.

CALL TO ORDER

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

The Board of County Commissioners acts as a Quasi Judicial body when it hears requests for rezonings and Conditional Use Permits.  Applicants must provide competent substantial evidence establishing facts, or expert witness testimony showing that the request meets the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan criteria.  Opponents must also testify as to facts, or provide expert testimony; whether they like, or dislike, a request is not competent evidence.  The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing rules in the Zoning Ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area.  The Board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands.  If a Commissioner has had communications regarding a rezoning or Conditional Use Permit request before the Board, the Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity, with whom the communication took place before the Board, takes action on the request.  Likewise, if a Commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the Commissioner must disclose that fact before the Board takes action on the request.  Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless the time is extended by a majority vote of the Board.  The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal.  Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak.  Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak. 

The invocation was given by Rob Medina, Military and Community Relations Director, Congressman Posey’s Office.

 

Commissioner Andy Anderson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

Chairman Fisher stated Jack Parker, Sheriff, inquired about a letter for the Board to consider referencing Brevard County being a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA); there is a possible grant, this letter does not commit the Board to anything; but it does support stopping any high drug trafficking areas. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the letter is designating Brevard County as a HIDTA, it concerns her that it may affect property values; she would not move into a HIDTA and she noted she moved from the Miami area because it was a HIDTA; and she thinks it is a bad thing to call Brevard County.

 

Commissioner Anderson advised he thinks it is based on the I-95 corridor.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the I-95 corridor could be called that, because she is not comfortable with calling the entire County a HIDTA; and if I-95 is designated as a HIDTA, she would be okay with that.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he thinks it is a catch-22; the reality is drug use is prevalent and the Sheriff has identified it as an issue; and for the sake of property value, he does not think it is an impact; and not recognizing there are resources to provide to the Sheriff, his is in support of it.

 

The Board authorized the Chairman to sign a letter of support for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) designation consideration for Brevard County.      

 

MOVER:             Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2

SECONDER:     Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4

AYES:                 Robin Fisher, Chuck Nelson, Mary Bolin, Andy Anderson

NAYS:                 Trudie Infantini

 

Chairman Fisher called for a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations of January 10, 2011, as follows:

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager, stated this is a request from RU-1-13 to AU with the removal of an existing Binding Development Plan (BDP) on 17.3 acres; this BDP required minimum lot sizes along the east portion to one-half acre given in an adjoining RR-1 subdivision to the east and limited the overall development to 37 total units; this change would allow them, if they were to residentially develop this property potentially yield only six units because they would be required to have two and one-half acres.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she needs to disclose that she did called Doug Samuels, to ask him some questions about this item.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he has had conversations with Robert Bruce, who is in the audience; his dad lives in the area; and he did a site inspection.

 

Doug Samuels stated he may be out of sequence, he is one of the principle owners of Meadow Pines; stated he is not listed on the Agenda, he filled out a card just in case; and inquired if he should wait to speak.  Chairman Fisher inquired if Mr. Samuels is the applicant.  Mr. Samuels responded yes, he is one of them.  Chairman Fisher inquired if Mr. Samuels wanted to speak on behalf of this item.  Mr. Samuels stated Doug Padgett was going to present principally to the Board; but he is also prepared to speak as well.

 

Doug Padgett stated this property had been adjoining the western boundary, he and Mr. Samuels both live in Pine Meadow Estates, to the west side of that street; this property was agricultural since the beginning of zoning in Brevard County; and he developed Pine Meadow in 1986 and at that time he changed the zoning to RR-1.  He is asking the Board today for the zoning to go back to agricultural, it seems to be in liking with the surrounding neighborhood, it gives some free space in their back yards, and basically it will become their individual back yards with all of the north half will be Mr. Samuels and his will be to the south.  He stated he has spoken with all of the neighbors in Pine Meadow, all of the property owners and neighbors that adjoin the property to the south along Henry Avenue, and most of the property owners along Seminole Boulevard; and he has a handout for the Board to look at.  He stated there are 25 signatures on the handout from each property owner on Pine Meadow and all of those signatures recommend it going back to agriculture: there is a zoning map attached to the signature list, it has pink and yellow highlights of the signatures location of the property owners agreeing to agriculture.  He stated he thinks everyone is very please that is going back to agricultural and there will be more long-term buffers there.

 

Chairman Fisher inquired if Mr. Padgett purchased the property.  Mr. Padgett responded yes.  He stated on the Pine Meadow parcel the first lot in on the left is his and the fourth one on the left is Mr. Samuels.

