MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

October 3, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 3, 2002, at 5:39 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Sue Carlson, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley. Absent was: *Commissioner Jackie Colon.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Randy O'Brien.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: DENYING APPLICATION FOR REZONING FILED BY
HAROLD KURZ, TRUSTEE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution denying application for rezoning filed by Harold Kurz, Trustee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
APRIL 8, 2002 AND JULY 8, 2002

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meetings of April 8, and July 8, 2002, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0207203) George W. and Stella M. Lewis and Irving A. and Alice S. Bubek and Panorama Mobile Home Park, Inc.’s request for change from BU-1 with a BCP and CUP’s for Professional Offices and Sewer Facility, and RU-1-11 to RU-2-15, removing the existing BCP and the two CUP’s on 9.21± acres located on the east side of South Tropical Trail, which came to the Board with no recommendation from the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated a letter was received from the applicant’s attorney requesting the item be tabled until after the November 5, 2002 election.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 1 to December 5, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0204104) Statewide Materials, Inc.’s request for CUP for Land Alteration in an IU zone on 12.28± acres located north of Golden Knights Boulevard and east of Tico Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as an expansion of the existing borrow pit.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised staff received a letter from the applicant requesting Item 2 be tabled to November 7, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 2 to November 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of September 9, 2002, as follows:

Item 3. (Z0209302) Bonnie E. Douglas, Kathleen Douglas-Clasen, C. Steven Douglas, Michael D. Douglas, and Connie S. Douglas’ request for change from GU to AU on 104.03 acres located south of the southern terminus of Woods Trail and west of the F.E.C.R.R., which came to the Board with no recommendation by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the applicant requested Item 3 be withdrawn.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
APRIL 8, 2002 AND JULY 8, 2002 (CONTINUED)

Item 3. (Z0205401) Dianne M. Cullen and Desiree M. Webber’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and change from GU to BU-2 on 1.97 acres located on the south side of Freeman Lane east of Waelti Drive, which was recommended for approval as Community Commercial by the LPA and as BU-2 by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Scarborough advised of the time limits for addressing the Board.

Attorney Marcy LaHart, representing the applicant, stated when someone buys or adopts a dog, they should be making a life-long commitment; if people lived up to those commitments, Desiree Webber’s rescue operation would not be needed; but the reality is people give up their dogs with little or no reason; and consequently thousands of animals are destroyed in this County alone every year. She stated New Leash provides a valuable community service by re-homing some of the throwaway dogs; and they do a good job of it. She stated before a dog is adopted from New Leash, there is a thorough application and pre-screening process; and Ms. Webber takes back any dog that does not work out in its new home. She stated regardless of the testimony the Board will hear, the rezoning decision the Board makes must be made on the merits of the application as compared to the criteria for rezoning in County Code. She stated Ms. Webber does not live in a gated golf course community on a quarter of an acre; she lives at the end of a dirt road adjacent to a warehouse and a stormwater retention pond; there is one other home and two other landowners who wish to build homes in the area; and in recognition of their property rights, Ms. Webber is prepared to make serious concessions so she can continue her rescue operation. She submitted paperwork to the Chairman and the Clerk; and stated Ms. Webber has agreed not to squander her limited resources on puppies who are more likely to be adopted than older dogs, so as a special condition she agrees to not take pregnant dogs or puppies less than nine months old. She stated Ms. Webber has agreed not to take any dog with a bite history; and she will construct separate enclosed kennel areas, one which will be quarantine for new arrivals, one that will house adult dogs, and one that will house special needs dogs. She stated in order to keep the noise under control, Ms. Webber will not allow any dogs to be outside after dark; and she is amenable to putting in additional sanitation and septic as determined by the site plan process. She stated every dog on the property will be spayed/neutered, vaccinated, licensed, and given monthly flea and tick control; she agrees to submit a site plan within 90 days; she agrees to have her yard sprayed for fleas and ticks on a monthly basis; and she agrees to a limitation on the number of permanent residents. She stated Ms. Webber is asking for a distinction between permanent residents that will never be adopted as opposed to dogs that are adoptable; some adoptable dogs are only on the property for a week; and she agrees to reduce the number of dogs within six months to whatever limitation the Board determines is fair.

Holly Myers, representing the applicant, stated Ms. Webber and Ms. Cullen are requesting a change in land use from neighborhood commercial to community commercial, and also a rezoning from GU to BU-2; and pointed out the Webber/Cullen property on the aerial. She stated surrounding the property are the Dusa Manufacturing property, County retention ponds, the Florida East Coast Railroad, Wickham Road, and Waelti Road; immediately south of the salvage yard are PJS Excavating Company, a warehouse, and a property that has been cleared for storage facilities; the warehouse houses semi-retail type uses; and there are also a daycare center, single-family housing known as the Wheeler property, a property on which the current property owner intends to build a house, but currently stores his vehicles for his pool service company, and a cleared property known as the Stephens property on which the intent is to build a house. She pointed out a single family house that is a homestead exemption property and an old house on property that is used for outdoor storage. She stated the applicant has no problem with the items submitted by staff for the land use plan amendment; pointed out the applicants’ house; and advised the 80 feet that is referred to in the report as far as distance between houses is from property to property. She stated the area is all neighborhood commercial, including the Wheeler property, Stephens property, the Johnson property, and two other properties located immediately north. She stated the change in land use from neighborhood commercial to community commercial would constitute an infill commercial change in the Comprehensive Plan to an area that is located on Waelti Road and Wickham Road, which currently has approximately 1,500,000 square feet of area. She advised of the zoning in the area as being GU-2, government use, BU-2, and BU-1; stated the GU zoning includes the properties that are located on the north side of Freeman Lane, which includes the Webber property and Stephens property; and pointed out an RU-2 property for which there is an existing ancient plan, and the excavation area for the trucking company. She stated there is an industrial zoning classification where the warehouses are located; and there is a salvage yard to the north. She stated the question before the Board today is whether BU-2 and community commercial would be appropriate for the area; probably the biggest issues are compatibility and consistency; and they met with the neighbors in the area in a productive meeting. She stated the compatibility issues are specific to the particular use being proposed, which is a kennel; Ms. Webber moved to the property and started a kennel unaware the property was not properly zoned; a Code violation was filed; and Ms. Webber has filed for rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment. She stated the neighbors have defined what they consider to be proper standards for a kennel, which include the list of conditions the applicant submitted, including separate housing for dogs in different types of units, a quarantine area, and a drainage system and all the things that will be needed for the property.

Chairman Scarborough stated Ms. Webber also submitted a card. Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Webber is allowed to say what she wants as a resident, but she does have her attorney present. Chairman Scarborough inquired was it Ms. Webber’s desire to speak; with Ms. LaHart responding she did not discuss that with Ms. Webber, but does not think it is necessary.

Marty Stephens stated she is the landowner across from Ms. Webber; her husband was at the meeting earlier today, but she was unable to attend; and she loves animals and believes Ms. Webber is doing a wonderful thing, but this is not the right place to do it. She stated she has grandchildren; she wanted to build a house on her property; and this has stopped their plans. She stated they had their property before Ms. Webber bought her property; and Ms. Webber and the lady from whom Ms. Webber bought the property knew of their intention to build a home. She stated she mentioned she was going to keep a few dogs as a rescue, but not 70 dogs; and this is not the place for those dogs. She stated she and her husband worked their whole lives to save money to buy their property to build a house; this situation has been going on for six months; she wishes the people who are here would help Ms. Webber purchase property somewhere else; and she is totally against the rezoning.

Richard Kerns stated he is a friend of Cecil Stephens, and helped him on his land; he also helped Ms. Webber; and he has seen how the dogs are living in the dirt and their own feces. He stated one dog bit him; and advised of an incident when two dogs kept him and Mr. Stephens from getting out of their truck. He stated he is scared to get out of the truck when he goes there because he does not know if the dogs are going to be loose; and expressed concern about a dog going after a child and the presence of a daycare in the neighborhood. He reiterated he has been bitten and chased back into his car; and inquired what will happen if a bunch of dogs get out and go to the daycare center. He stated he does not condemn what Ms. Webber is doing; but it is in the wrong place. He stated he does not bring his mother to the property because she is afraid of dogs, and he does not want to take a chance of one of the dogs getting out and chasing her. He stated the dogs are living in filth; Mr. and Mrs. Stephens are just trying to make a decent home for their retirement; Mr. Stephens has spent a lot of time on this; and they have run into a brick wall. He stated the Stephens are trying to do something decent as is Ms. Webber, but she is in the wrong spot; and he would not want to live there. He inquired if the Commissioners would want to build a house there and have their grandchildren walking around with all the dogs being loose.

