February 3, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 3, 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, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Inman of Orsino Baptist Church.

Commissioner Susan Carlson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: LIBBY McCREEDY

Commissioner Colon advised Libby McCreedy keeps me honest and she will be a young 88 years old; and this month is her birthday. She stated they love her in Brevard County, she is active and giving, and they have learned so much from her. She extended happy birthday wishes to Ms. McCreedy.

REPORT, RE: TABLED ITEMS

Commissioner Carlson advised two items were requested for tabling; one was Item IV.A.2., Antonia Camara’s request; and the reason for tabling is the small area plan that is being done in that vicinity and to find out what the outcome will be of turning a public marina into a private marina.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item IV.A.2., (Z0407402) Antonia Camara and Mary Camara, Co-trustees’ request for small scale plan amendment (04S.7) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Community Commercial to Residential 10; and change zoning from BU-1 to RU-2-10 with CUP for residential/recreational marina on 4 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Otter Creek Lane, which was recommended for denial by the LPA and P&Z Board, to March 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson advised the Diocese of Orlando requested Item IV.E.40 be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item IV.E.40., Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 2, on 20 acres owned by the Diocese of Orlando, currently zoned AU and proposed to be rezoned to IN(L), until March 3, 2005.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised he believes the item is IV.E.1 instead of IV.E.40. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was an issue with the numbering system; and recommended staff check it out; with Mr. Enos responding they will. Commissioner Carlson stated if it is wrong, they will come back and fix it. Chairman Pritchard inquired if it will remain IV.E.40.; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are other items being requested for tabling as well; with Chairman Pritchard responding he was getting to that.

Chairman Pritchard advised IV.A.1., (Z0407103) Ben Sims, Darlyne Smith, and Carolyn Henderson’s request for change from AU to SR with Binding Development Plan on 66 acres located on the north side of Jay Jay Road, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board was requested for tabling to March 3, 2005; and Item IV.A.4., (Z0410303) Micco Farm and Grove, Inc.’s request for change from GU and AU to RR-1 on 760? acres located on the south side of Micco Road, west of Bird Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, was requested for tabling until April 7, 2005. Chairman Pritchard advise Item IV.B.4., (Z0501101) Karen Bell, Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Bell’s request for change from RU-1-13 and BU-1 to RU-2-10 with removal of existing BSP on 6.12 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Indian River Drive was requested for tabling to March 3, 2005; and Item IV.B.18., (Z0405503) Babcock, LLC’s request for change from GU to AU on 2,183? acres located west of Babcock Street and south of McGill Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with Binding Development Plan offering a $2,800 per unit school contribution, was requested for tabling to April 7, 2005. He inquired if there was any contradiction on that; with Mr. Enos responding Item IV.A.1. is requested for April 7, 2005. He stated Item IV.D.5., (NMI41101) John Isella’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on one acre located on the south side of Porcher Road, west of N. Courtenay Parkway, which had no recommendation from the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, was withdrawn by the applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item IV.A.1 to April 7, 2005; Item IV.A.4. to April 7, 2005; Item IV.B.4. to March 3, 2005; and Item IV.B.18 to April 7, 2005, and accept withdrawal of Item IV.D.5. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson advised she tabled Item IV.E.40. and Item IV.E.39 is also owned by the Diocese of Orlando, so she is not sure which item was requested for tabling. Mr. Enos advised it was Item IV.E.1. Commissioner Carlson recommended her earlier motion be corrected to table Item IV.E.1. instead of Item IV.E.40.

Chairman Pritchard advised there are no cards for public comments, which has been moved to the front of the agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ANIMAL-RELATED ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REGULATIONS,
ENHANCED USABILITY, AND CLARITY

Commissioner Scarborough stated the other issue is the animal control ordinance; as the Board may recall, under his report at a previous meeting, he indicated there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed before the Board moved to a public hearing on the ordinance; there may be people interested in it; but the Board received the idea that it needed additional comment on it. He stated he would like to table that item because the indication at that time was that it was all right for the Board to receive a staff report and go further into it. He stated the Board had a court case where it had to come back to the lions, tigers, and bears as it is referred to; and it got into many other issues that all had their own dynamics. He stated the lions, tigers, and bears issue may have some State law changes that need to be integrated into the ordinance; so it would be his suggestion that the Board table the ordinance to allow time to work on that and meet with people. He inquired when could staff have the report; with Planning and Zoning Interim Director Robin Sobrino responding April 7 unless the Board would like additional time. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff can do it by April 7; with Ms. Sobrino responding she believes so.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending animal-related zoning regulations for consistency with State regulations, enhanced usability, and clarity, until April 7, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider items tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on October 2 and December 4, 2003 and May 20, October 4, and November 4, 2004, as follows:

Item IV.A.1. Tabled earlier in the meeting to April 7, 2005.

Item IV.A.2. Tabled earlier in the meeting to March 3, 2005.

Item IV.A.3. (Z0309107) Richard J. and Patricia A. Connolly, Peter Vander Haeghen, and Peter F. and Kristine A. Woldanski (Randy Woodruff)’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (03S.11) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 12 to Community Commercial; and change classification from RU-1-13 and RU-2-10 to BU-1 on 1.8 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of the northern terminus of Indian River Drive, which was recommended for approval as Community Commercial by the LPA and BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

Patricia Connolly of Cocoa, representing Peter Vander Haeghen, herself and her husband Richard Connolly, and Mr. Pickford, Trustee, stated they had originally requested BU-1; and since then, they have modified their request to change the zoning to RP. She stated they sent a letter in October 2004 that should be in the file; the RP zoning classification encompasses lands devoted to a mixture of professional and residential uses; and the principal uses and restrictions of RP are to develop low to medium density residential development and provide restricted commercial uses, which are compatible with and will meet the need for limited commercial services convenient to residential development. She stated they are willing to commit to, if granted the RP, a Binding Development Plan for professional offices only, which is basically an 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. operation such as offices for doctors, lawyers, dentists, and those types of professions. Ms. Connolly stated each of the applicants has a piece of property; she designed a building of no more than 5,000 square feet and set it back 40 feet from U.S. 1; there are trees in the front that will make it look nice if left that way; and she provided parking in the front and the back because there is quite a bit of area in the back. She stated they meet all the setbacks; from the professional office to their residents in the back is approximately 400 feet; there is a natural heavily-wooded buffer between the area requested for rezoning and their residences, which are on the river; and they would be able to incorporate their driveway into the professional office site and use the drawing as a binding development plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been extensive discussion over a period of time; it is inappropriate for all the people in the audience to try and educate the adjoining neighbors as to what is being proposed at this moment and go through the exercise of discussing things; and if the Board is going to look at a binding development plan at this particular moment, it is not fair to the people to hold up the meeting, so he will need to table the item. He stated he needs to schedule a meeting with the residents in the area; there are other things that should be incorporated in the binding development agreement; and the drawing is more of a binding development site plan than an agreement.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing on Item IV.A.3. until March 3, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.4. Tabled earlier in the meeting to April 7, 2005.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
JANUARY 10, 2005

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board at its hearing on January 10, 2005, as follows:

Item IV.B.1. (Z0501501) Richard S. Sandusky’s request for change from RU-1-9 to RU-2-8 on 0.52 acre located on the southwest corner of Pine Tree Drive and Neptune Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the request is for RU-2-8 on a half acre; and if it is approved, it will allow four multifamily units on the property.

Richard Sandusky advised his request is to go from RU-1-9 to RU-2-8; Ms. Cote will be his representative; and if it is okay, he will hand out the literature. He presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk.

Joyce Cote of Indialantic, representing Richard Sandusky, advised the request to change the zoning from RU-1-9 to RU-2-8 is to put two duplexes on the property; there are existing duplexes in the area; most are within 70 feet of Mr. Sandusky’s home; and presented a drawing of what the project would look like from the street. She stated Mr. Sandusky lives off Pine Tree Drive; there would be two driveways off Pine Tree Drive and two off Neptune Road; he has .52 acre; and there are many rentals in the area, mostly single-family rentals, but there are quite a few duplexes along SR A1A and on the corner of Pine Tree Drive. She stated there are two lots on SR A1A that are .51 acre each and zoned for duplexes; Mr. Sandusky lives in Ocean Village not Atlantic Gardens; Atlantic Gardens is all single-family residential; and Ocean Village has duplexes and one or two single-family residences besides Mr. Sandusky’s home. Ms. Cote stated the duplexes he wants to build are exactly like the ones that are on the road right now on SR A1A and Pine Tree Drive; since they were built, the property values have increased dramatically in the area; they are well kept, look beautiful, and withstood the hurricanes fabulously; and it is a winning situation.

John Cote of Indialantic advised his property abuts Mr. Sandusky’s property in the rear; he probably pays more property taxes than anyone in Atlantic Gardens right now; he realizes Mr. Sandusky has a lot of land to maintain with one tiny house on it built in 1958; and it is not doing much for the property values of the neighborhood. He stated a lot of the neighbors are asking for a lot; they ask for various signs, sidewalks, etc. and they just got speed bumps on Pine Tree Drive. He stated the money has to come from somewhere; by allowing the project, it can increase the tax base and perhaps pay for some of the things the people want; the Board needs to take that into consideration; and he hopes it will.

Alice Brutscher of Indialantic stated they are trying to keep their area of 91 homes in Atlantic Gardens a single-family residential area and want Mr. Sandusky to have use of his property by dividing it into two lots and building single-family homes on those. She stated a lot of the area had become quite rundown some time ago, but has been built up; many young people who moved in with their children spent a great deal on their homes and hope to raise their families there; some of them are older and happy to be there; and they would like the property to stay the same as it has been. She stated they have deed restrictions within the area that are applied by the residents; it is a four square-block area; and they talked to neighbors and got 75 signatures out of 91 homes that do not want the project to take place. She noted the other people were out of their homes because of hurricane damage; and there are not as many rentals as they said there are. She stated the duplexes are mainly along SR A1A, which is an entirely different area; their neighborhood is strictly residential; and they hope the Board will keep it that way.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Brutscher has the petitions; with Ms. Brutscher responding they were told that Zoning would turn that over to the Board, but she has one copy of the petitions with her.

Judy Collier of Indialantic advised her house is directly next door to Mr. Sandusky’s house; she has no objection to him building two homes on the lot; but they do not want multifamily units in there. She stated Mr. Sandusky’s home was originally the Gleason summer home; and the Gleasons set up the whole subdivision, wanted it to be a residential area, and thought it would be a nice place to raise a family. She stated she is also speaking for Deloris Hernsey who spoke at the Zoning Board hearing; her property is directly to the east of Mr. Sandusky’s property; she is 76 years old, had heart surgery two days ago, and could not be here; and she is raising a four-year old great-grandchild. She stated Mr. Sandusky is proposing two driveways opposite Ms. Hernsey’s home; the traffic from Pine Tree Drive does not need more driveways; and if he builds two houses, he can put one driveway on Neptune Road and one on Pine Tree Drive. She stated they want to keep the nice residential area and not have multifamily development; the condominiums are along SR A1A, so it is like comparing apples and oranges; their street was heavily hit during the hurricanes; people are rebuilding their homes and trying to make it the best they can; and they do not want something like this project there.

Ms. Cote advised Mr. Sandusky does respect the neighbors’ wishes; if he cannot get the duplexes, he has an alternative plan, which was submitted in the package he handed to the Board; and he would like to build three 1,200 square-foot single-family homes, one on .18 acre and two on .17 acre lots in Atlantic Gardens.

Commissioner Colon stated she will support denial of the request.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to deny Item IV.B.1., as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated to bring up a change to go from duplexes to single-family houses seems totally inappropriate; they should have talked to the neighbors before they requested the rezoning; and there is a motion on the floor to deny it.

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

Item IV.B.2. (Z0501502) Bonita Beach, LLC (G. E. Cantelou, III)’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-8 on 1.984 acres located on the north side of Eau Gallie Boulevard, east of San Pedro Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised if approved, the RU-2-8 will allow multifamily on that tract.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item IV.B.2. as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.3. (Z0501503) Robert P. and Victoria L. Hemming’s request for CUP for guest- house in RU-1-11 zoning classification on 0.86 acre located on the east side of Vermont Street, north of Milwaukee Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the request is for a guest house accessory to the single-family residence.

Victoria Hemming of West Melbourne advised she is requesting a CUP for a guesthouse to be build directly behind their current dwelling solely for the use of her parents Don and Judy VanBever who are retired and currently live in Leesburg, Florida. She stated they would like to move back to Melbourne to be closer to their family; they previously resided in Brevard County for 39 years; and the intent for the property is to maintain the natural appearance with buffers and pine trees. She stated if it is visible from the road, it would be very minimal; the exterior would match the exterior of her home; and the structure is only for her parents. She stated life is a revolving circle and they want to give things back to her mom and dad.

Commissioner Colon stated some of the concerns she heard has been in regards to possibly in the future becoming a rental property; and those were the concerns shared by those in the neighborhood. She inquired if Ms. Hemming has any feedback she can share with the Board. Ms. Hemming stated the feedback is she gave a letter with the actual County Ordinance Section 62-1932 to the neighbors within 500 feet; it will only be used for her parents; and it will not be a rental home. Commissioner Colon inquired how long has Ms. Hemming lived on the property; with Ms. Hemming responding a little over two years. Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Hemming got to know her neighbors; with Ms. Hemming responding she met some, but not many; they have long driveways; and everybody keeps to themselves.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board approved the request, would Ms. Hemming be willing to sign a Binding Development Plan that it would never be rented out; with Ms. Hemming responding most definitely. Mr. Enos advised the CUP prohibits rental so it is taken care of.

Robert Hemming advised they are residents of 37 years; his wife and he were born in Brevard County; they are from Eau Gallie, which is Melbourne; and it will not be used as rental because it is not a rental area. He stated he does not foresee any reason why they would rent it out; in fact some day the in-laws will pass away and it would be used as a guesthouse only; and there will not be rental usage at all.

Commissioner Colon stated the structure is a guesthouse; there are certain types of infrastructure that would be needed; and that is where she wants to make sure they draw the line in regards to what is allowed. She stated there will not be utilities and certain things that would not be allowed; so that it does not become an actual rental but more like a guest home. Mr. Hemming stated his wife knows more about the restrictions than he does. Ms. Hemming stated she knows they cannot have a full kitchen; she asked at the P&Z meeting if it would approve a microwave; and they said yes. She stated other than that there is not going to be a driveway to it; they are going to make it minimal so it will not be an eyesore; they do not like rental homes; and they came from Palm Bay where they had rentals all around, and that is why they moved.

Dr. Kim Maines of Melbourne stated she commends the desire of the applicants to draw their extended family close to them; however, they are not merely talking about adding a bedroom to an existing structure; and she understands it is in-laws quarters they are referring to which is larger in footprint than her house. She stated size is not the issue; they are here to answer one question, will the change in zoning negatively impact surrounding taxpayers; and in her opinion, the answer is a definite yes. She requested the zoning be denied for the following reasons: (1) to protect the past. She stated the Police Foundation is a historic part of Brevard County; the neighborhood embodies the Florida of yesteryear when having a winter home or retiring to Florida meant going to a lush warm Garden of Eden; and a view of any modern map of Brevard County will clearly demonstrate the difference between the neighborhood and any other. She stated new developments are designed to squeeze in the highest number of units on the least amount of acreage; the term zero lot line is a common phrase in Brevard County today; she made a great deal of effort not to live in such a development; and her neighborhood is a haven for individuals who value privacy and elbow room. She stated if the applicants prefer zero lot line living, there are a growing number of developments that are open for them; and the historic nature of the Police Foundation must be preserved. Dr. Maines stated #2 is to protect the present; the Police Foundation is a dwindling resource for Brevard County; besides their contentment, the Police Foundation offers Brevard County a natural preserve; in any given day in her yard she expects to see ibis, large hawks, eagles, and gopher tortoise, which is a threatened species; and they share their yard with the endangered sandhill cranes, which return each season. She stated until the Metro Cinema was constructed, they had sandhill cranes that raised their young in their development; she has not seen a sandhill chick in at least two years; and every day development is destroying more and more habitats. She stated altering single-family zoning in the Police Foundation will jeopardize their quality of life, style of living, property values, and dwindling natural habitats. She stated #3 is to protect their future; the Police Foundation cannot support multifamily zoning; the 1950’s infrastructure of the Police Foundation is best suited to single-family zoning; the streets are narrow, often with deep open drainage ditches on each side; and each dwelling has at least one well and one septic system. She inquired if the zoning is changed, will the future of adjacent drinking wells be affected by the addition of a new septic system. She stated she does not think anyone here can answer the question with complete assurance; and it seems obvious that the County’s existing Code says there is not enough setback to sustain two wells, two septic systems, and a driveway to the back without encroaching on the neighboring wells and property lines. She stated beyond this one family lies the real question since once zoned and built, it cannot be undone; and inquired in the event the family moves, who on the Board will make sure that only another loving extended family will move in, and who on the Board will keep investors from converting two single-family homes into four units. Dr. Maines stated they all moved to the Police Foundation because they liked the room; the applicants only recently moved into the development; and with the increase in housing prices, they can sell their house and take the proceeds to build two houses in a zero lot line development and be next to each other. She stated once the lot is rezoned, it will open the door for others to move into the neighborhood with the intention of rezoning their lots and building rental units; and inquired will the Board stop the developer from rezoning two adjacent lots and building eight to ten units. She stated the rezoning must not be approved; and if the zoning of the Police Foundation is chipped away, they will lose the historic nature of the development, valuable natural habitat for endangered and protected species, and jeopardize their aquifer and solitude. She stated it is not a petition of necessity; so she respectfully asks that the applicants not be placed above the needs of nature, her family, her neighbors, and that the petition be denied.

David Loper advised his dad purchased the property in the early 1970’s; he was fortunate to build a house there; but with two houses on the same lot, he can see a problem with the septic tank and well water; and requested the request be denied.

Jean Petrie of Melbourne stated her concerns are the same as Dr. Maines’ concerns; she hopes the Board will deny the addition on the property; it will have a negative impact; and inquired what would happen if they sell the property and if the other structure will eventually become a rental property. She inquired what would stop everyone else from building an addition on the back of their properties; and stated it will have a negative impact on the septic system and well water, so she is totally against it.

Charles Petrie of Melbourne stated he was born in Melbourne, raised in West Melbourne, and chose to buy his residence in the Police Foundation having grown up in the area and knowing it well. He stated the Police Foundation has privacy and retains the good old Florida look and feel; homes are on lots just shy of an acre; that is what he wanted; and this request would jeopardize the whole atmosphere in the Police Foundation. He stated they will be putting two homes on the property because it is not a guesthouse; it is a permanent residence on what is supposed to be one home on one acre; that jeopardizes the whole feel and look of the area and all the things mentioned before; and it will destroy what many of them went there for many years ago. He stated the applicants are new to the area; the rest of them are lifelong residents; and it jeopardizes what they want to preserve and keep, so they hope the Board will deny it.

Ms. Hemming advised the guesthouse will be half the size of her house; it will not be seen from the road; they have trees that line all around the house; and it will not be an eyesore because the exterior will match their house. She stated she hopes the Board will consider approving the CUP.

Commissioner Voltz inquired, rather than a guesthouse, is there a possibility of putting an addition on the home; with Ms. Hemming responding the reason they did not want to do the addition is because she and her husband are young and would like to have their privacy; and her parents could have their peace of mind and she and her husband could have theirs. She noted that is the reason. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it could be done so they would have their own entrance and exit.

Dr. Maines stated she is young and appreciates the need for privacy, but she does not understand how there will be that much privacy if the guesthouse does not have a kitchen, which means the parents will be at the house every night for dinner; so the plan is for them to have a kitchen and a place to live. She stated if they build on a bedroom and living room, they could still have their privacy and have dinner with the parents every night; so she does not see a problem building a bedroom and living room for them; but a whole separate house is different. Dr. Maines stated if it is half the size of Ms. Hemming’s house, it is still bigger than her house; they have a very nice house; and it looks very nice from the road.

