April 28, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on April 28, 2005, at 5:35 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones.

The Invocation was given by Gary Stebans of New Covenant Fellowship.

Commissioner Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: IMPACT FEES

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised on Tuesday the Board discussed the update of the transportation impact fee and declined to move forward with that at this time; however, at the same time, the Board talked to staff about updating and expanding the criminal justice impact fee. She inquired is the Board still interested in staff moving forward with that or should it let the consultant know it is not interested in that either. She stated it was discussed at the jail workshops that additional money could be generated from an impact fee that would actually help pay for court additions; it is a criminal justice impact fee rather than simply limited to the jail; and the Board directed the consultant to go forward with the consideration of expanding that impact fee. She stated based on the discussion on Thursday, she would like to know if it is still interested in doing that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is going to be some impacts with the jail, so he is interested in it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are three votes for it. Chairman Pritchard stated he is interested in hearing what the consultant has to say. Commissioner Carlson stated she has no problem as long as the Board is doing it with some hope that it might be passing it; and if it is not, then why bother if there are three folks who are not interested.

Commissioner Colon stated she is glad Commissioner Carlson made that statement for the simple fact that it is what she was mentioning on Tuesday; there is no sense in any reports coming back to the Board if there is not at least support; and she does not have a problem supporting it, but wants to make sure when the numbers come back it is not something that all five Commissioners will be scared of. She stated she feels there is a need for the report.

Chairman Pritchard stated he is not afraid of what the consultant may say; and would like to hear what he has to say as to what the impact is going to be and how the money is going to be used. He stated in the same regard, he also wants to know what the cities are not contributing toward the various fees that the County currently has in place; and he does not have a problem with the consultant finding out what the fee structure is regarding operation of the jail. Chairman Pritchard stated that is where he is at this time and does not consider the money wasted to fact find.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants the Board to keep along those lines of making sure from now on if there is consensus to move forward with something that at least they find out if there is support before they send it to staff. She stated if the Board gives that direction, it is going to feel pretty good about the things that are going to come before it versus turning it into a controversy and not having interest from the majority of the Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated he cannot put himself in the position of saying at this point that he is going to support something later without knowing what all the facts are that take him to that decision. He stated he needs to know all the facts in the decision-making process; and that is like asking him now if he is going to support the budget for next year without knowing what all the facts are that make up the budget.

Commissioner Colon stated had the Board had a direct question about the transportation impact fee and had it known that there were Commissioners that were adamant about not supporting it, at that point it needed to be vocal. She stated if a Commissioner wants that kind of information but does not have the support, then the Board should not waste staff’s time on a report.

Chairman Pritchard stated that is fine, and he appreciates it.

REPORT, RE: INJUNCTION AGAINST HAROLD MORRISON

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones apologized for the short notice on this issue; and stated on January 11, 2005, the Board authorized the County Attorney’s Office to seek an injunction against Harold Morrison for the condition of his property at 520 Orange Grove Avenue; and since that time, the neighbor, Richard Kirschner, purchased the property and cleaned it up. She stated how Mr. Kirschner purchased the property was by taking a home equity loan out on his own house and purchased it with cash because there was a lien of $13,585 on it; he did it because he is a neighbor and was tired of looking at it, and it does take a long time for an injunction process. She stated the last time they executed an injunction against somebody, it cost the County $9,000 to clean up the property; if Mr. Kirschner goes through the Special Magistrate process, he will have to wait until July to come before the Board and ask for a reduction of the lien; and it will be a great hardship on him due to the financing of how he purchased the property.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to waive the lien of $13,585 placed on property at 520 Orange Grove Avenue, previously owned by Harold Morrison for violation of the Code, as the property was purchased by Richard Kirschner who cleaned it up.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how much was the lien; with Ms. Jones responding $13,585, and the cost had already been paid on the case. Commissioner Scarborough stated anytime a neighbor feels so strongly as to take a loan out on his house to take care of a problem, the Board should be on his side.

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

Ms. Jones requested the Board also rescind the injunction action on the property at 520 Orange Grove Avenue.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to rescind injunction action on property located at 520 Orange Grove Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: ACQUISITION OF INDIAN MOUND

Commissioner Scarborough stated he received a couple of phone calls about Indian Mound off Holder Road that was going to be acquired because it was also environmental lands; and since it has come before the Board, he would like to request a report on the status of the acquisition, and ask that staff move expeditiously with the acquisition and report to the Board on how that is proceeding.

Chairman Pritchard stated he heard the development community has their eyes on the parcel; and they may be holding off because they heard the County also had its eyes on the parcel; so time is of the essence.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to provide a status report on the acquisition of the Indian Mound property off Holder Road, and that they move expeditiously with the acquisition and report to the Board on how it is proceeding. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: SNIPE SIGNS

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has a strong sign Ordinance but it is not enforced very well; and Wickham Road has gotten littered with snipe signs; she received several phone calls about folks plopping signs out there, not just one, but 30, 40, or 50 of them; and because they are not being picked up by Code Enforcement to send a message that the County is not going to deal with snipe signs, they continue to do it and others add to it. She stated she would like to have some action by Code Enforcement to go out there and start picking the signs up at least on the north Wickham Road corridor from Suntree Boulevard all the way up, which seems to be where they are littered. She stated she received an email saying they complained five different times aside from what they asked her to do; Suntree Boulevard, Pinehurst, Wickham Plaza, Pineda Causeway, Grand Haven, Pineda Crossing, Summer Brook, and Parkway, they are constantly littering the highways; they do not take out permits and are just snipe signs; and they are throwing them out there and hoping to get some business from them. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board had long discussions about this issue several times; she would like to see enforcement to send a positive message that they cannot just keep throwing that stuff out there; and people cannot see the real signs because of the snipe signs.

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised staff is proactive in sign enforcement; however, they only have two people who do signs for the entire County; so it is a challenge, but they will focus their forces on that area for the time being.

Commissioner Carlson stated if they send a positive message it may stop them for awhile; it is a hardship for staff to do that; but it gets to be a real eyesore; and if they have to deal with the visual pollution, people will have a hard time finding where they want to go.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if any County employee can remove those signs; with Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen responding he would think so if they enforce Codes; but he would caution that they might pick up the wrong signs; so he will get with the sign people and discuss it with them. Commissioner Carlson stated the signs that have been questioned are from coastal Screens, but it is not the only one. Mr. Bowen stated they know the difference and will get with his employees. Chairman Pritchard stated he wonders if all County employees who wander the roadways can pick up those signs that say weight loss, we will buy your home for cash, will work for cigarettes, etc. Commissioner Carlson stated anyone should feel fee to pick up those signs and trash them because they are illegal; and in fact there is a resident out there who wants to pick them up, but does not know if it is legal or not. Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated if it is on their property, they can be there; but residents do not know where the right-of-way ends and the property line begins. Commissioner Carlson stated if County employees want to do it, it would be nice to help Mr. Bowen and his staff. Ms. Busacca stated the signs are enforced by Permitting and Enforcement not Code Enforcement; they also have Roadways and Landscaping personnel doing it; so she will ask them to make special efforts on Wickham Road. Mr. Bowen stated he will be happy to assist.

REPORT, RE: SMALL AREA STUDIES

Chairman Pritchard advised the County is doing small area studies; they just began one for the north North Tropical Trail area; he calls it that because it is north of the Barge Canal; and they have five members appointed, but he wants to appoint an alternate just in case they need one. He requested George Ogle be appointed as an alternate as he owns several acres in the vicinity of the study area.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to appoint George Ogle as an alternate to the North North Tropical Trail Small Area Plan Study Committee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: FLORIDA TODAY EDITORIAL

Chairman Pritchard stated he read the newspaper this morning, Commissioner Colon’s and his favorite newspaper; and he loved the way the Editorial part of the newspaper cannot even get right what the news part of the paper writes about. He stated he wants to commend Jeff Schweers because he wrote the article, which was very clear and understanding, yet the Editorial page cannot even write accurately what Mr. Schweers reported; and they love to use great words like “caving in”, “dumping”, and whatever regarding what he considers fact finding; and they are talking about the local option gas tax. He stated they say he is claiming the tax will not appear at the pump, which is not what he said; what he said was his understanding is it does not appear at the pump; and there is a big difference between will not and does not appear. He stated if that is true, then he would consider it; so there is a lot of difference between what he said and what the paper tends to put in its Editorial page. He stated the paper also said he is blocking a solution that did not involve increasing taxes; he is not aware of one; and the paper came before the Value Adjustment Board twice asking for reduction in its taxes, but he did not see where they ever seem to get things correct unless they are just trying to infuse the public with their version of whatever it is. He stated he received a lot of emails on the item; and the majority was “can you believe what these people write?” He stated he can believe it because they are in the business of writing their version or whatever it is they seem to think is correct; and those who know the difference between right and wrong can certainly pick out the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

Commissioner Colon stated the paper did an Editorial regarding the Pope, so if the Pope is not off limits to Florida TODAY, who do the Commissioners think they are not to be off limits; the Editorial regarding the Pope was uncalled for; so that puts it in perspective that nothing is off limits. She stated she hopes residents would read the article where the facts are given and see that it is totally opposite in the Editorial; she does not mind if they deal with the facts; but it is almost like they were not reading what the reporter wrote.

Chairman Pritchard stated to set the record straight, he has been doing a lot of fact finding regarding the local option gas tax and has a couple of meetings this weekend and Monday to find out a lot of important things about how it comes about and where it is spent and how it appears at the pump. He stated Georgia does not seem to have much of a tax on gas; that is always the analogy why gas is so much cheaper in Georgia; and that is because it has a 7% State income tax. He stated why when they start reading the paragraphs that explain why Florida has tax upon tax upon tax, it is because they do not have a State income tax; so there is always some other way to skin the cat.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, SECTION 62-2117,
PARKING, LOCATING, AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, EQUIP-
MENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, MOTOR VEHICLES,
AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES FOR SALE (FINAL READING)

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Section 62-2117, relating to parking, locating, and storage of recreational vehicles, equipment, commercial vehicles, heavy equipment, motor vehicles, and recreational vehicles for sale.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would help if Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen could go through the matrix, then take the people’s comments. Chairman Pritchard stated he will start with the County Attorney who will tell the Board how it got to where it is.

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones advised the process started in the County Attorney’s conference room over a year ago; a gentleman who is a plumber on Merritt Island wanted to have a meeting with Commissioner Pritchard, Mr. Bowen, and her who has the great privilege of enforcing the County Codes and has been doing that for over five years; and the gentleman wanted to know why in one section of the Code it seems to exclude his cargo van with a small sign of the name of his plumbing company and license number. She stated he wanted to know why it was excluded in one section and brought back in another section and he was confused about how to comply with the Code; so Mr. Bowen and she decided to take the opportunity to vent their frustrations with the Code because they are the enforcement mechanism and usually do not write codes but enforce them; and they did vent. She stated there are sections in the Code where they can park boats in their driveways; however, they cannot expand their driveways five feet on either side to allow access to their garages; they have to have their boats parked directly in front of their garages; and she felt silly prosecuting that, but that is how the Code was written. She noted sometimes people who write the Code do not think of how it is actually enforced; and they try to be as clear as possible, but at times it is not practical. Ms. Jones stated if a person has a Ford 150, he can park it and have as much advertising on it as they want; it does not have anything to do with use; but if he has a Ford 250 and it is purely for personal use to tow a boat etc., he could not have the Ford 250 parked in his driveway because it is based on the manufacturer’s designation of what kind of vehicle it is. She stated staff is basically stuck with the marketing of Ford that calls it a commercial vehicle; and it is a commercial vehicle under the Code instead of what it is actually being used for. She stated another section of the Code allows people to have boats and recreational vehicles visible in their front yards in their driveways; but a boat trailer is considered a second vehicle; so they must have either their boat or boat trailer but cannot have the boat on the trailer in the current Code. Ms. Jones stated another issue in the Code is BU-1 property; most of the strip malls are BU-1 property; so if they have a floral shop, they cannot park their van at the floral shop to deliver flowers under the Code; and they cannot park it at their house either, requiring them to find a third location to store their floral shop small cargo van. She stated they discussed it many times; the legislative intent was created; and the Board discussed how it wanted those issues to go one way or another. She stated the Code got into this condition because it was amended so many times; in trying to fix all the problems, it was not possible to save the language; so she threw it out and drafted a new ordinance based on the comments of the Board at the many meetings they had on this issue. She stated that is how they got here today; and Mr. Bowen will explain the matrix.

