May 20, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 20, 2004, at 5:32 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Jeremy Coppock, Faith Baptist Church, Titusville, Florida.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING DR. LAURENCE SPRAGGS

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution congratulating Dr. Laurence Spraggs on his new position as the sixth president of the Broome Community College in Binghamton, New York starting July 1, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution congratulating Dr. Laurence Spraggs on his new position at Broome Community College and expressing gratitude and appreciation for his outstanding service to the citizens of the County during his tenure at Brevard Community College. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Dr. Spraggs. Dr. Spraggs expressed appreciation to the Board; and stated it has been an amazing opportunity to work for Brevard Community College and serve the County for the last three years. He stated serving the students, staff, and the community has been an honor; the Titusville community has been good to him; and he is keeping his house in Brevard County for retirement.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Pritchard advised he will need to leave at 6:25 p.m.; and requested the North Merritt Island issue be heard prior to his leaving.

Commissioner Colon stated she will also be leaving early; and requested District 5 be heard before she leaves.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired who is leaving first; with Commissioner Colon responding she is supposed to be in Melbourne at 7:30 p.m.

REPORT, RE: MEDICAL EXAMINER SELECTION COMMITTEE

Chair Higgs stated she met with the Medical Examiner Selection Committee today, which is chaired by State Attorney Norm Wolfinger; the contract is the County’s; and she is going to ask the County Manager to bring forward a request at next Tuesday’s meeting to bring some of the applicants to the County. She stated there are no funds allocated; the Commissioners may get this information late, but the committee did not meet until yesterday; there is a list of applicants that has been narrowed down; and they need to move that along as the current Medical Examiner will be retiring.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING CHIEF RUMBLEY

Commissioner Colon stated the resolution will be presented at a later time.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing Chief Rumbley for his outstanding community service and commending him for his commitment and dedication to the citizens of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

Commissioner Colon stated the resolution will be presented at the Support the Troops Rally on May 31, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt a Resolution supporting members of the United States Armed Forces, and expressing support and appreciation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING SCOUT LEADER STEVEN V. COOPER

Commissioner Carlson stated normally the Board recognizes Eagle Scouts; but ever since she has been on the Board, there has never been any recognition of the Scoutmasters who help the Eagle Scouts become the Eagles they are; and tonight the Board is going to honor a Scoutmaster who is leaving the community. She stated he has provided much guidance, wisdom, and compassion to Troop 300; and the resolution speaks for itself.

Commissioner Carlson read aloud the resolution recognizing Scoutmaster Steven V. Cooper for his outstanding participation in the scouting program and recommending that all citizens acknowledge his accomplishments.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending Scout Leader Steven V. Cooper for his service to the Boy Scouts of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Mr. Cooper.

Chair Higgs stated the Board wishes Mr. Cooper well.

Steven Cooper stated he enjoys working with the youth; that is why he continues to do it; and he and his wife are moving to Tennessee. He stated he is as much a kid as the scouts are; he goes to the summer camps and the high adventure stuff because that is what he enjoys, and luckily so do the boys; and he will continue with scouting in Tennessee.

Commissioner Carlson stated the community greatly appreciates all the service to Troop 300, which happens to be her son’s troop; he had the honor of having guidance from Mr. Cooper as well as Mr. Wickham; and they will miss Mr. Cooper and wish him all the best.

Dave Wickham stated sometimes you meet people who have a lasting impression on you; and he can guarantee that every youth Mr. Cooper had contact with has a lasting impression. He stated in the Boy Scout troop he has influenced over 1,000 individuals to be the best they can be; and he is a positive example in the community. He stated he is sorry to see that the Coopers are leaving the area; and he cannot think of anyone more deserving of this recognition.

ITEMS TABLED OR WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA

Chair Higgs inquired if there are items to be tabled or withdrawn from the Agenda. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated there are a number of items that were either tabled by the P&Z Board or have since been requested for tabling by the applicants. He stated Item IV.A.1 has been requested to be tabled to October 7, 2004 BCC meeting.

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

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item IV.A.1 to the October 7, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos stated Item IV.A.2 was withdrawn. He stated Item IV.B.1 was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item IV.B.1. (Z0405501) TANNER & KANAZEH DEVELOPMENT, INC.’s request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on 4.31 acres, located on the north side of Trimble Road, west of Wickham Road, which was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting with no fees if request is readvertised for SR.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.B.1 to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with no fees if request is readvertised for SR. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos stated Item IV.B.5 was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting for readvertisement of additional acreage at the request of the applicant, with reprocessing fee required.

Item IV.B.5. (Z0405102) BARRY R. AND SUSAN L. BOSTWICK’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1 acre located on the southeast corner of Grant Perrin Road and Dixie Way, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting for readvertisement of additional acreage and reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.B.5 to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting for readvertisement of additional acreage and reprocessing fee required. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos stated Item IV.B.6 was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with no reprocessing fee.

Item IV.B.6. (Z0405103) SEASONS IN THE SUN, LLC’s request for an amendment to an existing BDP in an RVP zone on 38.10 acres; and change from RVP with a BDP to RU-1-7 with an amendment to the existing BDP on 79.13 acres, (a total of 117.23 acres) located on the south side of SR 46 and the east side of Turpentine Road, which was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with no reprocessing fee.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.B.6 to the July 12, 2004 P&Z meeting and the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with no reprocessing fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos advised the applicant for Item IV.B.7 has requested the item be tabled to August 5, 2004.

Item IV.B.7. (Z0405201) BRUCE A. AND LYNDA L. GUTOSKI’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 1.18 acres, located on the east side of South Banana River Drive, north of Worley Avenue, which was recommended by the P&Z for approval with a BDP, limited to an “over 55” community.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.B.7 to the August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos advised Item IV.B.10 has been withdrawn. He stated Items IV.E.3 through IV.E.10 involve the Viera Boulevard Joint Venture and Commerce Park; and they should all be tabled for readvertisement.

