MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

December 7, 2000

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on December 7, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Sue Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Chairman Sue Carlson.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING ODYSSEY OF THE MIND TEAM OF DIVINE MERCY SCHOOL

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution commending the Odyssey of the Mind Team of Divine Mercy School for winning the World Championship in June, 2000.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending and congratulating the Divine Mercy Odyssey of the Mind Team on its winning the World Championship in June, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien presented copies of the Resolution to the team. Chairman Carlson advised a framed Resolution will be provided to the School.

REPORT, RE: APPEARANCE OF THE EAST COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

Commissioner Higgs stated the Regional Planning Council staff and the Regional Chamber will not be able to come before the Board until January, 2001. She stated she has drafted an Agenda item for that; she is not sure under the Sunshine Law whether she can send that through the mail to Commissioner Scarborough; and presented it to Commissioner Scarborough.

REPORT, RE: CLAM LEASES

Chairman Carlson distributed copies of information she received from the State regarding clam leases; stated some of them are in different Districts; and if the Board wants to comment, it will need to do so before January 7, 2001. She stated she does not see any reason to bring the
items in District 3 before the Board, but there are items in Districts 1 and 2. She stated the County has not be very successful in having the State consider that, but she wanted to be sure everyone had the information.

REPORT, RE: CABINET MEETING IN MELBOURNE

Chairman Carlson stated the Governor and Cabinet will be coming to Melbourne, which has been designated Capital for the Day, on December 12, 2000; and the Governor will be convening a Cabinet Meeting in the Melbourne City Council Chambers. She advised from noon to 2:00 p.m. there will be a State Agency Fair at Wells Park.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
OF SEPTEMBER 11, OCTOBER 2, AND NOVEMBER 6, 2000

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board, made at its public hearings on September 11, and October 2, 2000, which were tabled by the Board of County Commissioners, and recommendations made at its public hearing on November 6, 2000, as follows:

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised of the rules and procedures to address the Board and need for evidence that relates to the criteria of the Code and Comprehensive Plan.

Chairman Carlson advised items II.B.15 and II.B.18 have been withdrawn.

Commissioner O'Brien stated item II.B.13 is an application from George and Nancy Cusumano requesting a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages On-premise Consumption; and he would like to table the item to January to allow staff time to go out and look at the lack of parking and facilities. He stated he sees some problems; and he does not know if they are already selling alcohol without a CUP.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item II.B.13 (Z0011201) George James and Nancy Rene Cusumano's request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-2 zone on .26 acre, located on the west side of Banana River Drive, approximately 500 feet north of SR 528, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, to February 1, 2000.

Chairman Carlson inquired if anyone wishes to speak on Item II.B.13; with a response heard from the audience. Discussion ensued on when the item should be heard.

Commissioner O'Brien withdrew the motion.

Chairman Carlson stated Item II.B.1, Laurence C. Goethe's request for CUP for Towers and Antennae (180 ft. monopole) in an IU-1 zone, retaining the existing CUP for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Products, and BU-2, removing the existing CUP for a Temporary Security Trailer, and AU, retaining the existing CUP for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Products, and removing the existing CUP for a Temporary Security trailer, should be tabled. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised it was tabled by the Planning and Zoning Board, and the Board should also move to table.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item II.B.1 (Z0011101) to the January 8, 2001 Planning and Zoning meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated Item II.B.26, The County Line of Brevard, Inc.'s request for change from TU-2 to BU-1 with a CUP for Permanent Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises and retaining the existing CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption on 2.71 acres located on the northeast corner of I-95 and U.S. 192, should also be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item II.B.26 (Z0010502) to the January 8, 2001 Planning and Zoning meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated there was a written request from applicants Floyd D. and Patricia Ellsworth to table Item II.B.23 as they had not hired an attorney. Chairman Carlson inquired if anyone is present to speak to the item; with no response heard.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item II.B.23 (Z0011406) Floyd D. and Patricia M. Ellsworth's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (00S.4) to change land use designation from Residential to Mixed Use District; AND change from AU to BU-2, retaining the existing Cup for a Security Trailer, and removing the existing CUP for a Borrow Pit on 9.93 acres located on the north side of Pluckebaum Road, approximately 1.4 mile east of Range Road, to the February 1, 2001 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 1. (Z0009503) Gleason Brothers and Company's request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on 23.965± acres located on the south side of Aurora Road, approximately 150 feet west of Easy Street, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board, and tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on September 21, 2000.

Chairman Carlson requested the Zoning Official provide an overview. Mr. Enos stated the application was first heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 11, 2000; at that
time the request was for RU-1-13; the application was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board; and at the September zoning meeting, the Board tabled the item at the request of the applicant to allow an opportunity to reconfigure the proposal. He stated some amendments have been made to the project; the request is now for EU-2; and other things have been redesigned such as the road.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing the property owner, Gleason Brothers and Company, and the purchaser of the property, Crocker Land Development, stated the request is for EU-2 for a 24-acre parcel at Aurora Road, east of Easy Street. He stated the property is presently zoned agricultural use; the request comes with a recommendation for denial by the P&Z Board; but the proposal before the Board is different than that presented at the P&Z meeting. He stated the function of the P&Z Board is to allow public input on an application and afford the application the opportunity to modify the presentation to meet the concerns of the public. He stated Exhibit A is the initial proposal that was presented at the P&Z meeting; and presented it to the Chairman. He stated Exhibit B is the current proposal; the entrance road has been moved from the east to the far west, a distance of approximately 700 feet; and there were other changes such as the change in the zoning classification. He stated along the east property line that meets the rear property line of the residences on Easy Street, they propose to provide for a series of drains that
would run along the common property line and would serve to drain the back yards of the homes on Easy Street. He stated the project is tentatively called Joyal Village; the builder will be Joyal Builders; and it will be on municipal sewer and water, while the homes on Easy Street are on septic tanks. He stated he has heard there is a flooding problem in that vicinity, which the County is addressing; they will put in the drains along the rear property line so there will be no concern that they are going to put water on the neighbor's property; and they would also be able to drain water that might otherwise accumulate on the back yards of the neighbors into the system. He stated they scheduled a meeting with representatives of the homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Arnold, on November 17, 2000; also present at that meeting were Project Engineer Mr. Kern and Planner Doug Robertson; and he felt there were the beginnings of an understanding. He suggested whatever representations he makes be incorporated in a binding development agreement so those representations will be embodied in the public records of the County and his client will be obliged to do those things. He stated Mr. Kern furnished 300 copies of the new proposal to Ms. Arnold so she could distribute them to the homeowners who have an interest in knowing what is happening. He stated his first disappointment came when he offered to meet with the homeowners, but was only able to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Arnold, their environmental consultant, and a builder who is assisting them; and he has never been invited to meet with the homeowners so has not been able to find out what their concerns are. He stated his client has an excellent project; the property is going from residential to residential; and he thought they were getting somewhere, but then he saw a copy of a letter from Ms. Arnold expressing the same concerns about meeting the requirements of compatibility, density, drainage, buffer, traffic and environmental, so he has no choice but to respond to those concerns and make it clear what they are doing is a good thing. He stated he will bring forward for testimony Wendy Swindell of Applied Environmental Services, Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz of Motorist Design Data Movement, Robert Wile who is Vice President of Joyal Builders, George Lewis who is a realtor, Doug Robertson of Robertson and Associates-Land Planning and Development, and Peter Flotz
who is a representative of Crocker Land Development; and Engineer Rick Kern of RK Engineering is also present for questions and rebuttal. Mr. Spielvogel stated this is his opportunity to present his case; if the Board turns down the request and they have to appeal, this is the record they have to establish; and for that reason and because of due process requirements, he requested the Board be liberal in allowing time to present the case.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long does the Board normally allow the applicant; with Ms. Bentley responding a total of 15 minutes; and typically they are allowed ten minutes in the beginning and reserve five minutes for rebuttal. Chairman Higgs noted there are seven individuals who wish to speak and six who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Discussion ensued on the number of individuals submitting cards, time limits, and usual procedure.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to allow the applicant an additional five minutes.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is obligated to allow the people who submitted cards five minutes to speak; with Ms. Bentley responding the Board needs to give them adequate time to present their case, but can urge them to limit discussions as much as possible. Ms. Bentley advised an argument could be made that they are entitled to five minutes since they submitted a card. Commissioner Higgs expressed concern about not allowing people to speak. Commissioner Scarborough stated historically the applicant is given blocks of time to organize; the applicant has an additional ten minutes over everyone else who is speaking; and that should be considered as part of the whole package. Chairman Carlson stated it would have been beneficial if Mr. Spielvogel had organized his speakers in such a way that it could have been done in the fifteen minutes; if the Board chooses to give five minutes to each speaker, it will be listening to another hour of applicant testimony, which is over and above what has been given to any other applicant; and advised there is a motion on the floor for five minutes.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Bentley is saying that a total of five minutes would not be adequate; with Ms. Bentley responding not with seven speakers.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to allow an additional 20 minutes for the applicant.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a very large project; there are people with whom Mr. Spielvogel was unable to speak; and the Board is trying to be fair to both sides of the issue.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman Carlson stated the speakers are Wendy Swindell, Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz, Bob Wille, George Lewis, Doug Robertson, Peter Flotz, and Rick Kern; and the applicant should fit those speakers within the 20 minutes.

Mr. Spielvogel advised Mr. Kern is only present for rebuttal, so it is not intended that he speak. He requested Ms. Swindell give her name, office address and occupation; with Ms. Swindell responding Wendy Swindell, 988 Westwood Square in Oviedo, and she is an environmental consultant with Applied Environmental Services Inc. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how long has she been engaged in her occupation; with Ms. Swindell responding 13 years. Mr. Spielvogel submitted a resume for Ms. Swindell; and inquired if she is familiar with the proposed Joyal Village Subdivision and has she walked the property; with Ms. Swindell responding affirmatively. Mr. Spielvogel inquired what were her observations; with Ms. Swindell responding she did the wetland jurisdictional assessment for the property, and her responsibilities included doing a land use and cover map for potential wildlife habitat. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if she found any endangered species on the property; with Ms. Swindell responding no, but she did observe gopher tortoise burrows, which are a species of special concern. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if there is a bald eagle nesting on the property; with Ms. Swindell responding there is no bald eagle nesting currently on the property. Mr. Spielvogel handed Ms. Swindell a letter dated September 21, 2000 from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; advised it is Exhibit C; and requested she read the first two paragraphs. Ms. Swindell read, "Our bald eagle survey records indicated that no nesting activity has occurred at this territory during the past five nesting seasons; therefore, this territory would now be considered abandoned under the definition of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the bald eagle in the southeast regions, and those guidelines would have no further application to this abandoned territory." Mr. Spielvogel submitted Exhibit C; and inquired if Ms. Swindell knows of any reason why the Joyal Village Subdivision should not be developed; with Ms. Swindell responding her job is to look at the current local, State and federal guidelines regarding wetlands and listed species issues; and from that perspective, the project is in compliance with all guidelines, so she sees no reason why the project would not be developable from the current plan. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if there are any questions for Ms. Swindell. Chairman Carlson stated Ms. Swindell said there was no eagle nesting activity; and inquired if there is a nest on the property; with Ms. Swindell responding there is an abandoned nest on the property.

Mr. Spielvogel requested Ms. Pieper-Schmitz give her name, office address, and occupation; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz, traffic consultant and President of Motorist Design of Merritt Island which is located at 2755 North Banana River Drive on Merritt Island. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how long she has been engaged in that occupation with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding 13 years. Mr. Spielvogel submitted a resume for Ms. Pieper-Schmitz; and inquired if her firm has been employed by the developer of the proposed Joyal Village Subdivision and what is the nature of her employment; with Ms. Piper-Schmitz responding she was brought on to analyze the traffic impact of the proposed site on the roadway network in the immediate vicinity of the site, which would be Aurora Road, Easy Street, and Trimble Road. Mr. Spielvogel requested Ms. Pieper-Schmitz tell the Board what she did, her observations, and her conclusion. Ms. Pieper-Schmitz advised she started by doing traffic field counts for the peak hour at both ends of Easy Street, which would be Trimble and Aurora Roads, and also at Whispering Oaks, which is the adjacent street to the east of Easy Street, using those houses and that traffic pattern to determine the local traffic distribution so they would know where their site traffic would go. She stated they also researched the traffic counts on record with the County and any proposed development; and they used the currently accepted method of providing trip generation based on the ITE, and analyzed level of service based on DOT methodologies. Mr. Spielvogel inquired what the impact of traffic would be on Aurora Road, Easy Street or Trimble Road; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding Trimble Road and Easy Street would both have an additional two peak hour trips; Aurora Road would have an additional 21 peak hour trips on the most highly impacted segment; Aurora Road is currently at level of service B, and would remain at B; and Trimble Road and Easy Street are both currently level of service C which is the best level of service a residential roadway can achieve. She stated the residential roadways would never be at level of service A or B even if there were no trips; they are only at 8% capacity; and they will be level of service C with or without the proposed site. Mr. Spielvogel handed her a letter dated December 2, 2000 on the letterhead of Motorist Design, and addressed to Rick Kern of RK Engineering; and inquired if the letter contains her professional opinion concerning the proposed Joyal Village traffic impact on Easy Street; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding affirmatively. Mr. Spielvogel submitted the letter as Exhibit D. He handed Ms. Pieper-Schmitz a letter dated December 6, 2000 on the letterhead of Motorist Design addressed to him; and inquired if the letter contains her professional opinion concerning the proposed Joyal Village traffic impact on Aurora Road; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding it does. Mr. Spielvogel submitted the letter as Exhibit E. He inquired if there was no traffic impact on Easy Street and cars exceeded the speed limit on Easy Street, are there any suggestions for remedy of that problem. Ms. Pieper-Schmitz advised there are three things she could recommend; the first is to continue the patrol program with the Sheriff's Office; she heard of tremendous success rates connected with high ticket writing recently; and enforcement is the key to a speeding issue. She stated another alternative would be rumble strips; commented on the hazards of speed bumps and humps, which she does not recommend; and stated the final suggestion would be to temporarily barricade one end of the roadway to help eliminate the cut-through traffic and break that pattern. She stated that is one way to get people to quit cutting through the neighborhood; and once the people learn they do not actually save any time cutting through the neighborhood, they will hopefully stop. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if anyone has any questions of Ms. Pieper-Schmitz.