Code Enforcement Director Bobby Bowen stated there are copies of the matrix in the back of the room that he will be talking from tonight and discussing the many options that the Board may consider; and in addition, Mr. Bober will show the matrix on the screen behind the Board as well as the television screen for the public to view. Mr. Bowen stated he will try to put some of the information Ms. Jones provided in the proper perspective as they go through the matrix so they do not get confused. He stated #1 is the purpose for amending the Section of the Code to provide a definition for driveway expansion that would allow an area other than the main driveway or front yard for parking, locating, or storage of recreational vehicles and equipment. He stated the current Code allows the homeowner to park recreational vehicles and equipment in front of the residence if located on the driveway; in doing so, access to the garage or carport for motor vehicles is limited; and the driveway expansion will provide an alternate stabilized area for recreational vehicles or equipment to be parked on. He stated the change will benefit all property owners; there is no current code for driveway expansion; and staff is proposing language to allow for expansion. He stated the LPA agreed with the expansion.

Mr. Bowen advised #2 deals with definitions, adding pickup trucks, passenger vans, cargo vans, and box trucks; the current Code’s definition for commercial vehicles and heavy equipment exempts pickup trucks and vans less than 24 feet in length; however, within the Code further language places restrictions on those vehicles that are not stated in the definition. He stated there appears to be a conflict; and the confusion is further compounded by a zoning interpretation that if a pickup truck and van, by manufacturer’s design is commercial, even if the vehicle is not being used for commercial business, it is not permitted to be parked in residential zoning. He stated Ms. Jones gave an example of the Ford F-150, F-250, and F-350; by manufacturer’s design, the F-250 and F-350 are commercial vehicles even though a person may not be using it for a business; so the new Code addresses uses and not manufacturer’s design. He stated staff felt there was a need to provide definitions in the Code for pickup trucks, passenger vans, and cargo vans less than 24 feet in length to further distinguish their uses and limitations as it relates to parking, locating, and storage in residential zoning classifications; all pickup trucks that are less than 24 feet in length are included in the definition regardless of their payload; and the change will eliminate confusion in the terms and provide continuity in the Code. He stated the term box truck is not in the definition for Section 62-2117; box truck was added to the Code to identify it as a commercial vehicle; and that was a housekeeping change to include box truck because it was not in the Code.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if a big box truck for Appliance Direct can be parked in a driveway; with Mr. Bowen responding no because it is more than 24 feet in length and cannot be parked in residential zoning classifications at all even if the Board changes the Code. Commissioner Voltz inquired if no box trucks are allowed in residential areas; with Mr. Bowen responding that is correct and that is why they wanted to put box trucks in there. He stated the LPA said yes, but add definition of a structure; and there is already a definition of structure in the Building Code, so it was not necessary to add that definition.

Mr. Bowen stated #3 relates to trailers; the change in the Code will prohibit empty recreational trailers to be parked in open view in residential zoning classifications; therefore, recreational equipment, i.e. boats, ATV’s, etc., parked in front of a residence must be parked on a trailer. He stated currently they are counted as two separate units; a boat is one and a trailer is another; they are putting them together and saying they are one unit; and it makes good sense that they go together. He stated the absence of the boat that may be at the marina does not allow the empty trailer to sit in the front of a residence in open view; and they have to move it to the rear of the residence.

Ms. Jones stated one of the few cases they lost had to do with an open flatbed trailer; it was not a pretty sight; but recreational trailers and commercial trailers are treated differently; there is no real good definition; and what happened was the responder came to the hearing and said he put his ATV’s on the trailer. She stated the ATV’s were not on the trailer; there was no way to show that they were on the trailer; but unfortunately the special magistrate said they say it is an ATV trailer, therefore it is allowed to be visible. She stated it is still the same ugly commercial trailer, and that is why it was put in the Code; and if the Board wants an exception for boat trailers, it can do that, but she would not recommend going further than that.

Mr. Bowen stated what they did on the matrix is consolidate the trailers into one section; they were scattered throughout the Code; and they took the attitude on trailers as they did on pickup trucks of less than 24 feet and got away from trying to identify a utility trailer, a box trailer, etc. because it got really confusing. He stated they said if it is towed on the back of a motor vehicle, it is a trailer; and if it is a pickup truck under 24 feet, regardless of whether it is an F-150, F-250, or F-350, it is a pickup truck. He stated they are trying to clean it up a little and make it less confusing; that was their entire attempt; there is no current language in the Code to deal with that; they made some changes; and the LPA agreed with that.

Mr. Bowen stated #4 deals with vehicles for sale; staff drafted a separate Code that will prohibit the sale and storage of motor vehicles and recreational equipment on vacant unimproved or vacant improved properties; an abandoned gas station is an example of a vacant improved property; and they seem to be magnets for vehicles being parked there for sale. He stated currently the Code only addresses vacant residential property in that regard; the Code change addresses commercial property as well; and the matter is being addressed from a public safety point of view.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the Code apply to an occupied dwelling where they put multiple vehicles out for sale on a major highway; with Mr. Bowen responding it does not. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Code does not deal with that at all; with Mr. Bowen responding there is State law that talks about if they sell so many vehicles in a period of a year, they have to get a dealer’s license; and that is hard to distinguish. Ms. Jones stated if it is improved residential property, it would violate the Zoning Code to sell more than four a year because they would have to become a dealer under State law; so they actually become a commercial property if they sell more than four vehicles; and the County has prosecuted that in the past.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how does staff know when they sell more than four vehicles; with Mr. Bowen responding through complaints. Ms. Jones stated neighbors will come out; one happened on Maplewood in Cocoa; and the neighbor saw the cars and Code Enforcement went out and saw the sale and another sale; so it is also investigative techniques. Mr. Bowen stated if they do not see it personally, they hope to get an affidavit and the person would be a witness in the case.

Mr. Bowen stated the Code addresses vacant residential property today, but does not address vacant commercial property or improved abandoned commercial property; and they included those so the properties would not become magnets for all the vehicles for sale. He stated there is no current language in the Code; and they have proposed language to deal with that, which the LPA agreed with.

Mr. Bowen stated #5 deals with stabilized area; the change in the Code will provide citizens with a clear definition as to what materials may be used for a stabilized area for parking, locating, or storing motor vehicles and recreational vehicles; the current Code identifies what a stabilized area is not; however, the change in the Code would be helpful to identify what a stabilized area may consist of. He stated staff thought they need to put language in the Code to help folks abide by the Code; mulch was a consideration and the LPA asked that mulch be removed from the definition because it floats away, deteriorates, and so forth; but they will leave that up to the Board.

Mr. Bowen stated #6 deals with commercial vehicles in BU-1 and BU-1-A zonings; the section of the Code prohibits even the smallest of commercial vehicles from being stored on the property; Ms. Jones alluded to the florist that has a delivery van and cannot store it at the shop; and since the Code also prohibits commercial vehicles on residential property, the business owner was left to seek a third location in order to park a van.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Bowen is talking about the business and not the home; with Mr. Bowen responding that is correct; and currently commercial vehicles are prohibited in residential areas. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff is liberalizing it for the floral shop and not for the floral shop owners’ home; with Mr. Bowen responding that is right. Ms. Jones stated it also takes care of schools at churches because it is for IN(H) zoning as well.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if they can park the florist truck in a garage at the home; with Mr. Bowen responding not at this time; and that is what the Board needs to determine tonight. He stated it is the very last item; the change in the Code would permit commercial vehicles and equipment to be stored in BU-1-A and BU-1 zoned properties with conditions; and the conditions are listed on the matrix. He stated in addition, in BU-1-A and BU-1 that abut residential properties, there are conditions that will be in the Code; and if they do not, there are still some restrictions as well. Mr. Bowen stated they tried to put language in the Code that protects people in residential zoning that backs up to commercial zoning and allows them to park certain commercial vehicles at their place of business.

Mr. Bowen stated #7 deals with commercial vehicles in residential and IN(H) zoning; this is a big issue and got the most attention in trying to change the Code; staff was asked to provide language that would permit certain commercial vehicles to be parked in residential zoning; and if approved by the Board, only the following vehicles will be considered: commercial pickup truck less than 24 feet in length, commercial passenger van less than 24 feet in length, and commercial cargo van less than 24 feet in length. He stated the current Code does not permit any commercial vehicle to be parked on residential property; and if the Board approves any or all the vehicles, the next issue for the Board to consider would be what if any restrictions or conditions would it place on the parking, locating, or storage of those vehicles. He stated the matrix for #6 has language that talks about the three commercial type vehicles being parked in residential zoning that the Code does not currently allow; as the Board goes through the discussion with the public and comes back to this item, it can look at alternatives of what it can do; however, it is not bound to any alternative because it is just a guideline for the Board.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if a person can have a car parked in his or her driveway with a sign on the side that has some sort of advertising; with Mr. Bowen responding yes. Chairman Pritchard inquired if they can have cars but not pickup trucks.

Commissioner Carlson stated at the first hearing she asked a question about deed restrictions in residential communities and how this ordinance affects it or overrides it, which it does not; however, there is no mention in the ordinance about that; and inquired where would staff put something like that in the ordinance. Mr. Bowen stated he does not know where they could put it, but it is good information to insert in the ordinance. Ms. Jones stated deed restrictions are on their own. Commissioner Carlson stated the concern in communities she represents is that the ordinance would override that and people could start parking commercial vehicles on their lawns and in their driveways even though their deed restrictions say they cannot. Ms. Jones stated deed restrictions can be more restrictive than County Codes; the County Code is always the base; and if the Board wants to put in an intent that this is not going to affect any deed restrictions, staff can do that. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like for it to be in there if they could do that; and inquired where does Ms. Jones think it would be appropriate legally. Ms. Jones stated she would like to just put a note on the matrix; the footnotes are the proposed language if the Board chooses that option to accomplish the task; and that is what the footnotes mean. She stated speaking as the Board’s enforcement officer, something needs to be done; a lot of times when she is enforcing the Code in a hearing, she has to bring in a zoning expert witness to tell the special magistrate what the Code says; and it is difficult and not supposed to be a technical Code, but has become that way. Commissioner Carlson inquired under what part of the matrix can a floral shop owner park a van in his or her garage, close the door, and it is out of sight, out of mind until the next morning when they get up and drive it away; and has there been issues with that because the person is not in compliance doing that every night, and it sits on the driveway or on the street; with Ms. Jones responding part 7.B. has storage visible in the matrix where they can park the vehicle and how many they can have. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that would cover it as long as they put the vehicle in the garage; with Ms. Jones responding right now under the proposed Code they could; and it is very important to explain the difference between a commercial vehicle and a small subset of commercial vehicles, which are pickup trucks, cargo vans designed with the body shape of a passenger van, and not a box truck or moving van or those that have that same body type. Ms. Jones stated one of the news reports had a picture of a semi-truck, and said, “Brevard County is going to allow semi-trucks into residential neighborhoods”; that is not what this subsection says; as you can see, 7.A. says no across the matrix; and they are only talking about a small subset, which is pickup trucks, cargo vans, and passenger vans. She stated allowing them to park in their shopping center is in 6.A. and allowing them to park at home if it is the only van the small business owner has and the Board wishes to allow him to park there would be 7.B. She stated the first thing the Board needs to decide is whether it is going to let the subset park in residential zoning; and if the answer is yes, then it must decide what conditions, if any, it will place on the small subset.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if someone has one acre in RR-1, which is residential, even though it is an acre it is residential, would the ordinance apply; with Ms. Jones responding yes, for all residential property. Chairman Pritchard stated all residential zoning is affected so it does not matter if it is an acre or half an acre. Ms. Jones stated that is correct, but an interesting thing is a Code section that allows those who have over 2.5 acres to apply for a permit and get permission from all the landowners within 200 feet of the property to park all commercial vehicles on his property except semi-trucks. She stated she asked Rick Enos about it and nobody has applied for the permit in the history of Brevard County; but it is in the Code. Commissioner Carlson stated they are out there but they have not come in to get a permit. Ms. Jones stated since Code Enforcement is not proactive, if the neighbors do not complain, the County does not know about it; so they would not get permission from their neighbors to get the permit unless there is a Code Enforcement complaint. Chairman Pritchard stated there are several speaker cards, which is almost the entire audience, so the Board will hear them now.

Al Skinner of Satellite Beach, representing South Patrick Residents Association, congratulated Peggy Busacca on her promotion to County Manager; stated he has listened to what has been said so far concerning the Code changes; and he talked to Mr. Bowen about them. He stated his only concern has been with the enforcement policy; it is a good policy and he is not belaboring that; but he does not think it is strong enough. He stated if a person runs a red light, he or she will get a ticket; if a dog is running loose somewhere, the owner will get a $115 fine from County Animal Control; they have various means of assessing people to get their attention; but he does not see that in the Code Enforcement Division. Mr. Skinner stated he has been in Brevard County for many years and has been affiliated with Code Enforcement helping him do things that he needed to have done; but he finds they are not quickly working on the problem as he thought they should be; ten days is too much, and 10 days after that is too much; and the Board has other ways of assigning the problem within the County unit. He stated they need a better way to get the attention of individuals who are not following the Codes; they thumb their nose at the County; he lives in an area on the beach in South Patrick Shores; of the 3,000 homes, he represents 350 and is sort of a liaison between them and the County for various things such as roads and so forth; the Code is the issue tonight; and he feels there is something else that ought to be done to bring about the completion of a Code problem rather than 10 or 20 days. He stated it was $15,000 fine against a property owner for so many years because he did not comply; and inquired if that is what he heard in the beginning of the meeting when the gentleman paid it off; with Chairman Pritchard requesting Mr. Skinner get into the issue being discussed. Mr. Skinner stated he was just comparing the issues. He stated he does not see a quick resolution to the problem of the way to get compliance.