Chairman Pritchard stated he recalls that the issue of having this type of structure is to somewhat encourage parents to live closer to children so that the parents are not in an ACLF until they reach the point where they require constant care; and what the Board spoke specifically about was having a separate structure attached, if possible, but separate. He stated he remembers that a kitchen is comprised of four elements—refrigeration, cooking, sink, and pantry; and inquired if that is correct. Mr. Enos stated that is correct; the CUP for the guesthouse was designed by the Board for that type of housing; it cannot be used as a rental; it cannot have a separate meter; and it is designed as an accessory to the residence. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the property were to change hands, what will happen to the use of the guesthouse; with Mr. Enos responding it will continue to be a guesthouse.

Commissioner Colon stated that is very difficult because they can envision doing something like that and being blessed with families; it is difficult specifically that there is only one acre; one acre for a rural area is not a lot; and if they put another home on it, they will create more of the potential for that to happen on other properties. She stated she would love to help the applicants but cannot approve doing it to this particular Subdivision based on what she has seen; and it bothers her having good folks in front of the Board and trying to have as much compassion as possible. She stated she thought Dr. Maines would help her with good ideas, but that did not happen; and since she is leaning toward denial, she wants to ask the applicant if she feels there is an opportunity of wanting to extend the home or is that an absolute no. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Colon wants to table the item and see if they can get together; and if there is an opportunity to come back with some sort of middle ground, they would not have to wait six months. Commissioner Colon stated she would prefer to do that because it is an uncomfortable situation; the Board is trying to get the applicants to make decisions that are going to affect their lives in the future; so to allow it to be tabled and give them time is a good idea. She stated she will not change her mind of denying it, but she wants to give the applicants an opportunity to consider an extension on their home as a compromise. She stated she will not change her mind of denying it, but it gives the applicants the opportunity to come back on March 3, 2005, with a compromise or say deny it; and that is as far as it will go.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item IV.B.3., Robert and Victoria Hemming’s request for CUP for guesthouse in RU-1-11 zoning classification on 0.86 acre located on the east side of Vermont Street, north of Milwaukee Avenue, until March 3, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Hemmings have a large piece of property; the Board is getting requests for these types of additions; and in looking at an aerial of the Police Foundation, he sees there are many outbuildings located throughout the neighborhood. He stated if they have a large piece of property, he is not opposed to it; it is a reasonable use of the property for parents; it is a family issue; and at some point it could be a pool house if they build a pool back there some day. Chairman Pritchard stated if it was a pool house, the neighbors would not complain; and maybe if they have a drawing to show the neighbors, it may not be a bad idea; the reason the Board created it was to provide opportunity for parents to live closer to their children as they reach that point in life; so he wants the applicants to know he is not leaning where Commissioner Colon is.

Commissioner Colon stated she is glad the Chairman made that point because there may be four votes in support of it; that is why it is important to table it and have an opportunity to further review; but she wants to be as frank as possible so they do not put their hopes on her. She stated she is willing to have everyone come to her office to meet if they feel there is some room for compromise; and she would be more than happy to do that.

Item IV.B.4. Tabled to March 3, 2005 earlier in the meeting.

Item IV.B.5. (Z0501102) Jacqueline B. Clark a/k/a Jacqueline Butler Christensen’s request for change from AU to EU-2 on 0.83 acre located on the northeast corner of Parrish Road and Old Dixie Highway, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.B.6. (Z0501103) Timothy A. and Mary E. Hise’s request for change from GU to AU on 1.25 acres located on the south side of Areca Palm Street, west of Florida Palm Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.B.7. (Z0501104) Richard L. and Patricia N. Lemmons’ request for change from AU to EU on 0.6 acre located on both sides of Indian River Drive, north of Briarwood Lane, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.B.8. (Z0501105) Ralph W. Rainey’s request for change from AU and RRMH-1 to TR-2 on 4.06 acres located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway, south of Brockett Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.B.9. (Z0501201) William T. Walters and Robert A. and Lisa M. Griggs (Cynthia Powell, The Wacky Hut & Downtime Patio)’s request for CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption (beer and wine) in BU-1 zoning classification on 0.44 acre located on the west side of Grove Street, south of Merritt Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption is for an existing 55-seat restaurant.

Don Shannon, President of Merritt Park Place Association, stated they are in support of granting the CUP; they think the Wacky Hut will be an asset to the area; they would like to see it grow as well as the area they are in; so they ask the Board to approve the CUP.

Beth Kring of Kring Designs stated she is here in support of the Wacky Hut permit as it will benefit the community of Merritt Park Place.

Cynthia Powell, owner of the Wacky Hut and Downtown Patio, presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated they have been struggling with this request for two years; they are at the last rung of the ladder; they believe that Merritt Island is where dreams are launched; and they hope to launch their dreams tonight. She stated she will answer any questions the Board may have.

Barbara Lustnig of Cocoa stated she has been associated with the Wacky Hut and Downtown Patio for as long as it has been there and it has been a long road; they have worked and tried to improve the neighborhood and their business; they tried to do everything to make Merritt Park Place proud of them; so they would appreciate it if the Board would grant the permit because they need the Board’s approval.

Thomas Foster of Cocoa stated he has operated a business on Parnell Street previous to working at Grove Street Station; in the three to four years they have been attracted to the area, it has not turned into the golden jewel that it was meant to be; Merritt Park Place is a sleeping giant in Brevard County; and there is no establishment there to enjoy a nice lunch with a cocktail or have a beer or wine with lunch. He stated if Wacky Hut was there, it would be an alternative for women’s groups and different people to come to the area and make it the walking shopping district it was designed to be; the shopping is not there because they do not have walk-ins and people walking up and down the streets leisurely; and they cannot stop in some place on the street for a beverage because there is no place on the street allowed to sell a beverage. He urged the Board to approve the permit.

Frances Grooms of Merritt Island stated she and her husband have been friends and supporters of Cynthia Powell, her family, and associates; it is a healthy place to bring families and children; and it has an alluring atmosphere.

Steven Burchfield of Cocoa Beach stated he came to show support for Ms. Cynthia Powell; in the many years he has played music and entertained people as well as ran various businesses, he found that creative projects are basically designed by the personalities of creative impetus; and in this case it is Ms. Cynthia. He stated the Board could not give the permit to anyone more deserving than she, who will handle it well; and other than that, everything he heard about this matter in his experience and opinion, is true.

Chairman Pritchard stated the item was unanimously approved by the P&Z Board and he supports it.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item IV.B.9. as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Item IV.B.10 (Z0501202) Housing Authority of Brevard County, Florida (Doug Robertson)’s request for change from RU-2-15 and BU-1 to PUD on 17.59 acres located on the south side of Citrus Boulevard, west of North Courtenay Parkway, having frontage on both sides of Minna Lane, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the application is for a PUD for a 520-unit independent living facility.

Doug Robertson, representing the Housing Authority of Brevard County, Florida, advised with him are Ron Sellers, CEO of the Housing Authority, and William Deatrick, Director of Facilities for the Authority. He advised the site is 17.5 acres on Merritt Island; the Housing Authority owns the property, which is currently the location of Baxley Manor that provides housing for the elderly; and the Authority also manages 15 duplexes on the site for families. He stated the request is to change the existing zoning from RU-2-15 and BU-1 to PUD to accommodate an independent living facility predominantly for the elderly. Mr. Robertson stated they presented the project to the Board in the past on a couple of occasions; at one point the Board approved the project in concept, subject to approval of the rezoning; and their purpose tonight is to ask the Board to approve the rezoning. He stated they have satisfied all staff’s requirements; he thinks they received a unanimous approval from the P&Z Board; and Mr. Deatrick can give the Board more details on the specifics of the Island Horizon PUD.

William Deatrick, Director of Facilities for the Housing Authority, advised they have two developments; one is Baxley Manor, which is a 190 unit facility for elderly and non-elderly disabled individuals, and the other is 15 duplexes of 30 units for family housing. He stated combined they have some problems; the structures are 35 to 40 years old and worn out; the buildings are not designed for fulltime residency at Baxley Manor; both Baxley Manor and the duplexes are constantly getting rehabilitated; and along with reduced funding, the property does not meet conventional lending criteria for rehabilitation. Mr. Deatrick stated there will be additional cost if they consider rehabilitation; and that is to find homes for 220 residents; the biggest problem would be the 190 elderly and non-elderly disabled; and on top of that, they have a drastic need in Brevard County for affordable housing for elderly and non-elderly disabled folks. He stated in reviewing all the negatives of their existing property, it was conclusively decided by the board and HUD that the best alternative is to take the properties down and redevelop them; and that is what they are proposing this evening. He stated it will be a mixed finance development; and it will be an independent living facility with assisted living services brought in from the community, County partners, Brevard Community College, Coalition for the Homeless and Hungry, Circles of Care, Brevard Kitchens, and many others. He stated one facility is going to be totally for the elderly, which will consist of seven buildings; those will house 444 elderly with mixed finance, low income tax credit units, and market rate units; and the units will all be 640 square feet. Mr. Deatrick stated the other side of the development will be for the non-elderly disabled; it will be the first designated property for non-elderly disabled in the County; they will all be low income; and it will be comprised of 76 units. He stated they have a co-developer, National Church Residences, out of Columbus, Ohio, the nation’s leading manager and developer of elderly and special needs housing; and they hope the Board will find it is an appropriate development for Brevard County.

Jim White of Merritt Island stated he has questions to present to the Board with reference to some of the publications they received about the project, as there are a lot of things in them that do not ring true. He stated they were before the Board about a developer who wanted to develop the property behind Hurwood Avenue into apartments and the Board denied that; there was a lot at the end of the street that they wanted to use to bring a road through and come out on Hurwood; and the Board denied it at that time; but now they are back with a different story about the same property. He stated the brochure points out it is 17.59 acres on both sides of Minna Lane, which is in Township 24, Range 36; and inquired if it includes the same property that was in question at the time they wanted to put the road through. He stated the brochure says on both sides of Minna Lane, but that is all it says; and inquired what property are they talking about, are they trying to come in the back door and do the same thing they were turned down for before, or are they trying to do something different. He stated if they are trying to develop more housing for the elderly with Baxley Manor and the HUD people, that is all well and good on both sides of Minna Lane; but it needs to stop there and not sneak in and put a street through there again. He stated he does not know what is going on; he does not think they gave the residents on their street and people within 500 feet of the property the proper information; and requested the Board look at it again.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is a rendering of what they are trying to do. Mr. White stated he has a rendering of what they are supposed to have; he got a whole bunch of stuff; that is what they are doing; but inquired if they are going just on both sides of Minna Lane or will they encumber the property they talked about before. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Robertson will answer the question after all the speakers have been heard. Mr. White stated he would appreciate that.

Joseph Frank of Merritt Island stated he has pictures showing the property he was talking about that is zoned for single-family dwellings; he does not even see Hurwood Avenue on it; there are 11 rentals on Hurwood Avenue; and a lot of the homeowners wonder what they are going to do and if it will eventually be all rentals. He inquired if those who live on Merritt Island have tried going up Courtenay Parkway at certain hours of the day; and inquired if the project will bring in more traffic. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board has to look at the need for the housing and what it is they are going to do. Mr. Frank stated he realizes that and can see that part, but he does not want them to foul up the street that is nice and quiet and dead-ends. He stated he has a feeling they are going to rezone the lot. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Robertson can address that.

Diana Howard of Merritt Island, representing Hibiscus Park, stated she understands Baxley Manor is dilapidated and senior citizens need a better place to live; she does not have a problem with that; but her concern is the five acres the Housing Authority purchased in addition to the lot directly to the west of her property with intent of putting 55 and under non-elderly disabled people in a 76-unit apartment complex. She stated she had a conversation with Mr. Sellers and he brought up the Fair Housing Act; and inquired why are they segregating the 55 and under from the rest of the retirement community. She stated if it is approved, she is concerned about the Authority using Lot 19 as access to get to the property; that was an issue before; they are looking to get access off Minna Lane; there is an existing easement that belongs to an existing condominium complex that runs between Minna Lane and Hurwood Avenue, which is a private easement owned by the condominium owners; and all of the owners own access to that easement in fee simple title. She inquired if they have to agree that the easement that runs along the rear of the property is where they are expecting to gain access off Minna Lane. She stated her concern is senior citizens do need a better quality of life and she does not have a problem with them tearing down the existing Baxley Manor and providing a better quality of life for senior citizens; it is the five acres that are directly behind her property where they want to put the 76-unit apartment building that she has a problem with; and inquired why are they segregating them from the rest of the community. She requested an explanation on that, and hopes the Board will give further consideration of the project before approving it.

Barbara Chelewski of Merritt Island stated she wants to reiterate what Diana Howard said; they do not want them getting access to the street below their property; and they are not happy with them building directly behind their homes. She stated she understands the elderly needs a new place, but they are tearing down other property, so they have enough property to put in new stuff. She stated they need to keep them all together in one area instead of dividing them up; they are curious about what they are going to do with the duplexes that are sitting in front of that, which are an eyesore; and if they are going to put nice new buildings with eyesores between them, they should consider what they are doing.

Donna Ritchley of Baxley Manner advised she lives in the 55 and under area; they have special needs that the elderly do not have; and it does not hurt them to be in a separate building and they do not consider it a problem. She stated as for traffic, some people are concerned about vehicles; most of them do not have vehicles and most cannot drive; they are going to have a special bus system for them; they are only going to have one entrance and exit; and there is going to be an emergency entrance at one end, but that is going to be a break-away gate; so they are not going to be adding a lot of traffic. Ms. Ritchley stated they are going to use the roads they are using now; with the bus system, most of the elderly will get rid of their cars because they cannot afford them; they are not only disabled and elderly, they are poor; and what they are living in now is horrible. She stated where they are going is going to be like a piece of paradise; they will have more room and security; now they are surrounded by drug problems and homeless people who she feels bad for but cannot help them; and what they need is a safe and clean place to live with more room.

Chairman Pritchard handed a document to Mr. Robertson, and noted the highlighted area is what the residents are concerned about; and perhaps Mr. Robertson can address the other access on the south side of the condominiums off Minna Lane.

Mr. Robertson stated the parcel is zoned RU-2-15; that can be developed as apartments today under any private acquisition; and they are not asking for anything on that property that is not allowable right now. He stated access to the entire project will be from Citrus Boulevard to the north; there will be emergency break away ingress for emergency vehicles only to the west of the site; but it is not the primary access. He noted Mr. Deatrick can address some of the other comments.

Mr. Deatrick stated there is one access from Citrus Boulevard; it is a totally gated community with 24-hour security, and exterior and interior surveillance systems; and the residents and visitors must enter from Citrus Boulevard. He stated the only activity on Minna Lane will be County vehicles; the entrance will have a break-away gate strictly for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, rescue units, etc.; and there is another access at Minna Lane that is where the alley between the Salvation Army and Baxley Manor is at the present time that will be a card-coded gate entry only. He stated there will be no exit back to Minna Lane, so there will be no traffic from the development other than on Citrus Boulevard; the roadway has been designed so that SCAT can access the non-elderly disabled community and come to the door at the elderly community; and the development will have its own vans that will take people to the grocery stores, doctors offices, community events, etc. Mr. Deatrick stated the end of January concludes 22 months of their parking survey; right now one out of eight residents has a vehicle at Baxley Manor; and even though they are increasing the number of units, the traffic situation will not be excessive onto Citrus Boulevard. He stated they own Lot 19; it is not shown on the plan because they choose to ignore it; it is not part of the PUD and is located by the westernmost retention pond; it came with the purchase of the acreage; and they do not intend to use it and plan to put up stainless steel bollards and maintain it as a good neighbor. He noted it came with the property and they have no use for it; they want to have a completely secured isolated development; and there is no reason for them to be there, as they would have to build a bridge across their retention pond to utilize it as an egress. Mr. Deatrick stated they worked with County staff on the project; and Hurwood is much too narrow to add more traffic. He stated another point that was brought up was why do they have elderly and non-elderly separate; he is relatively new to HUD, but back in the 1990’s, HUD decided in its infinite wisdom to put elderly and handicapped individuals in the same habitat; as a result, they have an 87-year old lady living next door to a 16-year old special needs individual; both have different lifestyles; when one is up, the other is sleeping, when one is out, the other is in, and it does not work; so they have designed the development to correct that situation. Mr. Deatrick stated both facilities will share the same assisted living services and 24-hour management, maintenance, and total security. He stated another point that was brought up are the duplexes and condominiums; he would like to see those changed, but unfortunately they do not own them; they will remain to be whatever their present ownership desires; but once they build their project, it will enhance property of all the neighborhood, including Hurwood Avenue and perhaps force the duplexes and condominiums to spruce up a bit. He noted it would give the County a little more leverage to do some Code Enforcement back there; and there have been changes and upgrades, but that situation needs improvement. He stated Hurwood Avenue is not shown although they have lots on it; their poster board was not large enough to put all of Merritt Island on it; but Hurwood Avenue is where the building lots are shown. Mr. White inquired why did they not make it larger so they could encumber all the things they are talking about. Mr. White stated they have on the north side of Minna Lane apartment complexes that have been there since dirt; there are a lot of apartment houses there; and on the south side of Minna Lane, there are duplexes that belong to people on low income but he does not think they are going to do anything with them. Chairman Pritchard stated that is not the Housing Authority’s property. Mr. White stated it belongs to the people who live there; they are saying they will increase the value of property and make them nice and paint them; but they have not painted those houses in ten years. Chairman Pritchard stated that is not what they said; they said their project is going to enhance the neighborhood; and it might provide an incentive for those people to enhance their own properties. Mr. White inquired why they cannot go ahead without changing the zoning to do what they are going to do; with Chairman Pritchard responding because they cannot get what they need to do without changing the zoning. Mr. White stated they want to increase the volume of people and traffic; but he does not think they are going to do that much for the neighborhood.

Commissioner Colon advised Ms. Howard has another question.

Ms. Howard stated if the Board intends to approve this request, she would like to have a Binding Development Plan on Lot 19 stating they will not use the lot for anything, no access or parking; and also they would like to be able to review the site plant at a leisurely time so they can determine how far the buildings are going to be off their property lines. She stated they have had no review at all; they are getting slammed with this; and they would like to have an opportunity to review the preliminary site plan before the Board approves it. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board is considering a zoning change, and site plans will come back at a later date. Ms. Howard inquired if she can take a closer look at the drawing; with Chairman Pritchard responding not right now because it is a separate issue. He stated he understand her concerns but tonight it is a zoning matter.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does not look at site plans; that is an administrative function; but during zoning hearings, if there are any conditions the neighbors surrounding the development have an interest in, then they usually come down to a Binding Development Plan; and that is what they are talking about.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board has an agreement to a Binding Development Plan for Lot 19 that it would not be used for anything and everyone has agreed to it; he has comments he would like to have addressed because of what they are doing; they have 219 units and are going to 520 units; he knows there is a great need for it and has been over the plan many times; and to say something like it is not going to enhance the community but provide affordable housing for people who really need that type of housing would be incorrect. He stated he agrees with the development, but has some concerns and would like them to be addressed; the letter from Gay Williams says the funding of the project the Housing Authority originally proposed used the creation of nonprofit corporations; and inquired if the funding is intact. He stated he wants to make sure if the Board makes a zoning change to accommodate the facility, that it is going to be done.