Item IV.E.3. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 24.6 acres located on the south side of Viera Boulevard, east of Holiday Springs Road, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP, except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which is recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.4. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 3.98 acres located south of Viera Boulevard and west of US 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.5. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 0.48 acre located on the south side of Viera Boulevard west of U.S. 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.6. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 3.76 acres located on the south side of Viera Boulevard 100 feet west of US 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.7. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 2.2 acres located south of Viera Boulevard, and west of US 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.8. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 24.48 acres located south of Viera Boulevard and west of US 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.9. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 14.19 acres located south of Viera Boulevard and west of US 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Item IV.E.10. Viera Boulevard Commerce Park - 6.08 acres located south of Viera Boulevard and west of US 1, with current zoning IU subject to a BCP and proposed zoning PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for tabling for readvertising of a new BDP.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Items IV.E.3 through IV.E.10 for readvertising. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos advised Item IV.E.12 has been withdrawn for readvertising.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 13, 2004

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, made at its May 13, 2004 meeting, as follows:

Chair Higgs stated there were requests from Commissioner Colon and Commissioner Pritchard to take their items out of order.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to allow the District 2 Commissioner to take his items out of order. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.1. (NMI40501) MAE MCCREARY, TRUSTEE’s request for change from AU to SR on 2.2 acres located on the north side of Grant Road, east of North Tropical Trail, which was recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for approval with a Binding Development Plan limited to a maximum of three units.

Charles Sweeney stated he and his wife own the property on Grant Road on North Merritt Island; presently it is zoned AU on 2.2 acres; it is a couple of a hundred feet off SR 3; and it is north of the Barge Canal. He stated they are requesting a change from AU to SR; at 2.2 acres, it is not suitable for building a house because in AU it has to be more than five acres; just north of the parcel there is development with quarter-acre lots; and there is a development just south of the property with quarter-acre lots. He noted on Grant Road some of the lots are half-acre, and some are one acre; and there is a church that is right next to the property. He stated they are hoping to get approval for the zoning change to have three residential lots, each one being 100 feet wide on Grant Road. He stated they have a planned development so they will not impact the schools.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board; he is very familiar with the property; there is a drainage ditch in front that is going to be culverted and filled in, which will aid in the safety of the road; and he recommends approval.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
OF MAY 10, 2004

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its May 10, 2004 meeting, as follows:

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to consider the District 5 items next. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.2. (Z0405502) SIR-ONE INVESTMENT, INC.’s request for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zone on 1.97 acres, located on the west side of Highway A1A, south of Ocean Oaks Boulevard, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval with beer and wine only, accessory to restaurant use only and limited to the existing restaurant premises.

Valora Gurganious stated she is a tenant at the property at 1500 North A1A in Indialantic; she runs Saint Cinnamon Bakery Café; and they just opened one week ago. She stated it is a European-style bakery/café; they are open for breakfast and lunch, and soon will be open for dinner; and they are applying for a conditional use permit to allow them to go for a beer and wine license.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Colon distributed the menus and they are very attractive.

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

Commissioner Colon stated she usually votes against these kinds of requests; but she went by the facility and saw the kind of place it is going to be. She wished Ms. Gurganious luck with her establishment.

Ms. Bentley inquired if it was the intent to include the limitation recommended by the P&Z Board that it be accessory to restaurant only and limited to existing restaurant premises; with Commissioner Colon responding affirmatively.

IV.B.3. (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 by the P&Z Board for approval with a BDP, offering a $2,800 per unit school contribution.

Attorney Mason Blake, Dean Mead Law Firm, representing Babcock, LLC, stated the sole member and owner of Babcock LLC is Bill Brisbane who is present to respond to questions. He stated he has represented Mr. Brisbane for a number of years; he is a wonderful developer who has developed nationwide; he is basically in retirement now; and this is one project that Mr. Brisbane is working on, but his full-time job is U.S. representative to the United Nations Children Relief Fund. He stated Babcock LLC owns approximately 2,000 acres; the project will be called Calumet Farms; and it will be an equestrian community, developed as a low-density rural project. He stated it is located on Wickham Road, south of Palm Bay; it is on the west side of the road; on the east side of the road is a large area of State-owned land; immediately to the north is the Deer Run subdivision, which is also an equestrian-based subdivision; and the proposed subdivision would be the same type of product. He stated the current future land use category is one unit per 2.5 acres; the rezoning they are requesting is from the holding category of GU to AU, which is also one unit per 2.5 acres; and they are not asking for any increase in density over the existing future land use, but for a density that is compatible with the land immediately to the north. He stated staff reports note that the change in zoning is consistent with the future land use regulations, and that project would maintain acceptable levels of service; the report did indicate that Westside Elementary School was currently over capacity; and they have submitted a binding development plan to provide a contribution of $2,800 per unit at the time building permits are issued. He stated this type of project generally attracts a slightly older buyer because it is an equestrian community, so they do not believe it will impact the schools; and because there are a large amount of retired buyers in the project, they do not believe it will create a large amount of traffic impact. He stated he does not think things are going to be the way they are in staff’s report; he was out there a number of weeks ago at rush hour on Friday; and there were lots of capacity on the road. He stated he would be happy to answer questions; and the recommendation of the P&Z Board was for approval.

Commissioner Colon stated she has mixed emotions regarding this item because even though it is something that is attractive at one unit per 2.5 acres, there is concern over the schools; recently there was the issue with the annexation that came before the Board in the same area; and the concern that was mentioned at the time was in regard to schools. Commissioner Colon stated they are being told that Westside Elementary is at full capacity; and even though they are looking at paying for the impact fees, she is torn and trying to get some feedback from the Board. She inquired what should the Board do in this case.

Commissioner Carlson stated in her briefing they said there was going to be a new update to the School Board capacity numbers; the information in the packet talks about capacity of various schools; right now 4% of the schools are over capacity; but when they apply the new Constitutional amendment, the capacity is going to decrease even more. She stated she wondered when that was going to come online and how it will affect the County’s strategy. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised they were told by School Board staff that they should be getting the new capacity and count numbers within weeks; they were told that a month ago; and they expect it any time. He stated they expect the current capacities will be reduced substantially because of the class size amendment. Commissioner Carlson stated the School Board appointee on the P&Z Board voted against this item; and she would like to know the justification for voting against it. Assistant Zoning Official Robin Sobrino stated the School Board representative indicated that because of the school capacity issue, she had reservations in approving a development of this size; the discussion of the Board also brought out the fact that there is a proposed school T that has been sited in the area; and it was the consensus of the majority of the Board that school T would be coming online in time to serve the rooftops of the large project, which would probably be a phased project that would gradually introduce additional units into the area. Commissioner Carlson inquired if school T is a middle or high school; with Ms. Sobrino responding it is an elementary school. Commissioner Carlson stated there are only capacity issues with the elementary school; with Ms. Sobrino agreeing.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that was one of the points he was going to bring out; there is a school scheduled for the area, and it will come online; the development will be phased in; and they have offered $2,800 per unit school contribution. He stated he watched the P&Z Board meeting on television in the office; and the argument was that they do not have the school, they do not have the money, and they will not get the money if they do not build the development. He stated it is a chicken and egg thing; and inquired if the development is going to be phased in and the developer is going to pay a $2,800 impact fee, how else would they get the money to buy the school. He stated school T might alleviate some of the concern; the development is going to be phased in; and inquired if he heard it was going to be one unit per 2.5 acres; with Mr. Blake responding that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is no question in his mind that Brevard County is going to grow; and inquired if it is better to lock this in now at one unit per 2.5 acres instead of rolling the dice and coming up with a higher density such as a condominium. He stated since school T is coming in and the developer is willing to pay an impact fee at $2,800 per unit, the bases are covered.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board got into the binding development agreements with the payment, they thought what is the harm; he was not voting for them, but went ahead and voted because he felt the impact fee was coming; but one of the things that became difficult was when another development had an impact fee of $4,400 and the Board turned it down and said it wanted to examine the school issue. He stated Ben Jefferies started off because he was the first one; they had an analysis of the impact economically; and the Board is going where it does not want to go. He stated if the Board is going to analyze schools and economic impact, he agrees 100%; he prefers to have something on 2.5 acres; but this is playing a strange tune with a lot of different particulars. He stated they are going to have different rules for different people; that is fundamentally wrong; and the Board does not have the capacity to go there. He stated he said $2,800 because it is going to kick in when they do the school impact fee; and he hopes they are going to be there quickly; but it will kick in after the fact. He stated he can support it as it is; but if he goes much further, he is going to back off and vote against all of them because it is scaring him. He stated the Board cannot do individual analyses and do its job.

Commissioner Colon stated that is why the Commissioners all feel the same way; it is attractive to have a kind of community at 2.5 acres per unit; that would be ideal; and they are looking at some replatting in South Brevard. She inquired if school T is the school that has to do with the property of Ben Jefferies or is it a different school; with staff indicating it is the same school. Commissioner Colon stated that school is still in question because of the annexation issue; and if it is not approved, all bets are off. She inquired what is the status right now; and stated she is concerned about the school not being built this summer even though the Board is making the assumption the school is going to be there. She stated the other issue is that once they approve an impact fee, if it is approved, they cannot discuss school capacity any more because they cannot have their cake and eat it too. She stated the Board said the issue was school capacity; supposedly an impact fee will alleviate that dilemma; but if the Board is still going to have that discussion, she is concerned about what that is going to accomplish in regard to the dilemma they are faced with in rezoning. She requested Ms. Busacca address school T. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she spoke with the School Board about three weeks ago on this item; they were still working with Mr. Jefferies to come up with a donation agreement, which had not been finalized; according to Mr. Curry, they have a smaller parcel that could be utilized for a school, but it would not ultimately provide the same size school, nor is it located in an optimum location; but his feeling was that if the donation agreement did not move forward in a timely manner, then they would continue with the school in the other location.

Chair Higgs stated this is 100% in the floodplain; and inquired what do the floodplain regulations require. Sherry Williams with the Office of Natural Resources Management responded the floodplain regulations would require that for the amount of fill he would need to bring into the property to raise it one foot above the 100-year flood elevation, he would need to provide compensatory storage. She stated the 18-inch limitation was taken out of the Ordinance not long ago; and now the requirements is just for compensatory storage. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Colon knows better than anybody the problems in that area; 2.5 acres is attractive, but five acres, particularly in this area where there have been problems, is even more attractive; and that is something the Board should consider as well.

Commissioner Carlson stated she got the minutes because she wanted to be more specific about what Ms. Hoaglund had mentioned; it indicated Westside school is slightly over capacity; however, the projected enrollment with the School District figures for next year is 1,152 and the permanent capacity of that school is 940 students, which puts the school over capacity by 212 or 20%. She stated they understand that when schools go over capacity for an amount of time, until they can actually build, they have to show the need; children have to be at the doorstep before they can build a school; and that is always the phenomena that they are going to be faced with. She stated she is not sure that helps in this particular discussion; but she agrees that the Board should consider a lower density because it is in the floodplain, and because of all the issues with Deer Run and other wet areas out there.

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Blake did not get his five-minute rebuttal; and she is going to give him five minutes.

Mr. Blake stated it is not 100% in the floodplain; the staff comments say portions of the property contain floodplain as identified by FEMA; and that is sort of a new issue today. He stated he is familiar with the property; and it is not all in the floodplain. He stated there may be areas that if they are developed, they will need to provide compensatory storage; but this is not a large piece of floodplain land. He stated there is a subdivision right next to it, which seems to be progressing fairly well; they understand there are some drainage problems because of some of the canal issues; but it is his understanding it is not a floodplain issue. He stated in terms of the school issue, this project is not engineered now; they are just at the zoning stage; and it will be two years before they are at the point of even developing lots, and probably three years before they are at the point of adding children in a small number to the school rolls. He stated there is plenty of time for the Impact Fee Ordinance to be cut in; and he believes it should be enacted although they have said if it is not, they will still make voluntary contributions. He stated a project of this sort does not develop overnight; they are not taking 50-foot lots and pouring 300 homes on the market in one year and all of a sudden the elementary school will have a giant impact; and it is not that kind of animal. He stated it is 2.5-acre rural lots in a rural area; and the absorption on that is extremely small comparatively. He stated they are talking at least ten years for the absorption on the project; and they are talking about a smaller number of school children being contributed with the long-range absorption period, so it is ideal. He stated there are not going to be instant impacts; there are going to be gradual impacts on all of the infrastructure; they are not pouring out a whole neighborhood overnight; they are having a rural subdivision develop gradually over a long period of time, reflecting the character of the area; and they will comply with all the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance as well as the Environmental Ordinances to make sure the property is developed as responsibly as possible. He stated Mr. Brisbane has a very good track record in that regard; and it would be their hope that the equestrian nature of the community could utilize the natural environment to make it an optimum community for the people who like to live in this type of product. He reiterated this is not a giant development; it is a slow well planned marketed product aimed at a niche market that is not going to inundate any of the services including schools that the County furnishes.