Lou Underwood of Merritt Island stated a few weeks back she noticed something in the paper about Chairman Pritchard allowing 18-foot commercial vehicles in driveways. Chairman Pritchard questioned how he was doing that; with Ms. Underwood responding it was in the paper so it has to be true. She stated she wrote to Chairman Pritchard and sent copies to each Commissioner; Commissioner Colon replied to her and she appreciates that; and what drove her to write the letter is she looked out of her bedroom window and saw a front-end loader. She stated they have a nice quiet neighbor and no problems, but he works on front-end loaders; when she looked out her bedroom window there was a front-end loader right there; there is a boat in the carport in the driveway and a truck in the grass as well as a trailer in the driveway with built up sides; and on the other street is a flatbed tree removal truck. She stated she is concerned about the deterioration of a residential neighborhood unless they get some sort of control and restrictions on the number of vehicles; there are four or five cars and a lot of them are on the grass; and she hopes the Board is able to do something. She stated it is a massive job and she does not envy the Board’s task to set it up and control it; but she is concerned about the future because they have so many neighborhoods that are going downhill if the Board does not help them out a little bit.

William Kowalik of Merritt Island, representing Adventure Kayak of Cocoa Beach, presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk regarding his situation and Matrix 7B or A. He stated he does kayak tours throughout the County and State; they are guided nature tours; he does not rent out from his home, does not have customers coming to his home; but he has an S-10 truck with a sign on it, and does not know if he is breaking the County codes. He stated he has a trailer full of kayaks that he would like to keep in his backyard or build a garage to put them in; it is very convenient for him to be able to park his vehicle in his backyard and go to work rather than spend gas and money to trailer to and from a warehouse; and money is getting tighter every day. Mr. Kowalik stated he also speaks for plumbers, electricians, maintenance people, and 24-hour service people; and if they are called, they can be at the job in 20 minutes from home instead of having to go to a storage area then to the job site. He stated he would like to keep a cargo van, truck, and/or trailer in his backyard; on the paper there was something about landscapers being able to keep their trailers in their garages; he would like to be able to do that; and what people keep in their garages is their business. He stated there are only a few people in the County who do what he does; and inquired if there is a Code he could fit in on the matrix. He stated he is asking to be able to park a trailer or cargo van in the backyard or in a garage; and he nailed everything on the head with the x he put on the front paper and the underlines he put on the second sheet.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if what Mr. Kowalik request is something that is contemplated, and what would occur if the Board is interested in doing something for people who have something like kayaks on a trailer in a garage. Ms. Jones stated Mr. Kowalik owns a kayak business; there is a dispute; the zoning official made a determination that renting of kayaks is a commodity; it needs to be heard as an appeal of a zoning interpretation; and Chairman Pritchard is aware of this issue.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is an occupational license issue also; but one point he brings up is putting vehicles and trailers in backyards behind fences that would be visible over the top of the fence. He inquired if having a boat with a super structure that is visible, a camper that would be visible, and a trailer with kayaks that would be visible over a six-foot fence is something that will be considered as part of this package. Ms. Jones stated it is part of the conditions and part of the language says behind an opaque barrier not to exceed a certain height, but the Board can strike that language if it would like to. Chairman Pritchard stated a lot of people have campers, drivable or towable, that are visible behind a six-foot fence; some of the lots are big and people are parking them as far back as they can, but they can still be seen from the street; and some boats have towers that are visible behind a six-foot fence. He stated they cannot go higher than six feet because that is the County’s limit on fence heights; and inquired if the Board does not allow them to keep their vehicles on their property behind a fence, what is the alternative. He stated they would have to lease space and it becomes a can of worms; so it is something the Board needs to address.

Mr. Kowalik stated he has an OCU license for a guided tour service; he does not rent out kayaks; his insurance does not allow him to rent out; and he modified his trailer so it is below the six-foot fence. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the trailer fits in the backyard and is not visible or would fit inside a garage; with Mr. Kowalik responding yes, and he got rid of one trailer. Mr. Kowalik stated he is here for other outriggers and guided services; there are other OCU guided services that have boats they park in the backyard; and they have the same license he does.

William Harding of Merritt Island stated he is concerned with the statement the minister said of how they live in a beautiful place; and part of the ordinance is going to tear up that beautiful place by having the commercial vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods and running businesses out of residential neighborhoods that are zoned for single-family residences only. He stated a big issue is parking work vehicles in side yards; each Commissioner has a nice home in a nice neighborhood; and inquired how would they like a man who works with concrete parking his work truck beside their house with a concrete mixer in the back. He stated they can park on the side and front of their houses; and this law will override any homeowners restrictions that prohibit that sort of stuff. Chairman Pritchard stated no it will not. Mr. Harding stated yes it will; they will take it to court; the neighborhoods that do not have rules against it will be fair game; and Bel Air Subdivision is one of that type. Mr. Harding stated it was a prestigious neighborhood when he moved in there in 1963 when it was being built; in the last ten years it has gone down tremendously because properties were picked up by real estate people and turned into rental properties; and there are houses in there with six or seven adults in them. He stated one house on his street has a car on blocks and about six cars parked in the front yard; a big boat is parked in the front yard; if the Board allows plumbing trucks to come in or carpenters that have lumber in the back of their pickup trucks, they can park their trucks beside the Commissioners’ houses as well as his; and he is concerned with that. Mr. Harding stated there is a grass cutting business at one of the houses; they were told to keep the lawnmowers in the garage; that lasted about two or three months; then they started getting parked on the side; and on some weekends, they have a big trailer filled with grass clippings parked between the street and sidewalk. He stated that is the type of things they are running into in their neighborhood now; the Code Enforcement and zoning laws are there to protect existing areas and enhance neighborhoods; and allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in residential neighborhoods is a big step backwards. He stated they have bobcats parked beside the house; the guy has a landscaping business and bobcats to dig up the dirt; and that is the type of stuff that is going to come about if they allow all the commercial vehicles, especially heavy vehicles to be brought in their neighborhoods. He stated it is going to be a big step backwards; Commissioners may live in neighborhoods that have Homeowners Associations that would control it; the rest of them do not have that protection; and their only protection is the zoning laws, which were set up to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. He stated if the Board is going to do away with that protection, it may as well turn their neighborhood into commercial BU-1 zoning because that is what is going to happen to it as it becomes more and more rental property. He stated trucks parked in the roadway will cause traffic problems; if there are trucks parked on both sides of the road, there will only be a little alley for a third car to go through; so the Board will be opening up a can of worms with this type of ordinance. He requested the Board not let zoning laws deteriorate and to uphold them.

Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Bowen address the issues of multiple cars parked in driveways and a concrete mixer in the back of a pickup truck, as everybody needs to know if the Board is going to allow that or not.

Mr. Bowen stated multiple cars is a difficult situation; there is nothing in the Code that addresses the number of cars one can have; mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers, have vehicles and limited space to park them; but the bobcat is a heavy equipment and is not allowed there today and would not be allowed there if the Code is passed. He stated it is going on today all over the County; they get calls on them, nearly a thousand calls; and they do respond to those things. He stated passing the Code would keep them from doing it, but will not stop them from doing it; and that is why Code Enforcement is here to go out and address them.

Chairman Pritchard inquired about cars on blocks; with Mr. Bowen responding they cannot have cars on blocks and they must be operational. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Harding called Code Enforcement; with Mr. Harding responding not yet. Mr. Harding stated heavy equipment is listed and inquired what is the Code going to allow; with Mr. Bowen responding heavy equipment is the name of the Code. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Harding may be reading more into it than what it is. Mr. Harding stated he sees what is going on; and the lawnmower service at the end of the street was told to keep the mowers in the garage and that lasted about a month. Chairman Pritchard stated then Mr. Harding needs to call Code Enforcement because it is reactive and not proactive. Mr. Harding stated the Board knows all their views on it in Bel Air Subdivision. Chairman Pritchard stated they do and hear it from all subdivisions, but the point is it is reactive not proactive so they need to have a complaint to address the problems. Mr. Harding requested the Board not allow a little bending of the rules where they can really bend it; stated part of the ordinance is allowing certain things to go on, which have not been allowed in the past; and requested the Board not deteriorate the neighborhoods.

Bill Cauffman of Merritt Island, representing Villa De Palmas Homeowners Association, stated the Association is voluntary and they rely on ordinances to keep the quality of life in their neighborhood; he is not sure it has been considered, but when they talk about a vehicle under 24 feet, that is still a huge vehicle; he measured his driveway from the tip of his garage door to the edge of the sidewalk; and it is exactly 24 feet. He stated there were no variances in building his home so that is the standard driveway in his neighborhood; there are roughly 300 houses; and if the Board allows a vehicle up to 24 feet, they are not going to park it right up against the garage door and it is going to protrude into the sidewalk or block the sidewalk, which will push pedestrians and children on bicycles into the streets. He stated the F-250’s and F-350’s are big trucks; he has a Toyota Tundra with a double cab and it is a full-size pickup; he measured it and it is 19 feet long; and he did not measure an F-350 but would bet it is more than 19 feet in length. He stated he can park his truck in his driveway and not intrude on the sidewalk; and allowing up to 24 feet is going to be a problem. Mr. Cauffman stated Commissioner Carlson mentioned there are a lot of people concerned in subdivisions that have Homeowners Associations and covenants whether or not the County changes will affect them; no, they will not, but the point is the people are concerned with the changes that are going to be made; they do not want that in their areas; so instead of doing a broad change here, the Board should just get rid of the ambiguity in the current Ordinance and do not loosen it up further and allow more than what the Board has right now. Mr. Cauffman stated it works now; and if the Board allows more commercial vehicles in neighborhoods it will have problems with vehicles intruding on sidewalks. He stated if they are allowed to have cargo vans, regular vans, etc., they are going to push the envelop.

Commissioner Voltz inquired where did the 24 feet come from; with Mr. Bowen responding it is currently in the Code; and it also includes vans and pickup trucks.

Chairman Pritchard stated he went through a list of vehicles and was surprised at the number that was in the 23-foot 6-inch range; there are a lot of vehicles on the road measuring close to that; and that is why 24 feet was thrown in. He stated they cannot block a sidewalk. Mr. Bowen stated they cannot block a sidewalk by State law as well as County Ordinance. Chairman Pritchard inquired if they were to go less than 24 feet, what effect would that have on the motoring public and people’s ability to go out and buy a pickup truck that is large enough to tow a fifth-wheel. Mr. Bowen stated he is not an attorney but would think it would be very dangerous to dictate to a person what kind of vehicle he or she can and cannot buy; and if he wanted to have an F-350 and was not using it for commercial purposes, he should be able to have it at his home.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Cauffman said it was 24 feet from his garage to the sidewalk, but not all homes are built with 24 feet from the front to the street; and there are smaller and compact homes with sidewalks that were brought in closer and setbacks shorter. Ms. Jones stated no one can block a sidewalk; if it is a station wagon that is too big, they cannot park it there because they cannot block the sidewalk; so it does not matter what size the truck is it must clear the sidewalk, which is a State law and County Ordinance. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is not a legal issue with the ordinance but an issue with the State law; with Chairman Pritchard stating that is what he was getting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board talks about Homeowners Association, it may be worthwhile to reiterate this so it is clear in the Code that they are not in any way trying to amend something else.

Commissioner Carlson stated people are not going to think about measuring the distance between the garage door and sidewalk before they go out and purchase a vehicle whether it is a car, truck, or SUV; and those folks do not generally turn in their neighbors because they are parked across the sidewalk. Ms. Jones stated they do. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows they do, and they should do more of it because it is a hazard. Ms. Jones stated they are not going to look at this Code either. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is they could look at the Code and we have to go back and say it is not the intent; and if they are going to cover the Homeowners Association the Code may have to have clarification provisions in it.

