Attendee Name	Title	Status	Arrived
Robin Fisher	Vice Chairman/ Commissioner District 1	Present
Chuck Nelson	Commissioner District 2	Present
Trudie Infantini	Commissioner District 3	Present
Mary Bolin	Chairman / Commissioner District 4	Present
Andy Anderson	Commissioner District 5	Present

.

INVOCATION BY:  District 1

The invocation was given by Pastor Vernon Clay, Antioch Christian Fellowship Baptist Church, Titusville.

.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:  Commissioner Chuck Nelson, District 2

Commissioner Chuck Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

RESOLUTION, RE:  RECOGNIZING SENATOR MIKE HARIDOPOLOS

Commissioner Fisher read aloud a resolution recognizing Senator Mike Haridopolos.

 

The Board adopted Resolution No. 10-103, recognizing Senator Mike Haridopolos for his years of public service as an advocate for the Space Industry in Brevard County and the State of Florida.

 

 

Senator Mike Haridopolos expressed appreciation to the Board; and stated everyone knows the difficulty the community faces, as Brevard County is defined by the space industry.  He stated it is a team effort; everyone hoped the president would have fulfilled the promises he made in 2008; but when other people cannot step forward, Brevard County must do it itself.  He noted almost $30 million went to Space Florida to make sure that some of the adjustments to be made had the funding, and not just legislative support; and on behalf of a very able legislative body led by Senator Thad Altman and Representative Steve Crisafulli, it is grateful for the support of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners.  He stated there will be tough years ahead, but if working as a team anything is possible; and he is grateful to the citizens of Brevard County for standing up for space.

 

.

 

REPORT, RE:  2010 TRASH BASH

 

Commissioner Nelson noted District 2 won the 2010 Trash Bash for the most trash collected and the most volunteers; the City of Cocoa was the biggest city involved in Trash Bash; and he is very proud of his community.

 

APPROVAL, RE:  2010 PROPOSED PRECINCT CONSOLIDATIONS AND RELOCATIONS

The Board approved the 2010 Precinct Consolidations and Relocations Project allowing the Supervisor of Elections to proceed with meeting statutory requirements and deadlines for implementation in the 2010 Primary and General Elections.

 

.

ACCEPTANCE OF INVITATION, RE:  EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE GRANT, AND DESIGNATE BREVARD COUNTY OFFICE AS COORIDNATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT

The Board accepted the invitation for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG); designated the Brevard County Sheriff's Office as the coordinating unit of government; and authorized the Chairman to execute any necessary documents.

 

.

 

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  TABLED ITEMS

.

(Z0912101) - GERALD RANDALL - (David T. Menzel/MAI) - requests a CUP for Captive Wildlife in an AU (Agricultural Residential) zoning classification on 16.71 acres. Located on the west side of U.S. 1, approx. 0.49 mile north of S.R. 5A (Stuckway Rd.)

John Boelke, Attorney for the applicants, Gerald Randall and Brian Leclar, stated the at the last Board meeting, Commissioner Fisher informed him there was some opposition to moving exotic animals onto the subject property; and Commissioner Fisher suggested the applicants go to the community to find out their concerns, and see if there is a way to solve the problem.  He stated since April, the applicants have sent out more than 80 letters; there are actually only a few residents near the subject property; there are 120 different lots behind the subject property that are owned by 80 different people; some of the people opposing the request own some lots along U.S. 1; and the property's access along U.S. 1 and extending east is what is being addressed.  He advised CFAR would like to purchase a portion of the property; in the letters that were sent to surrounding property owners, he asked them to contact him so he could put them in touch with Mr. Leclar and Mr. Blue to discuss their concerns; he received varied answers; only two people called him directly and said they did not like the idea; and there were two brothers who said they were in opposition.  He stated today, Dr. Blue received an email from the brothers listing 27 requirements they would like to see met before the animals are moved to the property; the requirements include a 12-foot wall all the way around the property, and a 24-hour, seven-day per week sharp shooter standing by in case one of the animals escape; and the problem with the requests from the brothers is that they are unnecessary.  He explained that he is neighbors with Mr. Leclar; he has five children; he and Mr. Leclar both have horses; they share five acres that exotic animals are on; and there are a few tigers on the property currently.  He stated there is no way that he, as a parent and a neighbor, would want exotic animals on his property unless he can be assured that the safety precautions set forth by Florida Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Agriculture are not just met, but exceeded; and Florida Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Agriculture has seen that CFAR has exceed all of the safety standards.  He stated he has been asked about the noise, smell, and delivery of meat for the animals; all of those issues could be addressed if concerned residents would visit the property and see the progress; two of the neighbors have actually visited the property; and there is no smell, no noise, nor any meat laying around.  He stated another concern of neighbors was Scrub Jays; a study was done in which Scrub Jays were found not to be a problem; he and the applicants are available to answer any questions as far as the requirements  in order for them to feel comfortable; but the only question he has received in a phone call was someone wanting to know what was in it for him or her; and he cannot answer that question.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what are the Fish and Wildlife standards for safety.  Mr. Boelke replied the Fish and Wildlife standards include caging regulations; there are requirements for the cages to be of certain size and strength; and CFAR exceeds the regulations in every way.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the cage has a special latch on it to make sure the animals cannot escape.  Brian Leclar, applicant, responded all of the cages can house up to three cats; the cages must be built with six to nine-gauge wire; the cages must be built out of 4X4 pressure treated lumber; there must be a fence along the bottom, preventing the animals from digging their way out; and the cages must have an enclosure on top of them.  He noted when the cats are being handled there is a lock-down cage allowing staff to go in the cage to clean it and put the cats in the shift cage; what he just described is the inside cage; there is also a perimeter cage that is eight feet high; and there is also another six-foot fence around the outside of the perimeter cage.  He stated the facility is open to inspection at all times; no notice is given as to when Fish and Wildlife or the USDA is going to do an inspection; the standards have to be kept up; the meat in the refrigerator must be clean at all times; and if everything is not clean and  does not meet the regulations, CFAR's license could be revoked.  Mr. Boelke noted there cannot be any rancid meat; any meat that is obtained from the grocery stores that is rancid is sent to an alligator farm; the meat is frozen until it is used; and everything is very sanitary.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated a concern of one of the neighbors is public access to the facility, and if there will ever be tours of the facility.  Cindy Fox, Planning and Development Manager, advised the request is for a CUP for captive wildlife; the request is to allow CFAR to properly zone the property in order to relocate the animals; CFAR has future plans for tours of the facility; but in order to do that, it would have to come back before the Board and apply for a CUP for a zoo.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is the intention; with Mr. Boelke responding yes, that is the intention for the future.  Mr. Boelke stated the facility will be a sanctuary; only trained people will be allowed in the facility; and it is not open to public access.  Mr. Leclar stated in the future, CFAR hopes to open an educational program to let school kids visit the facility to learn about the wildlife.  Commissioner Fisher stated CFAR would be required to come back before the Board for that approval. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Mr. Boelke indicated there are five cats on five acres.  Mr. Boelke replied there are three cats on the five acres he shares with Mr. Leclar.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not know if that is a fair comparison if there are 80 cats on 16 acres.  Mr. Boelke stated CFAR only has 50 cats; and per USDA requirements, there is a five-acre minimum requirement to have any cats at all.  Mr. Leclar stated it is possible to comfortably house 50 cats on 17 acres; ponds can be built for them to swim in; and the cats can enjoy their lives.

 

Dr. Thomas Blue, President, Central Florida Animal Reserve, stated CFAR selected the subject property for many reasons; the property is relatively geographically isolated from urban areas; its rural setting and agricultural zoning are also required; the property is accessible to U.S. 1 and I-95 to allow visitors; it is CFAR's intent at some point to be open to the public with an educational program for school children; and initially, the public access will be limited to weekends by appointment only.  He stated the current landowner, Mr. Gerald Randall, will help finance CFAR's undertaking; Mr. Randall and Mr. Leclar are both in the excavation and road building business; and they will be able to provide CFAR with the equipment, manpower, and expertise to develop the substructure on the site.  He stated the CFAR board, as part of its due diligence, examined over 40 sites; and CFAR believes the subject property is most conducive to its use.  He stated CFAR's major hurdle was with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, in that the site would not impact Scrub Jays; but he has a letter confirming CFAR is cleared to proceed; and the Board has a copy of that letter as well.  He stated CFAR began this process many years ago; he has spoken to many large land owners, including the Mormon Church, which owns 400,000 acres; the Duda Family, who own 100,000 acres; and the Kempers, who own 40,000 acres. He noted none of the large agricultural land use land owners were willing, or able, to sell CFAR any land at all to meet its needs; the land owners want to keep their land for obvious reasons; but acquiring some of that land would have automatically placed CFAR further away from any people who would be concerned about its presence.  He stated CFAR has spoken to the Scottsmoor Community Association twice to answer questions; CFAR was generally supported by many of the residents; CFAR has attempted to reach consensus with the neighbors; but unfortunately, there are a few residents who do not support CFAR.  He advised CFAR has answered questions regarding noise, odor, and safety, concerning the big cat sanctuary residence; CFAR plans on placing buffers, such as fencing and plantings between the neighbors and the sanctuary to mitigate any concerns of noise or visual impact on their property; CFAR has functioning safety protocols in place, and will develop more as needs arise; and CFAR welcomes the Board's support for the benefit of Brevard County, Scottsmoor Community Association, and the Mims Community Association.  He stated he would like to discuss some of the popular myths about the caging of the animals; caging requirements are dictated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), and they are very safe; the enclosure design includes flooring to prevent digging, and roofs to prevent climbing out; the enclosures have the strength to withstand hurricanes; multiple personnel are on site during a storm to ensure the safety of the big cat residents, and the public; CFAR has been through extremely close fire threats; and there are emergency procedures to address both a fire and/or hurricane situations.  He stated unlike raising livestock, the cats' excrement and uneaten food are picked up every day; the sounds and verbalizations are present but not offensive; and many neighbors greatly enjoy them.  He stated CFAR's current, and past, and immediate neighbors on either side of the facility have been great supporters and enjoy the cats; there is always a vocal minority, but many people do not want to see the cats leave the neighborhood; there are minimum setbacks of 35 feet from the closest cage to the property line, and 300 feet from the enclosure closest to the closest residential wall of any structure; and CFAR has exceeded those setbacks.  He stated the Planning and Development staff comments specifically state, "The number of persons using the site, the noise, odor particulates, smoke, fumes, and increase in traffic are within the facility.  The location is isolated, and there are minimal adjacent residences.  The site layout meets, or exceeds required setbacks."  He stated CFAR has chosen a site in which 75 percent of the adjacent property is all wooded lands; CFAR requires 150 feet of frontage along U.S. 1 to be open to the public; and that is why CFAR is working to obtain another lot.  He stated he was contacted in his dental office by Mr. Birkhead, who stated he had constructed a list of demands for the CFAR facility; Mr. Birkhead had asked for a conference call; but at that time, he was busy with patients; he spoke to Steve Edmonds, who is a spokesman for Mr. Birkhead, who faxed him the list of demands; and he does not believe the list represents a good faith effort on Mr. Birkhead's part to resolve any issues.  He stated the list of demands are oppressive and unwarranted; CFAR is under the regulatory oversight of State and federal agencies that have structured rules in place; and at this time, he rejects Mr. Birkhead's list of demands, and requests the Board proceed with a vote today. 

