and commented on changes in Merritt Island, doing something positive with the property, intent to build a two-floor townhouse not a condominium, decreasing density, lowering demands on County services, and increasing ad valorem taxes.  He stated the road has never been an issue; and advised of conversations with Ms. Andreas, and Bussen Mayer Engineering.  He advised of growing up in Merritt Island, need to look to his future, and condition of the mobile home park; and submitted pictures of Mr. Wallace’s mobile home.  He stated he conferred with Mr. Richardson to ensure everything is done by the law; he went to other mobile home parks in the County; other parks will not want to take tenants who do not maintain their mobile homes; but there are quite a few mobile home parks in Merritt Island that would take tenants who take care of their mobile home parks.  He advised he submitted lists of mobile home parks to Attorney Richardson and Commissioner Pritchard.  He stated Chapter 723.083, Florida Statutes, is vague; and advised of the provisions of the Statute.  He stated there are only 36 trailers in his park owned by tenants, and the majority would not be moved; those that are moved would be compensated by the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Trust Fund; and commented on the funding of such Fund.  He noted if they choose to abandon the mobile homes, they are compensated $1,375.  He commented on going before the MIRA and Planning and Zoning Boards and receiving support for his project. 

 

Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated there is a Statute governing the relocation of mobile home owners; it is Chapter 723, F.S.; and it addresses issues like payments that are available from the Mobile Home Trust Fund, which would be up to $3,000 for a single-wide, $6,000 for a multi-section unit, and an allowance for abandonment of $1,375 for a single section or $2,750 for multi-section.  He stated there is a provision that would require before the Board makes any change that would cause relocation, that it make an affirmative finding that other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home park owners; and Mr. Conlon submitted a list of existing parks. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the list supports that finding; with Attorney Richardson deferring to the Board as the finder of fact.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been testimony that is not the case; staff may be better equipped to look at it; and it may be premature to proceed until there are people present to answer questions. 

 

Mr. Conlon noted Brevard County is not a rural county and there is a lot of housing in the County. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board has to make the finding of fact; with Attorney Richardson responding a finding of fact can be made based on competent substantial evidence, which can include testimony and documentary evidence as provided by the applicant and the speakers.  Commissioner Scarborough stated this needs to be tabled; information from the people who live there needs to be gathered by staff; and the Board can receive a report on the information that is gathered. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.B.18 to the March 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting to allow information to be gathered. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the applicant is the owner of the property; his property should not be held hostage; however, the Board does have to comply with the Florida Statutes, so he will support the tabling.  He stated he does not think the residents will prevail with holding the property hostage; and they will need to make some considerations as this will be coming back to the Board for a determination.  He inquired what if there is nothing available; with Attorney Richardson responding if there is no other facility available for relocation, then the Board cannot approve a rezoning or any other action that would cause that relocation.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he did not notice a couple of parks in North Merritt Island on the list; with Mr. Conlon advising he did not visit all parks, and stopped after he had 200 available lots. 

 

Discussion ensued on various parks, whether the trailers can be moved, and abandonment.      

 

Attorney Richardson advised there is direction for Mr. Conlon to work with staff and the County Manager’s office to reach a finding on whether there is available housing for relocation. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard suggested Mr. Conlon check the parks in North Merritt Island.

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.21. (Z0601205)  Mark and Karen P. Miner, Trustees’ request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.4) from Residential 15 to Community Commercial and change from BU-1 and GU to BU-2 with a Binding Development Plan on 4.52 acres, located on the south side of West King Street, west of Lake View Boulevard, which was recommended by the LPA for approval and by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval with a Binding Development Plan limited to self storage only and no other BU-2 uses permitted.  

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was briefed one of the questions that came up was that they might not need to take the commercial as deep into the residential as is reflected.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated there is a Policy in the Comprehensive Plan that talks about extensions of commercial land use designations deeper into an existing neighborhood; there is residential to the west and south of the property to be rezoned; and the Board should consider
that issue when it considers this item.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how deep would Mr. Enos suggest would be appropriate; with Mr. Enos responding the existing parcel already has a depth of commercial that is approximately two-thirds of the total depth of the parcel; the parcel to the east has commercial to the same depth; and there is no deeper commercial along that stretch of SR 520 or deeper than the current depth of commercial. 