Harvey Baker of Merritt Island, representing Hampton Homes, stated most of the Commissioners saw the emails and pictures of their neighborhood with tractor-trailers, wreckers, and all the other things that are parked in the streets; he is for some changes and against others; he thinks the driveway should be permitted for boats and RV’s as long as they are not lived in, are on concrete, and not blocking the sidewalks; and he does not see anything wrong with it as long as it is parked tastefully. He stated the obvious pictures he brought was snapped yesterday; most of them have equipment in the back; and they are either work trailers and not parked in any driveway except one, and it is on blocks. He stated he is a regular customer of Mr. Bowen’s; he sends him a slue of pictures every so often to keep them busy; so it works well. He stated the pictures tell the story; he does not have to make a phone call; and it is already there for them before they do that. He stated one correction he would like to make about vehicles on blocks not being allowed; there are two vehicles in his neighborhood; and it was said if they are on blocks and covered with a tarp they are okay. Mr. Bowen stated that is incorrect. Mr. Baker stated Mr. Bowen has pictures of them, but he will give him some more; and when it gets down to commercial vehicles, obviously they need to stay in BU-1. He stated he agrees with allowing them to park their vehicles at their businesses; that is where they should be parked and not in residential areas; and when the Board starts allowing plumbers, air conditioning repairmen, electricians, etc. to park at home, all they will be doing is running service calls out of their homes, and that is running a business. He stated they should stay in their domain, their warehouse because it leads to something like the mower service; he heard the Board was going to require that to be parked in a garage; they can see from the pictures and hundreds he turned in that it is ignored because Code Enforcement is reactive and not proactive; so if they do not have someone in the area, they would end up like the other neighbors having to live with trailers and front-end loaders beside their houses. He stated some of the changes are good and cleaned up the Ordinance; but requested the Board keep business at business locations and preserve the family homes.

John Willis of Cocoa, representing Parkchester, stated he lives in a small neighborhood of 62 homes just north of SR 528 on U.S. 1; he has had a commercial vehicle in his driveway for ten years; for eight years he had an RV; and neither are in the street and are both in his driveway. He stated he has lived there since 1993 and they have not been a problem; one thing the neighbors asked him to bring up is parking RV’s, regardless of size, on the street; they do not like that; and he does not blame them because it does bring down the value of the neighborhood. He stated one guy talked about all the commercial vehicles being parked here, there, and yonder; and like the man said give him a call and he will fix it; but if they sit there and complain to their wives and neighbors without calling Code Enforcement, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. He stated staff did an excellent job rewriting the Code to make it easier to understand; his vehicle is a 12-foot box truck, which makes a total length of 24 feet; and he does not have any problem and his neighbors have not complained about anything he has done out there. He thanked the staff for doing its best; stated it is not an easy job; and if people do not want commercial vehicles in their neighborhoods there are deed restricted and gated communities available. Commissioner Scarborough stated what the Board may pass does not apply to Cocoa as Cocoa has its own Ordinance; with Mr. Willis responding he lives in the County, but his address is Cocoa.

Dr. Marcelle Kinney of Valkaria stated she came here to talk about motor homes; this item is referred to as parking, location, and storage of commercial vehicles, but it also addresses use of motor homes; and she wants to make a couple of points in other sections. She stated for stabilized areas, she would like to have mulch as an alternative but someone disagreed and it was removed; from an environmental perspective, mulch is the best choice; it allows water to percolate, etc.; everything one reads environmentally will say mulch would be the best choice; and to rule that out is not wise. She stated in terms of commercial vehicles, it does not apply to her family, but the way the Code has been liberalized is common sense; prohibiting all commercial vehicles would be discriminating against people who have businesses that use a van or cargo van similar to soccer moms, but has commercial business written on the outside; and she sees no reason why they cannot be allowed to park in a driveway. She stated all that is being allowed are vans, cargo vans, and pickup trucks used for businesses; it is American, it is property rights, it is common sense; and she would be insulted if she ran a small business and was forced to have a car in addition to a truck or what she would need to drive. She stated she shops at thrift stores; she is frugal with her money and would like to have one vehicle; and ruling out open storage of commercial materials and equipment should rule out any objections that were heard earlier. Dr. Kinney stated the motor home issue is relevant to her family; Section B.1. controls use of motor homes; and the way that is interpreted is that the County is not allowing company to visit in Brevard County. She stated all around the County, especially at Christmas time, people come in motor homes to visit their families; that has happened to them; they live on 4.5 acres in Valkaria; they have a place in the back where they let their company come and stay; they stay for a couple of nights; and that should be allowed, but the Code does not allow any use of anyone visiting ever. She stated she understands from Assistant County Attorney Jones that that area of the Code is not something that has a lot of problems; but they have gotten complaints because their neighbor complains about a lot of things with respect to their property. She stated it is generally not an issue; in the past they had company stay and Code Enforcement told them they were not allowed to do that; and they left, so it was okay. She stated they have family members who want to come and visit them; they are a motor homing family; she does not know if any Commissioner has a motor home or fifth wheeler; well, they bought their motor home in 1997 and it has been the greatest privilege. She stated when Theo wanted to buy it, she objected to the whole thing because it was so much money to put in a fifth wheeler; but it has made visiting family a pleasure. She stated when people visit family they stay in their house one or two nights and then go; but they have the privilege of staying and visiting their family for a week now; in Bay County when they visit family, they are allowed to stay in their motor home; they stay a week or two at Christmas time and visit their family; she loves that; it is so much more pleasurable; and they have strengthened their family ties since they have been allowed to do that. She stated the current reading of the Brevard County Code does not allow them to have company; if they ever have company, it can go to the extent where they would get Code violations, have to go to the special magistrate, and can be fined up to $5,000; and they do not like that. Dr. Kinney stated a couple of weeks ago Theo’s sister-in-law came to visit them; she stayed two nights; and luckily they did not get a Code violation on that. She stated it is something they want to do; they value family and hospitality; they want to be able to have company; and suggested the Board change the Code. She stated she sent an email to include the wording in BU-1 (c), “not to be used for permanent residential or commercial purposes”; and in (d) to include the word “permanent” as well as in (e). She stated it should say, “may be connected to utilities for guests visiting the property owner”; she wrote seven days or less, but thinks it should be 14 days because at Christmas time people stay a little longer than a week.

Theo Adkins of Valkaria passed on his opportunity to speak.

Patricia Knittel of Merritt Island, stated she is President of Villa de Palmas Homemakers Ladies Club, sits on the board of directors for Villa de Palmas Homeowners Association, is a member of the Red Hat Society, and volunteer for the Schnauzer Love Rescue, an organization that rescues unwanted and abandoned schnauzers. She stated she feels she has a unique ability, the female point of view, to look at the problem of parking commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods; the ladies take pride in their homes and neighborhoods; they often talk about the beauty and decorum of their homes; and they do not hesitate to brag about how lovely they look. She stated if the Board allows commercial vehicles to park in their residential areas, it will take away much of the pride that they now have; and inquired how can she tell her friends who come to visit that they have the finest looking neighborhood if every other driveway has a truck with advertising plastered on both sides. She stated they have been doing just fine with the Ordinances as they are; and when the Board allows commercial vehicles to park on her street, she feels it is not considering her feelings regarding the beauty and the quiet that she enjoys. She stated living in Brevard County should not be like living at a strip mall; and thanked the Board for considering not only the female point of view, but also a concerned homeowner’s point of view on this important item.

Ralph Durham of Melbourne, representing Durham & Sons, Inc., stated this is the fourth trip he has made on this matter; he lives on an acre of property; and he lives there because he chose to have a little bit of space between him and his neighbors. He stated the problem is if the Board focuses on a standard building lot and acreage and consider them the same, they are not differentiating; they need to look a little harder at differentiating between those two areas; he has an acre of commercial land with four different buildings; and since he last spoke to the Board, he got another one, so he has 25 employees who can come there. He stated the problem is some of those employees are young people, and his truck is sometimes a ride home for them; and that saves them from having to purchase a second vehicle, insurance, gas, and other associated costs. He stated at the last meeting he said the ordinance was all wrong, and guess they did not understand; he meant the original Ordinance was all wrong; and he does not want to see people having large bobcats in their front yards or front-end loaders and dump trucks although he can look to the right and see a semi-tractor/trailer on the corner and to the left an air conditioning contractor’s hazardous waste piling up with refrigeration units sitting outside. Mr. Durham stated he is not going to be the one to spill the beans on them, soon enough Code Enforcement will find them; but he could email Mr. Bowen on everybody he sees because he travels from one end of the County to the other and could fill up every computer screen he has and tie up the guys for a while, but he does not want to do that. He stated in their area a light truck, small van, or utility van tastefully done is not in excess when they look out their windows at a semi-tractor/trailer; differentiating again; he wishes to reiterate that as well; and the Board has to be careful on the limitations for the people who are against the changes and for the contractors as well. He stated people who have to spend the extra hours traveling back and forth will be paid for by the citizens of the County; and they will pay for it dearly in every service and every licensed trade throughout the County. He stated ecologically they now pay for it; gas is going up; it is a limited resource; and the Board needs to be very careful with that and watch out for too much restrictions. He stated he is the Mechanical Committee Chairman for the Building Officials Association and sadly had to miss tonight’s meeting to be here, and one of their members passed away, a very intelligent inspector, very well spoken and kind individual, but he had to be here because it is important to all of them. He stated limiting signage to 4 to 6 square feet would take away the licensing that is required by the State and encourage unlicensed contractors; countless times he has called Contractor Licensing and Enforcement to tell them about the bad guys out there; the Board talked about snipe signs; and 40% of the Brevard County residents are getting sniped by unlicensed contractors doing work that they do not know how to do in a damaged environment for individuals who suffered from the hurricanes and who are getting ready to face it all over again. He noted the Board needs to be careful on the signage limitations. Mr. Durham stated he could sit here all night long and tell the Board about different things that he does and does not agree with; the Board needs to give consideration to the individuals who make a living and the homeowners who do not want tractor-trailers in their neighborhoods; and maybe magnetic signs on some of the trucks that are the same color as the truck would work. He stated he sees that restrictions on racks were eliminated; with Mr. Bowen responding that is being considered. Mr. Durham stated he is glad the Board is doing that but it has to be careful there too; a guy who wants a 23.99-foot truck has a right just as much as the lady selling Mary Kay has with a pink Cadillac. He stated there was some commentary out there and some people in the audience who were quite rude and seemed to continuously comment while things were going on; and they should learn to be a little more respectful. He stated not all contractors work out of their houses; there are those who have spent decades building their businesses and buying commercial property; but if he were to pinpoint an issue, it would be to ask the Board to be careful on the limitations on signage because it could make an illegal contractor circumstance even greater. He requested the Board be careful of what it does to young people who are just getting started in their lives and take trucks like his home; his company gives them that benefit and lets them burn the gas to try and help them out; but Mr. Bowen is on the right track. He stated there has been a lot of changes and the matrix is pretty good; he does not think all the contractors are trying to take advantage and bring their big box trucks to their homes and neighborhoods; and they only do that when they put in Trane systems.

Thomas Hughes of Titusville, representing Sherwood Homeowners Association, stated any ordinance they can get that will help get rid of eyesores in the County he is for it; he does not see a problem with boats, RV’s and commercial vehicles as long as they are kept out of sight from the street; and if they can keep their boats and RV’s in their backyards and it is not a problem with their neighbors, he does not see a problem with it. He stated they had some problems in their neighborhood with commercial vehicles being semi-trucks and trailers; but thanks to Code Enforcement, it has been taken care of.

Bob Brenneman of Titusville, Vice President of Sherwood Area Homeowners Association, stated they have 830 homeowners on the streets off North Carpenter Road, south of SR 46; their area is included in Sherwood Golf Course community; and they have deed restrictions against RV’s and boats parked in driveways. He stated they are supposed to be behind a fence or in a garage; they do not allow any commercial vehicles; they try to enforce those restrictions by writing letters or visiting the owners; and sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. He stated it will help improve the appearance of their neighborhood if some of the Code changes were made, especially the sections on trailers and vehicles for sale; and they would like for the Board to say no RV’s and boats, but they can enforce their restrictions.

Paul Knittel, Sr. of Merritt Island, read the following statement: “Honorable Members of the Brevard County Commission: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this evening. Let me begin by introducing myself to you. My name is Paul Knittel, Sr. I live at 260 Madrid Court in Merritt Island with my wife Patricia. We have resided in Merritt Island for the past five years although I initially moved to Brevard County in 1963. I served as an elected member of the City Council in the City of Cape Canaveral and more recently I served as the immediate past president of the Merritt Island Executive Council. For those who might not recognize the Merritt Island Executive Council, it is incorporated as a non-profit body representing many of the Homeowners Associations in Merritt Island. I now serve as vice president of the Villa de Palmas Homeowners Association in Merritt Island, and I speak to you as the representative of some 300 homeowners in Brevard County. Our association, like many others in Merritt Island is not a mandatory group, hence we maintain our association with voluntary dues and the blessings of our neighbors. Because we are a voluntary and not a mandatory group, we must rely on Brevard County’s Code of Ordinances to keep our neighborhood beautiful. I would like to comment on the reported plans of this Commission to change Chapter 62-2117 of the County Code of Ordinances regarding the parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. I have diligently inquired of neighbors, friends, associates, and even trades people as to what their feelings are regarding this anticipated change in the County’s Ordinance. The usual response is, ‘Why would the County want to do that?’ I believe I have an idea why some people think it would be a good idea to allow commercial cars, trucks, and vans to be parked outside of their front doors. Perhaps they think it a good idea to have their commercial transportation readily available in case they need to install a roof, fix a leaky faucet, or tow a truck in the middle of the night. I don’t think much of this plan. For 20 some years I worked as the executive director of one of the largest towing companies in South Florida; and yes, parking tow trucks outside of the front door of my drivers’ homes would have been very advantageous to them and to the company, time-wise. However, we, the managers of this towing company, realized the need to have decorum not only in our business but also in our neighborhoods. We managed to work with the communities we lived in and made arrangements to park our trucks in local gas stations or other commercial parking lots where our trucks did not detract from the residential aura of our neighbors. Our Subdivision, Villa de Palmas, in Merritt Island, has five different sets of covenants and restrictions that we try to use for the betterment of our neighborhood. As I mentioned before, our homeowners association is a voluntary group and as such we must rely on the County Codes of Ordinances for enforcement of many zoning restrictions. After reading the proposed legislative intent, I understand the primary reason for this change. It says, ‘Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners finds it desirable to further regulate the location of recreational vehicles and boats on single-family residential lots, etc.’; and in that I do not see any comments about whereas in your proposed amendments touching on commercial vehicle parking on residential lots. It is not mentioned in your whereases. Of course my problem with the proposed changes has to do with the parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. I find it very interesting that most, I believe the number is nine out of eleven municipalities in Brevard County do not permit parking commercial vehicles in their residential neighborhoods. Could it be that these city fathers are keenly aware of the need to keep residential neighborhoods residential? I believe that is also the reason we find most mandatory homeowner associations in Brevard County have the same similar restrictions built into their covenants and restrictions. If you allow this change to occur, I feel it will bring about more complaints and enforcement problems than you could possibly anticipate. A four square-foot sign on both sides of the van in my neighbor’s driveway will in fact lower the beauty, value, and neighborhood quality on the street where I live. While I agree with most of the changes you are considering, I feel the purpose for the changes have been confused by the addition of this commercial vehicle inclusion. It is not a good idea, and speaking for the many homeowners of my Subdivision and for the many others in the County who may not be here to speak for themselves, I ask that you amend the proposal and disallow the parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and your consideration of my appeal to you.”

Mr. Knittel advised Barbara Benn is the president of the Merritt Island Executive Council, and he would like to read her letter. Chairman Pritchard advised Mr. Knittel his time expired but he could enter the letter into the record. Mr. Knittel submitted the letter to the Board, which states: “As president of the Merritt Island Executive Council, consisting of numerous homeowners associations, I have received many emails and phone calls about this issue. Common sense and respect for one’s property needs to be returned to neighborhoods as the norm, not the exception that has to be fought for. If there is any justice in this County, the five Commissioners will need the pleas of the constituents in all affected areas and move to heavily modify the current Code Enforcement guidelines, where there is no ‘wiggle room’ for interpretation by either side. Clear and concise language must be used. The residents have said they want fewer commercial vehicles parked on their streets, and in their neighbors’ driveways and even on the grass. For one thing, there needs to be a ruling on how many vehicles per house on an average day. If you’re not having a party, then you need to be able to get what cars you have in your driveway without blocking the sidewalk, preferably in your garage or under a carport, if there is one, but not in the street and certainly not all over the grass. There is also great concern about allowing boats to be parked in full view in front yards on mulch or rocks. Neighborhoods are not marinas. Have some consideration and respect for yourselves and your neighbors when bringing boats to your home. And for the life of me, I cannot comprehend what anyone is thinking with regards to vehicles under 24 feet being allowed. I know that few people would want to look at an up to 23 feet, 11 inch vehicle of any kind at their neighbor’s house. Get reasonable people. Fine, make some needed changes to the Codes for easier understanding, but don’t make matters worse. Hopefully this item will be tabled briefly while the people involved rethink some portions of the proposed changes to satisfy the people. Bring your work vehicle home if you must, maybe after you have cleaned out your garage and can get that vehicle inside of it. And as for suspending the fines, etc. while you are revamping the Codes, why? It should be business as usual while this is being done. I am not alone in this way of thinking, believe me. It is the pulse of the communities we live in all over the County. Thank you, Barbara Benn.”

Sandra Huminski of Merritt Island stated at the February 7, 2005 meeting of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, she brought up the issue of parking commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods; Chairman Pritchard labeled her a soccer mom, defined the revised ordinance as needed as the current Ordinance does not allow parking of her passenger van with bumper stickers on it in her own driveway; and he stated if she had an F-150 parked in her driveway, she would also be in violation of the Code. She stated Chairman Pritchard knew that was not true but chose to use a falsehood to defend the changes and confuse the issues; and since he did not answer her question at that meeting, she is here now. She stated she is not a soccer mom; she may have been born at night but not last night; and please do not treat her as a fool or a little woman tonight, as she is a competent woman who deserves to be given respect. She stated the changes to the Ordinance is nothing less than an attempt to appease the commercial interests at the cost of the residents; the cost of doing business is the proper storage of vehicles and trailers required to perform that business; they moved to North Merritt Island under the impression the area was residential and rural in nature; and the County Ordinance at that time did not allow for commercial vehicles and trailers to be parked in residential areas. She inquired why change now. She stated Commissioners were elected to serve the people not the special interests of the select few; inquired if the changes will affect any Commissioner; stated if not, maybe they do not care; and if they find the duty of Commissioner too difficult, they should step down from their position and let someone who cares serve instead. Ms. Huminski stated she may not be an expert, but she knows the difference between commercial and residential; she knows they bought their home in a residential neighborhood; and requested the Board not pass the ordinance and turn all residential neighborhoods into commercial parking lots.

Chairman Pritchard requested Mr. Bowen explain about the F-150 and F-250 and signs on sides of vehicles and how they violate the current Ordinance. Mr. Bowen advised the F-150 does not violate the current Ordinance, but the F-250 and F-350 do; signage is required by State law to put the licensed number on a certain size of signage; and the question is how big does the Board want the signs. He stated some people have the entire vehicle as a billboard with tires on it; and inquired if the Board wants to put a limit on the size of signs if they are allowed in residential areas, which is yet to be determined. Mr. Bowen stated they did not bring the Ordinance forward; it was a request from a citizen; and as he explained to the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association someone petitioned his elected official to have the Code changed just as anyone can petition an elected official; and that is the process they have to go through to make a determination where that change was to come about. He stated this is the process and it is yet to be determined what if any changes will be done. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Bowen was there the night the comments were made by him that Ms. Huminski referred to; and inquired if he said anything that was not in agreement with what the Board has been discussing tonight and does the definition of commercial vehicle fall into what they have been discussing based on manufacturer’s representation. Mr. Bowen stated he was too busy defending himself to remember the comments.

William Huminski of Merritt Island stated he was at that meeting and will tell the Board what was said; and since he only has five minutes to state his case, please hold all comments and questions until he finishes. He stated he moved from the northeast 14 years ago to get away from high taxes, overcrowding, and for a better general way of life; he purchased land and built a home in an executive residential area; and the Ordinance at that time did not allow for commercial vehicles and trailers to mix in the residential areas. He stated now the Board has a revised ordinance before it that will allow mixing commercial and residential in one area; the proposal will open up a Pandora’s box if allowed to pass as it is; and inquired for what purpose and for whose gain. He stated the changes need to clarify the current definitions of recreational vehicles and boats instead of someone choosing to use it as a means to allow current offenders to be absolved by making the rules to change in their favor; and inquired if the Board could use the same rationale to solve the jail overcrowding issue by changing the laws to jail only violent criminals and murderers, he thinks not. He stated he tried to review the ordinance part by part; at several North Merritt Island Homeowners Association meetings where Chairman Pritchard spoke, they were misled to believe that the average homeowner with a van and pickup, which he did say, was in violation of the current law; that is not true; and he also told people from gated and restricted developments that they would not have to worry because they were protected, which is also not true. Mr. Huminski stated those in gated communities will now have to pay the cost of enforcing their restrictions if the Ordinance is changed; if someone brought a van in, they could call Mr. Bowen to say the van should not be there, and the County would take care of it; now they have to get a lawyer and bear that cost; so it is going to affect the gated and restricted communities. Chairman Pritchard stated no it is not. Mr. Huminski inquired how can it not. Mr. Huminski stated if he lived in Sunset Lakes right now, he can call Mr. Bowen and say there is a van parked illegally and the County will take care of it; and if the Ordinance changes as proposed, they cannot do that any more and it will be up to the Homeowners Associations to enforce those rules that they have. Chairman Pritchard requested Commissioner Carlson explain it as his message is not getting across.

Commissioner Carlson stated the issue she brought up earlier in the meeting was because she had a lot of constituents who live in gated communities and communities with deed restrictions and covenants that say certain vehicles are not allowed on driveways, etc.; and the folks were concerned if this ordinance would supersede their covenants. She stated if they live in a gated community and do not have covenants and deed restrictions, then the Code may affect them; but if they have covenants and have a problem, that becomes a civil issue. Mr. Huminski stated it will be a civil issue that the homeowners association will have to fight now. Commissioner Carlson stated they always had to fight it. Mr. Huminski stated under the current law they could have the County fight it for them; with Commissioner Carlson responding no they could not; if they have deed restrictions and covenants, they trump the Code; and that was the whole idea of having those restrictions. Mr. Huminski stated he would like to ask the County Attorney a question. Chairman Pritchard stated no, this is not a debate; and requested Mr. Huminski finish his statements. He stated the Board goes through this all the time; Mr. Huminski got his version; and even listening to five Commissioners and the Code Enforcement Director disagree with him, he has his mind made up.

Mr. Huminski stated by allowing change to commercial vehicles and trailers, they would have over 48 feet of commercial vehicles parked in some areas; some driveways are not that long; that would allow for some vehicles to park on the grass in residential areas; and inquired how many vehicles would be allowed for families with multiple workers living there. He inquired about the larger SUV’s; stated the current law needs clarification but not changes in its purpose; he lives by a principal of keep it simple stupid; and a few simple changes to Section 62-2117 may be all that is needed. He inquired if he is not to believe that the enforcement would be easier with the definitions; why mix commercial vehicle and trailers in residential areas; and will they have everyone running around with tape measures to see what fits and what does not. He stated with the proposed changes he could have a vehicle loaded with chemicals such as for pool maintenance or pest control at the home next door; it could be a lethal threat to everyone; and inquired how many Commissioners live in gated or restricted communities that will not be affected by this change. He stated he would bet most of the Commissioners live in protected communities and the ordinance will not affect them; and inquired why would they vote for something they do not want in their neighborhood to be allowed in someone else’s neighborhood. Mr. Huminski stated by the County’s own study almost all communities in Brevard County do not allow the mixing of commercial vehicles and trailers in residential areas overnight; and inquired why should the unincorporated areas allow it. He stated business owners have an obligation to their customers; parking should be provided at their place of business in properly designated areas and not in residential areas; and to allow them to park in residential areas will force the reduction in value of nearby homes. He stated he is surprised that the local board of realtors has not appeared to oppose this change; lower home values translate to lower prices and lower commissions; and requested the Board do its duty to serve all the people and not allow commercial vehicles and trailers of any size in residential areas just as they are not allowed under the current law. He stated if enforcement is a problem, then address that; outsource the job if the County cannot hire additional staff; or offer it on commission basis for people to collect the fines.

Jay Adamson of Cocoa stated after hearing all the discussion, he needs to go back and rewrite his notes and start over again because there has been quite a few things that came up; he has three questions; and he will start with the first one. He stated parking of motor homes, by the County Code, says they will be back five feet behind the front property line; if the Board allows 24-foot commercial vehicles to park in driveways, they will not be five feet behind the property line; and inquired what happened there, do they both fall in the same category, and is the Board favoring one and not the other. He stated he sent a letter to all the Commissioners last evening but unfortunately the cover sheet telling them it was going to be his speech tonight was not included; but that is okay because his main punch line is right here and then he wants to get to the next issue. He stated he does not want commercial vehicles in his neighborhood period, no where, in a garage, or anywhere; he does not want them in there; and he wants it to be known he has nothing against those people or any of the businesses they represent or concern themselves with. He stated he did not buy a home to live in a semi-business or commercial area; the business of parking in a garage is a bunch of baloney; and that will last about two weeks or maybe a month then they will be back out just like the lawn mowers. Mr. Adamson stated he wants to approach this from a different point of view, home-run business then commercial business; zoning in the past has decided there can be some businesses operated from a home, but those homes can have absolutely no affect on the surrounding neighborhood and people should never know a home-run business is there; and if the Board allows commercial vehicles to park there, it will violate that part of the Zoning Code. He stated people requesting a commercial occupational license in Brevard County are required to submit what they are going to do at that business; the Zoning Code says what businesses cannot be run in residential neighborhoods; it also says, in a very broad sense, all businesses are required to go through site plan review and have a required number of parking spaces, so they have a legal place for commercial vehicles to park; and inquired why are they soliciting to park in residential neighborhoods, which does not seem right to him. He stated he is sure they all have approved parking spaces at their businesses; and he agrees with folks that there is little or no business taking place at those places, but there are parking spaces.

Pat Wallace of Palm Bay, representing Wallace Air Conditioning, stated he spoke at another meeting and pointed out the hardship with employees; and a lot of people do not want it, but they are going to be the first people that will complain when they have to put a surcharge on the bill because federal laws require them to pay their employees to go back, get a truck, go to the job, and bring the truck back. He stated one gentleman made comments while people were talking, that air conditioning people work out of their homes; his nice neat trucks have signs on them because he wants the community to know who he is and that it is a licensed company; the license is on the trucks and the trucks are clean; he does not send his construction trucks or his big box trucks home because they do not provide service in the evening; his service trucks and techs provide the service to the community; and people want them to come out on the weekends, evenings, and holidays, so he has to provide trucks for his workers. He stated a standard size van in a driveway is not that much different than people going out and buying Hummers because they can afford a Hummer and park it in their driveway; they are military trucks; but the Board is telling him not to do it, which will put a hardship on his workers and customers. He stated it does not affect just one company; there are many companies that provide emergency service; and he can understand not having things hanging all over the trucks, but ladders are necessary because the County allowed condos to be built and put units on roofs. He stated one man fell off a ladder and hurt his leg very severely; he does not like climbing ladders any more so he sends a lot of that work to his company; and his crews climb ladders because the County allowed those condos and homes to put units on the roof and not have proper access to the roof. He stated to say they cannot have racks and ladders on their trucks will cause a hardship on everybody; and reiterated that the people who are saying they do not want it will be the first to complain when they get charges from all the companies that are providing the various services. Mr. Wallace stated someone said the trucks that have no names are guys working without licenses; they do not put their names on the trucks because they do not want anyone to know who they are; but he wants people to know his company is working with their neighbors for their security and know that his is a licensed company, and if they have doubts they can call, which they cannot do with an unmarked truck. He stated an unmarked truck could be backed up to a home, clean out the house, and no one would know who it is and would not be able to tell the police when they hear their neighbor was robbed because the truck in the driveway had no name on it. He stated if his truck is in a driveway, they will remember the name because it is there clearly for all to see; also the inspectors see it; so he hopes the Board will reconsider the changes, consider the people who are providing the services to the community, and let the service trucks be parked in residential areas but not construction trucks. He stated he is not asking the Board to let him send his construction trucks home because he agrees that is an eyesore.

Celia Williams of Merritt Island, representing North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, stated their president would have liked to be here but she was unable to come; she did send an email earlier; and she would like to enter it into the record. She thanked Mr. Bowen for coming to their meeting and presenting the proposed ordinance changes; stated they had several calls from residents along with several residents attending the meeting that have a lot of concerns regarding the ordinance; and many of the residents live in deed-restricted areas and were uncertain how the ordinance would affect their lives and how the Homeowners Association would have to attend to the outcomes of the ordinance as far as enforcing their covenants along with the County ordinance. She stated most residents are concerned with the visible aspect of the vehicles that would be allowed to be parked in their neighborhoods that they spent a lot of hard-earned cash to live in; several were concerned that a Bright House Networks guy would be able to bring his small van home; and they were concerned because they did not want to see all the service vans parked in driveways that were not there before. Ms. Williams stated they were also concerned that there would be increasing amounts of RV’s and trailers parked on properties because the ordinance indicates they are allowed to be visible when they have their ATV’s parked on them. She stated a couple of people indicated there were so many changes to it that they were really a little confused on what the exact outcome of it would be; and they felt maybe more simplified changes would be in order. She stated she does not have big solutions for the Board, and hopes the input from all the residents tonight will help guide it towards a more simplified solution that will help to alleviate some of the eyesores the proposed changes could bring about.

Sharon Savastio of Melbourne, President of Windover Farms of Melbourne Homeowners Association, stated the Association represents 741 homes and families; the matrix puts out the issue she is concerned about; and that is parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. She stated she lives in a deed-restricted community and knows, because they spoke with their attorney, that anything the Board does here will not supersede their deed restrictions; however, there are a lot of communities that have deed restrictions that are not as comprehensive as theirs so the County Code basically serves as their deed restrictions. She stated it is the Board that is charged with taking care of the integrity of those neighborhoods; integrity means everything when it comes to those families and when it comes to resale of their properties that they value; so she would like the Board to consider not allowing residential neighborhoods to become commercial parking lots. She stated in their community it does not make a difference if it is an S-10 or F-350 truck; if it does not have commercial writings on it, it is not a commercial vehicle; currently the Code says if it is a commercial vehicle and it will fit in the garage it is illegal; but Windover Farms Association does not care if it is in a garage, the garage door is shut, and they cannot be seen. She requested the Board consider that what it does tonight will affect communities that do not have comprehensive deed restrictions and not put communities at odds with their neighbors and commercial friends. She stated they welcome those people into the community, but they do not want to live with commercial vehicles.

Rick Carroll of Satellite Beach advised he owns a 2004 Dodge 3500 dually pickup; it cost over $45,000 brand new; it is not an eyesore; and in looking at the matrix, he has a question whether the Board is adding all pickups to the ordinance and if his dually is being added also. He stated it is registered in his business name; it has no markings on it other than a couple of stickers; it is a commercial truck; and the ordinance is saying he is going to have limitations on where he can park it and what can be on it. He stated he does not understand if putting racks on the truck is going to be eliminated or considered; and he would like the Board to consider that in case he wants to put racks on his truck to carry surfboards. He stated he heard if it is in a garage it is okay or behind a fence and not seen; his dually will not fit in his garage; and he has no place to put it other than the driveway. He stated he drives it home every night, and it would be a hardship on him to get another vehicle because he cannot park his truck in his driveway.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if it is used for commercial purposes; with Mr. Carroll responding he tows a trailer with it, which he does not keep at the house and is kept at his place of business. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the truck has markings on it other than stickers that say go surfing or something; with Mr. Carroll responding no, just surfing stickers.

Ms. Jones stated the manufacturer would consider that a commercial vehicle and he could not park it at his home under the current Ordinance; however, if he is not using it as a commercial vehicle, it would not be included in the ordinance because in the definition section it says, “pickup trucks used for commercial purposes”. Mr. Carroll stated it is registered under his business name as a commercial vehicle. Chairman Pritchard inquired if he uses that for tax purposes; with Mr. Carroll responding yes. Ms. Jones stated if it is for commercial use, that burden of proof would be on her at a hearing; and if it is not, it would not be included in the ordinance. Chairman Pritchard noted it sounds like he is using it for commercial write-off. Ms. Jones stated that is between Mr. Carroll and the IRS, but as far as the ordinance is concerned, it has to be used for commercial purposes; and the Board will be considering where they can be stored or parked if at all and any conditions such as racks and those things. Mr. Carroll stated there are a lot of dually owners in the County who cannot put them in their garages. Chairman Pritchard inquired how long is it; with Mr. Carroll responding almost 24 feet, and it is a long bed and quad cab. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it blocks the sidewalk; with Mr. Carroll responding no he does not have a sidewalk in front of his house. Mr. Carroll inquired if someone had a vehicle registered in his name would any of the restrictions apply to him because it is not considered a commercial vehicle by use but it is a commercial vehicle by the manufacturer; with Chairman Pritchard responding that is what the Board is getting away from; that is the problem they ran into with the F-250 truck that is considered a commercial vehicle by the manufacturer; and that is where they ran into the problem and started this process. He stated if it had a seat in the back, it was a passenger vehicle; if not, it was a van; it did not make sense; and that is what opened this issue up. He stated that is when they found out about signs, whether it said soccer mom or whatever, in its strict interpretation it was a sign; and that is what created the problem and why he asked if a car had a sign on it something like real estate, would it be considered a commercial vehicle. Mr. Carroll stated Brevard County sheriff deputies park their vehicles at their homes and they have big signs on them; with Chairman Pritchard responding they can park one at his home any time they want because he is good to go on those.

Curtis Black of Satellite Beach, representing Complete Air and Heat, Inc., advised his father started the business 30 years ago and he ended up with it; he has five service vehicles on the road, all having signs on them with their license number; and all his guys take them home. He stated some of them live in cities and some in the County; with the signs on their trucks, they could park them on the side of Sea Park Boulevard; and nobody would think about putting in an air conditioner on Sea Park after 5:00 p.m. because they know he is going to turn them in. He stated since the hurricanes, his neighbor has been having her house rebuilt; there was a sign out front for permits; the guy told him the other day that the County could not give him a $250 fine because he had no permits and he also had no license; and he put the sign out there so people would think he had a permit. He stated he thought the guy did so he did not question it; he has a sign, and when he pulls up, people know he pulled a permit; an unlicensed guy can live in the neighborhood and have his truck in the neighborhood and it is not commercial because he is not allowed to be there as it would be illegal; but he can go next door and do a job and nobody knows about it. He stated if he goes next door and does a job, everyone knows it; and when his trucks are there, they are protecting the community just like the Sheriff’s cars parked in driveways; and people will not rob that house or the one next door or they would probably be caught. Mr. Black stated if the trucks are done nicely and maintained, and all of his are, it is a benefit for his employees to be able to drive them back and forth; they have the night calls; in the summer they have a lot of calls; and it would cost people a lot of money to do otherwise. He stated people push it to the limit and make a mess; in 30 years they only had one complaint; the employee lived in Rockledge which did not allow signs; they sent him a letter; he asked what they could do; they said put a cover over the van; so they bought a van cover, he covered it when parked in his yard and uncovered it in the morning; and that is fine and they allowed that and that was a commercial vehicle. He stated he hopes the Board really looks at the businesses because there are ways to make everybody happy.

The meeting recessed at 7:51 p.m., and reconvened at 8:04 p.m.

Andy Weil of Cocoa Beach stated he is a homeowner in Brevard County and works for a living, is not retired, drives a truck, and is proud of his truck. He stated he drives a big truck every now and then, and once a month he parks it in front of his house when he is going on the road; and it could be an eyesore for a day, but it is there for a very short time. He stated it fits in his driveway and does not block any sidewalks. He stated the Commissioners are the County Board; it is a big County from Titusville all the way down south; everybody does not live in Viera where there are deed restrictions and gate communities; there are a lot of working men in the County; and that is what built this County, the working people who need trucks to work.

Chairman Pritchard stated he knew a city in Broward County that did not allow pickup trucks parked outside after dark; and a lot of people bought El Caminos and rancheros so they could have a truck type vehicle and meet the conditions to be allowed to park outside at night; so there are always loopholes. He stated one of the concerns when trying to do something is that no one size fits all; some of the neighborhoods, and he is familiar with many, are very small and houses are close together and close to the streets, so there is not a lot of room to park a lot of vehicles; and it adds to the congestion of the neighborhood. He stated if they have a neighborhood with half-acre lots or one-acre lots, they can do more; they have room to park vehicles and get them into the backyards or put them on the side yards and it does not give the appearance of being crowded; and the effect is less density. He stated in some neighborhoods, because of the closeness of the house to the street and the proximity of the house next door, there is a feeling of closeness; if they have a truck or car that is parked on the swale, people have to weave their way through the neighborhood, and congestion adds to it; and when they add to that what can be considered the unsightliness of some vehicles, and it does not always have to be a commercial vehicle, he has seen a lot of cars that are unsightly, that makes it all the more worse. He stated he has seen boats and trailers that have not been moved in years, dirty nasty messes sitting there with flattened tires and tarps that are a mess; so there is a lot more to it than just the commercial vehicle application.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants the Board to be very clear; some folks are under the impression that it is probably just the County doing this; and that is incorrect. She stated the Cities of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa, and Cocoa Beach, and Town of Indialantic prohibit commercial vehicles in residential zoning; the City of Indian Harbour Beach prohibits any vehicles over 22 feet; City of Melbourne permits commercial parking in residential zones with conditions; and the Town of Melbourne Beach, City of Palm Bay, and City of West Melbourne prohibits commercial vehicles in residential zoning. She stated she wants to make sure she puts that on the record so folks are not under the impression that the County is doing something that is not happening in other cities or considering doing something of that kind as far as prohibiting commercial vehicles parking in residential areas.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is possible to differentiate between a quarter-acre lot and an acre or more lot; with Ms. Jones responding absolutely. Commissioner Voltz stated as Chairman Pritchard mentioned, if there is a big pickup truck noncommercial, it would look out of place in a small subdivision than it would in a subdivision with one-acre lots. Ms. Jones stated section 5(b) are conditions; the Board can put a condition in there on lot size that must be over half an acre, an acre, or whatever; and that is a simple restriction the Board can include if it chooses to.