 

Sharon Farrar stated the animals are currently at her residence; she is the primary licensee for the facility; she works closely with the USDA and FWC, exceeding the requests and demands; the cats are usually under surveillance; since she lives at the current facility, she is there most of the time; if she is not there, there are other volunteers at the facility; the same thing will occur at the new facility; and the cats will not be unattended.

 

K. Simba Wiltz stated his background and experience in sanctuaries has been that he has had the opportunity to travel around the country to look at problems of sanctuaries from a larger standpoint; it is an issue that is not going away; and it is something to which CFAR has come into existence to try to become a solution.  He stated CFAR has three central mottos consisting of compassion, conservation, and commitment; compassion is not just towards the animals, but also toward the people around the facility; CFAR understands its facility is a world apart from what other people have ever experienced; and CFAR tries to provide opportunities for people to come and engage the animals to understand why it is important that CFAR is doing this kind of work, because there are not other options.  He stated CFAR takes very seriously its public perception; it takes its responsibility to the public very seriously; for that reason, CFAR is very compassionate towards the concerns from the neighbors; and it intends to work with the neighbors as much as possible.  He stated the second part of CFAR's motto is conservation; there is a significant problem facing the wild; many of the zoo programs surrounding tigers are shutting down; and in many cases, private organizations are the only ones to take care of the animals.  He noted there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are left in the wild.  He stated the last part of CFAR's motto is commitment; the CFAR personnel are all volunteers; everyone who is a supporter is extremely committed to making sure that CFAR works; volunteers are committed to the cats, each other, and to the community, because they see it as a solution to a problem that has not been found effective throughout the country; CFAR believes that with its collection of professionals and trades people, it can bridge the gap and solve the problems; and CFAR hopes that the Board's vote in favor tonight will be another step along the path to making that happen. 

 

Raymond Vanderbleek stated in addition to his four-acre homesite in North Brevard County, which is directly across from the proposed cat relocation site, he also owns seven acres west of the proposed facility; and he keeps the land in a native vegetative state, which provides habitat for a variety of endemic plants and animal species, including the Florida Scrub Jay and Gopher Tortoises; and he intends to keep that land in that use for as long as he owns it.  He stated he feels CFAR's request is a significant change in land use for the area; the use is entirely incompatible with the historic land use in the area, which is rural residential, conservation land, even though it meets the criteria of five acres for captive wildlife, it is out of character for what is there now, and the historic uses.  He stated he feels strongly that CFAR did not present its plan to the neighbors in a way that they would accept it; he first learned of CFAR's request at Christmastime; he spoke to Mr. Leclar, who told him cats would be brought into the area; he was told there would be three or four big cats, not 51, or potentially 80; at that time he did more investigating; he found out the number of cats was much greater than three or four; and his neighbor, Harold Birkhead, had said he did not have a problem with the sanctuary, but he also was not told how many cats there would be.  He stated in February or March there was a newspaper article explaining the size and scope of the facility; and Mr. Birkhead was not in support of the sanctuary any longer.  He stated he received a letter from Mr. Boelke asking him what his concerns were; but he did not respond to the letter because he was afraid if he commented back, it would be misconstrued; if CFAR had taken a different approach, he might have been more receptive to the sanctuary; he is strongly against the request; it is not in character with the land use in the area; and he knows CFAR cares about the animals, but the subject property is not the place for a big cat sanctuary. 

 

Eloise Shamblin stated CFAR began as an animal reserve; it escalated to an animal sanctuary; and now it is referred to as an exotic animal sanctuary.  She stated CFAR plans to increase the number of cats from 51 to 80 and apply for a captive wildlife conditional use permit; CFAR says its security is failsafe; but everyone has seen examples of failsafe security in the Gulf of Mexico.  She stated CFAR will build a structure that will probably rival most prisons; however, the latest prison situations were apparently traced back to paid employees who were not paying close attention; neighbors are being told that most of CFAR's crews are volunteers; and she has been told she will not have to worry about there being an exotic animal in her yard or roaming U.S. 1, where the speed limit is 65-miles per hour, because there will be a resident sharp shooter on the premises, as implied in the March 21st Florida TODAY article.  She stated CFAR has assured the neighbors there will be no foul odors or noise coming from the facility; a map she has seen reflects a new ditch on the subject property's south boundary line, which is her north boundary line, that looks like a sewage ditch; but no one will tell her what it is; the ditch appears to be 15 feet from her house; and inquired if it is not sewage related, then what is it for.  She stated Cocoa residents seem to overwhelmingly approve of CFAR's move; that is no surprise; a Cocoa resident interviewed on March 23rd on television said the sanctuary was scary at first, but one gets used to it; a letter to Florida TODAY on March 23rd was very supportive of the sanctuary and stated there had been minimal problems with CFAR for over ten years; she wonders what those problems were, how long it took to correct them, and how close that resident lives to the facility; and stated it should not surprise anyone that the vast majority of those who approve of CFAR's proposed move do not live in, or near, the proposed area.  She stated on May 21st she responded to Mr. Boelke's letter; the letter mentioned economic growth, hard facts about beneficial development for the area, increasing taxes, meaning she will not lose services, and that CFAR plans to purchase the property along U.S. 1 adjacent to the facility; Mr. Boelke told her he would have someone call her about the ditch; and thus far, she has not had any phone calls.  She stated she lives next door to the property in question; if the Board approves the CFAR move, it will be only a matter of time before the first exotic animal escapes, because no failsafe system is failsafe; neighbors will have to live in fear that it will happen; she does not look forward to living adjacent to a theme park, zoo-like, or carnival-like atmosphere; and people will not line up to buy her property.  She stated she longs for the days when humans are treated as humanely as animals, but she fears she will not live that long.

 

Lary Hovis stated his primary residence is in Pennsylvania; he recently purchased a house directly across the road from Harold Birkhead; he has been remodeling the house; and he is close to completion.  He stated it would appear as though the big cats are coming to the neighborhood if certain safety requirements can be met; big cats and safety seem to be an oxymoron; and he is sure that not having big cats is the best way to avoid any problems.  He stated he is not satisfied with all of the answers CFAR has given so far; perhaps not all the answers have surfaced; but there certainly are many questions.  He stated according to the Constitution, everyone is granted certain rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; CFAR has the same rights, up to a point, until its rights begin to infringe on someone else; and that is at the point everyone is at today. 

 

Bonnie Heath stated she lives directly across from the proposed CFAR sanctuary; she has the same questions and concerns as the other speakers; no one from CFAR has contacted her; and it was also her understanding that there would be only three cats at the facility.  She stated she also has a ditch that runs from her property to the subject property; she is concerned about what will be in that ditch; and inquired if it will affect wells, as there is bound to be some sort of runoff from the cats.

 

Robert Meyers stated one of the things he was going to talk about was mentioned earlier, which is the notification the neighbors received; he first heard about CFAR's plans in the March 21st edition of the Florida TODAY; there was a sign posted on the property, but he did not see it until a few days ago; and the sign is in fine print and not legible from the highway at all.  He noted there was a community meeting in Scottsmoor; it was said that the people in Mims supported the cats; but that is no surprise that it is not in Mims residents' backyards; it was also stated that a CFAR representative went door-to-door to speak to neighbors; and he has not had anyone come to his door yet.  He stated he has not received a postcard notifying him of the request; and the people who live adjacent to the property were not notified either. He stated many residents relaxed their positions when they heard about the Scrub Jay study; there are Scrub Jays in the area; a five-day study is not sufficient; and there needs to be a complete study.  He advised the subject property backs up to wetlands; a number of residents, including himself, bought their properties because of the wetlands; and they knew no more development could happen; but that is not the case.  He stated he realizes the Board has heard all of the concerns related to the issue at hand; Scottsmoor is a small community that is directly involved with the issue; there are a majority of people who are retired in the area; those people moved to the area for a quiet peaceful way of life; and the cat refuge would remove that way of life.  He stated there is a lot of land available in the County that is more suitable for CFAR's endeavor; he is in favor of what CFAR does with the cats; but he does not feel like 17 acres of land is enough; and there are homes and residents in close proximity.  He stated one question remains, which is would the Commissioners want the sanctuary in his or her backyard; and he does not believe any of them would.

 

Frankie Birkhead stated Florida is number one in the country for attacks and fatalities by big cats; Florida is also number one in hurricanes and lightning strikes; and Florida also has its share of flooding and wildfires; but the Commissioners have control over the proposed conditional use permit to keep the residents safe.  She advised there is a Florida woman who was in critical condition after she was attacked and bitten by a 750-pound declawed tiger; another tiger escaped from a cage and attacked a keeper at an exotic cat breeding compound, and authorities later shot and killed the tiger because they feared it would jump the perimeter of the fence and flee the compound; in another instance a woman, who was a volunteer, needed 451 stitches after a leopard latched onto her arm; and those are just a few examples of what has happened with big cats.  She stated CFAR has had incidences within its own compound; a volunteer has had a finger bitten off; a tiger broke through a cage and killed another tiger to get to a female in heat; and inquired why the cats are not spayed and neutered.  She stated CFAR should be granted time to find another location in Brevard County; and CFAR understood that the front of the subject property is residential.  She stated toxicplastimosis is an air borne transmitted disease via cat feces; there are enough health issues in the neighborhood as is; she has had a problem sleeping since she found out about the possibility of the cats coming near her property; and no one from CFAR has knocked on her door.  She stated apparently, the cats are more important than the neighbors who were there first; inquired if the neighbors are supposed to wait until someone is killed or mauled, and then maybe something will be reconsidered; there is conflicting expert opinions on how the animals should be cared for; and inquired how the Commissioners would feel living in a cage for the rest of his or her life.

 

Eugene Birkhead stated he is worried about environmental problems; he is worried that with 80 big cats, his well water will not be any good; his house is five years old; when it was being built, an inspector told him he had to move the house 26 feet in order to not be near a tortoise hole; and he distributed pictures to the Board of tortoises on the subject property.   He stated he had a Scrub Jay in his bird feeder; he feeds many different birds from eight different bird feeders; someone from the Space Coast Birding Festival asked if he could sit in his yard to take pictures of the birds; and he was told by the gentleman that he had a Scrub Jay in his feeder.  He stated he knows there are people who believe the cats should have a facility; but no one wants it in the back of his or her yard; and he does not want it in his yard either. 