Commissioner Colon stated at the last two Board meetings, there have been quite a few folks coming to put in some development; she has a great concern; and she knows Chair Higgs must share that concern. She stated she is starting to get nervous; there are too many issues, such as the floodplain and the school capacity; she does not know when school T is going to be built; and if the Board does not mind, she would like to be able to see this at a regular meeting in August. She stated by then the Board should have been able to make some decisions and know where it is with the school; and it will be able to address it a little more. She stated she is not comfortable right now making any decision; and she wishes to table it to a regular meeting in August.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.B.8 to the August 24, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.4. (Z0405101) LAWRENCE W. LUCAS, LLOYD AND JACQUELINE LOUISE LUCAS, JAMES AND LINDA S. LUCAS AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BREVARD COUNTY’s request for change from AU and RU-1-7 to RU-1-11 with a BDP on 105.71 acres located on the northeast corner of Wiley Avenue and U.S. 1, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there may be cards on this item; he was getting calls on this; he spoke to the applicant on the phone; and this is one item he would like to table.

Attorney David Dyer introduced John Genoni who would be the developer on the project. He inquired if the Board wishes to hear a presentation. Chair Higgs stated the applicant has the right to a ten-minute presentation and a five-minute rebuttal; if he wishes to use that, he may; and Mr. Dyer has heard Commissioner Scarborough’s position.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the item came to the Board with a recommendation of denial; the school issue is difficult because the Board did a rezoning directly behind it without the issue coming up; and now they are going there. He stated there is one member of the community present tonight; and he has talked with some other people on the phone who have other collateral issues. He stated he spoke with the applicant about it being best for this to be discussed outside of Chambers so they can get some answers; but since people are present, they can make a presentation.

Dwight Seigler stated since it will be tabled, he will hold his comments.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item IV.B.4 to August 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Dyer requested guidance; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting they meet with staff. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to have a meeting in his office; there are some things that are real concerns and some things that are not concerns; some things can easily be answered; but other things may be easily answered with some augmentation of the binding development plan. He stated he does not think there is a problem at this moment; but he will not know until there are further conversations with Mr. Dyer and the community.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this was offered with a $4,500 school impact consideration; and it was denied. He stated it gets back to the chicken and the egg issue again; and it does not make any sense to him the way State legislation requires school capacity to be at over 100% before they can even be considered for expansion; and inquired how will they ever get the money to build a school if they do not start lining up the revenue sources. He stated in this case it is $4,500 that was offered, which is the amount of money the consultant recommended. He stated it has been tabled and will come back; but his point is if the argument that is going to be coming from P&Z is they cannot do it because the school is overcrowded, and the reason it is overcrowded is because they do not have the money, and the only way they are going to get the money is to build the development, which will overcrowd the school, so how are they ever going to build the school.

Commissioner Carlson stated that is the problem they are facing; what Commissioner Colon was interested in doing was making sure they were going to look at the school impact fee and see where they wanted to go from there, so they will not always have to be looking at the binding development plans. She stated on a couple of occasions School Board members have told her that school impact fees are not enough; but she does not know where it will end. She stated they cannot just tell the developer to build a school; that is impossible; there has to be some form of reason and balance; and how they do that is yet to be seen; but they have already set a precedent of accepting some of these. She stated clearly there are some issues on the P&Z Board, now that it has a School Board representative, that are causing a debate to occur on that level; and the Board does not want to ignore that.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the P&Z Board had a School Board representative last year; and that representative did not take the positions that this representative has.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to take this beyond the school issue; he likes what Hank Fishkind did; Ben Jefferies said he had a strong tax base; a moment ago Mr. Blake was saying he would have fewer units; and the applicant has said he will give $4,500. He stated ultimately anyone who wants to build a half million-dollar piece of property for someone with no children and no old people will contribute and will be let in; there is some overall basis for some of these things; school impacts make sense like road impact fees; but as they get into the details, they are going into a very dangerous area; and he does not feel comfortable.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the same thing they are dealing with for traffic; and it is a concurrency issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is fine if it is done uniformly across-the-board; and he can live with that.

Chair Higgs stated the item has been tabled.

Chair Higgs stated Item IV.B.7 was tabled and will not be heard tonight.

Commissioner Scarborough requested those people who spoke on the last item to provide their names and phone numbers so he can touch base with them.

Item IV.B.8. (Z0405301) ABBOTT MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC.’s request for a Small Scale Plan Amendment (04S.5) from Community Commercial to Residential 10; and change from BU-1 to RU-2-10 on 6.87± acres, located on the west side of US 1, south of Barefoot Boulevard, and north of Micco Road, which was recommended for approval as Residential 10 by the LPA and approval with a BDP limited to an “over 55” community by the P&Z Board.