Mr. Spielvogel called on Robert Wille. He stated it has just been pointed out that the project is west of Easy Street. He requested Mr. Wille stated his name, office address, and occupation; with Mr. Wille responding Bob Wille, Vice President for Joyal Construction at 2800 Aurora Road in Melbourne. Mr. Spielvogel stated Mr. Wille is also Mayor of the City of Melbourne Beach; and inquired if he has a broker's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission; with Mr. Wille responding yes. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how long he has had that license; with Mr. Wille responding over 15 years. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how long he has been with Joyal Builders and what is his position with the firm; with Mr. Wille responding over 17 years, and he has functioned as marketing director and development coordinator. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how long has Joyal Builders been building homes in the County; with Mr. Wille responding the Joyals settled on the southwest corner of Aurora and Wickham Roads in the 1950's; they developed that whole corner; and since the 1950's, they have been building. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how many of those projects has Mr. Wille been involved with; with Mr. Wille responding dozens. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if Joyal Builders built the homes in Creekwood Subdivision; with Mr. Wille responding they did. Mr. Spielvogel inquired where is that subdivision and what is the price range of the homes in the project; with Mr. Wille responding it is several hundred yards east of the subject property and has homes starting in the $140,000's, going to over $225,000, with an average price in the $170,000's. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if the homes in Creekwood are typical of the homes that Joyal Builders is interested in building in Joyal Village; with Mr. Wille responding affirmatively. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if Joyal Builders has a contract with Crocker Land Development to purchase all the lots in Joyal Village; with Mr. Wille responding affirmatively. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if there are any special arrangements in that contract about preserving trees; with Mr. Wille responding just as they did in Creekwood subdivision, they want to preserve all the trees and allow the opportunity to save as many trees as possible once they go into the construction process. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if the developer is limited to the trees he can remove in the project to only those that are in the right-of-way or have to be removed for infrastructure purposes; with Mr. Wille responding that is correct. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if the builder would only remove those trees needed to allow for the building footprint and that sort of thing; with Mr. Wille responding yes. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if Mr. Wille anticipates removing fewer trees in Joyal Village than they were obligated to remove in Creekwood; with Mr. Wille responding yes. Mr. Wille advised it is a building situation; in Creekwood there were septic tanks and drain fields; distances had to be maintained; a lot of trees were lost that would not otherwise have been if they had been on sewer; and the new project will have sewer so there will not be those impediments to saving the trees. Mr. Spielvogel inquired what is the anticipated price range of homes in Joyal Village; with Mr. Wille responding they will probably start at the $150,000 range. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if Mr. Wille is familiar with the homes on Easy Street, Trimble Road and Aurora Road; with Mr. Wille responding yes. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how will the proposed project impact homes in the surrounding area; with Mr. Wille advising it will not have a negative effect, and will enhance the community. Mr. Wille stated everyone was satisfied with the type of product that was built in Creekwood; and advised of the plans for the new project. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if the single-family residences proposed for construction in Joyal Village will be compatible with the surrounding existing community; with Mr. Wille responding yes. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if there are questions for Mr. Wille.

Mr. Spielvogel called George Lewis. Chairman Carlson advised the speakers have five more minutes. Mr. Spielvogel requested Mr. Lewis state his name, office address and occupation; with Mr. Lewis responding George Lewis, licensed realtor in the State of Florida with an office at 380 South Courtenay Parkway in Merritt Island. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how long has he been licensed; with Mr. Lewis responding since 1973. Mr. Spielvogel submitted a resume for Mr. Lewis; and advised in all instances where he is submitting a resume, the people are being offered as expert witnesses. He inquired what is Mr. Lewis' experience in determining market value of single family residential properties; with Mr. Lewis responding in the years he has been in the real estate business, he has sold and listed many residential properties in all price ranges, has done market analysis and/or appraisals on 1,500+ properties, and has been an expert witness to values of properties in courts in Brevard County. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if he examined the residences in the vicinity of the Gleason Brothers property, especially those on Easy Street and Trimble Road; with Mr. Lewis responding he did on two occasions. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if he did any checking of public records and MLS data; with Mr. Lewis responding he pulled the public records on the Easy and Tolley Streets area. Mr. Lewis stated on Easy Street the average sale was $72,250, the last sale was $75,500, and the assessed value average of all homes on Easy Street was $58,000; the average square footage on Easy Street is 1,276 square feet; on Tolley Street and Trimble Road the average sales were $77,383, and the average assessed value is $80,123. Mr. Spielvogel inquired how many residences on Easy Street are located on more than one lot; with Mr. Lewis responding 15 are on one lot; six are on double lots; and two are on three or four lots. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if the single lots and multi-lot single family homes are compatible with each other; with Mr. Lewis responding the home designs are reasonably compatible, with some homes being smaller and others larger. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if Mr. Lewis noticed any signs of incompatibility between the homes; with Mr. Lewis responding some of the homes appeared to need some ongoing maintenance and at least one property appeared to have a commercial operation onsite. Mr. Spielvogel inquired assuming the zoning of the Gleason property is EU-2, which provides a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and minimum house size of 1,500 square feet, would the homes be compatible with the existing residences on Easy Street and Trimble Road and beyond; with Mr. Lewis responding they would be compatible, and would increase the value of the homes in the Easy Street, Trimble Road, and Tolley Road area. Mr. Lewis stated having sewer rather than septic tank will help the entire area; and if the project is allowed to go through, the people will find it will greatly enhance the value of their properties. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if anyone has questions for Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Spielvogel called on Doug Robertson; and requested he state his name, office address, and occupation; with Mr. Robertson responding Doug Robertson, Professional Planner, with an office at 100 Parnell Street. Mr. Spielvogel inquired what is the name of the firm and the position Mr. Robertson holds; with Mr. Robertson responding he is President of Robertson and Associates.

Chairman Carlson advised Mr. Spielvogel's time will expire in 30 seconds. Mr. Spielvogel requested additional time; stated by using the question and answer approach, he has tried to expedite his presentation; because of the objections that have been raised to the project, he is obliged to try to respond; and he knows of no other way to do it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many more speakers are present for the applicant; with Chairman Carlson responding one more. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should let the additional speakers present their testimony to the Board. Commissioner Colon agreed; and advised there is only one more. The Board reached consensus to grant an additional five minutes for both speakers.

Mr. Spielvogel submitted Mr. Robertson's resume and qualified him as an expert. He inquired if Mr. Robertson is familiar with the property referred to as the proposed Joyal Village Subdivision; with Mr. Robertson responding affirmatively. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if he has visited the property, examined the surrounding community, and reviewed the proposed site plan; with Mr. Robertson responding he has. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if he has discussed the project with the developers, Charles Crocker and Peter Flotz, and Project Engineer Rick Kern; with Mr. Robertson responding he has. Mr. Spielvogel inquired if Mr. Robertson was present at the meeting on November 17 and requested he comment on the appropriateness of the requested zoning, the features of the proposed subdivision, and its compatibility with the surrounding community. Mr. Robertson stated he was asked to research and render an opinion regarding two aspects of the project; the first was whether the proposed project is consistent with the County's Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan; and the second was whether the project would be compatible with the surrounding area and adjacent communities. He stated with regard to consistency, the request meets all of the adopted Future Land Use density guidelines; the density guideline in this area is 12 units per acre; and the yield that would be accomplished with this project would only be 1.8 units per acre. He stated the proposed zoning EU-2 is consistent with the adopted Future Land Use designation for this location; staff agrees with that; and the proposed zoning is well within all of the adopted levels of service thresholds for the area. He stated EU-2 is clearly compatible with the surrounding RU-1-13 zoning to the east and south of the project; RU-1-13 allows a minimum 1,300-square foot house while EU-2 has a minimum 1,500-square foot house; both are single family zones; and that is very compatible. He stated EU is also compatible with the AU district to the west; the proposed project would be larger than the AU, and would not have farm animals; and it is compatible with the EU-2 district to the north, so this is a very compatible zoning request. He stated the subject property will yield 1.8 units per acre if the project is approved and developed; Siesta Park or Easy Street has a current platted lot density of 3.5 units per acre, so it is obviously of a lower density than the adjacent subdivision to the east; many of the lots in Siesta Park have been combined; but even looking at the combined lots and treating each combined lot as one, the density on Easy Street is 2.3 units per acre, which is still higher than the density of the proposed project. He stated Tolley Estates Subdivision to the south has an existing density of 2.3 units per acre, so the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. He stated there is a multi-family zone adjacent to the Easy Street property; the proposed lots are larger than the adjacent platted lots; on Easy Street, smaller lots are intermingled with larger lots; that is the character of that particular subdivision; and two small lots from the Siesta Subdivision are adjacent to one of the proposed large lots. He stated the project is compatible as far as character.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what does it mean that it is consistent; with Mr. Robertson responding the proposed project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Higgs inquired what other zoning designations would also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; with Mr. Robertson responding several of the single family zoning districts would be consistent, such as all the estate zoning districts and SEU. Commissioner Higgs inquired if AU would be consistent; with Mr. Robertson responding he is not sure but believes it would be. Commissioner Higgs inquired if RR-1, SR, SEU or EU-1 and EU-2 would be consistent; with Mr. Robertson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are a variety of different zoning designations that could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; with Mr. Robertson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired what does it mean that it is compatible; with Mr. Robertson responding the zoning is compatible from a lot size and house size point of view. Mr. Robertson stated the lots in Siesta Park are intermingled with small and large lots, so there is not a character that has been established; and what is being proposed is compatible with lot size. He stated in terms of value of property, the value of the proposed houses will be higher than the adjacent subdivision. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Robertson talk about compatibility with the property to the west that is zoned AU; with Mr. Robertson responding the proposed zoning is probably compatible since the proposed development will be single family and single family home would also be appropriate for AU, although he would say the compatibility is much less for that property. Commissioner Higgs inquired what kind of activities can go in AU; with Mr. Robertson responding single family residence as well as the harboring of farm animals. Commissioner Higgs inquired if AU is incompatible with single family and causes problems; with Mr. Robertson responding if AU is there first, often it could be an incompatible use. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Comprehensive Plan says there is a possibility of incompatibility; with Mr. Robertson responding he believes it does.

Peter Flotz submitted paperwork; and stated his business address is 3830 South Highway A1A, Suite C3, Melbourne Beach. He stated he understands the concerns of the neighbors; and the concerns have to do with compatibility, density, drainage, buffer, traffic and the environment. He stated the opinion that was read regarding the eagle came from U.S. Fish and Game, and is not just the applicant's opinion; and the differences in the project now compared to what was presented at the Planning and Zoning meeting are the result of direct input from the homeowners as well as indirect input through staff and the Commissioners who have been contacted by homeowners. He stated they moved the entrance from one side of the project to the other to address the traffic issue; it is moved as far to the west as it can be moved; the zoning classification has been changed to EU which is more restrictive than RU; and lot sizes have been increased. He stated a common area strip is being created between the development and the Easy Street properties; the homeowners were asked whether the area should become an area to help with drainage or remain as a landscaped buffer; and the understanding was that the bigger problem was drainage, so they have created a piped swale and drain system along the eastern property line to accept drainage from the Easy Street properties. He stated the wetland that is on the property is to be preserved; and someone driving by the site would not be able to see into the land because the wetland is that dense. He stated the wetland is relatively new; it was created when Aurora Road was built; and the wetland was actually a borrow pit for fill for Aurora Road. He stated when the project is complete the difference in what is seen on Aurora Road versus what is there now will be an entrance with a 50-foot right-of-way on the west edge of the property and a small visibility on the northeast corner of the property for a retention pond; and other than that, nothing will be touched. He stated density has come up again and again; the proposed project is at 1.8 units to the acre; and the lowest density of the surrounding neighborhoods is 2.0 units to the acre; and everything else in the neighborhood is higher. He stated they were told at the presentation to the homeowners association that Creekwood is a good project; they have worked to make sure the proposed project will mirror Creekwood; and they will be able to preserve more trees than they were able to in Creekwood because the new project will be on City sewer, and they will not have to clean an extra 2,500 to 3,000 square feet per site in order to provide septic systems. He requested the Board consider the application favorably.

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Flotz explain any wetland mitigation; with Mr. Flotz deferring to the environmental expert.

Commissioner Colon requested the map be turned so the citizens can see what is proposed.

Chairman Carlson stated she has a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that talks about mitigation and that sort of thing; and requested an explanation. Ms. Swindell stated the mitigation concept is to offset the impacts on the site; and the mitigation for the project for which they have received preliminary approval is a combination of wetland preservation and wetland enhancement, upland creation and preservation as well. She advised the wetland impact on the site is approximately 1.3 acres; to offset that, they propose a combination of wetland preservation, which includes the borrow pit area adjacent to Aurora Road, wetland preservation of the large marsh, and enhancement of the wetland. She stated there is an isolated wetland which they intend to reconnect as part of the project; there is a berm that separates it right now, but they are going to take down that berm and remove all exotic and nuisance species within the wetland. She noted they have discussed this with County staff and have gotten preliminary indications that staff is receptive and approves of the concept.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the Board package, there was flood zone map; and requested Ms. Swindell look at it and advise if she agrees it is a correct description. Ms. Swindell stated St. Johns River Water Management District was on the site, and reviewed and approved the wetland boundaries that have been delineated; a lot of the maps are done from aerial photographs; and until someone gets on the ground and approves things, it looks different.

Susan Arnold stated she and her husband have lived on Easy Street for the last 13 years, and she has been asked to summarize the concerns of the group about compatibility, density, drainage, lack of adequate buffer, traffic, and environmental. She stated the change from RU-1-13 to EU-2 is only an alphabet change since the density remains the same; and the 43-house subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding area. She stated the surrounding area has anywhere from third-acre lots to four-acre lots; and Creekwood has 17 homes, Whispering Oaks has 16, and the lots in Hammock Estates are anywhere from a third-acre to an acre. She stated the average for homes on Easy Street is half acre as is the surrounding area. She stated after the Planning and Zoning meeting, she and Ms. Strickland of Strickland Environmental made several attempts to talk to Mr. Kern about the concerns, but they were told he was unavailable, and her calls were not returned. She stated in September, Gleason Brothers retained Mr. Spielvogel; she was contacted regarding the concerns, and faxed a copy of the homeowners' concerns on September 26, 2000; and it was their understanding that the matter was tabled so they could work together for the good of all; however, there was no further contact until November 17, 2000. She stated at that time they were given the revised plan that addressed
only two of the issues; the road was moved, but now it enters and exit on the curve of Aurora; and the drainage and buffer issues were only lightly touched on the Easy Street side of the project only, and then with endangerment of 24 mature oaks, 14 mature palms, and 11 mature pines. She stated their original concerns remain; and they have legitimate concerns about flooding as the pictures attest. She advised of incidents of flooding on Trimble Road; and stated the developer is proposing to put 43 more cement pads and roofs; and they fail to see how three 12-foot deep retention ponds are going to handle their water let alone take some off of Easy Street. She stated for those who have lovingly cared for the wetland and wildlife, the environmental issue is highly emotional; there is a list of animal and bird species, which include endangered species such as the bald eagle, to threatened species such as the sand hill crane, to species of some concern such as the gopher tortoise; wildlife ranges from the kangaroo mouse to the bobcat; and the land contains a great portion of oak hammock, stands of red maples, and countless numbers of native flora and fauna.

Chairman Carlson advised the time has expired; and inquired if there is a motion to extend the time.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, to allow an additional five minutes.

Discussion ensued on extending the time. The Board reached consensus to not allow an additional five minutes, but to allow Ms. Arnold to finish her comments.

Ms. Arnold stated they have been assured that the lots will not be cleared, but fail to see how the trees can be maintained with the proposed density as the entire acreage is swamp with only a small buildable portion. She stated any trees that might remain after the construction of 43 units would be killed by the fill required; and to see the total destruction, which will happen if the density is allowed, will be devastating to those who respect the land. She requested consideration of the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation that AU zoning remain or SR with half-acre lots, with a natural buffer. She stated if the SR zoning was adopted, the neighbors would give the new project their blessing, and feel no need to be active throughout the permitting and building stages of the subdivision.

