MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

November 2, 2006

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 2, 2006, at 5:02 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn, and Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Ron Pritchard.

 

 

Chair Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance creating proportionate fair-share program for transportation.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated Joan Bickerstaff has resigned as legal counsel for the Contractors Licensing Board and Board of Adjustment; and requested authorization to start the process to interview to find a replacement. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Ms. Bickerstaff was also on the Value Adjustment Board; with Mr. Washburn responding she did not list anything but the Contractor Licensing Board and the Board of Adjustment. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to interview replacements for Attorney Joan Bickerstaff for the Contractors Licensing Board  and the Board of Adjustment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Chain of Lakes will be holding an Open House on Saturday, November 4, 2006, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.  He stated the park is one-quarter of

the total property; there are also St. Johns River Water Management District properties, Brevard Community College property, and Parrish Medical Center property; and the event will be on the east side of Brevard Community College on the lakes.  Commissioner Scarborough advised of programs and activities that will take place at the Open House; and invited everyone to attend.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated this weekend at Wickham Park there will be an event honoring veterans; and invited everyone to attend.  She stated on Saturday, November 4, 2006, it will be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and on Sunday, November 5, 2006, it will be from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.  She invited everyone to attend and thank the veterans. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she received a letter from Ed Bradford advising the Brevard Community College, Titusville Campus has been designated as a Florida Public Archeology Network Site. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated it would be good if someone could come to tell the Board what that is going to mean to the community; and it is her understanding that appointment is a regional appointment.  Chair Voltz stated Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn will find out who the contact person is.   

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution recognizing and congratulating Justin Thomas Kolleda on his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing and congratulating Justin Thomas Kolleda on his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Mr. Kolleda, who explained his project and expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she just toured the Central Brevard Humane Society yesterday; they had a number of projects done by Eagle Scouts; and they were grateful because without the Eagle Scouts, they would have been unable to accomplish the things they have accomplished. 

 

 

 

Diana Coffin stated she wants to address the development issues that have been going on in Mims, not specifically related to anything on the Agenda, but in regard to the overall outcome of     

what has occurred so far.  She stated she lives on Turpentine Road; in August 2006, since the rezoning of Okahumpa, there was a fatal hit and run down the road from her house; Karla Foster is now dead; and there are allegations it was possibly drug related.  She stated riffraff have been coming into the area seeking to steal items such as copper, aluminum, etc. from development sites; she is bringing this to the Board’s attention because it is an ongoing problem; it is in the media; and now it is at their back door.  She commented on the rezoning at her back door, bringing problems on themselves, and problems with the roads as a result of dump trucks.  She stated Mims is being negatively impacted; all of the things on the Agenda tonight with high density are a huge concern; they are bringing problems upon themselves; and she has to speak up and say something.  She stated Commissioner Scarborough was quoted as saying, “Oftentimes the Commissioners don’t want to hear what needs to be said”; but she is being hurt, everyone is being hurt, and she is tired of being hurt.  She stated she worked hard for what she has, and it is being taken away from her because of greedy good old boys and dastardly developers; she has never done anything to hurt anybody; she pays taxes and abides by the laws; and inquired why the Commissioners cannot be the advocates for the people that they were hired to be.  She commented on coming to the Board with concerns, working as a psychiatric nurse for 20 years, living in Nantucket, and moving to Florida.  She stated she grew up wanting to live in Florida; her dream has been realized, but now it is evaporating; and commented on developers being disrespectful, trying to contact the person responsible for Ballybunion, lack of response to her concerns about illegal activities occurring on that property, and ATV’s running all over.  She stated she wants to know what has to happen before change occurs; people are dying; Karla Foster is dead because of all this foolishness; and it is sad.  She stated she and others are being driven out of the County; and requested the Board stop hurting the people and act in a way that benefits all and not just the wealthy few. 

 

 

 

Bill Hall advised he has been in Mims going on 50 years; and it has been a nice place to live.  He commented on putting houses two to three feet apart, inability to get onto the roads, overcrowded schools, water situations, and sewage situations; and requested the Board consider allowing not more than one or two houses per acre because Mims is getting overrun.  He stated a lot of things will have to be done like traffic lights and getting water from somewhere; and requested the Board hold the density down. 

 

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated there are three items that are either requested for tabling by the applicant or recommended for tabling by the Planning and Zoning Board; and they are Item VI.A.1 and Item VI.A.4, which are requested by the applicants to be tabled to the December 7, 2006 meeting; and Item VI.B.6 was recommended to be tabled to December 7, 2006. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired how many times has Item VI.A.4 been tabled; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding at least three times.  Commissioner Carlson stated the applicants have not contacted her office; and inquired if the applicant is in the audience.  Chair Voltz stated the applicant was present earlier; she asked if the item was going to be tabled; and she told her it was on the Agenda to be tabled, so she probably left.  Commissioner Carlson stated they will table it again; but the applicant has not made any effort to meet with her to determine what is going on; and advised of concerns of neighbors across the street.  She stated the intent is to change the zoning to BU-2 to put in an RV and boat storage type of establishment; and they were also thinking about having storage units, which could be done in BU-1 now with specific conditions.  She reiterated the applicant has not come to her; the biggest issue is truck traffic on the local road; it is split with half commercial and half residential; and it is a difficult time.  She noted she will not be present to discuss the item when it comes back; but she will advise the next Commissioner and see if they can work something out with the residents. 

 

Chair Voltz requested Mr. Enos advise the applicant of the need to meet with the Commissioner.      

 

 

Item VI.A.1.  (Z0604101)  Diane Teague’s request for change from RR-1 to RP on 2.98 acres, located immediately south of intersection of Windover Way and Columbia Boulevard, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval with a Binding Development Plan, including buffering, maintaining wildlife in a conservation easement, and the entrance to be on S.R. 405, and limiting to single-story building, doctor’s office only, and that the necessary testing be done if marshlands exist. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.A.1 to the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.A.4.  (Z0605402)  Sun Harbor Investment Group, LLC’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.14) to change the Future Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and a change from GU to BU-2 on 2 acres, located on the south side of Freeman Lane, east of Waelti Drive, which was recommended by the LPA for approval and by the Planning and Zoning for approval with a Binding Development Plan, limited to indoor and outdoor storage, and indoor repair.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.A.4 to the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.6.  (Z0610105)  Dennis Chambers’ request for change from RU-1-9 to RU-1-11 on 0.51 acre, located on the south side of Main Street, east of Mitchell Avenue, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to be tabled to the November 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting as the applicant was not present, with reprocessing fee required. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.6 to the November 6, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting with reprocessing fee required.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its October 16, 2006 meeting and the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its October 12, 2006 meeting, as follows: 

 

Item VI.B.3.  (A0610102)  Robert Knuutila’s request for change from GU to SR on 0.88 acre, located on the west side of Adamson Road, north of S.R. 524, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.3 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.4.  (Z0610103)  Leonard D. Jones’ request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.25) to change the Future Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial and Residential 1 to Community Commercial on 10 acres and change from BU-1 and AU to BU-2 on 10.42 acres, located on the east side of U.S. 1, south of Johns Road, which was recommended by the LPA and Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.4 as recommended; and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Twenty-fifth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2006, 06S.25, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                 for Ordinance No. 06-58.)   

 

 

Item VI.B.5.  (Z0610104)  Raymond M. and Annette M. Hammons’ request for Conditional Use Permit for Land Alteration in AU and RR-1 zone on 15.9 acres, located east of Adamson Road and south of Sorrel Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

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

 

 

Item VI.B.7.  (Z0610201)  Chefs International, Inc.’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 3.26 acres, located on the west side of S.R. A1A, north of Crescent Beach Drive, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.7 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.10.  (NMI61001)  Brevard County Board of County Commissioners’, on its own motion and pursuant to Chapter 62, Article VI, Brevard County Code, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Florida Inland Navigation District, to change zoning from AU to GML-H on 95.81 acres, located on the east side of Tropical Trail, north of Porcher Road, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.10 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.11.  (Z0610301)  Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District’s request for a Conditional Use Permit for Tower in a GML(H) zone on 5 acres, located north of Micco Road, and west of Dottie Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.11 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.12.  (Z0609103)  Blaine and Megan Lounsbury; Robert and Paula L. Lounsbury; and Elyse Cunigan’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.22) to change the Future Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, and from AU to BU-2 on 4.45 acres, located on the southeast corner of Cuyler Street and U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the LPA and for approval as BU-1 by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.12 as BU-1 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board; and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Twenty-second Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2006, 06S.22, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.13.  (Z0609201)  James C. Baker’s request for change from BU-2 to RU-2-15 on 0.46 acre, located on the west side of Pineda Street, south of Fern Street, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.13 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.       

  

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the tabled items, as follows:

 

Item VI.A.2.  (Z0511307)  Irving and Bette Betrock’s request for change from SR with an existing Binding Development Plan (Z-10898) to EU with an amendment to the existing Binding Development Plan limiting the density to one unit per acre on 4 acres, located on the west side of Highway A1A, approximately 80 feet north of Sea Dunes Drive, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for denial. 

 

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing the applicants, stated the project is in the South Melbourne Beach area; they have been working on it for approximately one year; and displayed an aerial photo of the area.  He stated the property is a six-acre strip of land although the zoning request only involves a little more than four acres; the width varies between 100 and 110 feet wide; and it runs from A1A to the Indian River.  He stated right now the property is subject to a Binding Development Plan that allows two single-family residential lots; they had applied to go to four single-family residential lots; but today they are going to modify that to request three single-family residential lots.  He stated in the past year this has been tabled several times; shortly before they went to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, they received a letter from the State informing them there may be an Indian burial mound on the site; and since that time, they hired appropriate people and established that such mound is on the site.  He displayed a copy of the survey; and stated the mound is almost dead center in the middle of the property.  He stated development in the past has probably affected the mound because it traverses the entire width of the property from north to south; and pointed out a single-family subdivision to the south with several homes that are adjacent and back up to the site.  He stated he met with members of that community to try to come up with an accommodation of how the site works; they have accomplished that; and those folks are present today.  He stated they are going to create, through a Binding Development Plan and deed restrictions, a conservation easement; and described the conservation easement.  He stated the only thing they are going to request as part of the site plan is a walking path or trail to get back to the river where they will put a gazebo or some type of structure for the property owners; there will be three single-family lots, all east of the Indian mound; and the Indian mound will be forever protected.  He stated the site is adjacent to County-owned land; it is a very pretty property; and it will be protected indefinitely from future development through the Binding Development Plan and through the deed restrictions.  He advised if they can get approval of the zoning request for the three properties, they will be back in front of the Board eventually for a site plan; the property is too narrow for a 50-foot road, especially having to be accessed with a 25-foot driveway easement under the County Code; and they can do two lots, but a variance would be necessary for the third.  He stated they are not sure they will be able to get the third lot in there; they have worked with staff; and when they develop they are going to see if there is any unique habitat in the County land to the north that will cause them to meander the lots to protect other environmentally sensitive species.  He stated they are trying to create three beautiful sites and preserve the beauty of the property; it has a deeded access to the ocean upfront; and it is an extraordinary piece of property.  He stated the Binding Development Plan will articulate that the property he indicated will remain in a conservation easement in perpetuity, but Binding Development Plans can be changed; and so they will create deed restrictions that will run with the land that will also articulate the conservation easement and development restrictions on the property.  He stated they have worked with the State of Florida; and presented letters from Mr. Wheeler with Florida Department of State.  He advised they talked on the phone and corresponded with Mr. Wheeler concerning the survey data; the State supported their proposal for four lots because they were preserving the Indian burial mound totally intact; they have since modified that; but he did not notify the State that they were putting fewer lots in.  Mr. Torpy stated he did not think the State would care because they are not affecting the Indian burial mound; and he has support of the neighborhood to the south for the proposal. 

 

Charles Vogt and Wallace Harrison indicated their support of the request. 

 

Alan Brech stated he was appointed to the Historical Commission by Commissioner Carlson, but had to leave his position recently; he is an archeologist trained at the University of Florida; and he worked in Florida for approximately six years.  He stated he is glad the development has decided to put the site out of reach; he supports that; and commented on the importance of protecting archeological sites.  He stated he supports preservation of the site in perpetuity so it will not be subject to later change. 

 

Stuart Bumpus and Laurilee Thompson indicated their support of the item.

 

Chair Voltz stated they have been working on this item since she was elected; right now they could possibly put two sites and interrupt the burial mound; but the County does not want them to do that so they have worked it out with the neighborhood.  She stated they wanted four lots; but they have agreed to three with preservation of the Indian burial mound west all the way to the river.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.A.2 with Binding Development Plan limited to three lots with preservation of the Indian burial mound.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the Indian mound will be in a conservation easement; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct and he will expect that to be part of the Binding Development Plan.   

 

Item VI.A.3.  (Z0604105)  Warm Wind Homes, LLC’s request for change from AU to SR on 15 acres located on the west side of Hammock road, north of Wiley Avenue, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board tabled Item VI.A.4; and Items VI.A.5, VI.A.6, and VI.A.7 are all within this sequence.  He stated there needs to be a reiteration of what the Board has done and where it is; last spring, the Board started an incorporation study by contracting with the University of Central Florida; and that proceeded until a month ago when there was a request from the Sherwood Homeowners Association and the East Mims group to be removed from the study area.  He stated UCF advised it was impossible to produce the product needed in the November timeframe; and therefore, the incorporation was abandoned.  He stated simultaneously there were a number of rezoning requests; independent of what is happening tonight, on September 19, 2006 the Board instructed staff to begin a small area plan for the larger area for the incorporation; and two days ago, the Board enacted a moratorium reverting to September 19, 2006.  He stated while people can put applications in, any new applications would not be heard; but there were applications in the process; and the Board will hear them.  He stated the community asked if there was a cumulative effect of having multiple things come before the Board; and Randy Hunt has prepared a report that has been shared with each of the applicants.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Hunt met with the community at Cuyler Center on Monday night; all of the Commissioners have been briefed on the report; and copies of the report are available.  He stated the report is supplemental to and not the basis of any individual report because Mr. Enos has his own analysis as the Board looks at the zoning items, and there are guidelines for how the Board operates.  He stated in looking at all five at once, there are things that would be looked at differently than if they were looked at one at a time; Mr. Hunt has presented his report; and Utility Services Director Dick Martens is present to respond to questions.  He stated regardless of what happens tonight, the report will be the cornerstone of the small area plan; it will be continued on in community discussions; and suggested proceeding with questions regarding the cumulative effect and then proceeding with the individual items.

 

Chair Voltz stated Ms. Coffin spoke about the cumulative effect earlier. 

 

Paula Lay requested the Board take into consideration the cumulative effect of all the developments and the density that would present in the Mims area; and stated according to the water study portion of the Mims Area Community Assessment, this would be a tenfold increase in potential density and the water treatment plan does not have the capacity to serve all these units.  She stated to meet this need, a water plant expansion has been added to the five-year CIP; and inquired if the Board should be reviewing some of the planning and rezoning for these areas within the next five years, and not all right now.  She requested the Board take into consideration the natural environment for these areas, such as gopher tortoises, trees, and everything in the area that needs to be preserved; stated it will be necessary to look at each of the individual areas to see what is there; and requested the Board look at the density of the area, what it means to the community, how many more homes there will be, and how many more children there will be in the schools.  She stated the schools only have portables that are temporary; and inquired if the homes are going to be temporary, and if the children and families are just going to be there temporarily.  She stated she is very concerned over the service capacity; and when the new developments come in, they may need to come in at a lower density level than what is being proposed. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Martens speak to the water issue; and stated the threshold issue with water is a twofold issue.  He inquired if there are any threshold problems with the five items coming before the Board tonight, and extrapolated out, what types of things would be encountered.  He stated he is aware that the subsequent issues could be handled when they get into the small area plan; and requested Mr. Martens address how the small area plan would play into them. 

 

Utility Services Director Dick Martens stated the existing facility is at approximately 60% of its capacity; all of the projects on the planning horizon, including the five tonight if they were all built out today, would exceed the capacity of the treatment plant; but the treatment plant can be expanded and that process has started.  He stated with the planned expansion, the capacity of the plant and the water supply should be sufficient to provide water for the existing customers, all of the existing projects that are identified, and the five or six rezonings; but past that, the best estimate is the well field, as it will ultimately be developed in the Mims area, will reach its limitation with approximately 2,300 units past what is being discussed today.  He stated it is doubtful that there will be any capability to expand the water production of the well field past that
limit; the projects being discussed today seem to be within the availability of the resource; but the maximum capacity of the resource is within the planning horizon.

 

Chair Voltz stated those numbers include people watering their lawns; and she is not sure why they would not use a water reuse system so water is not wasted.  She inquired if the system is expanded for development, can they put in the reuse water for those developments; with Mr. Martens responding just like potable water, the reclaimed water has a limited supply.  Mr. Martens advised Walkabout community, which accounts for 1,500 of the future units, has put in the infrastructure and is going to develop on reclaimed water for the golf course and all the units; but the wastewater that will be used to generate the reclaimed water within the planning horizon still seems to be inadequate to provide all the irrigation needs, even for just a limited amount of the Walkabout units.  He advised in the dry season when it is hot and not raining, it takes approximately six wastewater customers to provide irrigation for one reclaimed water customer; so reclaimed water is great where it is available, but Chair Voltz’s point is well taken.  He advised the irrigation demand in April and May is almost double the normal domestic demand is; and if there is something that can be done to reduce the peak spring irrigation demand, the number of units that the treatment plant and the well field can serve can be increased significantly.  Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Martens would recommend, if the developments are approved tonight, requiring them to put in the reuse lines; with Mr. Martens responding it would not be prudent to install a dual water system to the projects east of U.S. 1; it is a lot of money for the pipeline; and he does not think there will ever be the supply.  He stated in the Suntree-Viera area, there is a very aggressive and active reclaimed water system; but they have to ration the subdivisions that are allowed to build reclaimed water systems so they can control the dry season demand; and the alternative to building the reclaimed water systems would be having a requirement for alternative irrigation supplies in those subdivisions.  He stated that is one of the things The Viera Company does now where reclaimed water is not available; and it may be just a deed restriction throughout the project that an alternative water supply for irrigation is required so potable water is not wasted on landscape irrigation and the cost of potable water does not become a factor in the maintenance of high quality landscape.  Chair Voltz stated the Board just adopted the Landscape Ordinance that requires landscaping, but they are expected to use potable water, so it is a lose/lose situation for everybody.  She stated the Board needs to do whatever it can to make sure residents do not use potable water for irrigation because water is precious; and the Board needs to look at that. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the County does not have the capability for the entire area if they put all the lots that are available now, and she is not referring to the ones today, which are part of the equation; with Mr. Martens advising that is correct.  Commissioner Colon stated the moratorium is for future applications; but the study that has to be done will include everybody including the people with items tonight; and inquired excluding the ones that were in the pipeline, how many acres are left after that.  Commissioner Scarborough responded looking at the remainder of the map, they could say that not everybody would be zoned to the density under the Future Land Use Map, but it could be projected out, which would help Commissioner Colon with her question.  Mr. Martens stated without going to the effort of identifying every parcel, he looked at the area from the perspective of how much land is available for ready development; he looked at it in two ways; and the first was the large agricultural parcels that are similar to what the Board has seen on some of the parcels tonight or some in the past that could easily become a large subdivision.  He stated there is another group of land that is smaller parcels that may take some type of redevelopment, but because of their smaller size would not be considered ready for subdivision development; and he does not have that acreage, but he and Mr. Enos estimated an additional 4,500 units beyond what is being discussed now.  Mr. Martens stated in the context of what he said earlier, there might be 2,300 units past what is identified today; there could be another 4,500; and that is probably a low number considering he did not look at all of the very small parcels scattered throughout the area.  He stated it became clear that the County probably could not provide water to a buildout of the whole area, and would fall short approximately 2,000 to 3,000 units.  Commissioner Colon stated that was the number she was looking for. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested staff show the areas on the map that are the subject of items tonight.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos pointed out areas on the map; and stated there are five residential applications on the Agenda.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Marion and the Warm Winds properties are in the upper area.  Mr. Enos pointed out the area which is the subject of Item VI.A.8, as well as one that is on the north side of Main Street and one on the south side of Main Street.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is going to be helpful that there are two that are connected; the PUD will have its own complex discussion; and if the Board keeps that in mind, it will see where the discussions are related or less related. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the dark green area; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Florida Inland Navigation District site.  Mr. Enos advised public lands are shown in dark green.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is an area where there will be dredging of the Indian River Lagoon canal, and will be used as a storage site.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about the light green area; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is what was recently rezoned.  Mr. Enos advised those are parcels that were rezoned within the last two to two and one-half years.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the big light green area along I-95 is the Walkabout development, which has been referred to as the source for water and sewer; that is where the lines need to run from; and even though the Board talks about water and sewer, the line issue is something the development is going to have to struggle with because some of the lines do not have capacity.  He inquired if Mr. Martens handled that with the community; with Mr. Martens responding it was part of Mr. Hunt’s report; there were some maps included; but there is minimal infrastructure for water and no infrastructure for sewer east of U.S. 1 so any water and sewer needs east of U.S. 1 will have to be accompanied at the development stage by construction of the transmission lines.  Commissioner Scarborough stated transmission lines does not mean lines from west of U.S. 1 to east of U.S. 1 as those lines are already at capacity.  Mr. Martens stated they will need a new wastewater line all the way back to Pine Avenue, which is almost all the way to I-95; and the water lines are adequate in the U.S. 1 area, but will have to be extended east to Hammock Road and then looped around from the north and the south.

 

Chair Voltz inquired would those two, if they pass, share the cost.  Mr. Martens responded what they have proposed and discussed is that the first developer to the east would be required to build the ultimate size water line to that location; and they would negotiate a cost recovery system where subsequent developments would repay their share of the cost of building the lines.  He stated the key is the development community would have to make that investment initially because the utility does not have the adequate funding to make it; and the County would facilitate a payback system for future developments.  Chair Voltz inquired if there is no agreement staff could work out to split the initial cost; with Mr. Martens responding agreements are not in place yet; but they could be put in place before the developers spend the money. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated everybody who has property in the area that they are going to potentially develop is going to be looking at one of the big players in the area to go through the expense; it is almost like a wait and see situation to see who will be willing to go forward with those kinds of dollars because of the new wastewater line that will have to go in there; and inquired at that point how much is the County involved and has it been involved in anything like that in the past.  Mr. Martens stated it is fairly unique; the County has done a half-dozen very small scale reimbursement agreements in the past; but it has done nothing of this magnitude, although it is fairly common with the cities, such as Cocoa and Melbourne.  Commissioner Colon stated she does not recall having this kind of thing; it is new with all the growth that is happening in Mims; and in South Brevard, the same thing is happening as far as there not being the utilities that are possible, which is where the municipalities come in.  She stated this one is unique because it is all in the unincorporated area; so it is a totally different animal they will have to face, intervene, and be part of the discussions because whatever they do is going to affect whatever future growth is going to be coming in; and that is why the Board decided it needed to hit the brakes on any kind of applications coming in.  She stated the Board needs to try to get a better view of what the future of Mims is going to look like; and inquired if they will be looking at how municipalities draw up their contracts.  Mr. Martens stated they will use an agreement similar to those of the municipalities; the County has in place two or three small reimbursement agreements; but when the time comes and the developers are ready to make a major investment in infrastructure, staff will sit down with them and their engineers to determine what the fair share cost for the project would be, how much projects further east or west would be, and what the fair shares will be.  He stated they will negotiate an agreement, bring it to the Board, and the developer would then construct the infrastructure in its entirety necessary to serve their project and to the sizing of the master plan that has been laid out for the area.  He stated they know where the main pipes need to be and how big they need to be; the agreement would spell out the terms and conditions that they would be repaid; and the concept that the other cities have used is that future developers, when they come to the County and ask permission to use the line that the first developer put in, would make a contribution to the County above and beyond what they are building for their own needs; and the County would then reimburse to the original developer, so the County would become a middle man in the repayment of those early expenditures.  Commissioner Colon stated she does not recall seeing this kind of contract that would be coming before the Board; and her concern is that some of the folks that own land are much smaller while some of the players have been around in the County and know the ins and outs; and this will have to be watched closely to see who will get the short end of the stick.  She stated the more she hears about it, the more uncomfortable she is getting; and inquired who determines what is fair and what would it be based on.  She stated it is a concern whether it would be a bigger developer asking a smaller one to go first and pay the expense; and that is an uncomfortable scenario, so she will be watching closely.  Mr. Martens stated no money would be expended until an agreement was in place that was acceptable to the Board and the developer who will be expending the money; and he would envision the developer’s engineer would be looking out for the developer’s best interests to make sure the formula was fair both from a capacity standpoint and a distance of pipeline.  He stated there will be two factors driving the costs, how big the pipe has to be and how many feet of pipe have to be installed; and with those variables, they can calculate something that is reasonably fair to everybody involved.  He stated the first person has the time cost of the money; the first project that is ready to go pays the money that goes out on the table first; everyone else can wait until they determine the market is right; and that is the disadvantage.  Commissioner Colon stated it is not her job to save developers money or make them money; and commented on looking at the bigger picture and how it will affect neighbors in the area, and mandatory hook-ups.  Mr. Martens advised he does not believe there would be any mandatory connections; the only portion of the Utility Services where there are mandatory connections is on the wastewater side; and that is limited to areas where gravity lines are installed and not the pressure mains.  He noted normally the gravity lines are only installed inside the subdivisions where the new lots are going to be; and it would be unusual to have a gravity line outside a subdivision that would require a mandatory connection for a lot that was not part of the subdivision. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the discussion is about laying pipes and that sort of infrastructure; and inquired about the five-year plan to increase capacity.  Mr. Martens stated staff added the project to increase the water plant capacity and build out the well field to the five-year Capital Improvements Plan; but they have been incrementally expanding the well field for a number of years.  He stated the wastewater plant, with all of the projects on the map now, would still only be at 75% to 80% capacity, and can be easily expanded; but effluent disposal does not have the same resource limitations that the potable well field does, if for no other reason because of the marketability of the reclaimed water.  He stated there is also an excellent site for groundwater recharge, so the wastewater plant does not have the technical limitations on expansion that the water plant does; and they would not expect all of the projects to request wastewater service.  Commissioner Carlson stated she was thinking of it in terms of the fair share; they will have to have it budgeted and in the CIP; and inquired if Mr. Martens foresees it all lining up like that when it is necessary.  She stated once they say fair share is “x” amount, they need to be ready to proceed and commit to a process that involves that capacity.  Mr. Martens advised at the treatment plants, the County would take the initiative and fund the expansion; the County would collect the normal connection fees that are used to pay for the expansions; and as they do the next water plant expansion project, they will investigate whether the existing water plant connection fee is adequate or needs to be changed.  He stated the funding of the major distribution lines east of U.S. 1 would not be a County expenditure; they would be looking for private developers to make that expenditure; and it would not be included in the County’s program so the County would not budget for that expense.  Commissioner Carlson stated that is the developers’ end, but the County is willing to commit to its end; with Mr. Martens advising that is correct.

 

Dr. Peter Kroell, Architect representing Warm Wind Homes, LLC, stated their project is the smallest of all of them; there are 15 acres, of which almost two acres will be used for site retention; and pointed out the retention area, the Marion property, and Hammock Road on the map.  He stated they will be putting one main road and a secondary road in; they have 20 homes in mind; and if they do not go into the Marion project, they can put up to 23 homes on the land with the necessary requirements for landscape, roads, utilities, etc.  He stated the County requires xeriscape landscaping; it requires a very hardy grass to be planted, which requires minimal water; and they are going to try to retain any portion of the landscape that is there now.  He stated the extra area in the retention will be set so that all of the rain water is collected and kept onsite rather than adding to the County’s stormwater problems; and advised of technologies that allow the homes to use very little water.  He stated they want to develop the 15 acres as half-acre lots; and they want to put in some nice homes. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the retention water could potentially provide irrigation for the homes; with Dr. Kroell responding it could be done as either wet retention or dry retention; and that will be done during the engineering stage.  He stated it could be used as an irrigation area during the drier season; but it would have to be deeper than normal, which may be a safety hazard requiring them to fence the area. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired how many units will be built; with Mr. Enos responding 22 to 23 units.  She inquired what are the numbers for Items VI.A.6, VI.A.7, and VI.A.8.  Mr. Enos stated the Warm Winds project is 22 units; and Item VI.A.6 would be approximately 246 units.  Commissioner Colon inquired if they are two units per acre; with Mr. Enos responding the maximum density is two units per acre, but because of the way the subdivision is being laid out, it would be approximately 1.75 units per acre.  Commissioner Colon inquired if VI.A.6 is two units per acre; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct; it is 75 acres; and that equals approximately 240 to 250 units.  Mr. Enos advised Item VI.A.7 will be approximately 73 units on 19.5 acres; and it will be quarter-acre lots, or approximately four units per acre as a maximum.  He advised Item VI.A.8 is a PUD; it will be 456 or 458 units on 150 acres; and that is a little more than three units per acre. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Enos go over the figures.  Mr. Enos advised the current application is in an area that is two units per acre maximum; and they are requesting approximately one and one-half units per acre.  Mr. Enos stated Item VI.A.5 is the Marion application; they figured 218 units, but it may come in at less than that; and the density will be approximately 2.9 units per acre.  He stated Item VI.A.6 is the Brown application; it is for 246 units on 75 acres, which is approximately 3.2 units per acre.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Item VI.A.7 is four units per acre; with Mr. Enos responding Hilltop is 73 units on just short of 20 acres, or just under four units to the acre.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if VI.A.8 is approximately three units per acre; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. 

 

Chair Voltz stated Item VI.A.5 says it will be limited to two units per acre; with Mr. Enos advising that is only on the east half of the property because the west part of the property is Residential 4 and the east half is Residential 2.  He stated the applicant has submitted a binding development plan amending the application such that the west half would be RU-1-11 and the east half will be one-half acre lots, so the applicant has reduced the density since the first application.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the density now; with Mr. Enos responding they submitted a binding development plan limiting the total number of units to 204, which is 2.7 units per acre. 

 

Commissioner Colon reviewed the acreage and density for Items VI.A.5, VI.A.6, VI.A.7, and VI.A.8. 

 

Bill Patjens, representing Warm Wind Homes, stated they have been working on the project for approximately a year; they have gone through Planning and Zoning; they have talked to the neighbors regarding water; and they are in agreement, except for a few who do not want any future development of the property.  He stated the density is conducive to the area; a lot of the area is four units per acre, which is tight; and he wanted to have homes farther apart.  He requested the Board approve the rezoning. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Patjens said density of two units per acre; with 15 acres, that would be 30 units; but they were just talking about 1.5 units per acre.  Mr. Patjens stated that is what it ends up being.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Patjens is saying he will build no more than 23 units; with Mr. Patjens responding there will be no more than 23 units; and advised the road, lake, etc. reduce the number of units that can be on the property.

 

Dr. Kroell stated whenever they start a development, they automatically lose 25% to 30% of the property because of utilities, roads, landscaping, etc.; so putting these in at half-acre lots is not necessarily true.  He stated in this case, they have 15 acres; it should be 30 lots, but by the time they get retention, roads, utilities, etc. they will have lost that much land, so they have to work around the numbers they have. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is if the Board just approves this someone will say it approved at two units per acre; the next person who comes in will ask for two units per acre because the Board has not indicated that it is really approving one and one-half units per acre; so it is for the Board’s benefit to get control of the cumulative effect.  Dr. Kroell stated he understands what Commissioner Scarborough is saying, but in terms of engineering, this is what happens.  Chair Voltz inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is asking the Board to put in a binding development plan that it will be maximum of 23 units.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to talk about one and one-half units per acre, there is information that it will receive that will be forgotten, and soon it will not be part of the record; and if it is going to decide it is one and one-half units per acre, it needs to say that.  Dr. Kroell stated he agrees. 

 

Shawn Harris, representing East Mims Civic League, stated they have no objection; they have discussed the issue with the applicants; and they are pleased with the density.

 

Dwight Seigler, representing the East Mims Civic League, advised he has no problem with the rezoning.

 

Commissioner Colon stated today is critical; either all of the projects are going to be denied or they are going to be approved with a particular number of units; and the Board has heard there are water concerns and other things, so in order for the Board to be compelled to approve any of the items, it will need to have a history of what the community looks like and why the community wants thisi type of development.  She stated it would be good to get that feedback again.  Mr. Harris stated after these rezonings go through the process, they will be looking very closely at any additional developments based on information that was provided to them; and after this, he does not think it will be as easy.  He stated that is why they asked to be included in the small area study so they could get a better grasp of what is going on; this rezoning was relatively easy because the applicant addressed their concerns immediately; and they like the density in that area.  He commented on clustering and having larger lots as they move to the outskirts.  Commissioner Colon stated it is important that all that is brought forward today; someone sitting at home may be trying to figure out why the Board would want to approve anything like this; and she does not want to put words in Mr. Harris’ mouth.  Mr. Harris stated this rezoning is northeast of East Mims, is not as close as proposed rezonings, and does not impact the area as much.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Harris is saying that each item coming before the Board is unique; with Mr. Harris responding yes.  Mr. Harris stated they dealt with each developer with the exception of one; they talked about the issues and got things worked out; and this item was not a difficult one.  Commissioner Colon stated in previous meetings it was mentioned that this area needed a boost in the way of redevelopment and energizing the community; Mr. Harris felt it would be something that was positive because of the conditions that the neighborhoods were in; and that was the understanding the Board heard in the past.  She stated Mr. Harris will come up each time and give feedback.  Mr. Harris stated agreements were made with each individual developer to help improve the area; and this is a good development. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough reiterated the density of the proposed developments; and this development will have a binding development plan limiting to no more than 23 units.       

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item VI.A.3 with a Binding Development Plan including limit of 23 units, landscaping plan, and to the extent possible, use of the retention pond for irrigation. 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Harris said there is no problem with this development; the developer addressed the concerns; and inquired if anything other than density needs to be addressed in the binding development plan.  Mr. Harris stated they talked about things like landscaping with the other developers; and it will be compatible with what they are trying to do in the overall area. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if there are any specifics they want; with Mr. Harris responding there was some wording they wanted.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Harris has seen some developments come in with very poor landscaping; and Loren Rapport with Agriculture and Extension Services recommended specific language concerning landscaping that could be included in the binding development plan.  Commissioner Carlson stated the xeriscaping that the gentleman said he would be willing to do to preserve water would be helpful in a binding development plan. 

 

Rodney Honeycutt advised Mr. Rapport recommended landscaping be Florida Grade 1 or Florida Fancy and installation of a fully automatic irrigation system to assure survival of the plant materials, trees, and sod; that does not mean that people cannot have things like Bahia sod that might require less irrigation; but they would have to at least provide enough to have survival of the materials.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated to the extent they can use retention pond water, they can put that in the BDP as well because when they get to Mr. Honeycutt’s project, the Board will probably want to mandate it because he will have enough water there.  Chair Voltz advised the concern would be do you want to fence around the retention area; with Commissioner Scarborough recommending they leave it “to the extent” so that it becomes an encouragement rather than a mandate. 

 

Mr. Harris inquired if the landscaping language concerning the Wiley Road corridor will be included in the BDP so it is in writing.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the BDP will come back to the Board, so everyone will have a chance to look at it; and requested Mr. Harris be provided with a copy. 

 

Chair Voltz seconded the motion; and called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.A.5.  (Z0606102)  Paul J. Marion and Dale K. Marion, Trustees, and Robert Clay and Ethylmay Kirk’s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 with a Binding Development Plan on portion designated as Residential 2, limiting development to two units per acre, on 74.39 acres, located on the south side of Brockett Road, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

Paul Marion stated members of the Marion family have lived in Brevard County continuously since 1912, almost 100 years; the subject parcel has been in the Marion family for three generations; his family has paid taxes on the property and been a good neighbor in the Mims community; and members of the Marion family have lived in Mims continuously for the past 40 years and are still today respected neighbors in the community.  He stated the majority of the property was originally planted in citrus trees; he and his brother worked the orange groves with their father when they were younger; but the majority of the citrus trees were killed in the freezes in the late 1970’s; and for the past 20 years the property has been used as pasture for cattle.  He stated in the summer of 1962 the District 1 Commissioner and a developer came to his family and asked to dig a drainage ditch in the front of their property so that a planned development could be done right next to their land; and the development would not have been allowed without the necessary drainage to the Indian River for storms and hurricanes that might come up in the future.  He stated the only way the property could be developed was with the drainage through their land; his father and grandfather decided they would not want to be the ones to prevent affordable housing in the area; and they wanted to be good neighbors in the community.  He stated on June 6, 1962, the Marion family granted a perpetual easement to the County for the purpose of building a drainage ditch along Brockett Road; the ditch is 25 feet wide by 850 feet in length, cutting off their property from Brockett Road; no compensation was ever received by his family for the loss of the use of the land; and the 250 people who are now in Oakwood Subdivision might not be there today if his family was not able to grant the easement.  He stated no one at any of the Board meetings has spoken against his particular project; the people who have spoken against it were against all growth in Mims; and the objections have been from people who do not live on Brockett Road.  He stated the Brockett Road area has not changed much in 40 years; it needs something positive to uplift the community; and the new group of houses would do that.  He requested the Board look at the circumstances and see the logic of turning the old burned out orange grove into quality housing, and approve the request.

 

Richard Kern, Project Engineer, stated the project is a 76-acre parcel currently zoned AU; and they are requesting two different zonings.  He stated on the west half, which has a future land use density of four per acre, they are requesting RU-1-11; on the east half, which is 36 acres and has a future land use density of two per acre, they are requesting SR zoning; and they will further restrict it to mandatory half-acre minimum lot size.  He stated they have submitted a binding development plan for the Board’s review, which includes two major points; the first is the zonings they have requested; and the second concerns the future water shortage.  He stated the Mims Area Study indicated there might be a future water shortage of 12% if all the projects developed to the full maximum capacity; and they are voluntarily limiting their density, shrinking it by 12% to match the study.  He stated the maximum possible would be 232 units, but they are restricting it to 204 units, which gives a gross density of 2.7 units per acre.  He stated the requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area; the land to the west is Oakwood Subdivision, which is 3.5 units per acres and zoned TR-1; and the land to the south of the project has recently received RU-1-11 zoning as well.  He stated the RU-1-11 zoning they are requesting on the Residential 4 property is very compatible with the surrounding area; and on the east half of the project where the densities are lower, they are going with two units per acre and an SR zoning, with minimum half-acre lot size.  He stated it is compatible with the surrounding area; they will probably be connecting to the Warm Wind project that the Board just reviewed; and the zoning for that project is the same as the zoning they are requesting.  He stated if the Board has further questions, he will be happy to answer them. 

 

Shawn Harris stated a binding development plan was submitted; and inquired was there a percentage for the affordable housing component; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding no.  Mr. Harris stated he understood it was 20%; but he does not know if that was changed. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired where did Mr. Harris get that figure; with Mr. Harris responding from speaking with Mr. Kern. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are any other issues; with Mr. Harris responding no.  Mr. Harris stated they have been working with the applicants for a long time; they have been to all the meetings and have made several presentations to the community; but he did not hear a percentage mentioned, even though he thought it was a done deal.  He stated it needs to be added to the binding development plan; and if that is done, they would have no problem. 

 

Dwight Seigler stated he has no objections to the project.

 

Phillip Hulsizer stated he lives on Brockett Road; and pointed out his property on the map.  He stated he has been before the Board four times; the proposed development is going to make a positive impact on the area; the area has not changed for nearly 40 years; there are a lot of older trailers coming into the Brockett Road area; and it is a good idea to let the growth happen. He stated he sees a lot of things about the water; but he has not seen anything that tells him the plants are not able to handle what is going to happen.  He stated the plants might not be able to handle it right now, but it could be years before the developments even reach a partial density or the roads go in; things take time to happen; and there is going to be plenty of time, especially if it is going to be five years before the plant is at capacity.  He stated it will be at least that long before the subdivisions get that big; the proposed development is a great idea; and he wants to see it happen.  He noted he lives in the community; a lot of people who have spoken and are against the item do not live in the neighborhood, but live on the other side of U.S. 1 and some live in Titusville.  He stated he does not like people who do not live there trying to make decisions for him and his community; and it is sad because he has seen this turn from what is best for the community to more a personal battle to see who is going to win and who is going to lose.  He stated he has been to every meeting of the Mims Community Group in the last couple of months; and some of the arguments have been amazing and have nothing to do with what is best for the community.  He commented on seeing things being built, the new Sonic restaurant, lack of restaurants in Mims, people moving to Mims in last three years, low density, and lack of traffic.  He stated he loves Mims, but he wants to see some growth and some changes; and he wants to see improvement in the community.  He noted he does not want Mims to turn into Palm Bay.    

 

Melissa Johnson stated she lives on Brockett Road; it is a trailer park; she does not want to see every street corner of Mims; but her neighborhood needs positive growth because without it it will keep going down.  She stated she would like the development to happen and would like to get nicer homes and nicer neighbors for her children to grow up around. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the information the Board received is probably in error in the sense that it talks about limiting development to two units per acre on 74.39 acres; and commented on the binding development plan.  He stated the Future Land Use Map splits it; and he wants to be sure the Clerk picks up anything the Board does tonight.  He stated they are in the process of looking at two different zoning classifications; and inquired if the less dense area to the east is a zoning classification that has one unit per half-acre; with Mr. Enos responding yes, that is the SR zoning, which is half-acre lots.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that would mean a homeowner would have to have an acre of land; with Mr. Enos clarifying it would be one half-acre.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board heard earlier that when developments are done, there are other things such as roads; and inquired if the developer has the ability to have a yield of two units for every acre; with Mr. Kern responding no, because they have a binding development plan stipulating each lot will be a full half-acre.  Mr. Kern stated they will not be able to achieve the full two units per acre; and it will fall less than that.  Commissioner Scarborough stated in the binding development plan on page 2, paragraph 3 it says, “developer shall limit density to two units per acre on the parcel which is on the less dense area.”  Mr. Kern advised Commissioner Scarborough may not have the binding development plan that he submitted to Mr. Enos on Monday.  Mr. Enos advised the binding development plan is referencing the Comprehensive Plan designation of two units to the area, not establishing density.  Commissioner Scarborough stated his point is he wants the Board’s action to reflect the actual density because what they are going to do is create precedent that the Board will be fighting as it gets into the land use discussion later on; and if they are really not going to be building two units an acre, he does not want to approve it saying two units an acre.  Mr. Kern stated that is not what the proposed binding development plan says.  Commissioner Scarborough suggested dealing with the east half where there are going to be half-acre lots.  Mr. Kern stated there are 36 acres on the east half with an allowable density of two per acre.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the buildout with half-acre lots; with Mr. Kern responding his estimate of the yield would be 1.7 units per acre.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Kern would be willing to limit the density on the east side to what is really practical under the zoning classification he is requesting; with Mr. Kern responding yes, and it would be 1.7 units times 36 acres.  Mr. Enos advised that would be 61 units.  Chair Voltz stated the paperwork says 70 units, so that is nine less.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Kern would be willing to look at the west side, and is the same kind of math applicable.  Mr. Kern stated if they achieved a density on the west half of approximately 3.2 units per acre, they would be doing good, so it would be 3.2 times 40 acres or 128 units total.  Chair Voltz stated that is less than the 148 shown on the paperwork. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board  is going to approve this, he would like to rework paragraph three to reflect the actual reduced densities that are being applied.  He stated on the east side it will be 61 units and on the west it will be 128 units; and he would like that to be inserted in paragraph three.  He inquired about affordability.  Mr. Kern responded they are willing to stipulate that on the west side of the project, under the four units per acre, up to 20% of the actual units built in the RU-1-11 would be affordable housing.  Chair Voltz inquired is that what Mr. Harris understood; with Mr. Harris responding that was the latest number; originally it was 30%, but since they reduced the total density, they agreed to 20%.  Mr. Harris stated he wants to be sure the wording includes the definition of affordable housing.  Chair Voltz advised the Board just passed an Ordinance, which will have that information.  Mr. Harris advised he likes to trust but verify.  Chair Voltz recommended the binding development plan include the definition of affordable housing.  Commissioner Carlson noted it is all outlined in the Ordinance, and it also includes incentives.  Mr. Kern inquired when is that being approved; with Chair Voltz responding it is already done.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board  is still working on it; with Commissioner Carlson advising the draft was approved.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if language will be inserted dealing with the viability of landscape materials; with Mr. Kern responding yes. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.A.5 with a Binding Development Plan limited to 61 units on the east (SR) portion, and 128 units on the west (RU-1-11) portion to reflect actual densities, 20% of the units to be affordable housing, and landscaping plan.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

The meeting recessed at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened at 7:13 p.m.

 

 

Item VI.A.6.  (Z0606103)  Eugene and Lois Kent Brown’s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 with a Binding Development Plan, on that portion designated as Residential 2, to two units per acre, with total acreage 74.52 acres, located on the south side of Main Street, east of U.S. 1, also having frontage on the north side of Cuyler Street, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Cedric Jackson stated he is representing himself and Eugene and Lois Brown; he thinks everyone has heard his presentation several times; and nothing has changed.  He advised he is present to respond to questions. 

 

Shawn Harris stated the East Mims Civic League has been working with Mr. Jackson on this project; but he is not sure what number is reflected in the binding development plan for the affordable housing component.  Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated it is 15%.  Mr. Harris noted the discussion was 20%, and he wants to be sure he is on the same page with Mr. Jackson.  Mr. Enos stated the binding development plan does speak to the 15%, but it also says the maximum density is four units to the acre; and that may be true on the west portion of the property, but on the east portion, it has to be limited to two units per acre.  Mr. Jackson stated that is correct, and should be addressed in the binding development plan.  Mr. Enos stated they will need to make sure it is in the binding development plan.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is on page 1, paragraph 2 of the binding development plan.  Discussion ensued on the density and the binding development plan. 

 

Mr. Jackson indicated he is willing to rework the binding development plan, but he would like to massage the density throughout the unit so it is a more attractive project.  Chair Voltz inquired about the gross density; with Mr. Jackson responding it would be the same, but massaged throughout the whole project.  Mr. Jackson pointed out the parcels on the map; and stated he had a draft copy of the affordable housing document and used those guidelines in establishing 15%, but plans on going a bit higher than that.  He stated if for some reason he had to move, that would still limit the property to having an affordable element; and he will have that in the binding development plan.  Chair Voltz stated the density was four units per acre on one side and two units per acre on the other side, so it would be a gross density of three units per acre.  Mr. Jackson advised it comes to 246 units; and he wants to massage it throughout the whole area.  Mr. Enos advised there are limits on how much Mr. Jackson can do, but the Board has done it in the past.  Commissioner Carlson inquired how do they come up with an actual density; with Mr. Jackson explaining how he arrived at 246 units.  Commissioner Carlson stated they are still subtracting infrastructure to get an actual density.  Mr. Jackson stated before the Board significantly limits the project, he would like to point out that he plans to come back in the future to request PUD zoning; the community has indicated it would like to have some commercial in the area; his great-aunt was one of the first grocery store owners in the area; and he would like to put in some combination units possibly off of Main Street.  Mr. Jackson stated that will be his subsequent request, so he would like to not hamstring the project any more than it is with the 246 units.  Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Jackson is saying he will be coming back to ask for the whole thing to be rezoned; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, as a PUD.  Mr. Jackson stated he would like to leave that flexibility; he has been agreeable to the community, which is supporting him on the project; and the idea came from staff and the community.  He stated he spoke to Housing and Human Services staff about the best way to do an affordable community; that is the reason he would like to keep the density flexible; and his conceptual diagram was worked on with County staff, and includes working the density throughout the units and the community to take better advantage of the acreage to the east.  Chair Voltz inquired if there is a gross density of three units per acre could he do four units to the acre on one side and two units per acre on the other.  Mr. Jackson stated the number staff came up with is 3.2 units per acre, or 246 units.  Mr. Enos advised it is approximately 3.3 units per acre. 

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated it is important if the Board is going to recognize that flexibility through the binding development plan that it recognizes that this property remain under one unified ownership; although she respects Mr. Jackson’s comments, it is important that the Board does not set itself up for a situation where the units end up being concentrated on one portion of the site, and later the remainder gets lopped off and developed under its own rights; so it is important that somehow it is bound by some kind of unity of title or something that ensures that this is the total development yield for the entire property as it is legally described.  Chair Voltz inquired if there is only one owner; with Mr. Jackson responding there are two owners.  Mr. Jackson displayed a slide showing the property, and pointed out the division of the property, with one owner maintaining ownership on the west side of the road.  He commented on the density, intent to do a joint development, and split ownership.  Chair Voltz inquired about the borrow pit; with Mr. Jackson responding the borrow pit is 23 acres that crosses both pieces of property, and it will be joint use as a lake. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she knows Mr. Jackson wants flexibility, but previous speakers have indicated a loss of approximately 25% for infrastructure, retention, roads, etc.; that would reduce the yield by approximately 60 units; and inquired what the actual yield is.  Mr. Jackson noted he is not an engineer, and not as much yield is lost with half-acre lots; but he will accept whatever the Board decides.  Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Jackson is going to come back for rezoning anyway; and she is throwing it out as a concept because that is how the Board dealt with the previous items.  Mr. Jackson pointed out the project on a map, the Mims area, Mr. Brown’s property, and high-density multi-unit RU-2-20 zoning bordering Mr. Brown’s property.  He stated he intends to do affordable housing; but every time he loses a unit, he has to reinvest his cost structure across the whole project.  He stated he is a not a developer by nature and does not have to make a large profit margin off this project; his biggest concern is his family name on the project; and Mr. Brown’s concern is his family standing on the project.  He requested the Board keep in mind the specific location of Mr. Brown’s holdings of property in relation to the RU-2-30 and RU-2-10, which border on his property, and his desire to do affordable housing; and requested the Board approve the 3.3 units per acre density as opposed to further hamstringing his development. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board rezones to a zoning classification; and because it is a certain zoning classification, in this case RU-1-11, the Board knows the exact size of the lot. 
Commissioner Scarborough commented on lot sizes, streets, and zoning classifications.  He stated this can be worked out if Mr. Jackson will let them move forward with a binding development plan in the spirit of what has been done with the analysis; and staff can counsel Mr. Jackson on that factor.  Mr. Jackson stated he fully understands.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have the number; it will be further defined; people take the numbers and extrapolate them out to show numbers that realistically will not occur; and Mr. Jackson will be able to have the same size lot and the Board will not try to limit it, but it will be that same type of discussion.  Mr. Jackson stated he understands, but did not want to have the number of units limited here, and then when he comes back to do a PUD to have that same number used as a justification for keeping him from putting up a multi-unit; and commented on area of the lake and number of single-family units.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Jackson will probably need the PUD with the lake there.  Mr. Jackson stated he will not get more than 160 single-family homes; and he does not want to set a precedent and have the risk of the number being rubbed in his face if he comes back for a PUD.  He noted 23 acres are the lake; and at the maximum yield of three units per acre, he would get no more than 160 units.  Commissioner Scarborough recommended recognizing that in the binding development plan; and stated the binding development plan will recognize that even though the number was there, it was not a number that could actually be developed; with Mr. Jackson advising that sounds wonderful. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the blend.  Mr. Enos stated they looked at the Comprehensive Plan; under provisions for transfer of development rights, the maximum transfer into a land use designation cannot exceed 150% of the base land use designation; and if the base land use designation is two, then the result from the transfer cannot exceed three on the east part of the property.  Mr. Jackson stated that is fine.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they were looking at 3.3 units per acre; with Mr. Jackson advising it would only be on the one portion that was Residential 2, and it would be allowed to exceed up to three units per acre.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a pure blend, which would be 3.3 units per acre over the whole property; but that is a moot question since Mr. Jackson indicated he has the lake.  Mr. Jackson stated Mr. Enos was talking only about the Residential 2 area, which would be limited to three units per acre. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is also the question of Mr. Brown’s continued ownership and Ms. Sobrino’s question about it remaining under one ownership.  Ms. Sobrino stated she does not know if there would be some other legal mechanism from the County Attorney, but she was concerned about the potential that it could end up being fragmented along the way once many of the units were loaded onto one portion of the site.  Mr. Enos stated if Mr. Brown wanted to retain part of the property, but was still willing to be part of the subdivision plat over the entire property, it could be handled through the subdivision plat.  Mr. Jackson stated that is the intention.  Mr. Enos noted there would be numerous owners at the end of the plat, and Mr. Brown would be just one of the many owners.  Chair Voltz stated it would be worked out with Mr. Enos.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it has to come back as a binding development plan; and his motion will be to approve with these things to be worked out.  He stated if it does not work out, Mr. Jackson is back to square one; but he will not have to come back if it does work out. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the affordable housing piece, and will it be 15%; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it has to be 20%, and they are also going to put in the
landscape component as they did with the others.  Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Jackson agrees to 20%; with Mr. Jackson responding affirmatively.  Mr. Jackson stated he will probably go higher than that, but he put the specific guidelines in for it.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is the Board rezones land not people.  Mr. Jackson stated that is why he is also putting it in the binding development plan, in case he is not with the project in the future.  Chair Voltz stated Mr. Jackson was following the proposed ordinance when he put in 15%; with Mr. Jackson responding he put 15% at 80% of the average mean income based upon guidance and education of staff.  Commissioner Carlson stated the draft affordable housing ordinance has issues included that deal with transfer of development rights; and commented on incentives. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.A.6 with a Binding Development Plan to be worked out with the applicants.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

Item VI.A.7.  (Z0604104)  Hilltop Holdings, LLC and Mohan and Shereen Ramkissoon’s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 on 19.5 acres, located on the north side of Main Street, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Loys Ward, representing the applicant, stated the property is 19.5 acres on the north side of Main Street, directly across the street from the property the Board just acted upon; the property has a land use designation of four units per acre; and the existing zoning is agricultural.  He stated agricultural zoning is improper on such a small piece of property because it is not economically viable for any reasonable agricultural pursuit, and so it is appropriate to rezone it to residential as its highest and best use.  He stated he has been listening to the rest of the discussion, but they have not prepared a binding development plan because they have not done any wetland delineations or topographical survey, and the plan could be misleading depending on what they find out when they get into the development process.  He stated they have no problem being consistent with the other rezonings that were approved tonight; they are requesting RU-1-11; and they agree to the density cap of three units per acre, the landscape materials that were approved in the other applications, and the affordable housing requirement of 20%.  He stated he had a chance to talk to Shawn Harris during the break; Mr. Harris expressed come concerns about landscaping on the Main Street corridor; and advised they would agree to a minimum 25-foot natural landscape buffer across the entire Main Street frontage.  He stated the parcel is a rectangle with 660 feet of frontage on Main Street and 1,300 feet in depth; and they would agree to eliminate all residential driveway access to Main Street to preserve the area and help with beautification of the area; and they are willing to include the provisions in a binding development plan. 

 

Shawn Harris stated everything Mr. Ward said sounds good; but he cannot in good conscience ask the Board to move forward on this tonight because they have not met with Mr. Ward or had the opportunity for him to come before the community.  He advised everyone else tonight has been before the community to make presentations and give the community a chance to ask questions; and requested the Board table the item until there has been a chance for the applicant to go through the same process everybody else went through. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board has been tabling this for a while, and the applicant still has not gotten back with the community.  She inquired how many times has it been tabled; with Mr. Enos advising it was tabled twice.  Mr. Harris stated this is the first time he met the applicants. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation was for the applicant to meet with the East Mims Progressive Civic League and the Mims Community Group before the August 3, 2006 meeting.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be best to table the item; each item is unique; and when the Board looks at the cumulative, it can miss the subtleties of the individual items.  He stated he has a feeling this is going to be approved with similar things to the other items; but he does not know why the Board would not follow the program of allowing the community to know what is going on, so he will move to table. 

 

Dwight Seigler stated he talked with Victor a few times, but never got to the point of a binding development plan; without a plan, there is nothing to take back to the community; and the other applicants came forward with a preliminary plat plan and said what they wanted to do.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is going to be a meeting before the Board’s December meeting.  Chair Voltz inquired why has the applicant not met with the group; with Mr. Ward responding there has been a problem communicating.  Mr. Ward stated they did set up a meeting at the Mims Library; they sent certified letters to Steve Jack and Dwight Seigler informing them of the time and place; the meeting was held; but the certified letter to Mr. Seigler was returned unopened.  He stated if the East Mims group will give him a time and place, he will be happy to meet with it; and he has no problem with tabling the item.  He stated if the Board wants them to do a conceptual site plan to show the group, he will do that; he has talked to Mr. Seigler on numerous occasions; but tonight is the first time he met Mr. Harris.  He stated he did not know if the group had regular meetings, which is why he set up the meeting at the Mims Library for both groups.  Chair Voltz inquired where did Mr. Ward get Mr. Seigler’s address; with Mr. Ward responding from Commissioner Scarborough’s office.  Commissioner Scarborough recommended he be involved in the meeting; stated he will make sure it is coordinated; and inquired if it can be done before December; with Mr. Ward responding affirmatively. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.A.7 to the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 

 

 

Mr. Seigler advised the next meeting is November 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at Cuyler Center.  Mr. Ward advised he will be there.  Mr. Harris clarified it will be the regular monthly meeting; and it will give the community a chance for input. 

 

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

 

   

Item VI.A.8.  (Z0609101)  T&L Management Group, LLC’s request for change from IU and AU to PUD on 148.57 acres, located at the intersection of Cuyler Road and Hammock Trail, south of Main Street and east of U.S. 1, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

 

Rodney Honeycutt, representing the applicant, distributed maps to the Commissioners; and stated they started this project over two years ago.  He stated the first thing they did was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the Comprehensive Plan designation was Residential 2 and
industrial; industrial is no longer what is desired there; and it has probably been that way since the 1980’s.  Mr. Honeycutt stated that is why the railroad track was across the Indian River there; and they asked for Residential 4.  He stated they are looking at putting in three units per acre; but there is no Residential 3, so they are asking for Residential 4.  He stated during the process, they met with the community a few times; they went before the Planning and Zoning Board and the Local Planning Agency, where it was unanimously approved; they went before the Board where it was unanimously approved.  He stated they had some issues with the Department of Community Affairs; they worked those out; and when it came back before the Board, it was unanimously approved for Residential 4.  He stated by the time they go through, it was approximately one year; and they met with County agencies and began to have an idea of what they wanted to do.  He stated the site was 148 acres west of the railroad track; they have never established the submerged water line on the east side of the tracks, which is also owned by the property owner; however, they estimate there are approximately five acres there that are not submerged lands.  He stated the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment were for the 148 acres; and they are not going to get a crossing across the railroad track there.  He stated they have approximately 30 acres of wetlands; the railroad track is along the east side of the property; and that is one thing they will have to deal with.  He stated Hammock Road bisects the property; and at almost 150 acres, it is the largest of all these tracts.  He stated they did not have an improved access to U.S. 1; Cuyler Street and Main Street are dirt roads; and they decided to create a multifamily project closer to the railroad track and a single-family project closer to the Mims community.  He stated they decided they did not want to be adjacent to the railroad tracks as the trail goes by five or six times a day; and they looked at putting their stormwater on that area.  He stated adjacent to and west of the railroad tracks there is an area of wetlands; and pointed out Main Street extended, a ditch, a strip of wetlands, and another ditch, with both ditches draining south and under the railroad tracks.  He stated they decided to go west of that and put stormwater and then multifamily there; but as they began to meet with various County agencies and before they submitted for rezoning, the County indicated interest in having them dedicate that area of stormwater retention to the County because it is similar to the Chain of Lakes; and they are interested in that.  He stated the lake is large enough that it can be a benefit to the County because Main Street has no stormwater management; Main Street and Cuyler Street are dirt roads with ditches; and the stormwater is figured so that it is large enough to be able to handle that.  He stated they want to protect all the wetlands and maximize open space, which is why they chose multifamily; and multifamily allows them to get high enough to take advantage of the river view.  He stated they wanted to work with the community so they submitted as a PUD; the stormwater is naturally to the east of the area because that is a low area; and they will have a swale area between the multifamily units and the Chain of Lakes so they get first blush at treating the water quality, which will keep the lake cleaner.  He explained how water from Main Street and Cuyler Street would be dealt with; stated because of the St. Johns River Water Management District, they will have to do that in cooperation with the County; and the Stormwater Utility Department has agreed to help with that on this project.  He stated they are proposing to dedicate everything from the west side of the  pond eastward to the County; there are approximately 38 acres, with approximately 20 acres of it being wetlands; that property is adjacent to the railroad track; and the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program is interested in that portion of it.  He stated he has spoken to Mike Knight who sees this as a good project for EEL’s and will bring it to the next Board meeting; and EEL’s actually expressed interest in the entire parcel, so he did not know if it would be interested in that portion of it.  He stated Mr. Knight indicated the only reason EEL’s might not be interested would be because of maintenance, but after reviewing the site, he said they could
maintain it and would be interested in it.  Mr. Honeycutt stated originally they proposed multistory at 65 feet, but they have reduced the height to 45 feet; there were originally two levels of parking, but that has been reduced to one level, which brings the height down considerably; but the footprint is expanded, although there is a still a lot of undisturbed open space.  He stated there has been the question whether the project would be higher than other things in the community; advised U.S. 1 is 5,800 feet west of the site at elevation 35 while the project is at elevation 5, just one foot above the floodplain; and from U.S. 1, people will not be able to see the project and from Harry T. Moore, people will not be able to see the buildings.  He advised further east on Cuyler there is a place where one would be able to see the top of the building, but at that point, one is almost at the project.  He stated they plan to realign Hammock Road; currently it is a dirt road of minimum width with a ditch; there is no County right-of-way other than by prescriptive rights of what is maintained; and that is probably 30 feet wide.  He stated they are proposing to have an 80-foot wide right-of-way, to pave the road, and to have a sidewalk that can fit into a public trail system; they will be requesting to vacate Hammock Road, although it would not be recorded until they have improved the road, relocated it, and are ready for the County to accept a dedicated new right-of-way; and at that point simultaneously, they will vacate the other road.  He stated they are asking for 50 single-family lots that will be approximately three-quarter acre in size or a little less; and after meeting with the East Mims Community, they have added a single-family area with quarter-acre lots on the north side, which will be more affordable.  He advised they are going to provide water and sewer to the site so they can have the smaller lots. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the location; with Mr. Honeycutt pointing out the area on the map.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about the wetland area.  Mr. Honeycutt advised the wetlands are to be preserved; that is undisturbed open space; and by having the multifamily and multistory building, the undisturbed open space, not including the 38 acres they are willing to dedicate to the County, will be 40.8 acres, which is almost 80 acres out of the 150 acres.  He stated they will also provide trails of three types.  He stated one will be the internal trails, which they will construct and maintain; and another level will be the external trails that they will also construct.  He stated originally they were not looking at constructing all of them; and advised of plans for public parking spaces and access to the public trails, in response to requests from the East Mims group.  He outlined the path of the public trail; and advised they think that part of the trail would be built by the County; but they will build the stormwater in case they are ready to go and the County is not able to build that; and if they end up building the stormwater, the trail would go in at that point also.  He stated that would mean if someone came down Cuyler Street and parked in one of the spaces, they could get on a trail and go north and walk all around, or go south and walk all around; and the only other trail would be the one to the west that would eventually cross U.S. 1 and to Rails to Trails.  He noted that is not something they are proposing to build, but they would like to see a trail there.  He stated they are going to improve Cuyler Street by paving the balance of it and landscaping it in accordance with the landscaping language that was discussed earlier; and that is something the East Mims group was interested in.  He stated the East Mims group has an improvement project on Harry T. Moore with landscaping; it would be excellent to get Cuyler Street landscaped all the way out, which would add to the community; and they have agreed to do that to the same degree the group is doing it on Harry T. Moore.  He stated it is to their benefit because it makes a nice entrance to the project, so they are not just doing it unselfishly.  He stated another thing discussed was public drinking water; he reviewed the report, which references gallons per day per unit over 400 for the development; and commented on people using water for drinking water as well as irrigation.

Mr. Honeycutt stated they are going to use the lake as a source of irrigation; it is possible the lake may have a high chloride content as it is close to the Indian River; they do not know that, but will test it; and if that is the case, they will use landscaping that is tolerant to the higher chlorides.  He stated they propose to use microfeeding of the plants, but not the grass, so water is not lost to evaporation; and they will upgrade the water lines.  He stated if they get started first and are ready to begin the process, they will upgrade the water lines and build a sewer lift station and a force main; and they will enter into an agreement so anything they have to oversize, they will have a chance to be paid back the difference. 

 

Commissioner Colon she did not hear anything about the 20% affordable housing.  Mr. Honeycutt responded they do not have the 20% affordable housing component; they did not talk about that with the East Mims group; but they are willing to look at that.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board wants to be able to say the same in the requests; the project is wonderful and sounds great; but it is not special, so what applies to one should apply to all.  She stated two Commissioners made it clear that it was something they wanted from everybody; it is not something that should be negotiated; and it should be clear, especially in this area.  She stated she would be very uncomfortable if they were not consistent; and the 20% needs to be there.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated when Mr. Honeycutt was in her office, they talked about the villas being in the affordability range; but she would love to see the affordable housing integrated throughout the project, although she does not know how they can do that.  She noted the affordable housing ordinance is coming down the pipeline and will probably provide a lot of good incentives; the development is very nice; obviously they have given up a lot; but they still need to be consistent with the affordability aspect.  She stated there is no reason why the affordable housing cannot be integrated and look just as nice, with smaller plans and things like that. 

 

Mr. Honeycutt stated the multistory condo units are approximately 2,000 square feet; and they could have units that were considerably smaller as well as smaller lots; he does not know if they need to define this at this time as he did not hear other applicants doing so; and the only reason he hesitated was because of the things that were discussed with the East Mims group.  He stated the East Mims group wanted them to provide an area; they have been good about doing what the group wanted; and if the group wants them to provide some other things, they can work that out. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated 20% would be the way it needs to be approved; and then Mr. Honeycutt could figure out where the 20% would come out of the whole equation.  She stated it sounds like a wonderful project, but it needs to stay consistent. 

 

Shawn Harris stated Mr. Honeycutt has been extremely generous and has spent a lot of time working with the East Mims group; the difference with the affordable housing component was that they asked for a certain area, which they were not necessarily going to develop; and it was going to be done by a CDC.  He stated the other thing they considered was the 40 acres on the riverfront; preserving the riverfront was discussed and Mr. Honeycutt did that; and that is why they did not have a problem with relocating the road.  He stated on the affordable housing component, the reason they agreed to it was because it was not something Mr. Honeycutt was going to develop, but was going to deed it over and let the community develop it; and that was the agreement. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Harris is saying the community would develop the 40 acres, and who is the community.  Mr. Harris responded it was a certain number of lots; and he does not think they were going to develop the particular area, but he did not attend that meeting. 

 

Dwight Seigler stated he met with Mr. Honeycutt yesterday; they had a good agreement on what they were going to do; and that portion of land that was designated could be developed by a community development corporation as a project.  He stated Mr. Honeycutt has a wonderful plan; it is going to tie into the Chain of Lakes; he has no problem with it; and requested the Board approve it.       

 

Bill Hall stated this is a surprise to him; he attended the Mims group meeting; and it was originally everybody in Mims, but then it was split into the Mims group and the East Mims group.  He stated part of the problem is the amount of people in the school and on the roads; people have to wait quite a bit before they can get out on the road; and the County is developing the area to the south, the Chain of Lakes.  He stated the Board has been trying to get one or two houses per acre; now it is going to 35-foot condos; and that will not look good in Mims.  He stated they do not need condos in Mims; and commented on condominiums on Garden Street in Titusville.  He stated if the Mims group had known about the proposal on this, it would have had the room half full tonight; and requested the decision be postponed until there is more study. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she is sure the people in Mims keep track of things.  Laurilee Thompson indicated she knew about it. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is hearing one thing from one person and another thing from another person; and there might not be any objection from the Board, but she wants to know who is supposed to be building the particular acres, how many acres are they talking about, exactly who is the deal with, and what it is all about.  Mr. Honeycutt responded there was an RV and boat storage area on the parcel; it was two and one-half acres; and that is the area the East Mims group would like to put as affordable lots.  He stated he does not have any understanding about who would build the road; if they want to build them, that is fine; and if they wanted them to build them and sell the lots at a price including what it took to do that, that is okay too.  Commissioner Colon inquired how many total units was the project; with Mr. Honeycutt responding 458.  Commissioner Colon inquired what is 20% of that; with Mr. Honeycutt responding 90 units.  Chair Voltz advised it would be 96 units.  Commissioner Colon stated 96 units is a big difference from two and one-half acres; and that is where she has a discrepancy.  She stated they need to stay consistent with what the Board agreed to before; if the Board is going to approve any future projects, it should be consistent in regard to the 20% affordable housing; and there is a certain formula they are trying to follow.  She stated if Mr. Honeycutt and East Mims do the match, there is no way the math is consistent with the 20%; obviously they did not know what the Board would be discussing or expecting from everybody else; but it would not be right for the Board to accept anything less.  She stated she can see the neighbors might have wanted that; but the math is not correct. 

 

Mr. Seigler stated that was also based on what Mr. Honeycutt was giving up to help enhance the Chain of Lakes such as the 40 acres.  Commissioner Colon stated they are not giving it for free; it enhances their project; and that is all fine.  Mr. Seigler stated it brings the Chain of Lakes north; with Commissioner Colon responding they are fully aware of that, and that is why they are making certain exceptions in regard to what can go on the water; but what they asked of
everyone else needs to be asked of this applicant.  Commissioner Colon stated one of the things the Board is very concerned about is affordable housing; East Mims should be concerned too because that is the whole reason the group supported the other projects; and if they do the match, it does not add up.  Commissioner Colon stated she would be disappointed if they did anything less.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the stormwater tract is to be dedicated to the County; the County is to construct the stormwater pond; and inquired why the County would want to accept the tract and construct the pond.  Mr. Honeycutt stated there are two reasons to accept the tract; they are treating offsite water that has no treatment now, which saves it from the river; and the other thing is it can be an extension of the Chain of Lakes.  He stated they are not saying the County must accept it, but they are willing to do that; and as far as construction, if they do not start, and the County wants to construct it, then it can; but they have said if they start first, they will construct it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated if they construct it, they would complete it and the County would not reimburse; with Mr. Honeycutt advising that is correct.  Commissioner Pritchard stated there was another comment about 40 acres of riverfront that the EEL’s Program might be interested in purchasing; with Mr. Honeycutt responding it would not be purchasing it.  Mr. Honeycutt stated there are 38 acres in the tract that they are willing to dedicate.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is all the stormwater tract; with Mr. Honeycutt responding it includes the wetlands too that are to the east and south; EEL’s said it would be interested in taking over that part; but they would not be selling it, but would be giving it to EEL’s.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if EEL’s would then maintain it and would it be open to the public; with Mr. Honeycutt responding that is correct.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County accepts dedication of the stormwater tract, does that mean it would have to treat the water within the retention pond for algae bloom, etc.; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he is asking because of the H Canal, which was accepted by the County to some degree; maintenance was never part of it; it is stormwater retention for a neighborhood and accepts runoff from the road; and it is a public/private stormwater retention canal system.  He stated he does not want to accept a dedicated stormwater lake and the associated maintenance.  Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated in this particular instance, whether it is accepted or not would come at a later date when the developer does his development plans; Mr. Honeycutt indicated he is open to that concept; and if the County accepted it, it would be accepting the maintenance and do that treatment.  He stated the H Canal was developed before the regulations came that the subdivisions had to have retention ponds or tracts within the subdivision; and in all cases, with the exception of a few, those were maintained by homeowners associations.  He stated the H Canal was developed in the late 1960’s; and this is not the same thing.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not the same in terms of when it is occurring but it is the same situation in that it is a hole in the ground filled with water and someone will have to maintain it.  Mr. Washburn stated in the 1960’s there was not the degree of review as there is now; and if something is going to be dedicated to the County, they make sure that everything is spelled out on who does what.  Commissioner Pritchard stated his point is that maintaining a water body for algae bloom, etc. is a very expensive proposition.  Mr. Washburn noted that depends on how it is constructed.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Washburn is talking about having some sort of significant water flow that would create circulation to prevent algae bloom.  Mr. Washburn stated Mr. Honeycutt can explain better than he can, but there is a certain depth and size that cuts down on maintenance.  Commissioner Pritchard advised of his experience with two lakes in residential subdivisions that had algae bloom; and inquired if there will be a difference because of the culvert to the Indian River.  Mr. Honeycutt stated a good way to keep that from happening is to make sure there is not an area that is stale with no flow; nowadays the St. Johns River Water Management District will not allow that to happen; and if they dedicate the pond to the County and it is accepted, they would be willing to enter into some type of partnership to help maintain it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he likes the project; what the applicant is doing is going to be a benefit; but he has a problem with maintaining a park-like setting for a development.  He commented on visual amenities; and stated it is great that there are marketing tools, but he does not think the taxpayers should pay for them.  Mr. Honeycutt stated if the County decides not to take it, that is fine; they are not saying the County has to take it as part of their plan; but if the County wants it, that is good and they will be willing to enter into an agreement to make sure it is maintained. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there was a comment that because of the size of the lake there would be potential irrigation to the property; and inquired if that will be the case.  Mr. Honeycutt stated they will use the lake for irrigation. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a complex project; it has benefits for both sides and hopefully no detriments; but they need to understand that if they accept the PUD tonight, they are not vacating the road.  He stated that will be considered separately; they are not in any way accepting any properties; and both EEL’s and Stormwater Utilities will have to do extensive analysis.  He stated if the Board proceeds it will be a PUD and will not come back as a binding development plan; there is no second bite of the apple; and he and Mr. Enos discussed this with Mr. Honeycutt.  He stated if the Board wants to proceed, he would like to table the item so they can make sure all of the comments or concerns can be fully addressed in the PUD.  He stated they said they would work out the BDP earlier with Mr. Jackson; but the Board cannot do that with this item; if it approves it, it approves it with all the errors that are there, and it may have to go through the whole process again.  He stated it would behoove the Board to have an opportunity to come back to it and make sure of what it is saying, doing, and wants; from what he understands there is a possibility of a portion of the property going into County ownership; and County departments will be a part of that.  He stated he does not know at this time if that is an issue; but the key to this working will be vacation of the road; and he understands Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff will have a lot of questions and objections.  He stated unlike zoning requests, this is difficult because it is going to be a PUD; if it does not work out, it will have to be readvertised and readdressed; and one of the contingencies of the whole layout of the PUD is the reconfiguration and the vacation by the Board, which it has no obligation to do.  He stated this is an ongoing discussion; and he is going to move to table it; and he would invite each of the Commissioners to further pursue their ideas as this comes back because it will not come back as a BDP, but as a full hearing in the same sense it is tonight.  He stated there are a lot of exciting elements; and commented on the Chain of Lakes, improving the quality of the lagoon, stormwater outfalls, and EEL’s interest in purchasing properties.  He stated the project is a half-mile north of the Chain of Lakes; and if the Board could encourage projects like this and EEL’s purchases, it may be able to reverse nature and begin to find a pristine state of a lagoon existing.  He stated it would be extremely unique to take a water body that big, reclaim it, and make it work; it happened over on the north part of the Banana River with the special efforts of the government; but the County has an opportunity, and projects like this are worth spending the time and asking the hard questions. 

 

Discussion ensued on whether to table the item until December or February, and new Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she was very specific concerning the 20%; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the applicant consented to it.  Commissioner Colon commented on the uniqueness of the project, marketing tools, old Florida style development, project being a win/win, and the Board  taking its time. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the developer cannot sell the product, he will not donate land to the County and there will not be water retention; so it has to work for the developer and for the County; and he hopes because it is complex and new for both sides, they will think it through thoroughly. 

 

Commissioner Colon commented on projects serving as models for things coming in the future and number of units. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the additional 38 acres; with Mr. Honeycutt clarifying the area that would be dedicated. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.A.8 to the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Item VI.B.1.  (Z0610401)  The Diocese of Orlando’s request for change from AU to IN(L) on 20 acres, located at the northeast corner of Murrell Road and Crane Creek Boulevard, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Scott Doscher, representing the Diocese of Orlando, stated he is a registered professional engineer; the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended the project for approval; and he is present to respond to any questions the Board may have.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the concept plan is not what looks like an ordinary church; and requested Mr. Doscher explain the intended use.  Mr. Doscher stated there are a number of uses; it is a concept plan; and the Diocese has not decided what it wants to do with the property.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if it will be religiously-oriented; with Mr. Doscher responding it probably will be, but there are a number of uses that are allowed within this zoning, and the Diocese wants to be able to consider those uses, but it has not made a decision at this time.  Commissioner Carlson stated she is concerned because the community is expecting a 2,000 square foot church; and if that is not the case, she will want to table this so the community will know the intent for the property.  Mr. Doscher stated a number of uses are possible in the zoning; some are church-related uses, but there are very few that are permitted without exceptions; and they are a private or parochial school, community center, convent, monastery, or museum, all of which seem to be low intensity types of uses.  He stated the church or place of worship use is permitted with conditions; and there are some other uses such as assisted living facility, independent living facility, nursing home, athletic complexes and stadiums, cemetery, mausoleums, and civic, philanthropic or fraternal organizations; but he has never heard any plans on the part of the Diocese to have an athletic complex or stadium, which would probably be the most intensive use.  He stated the staff report is clear that the uses that are proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the area and surrounding residential uses; and read from the staff report, “The property complies with location standards
of Section 62-1573 8 (a)(1) and (a)(2) which are designated to be compatible with residential uses.”  Mr. Doscher stated the property was part of a County-initiated rezoning at one time; the owner decided to request the County withdraw the property because at that time there was a pending contract for a residential use; but they did not consummate that contract.  He stated consequently the church use has been removed from AU; and the owner cannot do a church use currently, so the Diocese is asking that the rezoning that was initially contemplated by the County be consummated at this time. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated some of the issues that were brought up were transportation issues; Crane Creek Boulevard is a major issue as far as traffic; and advised of need for a concept plan to outline what the transportation issues will be.  She commented on issues related to having a school and concerns about traffic on Murrell Road; and stated she and the community would be more comfortable if she knew what the actual usage would be.  She stated she would prefer to meet with Mr. Doscher; she has a limited amount of time, but would like to meet and postpone the item until December; and the Board may be able to get a better feeling for what the Diocese is going to put there. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated this is the second item about which Commissioner Carlson has concerns; the Board  will be sure to keep an eye on those issues to follow through; and she is sure Commissioner Carlson will be speaking to the incoming Commissioner as well. 

 

Mr. Doscher stated they met with a couple of the property owners who voiced concerns at the last meeting; and some of those concerns did involve traffic, including concerns about the proximity of the bus stop at Murrell Road and Crane Creek Boulevard and trips that would be generated on Crane Creek Boulevard.  He stated they would want any entrance they would put on Crane Creek Boulevard to line up with the existing entrance for the church on the south side; there is an existing driveway; and they would not want to put a driveway any farther east than that one.  He commented on concerns about the playground in the area, traffic conflicts, having a right-in/right-out driveway, and IN(L)  having a cap based on number of trips.  He stated if the site were to be used as a place of worship, the peak times of traffic generated from a facility like that would be different than those that would be in conflict with a school use, a bus stop, or that type of thing.  He stated if it were a different type of use such as an assisted living facility or something like that, the trips would actually be less than those generated by a place of worship, so the traffic would not be as significant an issue as was thought. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated if the site was an assisted living facility, it would not generate a lot of traffic. 

 

Mr. Doscher stated those were the main traffic issues that were expressed at the last meeting; and they acknowledge that there will be additional trips.  He stated under IN(L) zoning, it would be more restrictive in terms of traffic than when it was AU with a permitted church use. 

 

Commissioner Carlson reiterated she would like to be able to sit down with Mr. Doscher and get a better handle on exactly what the Diocese is expecting to put on the property; and she would like to table the item so they will have that chance to sit down and talk.  She stated she has gotten emails, but has not talked to a lot of folks in the area; and the concerns she has are in the area of traffic and proximity to the residential areas and what the potential impacts will be. 

 

Mr. Doscher stated Allison Turnbull is present to respond to the previous comments.

 

Attorney Allison Turnbull, with Baker and Hostetler, representing the Diocese of Orlando, stated tabling the item until December will not give the Board any clearer idea of what the Diocese wants to do because it does not have a clear picture right now, which is why Mr. Doscher was referring to it as a concept plan.  She stated the reason they are bringing this forward is to bring the property to where it was before the IN(L) designation was created and the conditional use was removed from the AU designation for churches. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated it has not been clarified that it is going to be a religious facility.  Ms. Turnbull noted the Diocese owns the property.  Commissioner Colon advised the Diocese could sell the property.  Commissioner Carlson noted it could be an assisted living facility or something like that.  Ms. Turnbull stated when this was originally proposed, churches and church properties were not required to limit it or give any sort of plan; there were a lot of churches that were not built yet on the properties; and at the Planning and Zoning meeting, the issue was raised and the response was that they needed to stay consistent as none of the other churches were required to tell exactly what they were going to do.  She stated they were not limited in any way, but just were moved into the IN(L) designation so they would be able to pursue the religious uses down the road; and the IN(L) designation was created so that it would be consistent with neighborhood uses such as the ones that are around this property, other churches, schools, nursing homes, medical facilities, and things like that.  She stated those things would be compatible with all of the uses they would be permitted under IN(L); and she will not be able to advise of a specific use in a month’s time or even a couple of month’s time.  Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that, but her biggest concern is the transportation piece; and she needs to get a better handle on that.  Ms. Turnbull stated all of the uses would be the equivalent of the neighborhood residential uses since they are so limited under this designation; there are only four uses that are permitted outright; and everything else is permitted with conditions, so the intensity and density of those uses would be limited so that traffic impacts would be commensurate with a residential or neighborhood use.  She stated the concerns can be alleviated by the restrictions inherent in the IN(L) designation. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not see any reason to have it tabled.  Commissioner Colon stated she thinks Commissioner Carlson should table it because the residents of the area need to have a comfort level.  Ms. Turnbull advised the residents are not present; they met with residents after the Planning and Zoning meeting; and no other church that was involved in the change was required to do that, so they would like to be considered the same way.  Commissioner Carlson stated she is still uncomfortable; and inquired if Crane Creek Boulevard is slated for a traffic signal; with Mr. Washburn responding he does not think so.  Commissioner Carlson stated if this does generate enough traffic, the County may want to look to the applicant to provide some dollars for that traffic light.    

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item VI.B.1 to the December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 

 

Mr. Doscher stated they will have to do a traffic study as part of the site plan; they will have to meet concurrency; and all those issues can be addressed properly at site plan.  He stated the County in the last year has become more stringent in its reviews; and they will comply with all County Code requirements with respect to traffic.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees that the Board is treating this differently than others; Planning and Zoning went through this drill; it had the necessary information; and they are going to have to go through more stringent review.  He stated he does not see a need to table this when they are not going to be able to provide an answer in December or February; they are trying to restore the property back to what it was prior to the Board  having moved it to the other designation; and he does not see why the Board  would want to postpone what is going to be inevitable.  He stated it should move forward; he does not see why the Board would want to treat this differently from others; and the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she has constituents who are concerned about impacts; with Commissioner Pritchard inquiring where are they. 

 

Chair Voltz called for vote on the motion to table the item.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Voltz voted nay. 

 

 

Item VI.B.2.  (Z0610101)  W. C. Duke and R. E. Cornwell’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.5 acres, located on the south side of Dairy Road, east of Wakefield Terrace, which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no problem with the zoning classification; however, they cannot work out the problem with the drainage.  He stated the property is next to the County’s drainage pond; and inquired if Mr. Duke would be willing to make sure the water goes into that drainage pond; with Mr. Duke responding it does now.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired after the property is developed, will Mr. Duke promise to have the water go to the pond; with Mr. Duke responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there will be a binding development plan that will come back; and commented on flooding in the area. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.B.2 with Binding Development Plan specifying all drainage will be to the pond.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

W. C. Duke inquired what is his next step; with Commissioner Scarborough advising him to meet with Mr. Enos. 

 

 

Item VI.B.8.  (Z0610202)  South Beach Cove Development, Corp. and Robert A. Baugher, Trustee’s request for change from BU-1 and RU-2-10 with an existing Binding Development
Plan to RU-2-15, with removal of existing Binding Development Plan, on 3.02 acres, located on the west side of S.R. A1A, north of Crescent Beach Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if this is the property that is north or south of Lobster Shanty; with Chair Voltz responding that is correct.  Commissioner Carlson stated she reviewed and has no questions. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.B.8 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Item VI.B.9.  (Z0610203)  Phu Hong and Khanh Nguyen’s request for change from EU to EU-2 on 0.286 acred, located on the southeast corner of S.R. 528 and Indian River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Don Bryant stated he has been in architect in Brevard County for approximately 15 years; and he is representing the applicant Phu Nguyen.  He stated Mr. Nguyen and his wife own two lots on Indian River Drive at the corner of S.R. 528; in 1996 they built their residence on the lot; and there is a separate lot that Mr. Nguyen has owned since 1996 that he now wants to use to build a house for his daughter.  He stated they originally thought they might come in for a variance with a hardship of having lost riverfront and also because of the pie-shaped nature of the lot, which does not allow adequate depth for EU-2 zoning.  He stated after talking with Zoning staff, they were advised there was an option to rezone to EU-2, which is what they decided to go with; and advised the surrounding zoning is RU-1-9, EU-2, and EU.  He stated they also asked about the Comprehensive Plan; and staff advised EU-2 would be compatible with the Future Land Use Plan.  He stated the lot is unique because of its location by the Beachline; and building a house on the lot would not obstruct any view except that of Mr. Nguyen.  He requested the Board approve the rezoning; and stated he will be happy to answer questions.

 

Bruce Alston, representing Shirley Alston, stated his mother’s property is directly behind Mr. Nguyen’s property; Mr. Nguyen is talking about building a house across the street; and the neighborhood association owns a community dock approximately 100 feet south of that property.  He stated he left the Planning and Zoning meeting thinking it had been denied because it was voted down by a six-to-five vote; but he got a copy of the minutes from his neighbor that said there was another vote because the vote of one of the members was not counted.  He stated it was confusing; and if he had not gotten the information from his neighbor, he would have assumed it was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board.  He commented on the location of the property; stated it does not conform with the neighborhood; and requested the Board deny the item. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the applicant has recourse through variance.  Mr. Enos advised that would be possible, although he would have to prove a hardship not of his own making; he suspects the applicant decided rezoning would be more likely; and there is no way to know what the Board of Adjustment would do with a variance.  He stated it would be a fairly large variance of 6,000 out of 15,000 square feet; and sometimes the Board of Adjustment does not react well to extremely large variances.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a concern with setting precedent in this area where there is no development right on the river; all the development is docks and the homes are across the street; and she assumes the applicant took this piece of property, did it by metes and bounds and made it by itself, and now has come in for EU-2.  Mr. Bryant stated Mr. Nguyen bought the property in 1996 as two separate lots; it had already been subdivided; and currently the lot is valued at $303,000.  Commissioner Carlson stated that is because it was divided.  Mr. Bryant noted Mr. Nguyen is paying very high taxes for just a dock.  Commissioner Carlson stated separating the properties increased the taxes; with Mr. Bryant responding he is sure it did.  Mr. Bryant stated if the Board declines this, it would not keep anyone else along that stretch from building as many of the property owners have sufficient width and depth to build; so it is not really setting a precedent; and requested the Board consider that this is an unusual lot in that it is right next to the Beachline.  He stated they do not want to go the variance route, but they are only 2,500 square feet short on the area.  Commissioner Carlson inquired are the EU properties across the street attached to the homes.  Mr. Enos advised he is looking at a map that shows the addresses; and it looks like in every case the address is the same on both sides of the road for approximately 2,000 feet to the south, which is most of the County lands until it gets to the City of Cocoa.  Commissioner Carlson stated the intent appears to be that the homes and riverfront were meant to be together so the homes have a riverfront view; all of that brings up the price of the home; she sees the current request as a precedent setting kind of scenario; and she does not support it.   

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was on the property today and took a lot of photographs; then he reviewed the property tax records for adjoining parcels; and the others can build because they have the room, so this is not precedent setting.  He stated the only thing being lost is Mr. Nguyen’s ability to build on his property, which was purchased as two separate lots; and he took photographs from the driveway looking down and then looking up to see what would or would not be affected.  He stated he received some emails from a  person from Satellite Beach who comes over on a bicycle and did not want to lose the view on the river; some others in the neighborhood said the same thing; but he does not see this as a situation because anyone can build on the properties to the south, and a half-mile south there are houses that are on the river.  He stated Mr. Nguyen bought this as two separate lots; the ability exists for others to build on their EU portions east of the road; and he does not see where there is a problem.  He reiterated he was there today; he took photos; and the Commissioners are welcome to look at them.  He stated there is no blocking of view considering the elevation of the property; and even if they built a two-story house and created another six feet of fill down there, there would still be a view over the roof because of the elevation. 

 

Mr. Byant stated they would just be blocking a view of the bridge, not the river; it may be blocking the view of people driving by in their cars; but Mr. Nguyen bought the property and has been paying taxes on it, so he would assume his rights supersede those of people who are just driving by.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees; the property was purchased as two separate lots; he is paying taxes based on a $300,000 valuation; and the taxes are probably $5,000 to $6,000 a year for a fishing pier.  He stated if this was precedent setting, it might be one thing; but it is not because the EU that is there can all be built upon; and all Mr. Nguyen is asking for is a little exception because he does not have the required amount of square footage needed to build. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised north of the Beachline it is a different story becuase the strip of land is much narrower between the river and the road. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item VI.B.9 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion died for lack of a second. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item VI.B.9.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson expressed appreciation to the Zoning staff; and advised this is her last zoning meeting.

 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated tonight the Board approved rezoning a Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) site to GML; there are hundreds of FIND sites in the County; and inquired if the Board  wants staff to bring those to it systematically.  Chair Voltz responded yes. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at  9:05 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)