 

Steve Edmonds stated he would like to discuss the Planning and Development staff comments of April 5th, and then he will talk about things that are not based on emotion.  He stated Administrative Policy III addresses odor and noise; one person saying there is no odor or noise does not provide sufficient evidence that there is not going to be an odor or noise problem related to 80 cats confined in cages; there is no proof of not having material reduction exceeding five percent of the property values; there has been no indication or mention of what the facility will do to surrounding property values; and it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide that information.  He stated Administrative Policy V addresses a realistic assurance that there is no possible potential danger to the safety and well being of the public; Administrative Policy VII addresses flood plain considerations; and before the Board can approve the conditional use permit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide proof that they are not going to adversely affect these areas.  He stated in Section 62-1901(C)(1)(a) of the December staff comments it was made clear that the applicant should address the issues; but the applicant has not, other than saying CFAR will not be in the floodplain; and that is not enough for peace of mind.  He stated no one has addressed traffic flow, as far as the delivery of meat; no one has addressed waste removal; no one has mentioned lights for the cats at night; and if there is going to be intensive lights it will impact the neighboring residents as well.  He noted the staff comments also mention adequacy of ingress and egress to serve without burdening; two cars could get through the available area, but no one knows what will happen if emergency vehicles need to get to the facility; and no plan has been put forward.  He stated CFAR has said volunteers will be on the property in the event of a hurricane; and inquired what will happen if there is a wildfire or flood.  He noted most of the subject property is in a flood zone; there are several different wetlands on the property; and there are several different elevations of flood zones on the property.  He stated in regards to the list of conditions that were sent to Dr. Blue at the late hour, they were spurred by the realization that things were not being heard by CFAR from the residents; residents spent several hours the night before going over the list and trying to come up with what they thought were reasonable conditions, and also considering the health, environmental, and traffic concerns; each of the 27 items on the list have those types of considerations; there are considerations for the County as well, such as no tax exemptions for CFAR; and CFAR should not be able to change its profit status or engage in commercial activity because then it would be changing the scope of what it applied for in the beginning, which is a sanctuary, and not a tourist attraction.  He asked that the Board remember that property rights exist for all property owners.

 

James Sweet stated he, too, was misled when he heard about CFAR's request; a member of the opposition told him CFAR was coming to the area and the cats would kill him, his wife, his dogs, and his cattle, because that is what they had seen on television; he contacted CFAR to inquire about the cats and the sanctuary; and CFAR invited his family to its current facility on short notice, therefore, nothing was prepared or staged.  He stated the facility was clean; he works in the construction industry and is familiar with the safety of structures; CFAR answered all of his questions; and he and his family now feel safe about having CFAR as a neighbor.  He stated CFAR stresses the fact that the cats are not pets; and it is stressed to visitors of the facility. 

 

Lori Woodell stated she is a CFAR volunteer; she has never seen a group more concerned with the safety and well being in mind of both its charges and its surrounding neighbors than CFAR; the normal assumption of a big cat rescue is often perceived as the same style that would be perceived of domestic cats concerning smells, et cetera, amplified by the large weights of the animals; but lions and tigers do not have the ammonia aroma that domestic cats have.  She stated all of the people she has spoken to about noise issues like hearing the lions roar in the morning and at dusk; and the tigers only make noise when playing or when having an internal disagreement, which is usually very short in duration.  She stated the safety procedures and emergency plans for any event, such as a hurricane, are of the highest priority to CFAR; one of her main concerns is that if CFAR does not find land that is properly zoned, the cats could potentially be returned to the same deplorable conditions they have been rescued from, or they will be euthanized; the years spent enriching, caring for, and housing the animals will have all been for not; and there is a chance the cats could be taken to a canned hunt in which they are placed in a cage and a hunter goes into the cage and shoots them.  She stated a lot of the cats were rescued from a canned hunt, or they were rescued from disreputable owner who breeds them for monetary purposes only.  She stated most of CFAR's current neighbors are happy to have it as neighbors; there are neighbors that participate in CFAR events and donate; and they live near CFAR in safety with their children and pets.  She advised currently, CFAR has many plants and animals on site that are indigenous to the state, such as turtles, woodpeckers, assorted snakes, armadillos, and raccoons; they all exist harmoniously with the big cats; and she spotted a Scrub Jay in a tiger's cage the other day; but the tigers are so well fed that they just watch the other birds and animals.  She stated she does not feel that any lives are going to be ruined if CFAR becomes anyone's neighbors, except for the lives of the animals if CFAR cannot relocated within the allotted time period.

 

Harold Birkhead stated he lives directly behind the proposed big cat sanctuary; he bought his land because of its proximity to wetlands; it is very quiet; everyone keeps telling him how great the cats are; but nobody has them in his or her backyard; and now they are being put in his backyard.  He stated he could care less what the speakers have said about the cats; it does not impress him; all he knows is that his way of life is going to be screwed up; his wife has heart problems; and the pressure alone will be enough for her.  He stated he visited Mr. Leclar's property; it is very clean; he had three tigers on the property; he told his neighbors he did not see the harm in three tigers on a large piece of property; but it is not three tigers, it is 51 to begin with, with the possibility of 80 tigers. He noted tigers can jump 20 feet in the air; but CFAR is only putting up an eight-foot fence; he does not want to have to worry about his grandchildren playing in his yard; and he does not want to have to sit in his yard with a shotgun waiting for a big cat to come over the fence. 

 

Candy Bradshaw stated she currently lives next door to the big cats and she loves them; she does not have a problem with noise or odor; she has nieces and nephews who play in her yard; her mom lives with her, and she loves to hear the cats; and CFAR has been great neighbors.  She stated she has not seen any traffic for food delivery; CFAR has not disrupted her life in any way; her family donates to CFAR, and has been invited to the facility to see the cats any time they like; and she feels secure with the big cats next door.  She noted when she first moved into her house, she had questions about CFAR; she visited the facility and was given a tour; the facility was clean; and after her tour, she no longer worried about security, as all of the cages are very secure.  She stated the cats have to have some place to live; if she had the capacity, she would move to be beside CFAR because she enjoys them that much; CFAR has rescued the cats and given them a good quality of life; and everybody and every animal needs to be treated with respect. 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if Ms. Bradshaw lives directly next to the current CFAR facility; with Ms. Bradshaw responding affirmatively.  Chairman Bolin stated Ms. Bradshaw is in the same situation as the Scottsmoor residents if CFAR moves to the proposed location; and inquired if the lions roar in the morning and evening.  Ms. Bradshaw replied, yes, they do.  Chairman Bolin inquired if Ms. Bradshaw also hears tigers; with Ms. Bradshaw responding affirmatively.  Ms. Bradshaw stated there is some noise, but it is a low, moaning noise; she also has Scrub Jays in her birdfeeders; and she has no problem with letting her dog out in the yard.  Chairman Bolin inquired if Ms. Bradshaw noticed any difference in the wildlife in her neighborhood with CFAR next door.  Ms. Bradshaw advised she has only lived in her house for a year, but she has not noticed any difference in the wildlife.

.

Mr. Boelke stated he would like to address some of the concerns of Mr. Edmonds.  He advised he has three tigers in his backyard; his children play in the backyard; and Ms. Farrar lives 50 feet from the tigers.  He stated Mr. Edmonds also mentioned administrative policies dealing with odor and noise; the residents could have visited CFAR to address the noise; the noise was addressed at the Planning and Zoning meeting; and the facility will be much further away from neighbors at the proposed location than where it is currently located.  He stated everything Mr. Edmonds mentioned has been addressed, such as the danger to the public, at the Planning and Zoning meeting. 

 

Mr. Leclar stated he lease-optioned his property before he bought it; an opponent came to his property and met everyone from CFAR; as of that day, the neighbors knew there were going to be 50 cats on the property; before he purchased the property he made sure that everybody who adjoined the property was aware of what was happening; and he did not travel a half-mile down the road to talk to neighbors; but he made sure the adjoining property owners were aware. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated at some point CFAR is looking to change to a different use; if it does that, it will have to come back before the Board; and inquired if it then becomes a zoological park if the public is allowed on the property.  Christine Lepore, Assistant County Attorney advised it will be a different use than what CFAR is asking for today; it will become a zoological park; and there is a separate conditional use permit that addresses that type of operation, which is open to the public with different buffer requirements.  Commissioner Nelson stated at the point it becomes a zoological park, the setbacks change; based on the site plan, CFAR then cannot comply; and CFAR is setting itself up for a future problem, because it cannot meet those requirements; and the setbacks go from 300 feet from the property line, not from the nearest residence.  He stated suddenly CFAR has lost most of its site; it would come down to one acre out of the 16 acres that would be buildable at that point; none of the cages or structures can be placed within that buffer, which is 300 feet from residential, and 200 feet for non-owned residential; and CFAR is not going to be able to do what it wants to do in the future, which is a concern because Dr. Blue has said he wants to bring the public to the facility. 

 

Mr. Boelke stated the plan for CFAR is to go further back with its property.  Commissioner Nelson stated CFAR's plan is to go further back, but the problem is that the structures in the front, at that point, cannot be used.  Mr. Boelke stated if the access remains the same, the cages would have to move to the back of the property, away from any residential.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the site plan shown to the Board will be negated at that point.  Mr. Boelke stated CFAR would have to either purchase the residential properties in the front and remove them so there are no homes there, or move farther back on the property. 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if Mr. Boelke is stating CFAR is fully aware that the way it stands now, it could not move forward with an expansion unless it did purchasing of property and a rezoning.  Commissioner Nelson stated if CFAR is going to have to purchase property, why does it not find a place that complies now.  Mr. Boelke stated it is because of the availability of land; when talking about the future, CFAR wants to look for something that is accessible from 5A, I-95, and U.S. 1; and that kind of land it not available just anywhere.  Commissioner Nelson stated the issue is about compatibility; it is not about CFAR and whether it does a good job or not; although, he thinks CFAR does a good job and has done a good job of improving its operation; the question becomes, at that point, would the Board have permitted a road to an amusement, or a zoo, between residential properties; and it changes the whole nature of the discussion. He stated if that is CFAR's long-term goal, it needs to be set up for success; 80 cages next to residential, to him, is a compatibility issue for a variety of reasons; and to know that CFAR is facing coming back to the Board and having to rebuild and go through the process again for a higher level of use, is also of concern.  He stated his original concern was the compatibility issue; and when he found out about the expanded service and zoological applications and setbacks, it has heightened his concerns with compatibility.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he also has some concerns along the same lines as Commissioner Nelson; the 25 cages that are closest to the nearest residence, which if CFAR had to reach the new setback requirements for its long range plans, those 25 cages would not be there; the expansion will probably take it from a 50-cat organization to an 80-cat organization; and inquired if there will be 80 cats right away.  Mr. Boelke replied no, 30 more cats will not be immediately added.  Commissioner Fisher stated if the Board limits CFAR to the amount of cats it has today, that should not hurt the organization because it has to wait to go to a commercial status anyway.  Commissioner Fisher stated CFAR is trying to get to a zoological status with 80 cats; when looking at the site plan, the first 25 cages in front would not allow CFAR to ever get to a zoological zoning; and it would give the neighbors a bigger buffer if the 25 cages were not up front.  He inquired if doing that would kill CFAR's whole business plan if it only moves 50 cats versus 80 cats; and stated he is inclined to limit CFAR to the number of cats it currently has.  He stated the sanctuary is currently in a location where it is not permitted, which was the fault of the previous owner; the goal is to get the cats moved to another location, not so much as to allow more capacity, especially if it will not work with the long-term plans.