Ben Elliott, Plata Engineering, stated he is representing Ron Abbott, who is a long-time Brevard County resident, business owner, and well-known figure in the Barefoot Bay area. He stated the property being considered today is a 6.87-acre BU-1-zoned commercial property that Mr. Abbott currently uses for his mobile home sales office; Mr. Abbott is now looking to redevelop his existing site as a 55 and over upscale residential condominium-type of development; and part of that requires a change of zoning from commercial to residential along with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, so they are requesting RU-2-10 with a Comprehensive Plan amendment up to ten units per acre. He stated by going to residential and moving another commercial shopping center on the adjacent property, they feel it is a good opportunity to enhance the riverfront corridor of Barefoot Bay; Mr. Abbott has talked to the Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association in the past about the potential of changing the use of that site; and it was very well received. He stated they would like to see some residential activity out there versus another retail shopping center; there is a retail shopping center to the immediate north and other retail establishments to the south; and they come to the Board with recommendations from the P&Z Board and the Citizens Resource Group for approval. He stated going through the staff review as far as concurrency issues, traffic, water, and sewer, the proposed development is a much less intense type of development; and they will designate it as a 55 years of age and over community. He advised they submitted a draft version of a binding development plan to staff; they brought the 55 and over out because of the demographics of Barefoot Bay; and it is a good fit and well received. He stated therefore there will be no school capacity issue; in addition to the U.S. 1 traffic connection points they will be modifying with the new plan, they will also have some internal driveway connections with the adjacent Winn Dixie project; and the Winn Dixie project will provide water and sewer to Mr. Abbott’s property, so all the infrastructure is in place for extension to serve the site. He stated the proposed project will comply with all the Land Development Regulations for site planning, landscaping, stormwater, etc.

*Commissioner Pritchard’s absence was noted at this time.

Mr. Elliott stated they look at this as a redevelopment-type project versus a new project on vacant natural land since the property has been disturbed and developed in the years past; and they are going to revitalize the area. He stated he, Frank Plata, and Mr. Abbott are present to answer any questions.

Frank Plata, Plata Engineering, stated they are ready to answer any questions; but overall, they worked with staff and staff is aware of the details of what is involved with the development; and there were not significant engineering problems. He stated it is pretty much straightforward in terms of soils, drainage, traffic, and all the amenities for the site; and he is present to answer questions.

Chair Higgs stated the staff lists some locational criteria regarding RU-2-10 and where it should be located; and inquired if Mr. Elliott can address that. Mr. Elliott responded the reason they applied for the ten units per acre is under the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria, they can request up to ten; they understood there was some adjacent Residential 4, which could be bumped up to six; and based on the acreage of the site and six units per acre, it was not a feasible project because it would only yield 41 units on the seven acres, which are primarily all U.S. 1 frontage. He stated they went to the maximum allowed under the Comprehensive Plan guidelines; but they will be glad to discuss any alternatives.

Mike Cunningham, resident of Micco, stated the project would seem to be conducive to the area where Mr. Abbott wants to place it; there is a shopping center to the north and some commercial directly to the south; and a 55 years of age and older proposal would seem to fit. He stated in the commercial property to the north, there are restaurants and stores that would be accessible to the 55 and older community; and Micco is chronologically the oldest community in the County, so this would seem to fit. He stated he has spoken to Mr. Abbott about the project; the Micco Homeowners Association is satisfied that this is something that would be commensurate with good neighborhood policy; and requested the Board give every consideration to approval of the project.

Bruce Bolon, resident of Barefoot Bay, stated people can find just about everything in a strip mall on Micco Road; and he does not think that commercial is needed fronting Barefoot Bay. He stated they have a nice entrance there; Winn Dixie worked with them; and he is sure Winn Dixie will work with them when they buy the north side. He stated Mr. Abbott’s proposals, especially for an over-55 community, are well worth looking at and approving.

Min Bolon stated she has known Mr. Abbott for nine to ten years; he is an honest reputable gentleman; he brought new homes to Barefoot Bay; and he has raised the property values. She stated Mr. Abbott has done a lot of good for Barefoot Bay and the surrounding communities; his project is well warranted rather than a strip mall or other business; and inquired why not give the people the wonderful sight of the Indian River.

Chair Higgs stated the applicant has an opportunity to add any comments. Mr. Elliott advised he has nothing else to say. Chair Higgs stated she has some concerns; in looking at this, it will cut a residential area out of the commercial; and in planning, she does not know if that makes total sense. Chair Higgs stated they could build a condominium or multifamily unit there today under and get Residential 6 if the Board changes the zoning; and she has some concern. She requested Mr. Corwin explain what the applicant could do there without a Comprehensive Plan change. Planner Todd Corwin stated the Comprehensive Plan provides an incentive in the commercial land use designations of up to one category higher than the nearest residential classification on the same side of the road; and in this case the nearest residential classification is located north of the property at four units per acre, so the Plan allows by matter of right and policy that the applicant could build up to six units per acre in the commercial classification if he receives a rezoning to the appropriate multifamily designation. Chair Higgs inquired if he could get six with a rezoning but no Comprehensive Plan change; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct. Chair Higgs stated he originally asked for ten; this is a unique situation in that there is US 1, which is a major arterial, the FEC, and heavy commercial on both sides of the development; and it is hard to understand what really fits the character other than the BU-1; but she is not sure there is a need for more commercial now or in the future. She inquired if the criteria is “should”, “must”, or “will” or are they just guidelines. Mr. Corwin stated Residential 10 can be approved if it is adjacent to existing Residential 10 or higher use designations or if it is in an area that serves as a transition between existing land uses or land use designations with densities greater than 10 units per acre; so the Board would have to look at whether or not this serves as a transition between existing land uses and whether Residential 10 would be appropriate in this particular situation. Chair Higgs inquired would the transition be between BU-1 or BU-2 to the west. Mr. Corwin stated that is correct, or the Board could consider this a transition from US 1 to the Barefoot Bay community as well. Chair Higgs stated she does not usually have mixed emotions, but does on this one; she is not eager to set a ten; but she also sees the value of multifamily in that location. She stated she understands there are policies that say residential/multifamily is appropriate in commercial.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when Commissioner Higgs drives down there, if she saw that, would she feel good about it. Chair Higgs stated in terms of overall appearance, she does not think it would be a negative; and they just have to look at the planning criteria. She inquired if the applicant would be willing to accept a Residential 6; with Mr. Elliott responding that would be pretty marginal for the project he is proposing. Chair Higgs stated that is what he can get right now; with Mr. Elliott responding he knows, and if that was the case, he would have applied just for a straight rezoning and not had to deal with the Comprehensive Plan; but just to go to the next step up would require a Comprehensive Plan request, which is why they went for a ten. He stated they can use the project on a nine per acre; and eight is marginal, but would work. Chair Higgs inquired if they would be willing to add the eight to the binding development plan; with Mr. Elliott responding if it is okay with Mr. Abbott. Mr. Enos noted there is an RU-2-9 classification; with Chair Higgs responding the Comprehensive Plan would have to show the ten. Mr. Plata stated Mr. Abbott is a straight shooter; with Chair Higgs responding she appreciates that Mr. Abbott is a nice guy. Mr. Plata stated when they started working with the numbers, he was not looking for ten; but anything less than eight does not make the numbers right. Mr. Elliott conferred with the applicant; and inquired if there is any room for negotiation. Mr. Elliott stated it is natural in the development game to look for the maximum available. Chair Higgs stated if the maximum is what they want, they do not need to discuss it any more. Mr. Elliott advised eight would be acceptable at this time. Chair Higgs stated the community has supported this; she has misgivings; but she will go with the eight. She stated it will be RU-2-8 and Residential 10 with a BDP that caps it. Mr. Elliott stated that will give them 55 units.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item IV.B.8 as RU-2-9 with a BDP, limited to an “over 55” community; and adopt Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Fifth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2004, 04S.5, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E) , entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.

Item IV.B.9. (Z0405302) EUGENE H. AND ELENOR S. PARETS, TRUSTEES’s request for change from GU to RU-1-7 with a BDP on 0.37 acre located on both sides of US 1, south of Micco Road, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval as RU-1-11 on the 25’ to 30’ wide strip of land to be conveyed to Parcel 282, and RU-1-7 on the balance with a BDP.

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

Item IV.B.11. (Z0404401) LAGUNA ESTATES, LLC’s request for a CUP for a Residential/Recreational Marina in RU-2-10(6) and BU-1 zones on 7.75 acres located on the east side of US 1, south of Viera Boulevard, which was recommended by the P&Z for approval, including the applicant’s offer to provide signage stating that the mooring of boats is prohibited in areas not specifically designated for boat slips.

Commissioner Carlson stated the item has gone through the process for the Manatee Protection Plan, Comprehensive Plan, etc. Mr. Enos stated that is correct; and the plan has been reviewed against the Manatee Protection Plan and found to be consistent. Commissioner Carlson requested the applicant explain a little about the project.

Melynne Chareillo, Coastal Tech, representing Laguna Estates LLC, stated they have a proposed development for a 24-unit condominium in Rockledge across from Florida Memorial Gardens. She stated the proposed condominium is located on 7.75 acres, zoned BU-1 and RU-2-10(6); and the properties adjacent to it are similarly zoned. She stated they are seeking a conditional use permit for a 12-slip marina, to be located in the Indian River; the marina is sited so that the mooring areas avoid impacts to seagrass and there are adequate depths according to the Comprehensive Plan; the finger piers are 23 feet in length; they were designed for boats no greater than 25 feet in length; and the marina is exclusively for the tenants. Ms. Chareillo stated they included in the binding concept plan that they will put signage in the area that is not for mooring advising “any mooring beyond this point is prohibited.” She stated the site was evaluated under the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan and found to have zero manatee features; it is located in Zone 4 of the Manatee Plan; and it qualifies for four slips for 100 feet of shoreline, and they have approximately 310 feet of shoreline.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has no problems knowing it has gone through this process as long as they include the signage issue. Ms. Chareillo stated it is in the binding concept plan.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE P&Z BOARD OF MAY 10, 2004 ON
ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board of May 10, 2004 on administrative rezonings, as follows:

Item IV.E.11. Carroll Distributing Company - 28.52 acres located south of Viera Boulevard and west of US 1, with the current zoning of IU subject to a BCP, and proposed zoning of PIP subject to the BCP except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations, which was recommended by the P&Z for approval.

Jane Peltz stated she is present to speak in favor of rezoning of all properties in the Viera Commerce Park to PIP with a binding concept plan that will leave a buffer of 71 feet of native vegetation between the Springs of Suntree, north and east, and the owner’s property. She stated the original BCP established for Bonaventure Industrial Park over 20 years ago proposed the 51-foot swale and 20 feet of vegetation; at that time the plans for the area were for a trailer park at the same elevation; but houses were built instead and enough fill was deposited to make the area three feet higher than the surrounding property. She stated there has never been a drainage problem in the area, which is typical Florida pine scrub and sugar sand. She stated three years ago a group of concerned citizens first canvassed Springs of Suntree to garner public opinion concerning what was then Bonaventure Industrial Park; and they made every initiative to help support the EEL’s Committee’s effort to preserve this land as part of Florida Forever, but they failed. She stated they just canvassed the neighborhood most affected by the rezoning and found a common thread they discovered over three years ago; the general public is in favor of any effort to save natural vegetation and wildlife; and this appears to put them in direct opposition to the desires of developers and contractors, but that may not be the case. She stated years ago Suntree created the first major development in the area; a conscious effort was made to preserve native vegetation; and it is a highly desirable and successful community. Ms. Peltz stated 13 years ago when she and her husband moved here, the Springs of Suntree was being developed in the same manner with preservation of native vegetation and large areas of common property; as a result, the native animals including gopher tortoises and scrub jays are still welcome residents; and this too has become a desirable area in which to live. She stated since they arrived, it appears that developers have seen the need to clear the land prior to building; and in most cases a few palm trees replace native vegetation to make the area look like Florida; but in the process the cooling shade and animals are gone and the general aesthetics of the area are being destroyed. She stated people bemoan the loss of rain forests in Brazil; but in general the public feels the same thing is being done here now. She stated she is making a plea to the developers and the County that they make every effort to come together to maintain what is left of the natural beauty of the area through some sort of compromise. She stated development does not mean the land has to be stripped; and they hope that Carroll Distributors and the future Viera Commerce Park owners will agree to leave a 71-foot natural vegetated buffer. She stated this would save the cost of heavy equipment and the continuing cost of maintaining a swale or grass. She stated the remaining trees could count for a portion of the 25% canopy that is required by County Ordinance; and a corridor of wildlife would be created. She stated she hopes the owners concerns for the environment will carry over to the total development of this unique piece of property.