Stephen Black stated he and his wife have owned a home on Easy Street for 11 years; it is to the east of the proposed adjoining development; and he has been asked by his neighbors to speak about the traffic concerns. He stated based on the ratio used by the Planning and Zoning staff, there are 500 trips per day made on Easy Street; on the north side of Aurora, the Oaks of Eau Gallie have 394 trips; the Hammocks Estates have 838; and the proposed development would add an additional 1,060 trips per day. He stated that is a density incompatibility indicator; and the presentation by Motorist Design adds credibility to the traffic problems. He stated if the development is allowed to construct 43 more homes with 1,060 more trips in the area, the total trips in that section of Aurora Road will be 10,373 per day; there will be seven roads converging into the area with a 45 mile per hour speed limit and a 15-foot ditch; and commented on the accident figures from the past five years. He advised of use of Easy Street as a shortcut, cooperation of the Sheriff's Department, issuance of 140 citations in a five-day period, and people ignoring traffic signs. He expressed concern about level of service, shortage of deputies, and distance to fire department; and advised of fire truck recently having to slow down and drive off the pavement to pass a commercial truck using the neighborhood as a shortcut. He stated they requested if the development becomes a reality that an access road be put on the south side of Trimble Road, but were told no with no reason given. He advised of children walking the three-quarter mile distance to Sabal Elementary School, lack of sidewalks, ditches on both sides of the road, speeders, and children unable to play in their front yards. He stated it is time for restrictions on development or a building moratorium; but since they cannot prevent development of the land, it should at least be compatible with the neighborhoods around it. He requested the zoning be limited to SR, one-half acre buildable; and stated designer homes on larger lots can be just as profitable as putting 43 homes on this site. He advised they have looked into speed bumps and barricades; and they cannot have barricades because emergency vehicles have to get in the neighborhood to the south.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what about speed bumps; with Mr. Black responding nobody wanted them.

Jan Goodyear stated she lives on a two-acre tract on Hammock Estates Lane; beautiful homes were built around her which increased her property value; however, it does not do any good because her property is under water when it rains. She advised of digging swales, height of property, building ten inches above the road, and crawl space preventing her from being flooded out when it rains hard. She stated if the proposed project is built, the same thing will happen; and it will create a tremendous problem. She commented on taking the Easy Street shortcut, more traffic resulting in more accidents, water problems in Creekwood, ditch along Aurora Road caving in, and flooding problems. She requested the Board look out for the betterment of the people and consider the water situation.

Dozier Mills stated he lives on Trimble Road; submitted a picture of his house completely surrounded by water; and advised of building his house in 1992, size of his lot, and appraised value of his property. He commented on bird watching, not seeing the eagle for six years, eagle's nest BE018 shown as not active, and active nests in the area. He stated he sees nothing on the plans showing any kind of buffer zone; and he will be looking in someone's back yard, which will not help his property values. He advised of having to fill his property to bring it above the road and flooding of the road; and expressed concern about drainage. He stated he would like to see a buffer in the plan and more discussion about drainage; and commented on work off of Wickham Road. He advised of the beauty of the area; stated his wife has a business working out of the house; and reiterated his request for a buffer of ten to fifteen feet and SR zoning, with half-acre lots.

Randy Goodyear stated he has lived in the area for 40 years; and advised of flooding in the neighborhood. He noted he lived in the area during Hurricane Donna, and there was no water in the house at that time, but since then there has been water up to his waist in Hammock Estates. He expressed concern about placement of the road on the curve of Aurora Road; and advised of accidents in the area. He suggested Mr. Joyal cut the number of houses; stated if he cut it in half and moved to half-acre lots, it would be compatible with the area; and advised of the lot sizes in Hammock Estates and on Easy Street. He noted when he was younger he used to play in the area where there is an old swamp; but right now with the St. Johns River at its lowest point, it is probably dried up. He stated the borrow pit is right on the road; and he is not sure how they are going to reconnect the lake with the borrow pit. He requested the Board turn down the proposal and maybe go to SR or larger which would be more compatible with the area. He stated the major concern is water; and the only thing that saved him the last time was that his house sits very high or he would have been under water.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Goodyear advise of his occupation for the record; with Mr. Goodyear responding he has been a deputy sheriff with Brevard County for 20 years, and works in the Agriculture/Marine Division. Mr. Goodyear stated when someone hears flapping of wings at night, it is probably the eagle looking for his house.

Jean Strickland stated she is owner of Strickland Environmental Consulting in Winter Park; when they first came before the Planning and Zoning Board, there were several issues of concern including stormwater, floodplains, wetlands, wildlife, compatibility issues and traffic issues; the Board has heard of the personal experiences of several people concerning flooding and traffic; and she will not reiterate those concerns. She stated in the previous Planning and Zoning Board meeting, they were afforded the opportunity to work with the developer of the project; but as Ms. Arnold indicated, he waited until three weeks before the meeting to present a revised plan, giving little time to get the community together. She stated the developer has addressed some of the concerns that were originally identified including a ten-foot buffer/drainage easement and moving the entrance road; but there are further concerns now that the road is located in a curve of Aurora Road as well as the drainage being picked up behind Easy Street. She expressed concern that the ponds have not increased in size; stated a review of the Eau Gallie Stormwater Report and the Sarno Road Lakes Model indicates severe flooding in the area; the reports were funded by the County to try to address the needs and flooding issues in the area; and one of the resolutions is a 12-acre pond in the vicinity of Palomino and Aurora Roads to help with the flooding. She stated other retrofit fixes are proposed including larger pipes and reducing constrictions in some canals. She advised the new development will be constructed at higher base elevations as required by the Code, further compounding the issue along Easy Street; floodplain issues have not been touched upon much this evening; and commented on provisions within the Conservation Element. She stated the developer has identified stormwater ponds, but has not evaluated floodplain compensation; she has been told that will be handled through the permitting process; but in the permitting process they are allowed to pursue offsite floodplain compensation, which will not help the adjacent property owners. She stated the Conservation Element directs that all practical steps shall be taken to minimize adverse impacts to the biological attributes of the water resources and water-dependent resources onsite; however, the new revised plan, in order to accommodate minor modifications, increases the wetland acres of impact; and if the community was at a lesser density, they probably could have worked it to minimize the wetland impacts. She stated the lot sizes have been increased; the ten-foot buffer has been added; however, they can still fit 43 lots on the property, so the squeeze had to go somewhere. She stated it appears the ponds are the same size which must mean there are more wetland impacts; and advised of inconsistencies in the revised plan including more wetlands proposed to be preserved than the jurisdictional map indicates are within the central wetland. She stated the public has not been provided with any information regarding the mitigation proposal; and the St. Johns River Water Management District has responded to the permit application with concerns about the drainage design. She stated wildlife issues have been resolved as information has been provided regarding the bald eagle nest; however, the Army Corps of Engineers' permit application indicates that there are no wildlife issues on the property although there is still an unresolved gopher tortoise issue at this time. She stated the Board's mission statement says to serve the public by providing quality planning in a professional, efficient and accountable manner; the Future Land Use Map provides guidelines on maximum density, but does not preclude the Board from approving a lower density zoning if it meets the compatibility issue; and the community requests the rezoning be denied or the Board consider SR, with half-acre lot sizes.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about Ms. Strickland's environmental firm; with Ms. Strickland responding it is Strickland Environmental Consulting. She stated she has been an environmental consultant for 13 years, and has a Master of Science Degree from the University of Central Florida in ecological sciences. Chairman Carlson inquired if Ms. Strickland is based in Winter Park; with Ms. Strickland responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough stated in staff's comments, there is a comment that if a property is located within a 100-year floodplain zone, development should be limited to a maximum of two units per acre, but the floodplain is not defined; and inquired if Ms. Strickland looked at the calculations of the overall units as it applies to the floodplain; with Ms. Strickland responding no. Ms. Strickland noted she only has the paper copy of the map that was provided to the Board; and density would be an engineering or planning calculation.

Lang Goodyear stated he lives on Aurora Road; and the homes where he lives and behind him are much larger than the homes on Easy Street. He advised he was on the City Commission of Eau Gallie for two years and was Mayor of Eau Gallie for two years. He submitted pictures of his house and the surrounding area showing the flooding. He stated he has lived in the area for 40 years; he does not object to a subdivision being built if the flooding issue can be addressed; and described how the marl pit fills up and comes up over Aurora Road and into the subdivision. He expressed concern that the entrance will be on the curve of Aurora Road; requested the County address the drainage and traffic control; and described accidents in the area which have taken out his fence.

Commissioner Colon requested the submittals be shown to Mr. Spielvogel so he will know what the Board is seeing and the kind of flooding that is occurring.

Commissioner Higgs stated Ms. Arnold said she had done some calculations on the size of existing homes on Easy Street; and requested she provide that in writing.

Joel Randolph stated he has been living on Trimble Road for ten years; and submitted pictures of flood damage to his home. He stated he does not see how putting in more houses will make the flooding problem any better. He stated the main problem is that the retention ponds behind Winn Dixie have not been dug out since the store was built over 20 years ago; they are full of weeds, cattails, etc.; and they are completely plugged, so when there are rainstorms, they fill up and the water comes down Lipscomb to Trimble Road like a river. He noted his property has flooded twice in the past seven years; he did not have flood insurance and had to take the loss; and commented on the prices of flood insurance. He stated the developer wants to put in water and sewer; he was sent a proposal seven years ago advising it would cost $14,000 to hook up to it; he has three wells and two septic tanks that work well; and he and others cannot afford to pay $14,000 for water and sewer. He expressed concern about speeders in the neighborhood; and advised the Sheriff's Department handed out 140 tickets that proves there is a bad problem. He stated adding more houses will not make the problem any better.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Randolph point out where his home is located; with Mr. Randolph pointing out his home on the map on the north side of Trimble Road. Mr. Randolph stated he has been told that the County cannot do anything to dig out the retention ponds because Winn Dixie is privately owned. Chairman Carlson inquired if this is the current Winn Dixie; with Mr. Randolph responding affirmatively.

William Jernigan stated he lives close to Ms. Arnold and Mr. Randolph at the corner of Litton Road and Trimble Road; and commented on drainage in 1972 and the effect on drainage of four-laning Wickham Road and putting Eau Gallie Boulevard through. He stated he is not within the 500 feet, but gets all the runoff from Easy Street; and described how the water drains through the area. He stated in 1972 they used to get one or two inches of water across the roadway when there was a storm; but after the work was done on Wickham Road and Eau Gallie Boulevard, they get 18 inches; and during the last storm he measured 23.5 inches. He stated they have no objections to people building houses, but when a concrete slab or a roadway are put down, they stop the seepage for the area; they are going to get more water, and it hurts; and recommended finding a way to get the water to drain back where it used to in the old days.

Mr. Spielvogel stated he cannot rebut the speakers; they have a real problem and he is not going to minimize it; and the only good that may come out of this meeting is that it enabled the local community to advise the Board that there have been some bad engineering practices in the area, and as a result there has been flooding. He stated this has nothing to do with his client; the pictures of the flooding are dramatic; however, his client's property is vacant so he did not cause the flooding, and will not perpetuate or aggravate the flooding. He stated it would take more than 29 acres to solve the problem; but he understands from Drainage and Surface Water Director Ron Jones that efforts are being made to address the problem. He stated anyone would be frustrated if every time it rained they did not know whether or not they were going to be flooded; this meeting has afforded the neighborhood the opportunity to make an issue of this, but there has been a lot of misinformation. He stated the curve is not at their west exit; pointed out the property on the Assessor's map; and noted the problem is the people do not know where the west property line is. He stated he is sorry he did not get together with Ms. Arnold at an earlier date so there would be an opportunity to meet with the community and respond to questions; and if Ms. Arnold had returned his calls and indicated there was a problem, he would have asked the Board to grant a 30-day postponement to allow an opportunity to meet with the homeowners. He stated the curve is approximately 300 feet or more from his client's property; Mr. Lewis has no involvement with the transaction, but was employed as an independent real estate broker to look at the situation; and all of the information that has been given to the Board is to the best of the consultants' knowledge. He stated his traffic numbers are right; C is as good as it gets on a local street; and 8% capacity is no impact at all. He stated the barricades Ms. Pieper-Schmitz suggested could be knock-down barricades so emergency vehicles can get through; but there has to be a will on the part of the people on Easy Street to inconvenience themselves in order to make the situation safer.

The meeting recessed at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:55 p.m.

Chairman Carlson stated this item is in Commissioner Colon's District; and inquired if she has any comments.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard two separate issues, safety and capacity; and just because traffic is moving does not mean there is not a safety condition. He stated the main thing is that water has to move from the property; all the properties that have been addressed have not been in the floodplain; however, the subject property is 50 to 75% in the floodplain; and he has been advised that rather than being in the 10 to 25-year floodplain, it should be shown as the 25 to 100-year floodplain. He stated there was an error in the information provided by staff; with Mr. Enos concurring that is correct. He stated there is drainage through channelized improvements like ditches along roads; but there is also sheetflow which generally flows through the lower areas; and the question is whether the broad floodplain area leads to the sheetflow that hooks into the Eau Gallie Boulevard, and to what extent is that an impediment to drainage.

Commissioner Colon stated she has questions on the curve, stormwater, capacity of the ponds, and floodplains compensation; she wants to be fair to both sides; and it is important for the Board to be able to give some suggestions and have some compromises. She stated for the record she met with Susan Arnold, Leonard Spielvogel, Peter Flotz, Larry Lawford, and Rick Kern. She stated one of the things she heard from both sides is that they wanted to come to some kind of compromise; she has not heard the community say it is against the project; but the community is concerned about the size and number of homes and the flood conditions. She stated there were suggestions about SR and going to half-acre lots; and she hopes they will be able to reach a compromise today. She requested staff and Mr. Spielvogel help with some of the questions about the ponds, floodplains, and the entrance on the curve.

Mr. Flotz inquired what is the question on the curve; with Commissioner Colon responding it is a safety issue. Mr. Flotz stated Aurora Road curves approximately 300 to 400 feet west of the west side of the subject property; the entrance is in a straight section of Aurora Road; and explained the misunderstanding caused by the large vacant lot which is not owned by the Gleason Brothers and will not be developed. Mr. Flotz pointed out the entrance and parameters of the property on the map. Commissioner Colon stated it looks like the entrance is right where the curve ends; and she did not realize when she visited the property how much of a safety issue it was. Mr. Flotz suggested the Traffic Engineer address the issue. Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz stated without having the survey data and knowing the radius of the curve, she cannot tell what the sight distance would have to be; but from standing on the site of the driveway, she had not envisioned the curve as being a safety issue. She noted she did not go out and scale it at that time because it was not brought to her attention; but since the curve was not part of her visual observation, it is probably outside the field of influence for the driveway. Commissioner Colon stated she would have been more comfortable with County staff being able to provide that information, but no one is present to give that data. Ms. Pieper-Schmitz advised she has done the County's continuing service for over ten years.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Ms. Pieper-Schmitz is saying the curve was not in her visual range; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding she could see the curve, but it is not in the immediate vicinity of the driveway. Chairman Carlson inquired what is the road speed of Aurora Road; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding 45 mph at that point. Chairman Carlson stated if a car traveling 45 mph came around the curve, it would have 300 to 400 feet to stop; and inquired if it would be able to make it or would there be an accident; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding they would be able to make it. Ms. Pieper-Schmitz stated the speakers spoke of 50 accidents within ten years along that section, but typically those accidents are spread out at various intersections; and there would be a much higher number within the curve itself if there was a visibility problem. She stated it also involves the radius of the curve; every curve is not a blind curve; and even if it is a blind curve, someone on the outer edge would begin to see what is ahead. Chairman Carlson stated even though the road speed is 45 mph, people travel 50 to 60 mph; and she does not know if they would have leeway to actually stop safely.

Commissioner Colon stated her other question is about the number of lots; and inquired if there is a possibility of compromise. She stated she does not know if there has been an opportunity for both sides to compromise; and inquired if Mr. Spielvogel's client would consider an SR designation with half-acre lots. Peter Flotz responded he would not consider half-acre lots because the economics do not work. Commissioner Colon stated it was brought up in regard to the drainage problems whether the buffer or the drainage would be more of a priority for the community; and inquired if Mr. Flotz is comfortable that was communicated between the homeowners group and the applicant. Mr. Flotz responded this was discussed at the November 17, 2000 meeting; and it would be inappropriate to comment on whether the views represented were those of the entire community.