 

Dr. Blue stated it is not CFAR's intent to increase its capacity of cats at this point in time; if CFAR returns to doing rescues as its business model allows it to be financially successful in keeping the rescue up and running, it will do that; but CFAR does intend to open to the public on a lesser scale with limited tours; it was his understanding that the requested conditional use permit would allow that to an extent on limited tours; and inquired if he is incorrect in that understanding.  Ms. Lepore advised Dr. Blue is incorrect; and CFAR would need a zoological park permit to open to the public on any level.  Dr. Blue stated that was not his understanding when speaking to Planning and Zoning; he informed staff that CFAR was going to open to the public on a limited level; and it needs to do that to survive financially.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he knows there is a site plan, but he wants Dr. Blue to understand the dynamics of where CFAR is going; CFAR could not open to the public with the requested CUP; the 25 cages CFAR currently has would have to be moved immediately if CFAR was able to get a zoological CUP; and he believes CFAR is acquiring something that it will not be able to do.  Dr. Blue stated a zoological park requires a 300-foot setback from the property line.  Commissioner Nelson stated the intensity of the use goes up; as a result of that, the setbacks also go up; and it is the public access that triggers that.  Commissioner Fisher stated when talking about public access, it is a whole site plan approval process, in which there needs to be plans for roadways for emergency vehicles and other vehicles; and he is not sure CFAR can build what it thinks it can build and accomplish what it wants to accomplish.

 

K. Simba Wiltz inquired what the Board's perception is of being open to the public; while CFAR intended to have public individuals visit the site, it was never the intent to have people randomly roaming the grounds freely without escorts or guides.  Ms. Lepore advised once CFAR begins inviting members of the public to its property, whether it is for pay or to see the cats for educational purposes, it is making the animals available for public display.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the definition of zoological park changes the whole dynamic because there would then be buffers away from property lines; and even inviting one person from a school to the site makes it a zoological park. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if CFAR can use EEL property for its sanctuary; much of EEL property is passive recreation; there are large EEL parcels that cannot be gained access to; and inquired if the County can lease CFAR a 4,500-acre EEL parcel.  She noted that would give the organization plenty of buffer; it would be safely away from the public; it would give some use to EEL land, which the Board pays dearly for; and it would be nice to have a productive use of the land that would benefit the public.  Commissioner Fisher stated he does not think the two could be tied together.  Ms. Lepore stated she is not able to answer that question, but there is a reason the EEL properties were acquired, and it was for preservation of sensitive lands; and the destruction of those lands for the cats may or may not be compatible or allowed under development regulations; but the Board could ask staff to look into it.  Chairman Bolin stated staff can look into that possibility as an option.

 

Chairman Bolin stated what she is hearing is CFAR's initial intent has gone to the wayside as far as what the Board can actually do; she is concerned about the long range goal and whether or not it is achievable on the proposed subject property; she wants the cats to go to a good place because she does not want anything to happen to them; but she is concerned that if CFAR wants the Board to move forward with the proposed location, then it is going to be limited to the number of cats it currently has. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if CFAR would like the Board to grant it an extension so it can reevaluate its options.  Dr. Blue stated an extension would be appreciated in order to reexamine and discuss as a board and see where it wants to go from here. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it appears the Board has blindsided CFAR once again; and for that, she apologizes.  She stated she apologizes if CFAR or the public was given misinformation; and she would like to make a motion to table the decision and grant CFAR an extension on its current property.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated before the item comes back to the Board he would like the County Attorney's Office to research the Code for a zoological park, which was enacted in 1979; it has not been amended since then; and inquired if the Board could get the history of that particular Code.  He stated he does not know what year the Brevard Zoo was established in West Melbourne, but he is sure it would violate the Code from 1979; and he would like to know the history of that, and he would also like it provided to CFAR. 

 

Mr. Boelke stated Code Section 62-1958 gives an exemption to the requirements for a zoological park. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there was no attempt by the Board, or staff, to blindside the applicants; the information regarding the public access has evolved in the last few days; and it was made clear tonight.  He stated he would prefer to let CFAR know that there is going to be a future problem for its plans than to go through the process, which would truly be blindsiding CFAR; and the Board is willing to let CFAR proceed with continuing where it is currently located, and to try to find another location that will work for the long term plan of the organization, which he believes will be successful. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to tell the Birkheads that someone does indeed own the land behind them; there is no guarantee it will stay vacant; there are property rights; and someday, the owners could develop.

 

Ms. Fox advised the first zoning meeting in September will be September 2nd.  Chairman Bolin noted the item is tabled to September 2nd.

 

Ms. Lepore advised the item also had a deadline according to the Vested Rights denial for CFAR to relocate; and that deadline needs to be continued as well.  Commissioner Infantini stated her intention in her motion was to extend the deadline for three months, or until the Board hears the item again. 

.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF MAY 10, 2010

V.B.1 (Z1005101) - ANGIE DELOACH - (Angie Deloach/Pedro Gregorio Morales) - requests a change from AU to SR on property described in Section 29, Township 21, Range 35.  (0.52 acre) Located on the south side of Smokey Lane, approx. 0.2 mile west of U.S.1.

Cindy Fox, Planning and Development Manager, advised the request is for a zoning change from AU (Agricultural Residential) to SR (Single-Family Residential); the applicants are requesting permission to build a single-family residence; and there is SR zoning in the area that has been recently approved.

 

The Board approved Item V.B.1., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

.

V.B. 2 (Z1005201) - FLAVORS MI, LLC - (Nick Zervos) - requests a Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption, in conjunction with a restaurant only, in BU-1 & BU-2 zoning classifications.  The property is described in Section 31, Township 24, Range 37.  (1.01 acres) Located on the north side of Hwy. 520, approx. 690 ft. west of N. Banana River Dr. (1580 E. Merritt Island Cswy., Merritt Island).

Cindy Fox, Planning and Development Manager, advised the request is for a conditional use permit for the on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in BU-1 (General Retail Commercial) and BU-2 (Retail, Warehousing, and Wholesale Commercial); and the request is in conjunction with a restaurant.

 

The Board approved Item V.B.2., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

.

 

V.B.3. (Z1005501) - MICHAEL C. GAGNON AND WALTRAUT GACCIONE - (Jim Mayes or Brian McWilliams/Strongpoint Development, LLC) - request a change from RU-2-15 to IN(H) on property described in Section 25, Township 27, Range 37.  (0.71 acre, +/-) Located in the east side of Hwy. A1A, approx. 200 ft. south of Pine Tree Dr. (1745 Hwy. A1A, Indialantic).

Cindy Fox, Planning and Development Manager, advised the Board the property has been before it recently; it is a rezoning request from RU-2-15 (Multi-Family Residential) to IN(H) (Institutional Use - High Intensity), for an Assisted Living Facility; the request had gone all the way through the process and received approval from the Board with a Binding Development Plan; the two parties that were part of the rezoning before the Binding Development Plan could not agree; and therefore, the Binding Development Plan expired.  She stated the request before the Board today is one-half of a previous application it has already seen and approved; the applicants have also chosen to limit the request to the same limit as before, but one half; and the limitation is for 75 beds. 

 

The Board approved Item V.B.3., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

.

V.B.4. (Z1005502) - TODD J. WILLEMS - (Richard Kern/RK Engineering) - requests a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Entertainment & Amusement Enterprises (Large Scale) in an IU (Light Industrial) zoning classification.  The property is described in Section 22, Township 27, Range 36.  (21.84 acres)  Located on the south side of Eau Gallie Blvd., approx. 400 ft. west of I-95.

Cindy Fox, Planning and Development Manager, advised the request is for a conditional use permit for Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises, large-scale, in a Light Industrial zoning classification; the applicants wish to have truck shows and mud bogging on the property.

 

Richard Kern, RK Engineering, stated he represents the applicant, Todd Willems.  He stated the subject property is 21 acres, located on the south side of Eau Gallie Boulevard, west of I-95; Mr. Willems has owned the land for a few years; he has been renting out the warehouses on the site; but due to the recent downturn in the economy, Mr. Willems cannot get tenants into the warehouses any longer; and he is seeking an alternative way of generating income from the properties.  He stated Mr. Willems is seeking approval to have special events on the site, such as truck shows; the site plan indicates a request for truck shows, but Mr. Willems would like to expand to include smaller types of vehicles such as go-karts, lawn mowers, motorcycles, and ATV's.

 

Ms. Fox advised the Planning and Zoning Board did not review the application for those expanded uses, but only for the truck shows and mud bogging. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to make a motion to approve the request with the expanded uses.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the stipulations of the Planning and Zoning meeting include stormwater runoff, airborne particulates; and inquired if the applicant will be able to comply with those stipulations.  He noted the Board cannot be the authority for those things; and the applicant can get into a lot of trouble if not careful, with other authorities, such as SJRWMD, and FDEP.  Mr. Kern replied the applicant, Mr. Willems, can comply with all of the stipulations.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he is concerned about the expanded uses; there is a whole section in the Code dedicated to motocross; by extending the use to motorcycles, it has not been reviewed in that fashion.  Mr. Kern stated the applicant will agree to withdraw motorcycles from the expanded uses.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there are any wetland issues.  Ms. Fox replied there are some identified wetlands on the north end of the property; but not in the area proposed for the sand pit for the truck show.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what the applicant has to do if the Board approves the request today.  Ms. Fox replied the applicant will have to come back to staff to show where the parking will be located and emergency access.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the site will have infrastructure such as restrooms.  Todd Willems, applicant, advised eventually, there will be restrooms; there will only be events once or twice per month; and he is considering port-o-lets for the short term.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if there are other permits the applicant will have to obtain.  Ms. Fox replied the Board will not see the item again; and the site planning process is administrative.  She stated staff would like the applicant to state for the record what uses are being added in addition to the truck shows.

 

Mr. Kern advised the expanded uses include trucks, ATV's, lawn mowers, and go-karts. 