 

Rochelle Lawandales inquired if the question is to change the property to BU-2 only for the portion that is currently BU-1; with Mr. Enos responding no, the issue is whether it is appropriate to extend the Comprehensive Plan commercial designation.  Ms. Lawandales advised there is a ditch that runs north and south along the western boundary; there are also wetlands to the rear; and those will provide natural buffer and separation towards the rear.  She stated they will have to meet all the County standards; it will be a low impact use of a storage facility; and they have submitted a binding development plan for the Board’s review.        

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with it; it was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board and the LPA with a binding development plan limited to self storage; and the vote was unanimous in both cases.  Commissioner Scarborough advised he will not support it in that format.  Commissioner Carlson advised she will not support that depth. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item VI.B.21 and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Fourth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2006, 06S.4, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E) entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the LPA and P&Z addressed the issues; with Ms. Lawandales responding yes, they did not have a problem; and inquired if there is a number that would satisfy the remaining Commissioners.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would Mr. Enos suggest would be within the ballpark of what the Board normally does; with Mr. Enos responding the issue was that there was some public concern expressed, although those people are not present tonight.  He stated it is apparent now that Ms. Lawandales did adequately address those concerns, so he brought them up only because it is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that the Board is to consider that.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how does the Board normally apply the policy, if it was applied to this particular property; with Mr. Enos responding the Board would determine whether it would be appropriate to extend it further.  Commissioner Carlson advised the Board has done it to 300 feet; and they based it on where the residential is and abutting to the BU-2, going straight across.  Commissioner Scarborough drew a line on the map; and displayed it for the other Commissioners.  Ms. Lawandales stated it is already BU-1 all the way to the back.  

 

Discussion ensued on the map, the BU-2 zoned areas, meeting concerns of one gentleman about drainage, warehousing requiring BU-2 zoning, and changing zoning regulations to allow warehousing in BU-1. 

 

Ms. Lawandales advised there has been no change to the Code; that is why they are pursuing BU-2 with the binding development plan; and when the Code is changed to allow storage in BU-1, they would agree to administratively rezone the property. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the applicant can accomplish what he wants in the BU-1 part of the property and not the GU piece, so the GU piece can be left to be more compatible with the surrounding area.  Ms. Lawandales responded yes; and inquired if that area can be used to accommodate some drainage, parking, and access that would support the BU-2 use; with Mr. Enos responding with the Board’s agreement as part of the binding development plan, they could use the GU portion for drainage retention; there is some precedent for that; however, the Board has not typically allowed other types of support facilities.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has done it for drainage because a pond makes a good buffer; and she will support that as it will come back in a binding development plan, which the Board can review.       

 

Commissioner Pritchard clarified his motion to approve as is; and stated Commissioner Colon seconded it.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the applicant worked with the community and were there people who showed up at the P&Z meeting.  Ms. Lawandales advised only two people showed up at P&Z; she met with them; one gentleman came tonight to reaffirm the drainage; she assured him they had to meet all of the requirements; and he left early without filling out a card.  

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated to the east is BU-1 and another BU-1; south of that is GU; and Ms. Lawandales is not asking for BU-1 as she already has BU-1 a long way back, and is asking for BU-2 which is inconsistent in that area.  He stated on the other side is residential; and he things the request is out of kilter.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the BU-2 request is for storage because that is what the County requires. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if they can go back and administratively rezone to BU-1; with Mr. Enos responding yes, once the Board adopts an ordinance. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard, Voltz, and Colon voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay. 

 

 

Item VI.B.25.  Randall and Rebecca Salveson’s request for change from SR to RR-1 on 1.23 acres located on the north side of Parker Drive, west of Riverview Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board. 

 

Rebecca Salveson advised she wants to get a horse. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the request is actually a downzoning, but it will give Ms. Salveson the ability to get a horse.  Ms. Salveson advised she intended to build a house, but decided to stay in the house she is in and get a horse. 