Commissioner Higgs stated Ms. Arnold advised she took the lot sizes on Easy Street and divided it by the 21 houses there, to reach the calculation of .51 acre. She stated the flooding
issues have clearly been demonstrated; and there are a variety of zoning classifications that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan including SR. She stated the property lies between an AU parcel with a density of one unit per 2.5 acres and RU-1-13 which, based on the information from Ms. Arnold, is .51 or approximately two units per acre. She stated there was testimony from the residents concerning the compatibility; later in the Agenda the Board will be dealing with a case that went to the Circuit Court, which overturned the Board's decision; and inquired what would be evidence of incompatibility. She stated the Board has received petitions from 300 residents and approximately 50 people are present who have indicated this would be incompatible; and there is clear evidence of incompatibility between what was proposed and what the people who are present to give evidence believe to be the case; so the proposed density and zoning of EU are not what the Board should approve. She stated the focus has been on Easy Street, but there is a very large parcel on the other side; and the Board should give strong consideration to compatibility with that AU property. She stated if that property is later rezoned and developed, the impacts would be considerable to the area; and this could be a precedent setting situation so a density closer to AU would be more appropriate.

Commissioner Scarborough advised of flooding conditions in the north end of the County and in southern Volusia County with extensive sheetflow of water; stated frequently the County puts in ditches, and when the water is not moving, it says it is the County's fault; but one thing that has become apparent is that I-95 created some unusual behavior of water. He stated the sheetflow was diverted from Volusia County and North Brevard County, and homes were flooded; the roads become dams, and strange movements of water are created; and in common law, it says individuals are not supposed to do too many things to their property that leads to flooding of neighbors' properties. He stated this is an isolated floodplain; it is the 100-year floodplain which is more significant; and Easy Street and Trimble Road are not included, but both flood. He stated if the floodplain does not provide a conduit for water to flow, and though the wetland is preserved, it is encapsulated by homes, and a dam is created; and the question is whether the Board has the information this evening to know whether the site plan is well advised to provide for adequate movement of water that has already been demonstrated to be a problem, or will this only aggravate the existing problem.

Chairman Carlson stated on the south side of Aurora Road there have been considerable problems with flooding because based on the regulations at the time people did not build their homes above the crown of the road and the area has become framed in by Eau Gallie Boulevard, Wickham Road and Aurora Road. She stated Wickham Road is higher than Aurora Road; Eau Gallie Boulevard is similar to Wickham Road; and water flows towards Easy Street. She stated the floodplain issue is obvious; and inquired about specific drainage areas such as there are in Grant.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board adopted an Ordinance a year ago which designated the Grant area as an area where there are flooding concerns; in the case of Grant, it is very flat with no topography and nowhere for the water to flow; and the Board recognized the area had special conditions and adopted special development provisions. She stated the type of development standards that were necessary for Grant may not be similar to other areas; and the Ordinance allows for the Board to look at certain areas and determine that, because of flooding conditions and the specific criteria and conditions of the area, more restrictive development standards should be put in place. She stated Ms. Arnold submitted a picture showing the drainage problem on Easy Street and outlined four items of neighborhood concern that they would like considered in the new proposal; some of them have been taken care of, but not all of them; and one of them deals with the buffer. She stated right now there is a ten-foot buffer on the east side of the development; the residents are asking for a 75-foot undisturbed natural buffer to the east of the proposed project and a 50-foot buffer to the south on Trimble Road; and inquired if the applicant would be interested in some sort of compromise. Peter Flotz advised the buffer was added since the Planning and Zoning Board presentation; and that is the buffer they can afford to do and still meet the zoning requirements for EU. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Flotz is saying yes, no, or maybe; with Mr. Flotz responding no. Chairman Carlson stated there is also a density question; the residents are requesting half the density of the original plan; and inquired what that would be; with Mr. Enos responding that would be SR. Chairman Carlson advised the applicant has already said no to that; with Mr. Flotz concurring. Chairman Carlson stated the drainage issue is not clearly identified in the original RU-1-13 site plan; the residents are requesting more information as to the planned retention on the new plan; and inquired if Ms. Arnold has information regarding the drainage issue. Jean Strickland advised the residents would be interested in seeing further detail on the size and depths of the ponds and stormwater calculations to insure that if they do provide the drainage easement, the facilities are capable of handling the volume of water anticipated to flow through there. She stated what has been mentioned is background information; but planning numbers may be different than what is actually occurring out there; and the residents want to be sure that has been taken into account. Chairman Carlson stated the last item was traffic; the first point was moving the road further west to alleviate the close proximity to Easy Street, which has been done; and inquired about a road on the south end of the project. Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz stated she was asked to look at that and review it for impacts to Easy Street; and in her opinion, it would not reduce the impact and could possibly increase the impact to Easy Street because of the signal at Aurora and Wickham Roads.

Commissioner Colon stated she is disappointed there was not some kind of compromise; she does not think the citizens came out to use this occasion as an opportunity to bring up their flooding problems because that is not what this is about; and it is about looking at what is about to happen and the impact. She stated her suggestion was to go to SR, but the applicant said no; and she is not comfortable with approving this item.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a court reporter present; a lot of witnesses have been sworn in; and he is of the opinion this item will go to court. He stated in the past the Board has found it prudent to table the item and utilize the resources that are available; the whole County staff is not present; and if the way the project is laid out may adversely impact flow of water and make the problem worse, it would be prudent to table the matter and get additional information that would substantiate how it would create problems rather than denying the item tonight. He noted a number of expert witnesses have spoken; the County is light on testimony to substantiate a decision this evening; and it would be prudent to table the item to get additional information from staff. Commissioner Higgs requested the information include the issues of zoning consistency.

Commissioner Colon stated she was hoping that both sides would be able to compromise; the community has clearly said it is not opposing the project, and some are excited that it is coming into the community; and a decision should be made today. She stated based on the safety issue, flooding problems, buffer, drainage and other issues, the decision should not be prolonged; and the Board has been considering this item for a long time.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 1.

Commissioner Scarborough stated after several years Commissioner Colon will learn that sometimes the Board sees these items again.

Chairman Carlson stated she supports the motion; it is unfortunate the drainage problems exist; but this is an opportunity to be more creative in subdivision design; and they can also look to Grant to see what has been done there to streamline some things and make the process more creative when there are these types of problems.

Commissioner Higgs stated the motion to deny is appropriate; but what the Board should do is ask the County Attorney, in conjunction with staff, to bring back a resolution and findings of fact so that when the Board meets this issue again, it will have it in a form that will be one the County Attorney's office can successfully present in court.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Colon would support that; with Commissioner Colon responding yes.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is going to move to deny tonight; the applicant will sue the Board and it will go to court; and recommended the audience hold its applause until the battle is over.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff and the County Attorney's office to draft a resolution for the Board's motion to deny and bring it to the next zoning meeting for consideration.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the motion is to deny; with Commissioner Higgs responding the motion is to ask staff to draft a resolution with findings of fact and bring it back. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board denies the item, it will be basing it on a set of facts; the Board can recommend the order for denial be prepared with factual substantiation; and when the Board comes back the individual Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss the facts and it will be the Board's finding of fact rather than staff's finding of fact. Commissioner Colon stated she agrees with that; and thanked the Commission for supporting her on this decision.

Chairman Carlson stated the motion on the floor is to deny. Commissioner Colon withdrew her motion; and Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the second to the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney, in conjunction with staff, to look at the record tonight and present to the Board at the next zoning meeting, for its consideration, findings of fact and the summary in a resolution form so the Board can move forward.

Ms. Bentley stated this in effect will be tabled to February 1, 2001. Chairman Carlson inquired if a motion to table is needed; with Commissioner Scarborough advising this is not tabling, but asking that a finding of facts be set forth so the Board can make the decision.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to be sure that everyone understands the Board is moving towards denial, but before that, it would like to make sure all the terminology and legality are within its reach to be able to present that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board does not have a well-stated, well-rationed reason, it is going to find the item back before it after the court turns it around. Ms. Bentley advised if the Board gets to the next public hearing, looks at the record, reviews the minutes, and does not like the staff's finding of fact, if it has tabled the item, it has left it open as a public hearing, and it can then take whatever action is necessary; and it is more like a tabling in so far as public notice is concerned. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if this will open it for public hearing again; and stated if it is being tabled, he would like to get additional staff analysis. Ms. Bentley stated the Board can table further discussion to the next meeting, but it is public in the sense that it is in the public hearing segment; and the Board has already had its public hearing. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not sure that is where Commissioner Colon wants to go. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board passes the motion on the floor, and then tables to a public hearing, will that do what is necessary; with Ms. Bentley responding yes.

Chairman Carlson stated there is a motion on the table requesting finding of fact. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is going to be opened for further discussion, he would request staff to explore the drainage and traffic safety issues as well as any other issues on which staff can do independent analysis. Chairman Carlson stated the Board needs to have experts available. Commissioner Scarborough stated the information needs to be provided to both sides so they can comment on it because the Board will be accepting additional facts.

Mr. Spielvogel stated he understands what is being proposed; and if the Board is going to maintain the hearing open, he would like the opportunity to meet with the homeowners to see if they can accomplish the compromise Commissioner Colon is suggesting, with Commissioner Colon acting as mediator in the effort.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 1 to February 1, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the public hearing will be tabled and reopened at the next meeting; and requested the information be prepared by staff in enough time to disseminate it to the people with interest. He stated the things he is interested in are drainage, traffic, and those things where there are people on staff to provide analysis.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board would give her the opportunity to see if she can bring both parties together; with Chairman Carlson advising that would be good.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion to table Item 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0010203) IPCO, Inc.'s request for amendment to the existing BDP in a BU-1 zone, and retaining the existing CUP for Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises on 6.82± acres located on the south side of Fortenberry Road, approximately 0.23 mile east of Plumosa Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated everything has been worked out.

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

Item 3. (Z0010103) Barbara M. Buckholz and Mildred A. Lewis' request for CUP for a Group Home-Level III in a GU zone having a CUP for a Group Home-Level II on 1 acre located on the north side of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, approximately 0.72 mile west of Grissom Parkway, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for 15 residents only.

Joanne Farley stated she and Carol McKee represent the property and residents of 3680 Canaveral Groves Boulevard, known as Friends at Home; and they are both registered nurses with backgrounds in geriatric nursing. She stated when they started, the vision was to provide a much-needed service to those people who, because of physical or mental limitations, are no longer able to live independently; the most pressing need was among elderly Alzheimer's dementia patients; and advised of the sacrifices of the families of the patients. She stated they chose their property because it is in a peaceful neighborhood, is easily accessible from many points in the County, and is large enough to accommodate up to 15 people; and it was already approved for a group home. She stated they have worked to improve the property; and advised of photos that were submitted earlier. She stated they are requesting a CUP to allow them to extend their services to six more people; they currently receive an average of five inquiries a week; and at present there are eight senior residents living at the home, with a waiting list. She stated although 26 property owners were notified of the request, only one has opposed it; Mr. Jones has dramatized actual events in such a way to make their household of frail, elderly people appear to be a public nuisance; but none of the other neighbors are experiencing any disruption caused by their presence. She stated with six bedrooms and four baths, it would not have been unusual for a family of nine or ten to have moved into such a large house; chances are such a family would include children, teenagers and adults; and advised of the implications of having such a family in the neighborhood. She stated their residents cause far less neighborhood disturbance than most large families would although they occasionally set off alarms that have been installed for their protection or require emergency medical assistance at inconvenient hours. She stated Mr. Jones raised concerns about possible increases in activity with additional residents, and complained about emergency calls that interrupted his sleep; but there have been 345 emergency calls from the local fire station between January and November, 2000, and only seven were at their address. She commented on the proximity of the fire station, decrease in calls from their facility, erroneous assumption that more residents will increase the number of nighttime calls, removal of dogs and ducks, and upgrade of alarm system. She advised of visiting hours, work shifts, and staffing exceeding State guidelines. She stated Mr. Jones complained of sewage smells, but they are not coming from their facility; and described their septic system and deodorizing trash compactor. She stated Mr. Jones feared that his property values would decrease; however, the findings of an independent appraiser and independent planner project that the business activities will not impact the surrounding property values. She advised of buffering, lack of signage, and maintenance of appearance to blend into the community. She stated they do not receive government assistance; and an upgrade to Level III is the only assurance that they will be able to remain viable as a business while maintaining their level of service and atmosphere. She stated their clients are elderly people with mental and physical deficits who require 24-hour supervision and assistance with activities of daily living; they should be entitled to live in a place they call home; and such an atmosphere is not available in a commercial zone. She advised of the scarcity of beds for the aging and infirmed and other facilities in the County; and stated the services they provide can only contribute a limited solution in relation to the enormity of the problem, but those individuals who will be able to benefit are someone's mother, father, uncle, sister, etc.; and inquired where do the Commissioners want to live when they grow old.

Carol McKee stated she has nothing to add unless there are questions.

Barbara Buckholz stated she is the owner of the property; one and one-half years ago she put the property up for sale; and she had originally planned to open a group home for up to 15 people. She explained one neighbor moved because she wanted to move to a two-story home; and in the one and one-half years that the facility has been operating, she has not had one complaint from any neighbor, even though several neighbors were aware of her present location. She stated several things Mr. Jones addressed in his letter to the P&Z Board were not true; the home is already zoned for a Group Home-Level II; and granting the CUP would not take any values down.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he asked Mr. Enos to pull all the CUP's for Level III facilities; with Mr. Enos responding there have been no applications that have been approved for a Level III group home, but he does not know if any have been denied. Commissioner Scarborough stated he keeps bringing up the issue of the elderly, but there is going to be a crisis in this country, and Florida is going to have an even greater crisis because people are now living to almost 80. He stated as people get up to 80+, half of them will have problems; and this is the tip of the iceberg. He stated if 15 people start living in single-family homes, it will create some dynamics; the elderly people are quiet and not a danger; and recommended Assistant County Manager Don Lusk work with the Commission on Aging to look at this emerging issue to see if there are additional guidelines that are needed.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 3 as recommended for 15 residents only.

Commissioner Higgs stated the issue is whether or not a home that houses 15 people is compatible in a single-family residential neighborhood; and she thinks it is multi-family when there are 15 people in one home. She stated when people move into a single-family neighborhood, they think of it as being a family, which could be six or eight people, but usually it is less than that; and that is the character of a single-family neighborhood. She stated she understands the overall problem, but would like to see the report before going down that road.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this home has six bedrooms and four full baths; it is not a typical home with 15 people in it; and it was designed in a different manner. He stated he understands the question of compatibility with the neighborhood; and these would be things that it would be good for the Commission on Aging to look at to determine where these facilities should go because the Board wants to do right for the elderly and others as well.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board wants to do right for the neighborhood; the issue is whether a home with 15 or 16 people is what someone would normally expect to find in a residential neighborhood; and that needs to be looked at in terms of that size of a living facility.

Chairman Carlson stated she will support the motion; the question she brought up last time was the number of staff persons, and that has been qualified; and she has no problem with the EMS issue. She stated what needs to be studied is whether 15 people in a home is really a business.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the distinction has to be made as to the difference between a business and a group home, where people are there to live as opposed to conducting business.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
NOVEMBER 6, 2000

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board, made at its public hearing on November 6, 2000, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0011101) Laurence C. Goethe's request for CUP for Towers and Antennae (180 ft. monopole) in an IU-1 zone, retaining the existing CUP for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Products, and BU-2, removing the existing CUP for a Temporary Security Trailer, and AU, retaining the existing CUP for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Products, and removing the existing CUP for a Temporary Security trailer on 30.09 acres located on the northwest corner of U.S. 1 and Smokey Lane, which was tabled earlier in the meeting to the January 8, 2001.

Item 2. (Z0011103) Cecil H. Fain's request a change from GU to RRMH-1 on 10.57 acres located on the west side of Blounts Ridge Road, approximately 300 feet north of Aurantia Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 3. (Z0011103) Peter Simmons' request for change from AU to BU-1 on .76 acre; and RR-1 on one acre on 1.76 acres located on the northwest corner of U.S. 1 and Smyth Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with access limited to U.S. 1 only.

Norman Johnson, Jr. stated he has a restaurant in Port St. John; he has been there six years, and rents; but he has always wanted to have his own business so he found a nice place in North Mims/Scottsmoor which he bought from Peter Simmons. He stated he was going to make the whole property BU-1, but out of respect for the people, he made a buffer area where he intends to put his home; and he will put the family restaurant on the remaining portion on U.S. 1. He described the property; stated it has been for sale for years; he has been looking at it for over a year; and he has put everything he has into it. He stated he is a cook, and needs to have the property rezoned to BU-1; and it would be perfect to put a business on U.S. 1 with a residence behind it. He stated in Port St. John there are 18 restaurants in a two-mile area; he is making a living; but if he can get to Mims/Scottsmoor before the chain restaurants move there, he can do good. He stated it has been his dream since he was eight years old to own a business like his parents did; this would be perfect for him and the community; there is nothing up there; he will deliver pizzas, seafood dinners, Italian dinners, etc.; and requested the Board approve the rezoning. He stated there are some people who live off Smyth Drive who do not want this; but once it is there, they will be glad it is a restaurant rather than a pig or exotic bird farm. He stated he has been in Port St. John 25 years; he graduated from Titusville High School; and he knows the area.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the issues is the traffic; and inquired if Mr. Johnson would like to address that. Mr. Johnson stated he addressed the traffic at the Planning and Zoning meeting; he will be living there and does not want people pulling onto Smyth Drive; the Planning and Zoning Board suggested putting the entrance on the north side across from the median on U.S. 1 so people can cross the median and go straight into the property; and there will be no traffic problems.

Lloyd Clough submitted a written statement and map; and stated he has lived in Quail Haven in Mims for ten years; the property Mr. Johnson is trying to have rezoned is at the entrance of the subdivision; and the subdivision consists of 60 one-acre lots, 46 homes, and a total of 53 children. He expressed opposition to the rezoning because the property borders E. R. Smyth Drive on the north, and it is the only entrance and exit for the homes in the area. He stated approximately 92 vehicles enter and exit on the road bordering Mr. Johnson's property; and the rezoning would create a greater traffic problem. He commented on traffic on U.S. 1, bus stop at entrance to Quail Haven, proximity of Pinewood Elementary School and Mims-Scottsmoor Library, commercial zoning increasing traffic problems, and speed limit on U.S. 1. He advised of the necessity to make a U-turn to enter Quail Haven, need for a pull-off lane, safety hazards, lack of speed limit sign on Smyth Drive, and need for a "No Outlet" sign at entrance of Quail Haven if rezoning is approved. He pointed out Lionel Road, Mims-Scottsmoor Library, and Pinewood Elementary School on the map.

Chairman Carlson stated Mr. Clough had questions regarding signage on the road, and staff may be able to look into that. Mr. Clough stated one and one-half miles south of Quail Haven there is a 150-foot pull-off for a street that has three houses on it; and Quail Haven has many homes and needs a pull-off lane.

Richard Cowley stated he moved to Quail Haven in 1995; and advised of his investigations of the neighborhood to allow him to bring his foster son from Dade County. He described the Quail Haven community as a safe area for children; and expressed concern that putting a business at the front of Quail Haven would bring in traffic that would create a safety hazard for the children. He advised he looked into opening a business in the Mims area, but the population was not large enough for a business of his type. He stated the area could use some food businesses; but if Mims is going to be a booming area, then the County needs to look at the area. He stated there are a lot of places on U.S. 1 that would accommodate Mr. Johnson's type of business and a home; but if it is put at the entrance of Quail Haven, it would be a hazard for the children and the area.

Coen Gilmore stated he opposes the rezoning because he does not want a bar in the neighborhood. He inquired if the Board is aware of any illegal or criminal activities associated with Mr. Johnson or his business; and stated if there is a history, it would impact his property values and safety of his family. He reiterated his objection to having alcohol sold in close vicinity to a residential area; voiced objection to increased traffic; and advised the property use may be in conflict with the Quail Haven Owners Association Covenants and By-laws. He stated he cannot imagine a restaurant being successful in this part of the County because it is too sparsely populated.

David Schultz voiced objection to the rezoning, and described the Quail Haven subdivision. He stated he visited Mr. Johnson's Port St. John restaurant; there was a pick-up truck being used as a prop for a sign in the parking lot; there was a motorcycle on display inside the building; and there was a cooler with beer on display. He stated in and of themselves, these items may or may not be offensive; but at the entrance of his neighborhood, it would be an eyesore. He advised he has four children; voiced objection to alcoholic beverages being sold that close to his home; and expressed concern about traffic. He noted the Planning and Zoning Board suggested a traffic light and turn lane; he does not want another traffic light; and the requested the petition for rezoning be denied.

Mr. Johnson stated he has children and will be living there; no stop sign or lights are needed; and he knows the restaurant can be a success. He advised he will be offering delivery service; he will not have beer and wine to start with; and at his other restaurant he went three years without beer and wine, but then started serving beer and wine at the request of his customers. He stated he will have a small family restaurant which will not be open when children are going to school; there will be no trees around the restaurant so people will not have to worry about people hiding in the woods; and it will be a good thing.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the frontage on U.S. 1; with Mr. Enos responding approximately 200 feet. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about frontage on Smyth Drive; with Mr. Enos responding on the BU-1 parcel it would be approximately 150 feet. Commissioner Scarborough stated when most people go north of Mims, they say there is not a lot; and this area is perhaps the hub of activity. He commented on the type of activities that are involved with schools and libraries and the County's plan to have additional recreational facilities. He stated those things may not be significant in themselves but the way the traffic moves is. He stated one of the difficulties is that the Board just looks at level of service instead of looking at whether it is feasible to operate on the property; and commented on the traffic and school buses. He stated this is not the place for in and out traffic even if there was no Smyth Drive; and he does not think it is prudent because the next thing may be having a partial exit on Smyth Drive to avoid traffic impacts on U.S. 1; and then the question is whether it is all right to use residential entranceways.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny Item 3.

Commissioner O'Brien stated looking at the zoning map, he has difficulty supporting the motion because all the adjacent properties are zoned BU-1 or BU-2; and the request is just for BU-1 on a small portion of the property with RR-1 to the rear. Commissioner Scarborough stated if that was all he was looking at, he would agree, but when looking at the traffic flows, the change does not make good sense. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no way with that small a parcel that it is possible to have entrances without tremendously affecting traffic safety at certain hours of the day; and the Board does not want to create messes by just looking at zoning. He stated the combination of other properties and the creation of new methodologies could make things work; but if the Board approves a single parcel with an entrance in a 200-foot stretch where there are no clear curb cuts and there is a massive movement of traffic in and out of a school, library, and recreational facility, people are going to ask why it was approved. Commissioner O'Brien stated the property to the south, which is on Smyth Drive and U.S. 1, is zoned BU-1; and someone could come in tomorrow to draw a permit and build on it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the people coming in and out of that business would not be at the same place where traffic moving from Lionel Road and the school would be coming.

Commissioner Colon stated the biggest concern here is the safety issue; and this is talking about alcohol within an area of residential development; with Commissioner O'Brien advising it is not. Commissioner Colon stated no one is allowed to sell alcohol within 300 feet of a school; but she hopes the Board in the future will look at being more restrictive to keep the sale of alcohol away from children. She stated the safety issue is not as simple as it looks; residents must pass the entrance of Quail Haven by 150 feet and must make a U-turn; to get on U.S. 1 they have to cross both lanes of traffic; and to complicate the situation, traffic from Pinewood Elementary and the Mims-Scottsmoor Library enter on the east side of U.S. 1 from Lionel Road at the same location where the Quail Haven homeowners have to do the U-turn, so this is just accidents waiting to happen. She stated if the Board allows this, then it has given its authority knowing what it is about to create; that is not good judgment; the Board needs to look at the quality of life of the community as well as the safety issue; and this one just spells trouble based on the information that has been presented to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the criteria are that a community commercial cluster should be located at minor or major arterial intersections, collector-arterial intersections are acceptable, the collector roadway must serve multiple residential areas, and intrusions of these land uses into the surrounding residential area shall be limited. He stated the subject property is located on the west side of U.S. 1, which is a major arterial at the intersection of a local street; and it meets the consideration. Commissioner Higgs advised it does not because it is a local street rather than a collector.

Chairman Carlson stated the staff information says there is scrub jay habitat within 300 feet of the property; and inquired in which direction is the habitat located. Mr. Enos responded the Natural Resources staff did not provide that information. Mr. Johnson submitted paperwork; and advised there are no scrub jays on the property.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion to deny. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Item 4. (Z0011104) Norman Gerard and Marie A. Boucher's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (00S.3) changing land use designation from Residential to Mixed Use District; and change from RU-2-10 to BU-1 on 0.25 acre located on the northeast corner of Canaveral Groves Boulevard and Jay Road, which was recommended for denial by the LPA and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board as BU-1-A.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Enos ran through where the County is with moving from someone tutoring or giving piano lessons in his or her home to going to a school; and requested he describe that for the Board. Mr. Enos stated someone can be a tutor in a home occupation; the limitations on that are that there can be no more than one employee and no more than two customer's cars at the house at any given time; so it is a one-on-one circumstance. Commissioner Scarborough stated that means that without any zoning changes in the most restrictive residential area, it is possible to give piano lessons or foreign language lessons. Mr. Enos stated in BU-1 zoning, it is possible to have a school; there is no limit on the number of teachers or students; and the Code is silent between those two. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is where it is today in a no man's land; and what is unfortunate is it is driving to a zoning intensity that may not be required.

Commissioner Higgs stated for BU-1-A, the Comprehensive Plan standard says it will be at intersections of arterials and collectors; and based on the staff comments, this intersection of Joy Road and Canaveral Groves Boulevard are local roads that do not meet the criteria.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it creates a precedent where it begins to move into a zoning pattern; and one of the things the Board is mindful of is what will happen next. He stated there is a commercial area all along the road, then it moves into things like TR-1, and on the other side of the tracks, there is a very intense IU; and right there the Board has the potential of creating a commercial strip. He stated RP zoning does not define whether tutoring is a profession; and inquired what sort of things could be in RP; with Mr. Enos responding the RP classification permits residential professional uses, multi-family, single-family, and professional offices such as doctors, dentists, attorneys, real estate professionals, and those types of things. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is acceptable to have a dentist office which is pretty active; and inquired why a tutor who is running something that is between a commercial school and single piano lessons would not fall within the classification.

Norm Boucher stated he has owned the property, which is a triplex at the corner of Joy Street and Canaveral Groves Boulevard, since May of 1977; it has been an excellent rental property; but he has decided it is time to sell the property. He stated he put the property up for sale, and 90% of his inquiries have been from some type of commercial use; and he does not want to jump to the conclusion that he is strictly looking at a school. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was under the impression it was going to be a school; with Mr. Boucher advising that was one of his questions in conversation with Commissioner Scarborough. Mr. Boucher stated the traffic and intensity have gotten dramatic in the last few years due to the growth in Canaveral Groves; Florida Mining and Material, Rainbow Lumber, and Metcom, Inc. are all heavy commercial industrial industries with a lot of trucks; they are not very compatible to residential use; and he cannot imagine anyone building a home in the area. He stated he realized since most of the inquiries were commercial, he should try to change the zoning to something that would be compatible with the area; and he is not going to heavy industrial, but just to a very limited use of BU-1 because the lot is not large enough. He stated some of the things he has considered are a professional office, academic tutoring, foster homes, adult congregate living facility, child care center, or group home; and those things all fall within the guidelines of BU-1 or BU-1-A with a conditional use permit.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not going to move for BU-1 at this location; he thought Mr. Boucher's purposes could be accomplished with an RP classification; and inquired if RP would be acceptable. Mr. Boucher responded BU-1-A would give him more flexibility to do what he wants; he does not see much opportunity with RP in the area; there is no other RP zoning; and noted in the early 1990's the land use designation was Mixed Use District, and somehow it went back to residential use. Commissioner Scarborough stated when he looks at the zoning map and the aerials, he does not see this as having to go the direction Mr. Boucher is saying it has to go; if he approves one, he sees a continuation throughout; and he is not ready to go there tonight. Mr. Boucher stated he will take what he can get; but RP does not do a lot for him. Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Boucher has to amend the application. Mr. Boucher commented on traffic flow; with Commissioner Scarborough advising he is not going to move in favor of BU-1, and there are legitimate grounds to deny, so it is up to Mr. Boucher. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will make a motion for RP if that is acceptable to Mr. Boucher, but otherwise it is his intention to make a motion to deny the application. Mr. Boucher advised he will take RP. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is trying to be fair without just saying no; with Mr. Boucher advising it is better than nothing.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 4 as RP as agreed to by the applicant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos advised a motion is needed on the LPA recommendation on change of land use from Residential to Mixed Use District.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny the request for change of land use from Residential to Mixed Use District as recommended by the LPA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to look at the possibility of RP for limited educational use for five or six students. Mr. Enos inquired if the Board is setting policy or asking him to come back with a proposal; with Commissioner Scarborough responding come back with some thoughts. Commissioner Scarborough stated his desire is to go to the least dense use because once something is put in for one purpose, the next thing comes in for the most intense use, and the whole thing falls.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to prepare a proposal for RP use for a limited educational facility with five or six students, such use to be between a school and individuals giving piano lessons in their home. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0011105) The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc.'s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in an RVP zone on .23± acre located on the west side of Plantation Drive, approximately 1.5 miles south of SR 50, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 6. (Z0011106) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Kevin Kulik, on which a development had been submitted initiating a consideration of change from IU to BU-2 on .23 acre located on the south side of Pam-Lem Street, approximately 550 feet west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the County rezoning Mr. Kulik's property; with Mr. Enos responding there is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that says if there is a parcel of property that is zoned inconsistent with the Plan, whenever there is a development order for use that is consistent with the Plan, that causes staff to initiate the rezoning to bring that zoning into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner O'Brien stated the light industrial is being changed to retail, warehousing, and wholesale commercial; and inquired if that makes it consistent with the Plan. Mr. Enos stated there is Mixed Use District and IU is not consistent.

Item 7. (Z0011107) Wayne A. and Roberta Alt Rogers' request for change from RR-1 to RP on 1.04 acres located on the southwest side of SR 405, approximately .23 mile north of Barna Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 7 as recommended.

Commissioner Higgs stated this seems to be a proposal for an RP zoning in the middle of an area that is residential; and it seems to be incompatible with the area.

Attorney John Evans, representing the applicant, advised that is the only lot in the subdivision that faces the four-lane highway; it has no access to a residential street; and pointed out the property on a map.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the road that heads out to Kennedy Space Center from Highway 50.

Mr. Evans stated it is a mixed neighborhood; the parcel is kind of separate from the rest of the subdivision; and the deed restrictions provide that the use of the property is as required by the Brevard County zoning classification, and is not restricted to single family use even though it is in a subdivision, which is indicative that there may have been an anticipation that it might be an office. He stated they are looking for it to be a medical or dental office as it faces the four-lane highway; and it is compatible with a good buffer. He commented on RP zoning near his home.

Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0011108) James R. and Connie L. Burton's request for change from GU to ARR on 1.02 acres located on the southeast corner of Burning Tree Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 9. (Z0011109) Ella N. Yasecko, Trustee's request for change from GU to AU on 2.84 acres located on both sides of Old Sharpes Road, approximately 213 feet south of Hibiscus Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 10. (Z0011110) David W. Babcock and Gloria J. Babcock (A.K.A. Gloria J. Oehlmann)'s request for change from GU to AU on 2.902 acres located on the north side of Felda Street, approximately 800 feet east of Alan Shepard Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 11. (Z0011111) Stacy G. and Shannon F. Burnsed's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.29 acres located on the west side of Dixie Way, approximately 3,000 feet north of Burkholm Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated she sees four parcels in the midst of acres of AU with some RR-1 zoning; and requested the applicant justify why the zoning should go to RR-1.

Shannon Burnsed stated they want to build a single-family residence; they only have one acre; and they need the rezoning because it requires 2.5 acres to build on AU property.

Commissioner Higgs stated the parcel was cut off from a larger parcel; with Mr. Burnsed advising her father-in-law gave them the acre; and he is building in front while they are building in the back. Chairman Carlson inquired if her father-in-law's property is RR-1; with Ms. Burnsed responding it is AU, but he has the remainder of the five acres. Ms. Burnsed noted right beside the property is RR-1; with Commissioner Higgs conceding there are several.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated she is going to vote against it because they have created the problem in terms of size by the way they have subdivided the property; AU in this rural area is an appropriate zoning; and going to RR-1 will give the potential for going to 2.5 times the density and changing the character of the area.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry. Commissioner Scarborough and O'Brien voted aye; Commissioner Higgs, Carlson, and Colon voted nay.

Ms. Burnsed inquired if she can come back for something else or appeal.

Mr. Enos stated the motion failed, so the Board will need another motion. Commissioner Higgs inquired why is another motion needed; with Mr. Enos responding because there is no motion that has been approved. Commissioner Higgs stated the application was not approved. Mr. Enos stated there was a motion to approve, but it failed; with Chairman Carlson agreeing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated directly to the south of the property is an RR-1 property; the area is not all RR-1, but there is RR-1 out there; and the denial will not allow the Burnseds to have a home next to their in-laws. He stated he does not think anyone will find this creating traffic hazards or enormous problems for anyone else. Commissioner Higgs stated one RR-1 in itself will not do that, but RR-1 is creating one-acre lots and furthering urbanization that is not there. Ms. Burnsed inquired if that is true even though the house next door got rezoned from AU to RR-1. Chairman Carlson inquired when that was rezoned; with Ms. Burnsed responding approximately two years ago.

Discussion resumed on whether another motion is needed.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Burnsed's father-in-law would be willing to give her half of the property to make it a 2.5-acre parcel so she could build. Commissioner Colon stated the Board wants to help Ms. Burnsed but does not want to set a precedent. Ms. Burnsed advised the house next door is on less than an acre and was rezoned; and inquired how can the Board do one and not the other. Chairman Carlson responded the Board cannot answer because it does not know the history. Commissioner Higgs stated the predominate pattern in the area is AU except for a few parcels; and if the Board follows Ms. Burnsed's logic, it will go one by one and then will have 2.5 times the number of parcels that are there. Chairman Carlson advised it is obvious that something was started in this area, but the Board does not want to continue that precedent because there is so much AU surrounding the area; and that is the problem. She suggested Ms. Burnsed talk to her father-in-law about getting a larger parcel, even if it is only on paper. Ms. Burnsed inquired if there is anything else she can do; with Chairman Carlson responding not at this point.

Item 12. (Z0011112) Michael J. and Julia A. Stone's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1± acre located on the west side of Singleton Avenue, approximately 0.35 mile north of Parrish Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 13. (Z0011201) George James and Nancy Rene Cusumano's request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-2 zone on .26 acre, located on the west side of Banana River Drive, approximately 500 feet north of SR 528, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Charles Paulsen stated he is leasing the property from Mr. and Mrs. Cusumano.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he looked at the property today; it is a converted double garage; and Mr. Paulsen already built a bar with approximately 35 stools. Mr. Paulsen advised there is a maximum of 20 stools. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many parking spaces are there; with Mr. Paulsen responding 15 along the fence. Commissioner O'Brien stated four cars are parking in the retention area; five more can be parked along the fence; and there is limited room to turn. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a stand-alone building; almost all of the CUP's for beer and wine have been given to restaurants; and this is not a restaurant. Mr. Paulsen advised it is a bait and tackle shop. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not want to deny this, but wants to table it to February so Mr. Paulsen can get together with staff to resolve some of the problems such as parking, drainage, and hours of operation. Commissioner O'Brien advised there was a person drinking beer at 9:00 a.m. this morning; with Mr. Paulsen advising it is legal to serve beer at 7:00 a.m. Commissioner O'Brien advised SR 528 is the first road Mr. Paulsen's customers will go onto, and he is concerned; and commented on other establishments. Mr. Paulsen advised it would give the people from Sea Ray Boats a place to go. Commissioner O'Brien stated he prefers to wait until February 1; and commented on problems with the drain field, parking, and septic tank service. Mr. Paulsen stated the owner has said there is sufficient septic tank service because it was originally going to be a two-story, residential structure. Commissioner O'Brien stated the second story is already there, and it is residential; with Mr. Paulsen advising the second story is not there, and there are no stairs. Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern about the lack of parking; stated Mr. Paulsen does not own the property across the street; the owner of that property has said he will rent part of the parcel for parking; and inquired what will happen if the owner dies and the new owner does not allow parking there; with Mr. Paulsen responding he would have to cross that bridge when he got to it.

Chairman Carlson recommended the applicant talk to staff.

Mr. Paulsen stated he has not had a problem with parking since he opened. Commissioner O'Brien advised two cars were parked on the street today.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 13 to February 1, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.

Item 14. (Z0011301) State of Florida Department of Transportation's request for CUP for Towers and Antennae in an AU zone on 0.06± acre located on the south side of Hunterswood Street, east of I-95 in the northbound I-95 rest area, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will not support the motion because there are more than enough antennas in the County; from his fifth-floor condominium in Cape Canaveral he can count 35 towers on the east side of the Banana River; and in the next few years the technology for towers will be obsolete. He stated the Board should be telling the applicant to co-locate rather than putting up a new tower.

Commissioner Higgs stated that is one of the bonuses of this particular tower; it is a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) tower; it is being erected by DOT on its property; there is a co-locator; and it is next to I-95.

Chairman Carlson stated there will be capacity for six to co-locate; with Jan Rybak of FDOT responding in addition to the DOT equipment there will be capacity for five additional carriers.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired who gets the rent; with Ms. Rybak responding the Agreement between FDOT and Lodestar Towers is a 30 year agreement; FDOT will own the towers; and it is a shared revenue split, incremental at two years, five years, and ten years. Ms. Rybak advised Lodestar Towers will be the managing company; and they will market the additional space on the tower. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how much would another company pay to co-locate; with Ms. Rybak responding she does not know as she is not involved in the commercial end of the agreement, but Attorney Cheryl Pence is present, and her client Nextel will be co-locating so she may have that information. Ms. Pence indicated she does not have that information.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Item 15. (Z0011302) Removed from Agenda

Item 16. (Z0011303) Barbara Brooks Fraser and E. Robert Frazer's request for change from RU-1-13 to BU-1 on 0.68± acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, approximately 1.22 miles south of 1st Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has seen a couple of items this evening where there has been commercial zoning requested in places that are not intersections, and the Board has not voted favorably; but in this case the applicant is asking for BU-1 along U.S. 1 and the Comprehensive Plan does allow an additional BU-1 where there is a pattern of strip commercial. She stated in this case there is BU-1 to the north and south; and the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended approval.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 16 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. (Z0011304) Shirley Sowers, Personal Representative of the Estate of Romey Arleigh Estes' request for change from AU to RR-1 on 22.01 acres located on the west side of Fleming Grant Road, approximately 2 miles south of Micco Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Higgs advised she has some concerns about the request.

Kenneth Chapin stated he has lived in Micco for 22 years, and lives approximately ¼ mile from the property he is requesting be rezoned; when he first moved to Micco everything was woods; and he has been fortunate to see this area, especially along Fleming Grant Road, develop nicely, mostly with one-acre lots with nice homes. He stated in his area there is some property where the Comprehensive Plan calls for 2.5 acres per building site; most of that property is near the wider part of the Sebastian River; and the property he wants to rezone is one unit per acre according to the Comprehensive Plan. He advised of his plans to put in a paved road and have lots off that road in a deed restricted area with homes similar to those along Fleming Grant Road; and stated there is a small wetland in the corner of the property that he would like to make an area with community access so people can appreciate the beauty of the wetland. He commented on the lots on Fleming Grant Road creating a lot of access points on the road and advantage of only one access point on the road; and stated the rezoning would be good for the neighborhood.

Commissioner Higgs stated this AU property, if it is rezoned to RR-1, would be the first of a number of zoning changes in that area, and would determine the zoning for most of the properties west of Fleming Grant Road. She stated last week there was considerable discussion with some residents about incompatibility of AU and RR-1; and she is concerned about how to go forward in this area with zoning and development. She stated there is very little development in this area; the AU character is consistent with what is there and what should be there in the future in regard to the density; when the GU properties in the area are rezoned, AU will be appropriate; and she cannot support the recommendation to go to RR-1 in this area and will not move for approval of the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, but will move for denial.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 17.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is having a problem; there was opposition to an AU by some other people; AU can be residential or agriculture; it is sort of chameleon; and he understands where Commissioner Higgs is going and why, but is concerned about the definitions as they currently stand. He stated he has seen AU as a holding pattern just as much as GU, with the thought that it will be used for agricultural use, but when the market develops, it will go to a residential development; and commented on the discussion concerning AU at the last meeting. He stated there is AU all around the subject property, and he can support it on that basis; but the Board needs to define better what it views AU to be because it has caused some unique problems in his District with conflicts between residential AU and agricultural AU. He stated he does not know how to handle that, but the Board needs to begin to readdress it because sooner or later the same things Commissioner Higgs is concerned about will evolve within the AU.

Commissioner Higgs stated she understands that; there are two parts, the density and the allowed activities; potentially incompatibilities can evolve; in this case it is both the use of the land as well as the density that are important; and she has no problem looking at the issues that Commissioner Scarborough is talking about.

Commissioner Scarborough stated after the Board handles the motion on the floor, it would be appropriate to have Mr. Enos and Ms. Bentley look at the question.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is the multiple definitions within AU; there is a need to make some definitions which may result in an AU which has more characteristics of residential so there is not the negative aspect; and people last time were fighting a downzoning to AU not because of the reduction in density but because the methodology of structures in AU are more lenient. Commissioner Higgs advised they were concerned about the uses. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Enos address that and provide a general memorandum. Commissioner Higgs stated the Comprehensive Plan talks about preservation of AU as a goal; and she does not want to get totally away from AU. Commissioner Scarborough stated he appreciates that, but there is also the issue of compatibility; AU within itself is developing incompatibilities; and if the Board is going to force people to use AU as residential development, it needs to give them some assurance that there is a category of AU that will preserve the residential character. Commissioner Higgs stated she is very concerned about creating urban sprawl parcel by parcel and the transition from AU to RR-1 is a significant step in the grand scheme of things. Chairman Carlson stated the Future Land Use map addresses where the County is going to preserve AU. Commissioner Scarborough reiterated the Board needs to have staff come back with a report.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to come back with information on the AU definition. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Comprehensive Plan in the area says there will be a maximum density of one unit per acre, but that does not mean it cannot be one unit per 2.5 acres.

Mr. Chapin commented on development of the Comprehensive Plan, other RR-1 parcels in the area, why there is lack of opposition to the rezoning, and why his parcel should have been approved as RR-1.

Item 18. (Z0011401) Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item 19. (Z0011402) Stephen M. Brewer's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.25± acres located on the south side of Martin Road, approximately 0.4 mile west of Fiske Boulevard, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Chairman Carlson advised she met with Stephen Brewer.

Stephen Brewer stated he owns a 1.25-acre tract on Martin Road that is presently zoned AU; and his request is for it to be rezoned to RR-1. He referred to a map; and stated his parcel fronts on Martin Road; there is an AU zoning on a one-acre parcel with a house; and there is RR-1, which was all one piece of property of approximately five acres. He stated the property was owned by Sally and Jimmy Fillman who got a divorce two or three years ago; in the divorce the property was divided as part of the settlement; the bottom part was awarded to Mr. Fillman who got it rezoned to RR-1; it backs up to Tuckaway Acres which is all EU-2; and Mrs. Fillman got the house and the one and a quarter acres which he has. He stated there was a mortgage on the house which was only for the one acre that the house was on; Mrs. Fillman did not make the payments and it was foreclosed, but all they could take back was the one-acre tract where the AU is; and the foreclosure created a problem although there was already a problem as it was not 2.5 acres. He stated Mrs. Fillman owed him money for representing her; he had a mortgage on the property and ended up taking it back; and since it is zoned AU, he is unable to do anything with it. He advised when he was present in February, 2000, Mr. and Mrs. Spinelli, who own the house where there is AU, came in and voiced objection, saying they wanted to buy the property; the Board denied his rezoning request and suggested he sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Spinelli; and outlined his unsuccessful attempts to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Spinelli. He stated he attempted to do what the Board asked him to do; he has a contract on the property now contingent on it being rezoned to RR-1; and everything around it except the property next door is either RR-1 or greater density. He noted when he was before the Board in February, 2000, it was represented that the individual who owned the three RR-1 tracts beside him was going to have them rezoned to AU, but in the last ten months, he has not done so. He stated across the street on Martin Road, it is RU-1-7; he wishes to rezone his property; and explained why he was unable to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting and sent a representative. He stated the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board was denial; RR-1 would be consistent with the majority of the area; and the Board already rezoned a portion of the property to RR-1.

Igor Chuyan stated he lives to the immediate east of the property Mr. Brewer owns; commented on the previous zoning meetings; and stated changing the zoning on the one lot will create more problems than it will solve. He advised of his reasons for moving to the area 12 years ago, development of Tuckaway Lake Estates, filling properties resulting in runoff to adjacent properties, and situation during recent rain events. He stated changing the zoning would set precedents and go against the wishes of those living on Martin Road; and advised of a petition submitted at February zoning meeting. He advised of previous denials of the rezoning; stated most of the properties, with the exception of Mr. Rogge's property, are zoned AU; and commented on the character of the neighborhood and desire for privacy.

Mary Chuyan stated she appreciates Mr. Brewer's plight; and commented on Mr. Brewer's desire to sell and the neighbor's desire to maintain the property as agricultural. She stated the zoning was changed illegally; the Planning and Zoning Board and Board of County Commissioners have admitted that; and as a result there is a problem with the property which they should all work together to resolve. She described her reasons for purchasing property in the area; and described the character of the area. She stated this was previously denied because some or all of the Commissioners have seen what the situation is.

Tom Rogge stated he is the owner of the three parcels that Mr. Brewer is using to justify changing his zoning; and he has not made application to rezone his property to agriculture; but he has paid his taxes for last year and this year, and has no intention of building anything on his front parcel or subdividing. He stated the change from AU was done prior to his moving to the property, and he does not know what the justification was; and commented on development in the area. He stated if he could fill out the paperwork to change his property to AU tonight, he would do so; he strongly desires the area to remain agricultural; and requested the change be based on the other properties. He stated Mr. Brewer explained how he got the property; he ended up with a piece of junk property that is zoned incorrectly; and recommended he sell the property for a reasonable price for agricultural use. He stated Mr. Brewer already has a contract to sell the property; his sole desire is to rezone, turn it into cash, and be done with it; but it should be sold as agricultural property and the neighborhood remain as it is.

Chairman Carlson inquired given the way the two lots were divided illegally in terms of zoning, is the Board legally bound to put zoning on it so that it is usable; with Ms. Bentley responding since it was illegally created, and not by the Board's action, the Board does not have a problem.

Commissioner O'Brien stated earlier he asked why a certain property was being rezoned administratively; and inquired if the property that is zoned RR-1 to the west of the subject property would be eligible for that kind of rezoning; with Mr. Enos responding only if the Board directed, it as staff would not initiate it.

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

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board directed staff to initiate administrative rezoning on the parcel the Board considered earlier. Ms. Busacca stated Chapter 163 requires that property be administratively rezoned to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; in those instances where the County has not yet done the administrative rezoning, when someone comes in with a development that would be consistent with the Plan, the Plan says that rather than holding up the development and requiring them to take the action to rezone, staff can initiate the rezoning; and that is the policy in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated when someone comes in with a site plan, staff moves forward to do that.

Discussion ensued on the earlier administrative rezoning and the RR-1 properties.

Item 20. (Z0011403) Cross Creek Homeowners Association of Brevard, Inc.'s request for change from PUD and RU-1-13 to EA on 9.392 acres located approximately 115 feet south of St. Andrews Boulevard, south of St. Andrews Isles and east of Sawgrass at Suntree, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board; AND 21. (Z0011404) A. Duda And Sons, Inc.'s request for change from PUD and RU-1-7 to RU-1-13 and removing the BDP in the RU-1-7 zoned area on 39.576± acres located at the southern terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a BDP limiting the property to 67 lots.

Chairman Carlson stated Items 20 and 21 will be considered together; the applicant is the same; and Mr. Torpy is representing both items. She requested Mr. Torpy explain the project and define the zoned area of EA.

Richard Torpy, representing the applicants, stated there are two separate zoning requests; it is an expired PUD involving approximately 39 acres total; there is an existing wetland to the southwest of the property; and pointed out St. Andrews Isles, St. Andrews Boulevard, existing Sawgrass development, and proposed project entitled Sawgrass South on the map. He stated the small portion to the southwest is an existing wetland; it is already protected lands; and they are just cleaning up the zoning by asking that it be put in the EA classification. He stated the remaining parcel is the subject of Item 21; they are asking for the expired PUD to be rezoned RU-1-13 for the housing project which has 65 lots; and they made a commitment to Planning and Zoning to have no more than 67 lots. He stated Sawgrass South starts immediately adjacent and to the south of the existing St. Andrews Isles; it is designed to be somewhat of a replacement product for St. Andrews Isles; St. Andrews Boulevard currently stops at the south boundary of what would have been the St. Andrews Isles property; and then there is nothing there. He stated in preparation for the project, they have met with Commissioner Carlson; and with her assistance, he sent out a letter to every property owner within 1,000 feet of the area; and pointed out on the map those property owners who were notified. He stated meetings were held prior to the Planning and Zoning meetings to allow the property owners to see the maps and talk about the projects; there were 20 to 25 people at each of the meetings; in addition they talked by telephone to approximately 15 or 20 other interested citizens; and after explaining the project, a great deal of pleasure was displayed for the project because it is consistent with what is going on in the area. He stated they will rely on the staff report for consistency, compatibility, and concurrency issues; and pointed out the proposed alignment of St. Andrews Boulevard. He stated they will only construct to the easternmost point that will be beyond the entrance to the subdivision; and advised of dedication of right-of-way to the County, and property, which they do not own. He stated there are 27 lots to the north; by Binding Development Agreement, the lots will be minimum of 80 by 130 feet, which is almost identical to the lots in St. Andrews Isles; the northern street is a cul-de-sac which comes off St. Andrews Boulevard and stops at the end; and there is another entrance at the second part. He stated the southern portion will be 37 lots; the lots will be 100 by 150 feet; and it will be more of an Oak Park type of subdivision. He advised of retention areas; stated they have agreed by Binding Development Agreement that the minimum house size will be 1,900 square feet; and that Agreement has been submitted to staff. He pointed out the 65th lot; stated it is not part of the subdivisions; and it will eventually be sold as a large estate lot.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Binding Development Plan is an attachment; with Mr. Torpy responding they can make it one. Timothy Jelus advised that would become the preliminary plat in a couple of months. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is more comfortable with it being an attachment; with Mr. Torpy responding it is not problem.

Commissioner Higgs advised of problems with people feeling that roads are coming in that they did not know about; and stated now there will be people in the new subdivision who thought they bought in a quiet area surrounded by wetlands and find out there is a road coming in. She inquired why go through this until the Board knows where the road is going. Mr. Torpy stated there has not been a final determination by the Board what the right-of-way will be through here; however, at some time there will need to be access through this area, and right-of-way will be dedicated. He stated the St. Andrews alignment has always been a controversial issue since the Pineda Extension has come up; and that is why they have gone to great lengths to notify the citizens of the project proposal. He inquired if the whole property should be put on hold while the County determines what the alignment might be. He stated the citizens were happy with the proposal; St. Andrews is a meandering street that maintains the residential flavor of the neighborhood; and the proposal maintains that quality rather than a straight alignment that would create a thoroughfare. He noted no one is present to comment this evening because the people were comfortable that they were getting a good plan that would slow down the traffic and maintain the sense of community. Commissioner Higgs stated she is more concerned about the people who are going into Sawgrass South who will not know about the road; and inquired how they will represent to the buyers the potential of the St. Andrews connection if it ever occurs.

Timothy Jelus stated the current right-of-way of St. Andrews Boulevard exists all the way to the south boundary of Sawgrass and St. Andrews Isles although the pavement ends approximately 50 feet south of the entrance of both subdivisions, so there is no resident who never contemplated the extension of St. Andrews Boulevard to access the property to the south.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how will they represent to the buyers the Pineda Extension and the road that might connect. Mr. Jelus stated the right-of-way is on record. Mr. Torpy stated the people will see a plat when they pick their lot, and will ask what will happen with the road; and their answer will be they do not know. He advised of additional developable land and inability to predict the future.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Torpy and Mr. Jelus are the developers of the homes. Mr. Jelus stated the northernmost cul-de-sac is in contract with Burgoon Berger Homes; and the southern cul-de-sac will be more of a retail type sale like Oak Park where people will buy their lots and have a custom home builder. Chairman Carlson stated the Board is looking for some sort of disclosure; with Mr. Jelus responding he has no problem with that.

Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Torpy said he does not know what to tell people because nothing has been determined; and that is an honest answer, but not a full answer. Mr. Jelus stated one thing that can be displayed on record is the St. Andrews Boulevard right-of-way; and he has no problem putting a concept of the future extension to the Pineda in the deed restrictions. He stated he does not mind disclosing that is a possibility, but he does not want to convey that it is reality.

Chairman Carlson inquired how that would be disclosed to the individual developers coming in; with Mr. Jelus responding it can be put in the deed restrictions that one day the St. Andrews Boulevard Extension may follow the alignment that is shown in Exhibit A and may connect to the Pineda Causeway that may connect to I-95. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the same thing could be disclosed about the Pineda on the south; with Mr. Jelus responding they can disclose that possibility. Mr. Torpy stated there has been no attempt to not disclose those potentials; and displayed the picture. Mr. Jelus stated they have been honest with the people in St. Andrews Isles and Suntree Estates. Chairman Carlson advised those are not the people who will be living there. Mr. Jelus stated they have no problem advising new customers of the potential possibility in the deed restrictions or some other form of public record. Chairman Carlson stated right now it is known that the right-of-way abuts the property. Mr. Jelus stated their assumption is that probably some day there will be a connection. Chairman Carlson recommended putting language in the Binding Development Plan that they will disclose it on the appropriate site plan or conceptual plan. Mr. Torpy stated Commissioner Scarborough has already asked if the picture would be made part of the Binding Development Agreement; and they have agreed to do so, and will put some language in it that will remain part of it. Chairman Carlson inquired how it will be translated to the buyer of the home. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Binding Development Agreement is recorded in the public record, the title examiner will pick it up and the property owner will be made aware of that.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the circle; with Mr. Torpy responding it is the eagle's nest. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board allows the subdivision to be platted as Mr. Torpy described it, it will have significantly limited any way onto St. Andrews Boulevard from the Pineda. Mr. Torpy stated that is not true; within the 400-foot radius, a passive use is allowed; and the road can be just as they have put it.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the eagle's nest is vacant; with Mr. Jelus advising it is an active eagle's nest; and the concept plan was presented to U.S. Fish and Wildlife which approved the location of the road corridor and the concept. Mr. Jelus stated everyone's intention was that the Pineda Extension would be a limited access highway; they have option contracts on the remaining parcels on the north side of the Pineda Extension; and the design team felt it was appropriate to have one cross intersection instead of a series of T-intersections. He stated that was the proposal on the alignment on the St. Andrews corridor, but it can be adjusted.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board agrees to that tonight, it is making decisions before it knows about the road; there are few options left; and this is a bad decision.

Chairman Carlson stated even though there might have to be some change in the alignment, it is on the southern end which is Grand Haven; the only feasible place for the Pineda Extension to go is right where it is at; so if there is proper disclosure and the developers let those people who are buying the Oak Park type homes know that they are going to be on a limited access highway, she does not have a problem with it. She stated in terms of St. Andrews, she does not have a clue as far as access, but knows the people in Suntree are adamantly opposed to a connection at this time although there may be some potential down the road to work it out. Commissioner Higgs reiterated this is a very bad decision. Chairman Carlson stated she does not see why it is a bad decision. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board made a decision in regard to the development as it comes on the west side of Wickham Road; it said the residents would be fully informed; and now there are 200 families there saying their homes are going to be ruined. Chairman Carlson stated she is not sure it is the same issue; with Commissioner Higgs advising it will be the same issue. Chairman Carlson stated it will not be the same if there is full disclosure and it is attached to the title.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that may not be the time to find out because by then someone would be closing on their home. Chairman Carlson stated it needs to be something prior to that. Mr. Torpy stated they have never done anything not to disclose this in meetings with citizens and future buyers; and suggested disclosure can be included in the binding development agreement, as part of the literature, or anything else the Board wishes, but having it recorded as part of the plat is the best guarantee that people will know. He noted there has been much publicity over the last 18 months about the proposed Pineda Extension and about St. Andrews so a lot of people already know about this; but they will disclose it to future buyers. Chairman Carlson stated it is difficult to disclose unless a sign is put up to advise buyers; and advised of a similar issue in Deer Park where the County required signage advising buyers of the future access to the Pineda Extension. She inquired if Mr. Torpy's clients would be willing to do something similar to notify buyers. Mr. Jelus stated it is pretty obvious when someone looks at the plat; they are required by law to show what the adjacent rights-of-way, boundaries and land uses are; on the south end of the project, it will say Pineda Causeway Extension; and they will be happy to include it in the deed restrictions which the buyers will get prior to closing on their lot as well as including it in the public record and depicting it pictorially on the plat.

Melissa Hoaglund, member of the Board of Directors of the Suntree Estates Homeowners Association, stated Mr. Torpy said the citizens in the area are happy with the alignment, but they are not; and the fact that no one is present to protest has as much to do with the lateness of the hour and length of the meeting as anything else. She stated she attended one of the briefings; the people felt what was planned for the development is in line with other things in the area; but their positive feelings about the development should not be taken to represent that they are pleased with any proposed extension of the St. Andrews connection, as significant opposition remains. She stated the Board is in receipt of letters from every homeowner in the Suntree Estates Homeowners Association voicing opposition to the connection. She stated Mr. Torpy has said it is a foregone conclusion that there has to be access via that roadway; commented on present access; and cautioned that the residents willingness to have the development out there should not be taken as a voice in favor of connecting or extending the roadway as that is a misrepresentation of the feelings of the people of the area.

Chairman Carlson stated there are still a lot of people against that connection; she does not see any time in the near future when the Board will consider that; and the real issue is making sure the people in the development have proper notification that Pineda is going to grow in their back yards. She commented on a similar situation in Windsor Estates, and notification in the proposed development.

Mr. Torpy noted in spite of Ms. Hoaglund's statement about the lateness of the hour, there were no speaker cards submitted from the beginning of the meeting. He stated they have met with the Suntree Homeowners; he never said they endorsed an extension of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension; but they were happy with the type of project they are putting in and the proposed alignment. He stated everything to the east is purely a concept subject to what the Board believes to be appropriate in the future. Mr. Torpy stated they will provide appropriate notification by attaching the notification to the deed restrictions, so before buyers close on their lots, they will have the notification.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the lots will be sold to individual builders; with Mr. Torpy responding the top section is currently under contract with one builder. Commissioner Higgs inquired if individuals buy the lot, and then contract for the house; with Mr. Torpy advising it will be up to the builder. Commissioner Higgs stated it could be all done and the house built, and then they get the disclosure; with Mr. Torpy responding it could not. Mr. Torpy advised at the time they sign a contract to buy that, they will be provided a copy of the deed restrictions; and by Florida law, they have the right to reject the contract if they do not like the restrictions. Chairman Carlson inquired about model homes; with Mr. Torpy responding it would be the same as the buyer would get the deed restrictions when they sign the contract, and can reject before closing if they do not like what they read.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board can not allow the proposed road; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know why the road extension is on the plat at this time. Mr. Enos stated the action the Board will take tonight has nothing to do with that extension; and the Board is considering the zoning only on the subdivision portion. Mr. Torpy stated they could have prepared it without it, but did it this way to provide disclosure of what might happen; and pointed out the relevant portion of the plat. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Torpy's client owns the property for the road extension; with Mr. Torpy responding no, it is still owned by A. Duda & Sons; and one portion is currently under construction as part of Grand Haven, and the remainder is owned by Pineda Partners.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board would feel better if it has the applicant redo the plat to get rid of the road.

Commissioner Higgs reiterated it is a bad idea to approve this at this time. She stated the Board will know within six to nine months about the Pineda Extension; and if the Board approves the item tonight, it is locking itself into some things.

Chairman Carlson suggested tabling the issue for six months to see if there can be some resolution on the Pineda Extension route.

Mr. Torpy inquired if the Board is imposing a moratorium on development on the land; stated there has been no disclosure of that; and they are trying to move forward with development of privately-owned lands. He stated the project and the discussion of the alignment of the roads has been going on for years; and there is nothing to guarantee it will be done in six months. He stated the Board would still have complete control over whether St. Andrews is ever connected; but to have them wait is in fact a moratorium on their land.

Chairman Carlson inquired about the amount of time the Board can defer an issue. Ms. Bentley stated it would be okay to table for a month or two, but it would not be appropriate to table it until all the problems of the Pineda alignment are resolved. She stated the Board needs to look at the land use questions and base its decision on that; and if the Board has land use questions about traffic circulation and that sort of thing, it might be a reason to send it to staff for further study and input.

Chairman Carlson stated she would prefer to approve with the binding development plan and the inclusion of appropriate verbiage in the binding development plan regarding the Pineda Extension, but it probably needs to be tabled for at least a month. She stated it can be brought back on February 1, and the Board will have the binding development plan.

Mr. Torpy requested clarification; stated they have a binding development plan; it will only involve adding one sentence; and it is not like last time when they had to develop it. Chairman Carlson stated she would like to see it. Mr. Torpy stated if he understands correctly what the Board is looking for is verbiage that there will be disclosure of the proposed Pineda Extension to the south of the subject property; with Chairman Carlson responding that is correct. Mr. Torpy inquired if that can be done this evening. Chairman Carlson stated she would be more comfortable with an extra month.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is by law that the Board is not supposed to consider the impact on schools. Chairman Carlson stated that is school concurrency; and the County does not have that.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to get a report from staff on the school concurrency issue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board tabled the Oleander Power Plant item for a number of months while it developed a criteria in terms of performance zoning; and inquired why can these items not be tabled for six months until the Board understands the transportation network in the area. Ms. Bentley advised in the case of Oleander, the Board had adopted a moratorium. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long before the Board gets the Pineda report; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding approximately five months. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is too long; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it is too long. Commissioner O'Brien suggested it be tabled to February; and at that time the Board can make a better educated decision.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 21 to February 1, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 20 to February 1, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. (Z0011405) Post & Wickham Corporation's request for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zone on 31.103 acres located on the northwest corner of Post and Wickham Roads, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Run Jin Guo stated she opened a restaurant on Wickham Road, and requires a license for beer and wine.