 

Florence Short stated she lives one-half mile from the proposed business; she is concerned about the noise from the attractions; and she does not know if the surrounding neighbors are aware of what is being proposed.  She stated traffic from I-95 is different than the noise that would be generated by go-karts and trucks.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the events will initially only be held twice per month; with Mr. Willems responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Anderson stated he does not have a problem with the request; he is familiar with the area; the same type of activities happen every weekend at the Sarno Road extension; but he would like Mr. Willems to assure him that the activities will be fairly regulated; and requested Mr. Willems state for the record, the intended uses of the property.  Mr. Kern advised, the uses will include trucks, 4-wheelers, lawn mowers, and go-karts, but no motorcycles.

 

The Board approved Item V.B.4., as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT - W. CORAL COURT SURFSIDE ESTATES, UNIT3 - JAMES AND TRICIA WOODS

Chairman Bolin called for the public hearing to consider a Petition to Vacate Public Utility and Drainage Easement - W. Coral Court Surfside Estates, Unit 3 - James and Tricia Woods.

 

There being no objections, the Board approved the Petition to Vacate Public Utility and Drainage Easement - W. Coral Court Surfside Estates, Unit 3, as petitioned by James and Tricia Woods.

 

.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  ADOPTION OF REMEDIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REMEDIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR VIERA DRI

Chairman Bolin called for the public hearing to consider adoption of Remedial Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Remedial Development Order for Viera DRI.

 

Chairman Bolin passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Fisher.

 

Commissioner Nelson clarified that the changes are remedial; and he does not want anyone to think it is a new DRI.

 

There being no objections heard, the Board adopted the Remedial Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Remedial Development Order, pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreements with State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, A. Duda & Sons, Inc., and The Viera Company; and authorized the Chairman to execute the Remedial Ordinance, Adoption Letter, and Resolution on behalf of the County.  The Board further adopted Ordinance No. 10-12, amending Ordinance 09-39; specifically amending Section 3 of Ordinance 09-39 to include additional amendments to Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2007-C, including additional amendments to Section 62-501 "Part XIII, Capital Improvements" to add improvements to the schedule of improvements that are necessary to support expansion of the Viera Development of Regional Impact and Section 62-501 "Part IX Transportation Element" to add long-term transportation planning that is necessary to provide the requisite level of service for transportation to support expansion of the Viera Development of Regional Impact; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing and effective date.

 

Vice Chairman Fisher passed the gavel to Chairman Bolin.

 

The Board recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m.

 

.

 

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  APPROVAL OF PARTIAL STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR AMENDMENT 2009 - 2 (EAR BASED AMENDMENTS

Chairman Bolin called for the public hearing to consider approval for Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Department of Community Affairs for Amendment 2009-2 (EAR Based Amendments)

 

Kathryn Bird requested clarification on the tabling of the Item because it is a Stipulation Agreement; the request is not an approval by tabling that the Board is in acceptance of its language on the Remedial Agreements; and inquired if the Board's vote is simply to postpone. 

 

Chairman Bolin stated that is her understanding.  Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, noted the requested action on the Agenda Report asks the Board to table the Item until the July 27, 2010 meeting to allow for comment by Florida Department of Community Affairs.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board tabled consideration of request for approval of a partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for Amendment 2009-2 (EAR Based Amendments), to the July 27, 2010 Board meeting, to allow for comment by Florida Department of Community Affairs.

 

.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION, RE:  CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010

The Board adopted Resolution No. 10-106, calling a special election on November 2, 2010, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Scott Ellis, Brevard County Clerk of Courts.

 

.

PERMISSION, RE:  APPLY AND ACCEPT FY 2010 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT - LOCAL SOLICITATION

The Board granted permission to apply for and accept the FY 2010 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) - local solicitation; and authorized the Chairman to execute the necessary grant documents and any necessary budget amendments. 

 

.

 

TRANSMITTAL, RE:  2010 - 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PACKAGE

 

Chairman Bolin called for the public hearing to consider Transmittal of the 2010-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Office Director, advised there are two elements in the proposed package; the first amendment is 2010-1A and 1B, which relates to the implementation of the Small Area Study for the South Mainland Area, which calls for the right-sizing of the South Mainland Area, and the proposed transfer of 3,000 of the 17,000 units that are being removed from the map and transferred to the Platt Ranch; Part B of the amendment package is a private application by the Platt Ranch to develop a mixed use project; and the Board heard that item on April 6th in a public hearing and heard testimony at that time as well.  She noted Application B-2 is an application from the Office of Natural Resources Management, which was tabled by the Board on April 6th in order to allow certain citizen workshops to discuss aspects of that amendment package; and as a result, the first amendment package was not approved at that time, but is awaiting the Board's action.  Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, noted the Board closed the public hearing for that item on April 6th.

 

Ernie Brown, Office of Natural Resources Management Director, advised before the Board is the Comprehensive Plan Amendments proposals as it relates to Objective 3, which is Surface Water, Objective 4, which is Flood Hazard Areas, and Objective 5, which is Wetlands.   He noted on April 20th the Board tabled the Item to allow for additional time for public forums to receive additional comments; on May 5th staff held a workshop dealing with the flood hazard areas; on May 7th a workshop was held dealing with surface water; and on May 19th a workshop was held dealing with wetlands.  He summarized, the surface water itself was Objective 3; a number of people attended the forum; staff tried to get a sense of the general public's direction on the topic by asking questions; as it relates to the surface water, 100 percent of the those who voted agreed in general with the proposed modifications; over 60 percent of those in attendance believe it should be transmitted as-is; and 37 percent believed it still needed more work, even if transmitted.  He stated during the flood plain discussion, 18 percent of the attending public agreed in general with the proposed modifications; 82 percent disagreed with the proposed modifications; 20 percent felt it should be transmitted as is; and 80 percent felt it needed more work.  He noted the results were similar with the wetlands; the outcome of the questions asked to the public was a 50/50 split; 50 percent of the public agreed with the proposed modifications; 50 percent disagreed with the proposed modifications; however, only 18 percent believe it should be transmitted as is; and 82 percent believed it needed more work.  He stated with the flood plain and wetland amendments, the majority of the public in attendance believed that it needed more work and/or did not feel it was ready for transmittal; however, of the surface water objectives, 100 percent of those that voted felt they agreed with it in general, even though it still needed some minor tweaks. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the surface water proposal was done by a working group; inquired how long it has taken to reach this stage; and further inquired how often the group met, and who was involved in the group.  Mr. Brown replied there was approximately 16 months of work with the Surface Water Working Group; it was a diverse group of stakeholders, including the development community, engineering firms, environmental interests, and specific appointees by the Board; and the group held many meetings over the period of 16 months, looking at the ordinance with specificity. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired, if after the Board hears the public hearing, in the event that it wants to transmit the comprehensive plan changes or not, it could do another one in August, as that is the next cycle.  Mr. Brown replied yes, that is correct; there is another cycle that can be transmitted this year.

 

Chairman Bolin stated it is her understanding that the Surface Water Working Group is in agreement; the Board could go ahead and transmit that portion at this point in time; and if there was a concern with other items, the Board can move those to another transmittal date.  Mr. Brown noted that is the pleasure of the Board, but it is legally appropriate to make those kinds of modifications. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board has the ability to handle the surface water issue to get it out of the way, and then come back and handle the wetlands issue and flood plain issue; and stated some speakers may want to talk about surface water, but others may want to talk about wetlands or flood plains.  Chairman Bolin inquired if anyone is present to speak about surface water.  Mr. Brown advised the surface water protection comp plan deals specifically with buffering of the public waterways, such as the Indian River Lagoon and the St. John's River, and the associated development that goes on with that; the flood plain comp plan policy deals specifically with the protection of the flood plain and how development will occur or not occur within the flood plain; and reiterated the surface water element does not deal with the flood plain issue specifically. 

 

Steve Woodling stated he is concerned with the drainage from proposed development.  Mr. Brown inquired if Mr. Woodling is referring to flooding resulting from drainage; with Mr. Woodling responding affirmatively.  Mr. Brown advised it would be closely associated with the flood plain comp plan.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if it is true that surface water deals with more of a water quality issue; with Mr. Brown responding affirmatively. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if there are no speakers for the surface water issue, he would like to approve it. 

 

James Durocher stated he was a member of the Surface Water Working Group; it was a diverse group of many different individuals; most of the recommendations were unanimous; it was a good program, but it was not able to be completed; and where the Group left off was with two critical issues.  He noted one of the critical issues not voted on by the Group was septic tanks; the Group discussed it, but never voted; there needs to be an addition to the septic tank section that reads, "When available and within reasonable expense properties, surface waters must connect to municipal sewage systems.  When not feasible, all septic systems must be upgraded to one of the advanced septic systems approved by the County."; and added, that would be a huge improvement in the surface waters.  He stated the other issue would be the fertilizer issue; and that is a key issue with the nitrates and the phosphates.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he understands the language being proposed by Mr. Durocher; but his concern is that in his District, some of the available water and sewer hookup is municipal from the City of Melbourne; the only way a homeowner can do what Mr. Durocher is suggesting is to annex into the City of Melbourne; and the City of Titusville is the same way.  Mr. Durocher stated he was not aware of that information; but maybe something can be worked out, because it does not seem quite right that just to get hooked up to a sewer system, one has to become part of that city. 

 

Leroy Wright stated he does not know if the Board has ever had an opportunity to take an airboat ride across the marsh to see the vast improvement; and if the Board cannot do that, there is a video by the SJRWMD on the upper basin restoration project.  He stated in 2005, after six years of trying to work with the SJRWMD to get improvements in the water quality on the St. John's River, he went to the board of directors for the St. John's River Alliance, of which he is a board member; he received a unanimous vote to put the upper basin into the SWIM Program, which is the management of the surface waters by district; and there is funding that has been going to the other two basin, along with the Indian River Lagoon.   He stated he would like to be on the record as the past president of the Save the St. John's River Group, which is a 3,000-member coalition; he is also speaking on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation, which has over 1,000 members in Brevard County; and he is also speaking as a director and board member for the St. John's River Alliance.  He stated he is opposed to any changes in the surface water improvement, as it is understood to be in the comp plan today; he was unable to read the fine print of many of the documents because of his eyesight; but he knows the vast majority of the citizens, who for two separate times in the '90's voted to tax themselves to not only improve the water quality, but to buy up the flood plains, the lands, the sensitive lands in the area; and he would respectfully ask the Board to consider not forwarding the changes that have been identified in the proposed surface water management. 