Mike Dougherty, representing Carroll Distributing, stated they are a little confused; when they purchased the land from the developer, it was under the assumption that there was PIP zoning; from their standpoint, they can live either way; they are zoned IU in their current location; but the appeal of PIP was that it is nicer, cleaner, and better kept, resulting in an attractive facility. He stated as an Anheuser-Busch wholesaler there are certain requirements upon them on the appearance of the facility and equipment. He stated from an operational standpoint, they want to be to the east, away from the neighborhood toward the tracks; they will make every effort during the development phase to leave at least the 71 feet natural, if not more; but it is nothing he can commit to. He stated he is a beer guy not an engineer; they are hiring engineers who are doing all of the research now; and his feeling is they will be able to do this, and possibly more; but he does not know where the engineers will want to position the drainage. He stated there will certainly be no development anywhere near that side; he cannot understand at this point how there would be an issue with that 51 feet; and the 20 feet has to be left in jungle on that side.

Chair Higgs stated the proposed rezoning calls for PIP subject to the binding concept plan except for those portions of the binding concept plan which are inconsistent with current regulations; and inquired if Mr. Dougherty is aware of that; with Mr. Dougherty responding yes. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Dougherty supports that; with Mr. Dougherty responding yes.

Bob Peltz stated he has a petition with the signatures of 57 homeowners who are in favor of the 71-foot buffer. He stated in 1981 Florida East Coast Railroad approached then Commissioner Wickham and the P&Z Board to change the zoning of 140 acres it owned from agriculture to light and heavy railroad-oriented industry; on May 18, 1981, C. C. Crump, Vice President of
General Development, in a letter to L. A. Melvin, who was the principal of Florida East Coast Railroad, said they would accept the site plan with some stipulations; and one of the stipulations was a 71-foot buffer having 21 feet of vegetation with a size and type to create an opaque screen within one year. Ms. Peltz stated it then sat fallow for 22 years; in 1994 Atlantic Gulf, which had originally envisioned this as a trailer park, started its Phase 2 development in what is now the Springs of Suntree; and they spent the entire summer moving almost 40,000 cubic yards of fill into the area that is now essentially Bronco Drive, bringing it up three feet. She stated as a result of this, there is no need for the swale or 51-foot ditch that C. C. Crump wanted from Florida East Coast Railroad. She stated when the joint venture group purchased the land on September 16, 2002, they entered into negotiations with them about having the 71-foot buffer; and read excerpts from her letter of March 20, 2003 to Ron Smith, President of Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, concerning leaving the proposed buffer or swale on the perimeter of the development in its natural state to create a more desirable and efficient object. She read, “An actual area would actually be more efficient in water retention and dissipation than would be a swale. No bulldozing or removal of trees would be required. Permitting would be minimized and the aesthetic nature of the area would be preserved or even enhanced. A number of the advantages for the 71-foot natural buffer would be that they would have major cost savings to the developer; they would reduce the development time; there would be no drainage or surface water into wetlands reducing permitting problems; would have a greater aesthetic value; would have marketing features for potential land purchasers; there would be improved water absorption and dissipation; they would eliminate the construction noise, dust and dirt and eliminate the necessity of group maintenance in perpetuity; there would be a more impervious barrier between the homes and industry for both mutual security, reduced trespassing, and the safety of children; and we would also have a better visual screen. There would be advantages for both homeowners and industrial entities. There would be a reduction in habitat loss for existing wildlife. A natural canopy can serve as part of the 25% savings, and it would be improved noise reduction from railroad traffic, and there would be enhanced amicable relations between developers and homeowners, so with those in mind, we urge the acceptance of the binding development concept for the 71-foot natural vegetated buffer.”

Chair Higgs inquired what is the binding concept plan that is referenced. Planner Todd Corwin responded the binding concept plan shows a 20-foot planted vegetated buffer and a 51-foot retention area for a total of 71 feet. Chair Higgs inquired if both sides are saying the same thing. Commissioner Carlson stated when this came to the Board administratively it did not have the BCP attached, and it should have in order to go from IU to PIP.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Corwin advises the binding concept plan does not incorporate the thoughts of Mr. and Mrs. Peltz, but could incorporate them. Mr. Corwin stated the existing binding concept plan shows a 20-foot planted buffer strip and a 51-foot retention area; the purpose of the advertisement was to retain the strip as protection for the property owners from the industrial park; the issue that is of concern to the residents is that there is a plat already established for Viera Commerce Park that does not show this area as an easement for stormwater; and that means the area with the stormwater easement can only be used for stormwater purposes; however, it does not mean that absolutely has to be. He stated if the applicant is willing not to develop that for the stormwater purposes, it could be left in its natural state.

Commissioner Carlson stated she understands from previous discussions that there is the buffer there, which is 20 feet and added onto the 25-foot buffer on one side of the development where Mr. and Mrs. Peltz live; and then there is a 51-foot retention area. She stated she remembers when this was discussed previously the Board was moving administratively from IU to PIP, which is a more compatible use against the residential; but the residents had an issue. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Commissioner Carlson could probably take care of this in her office if it was tabled. Commissioner Carlson stated they have gone through this; with Commissioner Scarborough advising it really needs to be on paper. Commissioner Carlson stated the concern last time was that it did not have the BCP attached with the information; but now that they are here again, they are reiterating what they said before. She stated there have been some issues already that have come up with one of the pieces of property; and based on her discussions with the developer, she knows they do not have any problem trying to keep it this way, although there are no guarantees. She stated now Carroll Distributing is in the picture; that property was sold to them with the binding concept plan attached, so there is still the buffer; and it was the hope of the residents to have it minimal, keep the buffer as it is, and create a nicer looking development. Mr. Dougherty stated he hopes that is possible. Commissioner Carlson stated it is 70 feet of buffer whether it is water or vegetation. Mr. Dougherty stated Mr. Peltz called him earlier in the week; he told him that if for some reason they are forced through the engineering to do some sort of drainage over there, they will do whatever is possible with respect to swales and berms; but they want to be a good neighbor. He stated they realize the residents were there first; and they will do everything in their power to make it amicable on both sides. He stated he cannot describe the footprint of the building today as it is being designed in St. Louis. Commissioner Carlson inquired in the worst case, would the retention be in that vicinity; with Mr. Dougherty responding they understand they cannot develop that. Commissioner Carlson stated she has talked to the developer and to Mr. and Mrs. Peltz about this; she does not know if anything has changed; and as long as the binding concept plan is in place, they cannot develop in that area unless they are using it for retention or vegetative buffer.

Mr. Peltz stated it boils down to the fact that they do not want the ditch; it appears to be a win-win situation in that the developer does not have to clear a ditch and bulldoze a bunch of trees; and the residents prefer to have it as it is now with no changes in the area behind their homes. Commissioner Carlson stated her only concern is that this is the binding concept plan that was with IU that was already passed. Mr. Peltz stated that was the original BCP where they had the 20-foot vegetated buffer with a one-year opacity and the 51-foot swale or ditch that is now unnecessary because of the land fill and difference in height. He stated the people in River Way would be treading water before their doorsteps got wet, so the ditch is not needed. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows one of the parcels has been analyzed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. Mr. Peltz stated they mandated a swale and it has already gone in. Commissioner Carlson stated she is not sure the Board can require them to do anything different than what the concept plan is setting out; the developer has a plan; and the worst case is that may have to be a retention area if they cannot fit their building on the property and cannot put the retention area anywhere else. She stated otherwise it is going to be to their benefit to have a big buffer there. Mr. Peltz stated whatever happens, there are 71 feet there that they would just as soon leave natural.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a binding concept plan; the developer is going to be responsible; and there is an offer that can be incorporated to leave the residents a little more comfortable. He suggested language be added, “to the extent possible, where not mandated by drainage requirements or retention problems, it will remain in a vegetated state.” Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item IV.E.11 as recommended with additional language, “to the extent possible, where not mandated by drainage or retention requirements, the 51-foot swale area will remain in a vegetated state.”

Ms. Bentley advised it would be difficult to cite for Code Enforcement reasons.

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

Item IV.E.1. Kew LLC, - 0.72 acre located on the north side of Viera Boulevard west of US 1, with current zoning of IU and proposed zoning of PBP, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.E.2. Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. - 2.11 acres located on the south side of Viera Boulevard, east of Holiday Springs Road, with current zoning of IU and proposed zoning of PIP, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.E.13. Neil and Rose St. Pierre - 21.52 acres located on the east side of Hatbill Road south of SR 46, with current zoning GU, proposed zoning AGR, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.14. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. Section 15, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 265. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9631 for Additional Building Height (to 60 feet) and Z-9668 for Alcoholic Beverages On-Premise Consumption, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.16. Jelle N. Foks, Joseph A. and Christine M. Savio, Albert E. and Karen S. Taff, Barbara K. and Carlos I. (Jr.) Montes, Eric Ryan McMurry, Frank J. and Maureen L. Whorley, Mark S. and Alyce Kierstein, Perry D. and Ann R. Fisk, Clark F. Brown, Jr. and Judith E. Monica, Anthony Golio, Josephine S. Weston, Ramsey E. Hasem and Barbara Wall, Darien T. Lawrence, Carter L. Davis, Chad Braid, Candice Manning Barringer, James Jr. (Jr.) and Mary R. Mahan, Mark D. Belter, Thomas G. Brown and Laura Clark, Richard and Mary Anne Roberts, Douglas C. and Phyllis M. Parsons, Susan R. Neil, David Schneider, Roland and Mauritzia Ripamonti, Sidney D. Crouch, David Karl Schubert, Jay T. Butterfield, Henry P. and Shirley A. Bryk, Norman J. and Janet R. White, Shannon L. McCarthy, Anthony C. (Jr.) and Margaret M. Vespa, and CPO Development, Inc. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 76, Lots 4.01 through 4.31,4.XA. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10497 for Additional Building Height (60.06 feet total height), which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.E.17. Joann Farley and Carol McKee. Section 02, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 24, Lot 9. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10477 for Group Home - Level III (15 residents only), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.18. Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation. Section 12, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 754; Section 7, Parcels 504, 505, and 506. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10019 for Additional Building Height (60 feet) and Z-10524 for Additional Building Height (Total Height of 75 feet), which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.E.19. Thomas E. and Sally M. Prentice, Accounting Information Management Services, Inc., Jose M. Vallaneuva, and Enriqueta R. Broderick. Section 10, Township 30, Range 37, Sub. 26, Lots 11 through 18, 60, 61, 62, 64 through 69, 70 and 73. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10109 for Composting Facility, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.20. Frangar, LLC. Section 11, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 500 and 501. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10275 for Independent Living Facility, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.15. Boykin Hotel Properties. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 75, Block 1, Lots 3, 4 and south 5.13 feet of Lot 2. Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10517 for Additional Building Height (54 feet on the six-story building only) and Z-6415 for Bar-Cocktail Lounge, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mark Malek, representing Boykin Hotel Properties with respect to this matter and the expansion of the Melbourne Beach Hilton, stated the withdrawal of the CUP would not affect their project because they already have a site plan in progress.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Malek objects to the item; with Mr. Malek responding it is their understanding it will not affect the property or the building height. Planner Ryan Rusnak advised that is accurate.

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.

REQUEST, RE: REPORT ON SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ISSUE

Commissioner Scarborough requested a report from staff on the items done with school impact fees, the information that has been discussed or considered within each case; and the numbers that have been used. He stated the Board is going to have some discussion and having a report will help as it tries to make sense of this issue.

Chair Higgs requested staff provide such report.

DISCUSSION, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING ITEM IV.E.11

Commissioner Carlson stated even though the Board approved IV.E.11, she has a question; when they were going through the administrative process the BCP was supposed to get applied, but was not; and in the interim the parcel was sold to Carroll Distributing. She stated that was bothering her a little because they sold the property with the understanding the BCP would be applied. Ms. Bentley noted it runs with the land. Commissioner Carlson stated they knew it when they bought it; but because it was up for rezoning, the Board could have altered it. She inquired if that is correct or would they have to stick to the 70-foot buffer. Ms. Bentley responded they would be required to follow what was advertised; but since the Board had not specifically stated what it was doing with the binding development plan, it was fine to go back and readvertise because it was not clear. Commissioner Carlson inquired if today the Board could have altered the 70 feet; with Ms. Bentley responding not without them voluntarily making the change. Commissioner Carlson stated that was the maximum the Board could get; with Ms. Bentley responding yes.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m.

_________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)