May 1, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 1, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and *Susan Carlson, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor J. Kenneth Hitte of East Coast Revival Center in Melbourne, Florida.

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: ZONING AGENDA ITEMS TABLED OR WITHDRAWN

Chairperson Colon advised Item III.E.9. has been withdrawn, and Item III.A.1. has been requested for tabling.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item III.A.1., Robert and Mary Weber’s request for change from AU to EU-2 with BDP limiting development to five single-family residential home sites with minimum living area of 2,000 square feet on 4.851 acres located on both sides of Rockledge Drive, north of Coquina Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board, until May 6, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: RELOCATION OF TDC OFFICE

Commissioner Pritchard advised he spoke to Peggy Busacca earlier about the proposed move of the Tourism Development Office (TDC) from the Cape Canaveral building where they currently lease space to Viera; and asked her to run some numbers on that because the initial numbers he had showed a cost difference of little over $19,000, which he thought was a lot of money to spend for moving an office and keeping it in Viera in lieu of having it where he would consider a more pro-tourist area. He stated he is sure more tourists go to the beach than to Viera; so he asked staff to provide some insight to why they were considering, in fact intend to move the TDC office; and if it was not the proper thing to do, then at least he brought it to the Board’s attention.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised staff has done the comparison of the cost per square foot for the County facility the TDC office would be moving into as well as its lease that would begin on the same day, June 1, 2003; and presented copies to the Board and the Clerk. She stated in addition, Mr. Jenkins wrote an email to Commissioner Pritchard and suggested she share it with the entire Board; and read as follows: “It has come to my attention that you have received some input on the office location for TDC. It was my decision in consultation with their immediate supervisor Peggy Busacca to relocate them back to the Government Center from whence they came to improve management oversight. I believe it is in their best interest to benefit from closer counsel, supervision, and accountability, and to be co-located with other County agencies. I had allowed them to relocate beachside several years ago and have now concluded they need to come back. This was discussed with their former chairman and I received no opposition. This is also a central, neutral location for all hotel properties in Brevard, including those located along I-95. I can appreciate our good friends in Cape Canaveral not wanting to lose the TDC office, but I felt it was the correct thing to do.”

Commissioner Pritchard requested Ms. Busacca address the difference in cost; with Ms. Busacca responding the County lease would be about $17 per square foot for a total annual cost of $38,471; and their current lease, if they stayed, would increase by 10% for a total of $16.03 per square foot and annual cost of $34,661. She stated the difference is that there is no maintenance included within the Lease they currently have; and the County’s cost for maintenance is $4.88 per square foot. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the cost for maintenance is included in the $38,471; with Ms. Busacca responding yes it is. Commissioner Pritchard stated since no one knows the cost of maintenance at the Cape Canaveral office, they do not know what the increase would be above the $34,661. Ms. Busacca stated it can be assumed, if there were any large repairs, such as air conditioning or plumbing problems, it could be substantial; but if there were no substantial equipment breakdowns, it could be $4,000 less a year. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if utilities, except telephone are included in the cost; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if telephone costs would be less in Viera than in Cape Canaveral; with Ms. Busacca responding she would expect them to be the same. Commissioner Pritchard stated so the only difference is the cost of maintenance that is unknown and would be added to the $34,661, which would be the June rate of the lease at Cape Canaveral.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he talked to Tourism Development Director Rob Varley, he was told they were being forced to leave their current location and an alternative location was being looked at in the Cocoa Village area; so they were already in the process of leaving Cape Canaveral; and that brought up the consideration of moving back into a County facility. He inquired if he understood Mr. Varley correctly; with Ms. Busacca responding that is what staff has been told, and they were looking at space within Cocoa Village. Commissioner Scarborough inquired was it because they had to leave; with Ms. Busacca responding the current lessor was excited to have the facility open up because there was another person in the building who wanted to use that space.

Commissioner Higgs advised she has served on the TDC for a little over a year and believes the move back to the Government Center is a good one; it is good for the communities; and she supports that and hopes they get their space worked out and can move forward with the relocation.

REPORT, RE: BIRTHDAY GREETINGS

Commissioner Carlson advised her daughter turns 15 today, and is having a party as soon as she gets home, so she would like to request the Board to release her from her duties after her one item III.B.1. She stated she wants to send home a greeting to her daughter and wish her a great birthday; hopefully she had a great day; being 15 is important, and 16 will be even more important; and that comes with a lot of love from her family and pets. She stated her daughter is a zoo volunteer and loves animals and would love to have them live at her house.

Chairperson Colon and all Commissioners extended birthday greetings to Commissioner Carlson’s daughter.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Chairperson would consider doing the two new business items as there are a number of people here.

Chairperson Colon advised she will do that as soon as the Board is done with Item III.B.1.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
APRIL 14, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board’s recommendation of April 14, 2003, on Item III.B.1. in District 4 as follows:

Item 1. (Z0304401) Rockledge Baptist Church’s request for change from AU to RP on 2.5 acres located on the northwest corner of Rose Drive and Murrell Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Mike Minot representing Rockledge Baptist Church, advised the application has changed from the presentation to the P&Z Board; he was not privy to that meeting, and was retained since that time; but he reviewed the minutes of the P&Z Board meeting and the application and has seen some ways the Church could enhance the application to be more compatible. He stated the first change is instead of the entire depth of the property away from Murrell Road being 420 feet, the application now only includes the eastern 220 feet; therefore, the western 200 feet is being withdrawn. He stated the rationale for that was the concern about the depth of the property away from Murrell Road changing from AU; the request is to change from AU to RP, which is residential professional; and the rationale for that is the citizens of South Rockledge and Viera have requested the services of Rockledge Baptist Church to the extent that it needs new office space so it purchased the property to relieve some of the space at their facility by having offices on the property. He stated for those who deem the transition and compatibility issues to be too extreme to have RP at the depth of 420 feet, the application has been changed to accommodate that. Mr. Minot advised there seemed to be some concern regarding the use of an easement, which is a private road; the Deed which created the private drive dates back to 1977; although today the County Code is more sophisticated, it was less sophisticated at that time; and it accommodated differences between County and city rights-of-way that qualified for building permits and other types of development orders back in 1977. He stated the Deed creates an easement; there is a private road with some asphalt there; and he can understand the concern regarding the use of that access. He stated to accommodate that concern, Rockledge Baptist Church agrees, incident to the zoning request, to limit the ingress/egress to the property from Murrell Road only; so there should not be an issue concerning the use of the private drive that is adjacent to the property. He stated the private drive was created in part to allow access to the property; and the Church will eliminate it in its entirety to prevent any complaints and/or perceived issues concerning the use of that easement. Mr. Minot advised he would like to discuss the compatibility of the RP zoning classification to the neighboring properties; across Murrell Road to the east is Rockledge Airport, zoned IU; to the west is a series of properties, most of which are zoned BU-1-A, with one RR-1; seven or eight properties that front Murrell Road are BU-1-A; and then there is Murrell Road, which is a 100-foot right-of-way. He stated in staff’s notes, RP is considered one of the classic transitions from commercial, which is on the east side of Murrell Road, to AU or more residential uses on the west side of Murrell Road; and the shortening of the depth accommodates a classic transition from IU to BU-1-A, to the right-of-way, to RP, to AU all going from west to east. He stated the reason for the rezoning is that the Church has the good fortune of having its services needed; its ministry and love is evident to all in the area; they wish to continue that; and in doing so, they need to administrate their work so they need office space. He stated to properly do that they need to open up some of the space on their existing facility, which is just north of the property; and noted he will answer any questions the Board may have.

Commissioner Carlson advised she met with folks from the Church and did not know Mr. Minot was retained by the Church, so some of the information he is giving is new to her; there were concerns with the owner of the property due south, which is zoned AU and abuts Rose Drive; there were questions about the easement ownership and property not being contiguous, which brings up a lot of issues. She stated the potential withdrawal of part of the AU to get RP was mentioned; at first blush it is not compatible to her; but the real hard part is the person who owns the property between the subject property and the current property is a member of the Church. Commissioner Carlson stated she was told the lady does not have a problem with it, but she is not here to speak for herself; with Mr. Minot responding that is his understanding as well. Commissioner Carlson stated she suggested to the folks from the Church to talk to the other people in the adjoining area; and inquired if they have done that; with Mr. Minot responding he has not, but he was just retained Tuesday and was out of town yesterday; and he would have loved to have met with Commissioner Carlson and communicated with everyone involved. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Enos describe the issues of compatibility with introducing RP in an AU setting; with Mr. Enos responding page 16, paragraph b of Staff’s comments shows a reference of when RP should be used as a transitional use in a residential land use designation, which is what is in the area; it states, “professional office may be used as a transition between higher and lower intensity uses.” He stated higher intensity uses could include transportation corridors or neighborhood commercial, and lower intensity is residential uses; so this could qualify as a potential transitional use between the road and commercial land use on the other side and the residential on the west side. He stated the only concern is AU residential uses in the immediate vicinity; some of the west side is developing in non-residential character, i.e. two churches, a commercial tract to the south, and commercial frontage further north; but in the immediate area there is AU zoning. He stated it is a small enclave of some older parcels that have not been incorporated into the City of Rockledge. Commissioner

Carlson stated AU is a very sensitive area; there is a big cluster there; and her problem is seeing RP encroaching into AU. She stated she has not been given a comfort level as far as the neighbors surrounding the property; and if Mr. Minot would like to talk about it later, it can be brought back at a future meeting after she talks to some of the residents in the surrounding area and see if they are okay with it. She noted she would also like to hear from the Commissioners to see if they have an issue with the request because RP is the least intrusive, but there is a huge cluster of AU. She stated until the area begins to change or is redone through the Future Land Use process, she has a hard time supporting the request based philosophically on the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will second the motion to table if Mr. Minot and Commissioner Carlson want to meet with the Church and residents to make sure the problems have been worked out since he has been out of town and has not interfaced with the folks. Mr. Minot stated he does not think it will take more than a few minutes to talk to his client. Commissioner Carlson stated she is talking about the neighbors; her concern was not with the Church folks who support the request, but the folks who live around there; and she wants to talk to them to make sure any problems were resolved. She stated there was a neighbor to the south of Rose Drive who was concerned and sent a letter regarding the history of the property and requested denial of the rezoning; so she wants to make sure they have all their ducks in a row before the Board votes on it, otherwise she will move for denial. Mr. Minot stated the classic transition is built into the application as far as that goes; and there is no other transition that is better suited than RP, other than to leave it AU. He stated everything at the corner of Barnes and Murrell and up and down Murrell in the City of Rockledge and in the County is commercial on that side of the road, much less on the other side; so he is not sure the Church wants to take a tabling.

Chairperson Colon stated this is the best Mr. Minot is going to get, otherwise it will be denied this evening if the Board goes forward because Commissioner Carlson is not comfortable with what is before her. She stated the vote by the LPA was unanimous to deny this request; and Commissioner Carlson is trying to be fair and to have an opportunity to speak to the residents. Mr. Minot stated he is not sure the Church wants to continue other than presenting the matter to the Board tonight. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Minot wants the Board to vote tonight; with Mr. Minot requesting a few minutes to ask his clients whether they want the Board to vote tonight. He stated he cannot speak on whether they want to table the matter and come back or not; and inquired if it is fair for him to have a few minutes and the Board go to the next item; with Chairperson Colon responding no. Commissioner Carlson stated she will then move for denial. Chairperson Colon recommended tabling the item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 1 to the May 22, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Commissioner Carlson’s absence was noted for the remainder of the meeting.

ACCEPTANCE, RE: BYRNE GRANT FORMULA BASED AWARD

Deborah Barker, Finance Director for the Sheriff’s Office, advised on April 29, 2003 the Sheriff’s Office submitted an Agenda request that was pulled and subsequently tabled for further discussion; and they were requesting, on behalf of the County, to apply for a certificate of participation to go forward and apply for federal funds of $357,000 for the Edward C. Byrne grant. She stated it is a criminal services justice grant; there are two programs that are currently offered for consideration; and one is through the Sheriff’s Office for booking enhancement.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Higgs had questions; and inquired if her questions were answered; with Commissioner Higgs responding most of her questions can be explained and answered; and it is her understanding, after calling Tallahassee and talking to staff, as well as reviewing written information, that what has to be done immediately is to authorize the Chairperson to sign the certificate of participation so it can be sent in, but the actual proposals do not need to go in until June 10, 2003. Ms. Barker advised the proposals were voted on by the Advisory Board, which consists of the Sheriff’s Office, State Attorney’s Office, Public Safety Department Criminal Justice Program; and they were submitted for consideration, and will be on the Board’s agenda for May 20, 2003.

Commissioner Higgs stated what concerned her was the item, among other things, requested continuing the composition of the Advisory Board; the program announcement sent by FDLE in regard to the grant process specifies the membership; and her thinking is to go ahead and send in the certificate of participation, but the County assume responsibility and designate Mr. Whitten as the point of contact, and the membership that would review the proposals would include those listed in the circular of the Byrne Grant announcement. She stated that would include a representative or designee from the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, State Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Chief of Police or designee from the Association, Jail Administrator, Clerk of the Courts, Superintendent of Education, and a representative of the local drug treatment program; and that is in the information she received. She stated the County should give an opening date when people can submit proposals; the committee would look at them and select them and get the collaboration of 51% of the local governments, which is what is prescribed. She stated it is not the mayors, but the local governments, which could include the County Commission; then those would go forward to FDLE. She stated all she is asking is that they comply with what seems to be the recommendation. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Higgs is ready to proceed at this moment; with Commissioner Higgs responding absolutely. She stated the Board needs to designate tonight that it could sign the certificate; move forward with the County assuming responsibility, notifying people that everyone has an opportunity; and use the committee that has been designated in the circular to ensure it is complying with the grant program recommendations.

Ms. Barker inquired if Commissioner Higgs is talking about actually doing it for 2003-04 funding cycle, which is next year’s funding; with Commissioner Higgs responding she is talking about meeting the guidelines that she is trying to meet with this Agenda item. Ms. Barker inquired if Commissioner Higgs is asking for re-establishment of the advisory board and recall for proposals; with Commissioner Higgs responding an opening for proposals would be consistent with the intent of the Byrne grant and the committee designated in the Byrne grant circular be allowed to review them and come back then go forward. Ms. Barker stated she does not know that there would be adequate time for all that to occur and meet the deadline for the grant funding; if the Board wants to re-assume administration of the grant, it certainly is acceptable with the Sheriff’s Office; however, she does not think all those things can be accomplished for the 2003-04 funding cycle. Ms. Barker stated they should go forward now because the Advisory Board already met and approved the State Attorney’s project and Sheriff’s project; she does not know if they could meet the date criteria; and inquired if Mr. Whitten thought they could; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding he is not sure they could; the applications have to be in by June 10; the last meeting of the Board before the June break is May 20, and the last zoning meeting is May 22; and that is an issue. He stated he would have to bring back a representative of the local drug treatment program for the committee make up, and there may be more than one out there; and the Board would have to appoint someone tonight or he could bring proposed names back. Commissioner Higgs stated the membership does not have to be designated by the Board, so an appropriate person could be selected. Ms. Barker reiterated if the County wants to assume administration of the grant, the Sheriff has no problem with it; it was given to the Sheriff by the County to administer; and she would like to go on record stating they want to insure that they have commitments from the community. She stated the Advisory Board has already met; the State Attorney has an elders program; the Sheriff has a prisoner transportation booking enhancement program; and if it is opened back up, she wants to insure that all the time line criteria can be met so all those folks can reconvene and resubmit their proposals, as that is what she understands Commissioner Higgs is asking for. Commissioner Higgs stated there were only two proposals received; one from the Sheriff and one from the State Attorney; there is no problem getting a committee together to review those; so the only question is can some notice be given to the community at-large that they are able to submit proposals. She stated it is her understanding they were given a week the last time, so they could be given two weeks this time; and the committee could meet to review those. She stated she does not see why it cannot be done.

Chairperson Colon inquired is the form of advertisement or communicating with municipal police departments in the guidelines just to put an ad in the newspaper. She stated she talked to Ms. Barker who told her there was communication before that. Sgt. Butler responded that is correct; the grant is administered exactly the way the County administered it before it was handed to the Sheriff. Ms. Barker stated as far as notification to the public and what is the criteria for notification, it is a criminal justice grant, so there is a routine recurring pot of players because the only people who can apply for it are those in the criminal justice service. She stated there are 29 program areas; however, they have to involve criminal justice and drug enforcement. Commissioner Higgs stated that is not true; it says, “use them to implement projects that offer a high probability of improving the criminal justice system aggressively and effectively responding to violent crime or reduce drug trafficking and abuse.” She stated they go further to talk about the committee being called a substance abuse policy board and talk about the establishment in the Byrne Grant as the office of substance abuse policy; so it is not just criminal justice. She stated she wants to insure everyone has a chance and that the County is following the guidelines; but she has no objection to either of the programs proposed. Ms. Barker inquired if at this point the administration of the grant is taken over and assumed by the County and the two proposals will be considered under the County guidelines when it is reopened; with Commissioner Higgs responding there will be a motion to see how the Board wants to do it. Chairperson Colon stated if it will take that kind of discussion, she will entertain some of the people who are here for this item.

Commissioner Pritchard stated in reading the last Agenda item, it says, “Upon consensus of 51% of the governments in Brevard County”; it looks as if there is representation from the governments in Brevard County; and the concern of the Board was the week notification and if they did not read the newspaper, they would not have been notified. He inquired if any other type of notification went out to municipalities other than the newspaper ad; with Sgt. Butler responding not for convening of the Advisory Board that would hear the proposals, but the ad went in the paper as the County had done in the past. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the gentlemen present are police chiefs and representatives of municipal police departments; with Ms. Barker responding yes, and the State Attorney. Commissioner Pritchard stated he assumes they are all in support of the action being sought; with Ms. Barker responding that is her understanding, and requesting those in support to raise their hands, which the majority did.

Commissioner Higgs stated some of the calls she received today from people in law enforcement indicated they were under the impression her intention was not to go after the $357,000 this year; that was never her intent; they were upset that the County would let the money go; and that was never in the discussions the other night nor did she say anything about getting rid of the money.

Commissioner Pritchard stated his interpretation was that Commissioner Higgs felt the municipalities did not have an opportunity for input into the grant process, therefore projects they may have had in mind never were considered; but what he is getting from the representatives who are present is that it might not have been an issue. He stated perhaps all the men here tonight are saying the Byrne grant they entered into this year through the Sheriff’s office fell in line with what they would consider to be appropriate, and they are of a like mind to support what has been done; and inquired why does the Board want to intervene and reopen a process if the participants are in agreement with the way the process occurred.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not know what kind of communication went on between the Sheriff’s Office and the municipalities, but she is extremely sensitive about that; at no point has the Board stated it was not going to support the grant; so if that kind of information went out to the municipalities, that is incorrect. She stated the Board was very sensitive to the fact that all the communication that happened was an ad in the newspaper; that was considered communicating with the municipalities; it did not like that and felt it needed to communicate a little better with the chiefs, such as faxes and emails; that is the kind of communication the Board would have felt more comfortable with; and that is why the issue is back here today. She stated the Board wants to make sure their best interest is being served; she does not know what kind of indication was indicated to the cities, but the reason why the Board hit the brakes on this item was to make sure it was protecting the cities and that they had a say, not just to have an ad in the newspaper that anyone in the city who did not read it lost the opportunity to make proposals. She stated she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard, that if those who are here in support of the proposals are okay with it, then maybe the Board should go forward. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if anyone is in favor of re-opening the process; and no hands were raised.

Commissioner Higgs stated she understands their position, but wants to clarify the purpose of the grant; the strategy involves a number of different things that contribute to the criminal justice system; that would include ways of effectively responding to violent crime, reducing drug traffic and abuse, and may include a range of activities such as prevention, intervention, and enforcement. She stated the Department said the membership should include the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, State Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Chief of Police or their designees, the Jail Administrator, Clerk of the Courts, Superintendent of Education, and a representative of a local drug treatment program; so there is an expansion of who should be at the table considering these proposals. She stated the law enforcement community is a critical part of the grant program, but there are intervention, education, and prevention services that are part of it also; and that includes other parts of the community as well as the direct law enforcement community. She stated her concern is that the County follow the guidelines so it does not become ineligible; those are federal dollars administered by FDLE; and she wants to insure the guidelines are being followed.

Chairperson Colon inquired if that is how the County did it in the past; with Mr. Whitten responding the only difference may be the notice because the committee was formed and the certificates of participation were brought to the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated the question is not how it was done before because it may have been consistent; and what is important is what the program administrators are saying about how it should be done now. Commissioner Higgs stated Brevard County may not be precluded from moving forward consistent with those guidelines now, but it could happen.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the grant application says, “To accomplish these tasks the Department encourages each County to appoint. . .”; it does not say it has to be done, it says “encourages”; and his assumption, because the men are here in support of it, is that there has been participation. He inquired if in past applications for the Byrne grant if the Jail Administrator, Clerk of Courts, Superintendent of Education, or representatives of local drug treatment programs were involved in the process. Ms. Barker stated she can only speak since it was transferred to the Sheriff’s Office in 2001; and to her knowledge the board members remained as inherited from the County. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there has been any difference with the application this year than it has been in past years; with someone from the audience responding no. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there should be a difference; with a Chief of Police responding proper notification from the County to the municipalities would make a difference. He stated they learned about the grant process through the newspaper; and Chief Fernez, being one of the senior chiefs in Brevard County, brought it up at a recent police chiefs meeting and made a motion to support the Sheriff’s jail van program again. He stated it is a vital program to all of them, so they voted unanimously to support continuation of the program; but basically there has been somewhat of a lapse between the Board of County Commissioners and municipalities in the availability of those grant funds. He stated they all learned about the process again this year through the newspaper; and they all received a copy of the letter from FDLE to Chairperson Colon, and proceeded from that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the chief would suggest revisiting the process this year or making changes to improve the process next year; with the chief responding it may be better, once the County receives the information from FDLE to send each municipality a letter and make a more formal contact; but they have responded this way in the past several years; and it has been handled just about the way it was this year.

Ms. Barker stated she does not know how the Board is going to vote, but an outstanding issue may be a discrepancy in the State Attorney’s program; and there might be a question whether or not it was in its last year or if it could be considered; with Mr. Whitten responding that has been cleared up; it is in the third year of funding; so it can be funded for an additional year. Ms. Barker inquired if it can be funded in 2003-04; with Mr. Whitten responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is Ms. Barker’s understanding that there is only a four-year funding cycle for the program; with Ms. Barker responding yes, for each major program that is renewable for four years. Commissioner Higgs inquired if after the fourth year the program can no longer be funded; with Ms. Barker responding not the identical program. Commissioner Higgs inquired if renewability of the programs beyond next year would not be possible; with Ms. Barker responding they would have to change the scope of the major projects every four years. Commissioner Higgs inquired if without considerable change those programs could not be funded for an additional four years; with Ms. Barker responding yes, without changing the main scope of the projects.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the last window of opportunity for the Board to act on the grant is three weeks from tonight; with Mr. Whitten responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may want to reconstitute a new committee, open up the program, and come back to the Board with proposals; if there is time and rules, the Board wants to make it work; and inquired if staff sees it working in a practical sense, and how long does it take to put together a proposal and respond to something of this nature. He stated it is nice to go through an exercise, but for an attorney who has to file a response in 30 minutes may not be providing due process and denying an opportunity for his client; and inquired if the County is doing anything to the process by reopening it if there is not going to be an opportunity to bring something back to the Board. Mr. Whitten stated he cannot respond for those who may want to submit proposals for the grant funds; the easy part is sending faxes, emails, or letters to all service agencies in the criminal justice system; however, whether they can put together something in three weeks he does not know. Commissioner Scarborough stated it has to be sooner than three weeks because the committee has to convene and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Chairperson Colon extended an opportunity to the people who came to speak.

Police Chief Lionel Cote of Satellite Beach advised they met a couple of weeks ago and the chiefs unanimously supported the program; the method of bringing it about has been the same for the last several years; prior to PAL, the State Attorney’s Office got it for the victims witness program for three or four years; and what they tried to do is not have 10 or 12 submissions. He stated what most of them will do now is go back and hopefully have the Councils and Commissions vote to support the program; the City of Satellite Beach is poised and waiting for his report of how the Board responded this evening as to how it will proceed in supporting this program; and it is a vital program for all the cities who share equally in the funding effort. He stated if they have one or two officers taking a prisoner to Sharpes, that leaves one officer on duty in the City; larger cities have more arrests so the manpower toll is somewhat dramatic; and having the availability of the jail van is extremely important to all the cities, so they would like to see the program continue. Chief Cote stated the only glitch in the process seems to be the County; the word they receive does not come directly from the Board; the fact that the money is available is noticed in a newspaper article, then a follow-up from FDLE by a copy of the letter to the Chairman of the Board that goes to all the city managers; and that is how they are made aware of the process being accessible. He stated it is an important program; they are seeking the Board’s support because the jail van program is desperately needed in the County; they had problems transporting prisoners in the past; and this program will take care of that issue.

Mark Laderwarg of Melbourne Police Department apologized for Chief Reynolds who had a previous engagement; and requested the Board reconsider the grant funding for the jail van. He stated it is a valuable program for them; they make over 4,000 adult arrests per year, not including warrant arrests; and it is a transport of over 50 miles round trip, so it saves them a lot of man hours and money. Chairperson Colon stated the word “reconsider” was used; and she wants to clarify that the Board never planned to not consider it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the representative was asked to come up with the most important program he could think of to be funded by the Byrne grant in terms of law enforcement, prevention, and other issues, would the jail van be the most important or would the city have a proposal that would be more important; with Mr. Laderwarg responding they have plans to reconsider it for next year’s funding cycle. Commissioner Higgs inquired, if Melbourne had a chance this year, it would tell the Board the most important thing it would have considered would be the jail transport and would not want to submit something else; with Mr. Laderwarg responding he could not tell the Board that it was the most important thing, but it is a very important thing.

Commander Skip Toney with Titusville Police Department stated he can answer the question; it pertains to officer and citizen safety; the quicker they can get back on the road the better off everybody is; and that is why they support the Byrne grant project.

Sergeant Tony Aloise with Melbourne Beach Police Department advised it is a long way to transport prisoners from the City of Melbourne Beach; and it is not the most important criminal justice issue going, but it is a combined problem they all face and all agree upon. He stated they have two officers working; and if they have to transport someone to Sharpes, they lose an officer for at least two hours; so it is a benefit to the City of Melbourne Beach.

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger advised transportation has always been a huge issue in Brevard County because of the length of the County; they do not have that issue in Seminole County; and the Byrne grant is not a process that is unfamiliar with the law enforcement community. He stated he does not know of a meeting where government officials do not talk about the Byrne grant and if it is going to continue next year or not; his experience has been that earlier in the process, more people came to the meetings and discussed the issues, including police officers; Palm Bay always had 14 items, and they would all discuss them and reach a consensus on those that were the most important. He stated drug court started one year; there was a general consensus that it would continue for the entire four years; and the way the group worked in the past was to determine what money was left, what programs were leaving, and come in with new programs. He stated this grant comes up rather quickly; this year they were not sure it was going to be funded; and the Sheriff’s Office could tell the Board a little better, but they just got it probably this month. Mr. Wolfinger stated law enforcement is well aware of the grant and governmental agencies can subcontract with other agencies; they have done it in the past; and in fact drug court was funded through Mental Health. He stated it has not been as formal as it should be; the County should designate sooner if it wants to do it as the lead agency; and it should designate who should be on the committee so it can be ready to go because with this grant, there is not a lot of time. He stated they do not have to complete the entire application, just provide the theories and fill in the blanks later; there is a feeling that everybody in law enforcement knows the grant is out there; it flows that way, but that does not make it right; and it should change where the Board would set up the committee. He suggested it not be done this year because not only does it have to come back to the Board for approval, but letters would have to be sent to the cities, councils have to meet and approve them, and it would have to be sent to FDLE by June 10, 2003, so there is not a lot of time to do all that is involved.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioners are concerned that there is not enough time. Commissioner Scarborough responded even though he agrees with Commissioner Higgs, to go through an exercise frustrates people more than having a net benefit; the bottom line is does somebody benefit from the action; and he does not think anybody is going to benefit by going back out right now. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Commissioners agree that the Board should designate the committee as outlined in the grant process to go into place July 1, 2003, not the current committee; authorize the Chairperson to sign the certificate of participation; go forward with the two projects that have been recommended; ask the cities to agree to those; and bring them back on May 22, 2003, and the next year the County would handle the grant through Management Services or Mr. Jenkins’ designee and be responsible for implementing it under the guidelines that were given to the County. Sgt. Butler advised it is scheduled to come back to the Board on May 20, 2003. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why would the committee be put in place July 1, 2003, and is it for this year; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, June 10, 2003 the grant has to be in. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why would the Board have to appoint the committee by July 1, 2003; with Commissioner Higgs responding the new committee would be effective July 1, the Board can do it after June 10th, and let this cycle go forward. Commissioner Scarborough recommended it not be done July 1 as the Board will be out of session the month of June; if some technical difficulty occurs, it is going to tell everybody it wants something by July 1; and if the Board does not have to have it, it should do it right and bring it back later. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to authorize the Chairperson to sign the certificate, agree to the committee that is in place as being representative, authorize the new committee composition based on what is recommended by FDLE to be appointed by the Board, direct staff to assume responsibility for the Byrne grant and the new committee, and bring back the make up of the committee to the Board.

Ms. Barker inquired who would administer the grant for the rest of this year; stated she understands the direction is for next year; and inquired if the Board wants the Sheriff’s Office to finish this year or will it take over this year as well. She stated she just needs to know that.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board is not getting involved in it for this year and will let the Sheriff’s Office finish it; and after July 1, the Board will start to take over the process. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the point of contact is Sgt. Butler; and Chairperson Colon inquired if that is okay; with Ms. Barker responding yes, for the remainder of this year, and starting the next funding cycle, the County will assume responsibility. Commissioner Higgs stated when staff comes back with a new agenda item that designates the committee, then the Board will go forward.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the funding cycle; with Ms. Barker responding from October through September. Commissioner Pritchard suggested using the funding cycle for the grant as the time the County assumes responsibility; with Commissioner Higgs agreeing and recommending staff bring it back in time to hit that funding cycle.

Sgt. Butler inquired if the Sheriff’s Office is going to administer the grant through the 2003-04 funding cycle and the County will pick it up for 2004-05, as they are doing the 2003-04 now; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the Chairperson to execute the Certificate of Participation for the Byrne Grant Program; authorize the Sheriff to accept the grant award of $357,807 for FY 2003-04; designate the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office as the point of contact for the grant for FY 2003-04; approve the committee in place as representatives for FY 2003-04; and direct staff to assume responsibility for the grant for FY 2004-05, and bring the composition of the new committee back to the Board in time to coincide with the FY 2004-05 grant funding cycle. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MARCH 10, 2003 TABLED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on March 10, 2003, and tabled by the Board of County Commissioners on April 10, 2003, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0303401) Robert G. Weber and Marty Elizabeth Pluckebaum Weber’s request for change from AU to EU-2 with BDP limiting development to five single-family residential home sites on 4.851 acres located on both sides of Rockledge Drive, north of Coquina Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

The item was tabled to May 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting earlier in the meeting.

Item 2. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lot 1.10, Parcel 1, owned by RR Developers of Brevard, Inc., for removal of conditional use permit Z-7333 for outside sale of mobile homes, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board of 62b. and denial of 62a.

Mr. Enos advised the removal of a conditional use permit (CUP) was tabled from last month’s administrative rezoning agenda; the Board tabled it at the request of the owner’s representative who is here tonight; and the Board asked staff to describe in writing staff’s position on this item.

He stated the memo in the file from Ryan Rusnak states staff’s position, which has been confirmed with Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore, that the CUP provision was removed from the Code in the early 1990’s and that made this CUP obsolete; so they recommend removal of the CUP from the property.

Charles Moehle advised the last time there were two points and he was looking for a little bit more on the report than what was given; and he would like to read the report to the Board because he does not know if it is part of the official records. He stated it is a report to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners from Ryan Rusnak, Senior Planner, Planning and Zoning Office, through Richard Enos, Zoning Manager, Planning and Zoning Office; and it is the subject of April 10, 2003 Administrative Rezoning Agenda Tabling, Item 62a zoned as No. Z-7333, outside sales of mobile homes, RR Developers of Brevard, and says, “In 1985, a conditional use permit (CUP) was required for the outside sale of mobile homes or trailers in the BU-1, that’s the general retail commercial zoning classification. The provision permitted the sale of new or used mobile homes and prohibited the construction and manufacture of mobile homes. It further required the sales office to be located on the same premises as the mobile homes offered for sale. Subsequently, the provision of outside sale of mobile homes was relocated from the CUP section to the permitted use with conditions section within the BU-1 zoning classification. That Ordinance change, in addition to the language above, permitted the use only in conjunction with an abutting mobile home development. Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore has opinioned that the Ordinance change had a twofold effect. First it invalidated the CUP since the CUP was removed from the Zoning Regulations. Second, it prohibited the establishment of the use on the subject property since the property does not abut a mobile home development. Staff recommends removal of the CUP since the CUP is irrelevant.” Mr. Moehle stated the last statement “since the CUP is irrelevant,” is astounding to him; the removal of the CUP takes away a use because it is not permitted under the same conditions and under the changes that have been made to the Ordinances, which was after the property had the CUP; and the P&Z Board had a real problem dealing with it. He stated the P&Z Board thought it was reasonable to allow the CUP as it existed and deny the administrative change, but it was told several things, such as the property is not losing any use, but in fact it is undeniably losing a use; and inquired how can that not be relevant. He stated it is relevant to the situation of taking away a use that the property had; when it was incorporated within the Zoning Code as a use with conditions, not every change was made with conditions; a lot were incorporated and a lot were not; and that is the problem. He stated what the report does not address is what he brought up at the P&Z Board meeting; and the Board has been sent hundreds of those from people who do not want their zoning taken away or their CUP taken away. Mr. Moehle stated he questioned the procedure because when the P&Z Board saw that the fairness was to leave the CUP the way it was, the Assistant County Attorney said it cannot vote that way; and inquired if it could not vote to keep the CUP, what is the purpose of bringing it to the P&Z Board and letting people come and waste their time and talk if their rights had already been taken away. He stated they should have been notified when it was happening that it was going to affect them instead of waiting until the Board could only vote one way; they should have been notified when the Ordinance was passed that they were affected; but that did not happen, and the notice came when the Board was going to take away the CUP. He stated this situation is not the only one; there are a number of them that have been taken away; and people did not realize something was being taken away because it was implied to them it is the same as it was, and they are not taking away anything they did not have before. He noted those words were said several times at the P&Z Board meeting; and those are misleading words. He stated there is a problem with the procedure and with that representation; they are asking that the CUP not be removed; it takes away a use and value; and it is something that they cannot qualify for with the condition that is on it because the property adjacent to it turned into a County recreational vehicle park. Mr. Moehle stated the P&Z Board asked if the owners could sell recreational vehicles because it is next to a recreational vehicle park; it was told no under the definition of a mobile home and in no way does it qualify; so there is no way this situation is irrelevant. He stated it is totally relevant particularly since the use was on the property for many years and it lost its ability to be used by the County buying the property and changing it to strictly recreational facility instead of mixed use facility as it was intended. He stated they are large recreational vehicles that could qualify as mobile homes, but the County’s definition does not like that and does not allow it. He stated the report mentions nothing about the procedure and inequity in the procedure. Mr. Moehle stated he takes issue with the report saying that is irrelevant in this particular situation or other ones like it; and requested the Board think about the procedure. He stated there are tons of CUP’s coming through; and staff needs to be more representative of exactly what is happening and not have a goal of removing them no matter what, with blanket answers, which is what he saw happening. He requested the Board consider those two items and not remove the CUP from the property, as ultimately the P&Z Board recommended not to take it; and the only reason it was not unanimous was because it was told it could not vote any other way, and confusion about the procedure.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the County Attorney comment on the word “relevant”. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised what staff is trying to say is because of the changes in the Code from a purely technical or legal standpoint, the CUP would not be recognized any more, and this is a clean up process to take it off the books so that there is no confusion to future owners or future purchasers of the property. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is not relevant to anything in the Code as opposed to being a factual situation; with Ms. Bentley responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board were to zone property as zilch, it would not be giving the property anything; and that is what relevancy means.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to accept staff’s recommendation on Item 2 and remove the CUP.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is staff’s recommendation; with Mr. Enos responding in this case and in cases similar to this, where the CUP’s have been removed from the Code, the Board should remove the CUP that is on the property; and staff suggests the Board approve this item and others similar to it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is a loss of property use; with Mr. Enos responding no. Commissioner Pritchard stated the property has a CUP allowing the sale of mobile homes and now it does not have it; with Mr. Enos responding the property does not have it now, and did not have it since the early 1990’s when the CUP provisions were removed from the Code; so when staff says they are not losing anything, what they mean is they are not losing anything that they have not already lost many years ago. Commissioner Pritchard stated they have lost something that they had at one time; with Mr. Enos responding yes, but not by this action tonight. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was lost by a prior action; with Mr. Enos responding yes, in the early 1990’s. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the current owner was aware of the prior action removing the CUP’s from the Zoning Regulations; with Mr. Moehle responding no, they were not aware of any kind of action that took away the CUP they had until this notice; so they were not notified. He stated they have owned the property for some time and were not notified; the property owner who put the CUP on it was never notified that he lost anything either by the Ordinance or any other specific notice; and that is one of his points. Commissioner Pritchard stated there was a change in the use of the property. Mr. Enos stated there was a change in the Code that affected all properties with the same zoning classification; for instance if the Board made a change in BU-1 to remove ice cream stores from the zoning classification, that means every property of BU-1 zoning in the County can no longer have ice cream stores; but staff will not notify every BU-1 property owner that they have lost that use. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is getting at is the owner of the property at one time had the ability to sell trailers on the property; the owner does not have that ability now; and he has lost the ability to sell trailers. Mr. Enos stated he has lost that ability, but not by any action the Board may take tonight. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what have they gained. Commissioner Higgs stated when the general Code is changed, some people may gain something, and in some cases they may lose a use. Commissioner Pritchard stated if they gained something, he would not have a problem, but he has a problem with it when they lose what they had on the property, which was the ability to sell mobile homes. He inquired if there would be a corresponding loss of property value; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the owner has been damaged; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was the owner’s intent to sell mobile homes on the property; with Mr. Moehle responding yes. Mr. Moehle stated it was a larger parcel that included what was known then as Mega World; it has almost 300 feet on U.S. 1 at the corner of Bellwood Street and U.S. 1; and it has about 200 to 250 feet on Bellwood. He stated it was to be the sales corner for Mega World that existed at that time; the County obtained property through a procedure and competed with RR Developers because the County wanted a recreation facility; and RR Developers backed off and ended up with this property. He stated the only use that has come along is for sale of mobile home or recreational vehicles; the burden has been to carry the property at a pretty expensive value from the beginning; and it was always intended to be used for the sale of mobile homes. He stated RR Developers ended up without a park because of the County buying the property for recreation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not disagree with what Mr. Moehle is saying, but if the Board did absolutely nothing tonight, the property owner would not have any more rights; what he had no longer exists as a legal right; and as his example, if the Board gave someone a non-existing zoning designation, it would have given that person nothing. He stated what the property owner has is something that does not exist in the Code today; so if the Board wants to leave it, that is fine, but he still has nothing; and if it bothers Commissioner Pritchard, the Board could just leave it and go on because there is no use wasting time with it. He stated it does not make sense to have things on the books that no longer exist as a legal entity. Commissioner Scarborough stated the City of Melbourne took an action on the Sarno landfill property, which caused the price to escalate enormously; and now the Board is being accused of criminal action because Melbourne did something that added to the value of the property. He stated values go both ways all the time; if the Board takes an action it is scrutinized by people that maybe it is being paid off and doing something inappropriate because value was added by the Board; and there is value added and lost by actions the Board takes; so it can go both ways. He stated as a legal matter, this item is irrelevant; and it can be left there because he really has nothing anyhow if it bothers Commissioner Pritchard that much. Commissioner Pritchard stated what bothers him is for example, Sarno landfill property sold at $1.2 million in the morning and was purchased at $7.2 in the afternoon; and it was a $6 million windfall that occurred in one afternoon. Chairperson Colon stated the Board is not going into that issue; and Commissioner Higgs stated that did not occur. Chairperson Colon recommended the Board stay focused on the issue because it owes that courtesy to the people who are here and have waited a long time for their item to be heard. She stated the item is a zoning issue; there is a motion on the floor; the Board should not discuss another subject that has nothing to do with the item; but Commissioners are more than welcome to put it on the next agenda. Commissioner Scarborough stated he gets beaten up for taking away value from property, but most people walk away with enhanced value and richer because of actions the Board has taken, and not the contrary; the Board does not hear the other side; and Sarno is based purely on contract sequences and a zoning action that intervened in the appraisal process. Commissioner Pritchard stated that has nothing to do with this item. Commissioner Scarborough stated it goes to the heart of the issue that the Board is taking away value; and the truth is 99% of the time it adds value to properties. Commissioner Pritchard stated he takes exception to this parcel that had a value at one time that allowed sale of mobile homes; the current owner would still like to do that; the change has been made; and it has damaged, in his opinion, the property owner’s ability to utilize the property he owns and paid taxes on for a number of years to sell mobile homes. He noted the owner is not benefiting from this action; and that is where he is and why he cannot support the motion.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay. (See page for Zoning Resolution.)

Chairperson Colon advised the Board will return to the P&Z Board’s recommendations of April 14, 2003, Item 2.

Item 2. (Z0304501) Martha K. Ross’ request for change from AU to SR on 1.88 acres located on the west side of Burton Lane, south of Aurora Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Mike Henry, representing the family of Martha K. Ross, and Martha K. Ross, advised he was asked as a family member to represent Mrs. Ross; their purpose is to provide a vehicle to maintain Mrs. Ross’ living standard in a nursing home; she is an invalid; and they have exhausted all the funds of the family members and Mrs. Ross. He stated they are contributing monthly to her nursing home costs; and this property is Mrs. Ross’ only remaining asset. He stated their thinking is if they can rezoning the property to SR, it would enable them to provide two additional building sites that could be sold on behalf of Mrs. Ross and provide funds needed to maintain her welfare in the nursing home. Mr. Henry stated there were comments made at the P&Z Board meeting that he would like to clarify; one comment was about the width of Burton Lane and conflict of traffic passing in two directions; Burton Lane is a 50-foot right-of-way of which 30 feet is paved; the pavement is approximately 20 to 24 feet wide; and that improvement exists in the west 30 feet of the 50-foot right-of-way. He stated the undeveloped portion of the right-of-way is a line of trees; the notes say the west side, but it is actually on the east side of Burton Lane; and that is the same side the person who brought the complaint about the road not being wide enough owns his property. He stated they feel the road width is adequate; the road is paved; city water is available to the property; and there is an existing right-of-way to the west and adjacent to the property for Turtle Mound Road, which would be a future roadway. He stated there was a comment made if SR is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area; the trend in the area is single-family housing; there is an existing Subdivision called Aurora Woods that has just been approved and is being developed by Joyal Construction with 30 units and SR zoning; and the property directly to the west is an older subdivision on Anson Road zoned RU-1-7, which is even higher than the requested zoning. Mr. Henry stated to the north across Aurora Road is Fox Bay which has EU-2 zoning; so the character of the area is single-family residential and not agricultural. He stated there is an existing house on the property that fronts Burton Lane; there is substantial property to the north of the existing house that would provide good access to the properties from Burton Lane; therefore, they feel it is a reasonable request and are asking for approval.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Henry is a relative of Ms. Ross; with Mr. Henry responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the change would allow him to make more money when he sells the property; with Mr. Henry responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the reason for the request is to get additional income for Mrs. Ross; with Mr. Henry responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they have a contract for sale of the property; with Mr. Henry responding no, they do not.

Paul Ingram advised he lives directly across the street from the property; all the homes on Burton Lane are either on one-acre lots or more; the house on the corner is on two acres; and his property is on one acre as well as the property to the south of his property. He stated the property to the north is more than one acre; Aurora Woods is a development that was recently done, but it is probably 1,000 to 1,500 feet down the road; and he is not opposed to Mrs. Ross getting a variance for one additional house on 1.88 acres because if the property is divided in half, it would be .94 acre, which would be hard to distinguish from a one-acre lot. He stated all the homes along the street are on one-acre lots or larger; and his family would like to see the character of the street remain the same.

Chairperson Colon stated she will support the LPA recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Henry advised if the Board intends to deny the request, they would be willing to accept one additional unit rather than SR for two additional units.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what would the zoning classification be; with Mr. Enos responding the best way to do that would be to go with SR and a binding development plan (BDP) limiting development on the property to two units if the applicant agrees to the BDP. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they could get RR-1; with Mr. Enos responding no, because they do not have two acres. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff could do an administrative waiver; with Mr. Enos responding it is available for up to 10%, but it depends on signatures of all surrounding property owners, and he cannot say whether that will happen.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why not do the BDP for two lots; with Commissioner Higgs responding to consider something other than SR that is consistent with the zoning in the area. She inquired if staff has seen an instance where they agreed to RR-1 assuming two lots and administrative waiver and if that did not work; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Ms. Bentley does not recommend that. Ms. Bentley advised she would be concerned about the advertisement; and recommended the Board look at the facts and make a decision on a particular zoning classification that would be appropriate in the area. She stated if the Board wants to table the item to find out additional facts, it could do that and come back with additional information. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if SR with a BDP for two homes is acceptable under the ad; with Ms. Bentley responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would staff accept SR with BDP for two lots; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the applicant would accept that; with Mr. Henry responding that would be acceptable.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if RR-1 would have to be readvertised; with Ms. Bentley responding her concern was delegating to the future if certain things happen then they would have zoning. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they could table it for consideration of RR-1. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would be the purpose of tabling if SR with a BDP limiting the use to two units appears to be compatible. He stated the applicant requested SR; and requiring the BDP seems to fit in the scope of the advertisement as well as the Zoning Office’s parameters. Commissioner Higgs stated RR-1 has compatible uses; around the property are AU and RR-1; so RR-1 seems to be a more appropriate category because of the uses and size of the property. She stated she would support tabling the item to allow the applicant to come back in three weeks and see if it is agreeable. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the difference between RR-1 and SR; with Mr. Enos responding RR-1 is one-acre lots and SR is half an acre lots. Commissioner Pritchard stated they would have .94-acre lots. Commissioner Higgs stated there are additional uses in RR-1 that are not in SR. Chairperson Colon suggested tabling the item. Mr. Henry stated he is not sure what kind of building requirements, setbacks, etc. would be required in RR-1; and he requested SR as recommended by staff. Chairperson Colon stated it would be good to table the item and try to understand what is being requested and how it can be achieved.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 2 until May 22, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0304101) James G. Cotton and Peggy S. Wagner’s request for change from RRMH-2.5 to AU on 5 acres located on the south side of Hammock Road, south of Lionel Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 4. (Z0304102) Minnie Johanna Ledford’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.24 acres located on the west side of Magnolia Street, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 5. (Z0304103) Thomas Latonik’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-1-9 removing CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption on 0.58 acre located on the east side of Riveredge Drive, south of U.S. 1 and Riveredge Drive intersection, which was withdrawn by the applicant.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 5.

Item 6. (Z0304104) Anthony S. (Sr.) and Carol Lynn Rice’s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 2.35? acres located on the south side of Burkholm Road, west of Dixie Way, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the property owner is willing to do a binding development plan limiting the 2.35 acres to one unit; with Carol Rice responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 6 with a binding development plan limiting development on the back 2.35 acres to one unit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0304105) Jose and Silvia Melendez’s request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the west side of Weatherly Place, south of Breckenridge Avenue, which was tabled by the P&Z Board to its May 5, 2003 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0304201) Tyson Passmore’s request for change from GU to RP on 0.43 acre located on the west side of N. Banana River Drive, north of SR 520, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z0304202) Azan Temple Shrine Temple Holding Corp., Inc.’s request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 with BDP on 1.6 acres located on the south side of Furman Road, east of N. Courtenay Parkway, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as BU-2 with BDP, and EA on the wetlands portion as shown on the wetland survey dated March 19, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Rezanka has an option to purchase the property contingent on the rezoning; with Paul Rezanka responding yes. Commissioner Higgs advised she talked to Ms. Rezanka about the property; and inquired what do they anticipate in terms of landscaping on the west and north side that might enhance the visual appearance of the property from the overpass.

Paul Rezanka advised they have a five-foot setback on the east side of the property. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands what he has to do on the east side, but has concerns about the north and west sides. Mr. Rezanka stated they have a problem with pepper trees around the front of the property; they are all going to be cleared out; they spoke with the County today and apparently there is a big push to get rid of pepper trees; and they have to plant in excess of 80 trees 12-foot tall around the perimeter of the property and at least 80 small plants. He stated he cannot tell the Board exactly what will be done because the preliminary site plan is not done yet, so he does not have full scope of the actual landscaping they are going to do. He stated they are working with the County and are willing to do whatever needs to be done to beautify the north side facing SR 528. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are any terms they can come to tonight that might clarify the willingness on Mr. Rezanka’s part because she is concerned about the visual impact of the business. She stated the Board has tried to make high-traffic corridors visually appealing; 80 trees may sound like a lot but they may be fairly well dispersed around a parcel of that size. Mr. Rezanka stated they plan to take out the pepper trees from the County’s right-of-way of Furman to the Department of Transportation side; they are hoping Department of Transportation will say the pepper trees can be removed on that side; and they will landscape all of it. He stated he is not a landscaper and cannot commit to any specific type of landscaping, but it has to look better than it does now.

Commissioner Pritchard stated anything would look better than it does now; it is a pepper tree jungle that is unkempt and very unattractive; the County should have been proactive years ago in removing those trees; and what the applicants are proposing is an enhancement to the property. He stated it is not appropriate tonight to look at the agricultural aspect of what it should be; it will be worked out with County staff; and the applicants have made a bona fide intent to beautify what is currently not an attractive landscape. He stated Department of Transportation has invested a lot of money with planting plumbago and cabbage palms; they have put down tons of mulch also; and it is beginning to look nice; and what Mr. Rezanka plans to do with his property will only enhance the area. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has one shot at this parcel in terms of what goes on it; she has no objection supporting the use in BU-2 if the Board can get a BDI that enhances the landscaping so it could feel comfortable that the specific use, which involves outside storage of vehicles, could be used as an enhancement. She suggested the applicants work with staff and come back with different proposals to put in the BDP and put it on the consent agenda.

Sherry Williams of Natural Resources Management Office advised the type of buffer that is required on the east side of the property is Type A, which is an opaque buffer up to five or six feet to separate commercial from residential use; and along the road frontage, they would be required to put in a Type C buffer, which are trees every 25 feet in addition to shrubs and landscaping around the buildings.

Commissioner Higgs stated outside storage of vehicles is a more intense use in that zoning classification; and she would like to see an opaque approach on the north and west sides also with some height, even cabbage palms. Mr. Rezanka stated there are quite a few palm trees inundated with the peppers that they plan to save, but he does not know the numbers. Commissioner Higgs stated if they can work it out with staff, she will support the issue tonight with a specific use with a BDP including specifications, and staff put it on the agenda.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board has requested landscaping before, and applicants have been willing to help beautify the community, which is truly appreciated. She requested a motion to move forward.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he made the motion to approve the item as BU-2 and EA, with a BDP for landscaping that will be worked out between staff and the applicants. Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Bentley inquired if the buffer is to be opaque; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would like to have a substantial buffer so that the outside storage of vehicles would not have a visual impact from the overpass, but opaque may not be the right word. Mr. Enos inquired if that is only on the north side; with Commissioner Higgs responding on the north and west sides which seem to be visually available from the overpass. Ms. Rezanka stated the west side is behind Merritt Island Automotive and RaceTrack Gas Station and is not visible from Courtenay Parkway. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not concerned about the entire west side, but as people approach from the west going east on SR 528, her belief is there would be some visual impact from on top of the overpass, particularly when Department of Transportation removes all the pepper trees.

Item 10. (Z0210201) Carmen Realino’s request for change from GU to EU on 7? acres located on the north side of Morningside Drive, east of N. Banana River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limiting development to two residential home sites.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have any questions and agrees with the request of the applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 10 with a BDP limiting development to three residential home sites.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a BDP for how many units; with Commissioner Pritchard responding three units as requested by the applicant; and he has no problem with it. Commissioner Higgs stated she will not support the motion. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why; with Commissioner Higgs responding to be consistent with the Board’s policy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this item came before the Board with a difference of what they agreed to before the P&Z Board which unanimously recommended approval; now it is still positive with an 8 to 3 vote. Commissioner Higgs stated there are school issues involved.

Bruce Moia, representing the applicant, advised there was a school capacity issue that was brought up by staff; it was the only negative comment they received on the staff’s report; but there is a somewhat gray area involved. He stated the policy of the Board is not to have more than one additional unit from a parcel split; they believe they have two parcels; so to get three units is in line with the policy. He stated in 1968 someone took a 30-foot piece off one end of a parcel and made it a nonconforming lot of record; that happened during development of the commercial piece; they had to go through the process with the County; and whether anybody knew about it, it was created in 1968. He stated it was probably against the Code then and should not have happened, but it did happen; so there is some gray area. He stated his client has a 2.5-acre parcel the County is going to claim is illegal for building purposes; but he believes with a little forgiveness, because it was at no fault of his client, and it happened a long time ago as part of a process, if they could forgive a 30-foot sliver of property, his client would have two parcels; and that would make it consistent with the Board’s school capacity policy.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if someone sold part of the land; with Mr. Moia responding no, they actually owned it and took an additional piece to create enough property to build the shopping center. Commissioner Higgs stated they created value on another parcel by taking away from one parcel leaving an illegal lot; with Mr. Moia responding but the act was not proper and should not have been allowed, but it happened. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they just did it; with Mr. Moia responding if he had two lots and asked staff if he could build on one and take 30 feet from the other to build, they would say no; and it should have been said 35 years ago, but it was not. Commissioner Higgs stated they probably said they were not going to build on the whole parcel because it is attached to a mosquito impoundment; with Mr. Moia responding he does not know what happened, but he is here to beg for forgiveness. Commissioner Higgs inquired if his client bought the property subsequent to that action; with Mr. Moia responding he has only owned it for a year. Commissioner Higgs stated whoever sold it to him deemed it not a valuable piece of property because it had no buildability, so he bought it cheap because it did not have value and now he wants the Board to give it more value. Mr. Moia stated they are asking for rezoning to develop the property; they are not asking just for value; his client is willing to participate with the County to benefit everybody and is willing to negotiate with the County for half of the upland area to develop a stormwater tract to treat stormwater.

Commissioner Scarborough stated zoning is based upon rights and should never be combined with purchasing or selling transactions; and it is inappropriate on behalf of the County to undertake those discussions. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not know anything about the sale or purchase so her thinking is not colored. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is something immoral in negotiating zoning for purchase of property.

Chairperson Colon advised there is a motion on the floor; and called for a second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second. Chairperson Colon inquired if there is another motion. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is incumbent upon the applicant whether he wants to change it back to what he said originally before the P&Z Board, so the ball is in his court; and it does not appear the Board will move forward with three units. Mr. Moia stated when the applicant first came to the P&Z Board, the request was for four units; and based on dealing with staff, it was reduced to two units. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is what the P&Z Board recommended; and inquired if Mr. Moia wants the Board to consider it or not. Mr. Enos advised a motion is necessary.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 10.

Mr. Moia inquired if he can withdraw the application. Chairperson Colon inquired if he wants the item tabled; with Mr. Moia responding yes, so they can negotiate the BDP.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 10 until May 22, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
OF APRIL 14, 2003 ON ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on April 14, 2003 on administrative rezoning items as follows:

Item 1. Section 25, Township 29, Range 37, Parcel 764, owned by Villasol Realty Co., to remove conditional use permit (CUP) Z-7909 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 1 until August 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. Section 16, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 50, Lot 6 (BU-2 portion only) owned by David A. and Karen D. Brown, to remove CUP Z-7253 for mini-warehouses and Z-8096 for flea market, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. Section 16, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 50, Lot 19, owned by William C. and Antonia Lewis, to remove CUP Z-7252 for boat sales and trailer and truck rental, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Section 21, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 260 and 287, owned by Leon O. Surles, Sr., to remove CUP Z-8218 for cabinet and carpentry shop, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 28, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 792, owned by Fred D. Boozer, Jr. and O. S. Boozer, to remove CUP Z-8181 for public building, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Section 33, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 75, Tract B, owned by Hunter’s Run of Brevard Homeowners Association, Inc., to remove CUP Z-7818 for private club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Section 03, Township 30, Range 37, Parcels 253 and 254, owned by Ava K. Cronin, to remove CUP Z-8267 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Section 19, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 1 and 4, owned by Judith A. Hooshmand, Trustee, and Parcels 2 and 3 owned by Hooshang and Clara J. Hooshmand, to remove CUP Z-7865 for tenant dwelling mobile home, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Section 20, Township 30G., Range 38, Sub. HM, Lot 9, owned by Robert A. and Susan Sander, to remove CUP Z-7726 for guesthouse, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

The item was withdrawn.

Item 10. Section 23, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. HI, Block 48, Lot 19, and Block 53, Lots 1.31 and 2, owned by Loyal Order of Moose Sebastian River Lodge #1767, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 10 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Section 03, Township 26, Range 36, all of Subs. 01, 02, 25, 51, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79, owned by Indian River Colony; Indian River Colony Club, Inc.; Wayne S. and Betty T. Rogers; Frank P. and Nancy W. Stainback; George E. and Emma E. Gogel; Betty J. Brunette; Patricia J. Emrick, Life Estate; Dorothy S. Cole; Roland E. and Katharine B. Carey; John Payton, Jr., Trustee; Harold W. Zercher; James Lorayne Miles, Trust; Robert B. Bruce and Carole J. Bruce, Co-trustees; John E. and Felicitas I. Tuchsen; Vera C. Tressler; Anna G. and Joseph Thiaville, Life Estate; Richard J. and Cleola L. Galliers; Richard V. and Marcia D. O’Brien; William B. Cofield and Rose Marie Cofield, Trustees; Lawrence A. and Isabel L. Wheeler, Life Estate; Morris E. and Ruth B. Haller, Life Estate; John J. and Mary Ann O’Donnell; Ruth Marie Hentschel; Ronald D. Blenis and Margaret A. Blenis, Co-trustees; Henry C. (Jr.) and Mary Agnes M. Evans; Donald L. and Susanna E. Kustaborder; Thomas J. and Vera C. Banfield; Donald E. Packard and Dorothy R. Packard, Trustees; Vivian C. Willingham, Trustee; Gunnar Madsen, Trustee and Carolyn R. Madsen, Trustee; Richard L. Bourn and Wanda T. Bourn; James A. and Amelia B. Palmer, Life Estate; Jessie H. McCarty, Trustee; John N. Medinger, Life Estate; Grace M. Walsh, Trustee; Harold L. and Norma G. Brooks; Dorothy L. Flock, Trustee; Charles W. and Mary Ann Johnson; Indian River Colony Club; George J. and Mildred L. Arnstein; Brenda Blanchard; Kenneth and Amy S. Whitehurst; Robert C. and Lois E. Jones; Joseph P. (Jr.) and Marilyn A. Maloney; Woodrow W. Crum and Evelyn C. Crum; I. Steve and Mary Lee Musiek; Ethel K. Wishart, Trustee; Joan T. Davis, Trustee and Henry M. Davis; Elvin W. and Dorothy L. McAlister; Indian River Colony; Jose Antonio Buitrago and Carmen H. Buitrago, Trustees; Robert E. and Dorothy Jacqueline Baden; Joseph S. Laposata and Anita L. Laposata; Robert G. and Gayle V. Archer; James D. (II) and Sara T. Jones; Peter T. and Claudia Pat Fay; James H. and Virginia C. Aldrich; Jayne M. Rau, Trustee; Thomas P. and Helen D. McNerney; Wilber R. Pugh and Lenoir S. Seekins, Trustees; Wanda Jean Hiser and Joseph B. Testa, Co-trustees; William and Eleanore Young; Donald G. Alducin, Trustee; Lawrence J. Fay and Gloria E. Fay, Life Estate; Edward R. and Frances B. Dieterle; Richard E. and Lilo M. Cross; Kenneth C. Wallace and Katharine C. Wallace, Co-trustees; Indian River Colony Club; Paul and Betty R. Ouzts; Hattie G. Taccarino; Violet M. Obarski, Estate, c/o Michael Belford; Clem and Barbara Buckley; Charles V. Chapman and Dorothy V. Chapman, Co-trustees; John E. and Kathryn C. Enbow; Thomas R. Owens and Lynn M. Owens, Trustee; Pamala C. Hoyt, Trustee of the Claire Crum Revocable Trust; Omar J. Carey, Trustee; Arthur B. Tarrow, Trustee; John K. and Virginia T. Brier; Leigh J. Worthing, Trustee; Francis Robert Gerard; Bonnie V. Chabot; Wendall H. Shawler and Mary T. Shawler, Trustees; Alton W. Thomas, Trustee; Vincent J. Anania, Trustee; John E. and Jean S. Dougherty; Robert N. and Gene H. Ives; Charles N. Eckert, Trustee; Orange W. Hall and Marge A. Hall, Trustees; Sarah D. McInnis, Life Estate; Joseph L. and Norell R. Clark; Anna Mae Zamuda, Trustee; John and Rita Schwall; Timothy M. and Dorothy C. O’Leary; Elma K. Kelley, Trustee; Ernest Robert Barrett and Jayne Chittom Barrett, Co-trustees; Edwin P. Ketchum, Jr.; Travis E. and Mae D. Killgore; William A. Fletcher and Nancy F. Fletcher, Trustees; Lester R. and Wylma T. Barnhill; Edward K. (III) and Barbara H. Lawson; Juliet Lofton, Trustee; Gerald E. and Barbara A. Timm; Jessica J. Josephson, Trustee; George B. and Mildred S. Lundberg; John G. Kilz, Life Estate; William F. Ward, Trustee; Joseph C. and Evelyn I. Greenough; Virginia C. Laskey, c/o Sunbank; Robert B. Burns, Trustee; Clifford W. Shewan, Trustee; Harold E. Shaw and Rosezena L. Shaw, Trustees; Gail Schreiber, Trustee; Robert K. Moore and Ryanna Moore, Co-trustees; Christine H. Kane; Genevieve K. Brenholtz, Trustee; Howard P. Mulhem, Trust; Cindy Amos, Trustee; Milton C. Barnard, II and Glennie Nall Barnard, Trustees; Clarence R. and Mary C. Steber, Life Estate; Raymond M. and Marian F. Hogue; Mary Jo Charles, Trustee; Donald J. and Virginia A. Moody; William H. Martin and Jane F. Martin, Trustees; Indian River Colony Club; Harry B. and Virginia Musser, Life Estate; Joseph R. and Virginia N. Poole, Life Estate; L. C. Barnes and Sue K. Barnes, Trustees; Garland A. Ludy and Betty Jane Ludy; George J. Coleman and Ruth D. Coleman, Trustees; John J. Nazzaro and Alice G. Nazzaro, Trustees; William J. and Dana J. Schwab; Jean T. Sinko, Trustee; Gretchen Butkus; James D. and Billie B. Alexander; Olga R. Borden, Life Estate; Albert R. and Carol C. Hoffman; Victor E. and Ursula M. Virgens; Katherine N. Burlin, Trustee; Charles Elliott Martin and Marilyn Jean Martin, Trustees; George Haver Darfus and Dorothy Joan Darfus, Trustees; William J. (Jr.) and Phyllis Barbour; William R. and Novella S. Poindexter; Faison Trust; Kenneth B. and Nancy E. Smith, Life Estate; Juanita N. Phelps, Trustee; Frederick P. and Beverly J. Stowers; Albert J. Bowley and Marjorie M. Bowley, Co-trustees; John F. and Dorothy L. Sullivan; Ruth O. Batt; Phyllis Dent; George Gregory Panisnick and Kathleen B. Panisnick, Co-trustees; Caroline E. Evans; Jean A. Dougherty; Robert W. and Antoinette M. Seay; Ronald N. and Carole M. Guimond; Phyllis Barbour; Richard H. Scott and Gladys Larue Scott, Trustees; Ruth C. Sitz, Trustee; Cynthia L. Alm; Thomas H. Jones and Edna Mary Jones, Co-trustees; Francis J. and Gloria M. Sullivan; Philip A. Baer, Co-trustee; Pottle Family Revocable Trust; Delma A. Benivenni; Edmund F. and June R. O’Connor; Darrell A. and Jean Beschen; Anthony A. Mazzagatti and Emilia V. Mazzagatti, Trustees; Johanna M. Dellert, Trustee; Neil A. Montone and Margaret L. Montone, Trustees; Jane B. Mattson, Life Estate; Robert S. Holmes and Naomi K. Holmes, Co-trustees; Patricia H. Helms, Trustee; William G. and Catherine J. Roberts; Myra T. Golob; Rosalie G. Bannister; Thomas A. and Sarah L. Downs, Life Estate; Howard M. Lane, Life Estate; Edward J. and Mabel K. Magee, Life Estate; William and Constance M. Lewis, Life Estate; Lois A. Radtke, Trustee; Merlyn E. Natto and Mary Lou Natto; George J. and Katherine C. Martin, Life Estate; Alfred J. and Katherine M. Ball; Ray O. and Patricia A. Roberts; Earl A. Allen and Wilma D. Allen, Trustees; James E. Westfall; Arlan P. Breitenstein and Jeanne M. Breitenstein; Roger F. Collins and Edna R. Collins, Trustees; Donald L. Kester; Alfred L. Bailey, Trustee; c/o Patricia Bailey; Merle E. and Emmy Lou Hagen; Lou Ciarrocca, Trustee; David C. and Anna F. Brotemarkle; Ralph D. Walters and Betty A. Walters, Co-trustees; George Glynn Forrester and Joan Forrester, Trustees; Ada Mims Hershey, Trustee; Harry P. and Helen M. Ball; Albert C. and Doris L. Neimeth; Wendell H. Parker and Dorothy L. Parker, Co-trustees; Billy D. Emrick, Trustee; Martha H. Roos, Trustee; Pauline M. Klima, Life Estate; James E. and Sue C. Seay; A. H. and Virginia Speairs; Louis W. and Virginia D. Kranyak; Sarah M. Gray and Susannah M. Moon; Vaughn G. and Unni MacDonald; Herbert Brown, Trustee; Eugene E. Wallace and Carolyn B. Wallace, Co-trustees; Walter A. Pashley, Jr. and Jane L. Pashley, Co-trustees; Georgia B. Stulz, Trustee; William Stedman Witt, Sr., Trustee and Elizabeth Ann H. Witt, Trustee; John Joseph and Marilyn Elaine Flanagan; Maxie R. and Jean H. Williams; Jonas L. and Kathryn Blank; Indian River Colony Club; Thomas L. and Lois O. Whatley; David M. Burson and Dorothy M. Burson, Co-trustees; Sidney A. and Dorothy B. Yetter, Life Estate; Robert E. Melton and Betty A. Melton, Trustee; Arthur P. Lundberg and Isabelle K. Lundberg, Life Estate; Anne S. Hogan, Trustee; Ruby M. Frost, Trustee; Robert L. and Mary B. Chasse; George S. Johnson and Mary L. Johnson, Co-trustees; Marlene L. and Thomas J. Walters, Life Estate; Salvator A. and Rina C. Rega; Donald R. Alfred, Trustee and Joan E. Alford, Trustee; John W. and Margaret W. Ervin, Life Estate; John A. Ritner and Enrica D. Ritner, Trustees; Mae V. Williamson, Co-trustee; Charles Shelby and Garnette M. Reed; Robert C. and Jean S. Sheahan, Life Estate; John S. (III) and Carolyn W. Finlay, Trustees; Robert C. Shank; Irving W. Boswell, Trustee; Mildred L. Hawkins, Trustee; Rodney C. Wing and Emily J. Wing, Trust; Clara P. Gower, Trustee; Joseph J. Sofet and Lillian M. Sofet, Trustee; John H. and Sara C. Burton; Madelyn K. Adams and James Adams, Co-trustees; Wayne E. Fryman and Ida L. Fryman, Trustees; Thomas J. Quinn and Elfy H. Quinn, Trustees; Roderick D. and Lavonne S. Swank; Anna Moore; Robert W. Wilcox, Trustee; Berenice M. Trogdon and Floyd H. Trogdon, Co-trustees; Laura G. Eads; Margaret K. Birdsall; Dorothy C. and Howard C. Parker, c/o Howard Parker; Lloyd J. and Nina A. Matheson; Robert A. Grashoff and Marjorie D. Grashoff, Co-trustees; Donald T. Glenn and Agnes C. Glenn, Co-trustees; Joy C. Jones; Kenneth J. and Frances B. West; Betty L. Kelsey, Life Estate; Mary E. Masterson; Irving E. and Regina J. Britton; Norman K. and Evelyn J. Luther; Phillip P. Brown and Dorothy R. Brown, Co-trustees; Lawrence A. and Jessie M. McLean; James R. and Jean Lay; Michael (Jr.) and Marjorie B. Waslenko; John L. Maher and Adolphina J. Maher, Life Estate; Catherine Carmichael; Noah W. and Anne M. Gokey; Myron L. Ogdon and Clara M. Ogden, Co-trustees; Bobby L. and Dirkje Holland; H. George Cherry and Ruth H. Cherry, Co-trustees; James E. Withner and Elna M. Withner, Trustees; Walter D. Spann and June H. Spann, Trustees; James W. Miller and Ardeth J. Miller, Co-trustees; Janet H. Hines, Trustee; Forrest W. Engle, Sr. and Marie E. Engle, Trustees; Indian River Colony Club; Walter R. and Garthel Brett; Henry C. and Eva B. Newell; C. Stuart (Jr.) and Winifred J. Bowcock; Marie H. Langston, Trustee; Thurman E. and Gloria J. Anderson; Katherine P. and Paul W. Schrope; Dorothe McDowell; Jennett, Gaston P. and Sheila R., Trustees; Carlson L. S. and Jeanne Carlson; George F. Flanagan and Dorothy C. Flanagan, Co-trustees; Leonard V. Eleanor M. Lione; Wayne R. Cobb and Betty S. Cobb, Co-trustees; Donald R. and Alice A. Houston; Henry A. and Dorothy J. Arnold; Rose Bafundo, Estate, c/o Harold Homa; Terrell A. and Dolores Teague; Elna R. Meyer and Charles R. Meyer, Co-trustees; Sterling C. Holmes; John J. Ryan and Mae N. Ryan, Co-trustees; Jessica B. Chatfield, Trustee; Donald A. Dertien and Patricia F. Dertien, Trustees; Frank F. and Betty L. Clifford; Ralph D. and Mary W. Steakley; Boon Rose, Jr. and Dorothy D. Rose, Co-trustees; Armand C. and Alma L. Riopelle, Life Estate; Louis A. and Delores S. Pendergrass; Betty J. Christianson, Trustee; Norbert J. and Yvonne W. Oswald; Dorris C. Copp, Trustee; Wilbur B. McCurry, Trust, c/o Penelop M. Krell; William S. Kremidas and Margaret M. Kremidas, Co-trustees; Henry C. and Dorothy K. Pearman; Sybil C. McClaugherty; Calvin D. Schapira, Trustee; Anne J. Hoskins, Life Estate; Paul William Welker and Laurajean Bolan Welker, Trustees; Bevily T. Hundley and Virginia B. Hundley, Trustees; Emma K. Alsh, Trustee; George L. Hutton and Beverly A. Hutton, Co-trustees; Evelyn D. Cobb, Estate c/o Stanton L. Cobb; Robert L. LeBlanc, Life Estate; Charles C. and Evelyn D. Lutman; Austin and Marietta W. Nielsen; Richard M. and La Vaughn Light; George A. Westlund and Delores Westlund, Co-trustees; Peter B. and E. Carolyn Todsen; Russel A. Holmes, Jr.; Dorothy M. Pell, Trustee; Harry A. Meeker and Joan L. Meeker, Co-trustees; Vadis G. Godbey and Doris Dennison; Guy C. Earle and Evelyn Earle, Trustees; Frederick B. Haddad; Junice R. Bang; Marion S. Bergesen, Trustee and Reidel, William R., Trustee; Margaret E. Whittington, Trustee; Sun Bank of Ocala, c/o Privately Held Invest-Real Estate; Nancy B. Woodill, Trustee; Robert I. and Virginia L. Price; Willard A. Mahaffey; William J. and Anne M. Denuccio, Life Estate; James A. Shafer and Helen V. Shafer, Co-trustees; Elsie H. Rogers, Trustee; Paul A. Ill and Genevieve Ill, Trustees; Joseph A. and Mildred B. Walker; Sheldon H. and Lucille C. Barnes; Robert F. and Evelyn M. Pennington; Alice S. Obarski; Kathryn E. Hawkins; John A. Chapman and Beryl M. Chapman, Co-trustees; Jack P. Hoppes and Phyllis S. Hoppes, Life Estate; Richard P. and Betty J. Jeffrey; Francesco P. Frulio and Geraldine M. Frulio, Trustees; Frederic A. Leonard and Carmen G. Leonard, Life Estate; John Smith Raper and Ella Sue Raper, Trustees; Frank J. and Mary J. Simokaitis; Dorothy U. Rutan; Indian River Colony Club; Forrest E. (Jr.) and Doris Warehime; John F. Moale, Sr. and Margaret F. Moale, Trustees; Virginia C. Lane; James D. and Betty M. Ayers; Pauline Roy; Dorothy Ann Coe, Trustee; Caleb L. Morris and Mae J. Morris, Trustees; George F. Jones and Eleanor B. Jones, Trustees; Juel J. Blalack; Nelle M. Borden; Birgit B. Toohill, Trustee; Barbara M. Everngam; Mary J. Ulander, Trustee; Julia Mogavero, Trustee; Helen G. Bucki, Trustee; John J. and Eva O. Kagan, Life Estate; and Margart F. Marston, Life Estate, to remove CUP Z-7815 for sewer facilities, and retaining CUP Z-8196 for sale of alcoholic beverages, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. Section 06, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 250 (east 1,000 feet), 257 (east 1,000 feet only), and 500, Parcels 250 and 500 owned by Jack L. Moore and Parcel 257 owned by Thomas P. Harmony, to remove CUP Z-7749 for boarding of horses and horses for hire on Parcels 250 and 257 and sewer facilities on Parcel 500, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Section 20, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 17, owned by C. Spellman, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8039 for private club, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 14. Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 502 and 505 owned by Imperial Hotel Holding Co. Inc., and Parcel 503 owned by McDonald’s Restaurant of Florida, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8010 for tourist efficiency permitting kitchen facilities in 100% of the units; Z-8263 for additional building height on Parcels 502 and 505; Z-8946 for gasoline service station with accessory uses on Parcel 505; and Z-9180 for alcoholic beverages on premise consumption on Parcel 505, and retaining Z-8736 for bar or cocktail lounge on Parcel 502, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 15. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, all Blocks 4, 5, 51 and 52, and adj. vac. streets exc. Hwy r/w and exc. Lot 13, Block 51, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, to remove CUP Z-6602 for additional building height, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 15 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Section 24, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. NS, Block 5, Lot 12, owned by Robert and Kristy Wetzel, to remove CUP Z-8303 for guest house, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 17. Section 33, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DW, Lots 7 and 7.02, owned by Hynes Properties, LLC and Rex E. and Sara S. Moule, to remove CUP Z-7819 for guest house, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 18. Section 01, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 754, owned by Talwil Corporation, to remove CUP Z-6876 for zero lot line subdivision, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 19. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 41, 44, 45 and 46, owned by Roy Turnbaugh, to remove CUP Z-6816 for veterinary clinic and boarding of horses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 20. (Heard later in the meeting).

Item 21. Section 32, Township 27, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 1, owned by Farmland Reserve, Inc., to remove CUP Z-7942 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 21 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. Section 22, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 1, owned by Brevard County c/o Property Control, to remove CUP Z-7755 for residential social service facility, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 22 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Section 25, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 01, Block 7, Lot 1 and Sub. 02, Lot 78, owned by DiPrima Holdings, LTD, to remove CUP Z-7145 for gasoline sales accessory to a convenience store, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 23 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 24. Section 25, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 13, Lots 1 through 14, owned by Dorman A. and Kay L. Ray; John A. Trieste and Adele R. Trieste, Co-trustees; Wendell G. and Sandra J. Kish; Walter S. and Bernice R. Filleman; Sue Ellen Pinkerton; Roger N. and Dorothy J. White; Claudia V.E. Vanderwater, Trustee; Richard J. and Marie J. Wiack; Jung-Lin and Shu-Ching Chen; Robert Hassol and Rhoda Weinstein; Jill L. King; Brian and Lydia Crane; Richard Martis and Marion M. Martis; and Oswaldo F. Duenas, to remove CUP Z-7855 for professional services office building, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 24 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 25. Section 13, Township 28, Range 36, Sub. 50, Block 132, Lot 39, owned by Bertram Schild and Frederick Zacharias, to remove CUP Z-8097 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 25 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. Section 33, Township 28, Range 36, Parcel 250, owned by Carlyle Platt, to remove CUP Z-8053 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 26 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 27. Section 09, Township 30, Range 37, Sub. 26, Lots 18 through 26, and 70 through 74, owned by Masaya Corporation, to remove CUP Z-8370 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 27 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 28. Section 40, Township 20G., Range 35, Sub. AC, Lot 11.01 and Section 07, Township 20, Range 35, Parcels 3 and 5 and Section 17, Township 20, Range 35, Parcel 1, owned by John A. Russell, to remove CUP Z-7777 for airplane runways and tenant dwelling mobile home, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 28 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 29. Section 06, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 505 and 506, owned by David F. and Patricia A. Chauvin, to remove CUP Z-7732 for landscaping business, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 29 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 30. Section 07, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 68 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Genesis Cable Communications, LLC, to remove CUP Z-8395 for additional building height, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 30 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 31. Section 16, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 25, Lot 8.01 (IU-1 portion only), owned by Hugh Bohne, Trustee, and James H. Coleman, to remove CUP Z-7887 for metal salvage yard and junk yard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 31 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 32. (Heard later in the meeting.)

Item 33. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 27, Block 2, Lots 16, 17, and 18, exc. Hwy r/w owned by Audrey M. Carullo, Life Estate, to remove CUP Z-6435 for automobile repair, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 33 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 34. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Sub. 51, Lots 67 and 68 ex. east 40 feet of N. ½, 71, and 72 and vac. Cherry St. west of Nova and east of U.S. 1, to remove CUP’s Z-6589 for automobile repairs and Z-6590 for outside sale of mobile homes and trailers, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 34 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 35. Section 06, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. 51, Lots 9 and 16, owned by Gary F. and Eleanor P. Large, and Bruce and Sandra S. Jones, to remove CUP Z-8311 for guest house, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 35 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 36. Section 18, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. AV, Lots 103, 104, 121, and 122, owned by Atlantic Investments, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8244 for commercial borrow pit, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 36 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 37. Section 28, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 34, Lots 7 and 8 owned by City of Titusville, to remove CUP Z-6701 for church, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 37 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 38. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lot 1.10 owned by RR Developers of Brevard, Inc., to remove CUP Z-7790 for boat sales, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 38 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 39. Section 31, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 01, Block A, Lots 18 through 21, ex. Hwy r/w, owned by Giovanni and Rosalia Giambanco, to remove CUP Z-6520 for boat sales and service, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 39 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 40. Section 36, Township 23, Range 35, Parcel 766, owned by All American Oil, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8015 for gasoline sales accessory to convenience store, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 40 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 41. Section 28, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 251, 252, 501, 502, and 503, owned by Ray L. Colgin and D. E. Bebout, to remove CUP Z-8163 for tenant dwelling mobile home, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 41 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 42. Section 26, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 518, owned by A Counseling Center, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8328 for cabinet and carpentry shop, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 42 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 43. Section 27, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 1.1, owned by Saturn Sales, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8353 for outside sale of mobile homes, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 43 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 44. Section 34, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 2 and 250, owned by Westfork Holdings, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8195 for boarding of horses and horses for hire, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 44 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 45. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 267, owned by McDonald’s Corp., to remove CUP Z-8197 for outside sale of mobile homes, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 45 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Section 26, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 771, owned by A Better Warehouse & Storage, LLC, to remove CUP Z-8229 for truss manufacturing plant, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 46 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 47. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 03, Lots 29 through 32, owned by Optimum Realty Corporation, to remove CUP Z-6696 for private club and on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 47 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 48. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 48, owned by Benjamin Kohn, to remove CUP Z-4251 for flea market, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 48 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 49. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 280, owned by Premier Storage, LLC, to remove CUP Z-8281 for mini-warehouses, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 49 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 50. Section 11, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 508, owned by Hess Realty Corporation, to remove CUP Z-8358 for gasoline sales accessory to a convenience store, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 50 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 51. Section 14, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 53, Lots 3 and 5, Parcels 537, 537.2, 537.3, and 537.5, owned by Raymond E. Hoffman, Walter W. Smith and Kimberly Ann Smith, Raj M. Rawal, Knollwood Associates, and Sandra Carla Alexander Jones and William Chenault Jones, Sr., to remove CUP Z-7730 for restaurant on all, and retaining Z-8560 for child care center on Parcel 537.5, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 51 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 52. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lot 3.01, owned by 1st Christian Church of Merritt Island, to remove CUP Z-7878 for additional building height and retaining Z-7878 for church, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 52 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 53. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lot 7.01, owned by EIC Merritt Island Partnership, to remove CUP Z-8407 for sale of alcoholic beverages, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 53 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 54. Section 27, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 757, owned by Sue Ann Brooks, to remove CUP Z-8111 for guest house, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 54 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 55. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 512 and 513 (ex. ORB 1577, PG 576), owned by Irving A. Bubeck and George W. Lewis, c/o George Lewis Realty, and Medplex, LLC, to remove CUP Z-6349 for professional office and sewer facilities, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 55 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 56. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 252 (w. 175 feet only), owned by Olympia Development Group, Inc., to remove CUP Z-7821 for trailer and truck rental, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 56 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 57. Section 19, Township 24, Range 37, Parcel 502.1 (w. 50 feet of south 50 feet), owned by Lighthouse Christian Church, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8073 for telephone exchange and transmission facility, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 57 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 25, Township 27, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 2 (east 1,250 feet of the south 1,400 feet only), owned by Farmland Reserve, Inc., to remove CUP Z-8318 for land alteration (commercial borrow pit), which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised the property has a CUP for a commercial borrow pit; the CUP is available in the Code; so the Board can leave it on the property. He stated the owner requested it be left on the property, so the P&Z Board left it because it was an appropriate use of the property.

Mr. Rusnak stated the use is not active, but they want to keep it for future land alteration; however, the Board can revoke it if it wants to.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not have a problem with the denial.

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

Item 32. Section 17, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 302 and 324, owned by Larry D. Claycomb and Lynn M. Claycomb, and John H. Evans, Trustee, to remove CUP Z-7845 for sale of alcoholic beverages, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Attorney John Evans presented a map to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated his client, through trusteeships and other aspects, owns the parcels marked in yellow towards the southeast; and identified the intersection of SR 46 and US 1 in Mims. He stated his client has acquired several parcels and has a contract on Parcel 302; the CUP is attached to the parcel in gray; that was Rose’s Magnolia House; a fire burned it down and the CUP is not active; but his client intends to build a shopping center for the Mims area and have a restaurant that would serve some form of alcoholic beverages that goes with a restaurant, so he would like to maintain the CUP if he could. Mr. Evans advised he attached a copy of the Deed to the package so the Board could see he recently purchased the property; the Magnolia House parcel was purchased in December 2002; and he did rely on the CUP because he intends to build a shopping center with some form of restaurant; and requested the Board leave the CUP in place as unanimously recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Evans represents Mr. Clayton who will build the restaurant; with Mr. Evans responding no, he represents the owner of the parcel in gray and all the yellow and has a contract on Parcel 302 to the north. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are contingencies; with Mr. Evans responding there are no contingencies; it is under contract; and the purpose is to assemble enough property to build a nice shopping center with a restaurant.

Commissioner Scarborough advised it is constructive to notice the location of Mims Elementary School in comparison to the property; unfortunately the restaurant burned down; what is there is a vacant piece of property with a CUP for alcoholic beverage almost cattycorner from the School; and he has a problem with that. He stated the Board needs to see the whole plan of where alcoholic beverages will be sold; it should be under a greater degree of scrutiny in this area; so he cannot support the denial and will move approval.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 32 to remove CUP Z-7845 for sale of alcoholic beverages.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there could be a binding development plan that the CUP had to be attached to a restaurant instead of a stand alone bar; with Mr. Enos responding the conditions of this CUP are such that because there is a school within 300 feet, the only way they can use the CUP is with a restaurant with at least 50 seats.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not like to give a permit for alcoholic beverages that close to a school ahead of the knowledge of what the configuration will be; it may be fine and good, but right now the Board should not perpetuate a CUP for alcoholic beverages on a vacant piece of property. He noted there is also a church in the vicinity.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: McPHILOMY v. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session for May 6, 2003 at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, to discuss strategy relating to litigation of McPhilomy v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)