Mr. Deatrick stated it is a phased development; it will not be built all at one time; they are looking at four to five years for build-out, and Phase I will be done in three parts. He stated the first will be the elderly building and they are going into the tax credit for that; their application goes in on February 16, 2005; and that will build the first elderly building, which is 72 units. He stated simultaneously they will build the core for the elderly community; that will be another round of funding from a different source; some of their community partners are going to participate in funding the core area; and along with that Part 1, Phase I will be the building for non-elderly disabled individuals. He stated since it is low-income families, it will be all HUD financing and a combination of 2028-11 and some reconstruction money. He stated the core in that building is going to be 4,000 square feet; and their community partners will participate in building the core. He noted they are working at it a phase at a time as far as financing.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what will happen to the residents as they work through the phases; with Mr. Deatrick responding the residents will stay in place until their new home is built. Mr. Deatrick stated they are dealing with elderly and special needs individuals and are not going to bounce them all over the County; they will stay in Baxley Manor until the buildings are built; then they will move them directly from Baxley Manor to their respective properties. He stated as far as the duplexes, which are for families, they have three other developments on Merritt Island; at the present time they are renovating 40 of those family units to absorb and relocate the folks out of the 15 duplexes into those properties; and they will remain in the same school and community where their support system is. He stated they have to follow the Uniform Relocation Act for all of their residents; they have availability of a Section 8 voucher if they choose to move somewhere else; and that includes the elderly and the special needs individuals. Chairman Pritchard stated some of them do not want to go anywhere else; they like being there; temporary relocation is something they have said they can adjust to; but they would like to be insured that they will be able to return to the site. Mr. Deatrick stated there will be no temporary relocation; the folks will not move and will remain at Baxley Manor until the units are completed; the folks moving out of the duplexes will go into their permanent homes either on Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Player Lane or on Fields Court.

Commissioner Colon inquired if 100% of the folks will be transferring or just a certain percentage; with Mr. Deatrick responding no, every resident in good standing at Baxley Manor will have the opportunity to move into the new development. Commissioner Colon inquired what is considered good standing; with Mr. Deatrick responding if they are under eviction now, they will not have an opportunity to move into the new facility until they correct themselves. Chairman Pritchard inquired what does it take for someone to be under eviction; with Mr. Deatrick responding a whole lot, including back rent, unacceptable behavior, abuse of property or other residents, etc. He stated that is out of their area, but those are the general items that normally would cause evictions. Chairman Pritchard inquired if those are HUD guidelines; with Mr. Deatrick responding yes, as well as County standards.

Commissioner Carlson stated she assumes with a gated community, they will have some sort of fencing or barrier between all the units and other housing outside of it as well as internal to the development; with Mr. Deatrick responding their plan is to have a totally gated community; the number one request from the elderly citizens when they did a survey and talked with them every quarter was their desire in their new housing for security; so they have to do a landscape betterment plan for the whole development to meet County Code. He stated along with that, they will put up a standard six-foot fence; they have not determined exactly what it is going to look like, but a portion of the property is going to be market rate; so they have to compete with the market. He stated they have to comply with Florida Statutes and independent living facilities standards in the County, so their fencing is going to be a combination of masonry and metal powder-coated so it is very attractive and keeps individuals out. He stated they also put in their performa a surveillance system and full-time 24/7 security monitoring system; they talked to two schools that have criminal justice systems curriculums; both are interested in bringing an intern program to Island Horizons so their students have on-the-job training with licensed mentors. He stated they believe that is going to be the start of their security system; and they welcome it because that reduces the cost to them. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the fencing will be internal going around the perimeter; with Mr. Deatrick responding the entire perimeter of the property will be fenced.

Chairman Pritchard stated there were questions from the public regarding the PUD classification concept that encourages and permits variations in development by allowing deviation in lot size, open space, etc.; it will be better than what they have now; but the concerns he has are density, lot coverage, and open space. He noted the development proposal does not contain sufficient open space. Mr. Enos stated since staff’s comments were written, they have worked with Mr. Robertson who represents the applicants; he has redesigned the open space plan to staff’s satisfaction; and staff feels it now meets the requirements of the Code.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not able to vote in favor of this item although he supports the project; there are other members of staff he needs to talk to further and meet with the applicant before he can vote in favor; and because of that, he will make a motion to table the item. He stated he does not know if there are the votes to approve it tonight, but he would like to work on it further.

Commissioner Colon stated she will second the motion to table; and she supports the project, but wants to make sure they are talking apples and apples regarding senior citizens and folks with special needs to make sure the numbers go from there to the next number because she does not believe there are going to be folks who will be able to afford a more expensive dwelling. She stated she wants to make sure those numbers match; until she has that assurance, she will not be going forward; but she is extremely happy it is coming to the community and the folks will be able to live their last years with dignity.

Commissioner Carlson stated she feels the same way as Commissioners Scarborough and Colon; she would like a level of accountability from the Housing Authority to let her know if there is any displacement of any of the individuals; and inquired if there could be some process working with staff to get that accountability.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item IV.B.10 until March 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.11. (Z0501203) Steven Capeder’s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 9.62 acres located on the north side of James Road, east of Friday Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.B.12. (Z0501204) Richard F. Jarnagin (Joseph Beyel)’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (05S.1) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 145 to Community Commercial; and change zoning from GU to BU-1 on 0.77 acre located on the east side of Fox Road, north of Lake Drive, which was approved as Community Commercial by the LPA and BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated when he was briefed, he was told there was concern by the neighbors and BU-1-A would provide the same things and a level of comfort to the neighbors. He inquired if they are good to go on that; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item IV.B.12, as BU-1-A. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos advised the Small Scale Plan Amendment is not necessary for BU-1-A.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to deny the Small Scale Plan Amendment (05S.1). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon advised the applicant is concerned.

Joseph Beyel advised he does not understand the denial of the small scale plan amendment. Chairman Pritchard requested Mr. Enos explain it. Mr. Enos advised the BU-1-A approved by the Board does not require the small scale plan amendment, as it is not necessary. Mr. Beyel inquired if BU-1-A will be sufficient for the intended use; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

Item IV.B.13. (Z0501301) Steven James Barry (John Ernest Barry)’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.75 acres located on the east side of I-95, south of Grant Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not have a problem with it and staff is okay with it. Commissioner Carlson stated she will vote against it because it is spot zoning with RR-1 in an AU area, which is not compatible. Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Enos explain the issues they discussed earlier. Mr. Enos advised the lot is 1.75 acres, which is undersized for AU; AU now requires 2.5 acres; the lot and the whole subdivision appear to be undersized AU lots; and his guess is the area goes back before 1975 when AU only required one acre lots. He stated if it can be proven that it was recorded prior to 1975, the lot would be a nonconforming lot of record and would not need to be rezoned; however, that has not been shown to staff, hence the application for RR-1. He stated RR-1 zoning is more restrictive than AU, and the lot size is sub-AU lot size; so from that perspective, AU and RR-1 may not be substantially different in this circumstance. Commissioner Voltz stated that is why she approves it.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item IV.B.13 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated perhaps Commissioner Voltz needs to examine whether she wants to take the whole area because the Board has ended up bumping heads with RR-1 and AU; and if this property is going to RU-1, perhaps they need to see if everybody wants to go RR-1 and do all of it, because there are some incompatible uses. He stated AU allows some agricultural activities and RR-1 is more restrictive; the difference between RR-1 and AU deals with some of the agricultural uses; and they have come into some conflicts as to compatibility. He suggested Commissioner Voltz get the community together and see if they want to move to an RR-1 environment or AU environment because they are different environments; and it is more than just zoning, it is lifestyle. He stated he will support the motion, but there are conflicts that are inherent in those two zoning classifications.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Future Land Use designation is Residential 1, which is one residence per acre; but there is no development out there right now; so her concern is if RR-1 is brought in, it will start causing folks to split their lots or do whatever they can do to increase the density. She stated she thought the Board was interested in keeping the rural areas rural; and she would suggest the same thing Commissioner Scarborough said to see if the community is interested in allowing things to go that route.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if staff knows who owns all the parcels; with Mr. Enos responding yes, they sent notices to the property owners within 500 feet so they have those records. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there were objections; with Mr. Enos responding there were no objections. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Commissioner Voltz and Mr. Enos drive the area to see if it feels like an AU or RR-1 area by the activities; and if it is going RR-1, then they probably need to move in that direction; and if it is not, then they will have conflicts between the lifestyles. He stated it is just a suggestion from somebody who has similar problems north of Titusville. Commissioner Voltz stated they cannot drive the area because there is nothing there, so they would have to take an airplane. She stated she will move for approval and then look into the whole thing.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Carlson and Pritchard voted nay.

Item IV.B.14. (Z0501302) Christopher R. Weatherdon and Gayle A. Dimodica’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 4.60 acres located on the south side of Micco Road, west of Sebastian Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Chairman Pritchard inquired how many lots would RR-1 allow; with Mr. Enos responding four on one plus acres.

Commissioner Carlson stated AU predominates the area; and she thought there was an area plan for south of Micco. Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she does not think the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the area was instituted; the committee met and made some recommendations; but that is as far as it has gotten. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know if Commissioner Voltz knows about that plan, but there was a lot of commentary in District 3 when that occurred; and she did not realize that it did not get brought into the Comprehensive Plan; but she will vote against it because Commissioner Voltz is basically doing the same thing, bringing RR-1 into an AU area. She stated across the street is Barefoot Bay, which obviously makes sense, but there is also a significantly different lifestyle on the other side of the street with a lot of property that is quite open and all Residential 1. Commissioner Voltz stated she is glad that Mike Cunningham is for it.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is a letter of objection ironically from Barefoot Bay that is seven units to the acre, so he will support the motion if it is over an acre for each buildable lot.

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

Item IV.B.15. (Z0501401) The Viera Company (Hassan Kamal, BSE Consultants, Inc.)’s request for CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in PUD-DRI zoning classification on 129.09 acres located on both sides of Stadium Parkway, immediately north of Wickham Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for the clubhouse and mobile vendor on the entire golf course.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioners had any questions or if staff had any problems; and hearing none, stated she will move approval of the item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 15 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Colon stated there was some discussions about a road possibly from U.S. 192 to Viera; she was told The Viera Company or Duda family in the past considered having the road go from Viera to U.S. 192; and inquired if there is anything in the works or any discussion in regards to that because the County is trying to plan five to ten years ahead.

Commissioner Carlson stated Washingtonian Road was the potential extension; if they can find property owners who are willing to sell property that goes all the way to U.S. 192, that is a potential frontage road to I-95; and they have been in communication with The Viera Company about trying to extend that as far as they can, but right now it is from Lake Washington Road. She stated she does not know if all the pieces are connected to that, but they are trying to connect the dots in terms of having that frontage road on the west side of I-95.

Hassan Kamal advised The Viera Company has been in discussions with the County about that entire roadway segment; but he is not aware of any discussion pass Lake Washington Road, which is outside of the Company’s properties.

Commissioner Carlson stated they had a transportation study a couple of years ago that included, in order to take some of the traffic congestion off Wickham Road, they had to look at other frontage roads on I-95 and other means to bring traffic further south; so that is in the works and they have been pursuing ways to connect the dots. She stated she does not know if The Viera Company owns any of that property other than the property staff talked to them about. Mr. Kamal stated the Duda family and The Viera Company do not own any property other than north of Lake Washington, and their property stops well north of that.

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

The meeting recessed at 7:26 p.m., and reconvened at 7:38 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF JANUARY 13, 2005

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its public hearing on January 13, 2005 as follows:

Item IV.D.2., (NMI50102) Francis Carter and James Duggan (Debra Duggan)’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 41 acres located on the north side of Pine Island Road, east of Briar Oak Drive, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Chairman Pritchard advised the applicant would like to pull the item, and he has a card for Debra Duggan.

Debra Duggan advised she called the P&Z and found out they needed it in writing one week in advance; the problem was their attorney did not received his notes in time and did not have enough time to review them because the Minutes from the January 13, 2005 meeting were not available until Thursday afternoon; so they would like to request a tabling if possible. She stated one of their members is not here; there was a death of a friend; she is sick and does not want to make anyone else sick; and they would like to request tabling to next month if at all possible.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.D.2 to March 3, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated he mentioned to Amy Tidd, he has a lot of cards on this item; and if anyone is here to speak to IV.D.2., it has been tabled.

Item IV.B.16. (Z0501103) Seasons in the Sun, LLC (Heather Calligan)’s request for amendment to existing Binding Development Plan in RVP zoning classification on 38.10 acres; and change of zoning from RVP with Binding Development Plan to RU-1-7 with amendment to Binding Development Plan on 79.13 acres of 117.23 acres located on the south side of SR 46 and east side of Turpentine Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Todd Peetz will speak for the applicant; there will be questions from the audience; and requested Mr. Peetz turn the maps so people who are interested can at least observe what is being said so they can understand and can go back and forth to the diagrams. He stated the Board received a new Binding Development Plan as of this evening.

Todd Peetz with Miller Legg & Associates, representing the future owner of the property, advised they came to the P&Z Board with the understanding that the Binding Development Plan is as it was mentioned to the community; the firm became involved later in the process and found out at that meeting that there was a great deal of concern with the project and the Binding Development Plan; so in the meantime, they met with the representatives of those areas as well as the property owners in the area; and he passed around a letter from the Sherwood Homeowners Association expressing its feelings towards the meetings they had. He stated some members of the audience attended the meetings; the book was passed out to the Board, either by hand-delivery or mail; it documents the people who were there and the kinds of changes they had; and explained a map of the area, identifying the KOA Campground, Seasons in the Sun existing RV Park, another trailer park, a one-acre mobile home park, North Carpenter Road, I-95, and Sherwood development. He stated they have some larger lots with single-family units, some one-acre lots, unit sizes range from 600 to 1,500 square feet, and in the south end the unit sizes are much larger. He stated the proposed binding development plan has a 300-foot buffer extending 600 feet north/south; they have one-acre lots adjacent to the south property line; and when they get to Turpentine Road, there is a 25-foot bermed buffer with either a fence or vegetation running along the south side of the Bar C range, and an existing wooded vegetative area. He stated they requested the buffer be 50 feet on the west property line as well as a change they received along the north side where SR 46 abuts the property. Mr. Peetz stated when they met with the property owners, they raised some additional issues with the company; they were concerned about the number of units that were going on the site; they originally had 237 units, and reduced that number to 198 units; they clarified what the fence type would be, which is wood, and they also clarified in line 3 that it would be an opaque vegetative buffer. He stated they added the one-acre lots on line 4 on the south property and minimum unit size of 2,200 square feet; they added in line 5 the 50-foot buffer on the north side of the property; and on line 9 they added deed restrictions and an architectural review committee to the process as there was concern about what kind of development it would be and that it would not be a well maintained community. He stated as part of the homeowners’ concerns, they made the minimum unit size 1,800 square feet on line 10; a good part of the development would be built less than that, but on the south they are larger than that; and that is why they have the 2,200 square feet on the south side. He stated when they met with the homeowners association, they showed them the plan; it is a conceptual plan based on the open space concept where they tried to maintain as much green space as possible; and the green area they have they want to maintain as much as possible because it gives them points with the Open Space Ordinance. He stated they want to have connectivity between the pod areas both vehicular and pedestrian to access the open space areas; it was the plan the community saw; and after seeing it, they basically appreciated the opportunity to see it and understood better what his client was doing. He stated the Open Space Ordinance allows them to go down to 5,000 square-foot lots; they are not intending to go with 5,000 square-foot lots; they added in there no lots below 5,500 square feet with an average of 6,000 square feet; and the only reason it is written like that is because there are still some unknowns since they have not had a chance to revisit the site plan since they added the one-acre lots. He stated they talked to the residents about potentially moving Hammock Trail, but until that has been changed officially, they are not sure what that will do to the lot count and it will also impact lot size, so that is why they have the lot sizes the way they have them in the binding development agreement. He noted they had a nice time meeting with the residents, believes they went a long way to work with them.

Heather Calligan of Titusville, representing Seasons in the Sun, advised she is the petitioner working with Todd Peetz, but she is also a surrounding property owner and is speaking to the Board as a surrounding property owner. She stated Seasons in the Sun RV Park that she developed, the entire boundary on the west side of her property and the entire boundary on the south side of her property, which is 38 acres, is going to abut this land that they are getting the rezoning change on; and obviously she is in favor of the zoning change. She stated the Future Land Use Map calls for residential four units per acre, which agrees with the RU-1-11 zoning being requested, except they indicated in their binding development plan a further restriction on the density for the property to 2.5 units per acre, down from 4 units per acre. She stated she is sure the County spent considerable time, effort, and money in adopting the Future Land Use Plan to use as a guideline for how the area should be developed; and that being the case, she would anticipate the zoning request within the guidelines set up by the County would be in the best interest of the surrounding properties. Ms. Calligan stated as the petitioner, she submitted considerable information in support of the zoning change request; they addressed utilities, schools, and harmony with the surrounding properties; they also held community meetings and worked closely with those who attended to address their issues and concerns; and they modified the Binding Development Plan to incorporate those changes. She stated they cannot please everyone no matter how hard they try, but they feel they have been successful in satisfying the vast majority of issues and concerns, which were brought to them at the community meetings; and they anticipate a positive turnout in favor of the request tonight. She stated many of those who could not attend advised her they contacted Commissioner Scarborough’s office to tell him of their position in favor of the rezoning request; the land is located off I-95 interchange, Exit No. 223; it is reasonable to expect that property located at an interchange location will be developed and not left as agricultural land, which the land was when she originally purchased it; and she subsequently changed it to RVP for the RV park she developed. She stated since the Future Land Use Map calls for residential, it is reasonable to expect the zoning change request within those guidelines would be in harmony with the surrounding properties; and as an abutting property owner, she is in favor of the zoning request and would like to see a favorable vote. She stated as County representatives who use the Future Land Use Map for guidance, she would hope that the Board votes in favor of the low-density zoning request that falls within those guidelines; and thanked the Board for its consideration.

Margaret Primavere of Mims identified her property on a map; stated right now there is a 300-foot buffer zone intact from when the developer originally put in the RV park; and she is here to speak on behalf of herself, her husband, her father-in-law, and the people who live on Bar C Road. She stated when she attended two meetings in January at the library next to Pinewood School, she addressed the issue of a drainage easement that has water that flows behind her home all the way to South Lake; and she asked if the Army Corps of Engineers designed the buffer zone to preserve and protect the drainage easement for flood control or if it was the State or County that implemented it many years ago. She identified the drainage ditch on the map; and stated it is a drainage easement with a buffer zone. Ms. Primavere stated she has lived on her property for 26 years; and presented a picture of the buffer zone when there was no RV park and when it was groves. She stated since the experience of the last hurricane season, the flow of the drainage ditch was tremendous plus it was very full; the agencies need to be contacted before an excavation or building takes place; and she would like to be notified with information regarding this request. She stated Vero-Pittsburgh wants to put homes down the entranceway off SR 46; she is not sure where because there is no engineering paperwork as of yet, pending the rezoning; but if the homes have to be 18 inches higher than SR 46, where does all the water go but to the low lands, which means their properties; so leaving a 50-foot buffer is not an acceptable amount of footage. She stated her neighbor Phil Osborne asked why they cannot utilize the existing entrance of Seasons in the Sun and branch off further down. She stated they also discussed how many homes per acre; the residences on Bar C Road are on one-acre lots; and they would like to have their new neighbors on one-acre lots. Ms. Primavere stated there are water concerns all over the area; people are in fear of their wells drying up and shortages because there is not enough water for all the development that has hit Brevard County. She stated another problem that needs to be addressed is overcrowded schools; she asked for information on that and was told the schools were not over capacity; she went to Mims Elementary on January 31 and was informed they were 110% capacity with the reduction of class sizes, which means all the rooms are used and portables are on the way. She stated she went to the meeting at Astronaut High School on the same day where Dr. Bobay informed them that the schools were 110% at Mims, 91% at Oak Park, 77% at Pinewood, 78% at South Lake, 104% at Madison, and 111% at Astronaut High School. She stated the Board needs to take those issues into consideration; and she hopes it will listen to them and address the issues.