Commissioner Carlson stated regarding occupational licenses, one of the folks provided the Board with the zoning approval for occupational license approval for home occupations; and it says, “lawn care services are permitted as home occupation provided all equipment is stored in an enclosed structure. Landscaping, bail bondsmen, distributorships, contractors, and the building trade shall not be considered home occupations.” She inquired, if the Board allows them to come home with their commercial vehicles, which is a benefit to the employees and all that kind of stuff, and that it is good business, from a legal perspective, how would the Board consider running service calls out of a residential home and would that be considered an extension of a business and require an occupational license. She inquired if it would go against the Occupational License Code that exists under Zoning. Ms. Jones stated that is a good question, but she is not the one who enforces the occupational license laws and is not completely familiar with them.

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated in general, occupational licenses relate to the area where the actual work is being done and the address where the license is issued to; to her knowledge, they have not had any specific complaints about individuals answering calls out of their homes because the work is not being done at the home; and the complaints are about the vehicles that are being placed on the property. She stated if it were something where the actual work was being brought to the person’s home, such as a used-car repairman, if someone called and needed a car repaired immediately and the repairman left his home to make a service call, there would be no issue about an occupational license; however, if the car was brought to the person’s home, those are things Code Enforcement does enforce. She noted occupational licenses and home occupations are all about where the work is actually being performed.

Commissioner Carlson stated by definition, if a person takes his vehicle home, he has his work with him because if he goes on a service call he has everything he needs in his truck to service that car. Ms. Busacca stated it is based again upon the vehicle because if he is not doing anything and simply has a vehicle parked there, the issue is about the vehicle not the work being conducted; and at least that is the way it was interpreted and implemented in the past. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like a more legal perspective on that because she wants to make sure they are not contradicting their Occupational License Code. She inquired the fact that the guy can put his truck in the garage or make sure it is hidden but can still bring it home and that is okay, is it really contradicting the occupational license scenario. She stated she agrees there are some vehicles they can bring home and do a service call and there is nothing in the vehicle that would provide them with the ability to do that work; but in other cases there is; therefore, they have their business on wheels as an extension of an offsite business; so that probably ought to be looked at a little further. Ms. Jones stated the ordinance says all equipment has to comply with Section 62-2117, and says, “however, this provision does not apply to trailers used in conduction of home occupational license pursuant to Section 62-1155.” She stated the same could be true for trucks in that no trucks can be used to violate the home occupational license. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that would apply to what she is saying; with Ms. Jones responding she believes so; and the air conditioning business has an office and dispatch and send the people out. Commissioner Carlson stated they have 24-hour service and those are the guys they send the vehicles home with; so they have the tools they need to run the service call on their site 24 hours; and she is not trying to make it complex, but is saying she does not want more contradiction in the Code than there already is when it comes to occupational licenses. Commissioner Voltz stated they are not doing the work on the home site; with Commissioner Carlson responding she knows that. Ms. Busacca stated that same equipment could be in the home or garage and it could be simply a tool box; home occupation is established in such a way that if it is the same type of use that they would find in a single-family residence, then they would not consider it to be a problem; and so the issue again gets back to does the Board feel that use of that vehicle is consistent with the single-family residential neighborhood, because that is how they have looked at home occupations.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has approached this issue at different times in different ways; there have been two conflicting thoughts; as they move into a new economy, there may be many people working out of their homes; and that should not be discouraged but encouraged. He stated they have retirees with consulting businesses on computers, business licenses for different purposes, tax write-offs, etc., and that is wonderful and great; but on the other hand one person’s activity should not degrade another person’s home; the home is considered sacred; and Chairman Pritchard touched on a real point that different places have different conditions. He stated today there are more and more zero lot line developments; and if they put a 24-foot truck there, it is going to create a number of calls to Mr. Bowen. He stated a lady said she has 4.5 acres and her family was able to put a fifth wheel on her property; essentially nobody knew and nobody cared; different places and different things; but he sympathizes with both sides because anybody who buys a home should be able to be assured he or she is not going to have degradation of property because some monster truck is sitting out front. He stated it is not right and the Board should not allow that to happen and say there is another way they should go; after they have a subdivision they cannot go back and create deed restrictions; and everybody is going to dislike this, but somehow the Board needs to address what Chairman Pritchard brought up. He stated if they have to answer both calls, it means neither side is really happy; but if at the end the Board looks at this as being a good, the people should be able to not negatively impact other people. He stated somehow they tried to define it without going to the basic issue; Jay Adamson brought up the five feet from the sidewalk because the Board was worried about blocking the sidewalk; when they block a sidewalk, they have a big vehicle in front of a piece of property; and somehow they must have thought it has to be within the dimensions of the property. He stated he does not know how to fabricate it; there are a lot of elements that are good; but that element he does not feel comfortable with tonight.

Commissioner Voltz stated that is why she asked earlier about less than an acre of land because there is a difference between a quarter-acre and three-quarter acre lot and a full acre lot in rural areas such as Grant and Valkaria. She stated a lot of those people have farm equipment parked down there and have multiple acres; so if the Board looks at all residential property in the same way, it is not going to work out. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it can be handled in Section 5; with Ms. Jones responding correct; and looking at the matrix, they have pickup trucks, cargo vans, and several conditions that they can add to pickup trucks; one would be to limit the number to four; Footnote 10 of the matrix has unlimited number in the garage or no more than one per one-quarter acre lot size; and that would be the number. Ms. Jones stated there is also no more than one visible if it is not in an enclosed structure; and the very last line says it has to be within five feet from the setback. She stated Footnote 10 answers a lot of those questions of how many they can have and where they can be parked; maybe a simpler way to go through this is to go through the matrix to see if the Board wants to have those conditions; and it can say yes, then figure out the conditions it is looking for.

Commissioner Carlson inquired, as the Board goes through them, and she agrees they should go through them one-by-one, could Ms. Jones tell the Board if it has been an area of ambiguity that they had difficulty with more or less and something they need to clean up in the Code or if it is a huge change. Ms. Jones stated she drafted some language on earlier comments; there is a new Section (e) which would be entitled “minimum standards”; and it would read, “It is the express intent of the Board of County Commissioners that these restrictions enumerated in this section are to be considered the minimum standards for the unincorporated area of the County. This section shall not be considered a repeal of any legally recorded deed restrictions.” She stated she also added to section (c)(1), which is the first one about commercial vehicles, “At no time may a commercial vehicle be parked, stored, or located at any location in a manner that blocks a street or sidewalk or causes a traffic sight obstruction.” She stated those would answer earlier questions if the Board wants to amend the ordinance to reflect those.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve including section (e) entitled “Minimum Standards,” to read, “It is the express intent of the Board of County Commissioners that these restrictions enumerated in this Section are to be considered the minimum standards for the unincorporated area of the County. This Section shall not be considered a repeal of any legally recorded deed restrictions.”; and add to Section (c)(1), “At no time may a commercial vehicle be parked, stored, or located at any location in a manner that blocks the street or sidewalk or causes a traffic sight obstruction.”

Commissioner Scarborough stated going back to Mr. Adamson’s comment with the five feet issue, this could go up to the sidewalk; Mr. Adamson said five feet back from the sidewalk; and there is a difference. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a motion on those two items. Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion included not to obstruct the sidewalk; he is saying Mr. Adamson mentioned previously there is a limitation of five feet from the sidewalk; so it would not get into obstruction, which is more ambiguous to pursue. Ms. Jones stated that would be on residential property, and this is a general condition she wrote to cover somebody parking in front of a business location as well; and it is Section (c)(1) in the general section. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they could come back and put five feet; with Ms. Jones responding if the Board decided to allow pickup trucks, cargo vans, and passenger vans in residential, then it could put more conditions on it.

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

Chairman Pritchard advised Commissioner Voltz brought up the issue of one acre being perhaps a pivotal point; and inquired if the Board wants to discuss using one acre as a pivotal point to talk about properties less than one acre and consider properties above one acre. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is for each item. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board may want to say that properties above one acre might fit into a different category and properties less than one acre might be what it is discussing at this point. Ms. Jones stated that is 7.(b)(4), which is Footnote 10, no limit on how many pickup trucks and commercial vans can be parked; that also puts in where they can be parked, which are the alternatives; so the Board may want to discuss that when it goes to 7.(b)(4).

Commissioner Scarborough stated it may come into play with many things like how long can they have an RV in their yard with their neighbors from up north; maybe more if they are on four acres than if they live in a condo; so it may permeate the entire conversation as the size of the property has all types of activities.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has driven through neighborhoods of one-acre parcels in North Merritt Island where folks come and stay in RV’s and attach to the homes; they stay for awhile on one-acre properties; and he is sure the people who are accommodating that would be upset if it was changed. He stated they have RV’s and other vehicles that are currently behind six-foot fences in their backyards that are visible from the streets; those are one-acre properties; so the Board may want to consider the one acre being the threshold to allow certain activities to take place that should not be allowed in smaller neighborhoods. Commissioner Voltz stated it does not look as unsightly on a multi-acre parcel as it does on a quarter-acre lot. Chairman Pritchard stated and it would be behind a six-foot fence; and if things can occur behind a six-foot fence, the super structure of a boat or camper would be visible, but it would only be the top two or three feet.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the size of the lot makes a lot of difference; if the lot is in Port St. John, it is one thing, a lot in Canaveral Groves and has four acres is totally different; the capacity for all those things to work is within the dimensions of the lot; and each of those have to be addressed within the dimensions of the lot. Chairman Pritchard stated (c)(3) says, “from any street frontage on lots of at least one acre in size”; so they have somewhat established the parameter of one acre in size. Commissioner Scarborough stated they also need to talk, if they put it up to the fence next to the neighbors property, it is different than if they do not; so there is a setback issue that comes into play. Commissioner Scarborough stated one acre would allow the property owner to set back sufficiently, but would they be required to set back sufficiently. He stated he is not trying to make it complex, but they are going to get along and things are going to get crossed.

Chairman Pritchard stated that is why he said perhaps for a point of discussion what they should discuss at this point would be properties of less than one acre and when they get done with that, then discuss properties one acre or greater, and then what the parameters of that would be. He stated it is not going to be one size fits all; and not everybody has four acres. He inquired if people can park commercial vehicles in their garages, is that good or bad; with Commissioner Voltz responding it does not matter if it fits in the garage. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a question for Code Enforcement; it has not existed up to today, but out of sight, out of mind; and it seems like it would not be a hardship. She stated one man said they will put it in the garage for a while then it will come out and the Board would create more problems for Code Enforcement than intended. Chairman Pritchard stated it would be there anyway; and inquired what would prevent a person from driving it home anyway. He stated this way the Board would let him drive it into the garage. Commissioner Voltz stated Code Enforcement would never be able to catch them if it is parked in a garage. Commissioner Carlson stated right now they are not allowed to do that. Commissioner Voltz stated it is making people feel they have to be sneaky about it. Ms. Jones stated there was a case where Mr. Bowen had an officer stake out a place because they were parking in the garage and the complaint was he was driving in, had a large box truck, and putting it in an RV garage. She stated they had to wait until he left to take the picture and make sure he was parking; and it will take a lot of man-hours if the Board does not allow them in a garage. Commissioner Carlson stated it seems like a no brainer; and if they can park in a garage then so be it. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with it if they can park it in the garage but not carports. He stated it has to be fully enclosed and the door to the garage closed.