 

Mr. Samuels stated he would like to point out that they have lived there for many years; the investment was not a monetary investment because no developer would actually down-zone; the money was acquired to enjoy the piece and quiet in the neighborhood; and they were able to get the support of the neighbors to go back to agriculture instead of building 37 more homes in the neighborhood.

 

Robert Bruce inquired if the Board has read the current BDP.  Chairman Fisher responded the Board has read the report that was prepared by staff.  Mr. Bruce stated the BDP was put together approximately four years ago based on Mr. Padgett and Mr. Samuels input and from the people on the west side of Seminole Boulevard, which are the same 25 people who signed the petition recommending it go back to agriculture; and now these same people who had input in the current BDP now want something different.  He stated he would like the current BDP to stay in place, that way if the property ever did get developed there would be a chance for city water to be available on Seminole Boulevard, property values, and taxes could be a huge benefit to the whole area; if the BDP is removed and goes back to AU then it would not have that opportunity;  furthermore, he would like to know if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) can be done because he read in previous meeting minutes that horses were wanted to put on one of the properties in question: and he is suggesting to the Board to give them the CUP and they will be able to have their horses and leave the original BDP in place.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated if downgrading some of the agricultural use; and there is no need to maintain it with a BDP on that property because there will be no development.

 

Ms. Fox stated typically the BDP is an agreement between the property owner and the County, it usually gages the types of developments and uses on the property, and she does not think it would be wrong with leaving the current BDP in place, but the BDP was tied to the zoning at that time; and if AU is going to be use the current BDP will not work.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated this applicant is asking for a less intensive use, which is unusual because it does not happen very often.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated AU has some pretty egregious uses, it could have a pig farm; there could be a problem if the property is ever sold, someone could have pigs and chickens on the property, and is in a residential area; his concern is the petition does not say what the certain uses that would or would not be used; and the people who signed the petition may or may not have signed if it told what the uses will be.  He inquired what the uses are and will the applicant be committed to those uses.  Mr. Samuels responded that same question came up at the Planning and Zoning meeting; he stated he has is standing before the Board and is demonstrating their intent, they live there, and they want to be good neighbors; and being able to commit to something is perplexing to him because they are surrounded by agricultural properties in that immediate area.  Commissioner Nelson stated in all honesty it is not, it is surrounded by residential properties.  Mr. Samuels referred to the zoning map that was enclosed in the handout given to the Board showing the agricultural in green, that immediately surrounding them; his horses are kept on a lot that is agricultural located about one quarter of a mile from his home; and all through the area there are barns on that t have probably 200 heads of horses out there.  Commissioner Nelson advised Mr. Samuels is misstating what agricultural is and he would like for staff to clarify the description; and under certain circumstances some areas are allowed horses in residential classifications.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, stated she thinks Mr. Samuels is referring to the Future Land Use Map; the green depicts residential, for Future Land Use; and that is a Comprehensive Land Designation and that Designation is a residential.

 

Mr. Samuels stated he is not sure of what map is being looked at.

 

Mr. Padgett advised the map attached to the signature petition is what Mr. Samuels is referring to.

 

Chairman Fisher stated the Board is looking at the map submitted attached to petition; and staff needs a copy to review the green area in question.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the only nonresidential surrounding them is none.

 

Mr. Padgett stated along Henry Avenue all of the homes are agricultural; there is approximately 11 acres to the east of Pine Meadow that are all agricultural; he understands where Commissioner Nelson is coming from, but if the Board singles them out because he is present today asking for a zoning change, it puts him to a disadvantage of holding him to a higher standard than all the other agricultural properties in that five mile square.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated just because a horse is seen, does not mean it is agricultural; the point that is being missed is, there are zoning categories that allow horses; a person can have residential property with a barn and horses, which are all permitted; there are limitation on it; what cannot be had are hogs and chicken which is the true agricultural zoning classification; and what is being discussed are technical designations.  He stated is horses are wanted there are ways of doing so, but what is being asked of the Board to do is for it to give a wide range of possibilities that include things that people would not like; he wants to believe what Mr. Padgett and Mr. Samuels are telling the Board they want to do; but he does not know what the future holds with the property; the property could be sold to someone else and it has agricultural zoning and there can be many things done that was not intentionally wanted to be done.  He stated that is the problem and the dilemma the Board is faced, with by asking it for something different than what is really wanting to be done and is much worse for that neighborhood than what is being asked for.  Mr. Samuels stated by saying it is much worse is some hypothetical instance that he and Mr. Padgett do not represent.  Commissioner Nelson stated let the Board approve what is being asked for because the right thing is not being asked for.  Mr. Samuels stated he is asking for agricultural land to be able to put horses on, to be put pastured, and put a hay crop in to actually feed the horses.  Commissioner Nelson clarified the things can be done, it will require a permit, and the Board can restrict him from it becoming a pig farm or Mr. Samuels leasing the property to someone and them having a pig farm, or all the other uses that are in agriculture, which has some pretty yucky things in agriculture; and it is known that horses are wanted and it can be done, but what is being asked is a carte blanche,

 

Mr. Padgett advised people have pigs across the street and south of him.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if pigs are being commercially grown and sold off that property across because they can.  Mr. Padgett responded yes.

 

Mr. Samuels advised those individuals are zoned AU.  Commissioner Nelson stated one property is picked out of four sides of the properties against Mr. Padgett, three of the four are zoned residential and hogs cannot be grown on residential.  Mr. Samuels mentioned Commissioner Nelson keeps telling them of such; he inquired if how he keeps misinterpreting agricultural to Commissioner Nelson.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if there are residential lots on three of the four sides.  Mr. Samuels responded yes.  Commissioner Nelson stated three out of four sides are surrounded by residential and not by agricultural.  Mr. Samuels repeated yes.  Commissioner Nelson advised that it has been clarified; those neighbor's are the people, whom have a right to understand what is going to be there; at this point in time they believe it is going to be residential, it is now being asked to be change it to agricultural in a way that is not defensive; but it is willingly not being tied to a commitment to make it offensive.  Mr. Samuels advised the reason he is reluctant is because the criteria needed by the Planning and Zoning Board individuals seemed to be arbitrary; and inquired how the number is created.  He advised there is no intent or time to put a pig farm in, he is very concerned about his neighbors, and he lives there.  Commissioner Nelson advised if agricultural was asked for with solely the purposes of having horses, the Board can do so, it takes everything else off the table, and allows him to

 

Mr. Padgett advised that is not what is being asked for solely; there may be a time when citrus will be put there.

 

Mr. Samuels mentioned there is already citrus there.

 

Mr. Padgett stated the property was a citrus grove for 35 years; and he may on his portion get back into the citrus business.

 

Chairman Fisher inquired if Ms. Fox can tell the Board what is exactly allowed in Agricultural Use (AU).  Ms. Fox explained with 17 acres of AU there are more activities than the general one to two acres lots like in Canaveral Groves; packing, processing of all the grove and horticultural materials that would be produced; plant nursery, private golf courses, fowl raising, and bee keeping; on 10 acres a hog farm, raising, grazing, and breeding of cattle; and thinks Commissioner Nelson is suggesting there are things that the applicants would be willing to limit themselves to a particular area of uses, so that if by chance something happened and the property had to be sold, it would run with land, and those neighbors could be assured from now until the next public hearing to change something because its uses would stay with the property.  Mr. Samuels advised he thought he was already doing that by changing it from being able to build 37 homes with the hundreds of tons of impervious surfacing infrastructure with asphalt and concrete that would be put in for that, to safeguard the neighborhood from that; it was AU up to 2004, it was reverted to the current zoning, which he did support because he did not relish the thought of looking at a neighbor in a Speedo watering their lawn; but he respect the rights of that property owner to develop his or her land within the compatible use of that area.  He advised he came before this council in 2004 and supported that; what is being asked today is to put the property back to the way it was in 2004.

 

Commissioner Infantini suggested if it was limited with AU without the permission to have pigs and chickens.  Mr. Samuels responded he is absolutely supportive of that concept; he wants to clarify, he is fine with no chickens as far as restriction goes; there are currently pigs on the property that cannot be eradicated; and the last thing he wants to do is have the Board limit him and then all of the sudden he is in some kind of violation because he cannot get the pigs off the property.  Commissioner Infantini reiterated domestic, cropped, farmed, fenced pigs, as apposed to the ones that are running wild.

 

Mr. Padgett stated there was mention of limitations for the pig farms or the pecking houses to a 10 acre area.  Ms. Fox advised it is one example given to the Board to describe what could be done on property that is more open.  Mr. Padgett inquired if he is less than 10 acres there would not be the ability to have a pig farm.  Ms. Fox responded she believe that is true.  Mr. Padgett stated instead of all of these different animal species that they will not have, is to agree to this zoning change, with a stipulation that within so many months it will subdivided into two parcels; one, will go to Mr. Samuels; and two, will go to him; and it will be less than 10 acres.  Commissioner Infantini stated there would still be ability later to join the acreage.    

 

Chairman Fisher inquired if there are any intension's of having any domestic pigs or chickens.

Mr. Padgett and Mr. Samuels responded no.  Mr. Samuels stated one investment that he is trying to make is the investment in his children to learn the value of work; he inquired if one of them wants to raise a pig, the Board is telling him right now that it wants him to limit that ability on 17 acres, he thinks that is unreasonable; and there is an extreme difference between one pig or one calf, to understand where stuff comes from compared to a thousand heads of pig that keeps agreeing upon some hypothetical far out scenario.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated one of things that need to be made clear is the zoning goes with the land, if something happened and both applicants were gone and the heirs sold that land; the zoning is going to go with the land; there might be the best of intension's, but the Board does not know who the next owner of the land is going to be.  Mr. Samuels remarked that the Board did not know before 2004 when it was AU then either.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated from his purely, moral, ethical dilemma is, it was AU for 50 years; there is tons of agriculture left in that neighborhood that allows to do what agricultural does, but are not doing so; and there are high-end homes located there and he would be shocked if Mr. Padgett put in a pig farm and would be highly unlikely because he would be harming his own property values.  Mr. Padgett replied that is correct.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated if Brevard County's past is looked at, it was all agricultural and the Board could do away with zoning and bring it all back to AU; that is the point trying to be made; and Mr. Samuels is beginning to get a bit argumentative about it.  He stated he is worried just by the way Mr. Samuels has approached this, he is wondering if Mr. Samuels is not being very candid with the Board; and the Board is trying to give him what he is asking for with the property, but is resistant to take out the things that the neighbors might not know are potential uses, might not be as receptive to the zoning change.  Mr. Padgett responded he has had a personal conversation with every single person in Pine Meadow; they are not dumb people; and the pigs and chickens is not an issue with them.  Commissioner Nelson stated that is because they were told that it will not be done; but he or an heir could.  Mr. Samuels expressed his apologies to Commissioner Nelson that he is coming across as argumentative but what is being thrown out to him is a hypothetical instance, that will no occur; they live there and are neighbors to these people, and care about what this area is like; and there have already been a great deal of money spent pulling out the peppers that have been there for 30 years; there were four tons of tires removed; the previous owner had cleaned up a great deal of debris, it is better than it was before; this is because they live there and care about it; and it was zoned AU before and there is AU all around the area and he does not know why it is a point of contingent.

 

Chairman Fisher inquired if the applicants are comfortable with some type of restriction or if it was changed from what is currently on there that the applicants would come back to the Board.  Mr. Samuels responded generally yes, that is an open question; and is scary to him, that the Board is asking him to agree to something.  Chairman Fisher advised he is trying to help get Commissioner Nelson where he needs to be in this decision; possibly what might want to be done is it is being used for horses now, there are some wild hogs on the property today that might not go away, and he might teach his daughter to raise one pig with no intentions of raising a commercial operation.

 

Commissioner Anderson believes there being no commercial agricultural operation is the right phrase to use; and inquired if the applicant is okay with that.  Mr. Samuels responded yes.

 

Chairman Fisher stated the applicants agree to have horses, there are wild hogs on the property now that may need to be gotten rid of soon, and wants to raise a domestic pig; there will be no commercial operation done that generates a concern for the neighbors; and inquired how can it be done.  Ms. Sobrino responded approval of the AU can be done with limited maximum of one domestic pig, plus horses and whatever else the applicant wants to do, or a BDP can be done, that would commit to the type of livestock up to "X" number of pigs.

 

Mr. Samuels mentioned now it is getting to species and specific numbers.

 

Ms. Sobrino advised when she used the term domestic, she was trying to distinguish it from feral pigs because clearly it is something that the applicant is not bringing to the property to maintain, it roams free in the neighborhoods.

 

Commission Anderson reiterated the easiest way is to agree to the AU with the restriction of no commercial agricultural operations; and he does not think anybody is going to raise 40 pigs for personal consumption.

 

Mr. Samuel stated that is not his intent and does not have any concerns about that type of wording.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Commissioner Anderson would repeat his suggestion.  Commissioner Anderson replied it would be rezoned back to AU with the restriction that no commercial agricultural operations could occur.

 

Chairman Fisher inquired what commercial operation means.  Ms. Sobrino replied it would mean the selling of any products or animals that come from that property.

 

Chairman Fisher inquired if Commissioner Nelson is fine with that.  Commissioner Nelson replied yes.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved request to change from RU-1-13 to AU with removal of an existing Binding Development Plan on 17.3 acres, located on the northeast corner of Henry Avenue and Seminole Boulevard (2325 Seminole Boulevard, Melbourne), with restriction of no commercial agricultural operation.             

 

MOVER:             Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5

SECONDER:     Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager stated the Planning and Zoning Board would like to have this item tabled to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved tabling Bruce Anderson's request for a change from GU to AU on 1.01 acres.  Located on the south side of Dalhi Street, approximately 170 feet west of Knoxville Avenue (3215 Dalhi Street, Cocoa), to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

MOVER:             Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5

SECONDER:     Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager stated this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the on premise consumption of beer and wine in a BU-1 zoning classification in conjunction with a restaurant only; and the applicant is present should the Board want to speak with him.

 

Steven Letts advised he is the owner of Spaghetti Eddie's in Cocoa Beach; this restaurant has been there for 30 to 40 years, it has always had beer and wine licensing; the past two owners did not make it because they never applied for a beer and wine license; and the County says it is abandonment.  He stated he came in about four or five months ago to try to get a beer and wine license and has to go through this process now to get approval to go apply for a license with the State of Florida; and he is asking for permission to get a beer and wine license.

 

Ms. Fox stated there have been many conversations with the Planning and Zoning Board; initially, Mr. Letts was going to request 49 seats and had 18 parking lot spaces; staff has been out to the site and counted the seats in the restaurant and are all in agreement that the parking lot and the facility itself will probably never hold the 49; and Mr. Letts is willing to except a lower number, if the Board wishes to choose that.

 

Chairman Fisher inquired what the lower number would be.  Ms. Fox replied while in the restaurant  36 were counted.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired it 36 seats are okay with Mr. Letts.  Mr. Letts responded he would like to have a little bit more.  Commissioner Nelson advised he is looking at the parking plan and the numbers are a little bit suspicious.  Mr. Letts added those parking spots were made for handicapped, if he repaved the parking lot, he could add more; and there is a surf shop next door that closes at 5:00 p.m. that has plenty of extra parking.  He mentioned there is a restaurant up the street from him called The Fat Snook, it has eight cars along the highway, and they were approved to get a beer and wine license; there is no way anybody can do that on his property because it is all residential and have no areas for someone to park along the highway; and the owner told him that he has had the building for 30 years and not once has there ever been a full parking lot.  He advised 80 percent of the patrons walk across the street to visit his restaurant.  Commissioner Nelson advised there are 36 seats, the Board is approving for beer and wine for how the restaurant is laid out.  Mr. Letts noted the Fire Marshall approved him for 60 seats, but if 36 are what he is allowed, he is fine with that.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved Paul H. Warrener, Trustee - (Steven Letts) request for a CUP for beer and wine only for consumption on premises in a BU-1 zoning classification, in conjunction with a restaurant only, on 0.23 acre; located on the southwest corner of 22nd Street and Highway A1A, (3210 Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach); and is approved for 36 seats.       

 

MOVER:             Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2

SECONDER:     Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager stated the Planning and Zoning Board would like to have this item tabled to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved tabling Nicholas M. & Laura J. Stipanovich, Co-Trustees - (Clifford Repperger, Esq.) - request of an Amendment to an existing Binding Development Plan in a BU-2 zoning classification on 1.48 acres; located on the southeast corner of Tangerine Avenue & N. Tropical Trail (140 Tropical Trail, Merritt Island), to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

MOVER:             Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5

SECONDER:     Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager stated the Planning and Zoning Board would like to have this item tabled to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved tabling Sebastian Inlet Marine, LLC - (Thomas P. Kennedy) - request of a CUP for Alcoholic Beverage for Consumption on Premises in a BU-2 zoning classification, in conjunction with a restaurant only, on 2.85 acres; located on the east side of U.S. 1, immediately opposite of the easterly terminus of Daytona Boulevard (8685 Highway 1, Micco), to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

MOVER:             Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5

SECONDER:     Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager reminded the Board this item was withdrawn by staff.

 

 

Cindy Fox, Planning, Zoning, and Enforcement Manager stated the Planning and Zoning Board would like to have this item tabled to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved tabling Diamonte Sands, LLC - (Jack Spira) - request of a Small Scale Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation from Residential 5 to CC, and a change from RU-2-15 to BU-1, with a Binding Development Plan for an Assisted Living Facility with 18 total units, on 0.37 acre; located on the east side of Highway A1A, immediately opposite of the eastern terminus of Berkeley Street (501 Highway A1A, Satellite Beach), to the March 3, 2011 Zoning meeting.

 

 

The Board approved legislative intent and granted permission to advertise an ordinance amending Brevard County Code, Chapter 62, Article VIII, Section 62-3206(d)(2)t, as related to parking requirement for marinas.

 

MOVER:             Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2

SECONDER:     Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

Upon consensus of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:42 p.m.