William Hall of Mims stated schools are a problem, they are overcrowded; water is a problem, the County and City of Titusville put in deep wells to the north, and they are having trouble; and traffic is a problem. He stated he has pictures taken from the air; the shrubbery goes way out and it was not supposed to be taken down; they have not designated single-family dwellings; the residents want single-family dwellings; they have .4 acre per house; and by the time they figure the acreage for the roads and common areas, and possibly water retention areas, that would be less than .4 acre. He stated they need one house per acre designated to apply the same density as the surrounding area; and they will be happy with one house per acre, but need greater than a 50-foot clearance because they have to take down a whole lot of shrubbery to get down to 50 feet. Mr. Hall stated when they have hurricanes, the drainage ditch backs up about 50 to 75 feet on the back of his property, so it is not adequate right now; it needs to be cleaned out; and the County used to do it every year, but it has not done it lately. He stated Planning and Zoning recommended this not be approved; he would like to see changes to one house per acre and greater buffer on the back of Bar C Road from the project; and that would make it more acceptable.

Monica Katrick of Mims stated she lives on Wherry Road, which was Turpentine Road and renamed for emergency access purposes; her property abuts the property in question on the south side; originally they were very much opposed to the plan when Heather Calligan first began working at rezoning the property because it was proposed for RU-1-7; and they could see hundreds of homes, possibly poorly built, so she and her husband began a petition around the Turpentine Road area to oppose the plan to build small homes and took the signatures to the P&Z Board. Ms. Katrick stated the P&Z Board said the residents needed some questions answered; and what ended up happening was the developers sent out notices to the community inviting them to come and have their questions answered and met with them; and at the first meeting they said they were concerned about school overcrowding, water resources, evacuation, house size, lot size, and vegetative buffers, but they did not get far. She stated they came back at the next meeting with answers from the County about water resources, and said they should be able to add 8,000 homes in the area and it would not affect the water pressure, water resources, and water availability. She stated they guaranteed that anything they put in next door to them would have the type of piping that would not interfere with the quality of life they are used to. She stated she hopes the Board intends to keep the school impact fee because it is going to help with the quality of the homes; and people who really want to be there will come and pay the impact fees to build schools and keep existing schools from becoming overcrowded. She stated she has two children still in school, one in elementary and the other in high school; it is a concern of theirs; and when the developer met with them, they had taken the time to go and visit the schools and find out information about how that was going to be handled. Ms. Katrick stated they agreed to a vegetative buffer; at the meeting they said to put on the line what they wanted; they said they wanted one-acre lots on the south side; they said okay, they will see what they can do; and they put one-acre lots on the south side. She stated they wanted less density and the developer worked with them; they want quality development; and she likes the fact that the Commissioners say to go back and talk to the people in the communities. She stated the developers have put in the binding development plan how they are going to build it and addressed their concerns; it is a much better scenario than not knowing or having the land sit there, and even better than having an RV park, which is what it would stay; and it would be nice having a buffer and the one-acre lots to maintain their privacy. She stated they like privacy, nature, and animals; and she thinks that will be maintained with the compromises the developer has made, so she is now in support of the project.

Mike Katrick of Mims stated they have been actively involved with this project since it was originally proposed in June; the original proposal was for RU-1-7 with density of 399 homes; they circulated a petition at that time and got approximately 100 signatures; and the neighbors were against that type of density. He stated they did not just get the neighbors immediately adjacent to their property, but got them down the street within a mile or so; and since then, it has been changed to RU-1-11. He stated with the Binding Development Plan, he is in favor of the project; the RV park has a 300-foot buffer zone across the south side, which they are giving up in lieu of one-acre lots in that corner; and the developers worked with them on that and have addressed a lot of the concerns the neighbors had as best they could. He stated the property is big; and to make it usable as an investment prospect and do what they can, they did pretty good for the neighbors; what he foresees happening with the property is like the home sizes of Sherwood Country Club area; the house sizes in there are approximately what they are proposing to develop along with the one-acre lot size; and he is not opposed to living near that. Mr. Katrick stated Sherwood is right around the corner from his property; it is a mixed area; they bought the property ten years ago and built their house six years ago; and there are anywhere from half a million dollar homes to single wide mobile homes; so the development will fit in well with the neighborhood and he is happy with the progress they have made to address the concerns of the residents.

Jane Wherry of Mims stated she has been to the dance since 1999 when they first started the RV park, so she is not going to revisit the overcrowding of schools and the drainage issues, but will say that there are two other developments currently being built within a five-mile radius, which are the Walkabout Community and Eagle’s Nest Subdivision, as well as the recently developed dense Birchwood Subdivision. She stated all of those homes will access onto SR 46, Turpentine Road, Dairy Road, and Carpenter Road; and SR 46 is a two-lane heavily traveled road, which she understands Department of Transportation has no intention of widening for 15 to 20 years unless it changed that. She stated as a 33-year resident of her home, which abuts the area south where the one-acre lots are proposed, she still has a problem with the overall density; they have worked with the community; but the Board has to address density and drainage in the area at some time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated an RV site is different than a home site; but if they look at the approved RV site, it is 399 units; if this item is approved, it goes down to about 198 units; so they would lose more than 200 units, even though they are not the same type of units. He stated the MPO at the last meeting saw favorably to request from the tri-counties MPO, which are Seminole, Orange, and Osceola Counties, to put in the plan the four-laning of SR 46 now; that is just the plan, but it does mean a commitment from both MPO’s to move forward with Department of Transportation in seeing that funded. Ms. Wherry noted it is easier to go into Sanford to do business than to go into Mims.

John Greene of Titusville, representing the owners of 32 acres, 20 of which are zoned BU-1 and some of it adjacent to the existing Seasons in the Sun Resort, stated the balance of the property is between Carpenter Road and Interstate 95; and he is here to support the proposed zoning change. He stated they have enough RV parks with Seasons in the Sun and the KOA; by changing the zoning to RU-1-11, it will comply with the Future Land Use Map and will be a benefit to the area; so they support the zoning change.

Steve Jack, President of Mims Community Group, stated they had one meeting with Heather Calligan; he has been in touch with her for the last few months; some of his friends and coworkers live in that area; they have made concessions on both sides; and everybody would like to see one-acre lots. He stated when he built his home he had to have one acre about eight years ago; he is in the middle trying to be a mediator; and he does not want to see the project denied, but there are a couple of issues they need to talk about. He stated they are sincere people; he works with several of them; and whatever the Board can work out would be great because he does not want to see it totally denied.

Mike Katrick stated he forgot to mention something; he spoke to the neighbors who live around him on the south side of the property and Hal Lilly, Paul Marsh, and Mr. Keen attended the meetings at the library and also wanted him to express their support of the project at this time.

Todd Peetz advised they do not have a record of any Army Corps of Engineers’ buffer in the area; but they do know the original buffer was 300 feet and was part of the RVP requirement because it was a recreational vehicle park next to single-family development. He stated they do not feel they need to buffer single-family from rural mobile home park by 300 feet; that is why they are asking to reduce but maintain the buffer; and they want to make sure it is opaque so the residents do not have to look at their development and they do not have to look at the existing development. He stated drainage is a site plan issue; obviously they cannot drain onto somebody’s property and have to maintain the drainage and the system; and water resources is explained in the letter noted as #5 in the package he provided, which states there is adequate water well into the future. He stated there are two resources of information regarding schools; he just received something from the School Board this week; it said that under the current way they evaluate schools, Mims is 92%, Madison 98%, Astronaut 106%; however, when they go to class size reduction, the schools will go to 100% capacity. He stated under the current scenario of the impact fee, although they are under 200 units, they are still looking at an impact fee of $850,000 to $900,000 based on the number of units. Mr. Peetz stated traffic has not been identified as a problem; there was a concern raised at the P&Z Board meeting regarding hurricane evacuation problems; but their site will have three points of ingress/egress that will help move people around if an entrance gets blocked. He stated again the buffer issue was raised; it was meant for the RVP zoning; the buffer on the south side was to buffer the residents from the RV park; and they understood the concerns of the residents, which is why they provided the large buffers and included 1,800 square-foot minimum unit size. He stated it exceeds the unit size on the west side but does not quite get there on the south side; however, they made the effort to get it closer to what they had.

Commissioner Colon stated a lady mentioned a concern about drainage because the homes were going to be higher than the road; and even though this issue is zoning, the Board may have to get a little more detail to assure the folks what happens to retention. Mr. Peetz stated they cannot drain on anyone’s property and have to hold the water on site; it is a site planning issue and not a zoning issue; but he understands drainage is an issue that concerns people. He stated they are making every effort they can to engineer the project properly so they do not have flooding problems; and that is what they are required to do. He noted they do not see why they would not be able to accommodate that.

Commissioner Carlson stated even though they are not going to have an RV on the site any longer, the number of trips they had previously was 1,900 and now it is going up to 3,379; and they reduced the number of units to 198, so that is twice as many trips than an RV park based on the calculation. She stated she knows traffic studies were done and improvements to SR 46 happened; she knows Commissioner Scarborough said the MPO’s are in line to increase the width of SR 46; but that is probably not going to happen for a while; so she wonders if they need to do another traffic study based on the number of trips calculated for each single-family home and see if there are future improvements they need to make on SR 46.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not a traffic expert, but drives it enough; he wishes he had somebody here who has traffic expertise; but it is probably level of service A or something like that. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is minimal traffic on SR 46 at this time, but he does not want the Board to move differently from him on the four-laning of SR 46 because there are a lot of dynamics between what is in the Sanford community with AMTRAK, the Airport, etc., and the connectivity to Brevard County for economic reasons. He stated there is not a level of service problem on SR 46 at this time; if the Board wants to do a traffic study, it could; but a casual observer would say there are hazards but not level of service problems.

Commissioner Carlson stated her concern was that the Board was not accommodating the growth that it is talking about because it is an increase in density so that is what she wanted to find out. She inquired if Commissioner Scarborough thinks the improvements they made based on the previous Binding Development Plan are sufficient to accommodate the increased density.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if Commissioner Carlson wants to talk about transportation, he wants somebody here who is knowledgeable of it; the level of service on SR 46 is not an issue; they have people who pass carelessly on a two-lane road, there are deep ditches on each side of the road, and driving conditions can cause accidents; but it is not because of the level of service. He stated what seems to come up is the buffer area on the northwest corner; when he talked to Todd Peetz one thing he said is he needs flexibility to save the trees; and in that context it would be beneficial if he could put within the development plan some commitment beyond just the 50-foot buffer there. He stated the 50 feet is substantially different than what they currently look at; and other than the loss of buffer, they will have a net improvement in what the community is going to see. He stated they are going to have people who live there; they are not going to have RV’s; they are going to have a nature of a community that is going to put more investment in where they are than an RV park; and maybe it is discriminatory but maybe it is not, but when people own homes, they have different feelings about them. He inquired if there is something Mr. Peetz can do to help with the northwest corner vegetative area that has been identified. He stated he saw the picture of it and it is worth preserving not only as an amenity to the homes, but for conservation.

Mr. Peetz stated as the green buffer comes in, it starts to fade; the existing Binding Development Plan says all native vegetation will stay intact; and they want to try and achieve that the best they can. He stated the lots start brushing into the vegetative buffer, and that is why they said it would be easier for them to try and save as many trees as the could without limiting them too much; and that is why they went to 50 feet. He stated the buffer is about 50 feet, then 75 feet, then it starts to expand up to 300 feet; they are trying to find a way to take out the edges rather than say no taking out of the native buffer; and it was more difficult to write to see if they wanted to clip the edges through that area.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the east side has 50 feet; with Mr. Peetz responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is going from 300 feet to 50 feet; it is one thing that they have seen in the final hour, which they really need to think about; so he would suggest, rather than hold the Board up, to let them go out and discuss it in the hall and bring it back.

Chairman Pritchard postponed Item IV.B.16 until later in the meeting.

Item IV.B.17. (Z0411401) Suntree Community Developers, Inc. (Boaz Bar-Navon)’s request for change from PUD to RP with Binding Development Plan stipulating to no commercial uses on 5.28 acres located on the east side of Holiday Springs Road, south of Viera Boulevard, which was recommended for approval with a Binding Development Plan by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated she wants to clarify one thing before Mr. Bar-Navon says his presentation. She stated based on the fact that the property was used for a conservation easement to allow for mitigation in the existing PUD for Holiday Springs, she believes the development rights have already been identified in the Holiday Springs Subdivision; so she is not sure why the Board is here today talking about it. She requested Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley talk about the legalities of this issue, as she did not realize they could transfer development rights twice.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised there are two different issues; one is the real estate issue of the conservation easement, which eliminates all development; and the way the conservation easements are written, they have no surface development rights at all. She stated there is the permitting issue of whether or not they already used the units elsewhere as part of their PUD; and the zoning staff can probably answer that a little better than she can. She stated there are two prongs going on, plus it is a PUD; and there is a question of whether or not the PUD needs to be amended as well.

Commissioner Carlson stated those were several of her concerns; she knows that Natural Resources Management made comments on it and the comments were in the information packet, which says, “Since the parcel was mitigation for the conservation of wetlands to buildable uplands in the Magnolia Springs Subdivision, the developer has already gained additional units available through density transfer.” She stated the P&Z Board actually approved it, which she does not understand because maybe it did not have a legal perspective or Natural Resources did not give it any advisement; and inquired if anyone knows why the P&Z Board approved it; with Ms. Bentley responding she does not know as she was not at the meeting, but is sure the minutes would reflect it. Ms. Bentley stated the Board is in a public hearing context here.

Chairman Pritchard stated he feels like Commissioner Carlson does that the development rights were already transferred to another part of the PUD on the other side of Holiday Springs Road; and by allowing additional units to be transferred from the parcel to the parcel that is designated RP just north of it, seems as if they are double dipping. Commissioner Carlson stated that was her first impression, and if the Board desires to listen to the applicant or anybody else, that is fine, but she is very concerned about setting a precedent by separating it from the existing PUD. She stated it might require another public hearing to amend the PUD as mentioned by Ms. Bentley; and she finds it difficult to accept because the PUD has been developed, so it does not make a lot of sense. Chairman Pritchard advised the Board will give Mr. Bar-Navon an opportunity to present his side.

Boaz Bar-Navon, representing the applicant, advised they do not agree with Natural Resources’ perspective on this issue; the fact is The Springs of Suntree PUD was not developed to its maximum capacity and permitted amount; the fact that this piece of property was not used as upland mitigation for wetland impact does not mean they allocated the density to the PUD; and overall, the PUD has less units fully developed as it is today than was permitted. He stated when the PUD was initially brought to the Board before Mercedes and Suntree Communities were involved with Atlantic Gulf, they did not take into consideration the fact of wetlands on the site; so in order to develop what had been approved, there was mitigation that had to be set aside; and some of that mitigation was set onto this parcel of property. He stated it was not in order to increase the density; and no density was transferred from the parcel to any other parcel at any point in time. He stated it allowed development of the sites to their density and in fact overall less density than had previously been approved; so the situation and the reason they are before the Board is that Suntree Community Developers own 20 acres of land, the triangular strip on the east side of Holiday Springs Boulevard; and it wants to develop the 20 acres by right at whatever is permitted under the zoning. He stated about five years ago, for whatever reason, the little triangle was not part of any rezoning application; it remained with the underlying PUD zoning even though it had a conservation easement over it; that was a mistake; and they are here to correct that mistake. He stated on the 20 acres under the current land use, which is permitted at four units an acre, they should be able to build 80 units; many years ago it used to be six units an acre density; it was down-zoned a few years back when the Comprehensive Plan was changed; but when they went to staff and talked to them, they said because the underlying zoning is still part of the PUD, they need to change that zoning; and that is what they are really here to do, remove the PUD designation over this portion so they can take advantage of the units that had not been transferred out yet and still exist on the property. Mr. Bar-Navon stated there are approximately 13 units per the original PUD that were designed for the property that cannot be utilized and have not been transferred out that they would like to take advantage of now; one of the rights that a property owner still has is density the property affords, otherwise why would they own the property at all; and this property could have been donated to some public body, but instead it was maintained by them and paid taxes upon; so they believe there is some right and benefit to the fact that they own the fee simple property. He stated all they are asking to do is transfer the 13 units from the site to another site; there was a homeowners newsletter that went out to all the homeowners in The Springs of Suntree; and he wants to let them know this in no way increases density or in anyway affects their amenities or common areas because it is not part of the PUD. He stated the people would not be using their clubhouse or pool contrary to what was stated in the letter; nor is the parcel going to be developed. He stated all that area will remain in its natural state; most of it is scrub habitat; the predominant portion in the center is scrub habitat; and part of the habitat conservation plan with the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with the County is to preserve all of that as scrub habitat. He stated between the existing conservation easement to St. Johns River Water Management District plus the scrub habitat, everything to the south is going to remain open and undeveloped; so they are asking to allow them to take the density they have by right and feel they should have by right and move it to the north side of the property. He noted he would appreciate the Board’s approval and will answer any questions.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a concern and would like to meet with the developer and with the County Attorney to make sure they are doing this on the up and up so she will table the item. Someone from the audience stated they wanted to speak as Mr. Bar-Navon had a chance to speak. Commissioner Carlson stated that would be fine to let the folks speak.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board is going to table the item and it will come back at a later meeting.

Jane Peltz of Melbourne, representing The Springs of Suntree, stated it was Holiday Springs and is now called The Springs of Suntree, but most of the documents list it as Holiday Springs. She presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk; and explained a plat of the development. She stated it is news to them that they are no longer part of the PUD; she has been in the community since 1991; when Mercedes came in, she was on the board in 2001; when they got the majority, they went after Mercedes to get a release saying it was no longer part of their community, but it did not answer; and they had lawyers that worked on it, but they did not even answer, so this is a surprise. She stated their documents, which were handed to them by Mercedes say, “The Springs shall mean and be defined as The Springs of Suntree Subdivision, the single-family residential community planned for and developed on the subject property as reflected on the Plat.” She stated the Board has the plat; what she has is not a plat but a drainage thing from St. Johns River Water Management District that says, “including all lots, all phases, and common property as those terms and such properties are defined and described in the declaration and on the plat. The lot shall mean and be defined as a separate family residential building site”; and inquired how did they get the zoning changed and the platting changed. Ms. Peltz stated nobody lives within 500 feet of the property; they knew nothing about it until just recently when this item came up; they had no idea; certainly Mercedes was not going to tell them; and it is very upsetting. She stated they realize the homeowners should have been involved when Mercedes did the replatting and rezoning in 1998; however, no zoning announcement was given to their Homeowners Association and none of their homes are within 500 feet of the property. She stated only recently were they made aware of the changes; obviously they are opposed to the rezoning of the area of the upland preservation to RP to increase density; the parcel has already been mitigated; and she understands the Comprehensive Plan would refer to this as wetlands and as such, because she talked to Natural Resources this morning, there could only be one unit increase per five acres. She stated she reviewed the video of the P&Z hearing and feels that this form of Indian giving, which is what it was referred to, is unethical and offensive; the other concerns are the eagles’ nest; there is an eagles’ nest in this area and there is 750 feet for the eagles’ nest; and there are eaglets in the nest. She stated the whole area is well known for its abundance of scrub jays; but the drainage from the property is problematic and could exacerbate existing problems on the corner of Bronco Drive and Holiday Springs Road, which has always been a problem. She stated the traffic along Viera Boulevard is increasing daily and will be far worse when the trucks from Viera Commerce Park, traffic from 600-plus homes in Capron Ridge, and I-95 overpass become a reality. She noted more development means more schools. She stated in the video of the hearing she noted that Mr. Bar-Navon said they had 60 units planned and it would be very expensive if they had to go back and re-plan them; she sees no evidence of a proposed site plan at all; but she has a picture of a 65-unit condominium, and they are asking for 61 units. She stated they would not be able to have that height, but there is a huge building that was in the paper that is going on down along the Indian River in Melbourne. Chairman Pritchard stated that has no relevance. Ms. Peltz stated it will not go with the neighborhood.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board is going to hear from everyone, and if Commissioner Carlson is going to table the item; with Commissioner Carlson responding she was going to table it.

William Hack advised he is on the board as treasurer of The Springs of Suntree, and rather than go with his script, he will review the declaration covenants; and if they were able to get a release from the developer, at least from his point of view and the people he represents, his objection is gone; however, they have been unable to get a general release for the 624 homes because of the undeveloped land. He stated they are afraid all of a sudden something is going to pop up where they are going to develop something that is going to be added to their clubhouse and pools, which are over capacity now with the original development; and they do not understand why they cannot get Mercedes and its subsidiaries, whichever company it is, to give them a general release. He stated right now the property is still in the plat of The Springs of Suntree; to listen to the gentleman, it sounds like they are already out, but they are not. He stated they have a zoning that is not compatible with the area, but they are still in the plat and in their legal documents; and he and a few other people on the governing documents committee have their hands tied because they cannot change the documents because all the rights they need to change it go towards the developer. He inquired why do they not give them a general release so they can redo their documents and be done with it.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item IV.B.17 until April 7, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated that will give them time to meet with the residents and the developer.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a legal question here; once they have given up their development rights, he has a problem going back and having additional rights by any methodology to give them up again; and he would like to have a legal opinion on that because that is some of the issue with the homeowners. Commissioner Carlson stated perhaps that can be ready when they meet again.

Chairman Pritchard stated he had a phone call not long ago from a representative of a neighborhood association that had done something similar to this; they were holding x amount of property in a conservation easement that they did not want to maintain and wanted to give it to the County; and he said no, that was not the deal, it will stay on their tax roll. He stated that was the arrangement they made, so he does not think the Board needs to encourage what may be double dipping.

Item IV.B.18 (Z0405503) Babcock, LLC (R. Mason Blake, Esquire). Tabled earlier in the meeting to April 7, 2005.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF JANUARY 13, 2005

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, made at its public hearing on January 3, 2005, as follows:

Item IV.D.1. (NMI50101) Michael G. Gaich, Trustee (Blain L. Nelson)’s request for change from AU to BU-1-A on five acres located on the west side of N. Courtenay Parkway across from Kings Way and south of Church Road, which was recommended for approval by the NMI Board.

Chairman Pritchard advised he supports the change.

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

Item IV.D.2. (NMI50102) Frances Carter and James Duggan (Debra Duggan). Tabled earlier in the meeting to March 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item IV.D.3. (NMI50103) Matpenco, LLC (Todd Peetz)’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 40 acres located on the north side of Chase Hammock Road, east of Winding Way, which was recommended for denial by the NMI Board.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the applicant is represented by Todd Peetz.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board will return to the item later in the meeting.

Item IV.D.4. (NMI50104) The Bluffs Development Corporation (Doug Robertson)’s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 30 acres located on the south side of Pine Island Road, opposite of the south end of Patti Drive, which was recommended for approval as AU by the NMI Board.

Doug Robertson, representing the applicant The Bluffs Development Corporation, advised the property is located on Pine Island Road, which is in North Merritt Island; it is approximately 30 acres in size; and it is currently zoned GU, which requires a minimum of five-acre lot size. He stated they made the request to change the zoning to RR-1, which would allow minimum one-acre lots; they felt it was probably a good suggestion, as his understanding in the past was that North Merritt Island would like to see a minimum of one-acre lots in that area, so they felt comfortable with that. He stated on the Exhibit, the parcel is in green; the adjacent parcel to the west is RR-1, which was consistent with their request; there are many RR-1 parcels in the general area; and directly across the street from their parcel is a rural residential mobile home parcel, so they felt comfortable that RR-1 was a good request for the location. He stated there was opposition to the RR-1 zoning, so the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board recommended they amend the request to AU, which would require minimum 2.5-acre lots; and they are prepared to make that change and request AU, which he hopes is an acceptable lot size for the area. He stated it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, concurrent with levels of service in the area, and compatible with the surrounding area.

Chairman Pritchard advised it is a concession on the part of the developer to go to AU; it was approved unanimously by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board; and inquired if there was anyone still in opposition to AU.

Amy Tidd of Rockledge, representing Partnership for a Sustainable Future, stated she wants to point out their shirts that say “smart quality growth”; and that is what they want for Brevard County. She stated they all want smart growth; it is very important in Brevard County; and there are certain places where they can put a lot of people and where it is productive to have a dense population.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what is better than AU; with Ms. Tidd responding what it is zoned now. Ms. Tidd stated GU is one unit per five acres; a lot of people are going into the Pine Island area; and it is close to the Pine Island Conservation area, so it is appropriate. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the difference between GU and AU; with Mr. Enos responding GU is five-acre lots and AU is 2.5-acre lots; and they both can have agricultural uses on them. Ms. Tidd stated there are a lot of residents here concerned about the whole Pine Island area and North Merritt Island area; the reason she is concerned is there are certain areas that should be less dense; they have a lot of problems in the area with drainage; the area is very low and Chase Hammock is 90% wet; and a lot of the building up there is in areas that should not be built. Chairman Pritchard stated he lives on North Merritt Island; there is RR-1 and AU surrounding the property; across the street is AU, AU, AU, AU, and it is everywhere except for the GU strip they are talking about; and inquired where is the harm. Ms. Tidd stated there are a lot of things going on in the area; Chairman Pritchard has been back on that road and seen that it is very narrow; the Partnership for Sustainable Future represents over 10,000 people in Brevard County; and they believe there are some areas that should have a lot of people and some areas that should not. She stated the subject area already has problems because of one little road going in and out; they have many traffic accidents; and when she drove in there, she was amazed because there is water right next to the car, and then the road takes a bend. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Ms. Tidd was the one who hit the guardrail on Courtenay Parkway; with Ms. Tidd responding no, but they have pictures of it, and that is why she got involved with the project; but the Board will hear from all the other people.

Hugh Beins of Merritt Island stated the problem with their area is it is the lowest area on North Merritt Island; and inquired if they set the precedent from GU to AU, what will stop it from going from AU to RR-1. He stated they would rather see the Board fix their flooding problem first before it starts changing all the zoning and creating more problems because the whole area is historically the lowest area. He stated all of North Merritt Island’s water flows through the canals down to their pond and on the road; after Tropical Storm Gordon, everyone’s property was about two feet under water; and they are still working on the big borrow pit on the north and south side of their pond, but it is a Band-Aid because if they have a storm, they are pretty much flooded out. Mr. Beins stated Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission talks about how Merritt Island is one of the best wildlife viewing areas in Florida; one of 300 bird species and 15 federally-listed endangered or threatened species occur in the refuge; and they do not know the boundaries so they come down into their area. He stated the pictures were taken only 100 yards from the subject property; and he knows the wildlife are down in that area; they do not want to start changing things until they actually do an assessment; so he would rather have the whole area’s flooding problem fixed, but does not know how that is going to work. He stated Ron Jones proposed a 180-acre borrow pit on the north side; he lives on the east side of that area where St. Johns River Water Management District just bought 40 acres for flood water control; it is going to put a three-foot mound around the whole borrow pit; and when they see the storm is coming, they will pump the fresh water lake down, and when it comes they will have the big pumps running and will fill their lake back up into a pit kind of silt containment. He stated they do not know how much it is really going to fill; one inch of rain on a one-acre lot will produce 27,000 gallons of water; and if they had hundreds of acres on North Merritt Island at Chase Hammock Road or even Hall Road, it is all coming their way. He stated right now they get it full force; they are going into hurricane season next year and are still repairing from last year; their canal is a deep water canal that has not been dredged; and if they dredge all the canals and get the borrow pit going, it may help; but they will not find out until they actually build it. He stated right now they are tearing up a road from the pond conservation area and tearing down all the old site that Rinkers canal was dredging years ago; they asked them when they were going to fix their road; and they said when they are finished. He stated they want to put 30 more houses in there; but GU is five acres to one and AU is 2.5 acres to one house; and inquired what is that; with Chairman Pritchard responding 12 units. Mr. Beins stated next door is Watson Grove; all the trees are dead and they are getting ready to do something; that is 170 acres; and next door to that is Spielvogel’s groves. He stated the Bluffs’ property is where the cross waters are; it all floods when it fills up and goes into the Red Barn area; that is the 41 acres that was tabled; but it is coming back, so the Board should fix the flood problems now before it gives them any kind of consideration. He proposed a moratorium so they can fix the flood problem in their neighborhood.

Celia Williams, representing North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, stated the Association is comprised of members who live in North Merritt Island, which is considered north of the Barge Canal; they currently have well over 400 paying members and have monthly meetings, which are public meetings where all the members are welcomed as well as anybody in the country; and they also had people from Cocoa attend their meetings. She stated they publish all the zoning notices in regards to North Merritt Island in their monthly publication called the Courtenay Notes, and all the members get the Courtenay Notes. She stated four times a year they have mass mailings to all members of all addresses north of the Barge Canal; so they have a very good communications network in North Merritt Island for zoning issues. She stated at their meeting on January 3, 2005, they had at least 20 members attend along with the normal board members; the members came in with a lot of concerns regarding all the zonings listed in the Courtenay Notes, including the three big issues on the agenda this evening; the first one was the Duggans’ request, which was tabled; the other is Chase Hammock Lakes; and the last one is the one they are speaking to now. She stated the residents had a lot of questions and expressed a lot of concerns at the meeting; and they determined unanimously they were opposed to the zoning change on the basis of existing flooding problems that they have documented on their properties including photos and anecdotal evidence. She stated they also had concerns about traffic on both roads, Pine Island Road and Chase Hammock Road in regards to documented accidents and general pedestrian safety along with equestrian safety because several people own horses in both of those locations, as well as the general aesthetics of the area and potential decrease in the wildlife habitat. Ms. Williams stated, on behalf of the Homeowners Association, she would like the Board to deny the request for a zoning change based on the evidence that a lot of the people in the green shirts will give. She stated in addition to that, the item that was earlier tabled was not done by an official one week notice; a lot of people who showed up this evening wanted to speak to the Duggans’ rezoning request; and requested when the Board tables an item that it be placed much earlier on the agenda. She stated a lot of people came and waited very patiently as the North Merritt Island agenda items are almost always last on the agenda, which is also another item she would like the P&Z Board to consider, having a rotating order of zoning items so each District gets a turn at being first. She stated a lot of the people from North Merritt Island came quite a ways and stayed quite late this evening and waited patiently for their turn to speak; so perhaps in the future they can get their turn first.

Mary Hillberg of Merritt Island and member of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association stated she agrees with everything Ms. Williams said so eloquently; the school capacity issue, traffic issues, huge flooding issue, and safety issues on narrow roads are big concerns; so they would appreciate it if the Board would deny the request.

Shaye Williams of Merritt Island stated he came to take the opportunity to speak to the zoning change and overall development changes in their community; everyone in the room recognizes changes are on the way and no one is here to stop them; but they are here to say they want smart growth. He stated a lot of times they go to special district board meetings; their response is the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use; and it is a fallacy to take that as gospel because a master plan is just a plan and is not just density. He stated there are utilities, infrastructure, etc.; they encompass everything it takes to have a healthy community; and they are not seeing the infrastructure step up to meet the demands they have today, so when there are zoning changes, there is tremendous concern they are going to tax what they already have and they may never get the upgrades. Mr. Williams stated flooding problems exist; even Crisafulli Road has flooding problems; the County’s solution is a sign that says road subject to flooding; but those are difficult problems that have to be resolved. He stated they have come to speak because their voices mean something; earlier the Commissioner mentioned one acre for a rural area is not a lot; it depends on the area; RR-1 may not be appropriate for their area; and it is important to develop areas to match their surroundings. He stated RR-1 may be fine in some areas; most of North Merritt Island would benefit from being at least AU; and in areas the folks are talking about a less dense development would be better. He stated Chairman Pritchard made a statement that they need to assess the need for housing; they agree with that; but the Board also needs to assess the needs of the residents, the people who live here now and are going to be living here tomorrow. He stated the Bluffs comes in to build its development next to his home and his neighbors’ homes; people are upset with the change because it appears to be uncontrolled; they see a variety of reasons for zoning changes, hardships, groves going under and the need to capture the financial recovery for that; but the price of land on North Merritt Island has doubled and tripled; there is no need to double and triple the density to capture the financial benefit; and when he sees 2.5-acre lots going for $200,000 and a month later listed for $300,000, that is not a legitimate statement. He stated Commissioner Scarborough mentioned going into the community and finding out what it feels like; the community is here tonight and is stating what it feels like; it feels like a very rural community; and people from Brevard County and other parts of the Nation drive through and say it is lovely and a gem. He stated the dramatic changes that may not appear dramatic to the Board but to the residents they do, will change the area forever; they are going to make their statements known so the Board will consider their opinions and be their voice when it comes time to deny or accept the zoning change. He stated he is also opposed to Items 2, 3, and 4, and wanted that to be heard.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how old is the house Mr. Williams and his wife are renovating; with Mr. Williams responding their home is one of the earlier homes, built in 1912. Chairman Pritchard stated it is beautiful and people should go by and look at it. Mr. Williams stated they do their part to keep the community up also.

Chris Cook of Merritt Island stated he lives on Pine Island Road, which is downstream from the canal and from the development; and with proposed septic coming in, he will be directly affected. He stated the barrier island’s only access is by swing bridges, which are unreliable at best; traffic is a constant for the whole island; they live there for a reason and are for smart growth; they have goats, horses, ducks, and chickens, and that is the way they like it; and when people start moving, there is going to be a negative impact because they are going to complain about the animals. He stated there were three car accidents on Pine Island and SR 3; turning onto SR 3 in the morning is taking your life in your hands; three cars went in the deep canal, but fortunately no one was killed; there are no guardrails where the 90 degree dogleg turn is; and it is unbelievable that no one was killed there in the last five years. Mr. Cook stated the telephone pole in front of his house has been hit twice in the last five years; there are no schools on North Merritt Island and no police stations; and with increased density, increased crime is inherent. He noted all the police have to come over the Barge Canal bridge, which is broken half the time. He inquired what is the motive to increase the density; stated the developers bought the property with the current zoning; they want to increase the density for money; but if he bought Krispy Kreme stock and it went under, he would not come to the Board to help him out because he made a bad business decision. He stated they can build large houses on large lots and sell them for a lot of money; everyone will be happy with that; and that is why the Board sees resistance going from GU to AU. He stated the Baxley Grove is putting in 24 lots on property zoned RR-1 since 1956 or something; they are cleaning out the rest of their property; it is not just this area, it is everything that is hitting them all at once; and he hopes the Board will take the findings of the North Merritt Island Board, the Homeowners Association unanimous denial, and the evidence of all the people who gave up valuable time to come here.

Chairman Pritchard advised the North Merritt Island Board approved AU and denied RR-1.

Sharon Earl Burridge of Merritt Island advised she has lived on Pine Island Road for 25 years; she is a stained-glass artist and runs her business from her home; and she opposes the zoning change and would like to keep it the way it is now. She stated one thing she did not hear addressed is the area has electrical outages rather frequently; it is beautiful with all the water and water birds; she loves going out and seeing the water birds; and it is usually dry land, but with five inches of water, her yard looks like a pond. She stated the reason she opposes increasing the number of houses is flooding; water is a major problem; her property starts flooding after five inches of rain; and after Tropical Storm Gordon, their yard went totally under water as the Board can see from the pictures. She stated the deep water canal crossed Pine Island Road in three places, flooded two homes, and created lakes that crossed seven properties; that is more than 15 acres; and that is just in the little corner she lives in. She stated the other photo is her neighbors’ pasture after Tropical Storm Gordon; it really does flood out there; and the canal takes water from the Kennedy Space Center and Chase Hammock Road, and goes through Pine Island into the River. She stated they had water within 15 feet of their home; they could only get to their house by using their truck; and they had to get out one door and jump over the water onto the sidewalk to get into their house. She noted she was fortunate not to have water in her home like others did; and if they see more building on 500 acres that are unbuilt, they will flood more. Ms. Burridge stated she has talked to a lot of people who live on North Merritt Island who have been negatively impacted and are carrying water in their yards that was not there before development; all the new homes are built up so much higher than the older homes; and the County does its best to try and retain the water, but she can give it names and phone numbers of people who are carrying a lot more water than they did before the development came in. She stated it will also hurt the value of their homes if they are carrying more water from new development. She stated she rides her bike twice a day; from the photos the Board can see her husband with their dog and can see how narrow the road is; they have the canal on one side and telephone poles and mailboxes on the other side; and sometimes they can get off the road if they are good bikers, but she has to stay on the road and cars have to stop behind her if there are two cars on the road. She stated they share the road with wildlife, which is beautiful, but it takes extra caution; the Pine Island Conservation area increases their traffic; she is always watching out for dangers; and there was a horse and rider hit by a car on their road, so Pine Island Road is a daily hazard. Ms. Burridge stated the new residents will also be in danger by their own impact to the road; they have a beautiful area; and requested the Board please keep the zoning as it is so they can continue to enjoy the wildlife and country lifestyle. She stated she read in the paper that Chairman Pritchard said as he is crossing the Barge Canal bridge, he feels like he is entering into paradise; and they have been taking the long drive for 25 years to be in the country environment. She stated allowing RR-1 development would change the character of the neighborhood; and requested the people to stand and show support for denial of the rezoning. Chairman Pritchard stated the quote he made was, “crossing the Barge Canal was like leaving PGA Boulevard in your rearview mirror”; and somehow it ended up being elated, but the feeling is there. Ms. Burridge stated those who live on Pine Island Road have learned to coexist with black bears, panthers, eagles, farm animals, and the Space Center; and requested the Board not make them live any more with more flooding, drainage problems, heavy traffic, and loss of identity of their area and deny the rezoning. She noted it is a privilege not a right, and requested it be kept as GU.

Bette Danse of Merritt Island stated she and her husband are relatively new to the community by little over a year; the residents have done a wonderful job presenting the issues; it is a wonderful community that they ventured into; and she wants to thank everybody for the turnout, their thoughts, and hard work. She stated she lives on Patti Drive, which is directly across from the 30-acre Bluffs Development parcel in question; and they moved there for the rural character of the area and into an existing home on land they soon learned flooded front and back seasonally. She stated they do not like new subdivisions and like the ones that are there; like others they have gone to great expense to improve the land and repair the septic system; and now they find themselves in the throes of being surrounded by developers like huge turkey buzzards looking down on the Pine Island Road area eager to peck away at every little bit of green space left. She stated instead of hearing the birds sing, they will be hearing the sounds of the developers’ profits; it is an area that is unsafe for many of the reasons already given; and the development will have loads of County liability. She stated if the Board looks at the package she gave it and at the traffic engineering report from the past five years, there is one entrance onto the road; there is no south feeder lane from SR 3; the guardrail has been damaged for months before the holidays, something Department of Transportation was supposed to fix; and when she called County Roadways and Landscaping Department, they did not know about the problem. She stated the Department knows now, but it will take awhile because it is a Department of Transportation thing. She stated people have driven into the deep water canal that borders the whole two miles of the road; she understands there were two deaths at the 90 degree bend; a lady comes once a year and places flowers on that bend because her daughter drowned in a car there; and the last rural area at the end of the island is not the place for more subdivisions. Ms. Danse stated the Board can see the flooding from the pictures; there is one picture of Patti Drive that is their backyard pond, which is 90 square feet; there is a hawk in the tree; during regular seasonal flooding they cannot walk around it; they had to put a pond in their backyard because when they moved in there, the neighbor said the only place that is going to be dry is their house because the front and back will be all wet; and they have problems with the septic system. Ms. Danse stated the petition has a list of names of almost everyone along the road who oppose the developers; what they want is to keep the zoning, which the County originally decided for the parcel at one house on five acres; it is directly across from Patti Drive and about six houses away from her house; and their shirts are talking about smart quality growth. She stated there are critters on the back of their shirts that the Neals who made the shirts for them took the pains to do; and the critters illustrate some of the endangered species living there. She stated she checked the Natural Resources Management Office’s comments and it says, “Information available to the National Resource Management Office indicates that federally and/or State protected species may be present on the property. Prior to any plan or permit submittal, the applicant should obtain any necessary permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. NMO shall require written verification that the applicant has obtained any necessary permits prior to development approval.” She stated that is according to a conservation policy; and requested the Board do a conservation study of the parcel especially when there are endangered plants and animals living there. She stated it is not a case of just a little bit of development here and there; it is major; it is unbelievable; and as she spoke to the people who signed the petition, she heard over and over they moved out there to get away from new housing developments. She stated they understand there will be a new house on acreage here and there, but not subdivisions; they want the County to use its original zoning wisely; it is precious land and the last on Merritt Island; and developers want to turn North Merritt Island into an extension of Central Merritt Island and a so-called business corridor. She stated there is pending development along areas of North Tropical Trail; it is just a matter of time until the beautiful land will be developed; some developers are treated like kings and get what they want; and then there is administrative rezoning and so forth. She stated it is not in the character of compatibility for the area; and requested the Board refer to the list of negatives before it. She stated the developer can deal with one house per five acres in GU; it is something that can happen right now; and they can go ahead and put five houses on that parcel. She stated the people want it unchanged and do not agree with the Special District Board that the zoning be changed to AU; that was something that was thrown out at the end by Aneta Ott and was not something the people at the hearing agreed with; it should remain GU as established by the County originally due to the endangered plants and animals that exist on the property; and requested the Board say no to the developers.

Charles Fritz of Merritt Island stated he lives on Pine Island Road on five acres, and along with his parents, he runs boarding stables on ten acres, one of the two on Pine Island Road. He stated their small community on Pine Island is not trying to stop all development, but trying to preserve the rural character they have on North Merritt Island. He stated 25 years ago he grew up on his parents’ property when north of the Barge Canal was nothing but citrus and horses; now residential development has moved as far north as Chase Hammock Road; and there is a place for development, but there should also be a place to save the original rural character of Merritt Island’s past. He stated development is not inevitable but a choice; if the Board votes in favor of this zoning change, it is saying there is no room for Merritt Island’s rural past; Pine Island Road it is the last of the rural areas left on the Island; and there is no other place for people who want to live the rural lifestyle to go. Mr. Fritz stated they are backed up to the wall; they are not trying to stop all development, but think the zoning is appropriate as it is; and it is a chance for the Board to say no to unreasonable development and uphold the community’s wishes to save their place as a historical rural community on the Island.

Tom DeMars of Merritt Island stated he is Mr. Fritz’s stepfather and lived there over 22 years; the group asked him to speak on the traffic issue, but he agrees with everything else he heard so far; and the reason they asked him to speak on the traffic is because he recently retired after 30 years and six months as a deputy sheriff, 20 years of it in Brevard County. He stated he worked in Zone 25, which is North Merritt Island; he does not mean to countradict anybody, but his statistics, since he has been living there, are that he has personally seen 15 vehicles in the canal; and they call it deadman’s curve for a reason because there have been four drownings that he is aware of. He stated there are numerous areas with less than two feet of shoulder before someone would hit a tree, mailbox, telephone post, or go in the canal. He stated several people have horses in addition to the ones they board; they like to go to the Pine Island Conservation area and ride the horse trails that have been set up for them; but it is a very dangerous road. He stated one horse and rider were hit and the horse killed and rider sent to the hospital; it is a very dangerous and narrow road; there is no way of widening it; and with all the different parcels that are trying to be developed, they are looking at adding 500 more trips per day on that road, which will not be able to handle it and there will be more people killed.

Doug Robertson stated he is getting naïve in his old age because he thought he would be rewarded today with support from the neighborhood; but he wants to remind the Board what is there now. He stated his guess is that most of the people from the Pine Island Road area who spoke already have AU and RR-1 zoning; there are AU, AU, SR, SR, AU, RR-1, AU, and TR-1 across the street; most of the speakers from Patti Lane have lots of one acre or less; and he thinks what happened is they have been lumped in with two other requests that he does not think have as much merit as their request. He stated the property has 7.6% wetlands and the rest is uplands; it is a good piece of property adjacent to orange groves; half of the 30 acres is not considered in the 100-year flood zone; and the other half has not been determined what zone it is in if any. Mr. Robertson stated an environmental study was done on the parcel by Bussen Engineering Group and its environmental specialist, which indicated there are no threatened or endangered species on the property with the exception of a few gopher tortoises; those have to be relocated; and as far as traffic is concerned, County staff report indicates the road is level of service C, so at this point traffic is not an issue for that road. He stated when he hears rural area, he thinks two and a half acres; he does not know where they grew up, but that to him is a big piece of property; and most people would love to have a two and a half acre parcel of property. He stated he thought it was a good request; it is the only parcel on the map that has been left as GU; they think of GU as a holding category until an appropriate zoning is requested; and that is why they think they are requesting an appropriate zoning. He stated he believes 2.5 acres is about as large a parcel as most people want to maintain; and they feel it is a fair and legitimate request given the surrounding zoning in that area.

Chairman Pritchard stated he lives on North Merritt Island and is familiar with Pine Island and all the other developments; he knows Mary Hillberg lives in Sunset Lakes on about a third of an acre lot; Bette Danse lives on Patti Drive on one acre; and she needs to plant some trees because it is awfully barren with nothing but a house and a couple of crotons. He stated during the storms he was up there a lot making sure all the debris was picked up; deadman’s curve is without a doubt one of the deadliest curves he has run across; and there need to be rumble strips. He stated what gets him is at the end of the road there is an elbow turn, then it heads down to the Pine Island Sanctuary, which is EELS property; so the County is encouraging people to go down and face the dangerous curve to go to the EELS property. He stated he is going to get into something to let people know that curve is there because something needs to be done; there is a lot of development on North Merritt Island and as much as they would like to have everything larger than 2.5 acres, what Mr. Robertson is saying is very reasonable. He stated 2.5 acres is reasonable; GU is looked at as a holding pattern; they have Sunset Lakes, Indian Bay, North Grove, and others like that; even The Savannahs has quarter acre and third-acre lots; and a lot of people live there and want to have a rural lifestyle, yet they are in a dense neighborhood. He stated Chase Hammock, Crisafulli, Porcher Roads have larger lots of one to two and a half acres; some of the newer developments are 2.5 acre lots; so there is plenty of room. Chairman Pritchard stated Pine Island neighborhood has RR-1 and AU; AU for the property is about 12 units; it is reasonable and satisfies the community; north on Patti Drive there are one-acre lots; and this property would be 2.5 acres with 12 units, which he thinks is reasonable.

Commissioner Colon stated every piece of property that comes before the Board is unique; after looking at the surrounding property and hearing testimony that was given, she feels the area is extremely unique and one of those that needs to be protected, even more so than some other areas that are completely dry; so she has a hard time even going with AU. She stated in South Brevard AU would be incredible, but not in this area because of its uniqueness; someone will buy a five-acre lot and do something in the area; the Board has an opportunity to do the right thing and leave it at five acres; and she is convinced the landowner will be able to get his profit. She stated she would consider 2.5 acre lots in a different area because it is wonderful and a nice piece of property; but because of where this property is and the road and drainage problems, she feels compelled to protect the integrity of the community because of its uniqueness. She stated the landowner is protected because he will get a profit; she has respect for the landowner’s rights; and in this case she feels comfortable she is not hurting the landowner but protecting the integrity of this unique area, which there is not a lot left in Brevard County. She noted as Commissioners that is part of their job to do that.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a similar opinion, but has a suggestion given the interest in the community; and that is to maybe revisit the small area plan that was done several years ago to revisit the uniqueness of the community and see what the whole community thinks about it before going through with multiple zonings. She stated they did that when they did the small area plan on the Riverside Drive in District 4 because there were concerns she had that they were going to develop in the wrong way because of its uniqueness; and this area is even more unique so they ought to give it a chance to see what the big picture is.

Chairman Pritchard stated he is very familiar with the area; they are speaking about it as if it is some sort of pristine forest, but it is not; Patti Drive has one-acre lots; and the surrounding territory is AU and RR-1 and is what it is. He stated 2.5-acre lots are reasonable; RR-1 is not reasonable, but AU is reasonable; and the other issues that have to do with drainage and the dangerous intersection are things that need to be addressed regardless of what happens. He stated it is not a primeval forest; part of it was orange groves; and inquired what were the areas before they became Patti Drive, Sunset Lakes, and North Bridge. He stated the whole point is some of them are living in those areas and do not want somebody else to do something on 2.5 acres; he lives on a half-acre parcel; that is plenty of land where he lives; and he happens to think if they have five acres, that is fine, but the surrounding property is AU and RR-1, and GU is a holding pattern. He stated AU is a reasonable use for that property; they can get to the other properties later; that is what he is comfortable with; and inquired if anybody else feels that way.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.4. as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated he seconded the motion because it falls in line with the NMI Board’s unanimous vote to make it AU; the majority of that Board was elected by the people who live on Merritt Island, which gives much greater representation; and they voted the way they voted and were elected by the electors on North Merritt Island.

Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Voltz and Pritchard voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Colon voted nay.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what would the Board like to do.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item IV.D.4.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board does not have easy decisions here; the Chairman does not have it easy either; the surrounding area is indicative of this being compatible; personally he has hard enough evidence that perhaps the Board should not always look to zoning map designations, but what the people who live there see; and it does not make it an easy decision for the Board.

Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion to deny. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Item IV.D.5. (NMI41101) John S. Isella’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on one acre located on the south side of Porcher Road, west of North Courtenay Parkway, was withdrawn by the applicant.

Item IV.B.16. Seasons in the Sun (continued)

Chairman Pritchard inquired what was Mr. Peetz able to resolve.

Todd Peetz advised the people in the audience did not understand they would have a six-foot wooden fence, provide opaque buffer, plant 50-foot trees, and setback another 20 feet. He stated they are trying to create it as opaque as possible so they do not have to see the site; that is what they explained to them; he does not know how Mr. Hall feels about it, but is sure he did not want to hear anything less than the existing buffer; but they need to have some ability to work the property. He noted the lady understands it better.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Mr. Peetz had at least a half a dozen conversations; he has been in conversations with others; but one thing of concern was dropping from 300 feet to 50 feet. He stated they talked about minimum lot sizes and having some flexibility to preserve more trees; and inquired if the developer is able to offer anything more than 50 feet. Mr. Peetz stated the reason they went to 50 feet is it is easy to describe in the Binding Development Plan; and they are trying to save as much of the trees as they possibly can. Commissioner Scarborough stated the north area has greater width; and inquired if there is an ability to offer more up there. He stated when he was trying to upgrade the minimum lot sizes, the thrust of their conversation was moving from the clustering and having a potential reduction in lot sizes, which creates an incompatibility issue although it allows more open space. He stated they tried to reach methodologies to compromise two different philosophies; and Mr. Peetz kept coming back to him again and again saying if he does not have it, he will not be able to accomplish the objective. He stated if that is the objective they want to accomplish, he wants it in the Binding Development Plan to give some indication that they are not dropping from 300 feet to 50 feet at least where it is indicated on the map. Mr. Peetz stated he is not sure how his client wants it. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is why he asked them to go out and discuss it. Mr. Peetz stated they met with the people and explained to them, but he does not think they really understood the opaque buffer and fence. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to something beyond that; that was what Mr. Peetz was trying to talk him into and not push the lot size so he would have more flexibility; and he tried to work with Mr. Peetz and now is asking him to give him something because he is going to be able to work with it. Mr. Peetz inquired how far down does Commissioner Scarborough want to go; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is the issue Mr. Peetz needs to bring to him, but he can give him numbers if he wants him to. Mr. Peetz inquired if the residents could speak; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he heard the residents and will comment on their comments; but what he would like to hear is if that property they are trying to preserve and are putting in the Binding Development Plan will in fact be preserved to some extent. Commissioner Scarborough stated it curves back to 50 feet; but at the front end they are showing something; he has always taken offense when people bring in diagrams or maps and will not put it in writing because people envision what is there is what they are getting; and that is not what they are getting, and that is the problem. Mr. Peetz stated the applicant asked if Commissioner Scarborough has a suggestion. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how far down is it when it comes back into the property; with Mr. Peetz responding about 400 feet or so. Commissioner Scarborough inquired running to the south, how far down is it; with Mr. Peetz responding about 1,200 feet to 500 feet. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how deep is the widest depth; with Mr. Peetz responding 100 feet. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is it where it starts narrowing; with Mr. Peetz responding about 150 to 200 feet. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how wide is the green area shown; with Mr. Peetz responding 200 feet. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they could say 200 feet or 300 feet reducing down to 50 feet over the next 150 feet; with Mr. Peetz responding the developer has a comment.

Daniel Caste, one of the managing members of Vero-Pittsburgh Partners, stated he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough that they have room to the north and it is their intention to save as many trees as possible because it makes a better development and there is no reason to take them out if there is no need to. He stated he would be concerned with the numbers that are being put forth because they do not know exactly and are guessing at numbers here; so if they could put a range or approximates at certain points, it would be better than to be tied to specifics when they do not know what the exact dimensions are right now.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Caste give him a number to put in the Binding Development Plan; with Mr. Caste suggesting a minimum average of 150. Commissioner Carlson stated the Binding Development Plan will come back to the Board; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he knows that but he wants to have a commitment of what precisely will be used as definition; and inquired if no place is less than 150 feet. Mr. Caste stated he cannot calculate that now because they are working off a concept drawing and do not have the exact field locations of all the trees out there. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants minimal requirements, and he is hearing that it is going to run for a distance at not less than 150, maybe go to 200, and then drop from 150 to 50 over the next segment; with that coming back as a Binding Development Plan, and with the other plan, he would move it with those provisions.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item IV.B.16. with a Binding Development Plan providing for a minimum 150-foot buffer that would reduce to 50 feet in the next segment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Zoning Resolutions.)

The meeting recessed at 9:48 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m.

Item IV.D.3. (NMI50103) Matpenco, LLC (Todd Peetz)’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 40 acres located on the north side of Chase Hammock Road, east of Winding Way, which was recommended for denial by the NMI Board.

Todd Peetz explained a map of the Chase Hammock area, identifying Otter Trace development as SEU with quarter-acre and larger lots; Chase Hammock Lakes as AU with open space and one-acre lots; and Stone Lake on the north side of Chase Hammock Road with half-acre lots. He stated there was a comment in the newspaper that the site was 90% wetlands; that is not true; the aerial shows more than 90% is citrus grove; and a soils map indicates it is the same as Otter Trace to the west and Chase Hammock Lakes. He stated some of the concerns from the residents were flooding and access to Joseph Court to the north; they met with the residents and showed them the concept plan for the site; and the concern was access to Joseph Court, so they pulled that off the plan. He stated another concern was equestrian and pedestrian access from Joseph Court to east of the pedestrian trail that is currently part of Chase Hammock Lakes; the other issue was flooding; when they met with the residents they said the water is backing up and circulating; and they suggested if they do the open space plan, they could potentially move the water to the south end of the property and keep it away from them. He noted they have to keep all their water retention on site anyway, but with the open space plan they may be able to accommodate greater volumes. Mr. Peetz stated they faxed or delivered a Binding Development Plan that they worked on with the residents that says they would have pedestrian/equestrian access to the north end of the property, no vehicular access to Joseph Court, they would leave the existing vegetative buffer at the north end of the property, and the developer will create a water retention/detention system, which will control the flow of stormwater in such a manner as to direct the flow away from the north end of the property. He stated the plan will be consistent with stormwater master plans to be appraised by applicable agencies, including the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Shaye Williams of Merritt Island stated he will not restate everything they covered because the feeling is the same when it comes to zoning changes; in regard to this item, they see development going in regardless if it fits or not; and there is hard impact when it is happening. He stated another development similar to this proposed development, when it was going in, impacted neighboring properties; and the Board heard from Bob Kenzer who was dramatically impacted from development of property adjacent to his property that did irreparable damage without a great deal of effort and expense. He stated when they look at a development coming in there is always a concern; they look at property already zoned AU and there is already an appeal for AU property on North Merritt Island; the preference is to retain that zoning; and changing it to RR-1 may look attractive on the plan, but not to the residents; and he is opposed to changing AU to RR-1 in this circumstance.

David Stuart, representing Otter Trace homeowners, stated he regrets that they did not have a chance to speak to the developer before this evening; statements were made that the parcel is 40 acres; and when they asked how many homesites they could have, they said 40. He stated that does not leave anything for water retention, swales, roads, easements, etc.; he heard cluster homes, which does not fit into the environment around it; so he has a concern about that. He stated they mentioned there are quarter-acre homesites around there; he does not know of any; there may be a quarter-acre deeded to the neighborhood that may be the entranceway; but he knows it is at least half-acre lots and many residents bought more than one lot to retain at least an acre. He stated they have issues with flooding; they are carrying more water since Chase Hammock Lakes went in; they mentioned drawing the water from the north end to the south end; he lives in the south end; and they had feet of water on their property since Chase Hammock Lakes was put in. Mr. Stuart stated he does not want to go over all the issues that the Pine Island folks went through, the drainage, schools, etc.; but he does not understand how many homesites it will be. He stated with Chase Hammock Lakes in there and this proposed development, there could be an additional 250 to 300 children out there; Chase Hammock Road cannot be widened and probably cannot be improved much because of the deep water canals on either side; and a deputy sheriff comes out there monthly and tries to maintain the fill trucks and construction workers running up and down the street to Chase Hammock Lakes, which was supposed to be a neighborhood that did not require fill. He stated all the folks in the neighborhood are deeply concerned; they are watching through the convenience of television tonight; and they elected him to try to speed things along to get the zoning issues. He stated the Board is the last link in the chain of sanity, so he appeals to it to try and understand what the neighborhoods are like and try to maintain them.

Commissioner Scarborough commented nobody will sleep tonight hearing that this is the last link to sanity because it is frightening, and he is frightened by the comment.

Amy Tidd, representing Partnership for a Sustainable Future, advised the Partnership has 10,000 members representing the League of Women Voters, Homeowners Associations, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, etc. and is a big group that is growing every month. She stated the NMI Board recommended denial; it is appropriately zoned now; Natural Resources Management said 90% of the parcel is hydric soil; it is an orange grove and the trees grow, but to keep the orange groves they have to run the pumps to take the water off the property. She stated if they develop it at one unit per acre, they have to keep the water on the property; it is a low area; and all of Merritt Island had to evacuate during the hurricanes because it is all in a flood zone. She stated it is appropriately zoned now and the County could have potential wetland problems if it allows the requested development.

Terry White of Merritt Island stated his property is directly north of the subject property; he has resided on Merritt Island for the last 40 years and over half of it on North Merritt Island; he moved off Pine Island Road ten years ago because the traffic and other hazards got so bad that he did not want to continue to raise his family there; and he has pulled several people out of cars in those canals. He stated he has some issues with development of this property; the developer did meet with the residents; he came to his house; they walked the property together and discussed all the issues that the adjacent landowners north of the property had; and he came up with an agreement that, in his eyes, satisfies his needs and seems to satisfy the needs of the other neighbors. Mr. White stated if the developer holds up to the agreement he submitted to him, then he does not have a big issue with the development; but he still has an issue with continuing to develop North Merritt Island if they do not do something with the infrastructure and something to move the water. He stated the County has to do something about that; in the last hurricanes the water came and stayed as a result of new developments to the east; he lost most of the orange trees on one section of his property because the water did not go anywhere as a result of that new development; and he wants to thank the Board for getting the power turned back on so they could run the grove pumps to move the water out. Mr. White stated the only way the water moves out now, as a result of new development around them in the last few years, is if the grove pumps are running; the grove he lost was an old established grove and not a new one; and that area was predominantly dry and growing citrus until adjacent development in the area pushed all the water in there. He stated the water goes in a circle now and comes to the pump behind his house to move it; but what the developer has shown on his plans is that he is not adding water to the north and giving them the buffer zone they asked for, so he is in agreement with part of the development but disagrees with part of it because they have to do something with the schools, traffic, and water on North Merritt Island or they will all sink.

Celia Williams, representing North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, stated originally when the issue came up and was printed in their Courtenay Notes, they had a lot of people at their meeting on January 3, 2005; they discussed the issue; and only having the information at hand at the time, it was decided they were going to oppose the zoning change. She stated the next step was to go to the NMI Board meeting; at that time the developer did not give additional information or changes to his plan; and many residents spoke at the meeting in opposition to the rezoning giving usual reasons of flooding, increased traffic on the roads, school capacity, etc. that were iterated by previous speakers; so at this time the Homeowners Association is still in opposition to the zoning change. She stated the developer did not contact the organization to speak to changes he may have for the request or any binding development plan he may have decided to use for it, so they could only make their decision on what had been printed so far; and that is a constant problem they are having in the zoning world. Ms. Williams stated they get a change request and make their decisions based on them; then the horse changes in mid-stride and they change their plans, maybe at the NMI Board hearing, as evidenced on the Pine Island issue, where they were given information on GU and changed to AU at the last minute after the residents had already spoken based on the original plan. She stated it is difficult for people to make their decisions when changes are made in mid-stride; they should speak to the residents and have one plan in mind and stick with it; and if they have to change the plan, there should be some mechanism by which everybody gets a say. She stated the developers should show consideration and come to their organization; and at this time the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association is in opposition to the zoning change request.

David Henry of Merritt Island stated he lives a couple of houses north of Terry White and concurs with his statements; they had issues about the land to the south because they did not want the road opened to their road; they like their dead-end street and the privacy; and they had major issues about the flooding that will not go away until some planning is done for all of Merritt Island. He stated the developer did contact them and they walked the property; their biggest concern is that the water goes in a loop and dumps on their property; they had a river running from the back of their property to the road as the water was being pumped to the back of their property in Martin Green’s old development; and it runs over their property and out to their ditch to get pumped back there. He noted it works well for a river if that is what they moved there for. He stated the land the developer wants to develop has a pump on it right now, which pumps into the ditch at the end of their street. He stated unfortunately no developer that comes along can fix what they screwed up a couple of years ago with the property to the east; so by putting less water in the ditch it is going to alleviate some of the problems in their area; and at least it will not put more water in their area. Mr. Henry stated the developer signed a binding development plan that he would push the water towards the south and retain it somewhere down there so it does not keep coming back on them; and because of those contingencies they made, he has no problem with their request. He stated he still opposes a lot of new development on North Merritt Island; the Board needs to consider the impacts; but in this case, the water being moved away from them benefits those on Joseph Court more than anyone else. He stated he is also a member of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association; the Pine Island item is in a dangerous area; like Mr. White said he lived there and moved; but in this area, if it helps them and no one else has opposition, he is fine with it.

Larry Harvey of Rockledge, President of Harvey’s Groves, stated they own seven groves on 500 acres on North Merritt Island; they are the largest gift fruit shipper in the State of Florida; and they grow all their own citrus. He stated he has listened tonight, but has not been to many of these meetings; he has good news and bad news; the good news is for Pine Island; they own 141 acres off Pine Island Road; and they are replanting that in citrus. He stated they are going to stay in the business; he is the third generation and his son is the fourth generation; and his son lives on Merritt Island off Courtenay Parkway. He stated the bad news is they have very large groves, one off Hall Road that has a disease called tristeza, which is a virus that has been in the United States about ten years and wiped out half the citrus in Indian River and St. Lucie Counties. He stated it spread from Central and South Americas; the only way to get rid of it is to remove the trees and put others in; and it takes ten years before trees are productive again. He inquired how many people lived on Merritt Island 20 years ago; and about half the audience raised their hands. He stated the Space program is going to get cranked up again; and inquired where are people going to live. He stated Central and South Merritt Island are full; Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral are relatively full; Rockledge is becoming full; and it is almost like a philosophy. He stated Mr. Green’s property off Chase Hammock Road was very well done; the lots were sold and homes sold; that is good for the tax base; and he did a very good job with it. Mr. Harvey stated the Board cannot stop growth; everybody’s tee shirt is cute with smart quality growth; they need to do it right and need to have smart quality growth; and if they stop, they are going to slide back and not go forward. He noted it may be good for some people, but this area is one of the premiere and unique areas in the United States; and inquired where else can they catch red fish, have an orange, and watch the Shuttle go off. He stated he is not for four units to an acre; he wants good smart quality growth; that is the key; they have not talked about canker, which is devastating; in the 1920’s it devastated the citrus industry; and they have not figured out a way to live with the bacterium. He stated they burn the trees but cannot replant for two years, then it takes ten years for the trees to mature. He stated not one acre of their land on Merritt Island is not a productive area except for the tristeza-infected groves.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how long has Mr. Harvey lived there; with Mr. Harvey responding his family has been in Brevard County since the mid-1920’s; he is 60 years old; and other than working at Disney for ten years, he has lived all his life in Brevard County and went to school here. He stated North Merritt Island is unique and so is South Merritt Island.

Mary Sphar, representing Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group, advised the Club reviewed the request before the North Merritt Island Board and stated it felt strongly that the rezoning request should be denied because it is not suitable for land containing 90% hydric soils. She stated she has questions because she was totally unaware there had been a development plan submitted by the planner to the homeowners on a certain street; and what she is confused about is she was under the impression that Miller Legg & Associates was the planning firm and the property was owned by some people who plan to sell it to someone else. She noted she would like that clarified. She stated she agrees with the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association that when plans change mid-stream, most of them are left in the dark; they are not in a position to make an intelligent and careful comment if they had not seen some plan in writing; and she is not sure if it was a conceptual plan, but it appears that it might be. Ms. Sphar stated she asked questions at the NMI Board meeting for the Sierra Club such as how many houses the applicant hoped to build on the 40 acres, and did not get an answer; does the applicant have a preliminary site plan with the wetlands overlay, and he did not have one; and has the applicant considered the project in light of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Wetlands Policy pertaining to residential development, and did not get any details of the analysis by Miller, Legg & Associates with regard to Policy 5.2.e.1. She stated there was also comment made off the cuff by the planning representative from Miller, Legg concerning the plan to have it built as a conservation subdivision; and it seemed like possibly they needed to review the Ordinance with regard to that and come back with a few more details. She stated she prepared a statement but will not get into it because at the moment there are too many questions about the development, which right off the top of her head, knowing what she knew based on information provided at that meeting, it would be pretty impossible to build according to the Wetlands Comprehensive Plan language and Ordinance as RR-1, even using the Open Space Ordinance; so she would not recommend approval at this time.

Vince Ugarte of Merritt Island stated he is a 41-year resident and lived on Crisafulli Road 35 years; he represents Matpenco with his daughter and two or three others who won the property and request a zoning change to develop it; but they will not develop it and are in the process of selling it. He stated the developer wants RR-1 zoning; in 1992, he was on the Planning Board and North Merritt Island Board; and they were fighting to keep it all one acre from Hall Road south; but they could not stop it. He stated the water flow off Crisafulli Road and Chase Hammock Road goes down to the canal that goes north and south and flows south; he documented that during Tropical Storm Gordon when they had all the problems; and anybody who has been on the road more than 12 years knows that. He stated he documented with a video camera that water does not flow down toward Pine Island; and it was flowing south as fast as it could under the canal bridges. Mr. Ugarte stated they have done some improvements in the last ten or twelve years changing the culverts, widening the ditches, and putting in pumps that pump into an area off Hall Road; since the storm they have not had a problem; and what the County did in the mid-1990’s helped. He stated he wants to see growth that is planned; he does not want five years from now the property comes in for rezoning and a different Board is here and it becomes four units per acre; he saw that happen on North Merritt Island south of Hall Road; and he could not stop it. He stated he would rather lock it in at one unit per acre; the people who want GU won tonight, but five years from now they are not going to win; so he is concerned and would rather have a developer come in and develop one unit per acre and keep North Merritt Island at least with one-acre lots. Mr. Ugarte stated he does not want to see it developed at four units per acre, which in five or ten years could happen; he has lived north of the Barge Canal a long time; and when he moved to Crisafulli Road, he was the first house in, now there are 30 or 40 houses, and they are building more. He stated the Board cannot stop development, but it can make sure it is planned correctly; he represents Matpenco; they own the and are selling the 40 acres; and he wants to make sure it is developed correctly.

Mary Hillberg of Merritt Island stated she is also with the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association and agrees with Ms. Williams and the gentleman who spoke before her that people who own the property have a right to sell it and make money and it is only fair that they should be able to do that; but the Board has to be fair to the people who live there and it should not be at the expense of the people in the surrounding area. She stated as a North Merritt Island Homeowners Association representative, she looks at all the Island, not just this area; she lives in Sunset Lakes; and showed the picture she saw when she went out there; and noted it changed in midstream and kept on changing until it turned into tiny lots. She stated the big issues for her are all of North Merritt Island, all the residents who have on their green shirts, and the school system, which is over capacity with no application to correct that. She stated traffic on Chase Hammock Road is not as bad as Pine Island, but it is still a narrow road and has water on either side of it that is very deep; and RR-1 is pretty heavy for that area. She requested the Board deny the request.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Ms. Hillberg realizes that her neighborhood is the neighborhood that Mr. Ugarte tried to stop; with Ms. Hillberg responding she realizes that and realizes she did not know how dense the community was going to be nor did the developer. She stated some of their streets dead-end because they said they could not do it that way, but could do it this way; they changed the park and put in smaller houses; they bought property off North Tropical Trail and called it part of the community so they could use the open space and have zero lot lines; and that is what it turned into, which was not the plan originally to have that kind of dense community, it just developed. Ms. Hillberg stated just because they have a plan does not mean that is the way it ends up; RR-1 with the Open Space Ordinance is very tough stuff; that is exactly what happened in Sunset Lakes; the people will have massive problems with stormwater drainage that is not going away quickly; so they are going to have a lot of work to do with it. She stated the area is also going to have flooding problems; the hydric soils mean it is potential wetlands because it has been pumped off; and the school system is still an unanswered question. Chairman Pritchard stated there is a school impact fee to answer the school problem; with Commissioner Carlson responding it only pays for future growth and not existing problems; and the people are talking about existing problems. Chairman Pritchard stated no, they are talking about future growth. Ms. Hillberg stated the schools are above capacity now and with additional growth it will be more; and North Merritt Island does not have any schools. Chairman Pritchard stated that is where the impact fee comes in; and he asked them to build an elementary school where Tropical Trail and Courtenay Parkway come together, but Dr. DiPatri and company do not want to do it. He stated the School Board has the room, it needs a school that would relieve the overcrowding; and stated Ms. Hillberg should go to the School Board meetings. Ms. Hillberg stated she will; and requested the Board deny the rezoning.

Mark Gullifer of Merritt Island stated he lives in Chase Hammock Lakes and supports the rezoning; and he wants to see one-acre developments and does not want it to be quarter-acre lots five years from now. He stated he knows Chase Hammock Lakes was opposed by a lot of people; he is one who lives there and is glad it was approved; and he adds his support to let the Board know not everyone on Merritt Island is opposed to this request.

Bud Crisafulli of Merritt Island stated he has a few things that have nothing to do with density; someone said build it and they will come; but the County fell behind because they are here and it has not built it yet. He stated they are trucking out fill along Pine Island Road from the EEL’s property and nobody questioned the 22,000 trips with 65,000-pound trucks going down that road; and he hopes there is money in the EEL’s kitty to take care of that road when they are through hauling the material out of there. He stated he sees those trucks go by four to the hour and sometimes six to the hour; they do not go 25 mph, they move; and somebody needs to address that. He stated he would like to see the recommendations of the corridor committee; it was a group on North Merritt Island appointed by the Board to do a study; and he would like to see those recommendations implemented. He stated he knows there were some problems in that situation because it addressed a lot of commercial things that are going to happen along the corridor; they need to start addressing those now because with growth comes commercial; so it is not far off. He stated he has mixed feelings about commercial growth out there; he likes driving to Publix, but in order to get people off the roads, they are probably going to have to do something about it. Mr. Crisafulli stated he would like to see about a stormwater study; they paid over $100,000 for a study to put pumps in and do all the stuff to get rid of water during heavy rainfall; but when they had the storm events, he did not see any pumps and has not heard any more about the stormwater program. He stated there is a lot of money in that fund right now; and they need an answer to that. He stated he asked the Board about SR 3; he sees no reason why Sea Ray Boats should exit north, go across the bridge to a red light, make a U-turn, and go back across the bridge in all that traffic; and somebody needs to address that and change it or whatever has to be done. He stated they need an exit lane after they go through the light that is continuous onto the Beeline going west; and that way people coming from the Space Center could just get on the road and go. He stated he would like to see the Board encourage 2.5-acre lots by easing the restrictions and regulations having to do with flag lots, Ordinance 03-011, Section D, relating to two or more parcels on a flag stem that has to come before the Board; it burdens the Board’s time and takes everything out of Commission meetings with all the groups coming to the Board; and if the zoning is AU already and people want flag lots, he would encourage the Board to turn it over to staff to implement that. He stated staff is well qualified and have masters degrees; they do what the Board hired them to do; and having them look at retaining water on site with lakes and canal systems for 10 to 20-acre developments that have five to ten lots in them would be an important thing to encourage larger parcels for development. He stated the Board has to give a little something to get people out there to do that. Mr. Crisafulli stated the big issue is that NASA needs its own road to the Kennedy Space Center entrances, the gateway to the moon and beyond; they are all on a bedroom road; and there is a roadbed on the Banana River side and a bridge could go right there with direct access under SR 528. Mr. Crisafulli stated NASA needs to kick in some funding; and the Board, Legislative Delegation, Congressmen, and President all need to address that.

Chairman Pritchard advised many of the items Mr. Crisafulli talked about have been addressed; unfortunately, the Department of Transportation is not interested in changing Sea Ray’s access; he has written to the Department numerous letters about that proposing different scenarios; and their data always seems to overcome his emotions, so he has not gotten anywhere doing that. He stated the corridor study has been reviewed by him and others; it has gone back to the committee for its final review; and it will come to the Board. He stated one of the concerns he had was lighting; Courtenay Parkway is very dark and some driveways cannot be seen until one is almost on top of them; and stormwater is a critical issue. He stated that study was shelved; they need to bring it back and address it because there is going to be more development on North Merritt Island, whether it is 2.5 acres or whatever; and they need to make sure the infrastructure is there to support it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated according to the map, there is SR with a Binding Development Plan; and inquired what lot size is that; with Mr. Enos responding there was a density limitation of one unit per acre overall. Commissioner Scarborough stated to the east is AU at one unit per 2.5 acres, so the item is between those two. Mr. Enos stated there is AU to the east that was developed as an Open Space Subdivision so the density there could be as high as half a unit to the acre. Mr. Enos stated the lot size can be as small as one acre, but the overall density on the overall site can be as high as .5 units per acre; so they have .5 units per acre to the east and one unit per acre to the west. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they were able to do that because they were able to get the bonuses; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct.

Chairman Pritchard stated that is not how they built; the units to the east built one unit to an acre or 62 units on 120 acres. Mr. Enos stated that is correct, they are one acre lots, but the density, because of the open space is half a unit to the acre. Chairman Pritchard stated he understands what Mr. Enos is saying, but it gets very confusing; when the Board approves RR-1, people say it is one-acre lots, but it is not; when they take out 40% for infrastructure, they end up with maybe a half-acre buildable lot; so sometimes the designations are confusing. He stated as it turns out, Chase Hammock Lakes built 52 lots on 120-plus acres. Mr. Enos stated that is half unit to the acre. Chairman Pritchard stated they got one-acre buildable lots; Otter Trace is 34 lots; and they are all one acre. Mr. Enos stated they range from a half-acre up. Chairman Pritchard stated so the Board is looking at a piece in the middle as a bit of a transition; when he met with the developers, they originally told him 38 units; and after he did a backflip out of his chair, he said that is not going to work. Chairman Pritchard stated he has since spoken to someone and they were telling him if they did a 16-unit development, they could take the fill from within at a dollar a yard and build their development as compared to trucking it in with a 24-unit development at $10 a yard; and inquired if they looked at the economics of going smaller and using onsite development instead of bringing in the costly fill. Mr. Peetz stated his client has always approached the idea of smaller lots and more units than doing what Chairman Pritchard is talking about; they can do that now without the zoning change; it would be 14 units; but they are asking for the zoning change because they did not think that unit count would work for that site with the cost proposed for the purchase. He stated he is not the developer and is the planner; but he represents the future buyer of the property. Chairman Pritchard stated on the south side of Chase Hammock Road is a 2.5-acre lot Subdivision; to the east they have 62 one-acre homesites on 120 acres; and to the west is Otter Trace with 34 homesites ranging from half an acre to an acre. He stated when they were talking about another property that has not come up but will come up sometime in the future, he asked what can they do to reduce the density on the parcel; and Mr. Enos’ comment was they can do anything they want but if they do something that is going to be different with the compatibility of the neighborhood on the south and north and ask for reduction in density, they may find themselves in litigation; and the opportunity to win is probably not that good. He stated he paraphrased what Mr. Enos said, but inquired if he could give him a little insight what the potential is if they make a decision based on the emotion of the moment instead of the facts behind it and what the litigation cost may be. Mr. Enos stated he would be happy to give his opinion, but expects Attorney Bentley to stop him when he gets into law and out of planning. He stated speaking from a zoning perspective, the purpose of zoning is to balance property rights of owners, surrounding property owners, and property owners of undeveloped property trying to develop; what the Board would look at is what zoning is compatible with the area; and when it comes to residential, that usually works out to be density. He stated although the circumstance he spoke to Chairman Pritchard about was quite different than this one, what they have here is a transitional parcel; they have a parcel with a density of one unit per acre overall for the entire project; on the east side they have a density of about a half unit to the acre; so that gives the Board the boundaries of its compatibility. He stated any number inside of that range, one can argue is compatible; to split the difference, that would be .75 units to the acre, which would be about 30 lots; and the applicant is asking for 40 lots. Mr. Peetz stated no, it is 40 acres and they are requesting 38 lots. Mr. Enos stated so it is closer to one unit to the acre, which is how the project to the west is developed; and the project to the east is developing at about half unit to the acre.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the proposed 31 units; with Mr. Peetz responding the 31 units is referenced based on a straight up RR-1 zoning. Commissioner Scarborough stated someone threw out 38 so he wondered if something changed.

Chairman Pritchard stated the AU that is there will allow 13 units; and inquired if Mr. Enos is saying if the Board approves AU zoning, the opportunity for litigation presents itself; with Assistant County Attorney Bentley responding the Board has to consider in this instance just as it does in every zoning instance, the character of the existing area, the existing neighborhoods, the type of parcel that it is looking at, and the impact on the neighborhood. She stated the Board, as the finder of fact, has to make those determinations; there has to be substantial competent evidence to support its decision; so if it finds that AU is an appropriate classification, it needs to be sure there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support that. She stated if it goes the other way, there needs to be substantial competent evidence to support RR-1; so long as there is substantial competent evidence in the record, there may be conflicting
evidence, but if there is substantial competent evidence on both sides, they can support the decision. Chairman Pritchard inquired where is the competent evidence that he would use; with Ms. Bentley responding the Board heard a lot of discussion today regarding the existing neighborhood and the development in the area; and it is not for her to make that call. Chairman Pritchard stated the existing neighborhood has 34 lots on one side in a parcel that appears to be slightly smaller than this parcel. Ms. Bentley stated there can be conflicting evidence, but it is up to the Board to make that call.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairman Pritchard brought up something that he has thought a lot about; there is a point that they sort of build out; they have the maximum units that they can have in the County; and that thought is good, but there are probably limiting factors in every area. He stated he is getting into a small area plan for north of Titusville to the Volusia County line; it is really a limited area because of transportation and a lot of things; they are going to end up with potable water; and what he heard in North Merritt Island is a very limited transportation system that is really problematic because they have to go through the Space Center that can be closed or over a bridge that can run into mechanical problems. He stated another thing he heard was the water issue; he knows the Board cannot bring that into play, but somehow when he does not have the bigger plan, it is to go to the lowest common denominator; in other words, if they have RR-1, they go there; and if they have something else, they always go lower and lower, and basically it prevails whether there are other issues; and that was the trend he was a little afraid of when they were on the Pine Island Road issue. He stated everything is around it so that is appropriate; but pretty soon all they need to do is make a mistake once and they repeat the mistake; and it never gets asked did they do something wrong at one particular time. He stated although they look different, he assumes there is some similarity and something somewhere must be right, but he does not have all that information; if the County does not have at some point a small area plan for that area of the County, which Mr. Crisafulli and the environmentalists were talking about, they will not be able to go beyond what is on the east, what is on the west, what is on the north, and what is on the south; and they may actually perpetuate something that is not appropriate for the greater community.

Commissioner Carlson stated that is what she said earlier that the small area plan from ten years ago needs to be revisited so they can take into account the stormwater issues that have been shelved and all the other things they have been hearing. She stated there is a different look that folks existing out there now want to see; it is different from what they wanted to see ten years ago perhaps; she does not know what the area plan looked like back then; but certainly it needs to be revisited to get the big picture.

Commissioner Colon stated one thing the Board has to take into effect is when folks come before it for rezoning, that does not mean the Board has to rezone a piece of property; they come before the Board to give testimony, then the Board tries to figure out how the rezoning is going to affect the integrity of the community; so just because they are before the Board does not mean the Board has to rezone a piece of property. She stated unfortunately people are under the impression if they put in an application and pay a fee, they are going to get their
property rezoned; and if the Board does not rezone the property, then they take the Board to court. Commissioner Colon stated when people buy property and it is zoned a certain way, they know what they are getting; and she is not talking about this particular parcel, but in general. She stated if property was an orange grove and the folks wanted to develop the 200 acres, at that point the Board would have the luxury of saying one unit per five acres is as much as it would do because density is out of control or the area is so unique; and that is why the Board does not necessarily have to approve rezoning. She stated if the property is already AU and the surrounding area is AU, that means 13 units go in there; and inquired why does the Board have to help somebody out to get more units in there; she does not understand that; it is not their job; and she will never be put in that kind of corner to do that. She stated she will always try to protect and respect the landowner to make sure the Board does not hurt him or her, but not hurt the integrity of the community either; that is not fair; people should not expect the Board to do that; and it is getting to the point where the Board has to make those hard decisions. She stated each area in the community is so diverse; they cannot compare Palm Bay to Merritt Island or Merritt Island to Titusville; it is a beautiful community and so diverse; and every time she comes into these meetings, she tries to look at each situation uniquely because they are so unique in the community. She stated in the District she represents they have the beaches, mainland, rural, and city environments; and that is why she has to weigh everything that is given to her. She inquired are they going to make mistakes and who does not make mistakes; and stated at least they look at the whole picture. She stated they are not always going to agree, but inquired in this case why should she feel compelled to have to change the zoning. She stated if it is 13 units, let it be 13 units; she does not understand why she has to put herself in that position; it does not mean she does not respect her peers here; they could agree to disagree; but she is telling them where she is coming from and how she feels about the situation, especially with zoning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard people speak in favor and against this item; there is diversity on both sides; he knows they tabled a lot of items; but he would not mind having additional information and maybe there is some intermediate position Chairman Pritchard would like to recommend to the Board this evening.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with AU; and told the applicants when they were there that the density was an issue. He stated the concern he had when he spoke with Mr. Enos about another piece of property was the ability to say no; and when it comes back up, he will be interested in hearing it because the Board turned this one down a while back. He stated when he asked Mr. Enos how come it did not get sued, Mr. Enos said they were lucky; the Board cannot always do something without ramifications; but he does not have a problem with AU.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item IV.D.3 as recommended by the NMI Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS OF NOVEMBER 8, 2004 AND
JANUARY 10, 2005

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearings on November 8, 2004 and January 10, 2005, on administrative rezonings as follows:

November 8, 2004

Item IV.E.1. Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 2, on 20 acres owned by Diocese of Orlando, currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board and the Board of County Commissioners; and tabled to March 3, 2005 by the Board of County Commissioners earlier in this meeting.

Item IV.E.19. Section 18, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 505 and 517, on 16.39 acres owned by the Diocese of Orlando, currently zoned AU and RR-1, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board and Board of County Commissioners.

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

Item IV.E.21. Section 20, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 778, 779, and 780; Section 29, Parcel 11 on 14.02 acres owned by First Christian Church of Titusville, Inc., currently zoned AU and RU-1-11 with CUP Z-9916 for church on Parcel 11, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-9916, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board and the Board of County Commissioners.

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

Item IV.E.40. Section 14, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 540, on 15.33 acres owned by Diocese of Orlando, currently zoned AU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board and the Board of County Commissioners.

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

Item IV.E.71. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 513 and 525 on 10.9 acres owned by Calvary Chapel of Merritt Island, Inc., currently zoned BU-1, BU-2, and TR-2 with CUP Z-5693 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) on TR-2 portion only and removal of CUP Z-5693 on all parcels, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board and the Board of County Commissioners.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.71 as recommended by the P&Z Board and Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

January 10, 2005

Item IV.E.1. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 752 on 1.23 acres owned by Beacon Baptist Ministries of Melbourne, Florida, Inc., currently zoned EU-2 with CUP Z-10725 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP Z-10725, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.2. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 40 and Parcel 756.1 on 3.52 acres owned by Eau Gallie Florida Congregation of Jehovah’s Witness, Inc., currently zoned AU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.3. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lots 47 and 47.02, Sub. 76, Lot 8 on 3.2 acres owned by Unity Church of Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned AU and RU-1-13 with CUP Z-10877 for church with Binding Development Plan on Sub. 76, Lot 8, proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP Z-10877 and retaining Binding Development Plan, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.4. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 49, on 4.72 acres owned by First Korean Baptist Church of Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned AU and SR, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.6. Section 14, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 76 on 5.9 acres owned by Space Coast District Church of The Nazarene, currently zoned RR-1 with CUP Z-3698 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP Z–3698, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.7. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Parcels 500, 504, 750, 751, and 752, Sub. 77, Lot 20, on 31.25 acres owned by Diocese of Orlando, Norbert M. Dorsey, Bishop, currently zoned RU-1-7 with Binding Development Plan, RU-2-8, RU-2-10, RU-2-15 with CUP’s Z-4836 for church on Parcels 500, 750, and 751; Z-8622 for church with Binding Development Plan on Parcel 504; and Z-10726 for church on Parcel 752, proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP’s Z-4836, Z-8622, and Z-10726, retaining Binding Development Plan on Parcel 504 and Sub. 77, Lot 20, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.8. Section 14, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 03, Lot Y on 6.87 acres owned by Riverside Baptist Church of Indialantic, Inc., currently zoned AU with CUP Z-6035 for school, and proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP Z-6035, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.9. Section 18, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 08, Lots 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13, ex. ORB 1819, PG 139 on 2.4 acres owned by Church of God, Trustee, currently zoned RU-1-11, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.10. Section 24, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 75, Block 2, Lots 5 through 9, and Block 3, Lots 5 through 13, and vac. Walters Drive, on 3.8 acres owned by St. Mark’s Methodist Church, currently zoned RU-1-11 with CUP Z-7648 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-7648, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.11. Section 25, Township 27, Range 37, Parcel 751 on 3.62 acres owned by First Baptist Church of Indialantic, Inc., currently zoned RU-1-9 with CUP Z-3681 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-3681, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.12. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 764 and 765 on 3 acres owned by Church of Christ at North Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned EU-2 with CUP Z-10307 for church and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-10307, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.13. Section 01, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 50, Block F, Lots 1 through 7, and 24 through 29 on 1.01 acres owned by June Park Baptist Church, currently zoned RU-1-7 with CUP Z-4523 for church on Lots 1 through 7, and proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP Z-4523, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.14. Section 11, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 25, Block R, Lots 11 and 12, except highway right-of-way on 0.79 acre owned by Myrtle Regular Baptist Church, Inc., currently zoned RR-1, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.15. Section 12, Township 28, Range 36, Parcels 20 and 55, Sub. 01, Lots 13 and 14, on 10.71 acres owned by Church of God at New Hope Sanctuary Church of God, currently zoned AU with CUP’s Z-10076 for school on all and Z-9895 for school on Parcel 55 only, proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP’s Z-10076 and Z-9895, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.16. Section 12, Township 28, Range 36, Parcel 762 on 2.89 acres owned by South Melbourne Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.17. Section 13, Township 28, Range 36, Parcels 760, 769, and 770 on 10.99 acres owned by AEA International, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.18. Section 31, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 506 on 0.26 acre owned by Ivan Fox, Brenda Fox, and Roscoe Williams, Trustee, et al, currently zoned RU-1-11, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.19. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 26, Lots 10, 15 through 18 and access road described in ORB 1155, PG 767, on 1.75 acres owned by Universal Healing Center and Chapel, Inc., currently zoned BU-1-A, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.20. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 52, Lot 18.01 on 2.96 acres owned by Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran Church, currently zoned RU-1-11, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.21. Section 19, Township 24, Range 37, Parcel 502.1 on 3.95 acres owned by Lighthouse Christian Church, Inc., currently zoned AU and SR, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.22. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Parcel 279 on 2 acres owned by Island Community Church of Merritt Island, Inc., currently zoned RU-1-11 with CUP Z-7218 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-7218, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.23. Section 01, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 20 on 2.92 acres owned by Emmanuel Baptist Church, currently zoned RU-1-13, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.24. Section 02, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 251, 251.1, and 267 on 6.49 acres owned by Merritt Island Presbyterian Church, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.25. Section 12, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 500, 506, 507, and 508.2 on 6.59 acres owned by Faith Presbyterian Church (Association Reformed Synod) of Brevard County, Inc., currently zoned EU with CUP Z-9771 for church on Parcels 506, 507, and 508.2, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-9771, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.27. Section 25, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lot 6.04 on 1.12 acres owned by Georgianna United Methodist Church, Inc., currently zoned EU with CUP Z-4211 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-4211, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.28. Section 06, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 01, Block B, Lot 4.03 on 0.23 acre owned by Angell City Florida Local Church, currently zoned RU-1-11 with CUP Z-9053 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of UP Z-9053, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.29. Section 06, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 03, Block 2, Lots 2 through 5, on 1.17 acres owned by Merritt Island Church of God, currently zoned RU-1-11 with CUP Z-8072 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-8072, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.30. Section 17, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 10, on 3.04 acres owned by Florida Conference Association of Seventh-Day Adventist, currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.31. Section 28, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 505, on 8.24 acres owned by Diocese of Orlando, Thomas J. Grady, Bishop, currently zoned SR and AU with CUP Z-4598 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-4598, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.32. Section 15, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 531 and 585 on 2.51 acres owned by The South Babcock Street Baptist Church, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.33. Section 15, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 568 and 596 on 2.69 acres owned by Indian River Mission Board of Free Will Baptist, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.34. Section 22, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 291, 300, 325, and 329 on 5.01 acres owned by Christ United Methodist Church of Palm Bay, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.35. Section 27, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 522, 539, and 579, on 4.09 acres owned by Florida Conference Association of Seventh-Day Adventists, currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.35. as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.36. Section 34, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 269, 296, and 309 on 4.09 acres owned by Palm Bay Florida South Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, currently zoned AU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.37. Section 28, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. HC, Lots 63 through 66 and unnumbered Lot E of Lots 65 and 66, except the north 70 feet on 1.24 acres owned by Calvary Baptist Church of Grant, Inc., currently zoned RU-1-7, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.38. Section 28, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 25, Block F.1 on 0.29 acre owned by Church of God Life Center, Inc., currently zoned AU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which as recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.39. Section 15, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 251 and 259 on 24 acres owned by Diocese of Orlando, Thomas J. Grady, Bishop, currently zoned AU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.40. Section 23, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. HI, Block 26, Lots 1 through 6, on 0.93 acre owned by First Baptist Church of Micco, Inc., currently zoned RU-1-7 with CUP Z-4165 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-4165, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.41. Section 01, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 6, 7, 7.1, 8 (RR-1 portion only on Parcel 8); Section 06, Township 30, Range 39, Parcels 258 and 260.1 (RU-2-4 portion only on Parcel 260.1) on 6 acres owned by Community Chapel By The Sea, Inc., currently zoned RR-1 on Parcels 6, 8, and 258; RR-1 and EA on Parcels 7 and 7.1; RU-2-4 on Parcel 260.1 with CUP’s Z-3667 for church on Parcels 6 and 258, and Z-4463 for church on Parcels 7 and 7.1, proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP’s Z-3667 and Z-4463, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.41. as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.42. Section 21, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 3 on two acres owned by Faith Baptist Church, Trustees, currently zoned AU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.43. Section 11, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. 75, Tract A on 6.39 acres owned by Advent Lutheran Church of Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned BU-1-A, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.44. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, Block 27, Lots 6 through 10 and Block 28, Lots 9 through 16 on two acres owned by Friendship Fellowship at Pineda, Inc., currently zoned GU, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.45. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 501 on 4.02 acres owned by St. Paul’s Anglican Church, Inc., currently zoned RP with CUP Z-8900 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-8900, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.46. Section 19, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 500 (RU-2-10 portion only) on .34 acre owned by Temple Beth Sholom, Inc., currently zoned RU-2-10 with CUP Z-5795 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-5795, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.47. Section 19, Township 26, Range 37, Parcels 502 and 503 on 4.05 acres owned by St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church of Brevard County, Inc., currently zoned RU-2-10 and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.48. Section 23, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 500 on 4.13 acres owned by South Patrick Baptist Church of Satellite Beach, Florida, Inc., currently zoned RU-2-10 with CUP Z-7989 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-7989, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.49. Section 27, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 2 on 9.54 acres owned by Trinity Presbyterian Church, Inc., currently zoned RU-1-13 with CUP Z-6086 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-6086, which as recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.50. Section 32, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 264 (RU-1-13 portion only) on 0.46 acre owned by Georgia Katz and David Katz Life Estate, currently zoned RU-1-13 and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.51. Section 24, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 759 (AU portion only) and Parcel 758 on 9.44 acres owned by The Pineda Presbyterian Church of Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.52. Section 11, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 764 on 3.96 acres owned by Lake Crest Community Baptist Church, currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.53. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 02, Block B, Lots 1 and 2 on 4.06 acres owned by Harbor City Christian Church of Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned EU-2 on Lot 1 with CUP Z-9480 for church, and RU-2-30 on Lot 2, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-9480, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.54. Section 14, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 519 and 534 on 7.26 acres owned by Wat Punyawanaram of Melbourne, Inc., currently zoned RA-2-4 with CUP Z-1071b for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-1071b, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.55. Section 14, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 75, Lots 1 and 3 on 0.85 acre owned by Lake Washington Missionary Baptist Church, currently zoned RU-1-13 with CUP Z-6610 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L) and removal of CUP Z-6610, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.26. Section 24, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lots 5.01 and 5.02 on 0.66 acre owned by Georgianna United Methodist Church, currently zoned EU with CUP Z-9190 for church, and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Planner Ryan Rusnak advised there was a representative of Georgianna United Methodist Church who indicated the property is being utilized as a fellowship hall; they had desires in the future to utilize that property for residential; and they appeared at the P&Z Board meeting and asked the Board to deny the application. He noted there is a CUP on the property; and recommended denial of the administrative rezoning and removal of the CUP.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item IV.E.26. as recommended by the P&Z Board, and approve removal of CUP Z-9190. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.68. Section 23, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 259.1 on 11.99 acres owned by North Merritt Island United Methodist Church, Inc., currently zoned AU and proposed to change to IN(L), which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board and the Board of County Commissioners.

Chairman Pritchard stated St. Luke’s Church administrative rezoning that came up several meetings ago was removed from consideration; and inquired why it was removed and whether it was appropriate. He inquired if North Merritt Island United Methodist Church, which currently uses a fellowship hall as a church, wanted to build a church on the property, would IN(L) prevent it from doing that; with Planner Ryan Rusnak responding absolutely not, as the institutional zoning classification caters to churches, schools, fellowship halls, etc. Chairman Pritchard inquired if it will have an effect on the facility, playgrounds, parking, etc.; with Mr. Rusnak responding no, because the Board added a pre-existing use exemption, which says if there were any provisions of the Code that made it nonconforming, the Board would consider the church vested and it would have rights of expansion and all that. Chairman Pritchard stated in that case, he has no problem with the rezoning.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item IV.E.68. as recommended by the P&Z Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

REPORT, RE: CITY OF COCOA ANNEXATION

Commissioner Scarborough advised Chairman Pritchard wrote a great letter to Department of Community Affairs on the Cocoa annexation and spoke to them in Tallahassee; but even though he did, they approved it.

Chairman Pritchard advised Department of Community Affairs approved the annexation by the City of Cocoa of an area of Canaveral Groves, south of SR 528, and east of I-95, so the County will be in the appeal process regarding that. He stated he does not think they understood the impact of what it was they were doing; Steve Swanke handled it exceptionally well; he was very impressed by what Mr. Swanke had to say and how he said it; and he believes the Department of Community Affairs staff felt the same way. He stated they may have felt their hands were tied and they did not have good reason to deny; he does not know; but they made an eloquent presentation as to why they felt it was not appropriate; however, Department of Community Affairs made its decision.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca advised she spoke with Secretary Cohen about the issue of local government decisions and Department of Community Affairs oversight; and he said that the current Administration feels that Department of Community Affairs ought to leave those local decisions to local governments, and the County could expect that trend to continue. She stated she would expect the County to continue to see that kind of review and comment from Department of Community Affairs.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS OF NOVEMBER 8, 2004 AND
JANUARY 10, 2005 (CONTINUED)

Item IV.E.5. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 76, Lot 7; Sub. 77, Block A, Lot 1 on 1.86 acres owned by First Free Will Baptist Church of Eau Gallie, currently zoned RU-1-13 with CUP’s Z-5523 for church on Sub. 76, Lot 7, and Z-6028 for church on Sub. 77, Block A, Lot 1, and proposed to change to IN(L) with removal of CUP’s Z-5523 and Z-6028, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Colon advised the Pastor would like to speak to the issue.

Pastor Steve Berry of First Free Will Baptist Church of Eau Gallie advised the Church is not opposed to removing the conditional use permits and moving to institutional classification and is pleased with that; but one thing he would like to ask the Board to consider is initiating administrative rezoning of two other parcels the Church has, one used as a parsonage for the youth pastor and his wife, that is adjacent to the Church property, and a parcel across the street that they use for parking several times a year. He stated it would help the Church, but he does not know if that can be done at this point.

Ryan Rusnak advised the properties the Pastor spoke to are on the west side of Minton Road; Lot 2.02 is at the northwest corner of Minton Road and Pinewood Road; and the other is at the northeast corner of Minton Road and Pinewood Road. He stated they do not think it is inappropriate to have IN(L) zoning wrap around like that; and the reason they did not initiate the administrative rezoning to begin with was there were CUP’s on the adjacent properties, but not on the properties the Pastor spoke about.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to initiate administrative rezoning on two parcels of property owned by First Free Will Baptist Church of Eau Gallie, located at the northwest and the northeast corners of Minton Road and Pinewood Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item IV.E.5. as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ACCENT LIGHTING STANDARDS

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing accent lighting standards.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division 6, Subdivision 3, specifically amending Section 62-2257(A) and (B), Lighting Standards, to clarify types of lighting fixtures and to add criteria for accent lighting; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 05-05.)

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m.

ATTEST: ________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)