Chairman Pritchard stated the consensus of the Board is they do not have a problem with commercial vehicles being parked in a garage; and inquired if there are any other easier items. Commissioner Carlson stated driveway expansion. Chairman Pritchard stated mulch was brought up and it was initially discarded because mulch tends to float away; he happens to like stabilized pervious surfaces not concrete or asphalt; and it could be rubberized mulch or anything that would allow water to penetrate into the ground. Commissioner Voltz stated there is a new mulch that is rubberized and stays there and does not float away. Chairman Pritchard stated something that works like that is a stabilized surface better than concrete; and he does not have a problem with that. Commissioner Carlson stated the driveway expansion issue says, “allows for additional parking area for recreational vehicles and equipment with conditions; it is not acceptable in the current Code, but the proposed code would allow for that; and when she read the comments, it was based on the fact they have a smaller home with only a single car garage or no garage and they have a vehicle they want to park next to their driveway but not on their driveway. Ms. Jones stated people can park their RV’s on their driveways under the Code; a lot of people do not want to pay the extra money to expand their driveway to the street and do an extra curb cut; so they bubble that out to park their vehicles; and a lot of people do it with their third cars. She stated they just put it on the bubble so they can easily hook it up and pull it out; and that is what the driveway expansion will allow, more convenience. Chairman Pritchard stated it says aggregates, concrete, asphalt, gravel, masonry, road base, or other similar type materials utilized to support the storage of recreational vehicles and equipment”. Commissioner Carlson stated it says equipment with conditions. Ms. Jones stated those conditions are the setback requirements, etc.; and it is required they park five feet from the front setback. Mr. Bowen stated there is a five-foot setback for driveway expansion; a person could expand it all the way to the street, but they would have to get a permit to do that; so the five-foot setback was to insure they do not drive over the curb; and if they do that, they have to get a permit. Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is if they have a bubble on a large lot, it is not a problem, but if they have tightly compacted lots and the bubble is just a foot away from the neighbors yard with a big thing sitting just a few feet away from the neighbor’s house, all of a sudden it becomes different than if they had a half acre or acre lot. He stated the Board has to somehow say the bubble has to be so many feet away from the property line and have a setback not only from the sidewalk. Ms. Jones stated it says, “a driveway area or driveway expansion if set back a minimum of five feet from the front and if applicable side street property lines and park perpendicular to the street upon which the driveway is accessed, except where parked at least 100 feet from any street frontage on a lot of at least one acre in size.” Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the neighbor’s yard; with Ms. Jones responding that would be the side setbacks. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is from the side street; they do not have it from the neighbor’s yard; and they need to define it. He stated five feet from the neighbor’s yard is a little tight. Ms. Jones stated the definitions say, “the expansion of an existing driveway shall not exceed a total of 36 feet in length and shall be constructed outside any easement and/or setback requirements that have been established”; so if there is a building setback line on a parcel, they cannot build into that. Chairman Pritchard stated in some neighborhoods that building setback line is the corner of the garage, which may be 7.5 feet from the property line; so they would not be able to go past the corner of the garage and cannot add to it. Commissioner Scarborough stated then they would not have the ability to build a bubble. Mr. Bowen stated some people will not be able to do it; and it has to be outside any easement and/or setback requirements that have been established. Ms. Busacca stated if that is the Board’s intent, it should clearly say the building setbacks because currently that type of work would be considered flat work and the Zoning Code would not identify a setback to that work. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the setback of some of the more dense areas; with Ms. Busacca responding 7.5 feet. Commissioner Voltz stated some are five feet. Commissioner Carlson stated some are ten feet completed, but five feet from each line. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be pretty tight, so he is not willing to go there because he does not think it is fair to the neighbor to put something like that next to his or her yard. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to keep the current Code; with Chairman Pritchard responding it may apply for some less than an acre; it is not going to apply here; so it has to be written in a way that would say it would have to be. Commissioner Voltz stated they know it cannot be permitted there. Chairman Pritchard stated that is correct, so they would have to say it has to be 20 feet from the property line or 25 feet or something. Ms. Jones stated for RV’s and boats, they are allowed to park in the side yard with no conditions; the Board might want to have it behind the front property line to put a boat in the side yard; and currently there are no setback requirements, it does not have to be on a stabilized area, and they just put it in the backyard or the side yard. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it applies to RV’s too; with Ms. Jones responding correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they can park it on the property line or right next to it; with Mr. Bowen responding what they are trying to discourage is having recreational vehicles parked all over and identify areas that would be aesthetically more pleasing to the community to allow the expansion of the driveway and get the boat and trailer off the main driveway onto a side pad for access to the garage or carport freely and establish an area that had some continuity to the neighborhood. Chairman Pritchard stated they have permission to park on the property line; and what staff is trying to do is create an area adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Bowen stated instead of driving over the lawn, they could back up, hook up, and go. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that can be done for those properties that are one acre and more versus the smaller properties if the Board is worried about the influence of that RV to the neighbor, or even half-acre properties.

Ms. Busacca stated the idea of allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in commercial property is relatively easy; the Board may want to address that issue this evening and let staff come back with ideas about the residential issue; and the Board could move that forward so commercial owners can park their trucks on commercial property. She stated staff can do some work on the sizes, setbacks, and pictures to help the Board understand what they are talking about and solve part of the problem. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that would let the florist’s van stay at the flower shop over night; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, and she heard that may not be a big issue.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve parking of commercial vehicles in BU-1, BU-1-A, and IN(H) zoning classifications. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board got off on a tangent of parking boats on the side yard; the concern of the neighbors is parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods; and inquired if there are other issues.

Commissioner Voltz stated vehicles for sale should not be allowed on residential property or on the side of the road.

Mr. Bowen stated the Code today does not allow it on vacant residential property; and staff is extending that to commercial vacant and abandoned property. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a good idea to expand it.

Ms. Jones stated because the ordinance was completely rewritten, it is going to be difficult to piecemeal and adopt it because they cannot amend a section; the Board is pulling things in from one and putting it into another; and they should table the ordinance because she does not know what to give the clerk to amend the ordinance and allow the pickup trucks and cargo vans in BU-1, BU-1-A, and IN(H).

Ms. Busacca inquired if Ms. Jones can put together something that they could bring to the Board on May 17 that would be permitted under the current advertising. She stated the Board could review and approve that portion and they could move forward with that commercial. Ms. Jones stated that would work; and she has to go back to see what is there currently and amend that and bring it back. Ms. Busacca stated staff could get that part done and bring it back on the 17th and in July or August they could come forward with the remaining ordinance.

Ms. Jones stated she would like clarification on 6.(a) and (b); she would prefer the optional alternative; it came up by a gentleman who came to the first hearing and said he wanted to park his vehicle in the front of his business; he does not have enough parking spaces; and he even has customers there. She stated there is a site plan section that says they have to have a certain amount of parking spaces for their customers; this ordinance would cross reference that; anyone looking at it would look at that section as well to see that he or she has enough parking spaces to park and not fill it up with vans; and that would be the alternative for 6(a) and (b) on the matrix. Commissioner Carlson inquired about (c); with Ms. Jones responding (c) is the least restrictive because it is not abutting residential property; and it is the Wal-Mart out there where they can park in the rear. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board can approve commercial vehicles in BU-1, BU-1-A, and IN(H) in one motion with Ms. Jones recommendations on alternatives (a), (b), and (c); with Commissioner Scarborough responding it has to come back as an ordinance. Commissioner Carlson stated she was trying to make it clear for the Clerk what the Board wants. Ms. Jones stated she will bring it back with Footnote 3 and Footnote 4 and using (c) on May 17. Ms. Busacca requested the names and address of the people who were here this evening to make sure they are notified when it comes back for the residential portion of it since that will be several weeks or months from now.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board could handle vehicles for sale separately; with Ms. Jones responding that issue is easy because they were just adding a section like she will be adding section (d). Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is going to be brought back; with Ms. Jones responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Items IV and VI of the Matrix; and direct staff to put together an ordinance to be brought back to the Board on May 17, 2005 that would be permitted under the current advertising and bring back the residential portion in July or August 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board did clarify a couple of things; regarding residential, the audience is here dealing with residential issues; the Board did clarify it did not have a problem parking in an enclosed garage; it is okay with that; and it seems to be developing a level of restrictiveness for less than one acre parcels as compared to one acre or larger parcels. He stated the Board is also going to look at F-150, F-250, F-350 and other trucks that it does not consider commercial just because the manufacturer considers them commercial vehicles. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not care as long as it is not a problem. Chairman Pritchard stated they should not be considered commercial vehicles if they do not have any signs on them. Ms. Jones stated she can add that in the definition section for the 17th meeting. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board is not applying the application of the manufacturer; it will deal with the issue of what is commercial usage at a later date; it is providing some direction and had some discussion; and the public has some indication where it is moving. He noted like everything in government they are moving slowly.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if consolidating trailers under one section of the Code, prohibiting empty trailers from being visible on residential property, and allowing trailers to be visible if currently being used to transport recreational equipment is something they have to wait on. Ms. Jones stated they were trying to call trailers commercial vehicles because of the problem she told the Board before; someone puts an ATV on a trailer then puts an exception on there for horse trailers; if they have a lot zoned for horses, they should be able to have a horse trailer; then the exception if they have a recreational vehicle on top of it like an ATV or boat, that should be allowed. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the number of trailers were limited; with Ms. Jones responding yes, if she turned a trailer into a commercial vehicle, she added into the definition of commercial vehicle that trailers shall be treated this way. Ms. Jones stated they have a section for trailers under 24 feet and what they can do with those on their property; and they should be treated the same way as on residential property. Chairman Pritchard stated there needs to be limitations as to what is visible. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is something they can bring back on May 17; with Ms. Jones responding she can work on bringing back a definition of trailer and recreational equipment such as a boat on a trailer problem and try to fix that; she will do her best to try and do what she can; and the Board can look at it on May 17 and see what it wants.

Commissioner Carlson stated mulch is included in the definition of stabilized areas; and inquired if that is okay. Chairman Pritchard stated the issue is visibility and number of items; if they can put it in a garage, the Board is good to go with that; if they can put it behind a fence, it is pretty much good to go; different people have an idea of what is acceptable, and the Board does too; and he thinks that is enough said. Commissioner Carlson stated she was going down the things to see how much the Board can get Ms. Jones to bring back and separate the commercial and residential thing so they have a more discreet thing. Ms. Jones stated perhaps the Board could pass almost everything except Section 5(c), which is the pickup trucks, passenger vans, and cargo vans; it could pass 5(a), which would allow the flower truck, and except 5(b), which is the residential; and (7), which is trailers, can come back and amend that section for those things.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if a motion is needed. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not going to vote tonight on it because he has more problems than he wants to vote on. Ms. Jones stated she will bring it back on May 17 without the two sections. Commissioner Voltz stated she has seen PT cruisers covered with ads from bumper to bumper and wonder how they allow something like that; it is a little vehicle advertising a surf shop on the side of it with big waves and all sorts of stuff; and the whole car is covered with advertising. Ms. Jones stated the definition of commercial vehicle is to include passenger vehicles, all vehicles used for commercial purposes; and advertising is a commercial purpose. She stated a Truly Nolan mouse with ears vehicle can be included in the definition of what is a commercial vehicle, or any vehicle used for commercial purposes.

Commissioner Colon stated the majority of folks want to get an idea where the Board is going regarding commercial vehicles in residential areas; the Board covered all that and that helped most of them; but she wants clear direction if the majority supports allowing it. She stated if that is the case, she wants to have an idea tonight if they are going to send it back to staff and everybody has to come back again. She stated she does not support it and has no intentions of supporting it; she did not support it in Palm Bay because she saw what happened there; and the Board has to be careful because it can open Pandora’s box. She stated the community is growing; in the unincorporated area there is so much area that is not developed and eventually is going to be developed, sooner or later they are going to be dealing with this issue; and she wants to make sure that she puts that on the record. She stated if the majority of the Board feels that it is not comfortable with commercial vehicles parked in residential areas but they need to figure out where they should go, then at least give that idea to the residents if that is the direction the Board is heading in so the residents and the business community know where they stand versus not getting a clear idea. She stated the Board fixed everything else except for where it is heading with commercial vehicles in residential areas; and if the Board feels it wants to support that with a fence or putting them in the back yard, at least give some idea. She stated if that is not the case, then it should not waste the folks time on May 17 and have them come back; that is where she wants feedback from the Board, which direction it wants to go; and she will respect the direction it wants, but she has been pretty clear about not supporting it.

Commissioner Carlson stated a lot of what the Board chose to do today she likes, but there are still some areas it can improve upon with commercial and recreational vehicles that might help Code Enforcement apply the Code; the next time the Board sees it, she may vote against it if they cannot get there from here; she needs to study that a little bit more to understand the implications; so she feels comfortable letting staff go and do that.

Commissioner Colon stated she was comfortable with the actions the Board took this evening; they were cut and dry; and she has no intention to change her vote in regards to what it did this evening because what they did is very fair. She stated she is talking about commercial vehicles in residential areas; she is going to stick to her no; she does not want to get anybody’s hopes up that there is support from her; and in regards to just that item, the Board owes it to the community to give it a sense of where each Commissioner stands on that. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Colon supports putting it in the garage; with Commissioner Colon responding everything the Board talked about, i.e., trailers, driveway expansions, etc. was not commercial vehicles; and she does not think that is fair for everybody who sat here and going to those meetings not to get a clear idea from the Board in regards to that particular item because that is why they are here. She stated the Board cleaned up the Ordinance and that is wonderful; she supported what the Board did; but it is not clear in regards to commercial vehicles in residential areas; and that is the part she is talking about.

Commissioner Carlson stated two things she heard were setbacks and size of lots; some folks who spoke today would like to be able to have the option if they have a residential home site in AU or whatever it is, to put their RV’s behind the fence; however, they want to do it and have distinct requirements so there is no ambiguity. She stated that is the issue she has; the hardship it is on staff to have to apply the Code, but the Code is too laborious to deal with and causes more and more problems; so they need to clean it up; and that is a lot of this exercise.

Commissioner Scarborough stated out of sight can be taken care of with setbacks and screenings; nobody sees, nobody cares; so the Board should proceed and if it cannot accomplish that, then it should prohibit it.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)