Chairman Carlson inquired if this is the only CUP for alcoholic beverages in Post Commons Plaza; with Mr. Enos responding yes, it is the only one that has been requested. Chairman Carlson recommended a motion for approval limited to only Unit 106.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 22 limited to Unit 106. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. (Z0011406) Floyd D. and Patricia M. Ellsworth's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (00S.4) to change land use designation from Residential to Mixed Use District; AND change from AU to BU-2, retaining the existing CUP for a Security Trailer, and removing the existing CUP for a Borrow Pit on 9.93 acres located on the north side of Pluckebaum Road, approximately 1.4 miles east of Range Road, which was tabled earlier in the meeting to February 1, 2001 Board meeting.

Item 24. (Z0011501) John M. Colby's request for change from RU-2-10 and BU-1-A to all BU-1-A on 0.39 acre located on the northwest corner of Coconut Drive and Highway A1A, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board contingent upon parking requirements being met.

Father David Conway stated the building in question is at the corner of Coconut Drive and Highway A1A; and it was constructed as a commercial building. He stated to the south of the building on the other side of Coconut Drive is a commercial property; to the east of the building is a conditional designation for a parking area for the building; and there was a commercial designation to the north, but that property has been sold. He stated the building was built to be an office building; it has never had a resident; but it is zoned residential. He stated they are seeking a rezoning to commercial; and if the Board desires, he can tell it what it plans to do with the building.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 24, contingent upon meeting the parking requirements as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Father Conway stated the Planning and Zoning Board felt it could recommend approval of the rezoning because he could not get any permits to do anything until the parking is corrected; the parking will be corrected by the developer; and what the developer will do is provide the property on Lot 13, which is east of the site, to provide the appropriate number of parking spots.

Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion.

Chairman Carlson called for the vote on the motion to approve contingent upon the parking requirements as set out by the P&Z recommendation.

Father Conway stated that was not the case; the P&Z Board recommended the zoning because he could not get any permits unless the proper amount of parking was there; but to recommend the zoning conditional upon the parking becomes problematic in that right now it is residentially zoned. He stated he is looking to get the site rezoned to business; and if he wants to do anything with it as a business, then he has to have adequate parking.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Father Conway wants BU-1-A; with Chairman Carlson advising the request is for BU-1-A. Commissioner O'Brien inquired because it stands alone, should there be any further restrictions, and does anyone want a 7-Eleven there ten years from now. Father Conway stated the other side of the street to the north is zoned for that sort of thing. Commissioner O'Brien stated they have plans for the building now, but they may not work out, and the building would still be BU-1-A. Commissioner Colon stated it is commercial now. Commissioner Higgs stated the building could be torn down. Chairman Carlson stated if it was torn down, a gas station could be put up. Father Conway stated at the corner of A1A, on that size lot, if it was torn down, another commercial building would be put up because no one would live there.

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

Item 25. (Z0011502) Larry R. McGuire's request for change from AU to BU-1 on 2.41 acres, located on the west side of Minton Road, approximately 600 feet north of Palm Bay Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated she met with Mr. Nohrr who explained the project; and she also met with Dan Van Slyke and Jeff Darby, who are residents on Hield Road. She stated Mr. Van Slyke and Mr. Darby objected to the project, and Mr. Nohrr was in favor of the project. Commissioner O'Brien stated he spoke to Larry McGuire. Commissioner Colon stated she spoke with Dan Van Slyke, Larry McGuire, and Ann Plew.

Philip Nohrr, representing the owner and applicant, stated the property is located on Minton Road, north of Palm Bay on the west side; and pointed out the property, the surrounding roads, the BU-1 property to the south, and the RP property to the north. He stated the subject property is in a Mixed Use designation, and can qualify for commercial zoning. He pointed out on the map all the property owners who do not oppose the zoning request. He stated to the south of Palm Bay Road in the City of Palm Bay for approximately 850 to 1,000 feet, it is zoned CC, which is a commercial designation; and on the east side of Minton Road, that is under the jurisdiction of West Melbourne, is a new shopping center on C-1 property. He stated the Board will hear from some people from Hield Road who are in opposition; and the closest property that objects to what they want to do is approximately 500 feet from the corner. He stated to the south there are 650 feet of unrestricted BU-1 zoning; the Comprehensive Plan designates the Mixed Use District to end approximately 50 feet to the north of the subject property's north property line; and that indicates that north of that line, commercial should not be considered, but south of that line, the Board would consider commercial. He stated none of the abutting property owners object to their request although some people on Hield Road object. He stated part of the problem is they may not have the credibility he wishes they had with the people on Hield Road; there seems to be concern that their parcel is a stalking horse for the larger parcel; at one point Mr. McGuire had an option on the larger property, but no longer does; and any action on the parcel tonight is not intended to be a precedent to allow development on the EU-1 property. He stated he has made an offer tonight, which was not accepted, to take the westernmost 50 feet and not rezone it, keeping it in AU; and they do not have claim to do anything with the large parcel and have no legal, equitable or other interest in the Lafferty Farm property.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Nohrr is saying there is a commitment from Mr. McGuire; it is a matter of credibility and trust; and based on the history, the community cannot be blamed. She stated Mr. Nohrr wants to work with the community; she also shares the community's concern; and inquired if it is possible to table the item for 60 days to get feedback from staff. She stated she has heard talk regarding the BU-1-A and its limitations; and if it is tabled for 60 days, that will give an opportunity for staff to work on that. She requested staff elaborate on BU-1-A. Mr. Enos stated BU-1-A will permit neighborhood retail oriented uses; it is not as extensive a list as BU-1, and does not allow an adult day care center; however the first hearing will be next week for an ordinance which, if approved, would allow a conditional use permit for an adult or child day care center in BU-1-A, and the second hearing will be in February. Commissioner Colon stated she would like to hear from the remaining speakers.

Mr. Nohrr stated Ms. Plew is present tonight; staff has already laid out the problem they have; they want to put an adult day care center in there; it is a permissible use under BU-1, but is not a permissible or conditional use under BU-1-A; so at this time, BU-1-A does not do them any good. He stated he understands that may change; but if it does, he would have to go back through the conditional use process; and they have leases signed and are ready to put in the center now. Mr. Enos stated another alternative is to temporarily approve BU-1 with use limited to the day care center; and then later, if the Board amends BU-1-A, it could initiate an administrative rezoning to BU-1-A, if the goal is to keep it at BU-1-A.

Commissioner Colon stated her concern is to make sure that both parties are willing to make a compromise; and commented on the history of the property. She stated the Hield Road community does not oppose the senior care center; the history of the land, not Mr. McGuire, is where the question of credibility comes from; and commented on the domino effect.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the BU-1 with restrictions is something Mr. Nohrr would be willing to consider; with Mr. Nohrr responding he would like to confer with his client, because when he came tonight, it was not an option on his list.

Dan Van Slyke stated they have been trying to protect the Hield Road neighborhood from creeping commercialism; they do not oppose the adult day care center; however, they do oppose the zoning that is required for it; so they were going to suggest approval of the zoning with limited use. He stated Mr. Nohrr said the owners of the property shown on the map in yellow approved the zoning, but he talked to several of those people and they were under the impression they were approving the day care center, not the zoning. He requested the Board approve the BU-1 with limited use; and noted they also do not have any objection to BU-1-A.

Jeff Darby concurred with Mr. Van Slyke.

George Schneider stated most of the zoning on Hield Road north of the subject property is residential professional; and commented on the businesses in the area. He expressed concern about commercial, need for a buffer, and what will happen to the property if the day care center does not work out.

John Lee stated the Board has assured them in the past that it would not allow commercialism to creep in; and credibility is a problem.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if BU-1-A or BU-1 with a specific use would be okay; with Mr. Lee responding he is not sure he agrees with that. Mr. Lee stated the adult day care center would be right on a four-lane road; and commented on dangers to Alzheimer's patients.

James Sondey pointed out his property on the map; and advised of problems he has experienced with commercial properties, including noise, traffic, and removal of buffers. He stated the Board promised them that the Mixed Use would go no further than residential professional; and that is what he would like to see. He advised of speculators coming in trying to make money off the property at the expense of the community, traffic problems, and probability the adult day care center will fail. He stated he is not against having the elderly people there, but is against the zoning change; they were promised residential professional, and that is what it should be; and commented on other people having agreements and lack of trust.

Mr. Nohrr stated he does not know about any deal for RP; and there is certainly nothing on the public record. He stated he has spoken to Mr. McGuire; and they will agree to BU-1 limited to an adult care center. He noted the Property Appraiser is taxing the property as though it is still a day care center; and as far as Alzheimer's patients, Senior Care believes this is a proper location.

Commissioner Colon stated there is a great need in the community for a senior care center; and thanked Mr. McGuire for working to come to a compromise.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 25 as BU-1 with specific use as adult day care facility. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. (Z0010502) The County Line of Brevard, Inc.'s request for change from TU-2 to BU-1 with a CUP for Permanent Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises and retaining the existing CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption on 2.71 acres located on the northeast corner of I-95 and U.S. 192, which was recommended to be tabled to January 8, 2001 Planning and Zoning meeting. (Tabled earlier in the meeting.)

Item 27. (Z0010105) Annika Martin's request for change from GU to ARR on 1.26 acres located on the south side of Desert Sands Avenue, approximately 0.34 mile east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION OF
NOVEMBER 6, 2000 AND ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM CPO DEVELOPMENT,
INC. FOR PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS IN FRANK J. KRAJIC SUBDIVISION (INDIAN
HARBOUR BEACH AREA)

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its November 6, 2000 meeting and acceptance of easement from CPO Development, Inc. for public beach access in Frank J. Krajic Subdivision, as follows:

Item 28. (Z9910502) CPO Development, Inc.'s request for a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Building Height (60.06 feet total height) in an RU-2-15 zone on 2.10 acres located on the east side of SR A1A, approximately 90 feet north of Atlantic Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Attorney Ken Crooks, representing the applicant, stated this is the case Commissioner Higgs mentioned earlier; and inquired if all Commissioners had a chance to review the court's opinion. He advised the record from the case has previously been submitted to the Clerk; after the court's decision, the item was placed back on the agenda for the Board's appropriate action; and the court did not give the Board much, if any, discretion. He stated the court set forth the criteria for the approval of a CUP indicating the applicant had satisfied the criteria; the court decision specifically stated if satisfaction of the criteria was shown, the Board must grant the CUP unless the County could show by competent substantial evidence that the approval of the CUP would be adverse to the public interest; and the court found that the County failed to do so. He requested approval of the CUP.

Chairman Carlson stated Mr. Enos recommended considering Item IIIA, dedication of a 20-foot public access easement for beach access, which applies to this issue; with Mr. Enos advising they should be considered at the same time. Mr. Crooks stated they have approved the 20-foot public access as part of the application.

Commissioner Colon stated she is not supporting the approval. Chairman Carlson stated it is unfortunate that this did go through the court, and it was sent back to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 28 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners O'Brien and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how Commissioners Colon and O'Brien could vote against the motion when the court ruled against the County, and what would they prefer to do. Commissioner O'Brien responded the public does not want buildings over 45 feet tall. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants to appeal the decision; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he never voted for an increase in height on the beaches. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner O'Brien wants to change the Ordinance; with Chairman Carlson agreeing the Code should be changed.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to draft changes in the Ordinance consistent with a 45-foot maximum height. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept Easement from CPO Development, Inc. for public beach access in Frank J. Krajic Subdivision (Indian Harbour Beach Area). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, DIVISION 4, SUBDIVISION V, SECTIONS 62-1461
THROUGH 62-1670, ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Article VI, Division 4, Subdivision V, Sections 62-1461 through 62-1670, establishing residential planned unit development (RPUD). She stated this is the second reading of the ordinance; staff has a couple of changes that were requested; and there were recommendations to include memorandums from August 24 and November 20, 2000.

Commissioner O'Brien stated on page 16, paragraph 3(a), the setback has been changed to ten feet; and he feels strongly it should be 20 feet.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to change the setback on page 16, paragraph 3(a) to 20 feet. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated the changes are contained in the memorandums which are included in the Board package; one represents a change from the Local Planning Agency; and the other is a citizen memorandum which staff supports.

Senior Planner Alan Woolwich stated there were two items that were requested to be changed by staff and included in the ordinance; and those were related to the items on pages 12 and 15. He stated the items of concern were the minimum size requirements of a RPUD; there was concern about evaluating compatibility on a smaller size RPUD between seven and 15 acres; and they have placed language in the ordinance that requires the applicant to submit an RPUD development plan with the zoning change application so the impacts and compatibility issues can be evaluated with the smaller projects. He stated the second change, on page 15, is related to the use of 4,000-square foot lots; there was a concern about compatibility issues; and RPUD's that request the use of lots smaller than 5,000 square feet and with a width less than 50 feet will also be required to submit an RPUD development plan so the impacts and compatibility issues can be evaluated by the Board at the time of the zoning change request.

Chairman Carlson stated there was a question about 3.a and 3.b on page 10; there was discussion about duplication and a guide that staff was going to publish; and requested staff go over that. Mr. Woolwich stated concerns were raised at the last hearing about simplifying the open space management requirements; staff did not directly change that; but items 3.a and 3.b on page 10 could be removed to make the ordinance simpler, and staff could provide guidelines and recommendations to applicants for the use of those types of concepts. He stated it is not mandatory that those prescriptive requirements be included in the ordinance, and it would still be functional with the removal of those items.

Chairman Carlson called for a motion including the recommendations of the two memorandums and deletion of Items 3.a and 3.b.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 72, "Land Development Regulations", Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division 4, Subdivision V; by including Section titles for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and Residential Planned Unit Developments (RPUD), creating a zoning classification for Residential Planned Unit Developments (RPUD); Section 62-1461 definitions and rules of construction; Section 62-1462 purpose and intent, detailing (RPUD) concept and purpose; Section 62-1463 rezoning and permitted uses, detailing rezoning process; Section 62-1464 conditional uses, detailing the application process; Section 62-1465 maintenance and operation of common facilities and common open space, detailing requirements for maintenance and legal methods of maintaining open space; Section 62-1466 land use regulations, providing neighborhood design and density criteria; Section 62-1467 approval of (RPUD) Development Plan; Section 62-1468 administrative filing of final engineered (RPUD) development plan; site plans; Section 62-1469 review of physical layout and amenities; Section 62-1470 termination of RPUD zone; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, as amended to include recommendations of memorandums dated August 24 and November 20, 2000, and to delete items 3.a and 3.b.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a qualifier that says people who build and use the zoning also must have a homeowners association that runs this kind of development. Mr. Woolwich stated there are three options; the developer can retain the open space, an association can maintain the open space, and the County may incorporate it into the Greenways and Trails Master Plan; and those concepts are consistent with the surrounding counties and communities. He stated for approximately 90% of the PUD's, the open space is managed by an association. Commissioner O'Brien stated his concern is future urban blight because the structures are close; and if there is no association, there would be no one in charge to prevent blight.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there are provisions that if an area were designed like an RPUD and there was significant open space, to deed the open space to the County; with Mr. Woolwich responding that option is available.

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

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m.

___________________________________
ATTEST: SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_________________________
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )