MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

May 29, 1996

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 29, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, Assistant to County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

Commissioner Scott Ellis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner O?Brien reported on the health of his assistant Chuck Maxwell who will be undergoing angioplasty, and will return to work next week.

Chairman Cook advised of requested changes to the Agenda. Discussion ensued on whether to change the order of the Agenda. The Board reached consensus to proceed in the order of the Agenda.

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider the zoning recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its April 1, 1996 meeting, and tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on April 29, 1996 as follows:

Item 4. Leonard Spielvogel, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Doris L. Wolfe?s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment from Mixed Use to Heavy/Light Industrial and a CUP for a Truss Manufacturing Plant in an IU zone, located on the west side of Cox Road approximately 610 feet north of State Road 520, which was sent to the Board of County Commissioners without recommendation. Withdrawn by applicant prior to the meeting. The Board accepted withdrawal of item 4.

Item 7. William T. McInarnay?s request for change from EU-2 to RU-1-13 on 0.4 acre located on the south side of Winchester Avenue, approximately 250 feet southeast of High Point Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan limiting house size to no less than 1,500 square feet as voluntarily agreed to by applicant. Withdrawn by applicant prior to the meeting. The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 7.

Minutes continue on page_________

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider the zoning recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its May 6, 1996 meeting as follows:

Item 1. Wilburn S. Hicks? request for change from RRMH-1 to TR-2 on one acre located at the northeast corner of Canaveral Groves Boulevard and Hess Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Scarborough, O?Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 2. Mary J. Gross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert H. Tyndall?s request for change from RR-1 to AU on 23.56 acres located on the north side of Ranch Road, approximately 0.2 mile east of I-95, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. Horace C. and Barbara A. Meadows? request for change from AU to RR-1 on one acre located on the west side of Dixie Way, approximately 175 feet south of Wheeler Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Discussion ensued on whether to defer the Item.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to postpone Item 3 to no later than 6:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Patrick J. and Elizabeth F. Moran?s request for CUP for Agricultural Pursuits (two horses and a barn) in a GU zone on 1.3 acres, located on the south side of Bryce Street, approximately 620 feet east of Hartville Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners? on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning from RU-2-10 to RU-2-6 on 59.7? acres, located on the west side of Pineda Street, bordered on the north by Cocoa City Limits, on the south by School Street, and on the west by Palm Avenue, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Julian Mangum, Sr. 1244 Allen Street, Cocoa, advised of the history of the area; read aloud portions of Ordinance 73-13; and outlined problems with the area. He explained his objection to the zoning change; and requested the Board have consideration for the long-time owners.

Frances Mangum, 1244 Allen Street, Cocoa, advised of neighborhood objections when the apartments were built; and outlined problems with drainage, traffic, lack of recreational facilities, flooding, and septic tanks in the area. She noted the change was done without notification of the people; the building permit was not displayed outside; the people were promised that certificates of occupancy would not be issued until everything was legal; and the people have been neglected.

Commissioner O?Brien stated when someone builds a house, they have an idea of what the future of the land is supposed to be; when the government changes the rules later on, the people are stuck with a nice house and lot, with an apartment building next to it; and that was not supposed to happen. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the zoning change; and inquired if the properties shown in orange on the map are the RU-2-6; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding the parcels shown in yellow in the southeast corner do not wish to be changed; the other yellow area on the northern end is the apartments; and rezoning that area would make the apartments non-conforming.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to overrule the P&Z Board, and grant tentative approval of RU-2-6 for all the property except those identified in yellow in Exhibit 5; and authorize staff to advertise final public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Cook stated the apartment complex was completely out of character and he does not know how it happened.

Item 3. Horace C. and Barbara A. Meadows? request for change from AU to RR-1 on one acre located on the west side of Dixie Way, approximately 175 feet south of Wheeler Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Darryl Meadows, 5080 Dixie Way, Mims, advised the property in question is part of his parents? property; it has two houses on it which have been there over 25 years; he rents one of the houses from his parents; and the reason for the rezoning is to allow him to buy the house and obtain a bank loan. He noted he takes care of the property for his parents; people have made accusations about building more houses on the property, but that is not true; and his parents need him to take care of them.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how big is the entire lot; with Mr. Meadows responding 6.5 acres. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is no way to break out 2.5 acres; with Mr. Meadows responding no. Chairman Cook noted it would not require rezoning to split out 2.5 acres.

Howard Van Fossan, 3450 Todd Lane, Mims, advised he owns 70 acres to the north and west of the subject property; expressed concerns about water; and advised of rising chloride levels in the water over the years. He stated his life investment is in his 70 acres; it would be to his benefit if the property was in one-acre tracts; however, he has children he hopes will one day will be able to enjoy the property, which they cannot do if there is no water. He noted the subject property is a ten-acre tract; and he does not know why Mr. Meadows? parents do not give him 2.5 acres. He stated his opposition to the rezoning.

Bruce Fulton, 3440 Todd Lane, Mims, stated he lives on the 10 acres adjacent to the subject property; and submitted a petition signed by 24 individuals opposing the rezoning. He advised the property has a home at the northern end; Mr. Meadows lives in a trailer in an area not zoned for trailers; and explained how the trailer came to be on the property. He expressed concern about increased density leading to salt water intrusion. He noted Carlos Springfield made the motion to approve this at the P&Z meeting; Mr. Springfield owns property in the area, and has sold one-acre parcels; and he advised going from a trailer to a home is an upgrade. He expressed concern about one-acre tracts next to ten and twenty-acre parcels; and requested the zoning be kept as is.

Tammy Ricard, 4400 Windsor Court, Mims, expressed opposition to the rezoning. She stated she owns five acres on the west side of Dixie Way, within 1,000 feet of the Meadows? property; each Commissioner should have received copies of a petition signed by 24 individuals opposing the request; and submitted the original petitions.

Mr. Meadows advised his well is already drilled; just north of him there are one-third acre lots in Scottsmoor; and there is nothing to worry about in terms of the water.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he appreciates Mr. Meadows? desire to be with his family; but expressed concern about setting a precedent.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 3.

Commissioner Ellis stated he will support the motion because they can subdivide the property into 2.5-acre lots. He noted the property was subdivided after it was zoned AU; and it was known when it was subdivided to less than 2.5 acres that it was a non-conforming lot. Chairman Cook concurred; and stated there are other avenues for the applicant to explore.

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

Item 7. Sung Wuk Chung and Hyun Sook Chung?s request for removal of a Binding Site Plan (BSP) in a BU-1-A zone, currently having a BSP and a CUP for a Child Care Center on 4.43 acres, located on the west side of Dairy Road, approximately 300 feet north of Eber Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has no difficulty with removing part of the Binding Site Plan, but she would like to talk to the applicant who is not present. She stated at the time the previous request was considered, there was a 25-foot vegetated buffer and 10-foot buffers on the north and the south; those should remain as part of the Binding Site Plan; but she has no problem with changes to the structural setback on the front.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested continuing the item. Chairman Cook inquired if the changes

have to be accepted by the applicant. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the changes can be imposed by the Board. Chairman Cook inquired if the applicant was notified; with Zoning Official

Rick Enos responding affirmatively. Mr. Enos stated knowing what the applicant intends to do, the direction the Board is following would not be a problem.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 7 amending the Binding Site Plan to remove the 300-foot structural setback from Dairy Road, and keeping the rest in place.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is the only thing that is required. Commissioner Higgs stated the main concern is the 300 feet from Dairy Road; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct; and the applicant?s only concern was that part east of the building toward the road. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board takes this action and there is a problem, it could waive the fee for re-application.

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

Item 8. Petri, Inc.?s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-premises Consumption in a BU-1 zone on 2.24? acres located on the west side of A1A, approximately 525 feet south of Berkeley Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 9. Suntree United Methodist Church, Inc.?s request for a CUP for a school in a PUD, currently having a CUP for a church, a CUP for Additional Building Height (40 feet-Cross Tower) and a CUP for Additional Building Height (25 feet-Sanctuary), on 21.4 acres located on the north side of Wickham Road, approximately 820 feet west of Pinehurst Avenue North, which was approved by the P&Z Board for first grade class of no more than 25 students in the existing structure.

Jan Ridley, 3990 Turkey Point Road, Melbourne, Attorney for the Suntree United Methodist Church, advised of the interest in a first grade for those children currently in kindergarten; stated there are 21 acres north of Wickham Road; the P&Z Board recommended limiting to a first grade with a cap of 25 students; and the Board of Trustees is willing to go along with the recommendation. She stated there was a petition submitted which outlined issues such as lights being left on and noise during church hours; but those are not ancillary to the issue of the school. She advised of changes initiated to accommodate the disgruntled neighbors; and the Church has formed a task force to insure there is an ongoing relationship with the neighbors. She requested the Board approve the request.

Ellen Eells, 429 Kimberly Drive, Melbourne, stated her property is in the back of the church; before she bought her property she asked to see a plan of the church property; and she was informed there were no plans for further development. She expressed concern about information being withheld; and stated the Church is now going to have a school from kindergarten to eighth grade. She advised of the history of the church which involved selling property for homes and then putting the church between three subdivisions. She stated the Church has more desire for development than it has usable property; and advised of flooding problems. She advised of projections to put a perimeter road on church property which will lead to problems; and requested the Board require a 30 to 40-foot landscape buffer zone which would allow for natural percolation of the water through the soil and provide a barrier between the church and school and the residents.

William Eells, 429 Kimberly Drive, Melbourne, stated the Church embarked on a program of expansion which will adversely impact adjacent residences; it already has activities seven days and nights a week; and the neighbors are concerned about what will happen when the school is developed through the sixth or eighth grade. He advised of summer vacation bible school activities; stated the enrollment will be limited to 400 children; and that is a clue as to how large the elementary school enrollment will be. He noted even though it is barely 18 months old, the Church has maxed out in space; and the Chairwoman of the Advisory Committee stated her personal vision is to have a full school. He advised of noise and pollution problems from cars and busses; and requested the Board set forth conditions which will protect and insulate adjacent residents from the offensive side effects of the Church?s uses. He stated the residents must rely on the Commissioners for protection of their homes and the residential character of the community and the request for a 40-foot landscape buffer along the north property line between the Church and the Suntree Lakes Subdivision is minimal. He stated by requiring a 40-foot landscape buffer as a condition of the CUP, the Church will have that guidance as it develops its plans, thereby avoiding future conflict.

Vincent Ferrara, 178 Woodside Drive, Melbourne, expressed opposition to the Conditional Use Permit; stated the neighbors were assured in 1990 that there would be no school at the new location; and advised of the lack of buffering between the access road and the subdivision. He outlined problems with people entering or leaving the Church property off Pinehurst; stated the residents have problems getting in and out of Woodside Drive onto Pinehurst; and noted the problem with people going the wrong way on the west side of Pinehurst to go into the Church.

Harold Roche, 427 Kimberly Drive, Melbourne, described the problems with cars going down the wrong side of the road; stated until its application for the CUP, the Church had ignored the concerns of the adjacent residents; and the residents welcome the willingness of the Church to resolve the concerns, but worry that if the CUP is granted for the school, the Church will revert to its indifference. He noted only the neighbors can determine whether the Methodist Church is a good neighbor; and conditions must be placed on the permit to protect the adjacent residents. He stated the 40-foot buffer along the north property line is a minimal and reasonable condition to buffer the adjacent residents from present and future uses. He stated the Church representatives talk about 21.4 acres as though it is enough land to do anything, but recoil at dedicating 40 feet as a buffer; and if it has enough room for a worship center, nursery school, meeting room, day care center, elementary school, picnic area, recreational facility, food service and other auxiliary areas, it should have enough land to dedicate at least a 40-foot buffer area.

Ron Bailey, 437 Kimberly Drive, Melbourne, expressed concern about approval of a CUP for a school on Church property; stated the residents knew there would be a church built when they purchased their lots; however, they did not know it would turn into a huge venture with nursery school, day care center, public meeting rooms, etc., and there was no clue that a school would be started. He noted the Church sold the 30 acres which is now the subdivision; and it should not be surprised by the residents? need to protect the use of the land. He stated the advocates for the school do not live adjacent to the Church; and inquired what is the final plan for the Church property, and is there a conflict with the original stated use of the property. He stated there are too many unknowns; and requested assurance that proper planning is in place and full disclosure is made, and that any plan is in compliance with community standards. He requested the Board require a 40-foot planted landscape buffer between the property lines and any future approved development; and that the buffer be made immediate, and that it be a minimum requirement for any plan or disclosure submitted by the Church for Board approval.

Dolores Bailey, 437 Kimberly Drive, Melbourne, stated representatives of the Church have said repeatedly that it was only the first grade in the existing building; but they fought to have an open permit with no conditions attached and no commitment to dedicate a landscape buffer. She advised it will expand to the maximum possible; and outlined problems. She noted a dumpster backs up to her property; and it is not shielded or protected. She inquired if the busses will be parked on the perimeter road; and described the pollution problems that will cause. She requested the Board require the Church to limit its current use permit to first grade only in the existing educational building, and in the absence of a building site plan, the Church be required to dedicate a minimum of 40 feet as a landscape buffer along the north property line. She inquired where the school will have a physical education program; and advised it should not be in the residents? back yards.

Ms. Ridley stated the issues being brought before the Board are related to the Church; some churches may restrict activities to Sunday morning worship; but Suntree Methodist Church is an open facility used for many activities. She noted there will be some noise and light issues; and the Church will grow; but that has nothing to do with the school and having one classroom for first grade students. She advised of the necessity of having an ongoing good relationship with the neighbors. She stated the Church is not talking about new construction, additional roads, barrier roads, or additional sanitary facilities; and the only reason she cannot say what the future plans are is because they must be voted on by the administrative council and ultimately the congregation. She stated there are no plans for additional school facilities; the only way to get more than a first grade would be to build another structure; and there is no more room. She stated if the Church wants another school, it will have to submit to the Board for approval; it will need to expand the conditional use permit for more grades; and all the people?s concerns will be addressed at that time. She noted adding students to an existing classroom will have no impact on the community.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Church has discussed buffering; with Ms. Bailey responding the Church was unaware of the issue until it was presented today, but four speakers indicated a desire for a 40-foot buffer. Commissioner Scarborough advised a buffer, if feasible, could go a long way toward making good neighbors. Ms. Bailey advised that would apply whether there is a church or school there; it is impossible to please everyone. She advised of actions the Church has taken to appease the neighbors; and stated the Church will not say it will not use its property until all neighbors have been pleased. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be advantageous to discuss the buffer with the neighbors; with Ms. Bailey responding the task force will address it after this meeting.

Chairman Cook stated if the Board goes along with the P&Z recommendation, the Church will be back for an expansion or another CUP; and the buffer issue will be important because it is a concern to those residents at the north end of the property. Ms. Bailey reiterated that is why there is a task force.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the width of the buffer; with Ms. Ridley responding it is 15 feet. Ms. Ridley advised the issues are primarily lighting issues; there have been problems with the timers and daylight savings time; but they have been adjusted. Commissioner Ellis suggested planting another row of a fast growing tree or shrub to provide a buffer. Chairman Cook stated the buffer currently is pine trees and underbrush. Ms. Ridley stated there is a natural buffer; and within the last six months, the Church has put in $1,100 of additional landscaping. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not just the distance, but the type of vegetation. Discussion ensued on types of vegetative buffers. Ms. Ridley stated at the point the Church comes to the Board with plans for any additional buildings, it will voluntarily buffer. Chairman Cook stated the main issue is the width of the buffer.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could include maintaining at least 40 feet of natural buffer in the motion; and if the Church wants to come back, it would be part of any further negotiations. Commissioner Ellis stated it is already cleared to the buffer. Discussion ensued on the depth of the current buffer. Commissioner Higgs noted the residents could provide buffering on their side. Ms. Ridley stated she cannot speak for the Church on its official position on this issue; the Church has been working to have sufficient buffers; and the Church can work with the neighbors on any additional buffers. Commissioner Higgs suggested the area between the Church and the homes be maintained as a natural buffer and there be no development in that area. Ms. Ridley stated she does not anticipate any development; and if she had known the buffer issue was going to come up, she would have had an authority to speak to the issue. Chairman Cook inquired if there could be clearing without a permit. Zoning Official Rick. Enos stated since the applicant has changed the request to be the same as the P&Z recommendation, the Church would not be able to do any clearing. Commissioner Higgs stated nothing appears to be protected under the Landscape and Land Clearing Ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough suggested the motion be made such that there will be no clearing in the 40-foot area. Chairman Cook stated it could approve the P&Z recommendation with the caveat that no land clearing would take place within the 40-foot buffer. Ms. Ridley stated she has no problem with it as long as the Church is not being asked to incur additional expense.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 9 as recommended, with the caveat that a 40-foot natural vegetative buffer between the homes and the Church property not be disturbed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:56 p.m. and reconvened at 7:13 p.m.

Item 10. Edward J. And Nina S. Kendra?s request for change from RR-1 to RRMH-1 on 1.3 acres located on the north side of Aurora Road, approximately 0.2 mile east of Harlock Road, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

George Stenzel, 4495 White Road, Melbourne, distributed photographs; and stated he lives directly in back of the property which is being petitioned for change; the change is requested to bring a 5-year old manufactured home onto the property for his elderly mother; and this is the only way he can help her. He stated the manufactured home is consistent with other homes; there are numerous multi-family units in the area; and the manufactured home would only be used for the member of the family, not for business. He noted his mother needs help; his cousin owns the property; and he is in a position to help by bringing the manufactured home onto the property.

Chairman Cook inquired if the pictures show the manufactured home; with Mr. Stenzel responding the pictures show similar homes in the area, and one picture shows the home to be brought on the property.

Commissioner Ellis inquired does it fall under a manufactured home; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding he has not seen the picture. Mr. Enos noted he could not tell from the picture; but there are some factory built homes that meet the Building Code, and could go on an RR-1 lot. Commissioner Ellis stated it does not appear to be a mobile home; and inquired if it could be put on the RR-1 lot. Mr. Enos responded it depends upon how the home is built, not what it looks like; and explained the Codes under which factory built homes are constructed. Commissioner Ellis stated it appears to be more like the manufactured homes in Barefoot Bay; with Mr. Enos advising Barefoot Bay has mobile homes. Mr. Enos stated all are manufactured homes, and explained the differences. Commissioner Higgs stated manufactured homes cannot be put on an RR-1 lot, but a home that was put together some place else might meet the RR-1 Code. Mr. Enos advised the mobile home industry refers to itself as manufactured homes; but the issue is the standard under which the home was built.

Mr. Stenzel stated the manufactured home is five years old, and is currently at Lamplighter Village. Chairman Cook explained the difference in the standards. Mr. Enos stated if the home is in Lamplighter Village, it is probably a HUD home.

Doris Worrell, 1725 Harlock Road, Melbourne, described her property which is within 1,000 feet of the property in question, and on which she has lived for 15 years. She expressed concern about putting mobile homes on one-acre lots in RR-1; advised of Code Enforcement violations on the property in question; and stated there are other places for mobile homes. She expressed opposition to the rezoning.

Wilburn Lamb, 4640 Aurora Road, Melbourne, stated the property in question is next door to his property; it has a house on it which could be fixed up with effort; homes in the neighborhood range from $80,000 to $200,000; and expressed concern about opening up the area to mobile homes. He stated he understands Mr. Stenzel?s desire to care for his mother; but where Mr. Stenzel?s mother lives now is only three minutes away. He suggested Mr. Stenzel get a permit to put a trailer on his land for his mother while she is ill. Vernice Lamb stated that is what they were told by Zoning staff.

Mr. Enos advised there are ways the Zoning Code deals with members of the family such as a guest house or second kitchen facility which is in addition to a single-family residence; but he is not aware of any way to put a mobile home on a single-family lot for any extended period of time. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be possible to get a permit; with Mr. Enos responding not in a residential classification. Ms. Lamb stated someone on the P&Z Board said it was possible, and Mr. Enos did not contradict him.

Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Huggins went through the same situation and had a CUP for a mobile home on his property for his relative. Mr. Enos stated he is only aware of the ability to do that in agricultural classifications.

Mr. Lamb stated there is a petition signed by 15 or 16 people against the rezoning; and he does not want to live in a mobile home park.

Mr. Stenzel stated the property in question was purchased in October, 1995 by his cousin, and has been improved and cleaned up; his property is within walking distance; his mother is under hospice care; and it is a question of him being available in time of need.

Chairman Cook stated he is sympathetic to Mr. Stenzel?s problem, but the Board cannot give temporary zoning. He stated he will support the recommendation of the P&Z Board to deny; and requested Mr. Enos work with Mr. Stenzel to explore other available avenues to care for his mother.

Mr. Stenzel stated he is willing to listen to other avenues; he owns five acres behind the property; but the land is so low that he cannot bring any kind of building onto that property; and the property on which he requested rezoning is already filled. He noted this is the only way he can keep his mother off public assistance.

Commissioner Ellis stated there should be some way to grant a conditional use permit without doing the rezoning. Chairman Cook stated he explored that; the answer now is no; but Mr. Stenzel may

be able to work with Mr. Enos to see if there is a way to do this without changing the zoning of the property. Discussion ensued on whether the home is considered a mobile home.

Commissioner Higgs stated the neighbors are concerned about a mobile home in a non-mobile home area. Commissioner Ellis stated the biggest concern is if this is rezoned for trailers, other parcels will be rezoned. Mr. Stenzel stated directly north of his property, there is property zoned and approved for 52 mobile homes; and to the east, there are 92 or 94 mobile homes. Commissioner Ellis stated a manufactured home does not bear much resemblance to a trailer. Chairman Cook reiterated the permanent nature of the rezoning is a concern. Mr. Stenzel stated the opposition is to the rezoning, not to bringing in the home which is consistent with other houses in the area.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to deny Item 10 as recommended because it is incompatible with surrounding land uses; approve waiver of future application fees for another venue; and direct staff to assist the applicant in a search for a solution.

Commissioner Ellis requested staff provide a report to the Board within a month on the situation.

Commissioner Scarborough explained the problems with spot zoning. He stated people are living longer; and the Board has to find a way to accommodate situations such as Mr. Stenzel?s without affecting zoning.

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

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to direct the County Manager and staff to contact the medical community to tell the Board how it may facilitate and handle problems that occur as people age and how to keep them involved in the home.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would like to look at some kind of conditional use permit for medical disability reasons. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to look at the whole issue.

Commissioner O?Brien advised of a situation in Merritt Island which was turned down due to the direct effect on the neighborhood. Commissioner Scarborough stated there must be a lot of things written about how to deal with the problem; and he would like reports to the Board for review. Chairman Cook stated the key is what can be done temporarily rather than permanent changes. Commissioner Higgs requested the report include zoning classifications which currently allow a guest house, second kitchen, or other ways to accommodate family members. Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern about second units becoming rental units once the parent passes away. Discussion ensued on options.

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

Item 11. A. Duda and Sons, Inc?s request for change from PUD to RU-1-13 on 44.97? acres, located just east of the southern terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard, adjacent to the south side of Suntree Estates, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Larry Gulledge, representing Classic Homes, stated they are designing a 45-acre upscale development just south of Suntree Estates.

Commissioner Higgs expressed concern with the transportation; read aloud from the brochure; and inquired if the Suntree Master Homeowners are familiar with the addition to the development; with Mr. Gulledge advising it is not part of the Suntree PUD, although it is adjacent. Commissioner Higgs advised the streets that will be used to access the development will come through Suntree and are part of the Suntree Master Plan; with Mr. Gulledge responding they are public roads. Commissioner Higgs expressed concern that the development could be one of a string of developments coming off the roads in Suntree; the communities were master planned for a certain atmosphere; and as developments occur in the existing communities, they will change the master plan. She inquired what will be the impact on the existing residential communities; and outlined her concerns.

Chairman Cook stated being at the end of the roadway does not concern him as much; and inquired if there has been any contact with the Homeowners Association; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding there has been no correspondence on this item.

Mr. Gulledge advised the Suntree Homeowners Association is aware of the development; it asked if the development will be brought into the Association; but that determination has not been made at this time. He noted he developed Suntree Estates, which was not part of the Suntree PUD, but it was brought into the Suntree Master Homeowners Association for maintenance.

Chairman Cook expressed concern about the size of the lots; and inquired if RU-1-13 is compatible with the surrounding properties. Mr. Gulledge stated the EU property was 50% wetlands and could not be developed much more than one lot per acre; the property surrounding that is 85 by 125-foot lots; and the planned lots are 85 by 125 feet, so they are compatible with the other developments. He stated where there were 45 acres of land, there was less than one-fourth acre of wetlands; and they are putting in a 20-acre lake which goes all around the property as a buffer.

Commissioner O?Brien described problems with the development of Villa de Palmas in Merritt Island where there was rezoning for condominiums which impacted Sykes Creek Drive; and stated that was turned around so that today it is one house per half-acre. He stated directly to the north of the proposed development is EU zoning; the request is for RU-1-13 which will impact the streets; and that heavy density would not be fair to adjacent land owners. Mr. Gulledge responded there will be 67 lots on 45 acres; he could go to a different zoning and increase the density dramatically; but he is not going for a high-density development.

Chairman Cook stated traffic is a concern, but he is more concerned with compatibility of surrounding areas. He noted the zoning classification would allow 1,300-square foot homes. Mr. Enos advised 1,300 square feet is the minimum for RU-1-13. Mr. Gulledge advised the draft Articles of the Corporation and the deed restrictions have a minimum square footage of 2,400 square feet, so the houses will be compatible but will have a different lot size. Chairman Cook stated adjacent there is EU-1 which is a minimum of 1,800 square feet on a 12,000-square foot lot; and even if it was EU-2, that would be a 9,000-square foot lot with a 1,500-square foot house. Mr. Gulledge advised the other zoning classifications did not meet the 85-foot wide lot; and RU-1-13 is the only one that worked. Chairman Cook stated he is not opposing the zoning, but has concerns; and it may be prudent to continue the public hearing to get some input from the Suntree Homeowners. Mr. Gulledge advised there is a 100-foot right-of-way for St. Andrews; the roads into Suntree are two-laned; and if there is ever an impact to that extent, they could be four-laned. Chairman Cook reiterated he is not as concerned about the traffic as he is about the compatibility. Mr. Gulledge stated the Comprehensive Plan shows Murrell Road continuing on to provide access to the additional land, so it would not necessarily go through Suntree.

Commissioner Higgs stated this particular development would go through Suntree; with Mr. Gulledge responding it would. Mr. Gulledge noted Baytree also goes through Suntree.

Commissioner Ellis stated the proposed development is 67 homes; Suntree has thousands of homes; and recommended the Board put it into perspective. He stated there can be a binding development plan limiting the number of lots.

Chairman Cook stated notices did go out to adjacent property owners, and no one responded. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how far did they go out, and how many homes were sent notices. Mr. Enos advised notices were sent out to homes within 1,000 feet. Mr. Gulledge advised Suntree is totally aware of the development.

Chairman Cook stated there are not three votes on the Commission to approve; he heard a number of concerns that cannot be addressed at this meeting; and the Board should get input from the Suntree Homeowners Association.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider Item 11 to the July 9, 1996 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Ellis advised EU-1 is the same number of lots. Chairman Cook stated this is not a bad zoning, but there are concerns.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the motion to continue the public hearing.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the minimum lot size on EU; with Mr. Enos responding 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Ellis noted that is three units per acre; on the 44 acres, there could be 120 homes minus right-of-way; under EU, he could put 100 homes; and in terms of density, the proposed development is less dense than EU, with the only difference being lot size.

Chairman Cook stated there could be other options which may be appropriate; and maybe all the concerns can be met.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider Item 11 to the July 9, 1996 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Mr. Enos advised 82 property owners were notified. Chairman Cook reiterated no objections were received.

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

Commissioner O?Brien expressed concern that there are no recreational grounds.

Item 12. Commonwealth Development Company?s request for change from TR-1 to RU-1-7 on 32? acres, less and except the south 750 feet, located 750 feet north of U.S. 192, approximately 0.62 mile east of John Rodes Boulevard and 0.88 mile west of Wickham Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Doug Robertson, 100 Parnell Street, Merritt Island, representing Commonwealth Development Company, described the 32-acre parcel located on U.S. 192 which was formerly the Houser Zoo property; and stated the request is for change from mobile home classification to a single-family home classification, RU-1-7. He stated the rezoning is consistent with all Future Land Use Plan requirements and density requirements; it is compatible with surrounding areas; it is acceptable in terms of levels of service; and the P&Z Board unanimously approved it.

Commissioner Higgs stated going from TR-1 to RU-1-7 may be an upgrade, but it increases the density; and while it meets concurrency now, that segment of roadway will have to be six-laned as it approaches 2020 because it will be below level of service D. She expressed concern about increased traffic and drainage; and stated it would add water to a system that already has problems.

Mr. Robertson stated he is prepared to maintain the same density cap as under the existing zoning which is 148 units. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Robertson is willing to agree to a binding development plan with that cap; with Mr. Robertson responding if that makes the Board comfortable. Commissioner Higgs stated that would address her concerns; she still has concerns about the drainage; and there have been calls from people downstream who are nervous with hurricane season approaching. Mr. Robertson stated as this goes through the site plan process, that will be addressed so as not to affect the adjacent property owners.

Commissioner Ellis stated this is 32 acres out of a drainage basin of over ten square miles; and explained the problem with the golf course. Commissioners Higgs and Ellis exchanged comments regarding the drainage problems, drainage studies, culverts, the M-1 Canal, and the willingness of the City of Melbourne to participate in drainage improvements.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion includes a binding development plan; with Commissioner Ellis responding it is up to the applicant. Commissioner Higgs stated the applicant is willing to accept a binding development plan with a density cap.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion to include a binding development plan providing for a density cap of 148 units.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as development occurs, it is inconceivable that everyone will be able to enjoy their property rights; and it is a matter of compromise. He stated if everyone maximizes, it limits the capacity of roads, drainage, etc., and becomes more difficult for the next person to do anything with their property. He stated little things create big problems; and if the applicant is willing to agree to limits, it is wise to accept it.

Commissioner Ellis stated that is fine; if 148 trailers are put in worth $20,000 each, none will pay property taxes; but if there are homes, it is an improvement.

Mr. Robertson reiterated he is willing to accept the cap of 148 units.

Commissioner Ellis accepted the amendment as part of the original motion.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised there is State law requiring two public hearings for administrative rezonings of ten acres or more; Item 5 was one of those; and another public hearing will need to be scheduled. He advised it can be a day hearing; and his intent is to schedule it for one of the regularly scheduled Board meetings.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how soon can it be done; with Mr. Enos responding it will take time to renotify people, but it can be done within a month.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board will have to hear the item again; but he has not intention of changing his motion.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

___________________________________

ATTEST: MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

( S E A L )