Troy Stephens, speaking on behalf of his parents Marty and Cecil Stephens, stated his parents own land on Freeman Lane; they worked hard all their lives to get that property to build on for their retirement; he has nothing against animals, and has two dogs and two cats; but all four of his animals have a kennel, sleep at night, and are properly fed throughout the day. He inquired what is the number for too many; and stated he cannot take his wife or son to the property for fear of what might happen to them. He stated he is just trying to make his parents happy by letting them build the house of their dreams; and he hopes in the end everyone does the right thing.

Laura Wheeler stated she is a property owner on Freeman Lane; and pointed out her property on the map. She stated she loves animals, and is a puppy raiser for the Southeastern Guide Dogs for the Blind; so she is much in favor of dogs. She stated what Ms. Webber is doing is fantastic; but it is in the wrong place. She stated she does not meet the Administrative Policies or Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and legally she should not be doing what she is doing where she is, and should not have more than four dogs. She read aloud Administrative Policy 3, “Compatibility with existing or proposed land uses shall be a factor in determining where a rezoning or any application involving a specific proposed use is being considered. Compatibility should be evaluated by considering the following factors at a minimum: Criteria, whether the proposed use would have hours of operation.” She stated Ms. Webber moved in and is currently illegally operating; she has shown that she is not compatible with the property currently; she does not have hours of operation; and she is trying to take care of 85 dogs at once with only one volunteer. She stated they only meet by appointment; and she is not meeting the odor standards; the odor is tremendous; and the noise level is not meeting the noise standard. She stated she had someone over last night, and they had to speak above the noise of the dogs; she previously submitted pictures showing that her dog was mutilated; and when out jogging, she had a pack of dogs come at her. She expressed concern about the daycare center, the children, and the dogs. She stated the emerging and existing pattern is transition; the historical land use pattern has been residential and neighborhood commercial; it is in transition; the Johnsons and Stephens are trying to build; and the area is trying to be residential. She stated currently Ms. Webber is residential; if the property was to be zoned agricultural, which is what Ms. Webber needs, kennels could not be put within 300 feet of a residence, which is what she has. She stated it is adversely affecting the character of the neighborhood; everyone surrounding Ms. Webber does not want the kennel there; it is not a proper area; and they do not want it to be BU-2. She stated the two BU-2 areas that are currently there are what is called sporadic neighborhood commercial in Administrative Policy 4B2; those areas do not mess up the character of the area because of the green buffer; and their access is from Waelti Drive rather than Freeman Lane. She stated the area is not compatible with a kennel; it is dirt road that is not built for a commercial area; and it is a residential area. She stated Ms. Webber put herself in this position; she has limited her own options as to what she wants to do because she tried to do it before getting the proper licenses and zoning; and they have been able to adequately prove non-compatibility. She stated this would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; the zoning map should not be changed just for Ms. Webber; and she should get her act together and find a suitably zoned area for the dogs so they can be adequately cared for or adopted out. She reiterated Ms. Webber got herself into this position; and stated it should not be the responsibility of the neighborhood to get her out of it as it is the applicant’s responsibility to prove that what she wants to do meets the zoning requirements. She stated Ms. Webber has failed to prove compatibility.

Susan Canada stated she went to Ms. Webber’s property on Sunday with her two-year old grandson who is afraid of dogs; and he had no problem. She stated there was no odor; they watched two blind puppies chasing each other; the animals were well cared for; there were no feces around; and the area was immaculate. She stated her grandson enjoyed his visit; and there was no problem with the dogs doing anything to her grandson. She stated across the street from Ms. Webber is a travel trailer and several vehicles that did not look like they were in use; the trailer has no business being there; and that part worries her. She stated the trailer has no business being there; it is a zoning violation; and she is worried about the old cars being there with children around. She stated as for the dog that was mutilated, it dug under Ms. Webber’s fence; and there was a leash law violation on the part of the dog’s owner. She stated there is no smell and no feces; from what she saw of the area many other people are in violation; and many of the businesses had ongoing violations. She stated Ms. Webber rented this property for almost eight months before she bought it; if there were complaints, something should have been said; and Ms. Webber made it clear to the lady she was buying the property from that she wanted a rescue. She stated she checked with a real estate attorney, and if Ms. Webber wanted to, she could try to sue because the property was not compatible with what she was told she could do there. She stated in the area there is one property zoned RU-2, one zoned BU-2, two that are GU-2, two that are BU-1, one that is IU-1, and Ms. Webber’s GU-1; it is not a typical residential community; there is a lot of mixed zoning; and the proper thing to do is change Ms. Webber’s zoning. She stated she has not heard noise; she has called Ms. Webber at different hours of the day and is not going to say she never heard a dog barking, but there is no ongoing barking; and it is no different than anyone’s dog would bark. She commented on violations on other properties; and suggested Zoning may need to look at the whole area and do something to make it compatible for everyone there.

Mary McKenzie stated she finds it interesting that the numerous times she has been to Ms. Webber’s property to help her with the dogs, no dog has ever come at her or attacked her; she has walked through all of the areas that are fenced, and helped with the fencing; and she finds it hard to believe that the dogs have gone after anyone since she has not had a problem and Ms. Canada just said she had no problem.

Marcy LaHart stated the question before the Board is whether the use that is proposed by the applicant is consistent with the future land use as specified in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element for this property, which is neighborhood commercial; Ms. Webber wants to continue to rescue dogs; that is a valuable community service; and the use of her property as a kennel is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and can be compatible with the surrounding uses. She stated the special conditions she proposed go a long way toward making it compatible with the surrounding neighbors; the kennel can be safe, clean, and quiet; and one special condition she meant to include was that Ms. Webber will put a privacy fence on the perimeter of her property where it abuts her neighbors.

Commissioner Higgs stated number 9 says limitation on permanent dogs and limitation on adoptable dogs; and inquired is there a number they will be limited to; with Ms. LaHart responding no, that was something to be discussed tonight.

Chairman Scarborough inquired how many times has Animal Control been to the property; with Interim Director of Animal Services and Enforcement Craig Engelson responding seven times. Chairman Scarborough inquired what are Mr. Engelson’s responsibilities; with Mr. Engelson responding he oversees the North and South Animal Care and Adoption Centers and all the enforcement operations for Animal Services in the County. Chairman Scarborough stated he has heard two completely different depictions of the property this evening; and inquired what did Mr. Engelson see when he went out to the property. Mr. Engelson stated one time when they went out they found 62 dogs on the property; at that time there was a severe tick infestation; every dog had numerous ticks; and Ms. Webber admitted she was having a huge problem with ticks because of the wooded area. He stated they checked every pen; it was not feeding time, but all the animals had water; they were not allowed inside the residence at that time, but she did offer to bring the animals outside; and they found only four dogs that needed some level of medical treatment, which Ms. Webber agreed to take care of. He noted most of that was for some level of hair loss; they gave her ten days; and when they went back to re-inspect, they went inside the home, found it to be fairly clean with no problems; and for the most part, the tick problem had been taken care of. He stated Ms. Webber asked for assistance in locating volunteers; and several of the agencies have assisted Ms. Webber with dipping of the animals and spray for the yard. He stated there have been a couple of reports of her animals running at large; those animals have been impounded and citations were issued; but there have been no reports other than the animal versus animal attack, for which they were unable to find a witness to exactly what had happened; and there are no human bites or aggressive animal reports on file. He stated the first time they dealt with this in July 2001, they found 45 canines; most of them had current rabies vaccinations and were in fairly good health; some of the pens lacked proper shelter, but that has been corrected; and although they were unable to go inside the residence at that time, Ms. Webber claimed to have 18 canines in the residence. He stated there was a last report of an incident where a gentleman found one of Ms. Webber’s dogs loose and covered with ticks; he took it to a veterinarian for treatment; Ms. Webber found out he was there and came to claim the dog; the Sheriff’s Department was called to settle the dispute; and the dog was returned to Ms. Webber. He stated an Animal Control officer went back to Ms. Webber’s property and found a couple of dogs with ticks, although not nearly the problem there was before; and she has corrected the problem.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Engelson is aware of a requirement for licensing for an animal care facility such as this; with Mr. Engelson responding no. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a paper from Environmental Health that refers to having an animal care facility; and inquired if there is a definition or licensing procedure, and is that required or not. Mr. Engelson responded the North and South Animal Care Centers went through license procedures to get permitting just like any other business; there are regulations dealing with kennels; and suggested Zoning staff might be able to assist. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated those regulations are not in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is nothing in the Code that lays out standards for kennels, and does another agency do that; with Mr. Enos responding it is not in the Zoning Code, but he does not know if it is another part of the Code. Attorney Bentley advised it would either be in the Zoning or Animal Services Divisions of the Code. Commissioner Carlson inquired if someone gets zoning for a kennel, what standards do they have to live by, and how would those standards be applied in this situation. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated aside from the zoning requirements, a kennel would have to come in for site plan requirements, which would be the structure, setbacks, parking, and that kind of thing; under BU-2, Ms. Webber could be required to go through the site plan process; but what Commissioner Carlson seems to be describing is licensure through the State, which is not required under County Code. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows Ms. Webber’s attorney provided eleven special conditions; there is nothing like this under the Code; and she wondered if this is something the Board should be doing or is there something under the Code it needs to be looking at to establish some sort of conditions for this usage. Mr. Enos advised if the Board chooses to approve this, it could rely on those conditions that were submitted as a binding development plan in its deliberations.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has never seen anything like this; and inquired if the Board has ever addressed the ages of puppies and the demeanor of dogs before in a binding development plan; with Attorney Bentley responding she does not think so. Chairman Scarborough stated it is unusual; with Attorney Bentley advising there would be some enforcement difficulties.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is interested in knowing what the other Commissioners think; she had meetings with both sides, but there is no consensus; the issue has been spelled out by some of the speakers in that the property owners went into the property knowing they had a use in mind, but not knowing what the Code said; and things have gotten out of control in terms of the numbers of animals and things like that. She stated for this property the limitation is four dogs; there are over 60 dogs, so there need to be some limitations on the property; and compatibility is an issue. She stated the Board heard the pros and cons about the compatibility; it is a different sort of issue than the Board has ever dealt with; and that is why she was concerned about setting standards out of the blue like this without having standards laid out in front of the Board. She stated she wonders, from a legal perspective, if this is something the Board should be entering into; there are other rescue facilities in the County, but she does not know what conditions they have set on them; and she does to know whether what the Board is doing is setting precedent. Attorney Bentley advised what is before the Board is a land use or zoning question; and the primary question is whether it meets the Code criteria and the directives of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Carlson requested staff review the issue compatibility issue for the Board. Mr. Enos stated in considering rezoning applications, one of the things the Board should consider is compatibility, which is provided in the Code or Comprehensive Plan; the kind of evidence the Board heard tonight about noise, odor, and safety is permissible evidence to consider; and typically BU-2 zoning is not considered to be compatible with residential uses without special conditions that may be attached to mitigate some of the negative impacts. He stated on the other hand, this is a neighborhood in transition so there are many considerations for the Board’s deliberation.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is trying to separate the issue of land use from the issue of the use that is being made of the property at this moment; the Code talks about roads and BU-2 and community commercial uses; and requested staff speak to that issue. Mr. Enos stated commercial uses, BU-1 and BU-2, should be located at the intersections of major arterial and collector roads; that is not the circumstance here; and there are provisions that allow for consideration of strip commercial along major highways, which is also not the circumstance here. He stated this is a block that is extending northward from Wickham Road; the consideration is whether the Board wants to take that existing commercial block and continue to expand it northerly and whether it considers that to be an expansion into a residential area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is road criteria, but it is really on Wickham Road for the community commercial and expands southward to this property. Planner Todd Corwin stated within the Comprehensive Plan, there are locational policies for both community commercial and neighborhood commercial; community commercial clusters of up to ten acres should be located at arterial/arterial intersections, but collector/arterial intersections are also acceptable; neighborhood commercial has similar locations criteria except it can be at less intense intersections such as collector/arterial or collector/arterial intersections; and there are also policies for strip commercial. He stated those locational criteria are for new commercial land use designations; the particular property in question is already designated commercial as is the entire block; and there are also transitional policies within the Comprehensive Plan. He stated there are two issues here; one deals with the neighborhood commercial as it currently exists, and whether that is an appropriate transition from the community commercial uses to the south and east of the subject property to the residential uses to the north and northwest; but as the entire area is already designated commercial, the issue is whether or not this is an appropriate location for residential uses or is it an appropriate location for community commercial uses. He stated it comes to a compatibility and character issue and whether or not this is a neighborhood in transition or is it an existing neighborhood that is going to stay that way in the future. Commissioner Higgs stated there is community commercial and BU-2 and IU uses at both ends; and there is a little enclave around Freeman Avenue that has neighborhood commercial, which is less intense with some GU and BU-1 uses. She stated it is a very difficult situation because it is coming from both sides; and on the railroad side, there is some industrial and it is very intense on the other side. She stated there are no standards for the development of the site plan; and inquired what criteria would apply to the site plan, and would they only be those in the binding development plan and the normal commercial site plan criteria. Mr. Enos stated as part of the site plan process, staff would review the standards that would be in the Zoning Code as well as anything in the binding development plan; and there are other standards in the Land Development Code that deal with issues like parking, drainage retention, buffering, location of structures on the property, fencing and that sort of thing. Commissioner Higgs stated a question was raised at one meeting about the southern half of the property being allowed to have the BU-2 use and the northern half being BU-1, with the binding development plan applying to the southern half; but she does not see that reflected in any way in the binding development plan; and inquired if that has been discussed. Ms. LaHart responded it is something the applicant is amenable to.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is comfortable making decisions on the BU-2 and residential combination, she has no problem; but obviously some significant constraints are needed, which is part of the issue the Board is dealing with.

Chairman Scarborough stated he wishes the Board had a more comprehensive ordinance as to how kennels should be operated; that may be part of the problem; and if that were in place, some of the things would not be evolving in a binding development plan. He stated a binding development plan should be how something is developed, not how it is operated; otherwise it gets into all kinds of things. He stated he knows the Board has done binding development plans on things like hours of operation and things like that; but this is really comprehensive; and if the Board is going to do this, it needs to go to the number of dogs, because that was offered but left open. He stated that is going to answer the concerns of the community because that seems to be at the heart of the concerns; and inquired if the list of special conditions was distributed to the people who spoke in opposition.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated she remembers one discussion on kennels where the Board applied requirements to the binding development plan in terms of interior runs, things to address the issue of noise, restrictions in terms of outdoor uses, and those kinds of criteria; and since there is no Code to allow strict standards for a kennel, the Board is left with the binding development plan mechanism to do that.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Engelson knows of any State licensing procedures that govern kennels; with Mr. Engelson responding he does not know, but can do a lot of research. Mr. Engelson stated what they normally do is go to the Humane Society of the United States or the American Humane Association, and request they send plans of shelters, how they look, and how large they are; and there are enough housing kennels around the County for people going on vacation that they could probably find out where they got their development plans from.

Commissioner O'Brien stated they are addressing the other part of what Commissioner Higgs brought up, which are the concerns about noise and smell. Chairman Scarborough stated another concern is the dogs getting loose; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the major concern is not dogs getting loose, but constant barking and the possibility of heavy odor. He
advised the Board did something in District 1 for a kennel about five years ago; a restriction on the number of animals is important; and not everybody will be happy; but it will help to resolve the problem.

Commissioner Higgs stated it may be possible to work some of that out; the Board should be careful in thinking about a particular use for this property; the Board also has to deal with the overall issue of what is the proper zoning and land use in this area; and that is a tough question because there is already commercial use established there as well as GU. She stated the Board does not know that Ms. Webber will own this property forever, so it needs to be comfortable, if it allows a BU-1 or BU-2 use, even if it sets criteria, that it is the proper zoning.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board needs to go there first; and once it has done that, it can go to the next issue.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board could restrict them to kennel only, and should they sell the property later, it would come back to the Board for the new owner to request another use.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is willing to discuss this; but since this was not shared with the community and the number of dogs seems to be critical for the discussion, he would prefer for Commissioner Carlson to take this back and work it one more round because otherwise it will be shooting in the dark. He stated the people who have come for this item on a number of occasions will hear the Board throwing out numbers, but will not have an opportunity to comment on the details. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be her expectation to get some feedback from Mr. Engelson on kennels and get a number that would be reasonable; and for the Board to try to come up with a number on its own is not reasonable. Chairman Scarborough inquired if it is acceptable to table it for another month for further work.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 3 to November 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough requested staff make a copy of the conditions and provide them to the people who spoke.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is particularly interested in seeing codes from around the State that might establish indoor runs, flexibility for animals in runs to get out to get air, and those kinds of issues; and if the Board could see what other communities are doing in terms of regulations, it would be helpful. Mr. Engelson stated most agencies have kennel inspections but do not set the standard, but he will look through the agencies to see how they do it.

Item 4. (Z0208101) Riverview Memorial, Inc.’s request for a CUP for Security Mobile Homes in AU and BU-2 zones on 27.53 acres located west of U.S. 1 and south of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for three years with two one-year administrative renewals.

Chairman Scarborough stated this was tabled because the applicant failed to appear at the last meeting; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is concerned that the Board has extended the CUP beyond what it should; and her motion would be to deny.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should explore what permanent security measures the applicant intends to implement to alleviate the continued need for security trailers.

Duncan MacKenzie stated the cemetery has been there about 30 years; it had security problems over the years; his father bought the cemetery approximately six years ago; he had security problems; and he put a fence in on Railroad Avenue, which has helped. He stated the trailer has been there for approximately 20 years; and the Board has been kind to grant conditional use to have it there. He stated the cemetery is too much for him; he is in the process of trying to sell it and clear the estate; and he is just trying to keep a lid on things until he can sell it to a professional company that knows how to manage and run cemeteries. He stated he is just trying to keep it going until he can sell it.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are certain places that do need security; sometimes the only type of security that works is to have someone living on the premises; he would imagine pranks could occur in a cemetery that would be of a nature that would cause emotional distress to loved ones; and there needs to be some form of security. He stated for the time being, since Mr. MacKenzie is in the process of the sale of the cemetery, it may be best to continue it for six months or a year until the new owner has decided how to do things. He stated to abandon security at a cemetery does not adversely affect just Mr. MacKenzie, but also anyone who has their loved ones buried there; and he does not think the Board would want to be a part of the cemetery not having that protection. He stated some compromise may be in order.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would be willing to extend it for six months; but this property had an extensive use of the security trailer, which is supposed to be a temporary use; and they have extended the time illegally, and are now asking for more. She stated she will agree to six months, but it needs to end.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 4 for a six-month extension. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 (CONTINUED)

Item 1. (Z0209202) Steve and Kellene Murdick’s request for change from GU to RR-1 on 1 acre located on the north side of James Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this was approved unanimously by the P&Z Board; and he will follow their advice.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are cards from applicants; there is also a card from John Bolen; and inquired if Mr. Bolen is in favor or against the rezoning. John Bolen responded he is in favor.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0209301) Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item 3. (Z0209302) Withdrawn at beginning of the meeting.

Item 4. (Z020941) The Waelti Family Limited Partnership and Eloise Waelti’s request for change from GU and PIP to all PIP with an amendment to the existing BDP on 18.36 acres located on the west side of Waelti Drive, north of Wickham Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Binding Development Plan will come back to the Board; with Chairman Scarborough responding that is the current policy.

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

Item 5. (Z0209402) Karen S. Strattan, Trustee’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on the westerly 200 feet only and change from AU to BU-2 with a BDP on the westerly 200 feet; and SR on the remainder of 2.02± acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Barnes Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the LPA for Community Commercial and by the P&Z Board for BU-2 with a BDP to prohibit businesses to be run from the warehouse units and SR on the remainder.

Commissioner Carlson stated there were no school issues involved with Item 5 as it involves just one unit. Mr. Enos advised that is correct; the applicant limited the residential request in the back to one unit; therefore, according to Board policy, there is no school issue. Commissioner Carlson inquired was there a compatibility issue; with Mr. Enos responding there was a question whether the BU-2 in the front was appropriate zoning; there is mostly BU-1 on the frontage and sporadic BU-2; and the applicant was willing to limit the use through a binding development plan to a mini-warehouse to address that issue.

Jake Wise, applicant, stated he is requesting a BU-2 zoning for a mini-warehouse; and the binding development plan goes further to define there will not be any businesses operating from the units and the hours of operation are limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the access is only to the commercial from US 1 with no access to the SR; with Mr. Wise responding that is correct; all access would be from US 1 with no access from the back of the site all the way to Rockledge Drive. Commissioner Carlson inquired where would the access be to the property behind; with Mr. Wise responding they currently have a driveway off Rockledge Drive. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a dirt road easement; with Mr. Wise responding there is an easement on the property, but the driveway is not on an easement.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board approved something similar to this on Merritt Island; and they added to the binding development plan that there be no water or sewer available to any of the units, and the only electricity would be for lighting only. Mr. Wise stated that would be fine; the only use is public storage; and some of the spaces would be air-conditioned.

Commissioner Carlson stated when the Board looked at mini-warehouses previously, it had a site plan, because mini-warehouses can be unsightly; in this case there is a compatibility issue because all the commercial is BU-1; and there may be some concern. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to get a site plan before approving; with Commissioner Carlson responding the Board should apply the same standard to everybody. Mr. Enos stated there is a site plan in the file, but it only shows the location of the structures on the property. Mr. Wise stated he did provide a conceptual plan; it is a typical warehouse storage facility, walled off on all three sides except for the entrance; and that would be the only point of ingress/egress from US 1. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Wise would mind having the site plan being made binding as part of the motion; with Mr. Wise responding that is no problem. Mr. Wise stated the Binding Development Plan requests BU-2 or all uses allowed in BU-1, so if the warehouse market drops, the owner could come back with a BU-1 use. Chairman Scarborough advised the Binding Development Plan will come back to the Board on the Consent Agenda.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 5 as BU-2 on the westerly 200 feet with Binding Site Plan and Binding Development Plan to prohibit businesses to be run from the warehouse units, prohibit water and sewer service to the units, and prohibit electrical service to the units other than for lighting; approve SR on the remainder of the property; and adopt Ordinance No. 02-51, setting forth Small Scale Amendment 02S.11. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0209403) A. Duda and Sons, Inc.’s request for a CUP for a Group Home in a PUD on 77.06± acres located west of Stadium Parkway and north of the Marlin training facility; and removing an existing CUP for a Group Home on 60.44± acres located on the east side of Stadium Parkway, north of Judge Fran Jamieson Way.

The item was withdrawn by the applicant.

The meeting recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:11 p.m.

Item 7. (Z0209404) SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.’s request for a CUP for a Cemetery and Mausoleum in an AU zone, retaining the existing BDP, and removing the existing CUP for a Cemetery on 18.9 acres located on the west side of U.S. 1 opposite and immediately south of Helmsman Place, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with the condition the 200-foot wide vegetative buffer along the north property line be replaced per the previous BDP, with an earthen berm of eight feet and native vegetation with eight-foot trees, and proper irrigation.

Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering, representing SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., stated this project was presented before the P&Z and was approved 6:4; after that meeting, he spoke with the objectors; one of their concerns was to cut the building down; and they agreed to reduce it to 25 feet as a maximum. He stated it might even be 23 feet, but they would like to reserve the extra two feet in case there are discrepancies with the plans. He stated this is an 18.9-acre property, which is contiguous to 100 acres of land; and they are proposing to put six mausoleums there. He stated they are trying to be neighborly; he knows there are some objectors present; they will be glad to answer their questions; and requested, since they are reducing the height of the building from 35 feet to 25 feet, that the eight-foot berm be eliminated.

Thad Altman stated they are not against cemeteries, and have not been against the expansion of the cemetery across the street; but they are asking them to provide adequate buffers to lessen the impacts on the neighborhood. He stated the cemetery is a good neighbor; but this is a dramatic change in land use, moving from a manicured green open cemetery to mausoleums up to 35 feet. He stated they are glad they are reducing the buildings to 25 feet; that is better than 35 feet; but going from a manicured cemetery to mausoleums of 35 feet is a substantial change and will have a substantial impact on the community living across the street. He stated they feel it will be a negative impact; it is not consistent with the way the corridor has been growing and developing; and commented on the efforts of HealthFirst’s corporate headquarters toward landscaping and beautification of US 1. He stated not only would the mausoleums be 25 feet tall, but the elevation is 16 feet, so they would really be looking at a 50-foot elevation; and the roadways in Indian River Isles are approximately 5.5 to 6 feet above sea level. He stated when the cemetery came, the landowners across the street asked for buffers, and the owners agreed to provide a buffer on the property to the north, but disagreed with providing a buffer along US 1; so the binding development agreement provided for buffering the property to the south on the west side of US 1, but no buffering for Indian River Isles. He stated they have lived with that; but now after refusing to provide buffering, they want to build mausoleums; and the neighbors feel that if they intended to build mausoleums, they should have made some effort to preserve the property. He presented a picture showing what the property looked like previously; stated it was beautifully vegetated sand pine scrub; and they could have used it to augment the beauty of the site, which would have been to everyone’s benefit; but after getting their zoning, the property was completely clear-cut without a development plan. He stated it is a typical example of the problem the County has with clear-cutting before a development plan is approved; the buffer is gone; and the opportunity to provide some aesthetic interface with the US 1 corridor and the neighborhood across the street was defeated. He stated they are against the rezoning; it will have a negative impact; and they have had a problem with the cemetery in that a 25-foot buffer was required, but the property was clear-cut. He stated the County had an enforcement action; they had to move the road out of the buffer and replant; but the buffer was never replanted.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Altman is referring to the applicants or some other property; with Mr. Altman responding it is the same property, the existing cemetery. Mr. Altman stated the neighbors have tried to work with them; the neighbors want buffers; but they have not abided by their agreements in the past. He presented a letter concerning the clear-cutting and pictures of the site; stated they are happy with the cemetery; but they are concerned about the mausoleums. He stated they would be a dramatic change to the complexion of the neighborhood; they would like the cemetery to remain as is; and if the Board wants to approve the applicants’ request, they would like to have buffers, although it would take a tall buffer for a 50-foot mausoleum. He stated the cemetery owns a massive amount of property; and they should find a place on their site that could be adequately buffered to make it consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

T. A. Altman stated he is against the mausoleum because it would have a tremendous impact on the value of his property; he has a tremendous investment in that area; and he has worked many years to buy the property and develop it. He described problems in the 1980’s where the owners agreed to buffer, but put the road on the property line where the buffer was supposed to be; and submitted a copy of the survey. He advised he filed a complaint with Code Enforcement; stated after they moved the road, they were suppose to vegetate the buffer; but there is only one plant there, although there is some native vegetation growing there. He submitted pictures; and stated there are two graves, one that is within 8.4 feet of his property line; the graves would clearly be inside the buffer; and there is a violation there. He stated they should not be rewarded with a 35 to 50-foot high mausoleum when they are in violation of Ordinances going back to the 1980’s; and requested everyone against the mausoleums stand, and approximately 15 people stood. He requested the Board deny the rezoning.

Alex Altman stated he is opposed to the proposed mausoleum; he can see the hill now from his house, and that is before any structure is put there; and the hill, which is flat until it reaches US 1, climbs to an elevation of 30 feet, with the railroad tracks on top of it. He stated this is not the right use for the property; mausoleums may be necessary, but the property does not fit the use; from the main exit from his subdivision, he will be looking straight into the proposed project; and he does not look forward to seeing it every day. He submitted letters from neighbors; and stated the owners have approximately 100 acres; only half appears to be developed; and with all the undeveloped property, it is possible the mausoleums could be shifted to other sections of the project.

Jim Harvey stated he is against the mausoleum being proposed; his property taxes on his home are almost $6,000 a year; and he resents having to walk out of his front door and see a skyscraper of tombs. He stated the applicants have approximately 4,000 feet on US 1; if they want to build mausoleums, they could build them at 15 feet instead of 25 feet; and commented on the elevation difference between the applicants’ property and Indian River Isles. He stated the applicant requested if the mausoleums went down to 25 feet that the buffer be taken out; and that is a poor decision. He stated the mausoleums could be a possibility if they were limited to 15 feet with a buffer; he doubts the neighbors want to look at tombs; and he is against it.

Paul Sprague stated when he first moved in approximately three years ago, the woman next door to him said it was wonderful that the cemetery bought the land across US 1; he thought that sounded fine; and commented on cemeteries in other areas, which are beautiful places with beautiful landscaping. He stated there are mausoleums in other areas, but they are approximately ten feet high and owned by individuals; and that is what he thought was going up across the street until he heard they want to build six mausoleums, not ten feet high and ten feet square, but six huge palaces. He stated the dimensions are not even known, only the height; and what they seem to be building are container ports for bodies, making this an industrial cemetery. He stated this is not quite what was intended; this is an area that was zoned as agriculture and residential, then as a cemetery; putting these large-scale buildings in is not what one would expect from a cemetery; this should be considered as something different from what was originally granted; and now they are asking for a variance from what is actually allowed. He stated the Board should not allow this, especially when it abuts residential areas.

Cheri Carr stated she lives in Indian River Isles subdivision; she just moved in July; and she was surprised to hear these huge mausoleums were going to be across the street. She stated they are not going to enhance her property values that she felt was a good investment for her retirement years; and she does not relish the idea of looking out and seeing 35-foot mausoleums across the street with no buffer zone. She requested the Board not grant this.

David Cohen stated his friend, who just sold a parcel across from Florida Memorial Gardens, expressed that he had a difficult time selling the property across from the cemetery; and he can only imagine how difficult it would be if there had been 35-foot mausoleums across the street. He stated he is very concerned about the impact this will have on property values as well as the eyesore it will be on the hillside.

John Heins stated he is opposed to the mausoleums; he does not want to have to explain to people visiting him what the buildings are; and if it has to go in, he would not care if it was five or six feet, but a buffer is definitely needed. He stated he is against the request.

Housh Ghovaee stated he appreciates the concerns of the neighbors; but they are there to facilitate the project, including their comments and concerns. He stated he is not an attorney; he is President of Northside Engineering; and most of what he heard has been controversial comments against each other. He stated he heard people say they are not against the mausoleum, but would like to see a buffer; and clarified the mausoleums that were intended to be 35 feet originally are now being proposed at 25 feet. He stated they are not huge buildings; they are only 24 feet by 84 feet, which is roughly 2,000 square feet; and if they did not put the mausoleums but put multi-family there, every one of the buildings would be at least 25 feet. He pointed out on a map of the property the area where the mausoleums are proposed to be placed and where the neighborhood is located; stated the setback from the mausoleum is 100 feet per the Code; they are proposing to put the mausoleums approximately 350 feet from the property line; and with the right-of-way that is 150 to 200 feet, that is 500 feet of nothing but green. He stated the project does not connect to US 1; it does not create more traffic or noise; and he is surprised to see that people are against this use. He stated someone said this is not the best use for this property; and inquired what is the best use. He reiterated the property does not create noise, traffic, or solid waste, and there are no water or sewer impacts to the County services. He stated they are not asking for height variance; the height requirements are 35 feet; they are at 25 feet; so there is no need for variance for height; and they are not asking for any variance from the setbacks. He stated this was an approved conditional use that is being amended; the property was purchased in 1996, so the current owners are not responsible for what may have happened in the past; and submitted a letter describing the clearing that was mentioned previously. He stated the overhead picture that was displayed was an overall aerial picture showing the whole site; there were a lot of trees and buffers; and they have no objection to upgrading the buffers to address the concerns of the neighbors.

Commissioner Higgs inquired are the mausoleums that were in the aerial picture similar to what Mr. Ghovaee is talking about building; with Mr. Ghoavee responding they are different in height.

Noel Merwarth, representing SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., stated there are several different size mausoleums in the aerial photograph; some are similar to the buildings they are proposing to build; but the concentration is less dense to create more green area and more of a garden effect.

Chairman Scarborough stated people have been talking about height and visibility; it happens to be on a rise, which makes it a little more difficult to handle; but it is a large site with an IU-1 use in the back; and if the applicants were concerned about moving it to an area that was seen, it could move closer to that property and put more vegetative buffers. Mr. Merwarth stated one of the concerns about moving the buildings closer to the train track is the vibration from the trains going by which may damage the granite and marble trims on the buildings; so they are asking to move it away from the tracks. He stated the train is noisy; if someone is trying to have a service for a family, they would want peace and quiet; and the train is very disruptive.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board was handed a map; and inquired where is the parcel on the map; with Mr. Merwarth pointing out the parcel on the map. Commissioner Carlson inquired what uses are on the other parcels the applicants own; with Mr. Merwarth responding it is being used as a cemetery; and he is not an engineer, but the project manager. Mr. Ghovaee responded mausoleums, a chapel, an existing funeral home, a maintenance building, and the cemetery.

Chairman Scarborough stated this is in Commissioner Carlson’s District; one item has already been tabled; but he is seeing people from across the street come in with concerns about what can be seen. He stated the question is whether the parcel can be designed in another fashion; he knows there are problems with the trains; and inquired if there are other potential configurations. He stated if the applicants want to work with the community, that is an opportunity the Board could afford them; what he is hearing is that the height of the mausoleum is visible from the other side, which creates a problem; but there are ways to get around the problem by buffering, moving, changing height, etc. He stated he is not going to tell the applicants what to do; it is for the applicants to come forward with things to answer the concerns of the neighborhood; when those concerns are answered, that is fine; and if the applicants do not care to do that, then the Board needs to vote on a motion.

Mr. Merwarth stated if they move the mausoleums up the hill, they would be 18 to 20 feet higher, because the road slopes up the hill toward the train track; the concern of the neighborhood is it does not want to see the building; and he would have to move it down the hill closer to them for it to be lower.

Commissioner Colon stated she is not willing to support this tonight; but if the applicants were willing to have a discussion with the neighbors, there would be a better opportunity to present something to the Board; but if it is presented now, she will not be voting in favor. Mr. Ghovaee inquired if the concern would be the height and the buffering. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board’s concern is what has been expressed; it is one thing to have a cemetery, but another thing to have a mausoleum that is clearly visible; and the applicant has not responded adequately to get sufficient votes. He stated he cannot vote for it because there is a need for further discussion; if it was a limited site with only limited potential to handle these things, the Board might say nothing else can be done; but nothing mandates that there be mausoleums on this property. He stated one can have a cemetery without mausoleums; it is not part of our culture to require a mausoleum at a cemetery; there are a lot of cemeteries with them; and to say it will not work is a problem.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has the same concern, given the amount of property, and there may be additional property elsewhere on which the mausoleums could be built.

Commissioner Higgs stated she shares the concerns; she is not interested in prolonging the discussion any further; and there are three people who are going to vote against it. She stated the choice is to either table it and work it out or have the three votes against it. Mr. Merwarth requested a list of names of the people who spoke. Chairman Scarborough stated they will be more than glad to give Mr. Merwarth their names outside the Chambers. Mr. Ghovaee stated they would be in favor of continuing the item.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 7 to November 7, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0209101) The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc.’s request for change from RVP to BU-2 on 0.59± acre located northwest of Plantation Drive and north of Sunset Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP to prohibit businesses to be run from the warehouse units.

Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Hansel is asking the limitation of just for residents be removed; as a practical matter, he does not think many people would drive all the way out there to store things; so it will probably just be for the residents. He stated he would not have a problem with a motion in favor.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board would apply the same things it did on the other warehouse units in terms of water, sewer, and electricity; with Lynn Hansel, representing the Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc., responding that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 8 with a Binding Development Plan to prohibit businesses to be run from the warehouse units, no water or sewer service to the units, and no electricity service to the units other than for lighting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z0209102) Millennium Development of Titusville, L.L.C.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and change from GU to BU-1 on 0.45 acre located on the northeast corner of SR 46 and I-95, which was recommended for approval as Community Commercial by the LPA and as BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve as recommended by the P&Z Board; and adopt Ordinance setting forth Small Scale Plan Amendment 02S.12. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated this is a very large development right off SR 46; he went out to the site with staff; and no house will back up to another house, but will back up to woods or the golf course. Eugene Gerlica, representing Millennium Development of Titusville, L.L.C., stated that is true. Chairman Scarborough stated he likes that; and people want to see the preservation of the wooded area.

Item 10. (Z0207104) Beeline Petro, Inc.’s request for a CUP for a convenience store with gasoline sales in a BU-1-A zone removing the existing CUP for a Convenience Store on 2.066 acres located on the northeast corner of SR 520 and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2002

Item 1. (NMI120801) George M. Folmar’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.79 acres located on the west side of Judson Road, south of East Crisafulli Road, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 1 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (NMI120802) Anne L. Gilmartin & Warehouse Development Company’s request for change from IU to BU-2 on 1.63 acres located on the east side of North Courtenay Parkway, north of Smith Road, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, finding BU-2 a transitional use per Policy 2.14 of the Future Land Use Element.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (NMI120901) Ronald Edward Linton and Robin Leanne Linton’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.06± acres located on the southwest corner of Judson Road and SR 3, which was recommended for approval by North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 3 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider administrative rezoning recommendations of the P&Z Board made at its meeting of September 9, 2002, as follows:

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the administrative zonings can be done in mass, except for the ones that need to be discussed; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding yes, except for Items 7 and 57, which were withdrawn and Items 6a and 41, which need to be discussed.

Item 1. Section 14, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 253, 267, 268, 273, 281, owned by Wilfred E. Smith, James and Mary Scholefield, Ted L. and Linda D. Smith, Charles L. and Laura R. Michell, Trustees, Brian W. and Katherine W. Bouck, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3315 for Cows.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 1 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Section 14, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 503, owned by Medea Woods and Timothy Arradondo, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3365 for Boarding of Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 15, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 751, owned by Jerry L. and M. Arden Belt, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3589 for Cattle.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 3 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 258, owned by Reba D. Furman and Meria F. Lennard, Trustees, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3388 for Pet Kennel.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 4 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 26, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 256, 264, owned by the City of Cocoa and Canfield Associates, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3587 for Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 5 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Section 26 Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 760, 764, 764.1, 773, owned by HRS Hotels Corporation, City of Cocoa, and James T. Swann, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3689 for Alcoholic Beverages, except for 6a, HRS Hotels Corporation, which would be retained.

Mr. Enos stated this was a request to remove the Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages; and the property owner expressed a desire to keep the CUP. He stated as of September 9, 2002 the CUP was not being used; the applicant indicated he would like to open that use in the future; and the P&Z recommended the Board grant that, which would mean denial of the removal of the CUP.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does Mr. Chhabra envision off Friday Road; stated the property abuts I-95; on the corner of SR 524 and Friday Road there is a convenience store; and there is a ditch that runs right through there. Roger Chhabra, representing the HRS Hotel Corporation, stated the property is the Budget Inn, which is located at the intersection of I-95 and SR 520; it is on the northeast corner opposite the Best Western Motel; the Best Western has a liquor license that is in full use; and they are intending to do the same thing. He stated they have the facilities already open, but they do not serve alcoholic beverages; they have submitted all the appropriate things required for State licensing; they have been approved; and they are waiting for the permit. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are planning on building a hotel on the property; with Mr. Chhabra responded there has been a hotel there since the early 1960’s. Mr. Chhabra stated there is an 84-unit motel that presently exists; and he has been there for 13 years. Commissioner O'Brien expressed confusion about the location; with Mr. Chhabra responding it is on the opposite side of I-95 from Friday Road, directly opposite the Speedway Gas Station. Mr. Chhabra stated there are four hotels at that location; and described the area.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny Item 6a, Parcels 760 and 764, HRS Hotels Corporation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Items 6b and c as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Withdrawn from Agenda.

Item 8. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 12, 13, 23, 23.1, 31, 53, owned by Ira S. and Mary Ehrlich, Wuisman Family Ltd. Partnership, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4224 for Flea Market.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 8 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 2, 30, 32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, owned by Jessie Quick Life Estate, Jessie Quick and Thomas J. Quick, Dennis D. Acuff and Harvey L. Elmore, Bob Steele Chevrolet, Inc., Regis Johns and William Johns, Jessie Quick and Randy Quick, and Marilyn A. Marconi, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4251 for Flea Market.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 9 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 6, 22, owned by Roy C. and Debbie Estes, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3451 for Crematorium (Parcel 6 only) and Z-6900 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 10 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Section 22, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 773, owned by Hugh T. Small, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3727 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 11 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. Section 26, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 53, Block B., Lot 1, E ½ of Lot 2, all of Lots C, D, owned by Cowling Enterprises, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4056 for Towers and Antennas.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 12 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Section 32, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 29, Block 4, Lot 6, owned by Central Brevard Sharing Center, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3760 for Pre-School Day Center for Children.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 13 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. Section 32, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 269, owned by Martin Frey, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3856 for Alcoholic Beverages and Z-6233 for Mini Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 14 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 257, 262, 267, 268, owned by Lee D. Talbott, Sr., Florida Power and Light Company, and Lena R. and James Calcutt, Jr., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3716 for Power Substation.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 15 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Section 26, Township 24, Sub. CG, Block 94, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, owned by Kabboord Properties, Inc. which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4233 for Boat Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 16 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Parcels 256, 257, owned by Triangle Auto and Tire Service, Inc. and Cornwell Enterprises, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3844 for Automobile Repairs.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 17 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Parcels 2, 3, owned by Carmen Realino, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4084 for Agricultural Pursuits.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 18 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Section 11, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 11, 285, owned by John and Linda P. Vinelli, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3975 for Guest House.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 19 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 25, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lots 10, 10.01, owned by Hobson L. Wilson and Robin Wilson Bennett and Muriel Galiszewski, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3732 for Barn and Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 20 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 21. Section 25, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lots 19.01, 20.01, 20.04, and Section 30, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. CS, Lots 19, 20.05, owned by Peter C. and Marilyn Y. Deeks, Gary C. and Betty J. Greenway, James L. and Belinda P. Smith, Rafael A. and Leslie I. Bustamante, and Jimmie Dale and Delores Jeanenne Wright, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3816 for Horses (2).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 21 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. Section 06, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 03, Block 2, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and Parcel 35, owned by Merritt Island Church of God, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3897 for Day Care Center, Nursery, Kindergarten, retaining Z-8072 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 22 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 29, Lot 10, owned by Joyce Phillips, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4074 for Trailer Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 23 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 24. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 25, Block H, Lots 1, 1.01, owned by Roswell S. Harding and Pauline B. Harding, and Lillian H. and Roswell S. Harding, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3772 for Miniature Golf Course.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 24 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 25. Section 31, Township 27, Range 38, Sub. 26, Block 1, Lots 7, 8, ex. N 24 feet of Lot 8 and Lot 10.01, owned by Jewel Gary and Keron Deaton, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4002 for Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 25 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. Section 17, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 505, owned by James S. (Jr.) and Sixta G. Lawrence, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3569 for Recreational Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 26 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 27. Section 21, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 260.1 and Section 20, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. PE, Lots 8 through 37, Tract A, Tract H, and Section 21, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. PE, Lots 1 through 7, 38 through 44, owned by Mirza Sarfraz and Nasreen Qazi, Maureen Almy and Samuel Goldfarb, James J. and Patricia A. Collins, George and Sandara Rubio-Boitel, Daniel M. and Alva R. Goldberg, John August Denk, Edward J. Sharpe and Gilberte Sharpe, Maurice Marshall, Trustee, Mukesh H. and Vanita M. Gaglani, Elliott B. (Jr.) and Carole M. Aldrich, Donald J. and Janet A. Vachon, Judith A. Marciante and Frank A. Marciante, Frederick C. Painton and Kathleen D. Raab, Joseph R. Ivison, George Vourvopoulos and Karen Vourvopoulos, James A. (Jr.) and Heidi E. Proctor, Ernest E. Dell Jr., Daniel L. and Jane T. Sandoval, Edwin Frank and Patricia Ann Dowdell, Tim S. and Doreen A. Yandell, Douglas E. Siemers, Eric and Charlotte A. Owen, Ronald R. and Mary Helen Stokely, Frank B. and Mary Lou Gerber, Joseph J. and Catherine Wolf, Lawrence A. Oxtal and George W. Bilby, Merlin and Rosemary Fondong, Carmito and Kathleen Pichardo, A. Lynne Babbidge, Ronald R. and M. A. Dejaeghere Life Estate, George W. and Frances J. Bilby, Seabreeze at Melbourne Beach Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Seabreeze Developers, Robert N. and Linda J. Osters, Joseph N. and Gillian Deconda, Joel E. Phelps, Peggy O. Long, Catherine Casarola, Nancy Wardron, Carol A. Moberg, Craig Masters, Justin S. and Irene C. Gray, W. Alan Sisler and Anne L. Sisler, Trustees, William E. and Phyllis K. Haycox, Suzette J. Karelis, Cindy Ellen Hollinger, and Bruce E. and Laura A. Goodman, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3737 for Recreational Facilities (Parcel 260.1 only) and Z-3801 for Private Club (Tennis Club).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 27 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 28. Section 21, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel Sub. GD, Block I, Lot 4 & all of Lot 5 E. of A1A ex. N. 35.67 ft. of Lot 4, owned by Flo Christiano, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3817 for Recreational Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 28 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 29. Section 28, Township 28, Range 38, Parcels 512, 765, 766, 775, 776, 777, 778, owned by The United States of America, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3555 for Recreational Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 29 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 30. Section 03, Township 29, Range 38 Parcel 500.1, owned by D. R. (Jr.) and Marie Laflin, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3617 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 30 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 31. Section 03, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. GX, Block 7, Lots 12, 13, owned by Ocean Pines Motel, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3616 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 31 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 32. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 752, 753, 754.1, 779, 780, 781, 790, 797, 798, 804, 805, owned by Sea Dunes Drive-Sunset Point Lane Property Owners’ Association, Martin B. Robinson, Martin B. and Peggy E. Robinson, Sea Dunes LLC, Gary B. Frese, Trustee, Christopher F. and Dianne L. Legris, James W. and Kathleen L. Berry, and Indian Landing Homeowners’ Association, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4216 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 32 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 33. Section 23, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 01, Block 8, S. ½ of Lot 2 and all of Lots 29, 30, 31, owned by Ernerst A. Desantis and Isabelle C. Finnell, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3477 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 33 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 34. Section 25, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 507, 562, 563, owned by Florida Power and Light Company and Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3578 for Electric Substation/Service Center.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 34 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 35. Section 25, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 509, 512, 514, owned by Gary Coppola, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3553 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 35 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 36. Section 28, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 25, Block E. Lots 1 through 6, owned by Grant Volunteer Fire Department of Brevard County, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3874 for Fire Station.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 36 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 37. Section 36, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 750, owned by Ronald E. Coleman, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3618 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 37 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 38. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 500.3, 503, 504, 516, owned by B & B Halliday Corporation, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4072 for Sewage Treatment Facility and Z-6928 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 38 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 39. Section 23, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. HH, Block 28, Lots 1 through 6, 25, owned by Stanley Zaleski and Evelyn Kerr, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4001 for Boat Sales and Service.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 39 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 40. Section 06, Township 30, Range 39, Parcels 265.2, 267, owned by Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3944 for Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 40 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 41. Section 17, Township 30, Range 39, Parcels 255, 257, 259, owned by State of Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3463 for Alcoholic Beverages, Z-8107 for Marina, and Z-8314 for Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Plant, with Z-3463 for Boat Sales to be removed.

Commissioner Higgs stated this item is Sebastian Inlet State Park; it is currently in the process of using the CUP for Alcoholic Beverages in a limited way; and it has an existing marina. Commissioner Higgs stated she would like to deny removal of the two Conditional Use Permits.

Commissioner O’Brien inquired if alcohol is sold there; with Commissioner Higgs responding only for special events.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve removal of CUP for Boat Sales and CUP for Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Plant; and deny removal of CUP for Alcoholic Beverages. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated they were zoned GML-P; there are some institutional uses at this location; and it would be appropriate to administratively rezone the appropriate parts to GML-I.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to initiate administrative rezoning to change GML-P parcel to GML-I. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The CUP for Marina was withdrawn from Agenda by staff.

Item 42. Section 10, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 51, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, owned by Richard R. and Cheryl S. Remstedt, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3984 for Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 42 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 43. Section 13, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 6, 14, owned by Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union and Harrison E. Rhame, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3986 for Cabinet/Carpentry Shop.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 43 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 44. Section 23, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 526.1, owned by Gomer Mitchell, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4288 for Automobile Repairs.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 44 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 45. Section 32, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 25, Lots 1, 2, 3, owned by Edward Carter and Betty Carter, Trustee, and Edward A. and Betty B. Carter, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3413 for Boat Sales and Service.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 45 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Section 27, Township 26, Range 37, Parcel 3.2, owned by Jerry W. and Angela Davis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4066 for Convenience Market Accessory to Service Station.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 46 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 47. Section 08, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 758.1, owned by Associated Credit and Collection Bureau, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4195 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 47 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 48. Section 09, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 758, owned by Alexander L. and Margaret Ann Williams, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3695 for Barn and Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 48 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 49. Section 10, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 75, Lot 9, owned by Gary D. (Sr.) and Deborah K. Shrewsbury, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3951 for Horse.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 49 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 50. Section 10, Township 27, Range 36, Sub, 75, Lot 2, owned by Barry E. Hall, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3692 for Barn and Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 50 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 51. Section 34, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 756, 756.1, owned by Connie M. and Rose M. Lassiter, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4167 for Cemetery and Z-6089 for Private Club (Gun Club).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 51 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 52. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 76, Lots 7, 8, 9, 28, 29, 30, owned by Diles Enterprises, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3658 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 52 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 53. Section 17, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 29, Lot 7, owned by Kathryn T. Kyzer, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3456 for Growing and Selling of Plants.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 53 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 54. Section 18, Township 27, Range 37, Parcels 261, 262, 263, owned by Raymond D. and Nina Bailey, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3826 for Electronic Assembly Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 54 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 55. Section 25, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. EV, Lots 1, 2, owned by Casablanca Inn, LC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3614 for Tourist Efficiency Units.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 55 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 56. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 50, Lots 24 to 31; E 40 ft. of Lot 37; Lots 38 to 42; al vac alleys S. of Lots 24, 25; S ½ of Vac Alley N. Lots 28 to 31; N ½ of Vac Church St. S. of Lots 30, 31, owned by First Baptist Church Holding Co. which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3356 for Private School.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 56 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 57. Withdrawn from the Agenda.

Item 58. Section 29, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 20, 21, 22, 40, owned by La Grange Cemetery, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4205 for Cemetery.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 58 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 59, Section 31, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 500 and Section 06, Township 22, Range 34, Parcels 1, 250, 500, 750, owned by St. Johns River Water Management District, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3632 for Airplane Runway.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 59 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 60. Section 32, Township 22, Range 35, Parcel 10, owned by St. Johns River Water Management District, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4082 for Alcoholic Beverages (Package Sales).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 60 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 61. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Parcel 1.G, owned by Samir and Ilham Itani which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3812 for Flea Market.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 61 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 62. Section 19, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 2.24, owned by Amalgamated Armadillo Holdings, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4114 for Trailer Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 62 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 63. Section 30, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. BK, Block 1, Lots 15, 16, 17, owned by James R. Dressler, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3652 for Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 63 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 64. Section 30, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. BK, Block 4, S. 75 ft. of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7, owned by Robert G. Rosser, Jr., Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3685 for Guest House without Kitchen Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 64 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 65. Section 30, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 504, owned by All Space Storage Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3980 for Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 65 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 66. Section 30, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 251, owned by Patricia Jane Williams Bayer and Charles Hubbard Williams, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4253 for Metal Salvage Yard (Automobile Salvage).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 66 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 67. Section 31, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 2, 30, owned by Jennifer Willis and Glenn Willis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3982 for Guest House.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 67 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 68. Section 31, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 801, 834, 835, 839, 840, 841, owned by Paul W. and Julie A. Hayhurst, Reid and Decelle S. Smith, John Michael Shinkle and Miriam S. Parissien, Reid W. and Decelle S. Smith, Donald Hager, Marilyn P. Clayton and Victor A. Rhynes, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3825 for Towers and Antennas.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 68 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 69. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 260, 265, owned by Pan and Byron A. Johnson and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4248 for Mobile Home Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 69 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
OF NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD
OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Item 1. Section 26, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 770, 772, 779, 784, owned by Ernest Len Adcock, Jr., Bonny G. Lathen, Lloyd A. and Sherry L. Travers, Mark S. Channell, Ronald D. and Nancy L. Van Sweden, Ernest Len (Sr.) and Jane V. Adcock, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3440 for Pet Cemetery.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised this was a request from staff to remove the Conditional Use Permit for a pet cemetery; it is on nine parcels; and the recommendation of the North Merritt Island Special District Board was to deny, which would leave the pet cemetery. He advised the pet cemetery has not been in operation for many years; and the parcel has been subdivided into nine parcels; so it no longer meets the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff noted some of the properties have been rezoned to RR-1, which does not permit cemeteries; and the portions that remain AU do not meet the ten-acre requirement for cemeteries.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve removal of the Conditional Use Permit Z-3440 for Pet Cemetery. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated Item 57 on the regular administrative rezoning agenda was recommended for denial; with Mr. Enos responding that was withdrawn as the owner showed it to be an active operation.

Item 2. Section 2, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 262, 263, owned by William E. Brant, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3911 for Automobile Repairs and Painting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 11, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 260. 260.1, owned by the Loyal Order of the Moose Lodge #2073, Inc. and Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-3999 for Alcoholic Beverages and Z-4391 for Private Club and Alcoholic Beverages on Parcel 260.1 (Brevard County) only.

Commissioner O’Brien stated the Loyal Order of the Moose owns Parcel 260; Parcel 260.1 is owned by the County; and this removes the CUP for Alcohol on 260, and Private Club and Alcoholic Beverages on 260.1 only. He inquired why that is being done. Mr. Enos stated the CUP for Alcoholic Beverages and Private Club is being removed only on Parcel 260.1 which is a County-owned parcel; and it is not being removed from the existing private club on Parcel 260. Commissioner O’Brien inquired why is this being done; with Commissioner Higgs responding so the County will not have a CUP for Alcohol on its property. Commissioner O’Brien stated Parcel 260 is the Loyal Order of the Moose, and that is part of it as well. Mr. Enos stated they are not removing the CUP from the Moose Lodge parcel, only the County-owned retention pond.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 (CONTINUED)

Item 40. (continued)

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how did the County end up with a property with a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages; with staff responding the property, when originally approved, was zoned TU-1; that is when the CUP was obtained; and subsequently the County took ownership of the property.

Item 29. (continued)

Commissioner O'Brien stated the owner is the United States of America; the County is removing a CUP for Recreational Facilities; and inquired why that is being done. Staff advised it was zoned TU-1 at the time the CUP was obtained; the United States now owns it; and the property is not improved, so the CUP is not being used. Commissioner O'Brien inquired where is the property; with staff responding it is on the east and west side of A1A, just south of the public site on the South Beaches.

Mr. Enos stated starting next month aerial photographs will be included as well.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.

_________________________________
TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)