October 19, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 19, 2004, at 6:20 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: *Commissioner Jackie Colon.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough.

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

REPORT, RE: BIRDING AND WILDLIFE FESTIVAL

Commissioner Scarborough stated they have moved from starting a birding and wildlife festival in Brevard County to having the number one festival in the United States; it means that some of the best minds in wildlife and birding will be in the community; and it will take place November 17 through 21, 2004. He stated it starts at the Brevard Community College, North Campus; a lot will be held at the Wildlife Refuge; and if anyone needs more information they can contact his office.

REPORT, RE; SETTLEMENT OF HARRIS V. BREVARD COUNTY

County Attorney Scott Knox stated at the last meeting the Board voted to approve a settlement for Harris v. Brevard County on a case involving the Mims Water Plant, but the Board failed to specify the amount, which was $25,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve $25,000 payment to settle the case of Harris v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: TITUSVILLE ANNEXATION CASE

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he was going to ask for permission to advertise an executive session on the Titusville annexation case; however, Commissioner Scarborough suggested dismissing the case since most, if not all, of the issues have been resolved on that case; and that is his recommendation, also.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to dismiss the case of Brevard County v. City of Titusville as the issues have been resolved. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: PARTIAL 2005 MEETING SCHEDULE

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested the Board approve a partial zoning meeting schedule for 2005; and advised the complete schedule will be coming to the Board in the near future.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the partial 2005 Zoning Meeting Schedule. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: DEDICATION OF THE WELCOME TO MERRITT ISLAND SIGN

Commissioner Pritchard stated a year and a half ago they began a contest on Merritt Island to come up with a slogan; there were over 350 entries; and they selected the winners. He stated three people came up with the same slogan, “Welcome to Merritt Island, where dreams are launched”; and there is going to be a sign installation and dedication on Friday at noon at the Government Service Complex on North Courtenay Parkway just south of SR 528. He stated there will be four signs located off SR 528; this will be the first; and MIRA will install two much larger signs on SR 520. He stated this was a community effort; all the money was contributed by the community; and they are proud of the design and community effort.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING SPACECOAST FIRST ROBOTICS TEAM
(ROCCOBOTS)

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud an article from the newspaper concerning the Spacecoast First Robotics Team, the ROCCOBOTS. He read aloud a resolution congratulating the Spacecoast FIRST Robotics Team, the ROCCOBOTS for placing no lower than finalist in the FIRST Championship in Atlanta, and winning the top spot in the FIRST Regionals in New York.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating the Spacecoast FIRST Robotics Team, the ROCCOBOTS, led by teacher Marion Passmore, for meeting the challenge and succeeding in mastering the combination of sports and technology in winning the top spot in the FIRST Championship in New York. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

A representative of the team stated they took six weeks to design and construct the robot; the primary purpose is to use the arm to extend to a pole that is suspended ten feet above the ground; and they got 50 points for being able to latch onto the pole and suspend the robot in the air. He stated the secondary function is to stop or impede other teams from doing things. He commented on the motors that powered the robot; and demonstrated how the robot works.

The principals from Rockledge High and Cocoa Beach High Schools accepted the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 2004 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 2004 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM ZONING AGENDA

Chair Higgs requested Mr. Enos advise of any items that have been withdrawn or requested to be tabled. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised Items IV.A.7, IV.B.4, IV.B.8, IV.B.11, IV.D.3 and IV.D.4 have been withdrawn from the Agenda. He stated there was a recommendation to table Item IV.B.5.

Item IV.B.5. (Z0408201) Gloria Cathey, as Trustee’s request for change from RU-1-7 to RU-2-15 on 0.1 acre located on the southwest corner of McKinley Avenue and Azure Lane, which was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to the November 8, 2004 Planning and Zoning meeting and the December 2, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting at the request of the applicant, with a reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.B.5 to the November 8, 2004 Planning and Zoning meeting and the December 2, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting, with reprocessing fee required, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Enos stated there have been two requests to table from the applicants, Items IV.A.3 and IV.A.11; and in both cases, the request is to table to February 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Chair Higgs advised on Item IV.A.3 the only card submitted is from the applicant.

Item IV.A.3 (Z0407103) Ben H. Sims, Darlyne S. Smith, and Carolyn I, Henderson’s request for change from AU to SR with Binding Development Plan on 66 acres located on the north side of Jay Jay Road, east of US 1, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.A.3, to the February 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.11. (Z0407402) Antonio Z. Camara, Jr. and Mary A. Camara, Co-Trustees’ request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (04S.7) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Community Commercial to Residential 10; and change from BU-1 to RU-2-10 with CUP for residential/recreational marina on four acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Otter Creek Lane, which was recommended for denial by the Local Planning Agency and the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.A.11 to the February 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there is also a request to table Item IV.B.7 to November 4, 2004.

Item IV.B.7. (Z0408203) First Baptist Church of Merritt Island, Florida’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (04S.12) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and change from RU-1-9 to BU-1 with a CUP for a Church and Related Facilities to IN-Heavy with removal of the existing CUP on 2.7 acres located on the south side of Magnolia Avenue and west of Grove Street, also having frontage on the north side of South Tropical Trail, which was recommended for approval of community commercial by the Local Planning Agency and for approval of IN-H by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item IV.B.7 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated there has been a request to table Item IV.B.10; she met with the applicant today; and this item is part of a small area plan for the coastal high hazard area along US 1, which the Board discussed at its last zoning meeting.

Item IV.B.10. (Z0408403) Malinda K. Boren, Trustee and Mark Chaffiot, Trustee’s request for change from AU to RU-2-12 on 10.3 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Ruby Street, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board of the amended request of RU-2-10.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.B.10 to the December 2, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS FROM PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETINGS OF MAY 10 AND JULY 12, 2004 AND THE NORTH MERRITT ISLAND
DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD MEETING OF JULY 15, 2004

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider tabled items from the Planning and Zoning Board meetings of May 10 and July 12, 2004 and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board meeting of July 15, 2004, as follows:

Item IV.A.1. (Z0404101) Lawrence W. Lucas, Lloyd and Jacqueline Louise Lucas, James and Linda S. Lucas, and Housing Authority of Brevard County’s request for change from AU and RU-1-8 to RU-1-11 with Binding Development Plan (BDP) on 105.71 acres located on the northeast corner of Wiley Avenue and U.S. 1, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board; and Item IV.A.4. (Z0407105) David C. & Cynthia Ramage’s request for change from IU to RU-1-11 with a BDP on 40.067± acres on the west side of Harry T. Moore Avenue, north of Wiley Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as GU.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Items IV.A.1 and IV.A.4 are contiguous properties; and it may be good to discuss the two items together. He stated this item has been continued; there have been comments from the community; and inquired if anyone is present to speak in opposition to either item; and no response was heard. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a recommendation coming from the community for the approval of both items.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item IV.A.1 with the revised binding development plan.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Enos would like to go over the changes in the binding development plan or will the plan be coming back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated the binding development plan will come back to the Board; the applicants have spent many hours working with the community; and it has gone from people contacting him opposing the items to people contacting him requesting it be approved.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the last zoning meeting some Commissioners voted against items that had problems with school over-capacity; this item also has that problem; and inquired if something has been done that the Board is not aware of. He stated the Board was talking about discussing the Board policy as it applies to zoning items because of the way it has
been handling future development, past development, and the current capacity issues being based on past development. He stated going back to the Ben Jefferies item, he failed to vote with the rest of the Commission, but finally did; and when he did, implicit in his vote was that as soon as impact fees were approved, he would vote in favor; and he does not think he can reverse himself at this time. He stated if it is the inclination of the Board to split 2-2, it would be advisable for him to ask that the item be addressed when the full Commission is present. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is Commissioner Carlson’s intention to vote in opposition; with Commissioner Carlson responding that would be consistent with what she has voted for. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would only be fair to wait until there is a full Board to hear the item; Commissioner Colon will be joining the Board shortly; and requested the item be taken up later in the meeting. Chair Higgs inquired if that is acceptable to the Board; with Commissioner Carlson responding it is fine. Commissioner Carlson stated at the last meeting the Board talked about looking at the policy, understanding it had those actions prior to impact fees being approved; there was a request by the P&Z Board that the Board no longer send any capacity issue because it is denying all such items; and she has asked Todd Corwin to give her some information regarding the student accommodation plan with the School Board to see what schools are in the process of being built, so when the Board looks at the numbers it will know that something is being done and when it takes an action, it will make more sense. She stated right now the Board has not been given enough information from the School Board to know if schools are being built and that capacity will not be an issue down the road as an applicant is developing his property; and inquired if that is coming back to the Board for discussion. Chair Higgs stated the Board talked about that; this is the third time she talked about the inadequacy of the jail and number of deputies; and those are also part of the capital improvement element, but are not being addressed appropriately. She stated consistent with the votes on school capacity issues, the Board should also deny increases in density when the County is not meeting jail capacity and requirements for deputies and has no plans to do so. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that issue is coming to the Board under an Agenda item; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, the Board requested that. He inquired if he was to go to the deputy issue, should he not deny every zoning request; with Chair Higgs responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired where would he approve a zoning request; with Chair Higgs responding where there is not a change of use or there is a downzoning, but any that increase density, she would suggest should be denied until there is a plan to resolve the inadequacies of the infrastructure.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Policy 1.3 in the Capital Improvements Element says, “Brevard County should utilize the following advisory levels and they should be considered planning guidelines”; and there is nothing there that is cast in stone. He stated as he brought out at the last meeting, the recommendation of 2.0 deputies per 1,000 residents is met and exceeded; and he also mentioned that Chief Deputy Crawford’s figures are wrong. He stated in looking at the number of deputies Countywide, it is necessary to include the police protection of the various municipalities; all deputies including the Sheriff are sworn; and the Sheriff can orchestrate how many deputies are on the road by pulling them from the road and putting them into administration, thereby reducing the number of road deputies. He stated looking at who is sworn is a better count; and the Capital Improvement Element specifically uses the words “should”, “advisory”, and “guidelines” so it is not cast in stone. He stated the other argument about school impact fees makes no sense; if the Board implements an impact fee and says it is not going to allow any construction because there are no schools, he does not know how the County is going to pay for the school; and it is the chicken and egg scenario. He stated whether or not school systems build a structure or put in a portable is up to them; and the Board has done its part by implementing an impact fee. He stated the County is charging $4,500 per residential unit; the County is not going to get the money from the unit if it does not allow for construction of the unit; and he cannot agree with the argument of how or when they are going to build a school if they do not have money to build a school and the County is not providing the money by granting the permit to build the housing that is going to give the School Board the funding.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board started down this path by saying that based on new development coming in, if they would pay for new growth, that would be fine; but the person appointed by the School Board to help with growth management and school issues continuously advises the P&Z that zoning items reflect density increases. She stated this is for old growth not new growth; the new growth will be captured with the school impact fees, which will accrue for the new schools; but unfortunately that does not look at the current situation where certain schools are at over-capacity. She stated all she is asking for from the School Board is to provide some clear understanding of what the development plans are; she would assume it has three to five-year plans to demonstrate that schools will be built in certain areas that are currently overcrowded; and she is just looking for concrete tools to help make decisions that will help the School Board. She stated sometimes the School Board does not appear to be helping itself because it does not provide the information; and the County has to go and constantly pull out the information. She advised she got something today that talks about the current 2004-05 student accommodation plan; and various schools that would impact her decision on some of the things that are coming before the Board; she knows that schools are going to be built and capacity issues will not be a problem; but that is not in the Board’s policy, nor has it worked with the School Board enough to have something that can be used as a decision-making tool. She stated that is her only concern.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands what Commissioner Carlson is saying; but the person this year who was appointed as the School Board representative is an individual who is not employed by the school system and she voted against anything that has to do with the zoning issue. He stated if there are going to be appointees to certain boards, they should be more qualified and more in tune with what the system really is instead of just saying no all the time. Commissioner Carlson noted it is the School Board appointee; with Commissioner Pritchard conceding that was the School Board’s choice. Commissioner Carlson stated the cities do not abide by the same policies as the County, so there are still over-capacity issues because cities are allowing development and the County is not. She stated there are definite problems that need to be discussed. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is losing more and more property to city annexation because people are tired of some of the County regulations that restrict property and human rights. Commissioner Carlson stated annexations are occurring because people seem to be caring more about the education of their children; and school capacity is an issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not the education of children; they could build portables; and education is whatever room that is provided, and does not have to be bricks and mortar. He stated his point is they cannot provide for bricks and mortar or even a portable if they do not provide the revenue stream; and that is what the Board has done. He stated there are certain areas of the County that will probably never see a school; and unless the Board wants to see something not happen because it is a way of managing development of an area, then it is an effective way to do it. Commissioner Carlson stated it needs to be legislated and not left up to County government; if growth management at the State level had been effective, the County would not have this problem; and if they could have put in concurrency and followed it, then they would not be where they are today. Commissioner Pritchard stated if they had the lottery money go to education instead of funding other stuff, there probably would not be the problems. Chair Higgs stated impact fees can only pay for future growth, which does not help make up for the deficiencies. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is one of the problems in looking at future growth; schools are only built to the capacity of today even though it takes three years to build them; and by the time they are built, they are usually right at or over capacity. He stated part of the legislation needs to change; but his point is the County has done its job by implementing an impact fee, although he did not support it. He stated the impact fee is in place; the job has been done; and now it is up to the School Board to say what it is going to do and how it is going to do it. He stated that is not the Commission’s job; and he does not think it should be taking a position of looking for a way to say no, but should be looking for a way to say yes, that is reasonable. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board will hold this item until later. Commissioner Pritchard stated it will probably hold all the others as there were others that were denied for the school issue so they are all going to end up with a two-two vote tonight.

Chair Higgs noted that is not her only reason for voting. Commissioner Pritchard stated Chair Higgs’ other reason is based on bad math; he can add two and two and see what was done; and it was not done correctly. Chair Higgs stated considering the city police in the County formula is not good math. Chair Higgs stated the Board cannot do items IV.A.1 and IV.A.4.

Item IV.A.2. (Z0405001) Bruce A. and Lynda L. Gutoski’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 1.18 acres located on the east side of South Banana River Drive, north of Worley Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with Binding Development plan limiting development to over-55 community.

Chair Higgs stated this item involves the same issue.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the applicants are not limiting it to those over 55 years of age; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he thinks the over-55 argument was dropped on this item. Mr. Enos stated the applicants preferred not to include that but are willing to if necessary.

Rochelle Lawandales, representing the applicants, stated that is the case.

Chair Higgs stated the vote would be two to two, so the Board will return to this item later.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the reason why they did the over-55 limitation was before they went to the payment in lieu of impact; and with the limitation they knew there would not be any young people there. Chair Higgs stated the applicants do not want to put that condition in there. Commissioner Scarborough stated the applicants said they would include it if necessary.

Ms. Lawandales stated at the time this went before the P&Z Board, the issue of impact fees had not been completely addressed by the Board; they agreed to consider going to a 55-and over community in a binding development plan until the County adopted impact fees, which would then eliminate the need to restrict the development to over 55; and while they would, if mandated by the Board, restrict it to over 55, they would prefer not to restrict the item.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they would restrict to over 55 if they needed that for the vote; and do they want the Board to vote now. Ms. Lawandales responded she would prefer to wait for a full Board.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if the Board thinks it will be stuck on a two-two vote this evening, it would be wise to wait until October 26, 2004 to find out what the staff report is going to be because it may provide more information upon which to base the Board’s decisions. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is rational as he would like to make as wise a decision as possible. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Knox repeat his comment; with Mr. Knox advising staff is coming to the Board with a report on October 26, 2004, which is going to address the correctional facilities and the school overcrowding issues. Mr. Knox advised he has seen a preliminary draft on the correctional facilities issue; it may be wise for the Board to wait to see what is in that before it decides which way it is going to go on the item because there is other information it does not have right now.

Chair Higgs stated Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 are impacted by the issues Mr. Knox talked about. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board discussed Items 1 and 2; and it is his inclination to table them until the Board gets the report.

Item IV.A.1 and IV.A.4. (continued)

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Items IV.A.1 and IV.A.4, to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.2. (continued)

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board wishes to table Item IV.A.2 as well. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Colon is coming; with Chair Higgs responding her information was that Commissioner Colon would be here by 6:30 p.m. so she does not know. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the applicant is agreeable to tabling; with Ms. Lawandales responding that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.A.2 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.5. (Z0407203) Steven J. and Beth M. Hoskins, Jason Carmine Uvaro, Michael Francis Duffield and Carl F. Uvaro’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 with BDP on 1.41 acres located on the southeast corner of 20th Street and South Orlando Avenue and having frontage on the west side of South Atlantic Avenue and the north side of Summer Street, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Chair Higgs stated this item represents an increase in units. Commissioner Pritchard stated this is the same situation.

Mason Williams, representing the applicants, advised if Commissioner Colon is coming, he would prefer to go later in the evening. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be advisable for someone to contact Commissioner Colon’s staff to see if she is going to come. Mr. Jenkins advised he will attempt to contact Commissioner Colon’s staff.

Item IV.A.6. (Z0407204) Sixty Banana River, Inc.’s request for change from BU-2 to RU-2-15 on 1.6± acres located on the east side of S. Banana River Drive, south of SR 520, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limiting development to over-55 community until a school impact fee is adopted.

Chair Higgs stated this is an increase of 24 units. Commissioner Pritchard stated this is an increase in density; and he is afraid the Board is faced with the same situation.

Todd Peetz, representing the applicant, stated he would prefer to wait for Commissioner Colon’s arrival.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will not be voting in favor of these items because it is inconsistent to table some and not others, so even with Commissioner Colon’s vote, there will not be enough votes to approve these items because all should be treated the same.

Mason Williams requested Item IV.A.5 be tabled to November 2004.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is if certain ones are being held to get a report, it is unfair to the people requesting things in his District to have them tabled while others are being dealt with separately; and he would prefer to treat all the same.

Chair Higgs stated the Board is glad to see Commissioner Colon as there is a two-two tie vote likely.

Commissioner Pritchard stated because there was a two-two tie on so many items, the Board was opting to discuss some later in the evening pending Commissioner Colon’s arrival and others were going to be tabled to the November 4, 2004 meeting; and then the Board was made aware that staff would be providing a study on the law enforcement and jail issue on October 26, 2004. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board may want to wait on some of the items if they are going to be decided on the basis of correctional impact fees or correctional facilities, or school impact fees or facilities because a report is coming to the Board on October 26, 2004, which will go into more detail on the statistical basis for correctional facilities and a legal analysis on both issues, so the Board would have a lot more information after that. Commissioner Pritchard stated some of the items were tabled; some were postponed until later in the evening; but Commissioner Scarborough just advised he would prefer they all be treated equally; and since he had already moved the District 1 items to be tabled, the others should be given the same level of consideration.

Commissioner Colon stated she is ready to vote. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough has said he will not be voting in support of any of the items until he gets the report on October 26, 2004, so it might be better if the Board waits until November 4, 2004 so it will have the report in hand. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is if the vote is called now, the items are going to be denied and the applicants will have to wait six months to reapply; that is not what Mr. Williams wants; he wants his item to be tabled; and the Board can do what it pleases, but that is the applicant’s wish. Commissioner Colon inquired how many were tabled; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board is going to go down the list; and Commissioner Pritchard has the list for District 2.

Item IV.A.2. (continued)

Chair Higgs stated Ms. Lawandales wished for the item to be brought up later. Commissioner Pritchard stated the item was tabled. Chair Higgs stated the Board did not vote to table it; with Ms. Lawandales responding she thinks the Board did vote to table the item. The Clerk confirmed the item was previously tabled.

Item IV.A.5. (continued)

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.A.5 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.6. (continued)

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is Mr. Peetz’s item, which is the same thing.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.A.6 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.7. (Z0407205) Lavina H. and Alfred B. Humphrys, as Trustees’ request for change from EU and RU-1-9 to RU-2-8 on 27.4? acres located on the west side of North Tropical Trail, south of Crockett Boulevard, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board, and withdrawn by the applicant on October 15, 2004.

Item IV.A.8. (Z0407302) C. Steven Douglas and Debra K. Douglas, Co-Trustees’ request for change from AU to RR-1 on 17.35? acres located on the south side of Micco Road, west of Fleming Grant Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chair Higgs stated this item is calling for increase in density from six units to fifteen units; the Board needs the report; and she would support a tabling of the item.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.A.8, to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.9. (Z0407303) Steven E. and Marilyn J. Nagel’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 3.93 acres located on the northeast corner of Valkaria Road and Toby Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan to include a $4,400 school contribution per unit.

Chair Higgs stated this item reflects an increase in units.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.A.9, to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.10. (Z0407304) Fedd Investment Corporation’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (04S.9) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map from Residential 1 to Community Commercial; and change from GU to BU-2 on 6.2 acres, and from GU to SR with Binding Development Plan on 29.3 acres located on the south side of Valkaria Road, west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval of community commercial by the Local Planning Agency and for approval of BU-2 on 6.2 acres with BDP stipulating keeping all outside storage behind the buildings, and excluding all convenience stores and strip shopping centers, and approval of SR on 29.3 acres with Binding Development Plan limiting development to one unit per acre maximum density.

Chair Higgs stated part of this is a change of zoning that would not involve a density increase; and the other part would involve a density increase, so there are two sides to this item. She stated the Board may not be able to complete the item, but can hear one of the issues.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there was any indication the applicant wishes to table this item to December 2, 2004; with Mr. Enos responding not to his knowledge.

Chair Higgs stated this involves a Small Scale Plan Amendment that would change the Future Land Use Map from Residential 1 to Community Commercial and a change from GU to BU-2 on 6.2 acres and from GU to SR on 29.3 acres with a Binding Development Plan.

Ed Gerhardt inquired since the 29-acre parcel requires a density increase, would the Board considering waiting until November 4, 2004. Chair Higgs stated that would be consistent with the other items. Mr. Gerhardt stated it would be acceptable to do the entire item at that time.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.A.10, to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.12. (Z0405501) Tanner and Kanazeh Development, Inc.’s request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on 4.31 acres located on the north side of Trimble Road, west of Wickham Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board with recommendation to the Board to direct staff to stop taking residential applications in areas where schools are over capacity.

Chair Higgs stated this is an increase in density from one to seven units.

Commissioner Colon inquired if any cards were submitted; with Chair Higgs responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated the item is not going to go anywhere. Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board prefers not to hear the speakers this evening; with Commissioner Pritchard responding affirmatively. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Tanner has been watching the proceedings; and inquired if he prefers to have the item tabled to November 4, 2004; with Mr. Tanner responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item IV.A.12 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.13. (NMI40703) Thanh D. Ngo and Lien K. Pham’s request for change from AU and RU-2-10(4) to SR with Binding Development Plan limiting development to four homesites, with each lot being a minimum of one acre on 4.951 acres located on the southwest corner of Jones Trail and N. Tropical Trail, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this was initially recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board because of school overcrowding; and it would be an increase in density.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.A.13, to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.A.14. (NMI40706) John R. Bunkley, Trustee’s request for change from GU and RU-1-13 to all RU-1-13 on 5.35 acres located on the west side of N. Tropical Trail, north and opposite of the western terminus of Grant Road, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this has the same school issue.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.A.14, to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
OF AUGUST 9, 2004

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of August 9, 2004, as follows.

Item IV.B.1. (Z0408101) Robi Roberts, Trustee’s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 on 23.31 acres located on the south side of Latimer Street, west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board, and amended by the applicant to request EU-2 on September 15, 2004.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was opposition that reached beyond the school issue on this item; it came with a recommendation for denial outside of the school issue; and the Board can table it for the capacity issue, but it may be such that the Board could hear the item and dispose of it. He inquired if there are people present to speak in opposition. A speaker from the audience stated there is still an issue with regard to the schools.

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to be careful if it is going to hear the item. Commissioner Scarborough stated there seems to be some confusion; and it would be best to table it to November 4, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item IV.B.1 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.2. (Z0408102) Nine Lives, Inc.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (04S.11) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and change from BU-1-A to BU-1 and removal of an existing CUP for a Convenience Store on 0.46 acre located on the east side of North Singleton Avenue, south of Dairy Road, which was recommended for denial by the Local Planning Agency and the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board wanted the City of Titusville to comment on this item. Planner Todd Corwin stated the City has commented. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if anything came out of the comments; with Mr. Corwin responding the City did not indicate any substantial issues, and it appears there is no problem with proceeding. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if any Commissioners have questions for the applicant, noting the recommendation is for denial.

Harish Gadhia, owner and president of Nine Lives, Inc., stated he owns the commercial property at 1325 North Singleton Avenue in Titusville; he has been doing business as a convenience store for the last ten years, selling beer and wine in package form only, with no consumption allowed, as well as groceries, etc. under the BU-1-A zoning; but now he intends to sell liquor as an additional item; and that requires a change of zoning. He stated they requested BU-1; there were concerns that there is a daycare center next door and an animal hospital on the other side; but it is a daycare not a school involving mostly toddlers who would not come to the store unless their parents came when dropping them off or picking them up. He noted the schools are three blocks from his site; Winn Dixie, which has a liquor store, is only one block from the schools; and because of the competition, he needs some more items to increase sales to survive. He stated he would appreciate the change in zoning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in his briefing, the word compatibility came up; it is a more intense use than what is there; and there was a recommendation for denial.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who is Keith Cunningham; with Mr. Enos responding he is a staff person from the City of Titusville. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Cunningham wrote to Mr. Corwin that the site is an existing convenience store, not within 300 feet of a church or school, and is an enclave, which when annexed would more than likely have commercial land use and a commercial zoning, which would allow alcoholic beverage sales or would be grandfathered as an existing nonconforming use. He stated he is assuming that Mr. Cunningham is saying it is okay with the City. Mr. Corwin stated he did not speak to Mr. Cunningham directly to get his interpretation; but based on his comments, the City did not raise any substantial issues. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it were annexed by the City, could Mr. Gadhia do what he wants; with Mr. Corwin responding once it is annexed by the City, it will be given a City land use designation and zoning classification; and the email advises that will happen or it will be grandfathered in as an existing nonconforming use. Commissioner Pritchard stated the applicant has made a passionate request saying that in order to survive, he has to go to this next level of service; and he also mentioned there is a Winn Dixie that sells alcohol, by which he assumes liquor. Mr. Gadhia advised there is a liquor store at Winn Dixie; a lot of his customers go there because in one stop they can buy beer, groceries, everything; he is a small business and has been there ten years; and in the last three years his sales started dropping. He noted two or three years ago is when they started the liquor store; Winn Dixie is in the City, which gave it permission; and it is only one block from the school while his store is three blocks from the school, so he wishes the Board would reconsider the item. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Gadhia is looking for a way to survive because the competition is now one up on him; it is not like this will be increasing the amount of drinking that takes place in the neighborhood; and it is just going to be more convenient for Mr. Gadhia’s customers to make it a one-stop shop. Mr. Gadhia stated he has to sell that item or he will have to change to another business, which would be difficult.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to move for denial; one of the reasons commercial business has been slack is because there has been some County roadwork around there; and the traffic has become very problematic. He stated all indications are that commercial traffic will increase; and there is a substantial difference in someone buying liquor when they are grocery shopping than from someone who uses a convenience store for a liquor store.

Chair Higgs stated she will support the motion because in this particular location it is a transition to a less intense commercial use down toward the residential area, so BU-1-A is appropriate zoning; and there are multiple uses that can be at that location.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item IV.B.2 as recommended by the LPA and P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is opposed because this type of sale already occurs in the vicinity; and what the Board is doing is denying the ability of this business owner to compete effectively in the community.

Item IV.B.3. (Z0408103) Donald L. and Dawn A. Ackerman’s request for change from SEU to RR-1 on 2.66 acres located on the east side of South Carpenter Road, north of Thal Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Chair Higgs inquired if the applicant is present; and no response was heard. She advised three speakers submitted cards.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no density issue with this item. Mr. Enos advised that is correct; this would not change density; and the issue involves horses.

Tom Stewart stated he is the nearest neighbor to the Ackermans to the south on Carpenter Road; he owns 1.1 acres abutting the front half of the subject property; and a change in zoning to allow horses on the Ackermans’ property would directly affect his family and the neighborhood environment. He stated the change from SEU to RR-1 is inconsistent with the established cohesive structure of the neighborhood; Rambling Acres has fought over the years to maintain the SEU designation as the standard for the area to maintain the original style and intent of the land use in the community; and the boarding of horses or any other farm animal on a lot under five acres does not conform to the original style or intent, nor does it void the rule through rezoning. He stated the potential negative environmental impacts from boarding horses in close proximity to the lake behind their properties are large; the nutrients from surface droppings or treated effluent onto an already seasonally stressed environment could lead to eutrophication and the subsequent infilling of the lake; and this would be detrimental to all of the surrounding housing and the community in general. He stated the proliferation of insects, specifically horseflies and deerflies, is already a problem in the lake area and would be increased; and the odor problem concomitant with animal droppings is something they wish to avoid. He stated he is aggrieved to have to contest the Ackermans’ application; but this zoning change would not be in the best interest of the County, the subdivision, or the community.

Howard Shaffer stated he lives in the same area as Mr. Stewart; and he does not wish for the change to be approved. He stated he is not against having horses in the area; but when it is changed to rural residential, it opens it up to all farm animals and fowl, which could include pigs, cows, sheep, goats, guineas, peacocks, etc.; and that is totally incompatible with the area they are in. He stated if there could be some way to give the Ackermans’ a variance on the SEU for one time to allow them to have horses, then most of the community would say it is okay; but to arbitrarily change it to rural residential, which opens it to everything, is not compatible.

Gloria Heiden stated the applicant wanted to put four horses on the property; their lots are an acre, but they are close; she has been there for 30 years and her house was the first house built in the area; and they have protected the lake behind her house since the water tables were lowered when I-95 went through. She advised the neighbors do not fertilize their backyards so as to protect the water; Mr. Ackerman also wants to put a barn in the front of his lot; and the barn and horses will not be compatible with the area, which is zoned SEU for several miles.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a larger subdivision with upscale houses; and they are trying to keep an integrity there. He inquired if the applicant contacted Mr. Enos about tonight’s meeting; with Mr. Enos responding no.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item IV.B.3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.4. Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item IV.B.6. (Z0408202) Kyong Sum and Micha Kim’s request for change from BU-2 to RU-2-15 on 0.25 acre located on the east side of South Banana River Drive, north of Worley Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan that also amends an existing BDP (Z-10696) for the adjacent Marina Village project that will limit the development to an over-55 community.

Chair Higgs advised this item involves a change in density.

Rochelle Lawandales stated if this falls into the category of changing zoning that Commissioner Scarborough is uncomfortable with tonight, she would request the item be tabled. She stated she thinks this piece is a little different; it is part of a larger project; it is a .25 acre piece of land that is nonconforming on South Banana River Drive; and this request would make the parcel part of and conforming with the rest of the Marina Village project. She stated it is a little store that has been there for many years; and submitted maps and pictures. She stated the store was badly damaged during the hurricanes; and she would appreciate approval of the change in zoning from BU-2 to RU-2-15.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this falls into the same category as the others; and suggested tabling it to November 4, 2004. Ms. Lawandales agreed.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item IV.B.6 to the November 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.8. Item withdrawn from Agenda.

Item IV.B.9. (Z0408402) A. Duda & Sons, Inc.’s request for change from GU to AGR on 9.17± acres located 0.33 mile west of the western terminus of Wickham Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.B.11. Item was withdrawn from Agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2004

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board of September 2, 2004, as follows:

Item IV.D.1. (NMI40801) William B. and Denise G. Christopher’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.705 acres located on the north side of North Tropical Trail, north of Church Road, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is going to increase the density so it falls into the same category. Chair Higgs inquired is the Board not doing diminimous impact; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes, that is still established if there is only an increase of one unit. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to deal with the compatibility of the zoning; and she is not sure what the recommendation for denial was based on.

Denise Christopher stated she and her husband have owned the property since 1985 and have lived on North Merritt Island for over 25 years; and she has lived on Merritt Island for almost 40 years. She stated they have applied to rezone their property from AU to RR-1; and they would like to deed one acre of property to their daughter and her family who just returned from California where their son-in-law was serving in the Air Force. She stated it has no bearing on the zoning, but her husband has multiple myeloma, which is bone cancer; and they would like for her daughter and her family to be able to build a home on the front of their property to help in keeping up with the property as well as assisting with her husband when she is unable to do so due to working full-time. She stated most of the property from the corner of Church Street and North Tropical Trail headed north on the west side of the road is two-plus acres; however, within .3 mile of her property there are three parcels that are only one acre and within another .3 mile, there is another parcel that is only 1.25 acres, which is among a lot of other parcels that are over three acres; and that sets the precedent for her rezoning. She stated she brought a map to show the Board the area; and pointed out her property, the one-acre properties, a riverfront property that is 1.25 acres, and another piece of property on the river that is 1.80 acres. She stated across the street the properties are all a little over or a little less than an acre; and some of the property is vacant with no homes. Ms. Christopher pointed out the last big parcel that was sold; noted it is broken up in an odd manner, with one section in front and two sections in the back; and how the property is broken up on North Merritt Island is not consistent. She stated on the east side of Merritt Island there are at least ten homes that are one acre or less; the Comprehensive Plan for that area allows for one unit per acre; and they do not feel their request is unreasonable. She stated it falls within the legal requirements based on the zoning for the area; they are not trying to develop the property for profit; and they would like for their family to be able to utilize the property. She stated when they decided to take this action, they went to the Zoning Department to gather information and find out what options they had; it was suggested they check with the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association; they went to the meeting and talked about their desire to rezone; and they did not receive any objection. She stated they went back to the Zoning Department and filed all the necessary paperwork; and they then went before the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board to present their request; and even though that board did not vote in favor, she felt there were mixed feelings from it as there was not a unanimous vote. She stated none of her neighbors on the west side of North Tropical Trail were present to voice any objection; and if her neighbors had an issue with it, they would have been there voicing it. She stated in 1999 no one from the corner of Church Street to 5795 North Tropical Trail had city water; some of the neighbors drafted a petition to get city water; the ones that wanted it signed it; and the ones that did not voiced their opinions loud and clear. She stated they got the city water; it stops at her property; and the ones that did not want it do not have it. She stated their plan is to deed one acre of the property to their married daughter who has two children; their daughter was born and grew up in Merritt Island and is a graduate of Merritt Island High School; and she wants her children to attend the local schools and be around their grandfather as their presence brings a sparkle to his eye and joy to his heart. She stated in order to preserve the orange trees they planted, they have plans to build the house approximately 70 feet from the road where trees are sparse; and they will transplant the others if necessary. She stated the house will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet; and she brought a picture of her property to show the Board how far off the road her property sits. She stated one can barely see her house from SR 3; but on the properties she showed on the map, the houses are as close to the road as what she is planning. She requested the Board approve her rezoning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated over the years the Board struggled a lot with the idea of property not being subdivided but utilized because of a family connection; and there is some benefit in having the family unit. He stated historically on a farm the son would build a house nearby and there would be a cluster or compound; and as the parents got older, having the children living there was nice. He inquired is there any way to have a greater latitude if the property is not being subdivided but is being developed as a compound for family members and not being leased out. He stated the problem was there was a concern it may become a commercial venture once things started changing hands, even though it was well intended; with time it begins to take on a character of its own; but the community seems to support these arrangements while it does not like the Board playing with zoning maps and the potential commercialization of the activity with leasing out of a portion. Mr. Knox stated the only thing
that comes to mind initially is a condition that would limit it to that kind of use for a period of time. Mr. Enos stated there are a couple of options that are available; one is a guest house that can be used to house temporary guests or family members permanently; but the problem with that is it is limited to not having a kitchen and being no more than half the size of the main house so that it remains an accessory use to the main house. He stated the other option is the second kitchen facility, which is essentially an addition to the main house, but has limitations as to size and must have an internal connection to the main house so it is all one large house.

Jeffrey Norgren stated he is here to support the Christophers’ request; he has lived in North Merritt Island for 16 years; and the Christophers are not close friends, but are neighbors. He stated he lives approximately three miles from the Christophers; he went to the North Merritt Island Advisory Board meeting; and he thought the Christophers were treated horribly by people in the audience and by the Advisory Board. He stated there was discussion this evening about density; there was concern about extra services and schools; but he understands the Christophers’ children and grandchildren are living with them at this time, so from a personal standpoint, there is no density problem. He stated it is the same as it would be if they built an additional house; and the County would reap the benefits of the impact fee for education; but if this is denied, there is no impact fee gained by the County but the children would still be going to County schools and living with their grandparents.

Ms. Christopher stated she appreciates Mr. Norgren speaking on her behalf; and she wants to elaborate a little. She stated there are a couple of properties with two homes on them; people originally built a house and lived in it, and then later they built the house they wanted on the river. She stated since she has never been in either of them, she cannot say if they have two full kitchens; but it is a good size piece of property they are built on. She stated other people have built mother-in-law quarters; it is not something that has not been done; and her neighbors have seen the zoning, and nobody came to say they had an issue with the rezoning. She stated if they had disapproved, they would have been present.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is an area that is in some transition; looking at Crisafulli Road, there are a few lots north of the subject property where there is a different category of zoning that is denser; and notwithstanding the applicant’s argument about the need for family being close, in many cases the properties have become a little too much to manage in terms of the taxes; so the Board will be seeing more applicants coming in over the course of time asking to subdivide with a flag lot. He stated he is not aware of any of this size that are encouraging more than two units on the entire property; and generally it is a division of thirds or half and half. He stated besides the emotional content of the argument, there is the property itself; the area is in transition; and he would encourage the Board to support the request for rural residential.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.1. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is when they get along the lagoon, he has to look vertically rather than horizontally because that is where the pattern lies; in looking north and south, all he sees is AU; and nobody is here in opposition; however, Mr. Norgren advised that there were people at the Advisory Board meeting who were not happy with this application, so he assumes there are some people who are not happy who are not present this evening. He stated he has a problem breaking a pattern in zoning; and he does not have enough information to support the motion.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be better to table the item and get more information; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is sympathetic to the applicant and would prefer to table than to deny.

Commissioner Colon stated she agrees with trying to work something out with the different scenarios that were given instead of denying it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it would be better if this was brought back; and since so many items have been tabled to November, this could be tabled to December.

Chair Higgs stated the staff on page 17, number 6, says “Properties in this area north of Church Road are predominantly zoned AU with an ownership pattern of 2.5 acre holdings or greater. There are two exceptions, a 1.26 RR-1, which was rezoned in 1991 and a .58 acre parcel southeast that was granted vested rights as a legal building site. Based on the foregoing the Board should evaluate compatibility of introducing RR-1 in this area.” She advised those comments need to be kept in mind in any consideration of the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item IV.D.1 to the December 2, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.2. (NMI40802) Andrew and Melissa Banyai’s request for change from GU to SR on 6.22 acres located on the west side of Spartina Avenue, south of Oak Lake Place, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to four homesites, each with a minimum of one-acre lot and each home to have a minimum of 2,000 square feet of living area and a $4,445 per unit school contribution.

Chair Higgs advised this is an increase in density from one unit to four units.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is the same path the Board traveled; it has tabled items to November 4; and since the November agenda is getting crowded, this could go to December.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item IV.D.2 to the December 2, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.3. (NMI40701) Chauncey Patrick Dunn and Carol Anne Dunn’s request for change from SR to RR-1 on one acre located on the east side of Patti Drive, north of Fay Drive, which was withdrawn by applicant.

Item IV.D.4. Item withdrawn from agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider recommendations on administrative rezonings made by the P&Z Board at its September 20, 2004 meeting, as follows:

Item IV.E.1. Sections 35.01, Townships 25 and 26, Range 36, Sub. TG, Lot 1 owned by Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc., located on the south side of Viera Boulevard, east of Holiday Springs Road, proposed to change from IU, subject to BCP, to PIP, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated all of the other administrative items have a binding development plan, but this one does not. Planner Todd Corwin advised the properties that border the Holiday Springs subdivision have a binding development plan; and the applicant agreed to submit a binding development plan for those properties that border the built residential portion of Suntree.

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

Item IV.E.2. Section 36, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 505, 513, 751, and 795, owned by Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc., located adjacent to the south side of Viera Boulevard, west of U.S. 1, proposed to change from IU, subject to BCP, to PIP, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.3. Section 01, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. TG, Lot 2, owned by Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc., located south of Viera Boulevard, west of U.S. 1, proposed to change from IU, subject to BCP, to PIP subject to Binding Development Plan requiring maintaining of a 71-foot buffer on the southern boundary of the property adjacent to Holiday Springs at Suntree Subdivision, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.4. Sections 01 and 02, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. TG, Lot 3, owned by Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc., located south of Viera Boulevard and west of U.S. 1, proposed to change from IU, subject to BCP, to PIP, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item IV.E.5. Section 02, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. TG, Lot B, owned by Viera Boulevard Commerce Park, located south of Viera Boulevard and west of U.S. 1, proposed to change from IU, subject to BCP, to PIP, which was recommended for approval by P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.E.5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, SECTIONS 62-1541 AND
62-1542, REMOVING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES FROM PIP AND PBP ZONES

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing on an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Sections 62-1541 and 62-1542, removing single-family homes from PIP and PBP zones.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations”, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division 4, Subdivision VIII; specifically amending Section 62-1541 “Planned Business Park (PBP)”, and Section 62-1542 “Planned Industrial Park”; amending Article VI, Division 5, Subdivision II; specifically creating Section 62-1841.9 “Single Family Residences”; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida.

Planner Todd Corwin stated the ordinance, as proposed, will remove single-family residence as a permitted use from PIP and PBP; the purpose is to potentially remove incompatible uses from an industrial classification; but a single-family residence would be permitted with condition that the property owner already owned the property prior to the effective date of the Ordinance or is in an area where it is deed restricted for residential purposes only.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there were problems on North Merritt Island with PIP and residential zonings where they had to turn the house just to meet setback requirements; and inquired if this is assisting in that effort. He stated he recalls that the house was turned sideways in PIP, but in rural residential, they were able to place the house facing the road.

Mr. Corwin stated the proposed ordinance does not assist in that issue; the ordinance is for a property owner who already owns property; they could construct a house within the current setbacks within PIP; but it does not address the issue of the side setbacks. He stated what it would do is for a new property owner who purchased property after the effective date of the ordinance is prohibit that person from building a single-family house in PIP. Commissioner Pritchard stated that person would have to go through a rezoning request; with Mr. Corwin responding yes, and a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the purpose of doing this; with Mr. Corwin responding there was a recommendation within a Small Area Study that was within the Viera area; the issue is that Planned Industrial Park is an industrial classification that is typically a campus-like setting with office buildings and some accessory commercial uses; and in certain areas of the County, single-family houses were being built in areas that were zoned and designated for industrial uses. He stated the driving issue is that when single-family houses are built in areas where there are industrial uses there could be future incompatibilities. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board did administrative rezonings in the North Merritt Island area. Mr. Corwin advised in North Merritt Island, there was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and administrative rezonings to change properties from PIP to residential; and the issue Commissioner Pritchard was speaking of involved the applicant coming in and submitting a Small Scale Plan amendment request. Commissioner Pritchard stated the properties were off D’Albora Road. Ms. Busacca stated that problem was fixed with a separate direction.

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

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.

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

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)