 

Chair Voltz advised the property was recently rezoned; and inquired if the Board can limit the number of horses.  Ms. Salveson stated she would not want more than two, and only plans to get one right now.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.25 with limit of two horses.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.27.  Summit View Golf  Club, Inc. and Charles T. Pishock’s request for change from AU and RU-1-78 to SEU on 65 acres, located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, south of Valkaria Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as SEU with condition that applicant withdraw portion of property to remain AU.

 

Lisette Kolar stated she is not opposed to the development, but they have concerns; they hate to see the golf course go; but the proposed development is in keeping with Grant’s rural lifestyle.  She stated they conducted a survey; they want a minimum of one and a half acre lots; and they understand the development lots range from 1 to 1.8 acres, and that is consistent with SEU, so the gross density is now one home per 1.57 acres, including the AU part that is for horses.  She expressed concerns about density and the eagle’s nest; requested appropriate studies and agencies be notified to deal with the eagle and Trout Creek, which runs through the property; and expressed opposition to a gated community as not being in keeping with the Grant/Valkaria community.  She stated overall most people in the area are pleased with the development and do not oppose it; they have talked with the developer; they have seen the site plan; and so far, so good.   

 

Del Yonts stated several people brought the gate issue to their attention; it is not consistent with the community; and expressed concern about the density.  He stated one and one-half acres per unit is what the community desires as a minimum; some individuals wants it up to ten acres; and what they proposed with SEU with one acre is not that bad.  He recommended keeping the density at one and one-half acres; stated they are gaining that by including the ten or eleven acres that are being zoned as AU; and he would prefer they keep the one and one-half density on the acreage zoned for SEU.  He stated if they are going to include the AU to keep the density, they would like to know that the AU would not ever have houses on it. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she supports a gated community. 

 

Paul Rufo, representing the applicant, commented on taking care of the roads, gated community being well received, providing false sense of security, the eagle’s nest, complying with environmental studies, existing golf course near the eagle’s nest, 44 deed restricted lots, upscale gated equestrian community, average lot of 1.57 acres over the total parcel, and equestrian area of 10.5 acres. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if they can make sure the AU property will not be developed down the road; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding they can do that through a binding development plan stating the entire property, including the AU, would not exceed 44 lots.  Mr. Rufo stated he does not see it ever changing because of liability issues; and explained the problems of selling an equestrian community, homeowners insurance, the neighbors’ equestrian training and boarding facility, and legal liability of changing the AU property.  Chair Voltz stated the community would be comfortable knowing that five or ten years down the road, they are not going to get rid of the equestrian portion and add more homes.  Mr. Rufo stated they could ask for all homes now, but have not; if the equestrian thing is a failure ten years from now, they would still have to come back for rezoning; and they are requesting the rezoning as written.  Chair Voltz requested the applicant think about the issue with the gated community, which is not in line with the rural atmosphere of the area; with Mr. Rufo responding he will think about it.  Chair Voltz stated she does not want it in the binding development plan or anything like that.  Commissioner Colon explained why she supports the gated community. 

 

Discussion ensued on the gated community; horses in SEU zoning; two AU parcels excepted from the request; no horses on residential property; binding development plan;  existing barns, arena, and training rink; and limiting to 44 units.

 

Mr. Rufo stated they may not even get 44; they started at 50, but are now down to 44 with compliance to a lot of environmental issues; and they are going to make it a nice attractive community in keeping with the Grant/Valkaria vision.  Commissioner Colon stated they have made people put things in the BDP to protect the community and make sure things do not change.  Mr. Rufo inquired what is it Commissioner Colon wants them to include; with Commissioner Colon responding to make sure the AU remains AU.  Chair Voltz advised the two AU parcels are not even being considered under the zoning application; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct. 

 

Chair Voltz passed the gavel to Vice Chair Carlson.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.27 with a BDP for a maximum of 44 lots.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Vice Chair Carlson passed the gavel to Chair Voltz.   

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Planning and Zoning Board has decided to have meetings in June and December when the Board does not meet so the Agenda will not be overwhelming; and it is necessary to advertise and for staff to prepare accordingly.  She stated she has no problem with that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)