 

Jim Staylor stated a couple weeks ago he sent each of the Commissioners an email headlining the problem areas in the proposed changes; in the email, he tried to identify each of the problems, give an explanation of why it was a problem, and then offered solutions for fixing the problems; and he hopes the Board had a chance to review the email.  He noted since the last Board meeting in May, when it sent the proposal out to the public, no change has been offered by anybody has been incorporated into the document; the proposed changes are not necessarily bad; they are just confusing, misleading; and as the LPA said in its review, does not make sense in many cases.  He stated it appears the changes were rushed to print with little review or oversight; the basic intent was good; but the implementation was poor; and the upside is that everything is fixable.  He advised it is his understanding that if the package is submitted there is still an opportunity to tweak it; he knows the Board wants the proposals submitted tonight, and they probably should be submitted tonight; however, the Board has an additional option to submit the proposals and reconvene the Surface Water Working Group, this time empowering it with the ability to make recommendations not only to the ordinance, but to the comp plan.  He noted the original working group was made up of individuals throughout the County; the group met for over eight months, working four to six hours at each meeting; before the group was ready to finalize its work, the meetings were terminated; that was an injustice to the hard working individuals who volunteered their time; and it also sets a bad precedent for the County when it requests in the future, assistance on a voluntary basis from the public.  He stated he worked with the group, attending each one of the meetings; he gave presentations to the group using visual aids so that it could have a better understanding of the problem areas and possible solutions; and he did not attend the meetings as a member of the group, but as a member of the County representing the citizens of the County.  He advised when the Surface Water Working Group was formed, it was mandated that it be made up of stakeholders; although there was a very varied membership in the group, there was not one person in the group that actually lived along the Indian River and was affected by the changes; and the public should have been represented in the group.  He stated since now it is too late to actually make changes to the proposal before it is submitted, he is requesting the Board submit the proposal and reconvene the working group allowing it to make recommended changes to the comp plan and the Ordinance; and he is also volunteering to be in the working group as a member working with the group on modifications that are necessary, not only for the Ordinance, but for the Comp Plan.  He stated if the Board grants his request to be part of the Surface Water Working Group, he can assure it the document the group produces will serve the County and its citizens for years to come; and it will be a document that even the LPA will say makes sense. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired, in reference to the surface water element, how does Brevard County's comp plan element on surface water compare with other counties that are adjacent to the St. John's River and the Indian River Lagoon.  Mr. Brown noted it is difficult to compare because every county will submit what it believes is necessary to meet 9J5; then it is determined consistent or inconsistent; depending on the timing with the pressures on that particular community, there may be different elements; and he is not sure a direct comparison can be done.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if Mr. Brown believes that Brevard County's surface water element is more stringent than its neighboring counties, or less stringent, as proposed tonight.  Mr. Brown replied, he would say there is one county to the north that is more stringent; and there is one county to the south that is less stringent, in general. 

 

Commissioner Infantini noted she has some changes she would like to see made in the proposed package; the criteria in Policy 3.2, letter F, a word was changed from 'or' to 'and', which is much more restrictive; and she would like to leave the language to say 'or'.  She stated Policy 3.3, letter B, reads, "The County shall establish allowable uses within the surface water protection buffer"; the language is very ambiguous; and suggesting taking out what was added, and leaving in what the uses are.  She stated Policy 3.3, Letter E reads, "Prohibit shoreline alteration other than allowed by Ordinance"; and it used to read, "Other than that allowed for reasonable access or approved accessory uses".  She noted she lives on the water, and she would hate to think that somebody would be able to come along and tell her she cannot have access to her water; and she thought the idea was to make the element less restrictive, but it is more restrictive. 

 

Mr. Brown advised Policy 3.3(B), the removal of the specificity in the comp plan that actually restricts the allowable uses by  comp plan, as opposed to placing them in ordinance; that was heavily discussed and came to consensus in the working group; it allows the County, which is the Board of County Commissioners, by ordinance, to define the allowable uses within the surface water protection buffer; and it was discovered that the current language does not include fences.   He added technically, if there is a fence in a buffer, it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; fences are only permitted on bulk-headed lots, not on natural shoreline lots; the language was crafted by the working group to allow the Board, by ordinance, to identify those allowable uses, and then they can be modified as conditions change, as the Board sees fit.  Commissioner Infantini stated if the Board has not created those uses, then when someone comes forward to ask for a dock, the Board will have to say it has not decided yet what the allowable uses are; and inquired if there is an ordinance already that allows it.  Mr. Brown replied in the website he sent the Commissioners four months ago, which provided the information relative to the working group's progress, there is a draft status of the working group itself; it is still on the website if the Commissioner would like to review it again; it is the draft ordinance that was to come to the Board; and there needs to be some additional revisions based on the outcome of this particular transmittal and subsequent discussion for adoption.  Commissioner Infantini stated she has the Ordinance, and it looks restrictive.  Mr. Brown inquired if Commissioner Infantini has the existing Ordinance, or the draft that was prepared by the working group.  Commissioner Infantini responded she has the draft. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated in effect, the old language was more restrictive; and if Commissioner Infantini is okay with the more restrictive language, then he is too. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is confused because there are mixed messages; and inquired, when the Board held a workshop one year ago regarding the comp plan, was the working group was engaged in this topic at that time.  He noted it was his understanding that it was reiterated at the last Zoning meeting that the Board was looking at the comp plan to fix those things that may be duplications of efforts of other agencies in the State of Florida, or federal government, and those things that created annexations in the past; and inquired, when the working group was discussing the surface water element, were those directives from the Board communicated to the working group.  Mr. Brown stated the working group had just finished that up; the directive to the working group was to streamline the Ordinance, because there was a lot of antiquated, ineffective, information.  He stated for example, Commissioner Infantini referenced 3.2(a) as something that is handled by the State; that is true, as there must be a determination by FDEP Bureau of Survey and Mapping, to get an ordinary high water line, or mean high water line, determination; if one wants to wait for that, he or she is welcome to do so; it will take a long time to get that information; and what the proposed ordinance does is allow the County to establish a line by Ordinance if a citizen is not able to obtain that information from FDEP.  He advised the mean high water line and the ordinary high water line are actually property line boundary issues, as it relates to sovereign submerged lands and privately held lands; the buffering issue is not bound to a property line issue, but rather a buffer issue; and that provides additional flexibility to the citizens so they are not caught in a quagmire of the inability for FDEP to provide a timely response. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the short answer is that the property owners, on any of the elements, who may have been required under an outside agency to wait on information, the Board is giving flexibility under those circumstances.  Mr. Brown stated that Commissioner Anderson is correct. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated according to Mr. Staylor, it sounds as though the working group had unanimously decided to make two changes; the Board cannot control the septic tank issue; he does not have a problem with the surface water element. 

 

A motion and second was made to approve the transmittal of Amendment 2010-1.2, as it relates to changes in the Surface Water Element.  The vote was 4:1, with Commissioner Infantini voting nay.

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated in the Florida Statutes, or FDEP regulations, the rules are already established that the Board could follow.  Mr. Brown stated what Commissioner Infantini is referencing is what FDEP uses to establish the property line; staff does not care about that because it is not a property rights issue; and it is not a matter of who owns what portion of the property; and it is simply using a line that currently exists to establish where the buffer begins.  He stated he knows of someone who literally had to wait for a year and a half in an effort to get FDEP to respond; the County is not regulating that information that is currently regulated by FDEP; in fact, the County is using that line that currently exists as a starting point for a buffer; when it may take forever and a day for a private property owner to obtain that information from FDEP, this allows the County to provide another line that is not a property boundary line, to establish that so he or she can move forward to get a project completed.  Commissioner Infantini stated the information she has states it is an exemption from permit requirements; and it does not say it has anything to do with the property lines.  She stated she feel like once again the Board is making things more difficult than the State, SJRWMD, or FDEP makes it.  Mr. Brown stated it is the coastal construction setback line; and it has nothing to do with the river; and it has to do with the beach. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he was feeling good until Leroy Wright said he had some concerns; and inquired if Mr. Wright has any specific concerns he can share with the Board.  Mr. Wright stated he has spent 52 years on the river; he is on the river frequently; he sees a lot of things; and he works closely with the SJRWMD.  He advised water quality has been the factor that has killed the St. John's River; as late as the late '70's, if one wanted to put a boat in the river on a Saturday morning, he or she would have to be there one half hour before daylight, or else no parking would be available; and today, because of the water quality deterioration, caused by 70 years of agricultural pumping, it has taken a toll on the river.  He stated it is the same reason that the District began buying back the farms in 1987; surface water is the very essence of the ability for wildlife and the fisheries especially, to be sustainable; if it is infringed upon, such as a buffer 25 feet from water interconnection with the shoreline, that is totally unacceptable; and anyone putting anything out there within 25 feet of some line that might be in an ordinance, and the river rises five feet in the typical summer rains, the County needs to be very careful about where it puts that line.   He noted FDEP will give, on the basis of a telephone call to the Division of State Lands, an answer within 24 hours as to where the safe line determination is; that line is used to identify sovereign lands of the State; and if above that, FDEP will estimate what a line could be used to determine where the rightful property owner can build.  He stated there is a good example in Viera; in 1998 he received a unanimous vote from the Board to simply require that before The Viera Company developed any further west than its first phase, to undergo an ordinary high water line survey by the State.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Wright would like to see the ordinance be more stringent, but the Board is not changing it to make it less stringent.  Mr. Wright stated he is just concerned about who will determine where the safe line is located. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if there will be some discussions about tweaking the surface water element as it is being transmitted.  Mr. Brown replied as part of the process staff will start getting feedback from the State agencies and will incorporate through that process any internal inconsistency changes and some of the issues that have been addressed.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, suggested since the public hearing has been closed on the first Amendment in the package, that perhaps the Board may want to dispose of it through an action; and then the Board can go into the public hearing and take comments for the remaining two Amendments. 

 

A motion and a second was made to approve transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2010-1.1a and 1b to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), implementing the recommendations of the South Mainland Planning Area Small Area Study and a request by Carlyle Platt Partnership, L.L.L.P.   The motion passed 4:0, with Commissioner Nelson absent.

 

 

Steve Woodling stated he lives in the Police Foundation subdivision, west of I-95; he has lived at his residence for 32 years; and he was born and raised in Melbourne.  He advised his concern is the flood plain guidelines, removing or lessening the density restrictions, which will allow building in the Platt Ranch area; he is concerned that the drainage in the Police Foundation is the old Melbourne-Tillman drainage district; and all of the subdivision's water out of Melbourne, through West Melbourne, to his neighborhood, and to the west, then turns to flow to the south where it meets water coming out of the Palm Bay area; and it all goes into the C-1 canal, which flows into the Turkey Creek area.  He stated the water level has been raised two feet in the canal; during Tropical Storm Fay, his subdivision had the worst flooding it has ever had; his concern is there is over-building in an area where the drainage is already not up to par; the old Melbourne-Tillman drainage was set up for mosquito control and to drain the property for agricultural uses.  He stated he knows the City of Palm Bay developing to the west, and building new schools; and that will impact the canals because they all drain to the same area.  He stated it will not only affect his subdivision, but it will also affect the people in the June Park area of West Melbourne; the overflow from any of the retention areas are still going to go in the Melbourne-Tillman drainage, which is already over-taxed; and he wonders if the County has any concrete plans on what to do with the drainage problem that will be created if the Amendment Package is adopted. 

 

Jack Ratterman stated he moved to Merritt Island when there were just three paved roads; he is the president of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, which represents the 3,500 residents from the barge canal to the NASA gate; it is an active association that values its natural resources and supports the interests of its residents; and he would like to speak in support of North Merritt Island's valuable wetlands.  He stated on May 14, 2010, the United State Agricultural Secretary announced funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), that will add an additional expansion of 75,000 additional acres to approximately 2.1 million acres of current enrollment in the program; the funding will go to wetlands conservation projects in 22 selected states; healthy wetlands play a very vital role in protecting the environment, including improving water quality, preventing flooding, soil erosion, and creating and maintaining the best possible wildlife habitat; farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners play a critical role in protecting wetlands; announcement of the funding will provide more opportunities to maximize wetlands values and ensure these important natural resources survive for even more generations to come.  He stated 22 states are listed as being eligible; Florida will receive the most funding, with nearly $30 million; Florida has so many valuable wetlands, and has so many other areas that need protection; funding through the Flood Conservation Energy Act is a voluntary program that helps landowners address wetlands and wildlife natural resources concerns on private lands; and requested the Board consider a more complete review of the wetland sections in the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan.  He stated he would like the Board to think about what it does tonight and how it will affect the future of Brevard County. 

 

Vivian Coggins stated she lives in the Police Foundation subdivision; the proposed change to the comprehensive land use plan regarding increasing the density restrictions on the floodplains would be detrimental to Brevard County; and the County's environment is important to everybody.  She stated there has already been encroachment on the sensitive areas; billions in taxpayer dollars has been spent to reclaim land and reconstruct the floodplains and riverine areas of the St. John's River and the Indian River Lagoon; reducing the restrictions currently in place would increase flooding and damage recharge areas; and this could very well cause more insurance companies to pull out of the area.  She stated the current environment needs to be protected and improved; the current economic condition is not going to improve in the near future; it will take years; the St. John's River and Indian River Lagoon are vital to the tourism industry and part of the reasons the area remains attractive to the current and future residents; and there needs to be a countywide floodplain ordinance so the County and cities all have the same flood protection policies.  She stated Brevard County also needs development restrictions and compensatory storage requirements; she encourages the Board to work towards the goals that will enhance the environment and protect the residents; and requested the Board to please save the floodplains. 

 

Judy McCloney stated she has chosen to live in Brevard County; she has been a homeowner and taxpayer in Brevard for 35 years; in the years she has lived in the County she has grown more attached to the area; she has learned a lot about it; and she certainly enjoys its natural environment.  She stated she is fortunate to live in a high and dry neighborhood and home; she notices her taxes and homeowners insurance have gone up over the years; included in those expenses she is paying fees to supplement Citizens Insurance, as well as flood and other insurance for people who might not have been in higher land, but have been in lower land; and consequently, through all the years her costs as a homeowner and a taxpayer have gone up.  She noted she is willing to do her share, but she does not like being made to take risks and have a risk of paying costs for projects and things that she would not buy for herself; and stated she wonders what the taxpayers are being asked to support.  She stated she respects engineers; engineers say they can engineer a property so that it will not flood and wetlands will remain; but she knows that often, their best laid plans are set aside for cheaper plans; the best projects can go wrong; and even though everyone means for the best of both life quality and development, if the Board votes for development where there is a good chance of flooding, even a 10 percent chance, the costs may very well come back to the taxpayers.  She stated she knows there are members of the Board who are concerned not to raise the tax burden; if the Board votes for a project that weakens the flood protections so that there is more likely flooding, the taxpayers will more than likely be paying for the bailout; and if the Board votes for a project where there could very likely be flooding and insurance problems, it is doing the same thing as raising taxes.  She stated on behalf of those people who hold the purse strings, she thinks the Board needs to be careful about what projects it approves, because it will very likely come out of the pocket of the taxpayers; it is much easier not to cause damage than to completely destroy perhaps a marsh or a floodplain, only to later try to find the funding to restore it; and she urges the Board to be very cautious. 

 

Connie Cole stated lives on Merritt Island; and stated she would like to read a copy of an editorial that was printed in the Florida TODAY on April 25th.  "The  housing industry continues to suffer as the Space Coast struggles to recover from the recession, causing understandable calls for more action.  But here's one idea that should be rejected:  Lifting Brevard County regulations that prohibit commercial and industrial development in the floodplain along the St. John's River, freshwater lakes and tributaries to the Indian River Lagoon.  A move to strip the rule remains in play at the County Commission, where citizen opposition forced members to step back from attempts to pass it last week, ordering more study and a public hearing May 27th.  But no tinkering can salvage this terrible proposal, and that's why the current law should remain in place.  More construction in the floodplain would mean more buildings, roads, and pavement, which would worsen flooding in hurricanes and major events, such as Tropical Storm Fay, that put parts of our community under several feet of water in 2008.  Floodplains and their wetlands are natural holding areas for excess water, serving as giant sponges and making their protection critical keeping water out of homes, neighborhoods, and businesses.  Commercial and industrial development are currently prohibited in the 10-year floodplain, which is the area adjoining a water body that has a 10 percent change of flooding in any given year.  The proposed change keeps the ban on development in the annual floodplain, an area expected to flood once each year.  But it would remove density restrictions for the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year floodplains, a radical change in policy.  The idea was hatched last fall when Commissioners said they wanted flexibility to add wetlands and floodplain restrictions to make them more in line with State rules.  It's two proponents have been Commissioners Trudie Infantini and Andy Anderson.  Commissioner Infantini strongly supports it, saying the deregulation is necessary to make Brevard more business friendly and spur construction jobs.  Commissioner Anderson says he's now undecided, although he previously attempted to rush the switch through.  The Local Planning Agency (LPA), a 10-member panel that advises the Commission on zoning and land use issues, sees the matter correctly and the Commissioners should follow their lead.  The LPA voted unanimously to reject the proposal, with members saying officials were trying to jam it through without proper public hearings and calling the very notion irresponsible.  Space Coast residents have seen this deregulatory push before on a far larger and more destructive scale. It came last year when the State legislature gutted 25 years of growth management laws, claiming it was necessary to spur building and help pull Florida out of the recession.  It was really a giveaway to the powerful development lobby that hasn't worked and will leave taxpayers stuck with the bill for roads and other growth-related costs when the economy eventually rebounds.  Brevard residents should see through the wetlands proposal and insist Commissioners kill it."   Ms. Cole stated she agrees with the gist of the editorial; but the editorial did not point out the extremely important role that wetlands play besides holding water; the wetlands are the nursery of the entire food chain; and if the wetlands are destroyed, the source of food will be destroyed as well.  She stated Brevard County is unique, with an exceptional amount of floodplain and wetlands; it is not like the rest of the State; and she does not think decisions should be based on that.   She stated it is true that Brevard County needs jobs, but they all do not have to be in the construction industry; currently, there does not need to be more constructions, as there are many empty buildings throughout the County; and those lands should be used first. 

 

John Rovira read, and distributed, a letter and photos from Merritt Island resident, Jack Selman.  "Attached, find pictures taken during Fay.  In one, I am paddling down our driveway.  Another is a shot of our front yard up to the front steps.  Also, our shed was flooded inside and out.  We might discuss with our lawyer(s) whether the County Commission can be held accountable for future flooding due to any new and relaxed wetlands rules.  The Commission needs to protect and represent the voters.  They are not a tool of developers."  Mr. Rovira stated Horse Shoe Bend, which is off of Hall Road, was completely flooded during Tropical Storm Fay; a barricade was put up to prevent people from driving on the road; and there was a lake in the street.  He distributed pictures to the Board of North Tropical Trail, and Porcher Road; Porcher Road is a road that goes through the wetlands; and stated normally, the water in those wetland is four feet below the road.

 

Antonio Rovira stated he is the President of the East Merritt Island Homeowners Association, which covers an area of 4,400 property owners.  He noted he personally delivered to Commissioner Bolin's office, a petition signed by the East Merritt Island Homeowners Association members opposed to the diluting of any regulations regarding development in the wetlands or floodplains of Brevard County; and developers are not interested in the well being of Brevard citizens, as their priority is greed.

 

Glenn Storch stated he is an attorney out of Daytona; he does not live in Brevard County, although his son does; but he does represent 12,000 acres in Brevard; and he has an interest in how Brevard County functions.  He stated he understands the concerns that have been raised by many people who have been the victims of flooding; his house was flooded during Fay as well, and had to evacuate for three months; but it cannot be forgotten that flooding took place under the existing rules and regulations, not under any proposed rules and regulations.  He stated there are a number of issues with floodplains that need to be addressed; they are engineering issues; it is a matter of how to prevent flooding; if the goal is to prevent the same thing from happening again, then that is what needs to be looked at; and at the same time, if the goal is to reduce regulation, streamline regulation, and reduce cost, those things can be done at the same time.  He stated at this point, he would recommend the Board look at the idea of putting the issue off until the next Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and provide an opportunity for everyone to get together and look at the issues and listen to everyone who has spoken about how to solve the issues; the Board has to set the goals; and if the goal is to find a way of reducing potential flooding, while also finding a way to provide for economic development, those are consistent goals if everyone works together to accomplish them. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he has serious concerns regarding increasing the density in floodplains; it makes no sense to him to increase density in floodplains when the Police Foundation, June Park, and Deer Run all suffered flooding during Tropical Storm Fay; and he needs to be more educated on the issue.  He stated as far as the floodplains, he would be more comfortable deferring it until August to allow time to tweak it; however, as far as the wetlands, he does not understand why the County is duplicating the SJRWMD, when it is one of the strictest agencies in the nation when it comes to wetlands; and inquired if the County has the staff to enforce the regulations.  He inquired if the Board would like to push the amendment to August; and right now, he cannot vote for higher density in floodplains.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he has the same concerns as Commissioner Anderson; Mr. Storch had a good point in that the Board should be looking at how to solve the flooding issue all together; there will be money involved, which the County does not have much of; but maybe there are opportunities through FEMA or State grants to do that; and he cannot support increasing density in the floodplains.  He stated the Board can delay the issue until August; and inquired what is done between now and August.  He added, whether the Board ultimately decides to approve it or not, it still has to solve the flooding problem.  Mr. Brown advised staff could pull together a working group that can address both the floodplain and wetland issues with more thorough conversation, to vet out the issues and serve them back to the Board with more extensive public input, and a better effort to evaluate the pros and cons, if that is the Board's desire. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the working group will come up with real solutions to solve the flooding.  Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, advised at every Regulatory Board meeting, the Board is approving, as staff can put the engineering together and get the funds together, the Board has approved an amazing amount of flood prevention and stormwater enhancement improvements throughout the County; staff continues to cobble them together; the Natural Resources Management Office has the need to identify; and it is just a function of the funding at this point.  He stated the Board has shown its commitment to the best of its ability as money becomes available, to put pipes in the ground and making the flood events less frequent; but what is in front of the Board is a comprehensive plan policy that speaks to whether or not the Board should be contemplating increasing density in floodplains and relying on the engineering to ensure that future flood events do not happen; and the Board has two different discussions that it has the ability to have if it chooses.  He stated on the infrastructure investments to mitigate flooding, the County is only being held back by the funding; the comp plan policy, whether or not the County should rely on engineering solutions to provide for that product being protected, is really the comp plan discussion tonight. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he has not supported the changes because he thinks the Board has rushed into them without sufficient community discussion and insight to what it is doing; but he also does not want to put a timeline on it that creates another rush, which is to get a resolution to the problem by August; and it should be done based on the time it takes to do it well, but not to beat a deadline.  He stated he does not have any problem with the discussion because he thinks there can be some improvements; the flooding on Merritt Island during Fay was significant; the Board should be making the rules better and not less stringent; and there is also the bigger picture of cities that have rules and the County that has its rules.  He stated there are citizens in West Cocoa who are the victims of the City's flood rules; a more regional approach needs to be pushed towards because water does not care about county lines and city boundaries; the water coming out of the City of Cocoa is flooding West Cocoa; and that needs to be part of the discussion as well.  He stated if the Board wants to have a good discussion about how to improve the drainage systems and prevent flooding on a grander scale, then the way to do it is to create the working group and let them take the time necessary to do it right.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is glad Commissioner Nelson mentioned the cities; he would not support anything pre-emptive over home rule of the cities; and he does not know that the County can even do that legally.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not disagree with Commissioner Nelson, but the reality is that if the County and the cities talk to each other, it will be found out that everyone is looking for the same solution.  Commissioner Anderson stated he does not want to get into a conversation about pre-emption; home rule is the basis of democracy; and it needs to be adhered to.  He stated he does not need to be convinced on the floodplains; inquired if it is possible to have a conversation on the duplication of efforts by August, to reduce the duplication of efforts in order to be more effective and efficient to the taxpayers.  Mr. Brown inquired if Commissioner Anderson is speaking strictly about the wetlands issue; with Commissioner Anderson responding affirmatively.  Mr. Brown advised, the challenge staff has as is that the state pre-empts local government as it relates to defining what a wetland is; and if the State requires mitigation for those impacts, then the local government cannot impose any additional variance.  He noted the challenge is 9J5, which is the enabling rule for the Growth Management Act; 9J5 absolutely requires local governments, through their comprehensive plans, to identify mechanisms to relocate incompatible uses within wetlands; whether it is called duplication or not, the unpleasant reality is that the County is obligated to do it under current State law; and the County has to have in its comprehensive plan, mechanisms that identify uses that are appropriate and applicable within certain areas.  He stated staff presented a proposal to the Board to start the conversation; staff could proposed something that completely eliminated any conversation about wetlands, but he is confident that it would fail miserable at the Department of Community Affairs.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if staff can provide the Board with a chart showing the difference between Volusia County, Brevard County, and Indian River County. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he is in support of delaying the issue and letting a working group get together to find a solution. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she knows the Board has to address the wetlands in its comp plan; the way the Board could address is to say it will follow all of SJRWMD's rules and regulations regarding the wetlands, or the Department of Environmental Protection; and that would suffice, because there would not need to be anything more or less restrictive, because if it is less restrictive, State law will govern.  She stated as far as the floodplains, everyone is concerned about the flooding that has taken place; it is about building responsibly; engineering and regulations have changed; many of the houses that have flooded were built before 1950, when there may not have been rules in place; and she believes there are a lot more rules in place to protect; but because she is not certain of it, she would like to delay the floodplain issue. 

Commissioner Fisher stated it does not matter in what year a house was built, if it floods it floods; and homeowners are not comfortable with it. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he understands what Commissioner Infantini is saying as far as a duplication of efforts; however, Mr. Brown has said that if the Board follows the regulations of SJRWMD, that DCA will reject the comp plan amendment.  Mr. Brown advised he would like to go on record as saying he cannot speak for the Department of Community Affairs; however, staff has made efforts to try to align a number of the County's programs consistent with that; there are specific rules that require the County to do more; and according to the State, it is not duplication.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is willing to wait until August on the floodplain element; he wants it done right; and he is willing to wait until August.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated it seems the Board is wanting to look at the County with the least amount of regulations, and follow those regulations.  He stated the Board wanted to look at those differences to see if they made sense; and that is the process that needs to be done; and to make a decision tonight without knowing what the differences are, he will not support it.  He stated he would like to make a motion that the Board not transmit the wetlands, or the floodplain, elements of the comp plan amendments at this time, and that a working group is created for each of those areas to go through the elements and create some recommendations for the Board's consideration.  He noted his preference would be to not have a timeline.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the stipulation he has, is that the working group be made up of not only the engineering community, but a cross section of industries, so it is not dominated by one group. Commissioner Nelson stated the approval to create the working group and its members will have to come back to the Board as an Agenda Item, which will be the first meeting in July; and he agrees the working group should be made up of a cross section.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he will second Commissioner Nelson's motion to delay.

 

Chairman Bolin stated she concurs that the amendment is not ready to transmit; she agrees with Commissioner Anderson as far as aiming for a date; she concurs to not transmit the amendment at this time on the wetlands and the flooplains issues; and she agrees the Board should create a diverse working group; and she wants the recommendations of the group to be timely because flooding can happen tomorrow. 

 

The Board approved not transmitting the balance of Amendment 20-10 - 1.2, pertaining to floodplain and wetland policies; and further approved the creation of diverse working groups to further evaluate these policy changes pursuant to the Board direction from the October 15, 2009 workshop, with a goal of completing the evaluation and making recommended changes by August 2010. 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated even though the vote has been taken on the Platt Ranch, he would like to go on record as saying he has not supported the transfer of density on that issue; that process was not appropriate; he has not liked the arrangements the Board has had with the Platt family in terms of the right-of-way; he did not support either of those two transmissions; and he wants to be on record as having said that.

 

Sebastian Perin stated he is the President-elect of the East Merritt Island Homeowners Association; and inquired what would be the problem with having a firm review in August, and then set a timeline after that.  He stated he is encouraged that citizens can have an impact on the future community.

 

George Rosenfield stated he is a retired environmental scientist with a graduate degree from New York State College of Environmental Science; he is a long time member of the Sierra Club, as it is the only organization that does what it does; every once in a while, the Sierra Club asks him for scientific support to its effort; however, he can only speak for himself; and the purpose of today's forum is not scientific.  He stated the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, upon which changes will be voted, was developed on the basis of the sciences involved; the comp plan was developed according to the will of the people of the County, with consideration given to the underlying sciences; the issue before the Board for changes to remove development density restrictions in the St. John's River 100-year floodplain, and to remove wetland development restrictions are not based on science; the issues appear to be based on the desire of developers and builders who want to pre-empt the forthcoming November vote on hometown democracy; and changes in the comprehensive plan have to be made according to the will of the people as determined by the referendum. 

 

Bud Long stated he is the Chairman of the Turtle Club Sierra Club; and he appreciates the vote the Board took tonight.  He noted one reason given for the proposed changes was to prevent cities from annexing County property; there are quite a few more desirable solutions to the problem; the Board could pass a countywide floodplain protection ordinance, or as was done in Seminole County, the Board could adopt a charter amendment giving the County pre-emptive rights over land use designation and floodplain regulation; and the County is clearly given that right as stated in the Florida Constitution under Article VIII, Section I, "Charter counties have a direct constitutional grant of broad powers of self government, which includes the power of county citizens to enable the county to enact regulations of countywide effect, which pre-empt conflicting municipal ordinances."  He added, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in the Seminole County case and stated, "The electorate charter county my pre-empt the cities' land use regulation by charter without a dual vote of the city's electorate as held by the Supreme Court in Broward County versus the City of Fort Lauderdale." 

 

Evelyn Davis stated she is glad the Board is delaying the amendment and taking everything into consideration; when she moved to the Cocoa area of Pluckebaum Road in the 1950's, during a downpour, within 15 or 20 minutes, the water would be gone; the water could be seen moving in the ditches; but now, there is no water moving at all because the ditches never get cleaned out; and some of the culverts are corroded or collapsed.  She stated the unincorporated area of Cocoa is getting the water from the City of Cocoa; every time it rains, there is more and more water; but she feels if the ditches and other drainage were cleaned out, repaired, replaced, her area would not get as much water.  She stated her issue is that maintenance is needed immediately; there are trees in some of the ditches; and she would like to see some of ditches cleaned out before the height of hurricane season. 

 

Terry Mott stated her interest in water began a few months ago when she heard on the news that the State of Florida will be running out of water in 20 years; and she spoke to some County experts who confirmed that it is true that the State will run out of water in 20 years is the current path of water usage continues.  She advised she attended one of the SJRWMD meetings; she would recommend the Board make an effort to attend one of those meetings; the work the agency is doing is amazing; and that information is not getting out to the masses.

 

Theresa Robinson stated she lives in the West Cocoa area; she is a member of the homeowners association; and she is disappointed because she has listened to discussions about cats and birds, but it seems that now, the Board is not really listening to what the citizens have to say.  She stated she wishes the Board would consider not just individual areas; each Commissioner is for their own area; it is about everyone in the County; it is not a contest; she has lived in her house for 43 years; and she would love to not see water in her house. 

 

Maureen Rupe stated she agrees Brevard County is more restrictive in some areas; and the State allows the provision to be more restrictive because some counties are unique.  She stated Commissioner Anderson believes the changes would stop annexations; she believes the only way to stop annexations is for the County to incorporate; unfortunately, the County has failed to provide services to its residents over the years; the majority of the cities have sewer and water; there is little communication between the cities.  She inquired if the Board knows what the County will look at from the future land use plan, at build out, and if it can sustain itself, or if it will be left with no resources.

 

Mary Sphar stated she appreciates the vote tonight and of forming working groups; she would suggest the Board allow staff some flexibility in getting the working group together; some groups have worked well; but some groups have not.  She noted the annexation problem is very serious; it seems the County is neglecting its duty with regard to the  joint planning agreements; and the Deer Run residents are affected because Palm Bay is not reviewing the comprehensive plan amendments of DRI scale within the 25-year floodplain adjacent to Deer Run; and she would suggest the Board task someone with that responsibility. 

 

Jim Durocher stated he would like to ask Commissioners Anderson and Fisher, if they do not think for the sake of healthy rivers, lakes, and estuaries, something could be worked out with the municipalities to get on the sewer system without all of the people having to be annexed; and they should be given the right to do the right thing without forcing them into something they do not want.  Commissioner Anderson stated he agrees.  Mr. Durocher noted Cocoa Beach provides sewage to Avon by the Sea, whose residents pay more than the residents of Cocoa Beach; but they do not mind, because they get good sewer service. 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

 

.

 

.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

 

ATTEST:                                                                                                                                

                                                                        MARY BOLIN, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                    _                                  BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK