February 24, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 24, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor David Walkup of Chapel By The Sea Presbyterian Church in Melbourne Beach, Florida.

Commissioner Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Minutes of November 6, 2003 Zoning Meeting, November 17, 2003 Special Meeting, and December 2, 2003 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR COURTNEY ROBERTS LAWSUIT

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Courtney Roberts matter is coming up next Tuesday; he, Attorney Richard Torpy, and County Manager Tom Jenkins met yesterday to discuss the case; and requested the Board authorize an executive session on Thursday, as they may have come to some kind of arrangement. He stated there is a proposal on the table he would like to discuss with the Board before going to the hearing on Tuesday.

Chair Higgs inquired if it is an offer from Mr. Roberts to settle the litigation; with Mr. Knox responding yes, there is a pending lawsuit in that case as well as a pending administrative appeal; so he would like to discuss the settlement proposal they worked out. Chair Higgs inquired if there is a separation between the lawsuit and administrative appeal; with Mr. Knox responding yes, the two are related somewhat, but there is also a public records case pending, which is tied into the administrative appeal but is not really the same as the administrative appeal.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session for February 26, 2004 at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: FAT TUESDAY

Commissioner Pritchard wished everybody a Happy Fat Tuesday, and displayed a beaded tie given to him by Sharon Luba commemorating Fat Tuesday.

REPORT, RE: VERY SPECIAL ARTS

Commissioner Carlson advised Janice Kershaw is here with a guest to advise the Board about the Very Special Arts Program.

Janice Kershaw thanked the Board for supporting the Cultural Grants Program; and advised the Very Special Arts (VSA) Program is one of the recipients of the grant; it receives a little over $5,000; and it is a matching grant program so the dollars go even further because they have to match whatever they receive. She stated the VSA provides opportunities for people with disabilities in the community; it is the 16th year, which they have called the Year of the Partnerships because they have started out on a new path this year; and one of those is the partnership with the King Center. She stated they provide an experience for people in the community to take advantage of the performing group Gaya that was brought here from the Chicago area and did sign language production with core groups of students from University Park Elementary. She stated they did a holiday musical performance that was free to the public in December; and the sign language was a neat way to communicate and a neat partnership for VSA. She stated they have taken on a new twist to their annual festival this year; for many years they did it at Burton Smith Park in Cocoa; and this year they have changed the venue to the Brevard Zoo. She stated they are excited to be going there and about the learning opportunities for those who participate to see, feel, and touch the animals, then write and create art work about them. She stated it will be held on April 5 and 16, and they hope the Commissioners can stop by and see what they are doing. Ms. Kershaw stated the most exciting thing this year is that they have moved their location from the Government Center with Brevard Cultural Alliance to the Brevard Achievement Center. She stated when VSA first started 16 years ago, they were with the School System and moved to the local arts agency, and now it is with the disability organization; and the purpose was to give them a chance to expand, to serve the community better, and to do more work with adults with disabilities. She stated she invited Dayle Olson, President of the Brevard Achievement Center (BAC) to say a few words about the BAC, so the Board would be more familiar with it, as it is their new home.

Dayle Olson, President of Brevard Achievement Center, thanked the Board for its support; stated the Achievement Center has been providing services to adults with disabilities in the community for just short of 40 years; they provide programming in a variety of ways to integrate members of the adult disability community with everyone who lives and works independently in Brevard County; and one of the great things that happened last fall was the addition of VSA of Brevard, Inc. He stated VSA will provide the Center with two new things; one is they have not provided services to children with disabilities before; and it was something they had looked at in their long-range plan for a number of years. He stated they are thrilled that through VSA they are now providing services to children with disabilities. He stated the second is the new services provided to adults with disabilities; they now have an opportunity to truly bring adults with disabilities into the art community; and they appreciate the Board’s support of the Center.

Ms. Kershaw stated another thing she wanted to highlight on their program is that they have a touring art program; Commissioner Colon had some of the art work displayed in her office from time to time; and they take art work, frame it, and put it on display throughout the community, in libraries and other public venues. She stated they have a display at Patrick Air Force Base of pictures centered around the theme of peace; they thought it was appropriate to display them there; and the Base was more than happy to cooperate with them. She stated those are some of the highlights of what they are doing.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board appreciates the building of partnerships in the community and appreciates VSA and hopes it will have much success in its new partnership.

REPORT, RE: LAKE HELL ‘N BLAZES AND SAWGRASS LAKE PROJECT

Commissioner Carlson advised she wants to bring up the business that came up at the Recreation Advisory Committee meeting; it has to do with the Lake Hell ’N Blazes and Sawgrass Lake restoration project; the St. Johns River Water Management District announced that the Corps of Engineers has stopped many projects; so they do not know where it is going or anything else. She stated if the Board remembers, the timeliness of it and the money they needed because of shortfalls were pretty critical; so she would like to get a report from staff to find out exactly what the status is and if the dollars the Board set aside could be earmarked until they decide what is going on with the project.

Chair Higgs instructed the County Manager to find out what the status is of the Lake Hell ‘N Blazes and Sawgrass Lake dredging project and provide a report to the Board; and if the funds that were set aside can be earmarked until a decision on the project is made.

REPORT, RE: CHUCK NELSON’S FATHER

Commissioner Carlson advised Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson’s father passed away last Thursday; and there will be a memorial service at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday at the Veterans Memorial Center.

Chair Higgs extended the Board’s sympathy to Mr. Nelson and his family.

RESOLUTION, RE: THANKING NASA AND KENNEDY SPACE CENTER FOR GIFTS

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Historical Commission invited the Commissioners to attend the open house of the 35,000 photos and transparencies of the Space Shuttle Program that were donated by NASA and John F. Kennedy Space Center, on February 27, 2004 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He read aloud the resolution expressing appreciation to NASA and Kennedy Space Center for the outstanding and generous gift.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution expressing appreciation to NASA and John F. Kennedy Space Center for the outstanding and
generous gift of historic photographs and transparencies of the Space Shuttle Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-037.)

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Lisa, representing NASA, who thanked the Board for the Resolution and for making a place where people can learn more from the pictures and look back to the space program. She stated it has been more than 20 years; anyone can now see how the Shuttle is put together; and it is a great opportunity for the public.

Chair Higgs stated the Board appreciates having Kennedy Space Center here; and it is part of the history of Brevard County.

A representative of the Historical Commission advised they have accepted the images and cannot tell the Board how grateful they are to have those 35,000 images of the Shuttle, as the public will have the opportunity to view them.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING THANK A VET DAY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution expressing the Board’s gratitude to all veterans who made extraordinary sacrifices for our country, and urging citizens to pay tribute to the veterans.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming February 29, 2004 as Thank A Vet Day and encouraging citizens to express their gratitude to all veterans who have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-038.)

Commissioner Colon advised her office will present the Resolution to a local church. She stated there will be a support the troops rally in Palm Bay, and anyone interested can call the City Council as it is crucial to show support because the families do not know that the Board appreciates them.

Commissioner Pritchard requested a Resolution for the Veterans Center.

PERMISSION TO USE JOB ORDER CONTRACT, RE: CENTRAL REFERENCE LIBRARY
EXTERIOR PAINTING

Commissioner Pritchard advised it has been 14 years since the library has been painted; that is a long time to let it go to where the paint is blistering; and he is sure the County has a system set up where maintenance is performed more frequently. He stated if it is a fiscal problem, the Board may need to review a maintenance schedule.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to use job order contract for painting of the Central Reference Library’s exterior. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN SONOMA SUBDIVISION, PHASE 6

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with The Viera Company dated July 8, 2003, for improvements in Sonoma Subdivision, Phase 6, as improvements have been completed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-039.)

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN SONOMA SOUTH SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with The Viera Company dated May 20, 2003, for improvements in Sonoma South Subdivision, Phase 2, as improvements have been completed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-040.)

REQUEST TO WAIVE METHOD OF CALCULATION, RE: PARKING SPACES FOR
MELO’S ITALIAN RISTORANTE ADDITION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to waive method of calculation of require parking spaces for restaurants pursuant to Section 62-3206(d)(2)(bb), for Melo’s Italian Ristorante Addition, subject to applicant limiting total seating capacity to 183 seats and providing a total of 61 parking spaces. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT WITH HANSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., RE:
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER ZONING REQUESTS CONSULTING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Addendum to Professional Services Agreement with Hanson Professional Services, Inc. extending the Agreement for one year to provide technical consulting services for telecommunication tower zoning requests. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Addendum.)

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH PALM BAY STORAGE, LTD.,
RE: PROPERTY IN FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER LAND COMPANY SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Palm Bay Storage, Ltd., providing conditions for development of property located in Florida Indian River Land Company Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION CREATING
TREASURE LANE II ROAD PAVING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider a resolution creating Treasure Lane II Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: SOUTH MAINLAND LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD BY-LAWS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the revised by-laws of the South Mainland Library Advisory Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES FOR ROTARY PARK
AND SPESSARD HOLLAND PARK AND GOLF COURSE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution authorizing grant application for a 2003 Supplemental Urban and Community Forestry Grant from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services of $10,000 for tree-planting demonstrations at Rotary Riverfront Park and Spessard Holland Park and Golf Course; and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute the grant agreement and establish project budgets if the grant is awarded. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-041.)

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CHAIN OF LAKES PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution authorizing a grant application for $200,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Chain of Lakes Regional Park development; and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute the grant agreement and establish project budget if the grant is approved. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-042.)

AGREEMENTS WITH CITIES OF CAPE CANAVERAL, COCOA BEACH, COCOA,
INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH, MELBOURNE, ROCKLEDGE, SATELLITE BEACH,
AND TITUSVILLE AND TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, RE: FIRST RESPONDER SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Agreements with the Cities of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, Cocoa, Indian Harbour Beach, Melbourne, Rockledge, Satellite Beach, and Titusville, and with the Town of Indialantic, providing for first responder services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Agreements.)

AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, RE: BUS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute a Joint Use Agreement with the School Board of Brevard County to provide transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged citizens. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Agreement.)

APPROVAL, RE: TEMPORARY LOAN FROM WATER RESOURCES TO TRANSIT
SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve a temporary loan of $700,000 from Water Resources Department Capital Funds to Transit Services Operating Fund for fiscal year 2004 to be repaid with interest upon full receipt of State and federal grants. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITIES OF MELBOURNE, COCOA BEACH, PALM BAY,
COCOA, TITUSVILLE, ROCKLEDGE, WEST MELBOURNE, AND CAPE CANAVERAL,
RE: FUNDING OF BIOSOLIDS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Cities of Melbourne, Cocoa Beach, Palm Bay, Cocoa, Titusville, Rockledge, West Melbourne, and Cape Canaveral for funding of a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a regional biosolids treatment facility, and amend Water Resources Department’s Capital Improvement Plan to include the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF COCOA, RE: COLLECTION OF UTILITY FEES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Cocoa for collection of sanitary sewer and reuse water service fees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE USING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BID, RE: WALK-IN
STEP VAN

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the purchase of a walk-in step van for $39,558 using the Miami-Dade County Bid #5203-0/05 for the Water Resources Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ACS STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINTMENT OF SELECTION AND
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AWARD OF PROPOSAL, AND EXECUTION
OF CONTRACT, RE: DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Amendment to Agreement with ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc. for debt collection services for an additional year; grant permission to advertise request for proposals for secondary debt collection services; appoint County Finance Director, Permitting and Enforcement Director, Animal Services Director, and Solid Waste Management Director or their designees to the Selection and Negotiating Committees; and authorize the Chair to executed the negotiated Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Amendment to Agreement and Agreement.)

AWARD OF BID #B-2-04-26, RE: VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK CONCESSION
BUILDING AND FINGER PIER MODIFICATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the recommendation of the Protest Committee to consider the bid from ABBA Construction, Inc. as responsive, and award Bid #B-2-04-26, Veterans Memorial Park Concession Building and Finger Pier Modifications, to ABBA Construction at $930,000, as it was the lowest responsive bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve bills and Budget Change Requests as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for List of Bills and Budget Change Requests.)

PUBLIC HEARINGS, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION ON REZONING
REQUEST FROM FBC OF BREVARD, INC.; RESOLUTION VACATING PORTIONS
OF PALM AVENUE AND SUMMER STREET IN A & B BRUNERS RESUBDIVISION
AND A. L. BRUNERS RESUBDIVISION OF BURCHFIELD & BRUNERS ADDITION
TO CRESCENT BEACH; AND ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT - FBC OF BREVARD, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider vacating portions of Palm Avenue and Summer Street in A & B Bruners Resubdivision and A. L. Bruners Resubdivision of Burchfield and Bruners Addition to Crescent Beach as petitioned by FBC of Brevard, Inc.; advised the vacating is tied in with Item IV.E., a rezoning request of FBC of Brevard, Inc.; and inquired if the Board needs to vote on Item IV.E. first, then the vacating; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding he and Mr. Amari talked about this, and it is their opinion that the Board should hear IV.E. first; and if the Board decides to approve that, it would be conditioned upon IV.A. passing. Chair Higgs advised she will combine the speakers who wish to provide comments on Items IV.A. and IV.E.

Attorney Richard Amari advised he worked very diligently since the last meeting and attempted to come to the Board with an uncontested result; they are close, but not quite there; however, they have made progress. He stated at the last meeting Commissioner Scarborough made a good point that if they vacated Palm Avenue, that would allow for the building that would be closest to the residents in River Falls Subdivision to be even closer; it was that building that caused the residents the greatest concern; to address their concern and that of Commissioner Scarborough, they placed a restriction in the Binding Development Plan that requires the building to be set back 25 feet from the easterly right-of-way line of Palm Avenue; and that is the same setback they would have if the right-of-way was not vacated. He stated they removed an entire floor off the top of the building to address the concerns, and came up with a landscaping plan that would hide all the buildings from view of the residents. Mr. Amari stated there is concern over the landscaping plan they initially came up with, so they changed it to large bamboo planted at roughly 25 feet in height and within a year would probably grow to 40 feet in height; some people questioned the veracity of his statements that bamboo grew that fast; and now there is a fear that it will grow too fast and become like a weed and overtake their property. He stated his client understands that concern, so he expressed to Mr. Mason to come forward with a landscaping plan that they would like to see; they have not done that yet; in order to address the concern, they went back to the first landscaping plan that did not contain the bamboo and added a clause in the Binding Development Plan that gives them the ability, without having to change the Binding Development Plan, to change the landscaping schedule with the prior written consent of the County Manager or his designee, as long as the County Manager or his designee determines that it is in the best interest of the surrounding properties. He stated the reason for that language is so that they can accomplish the landscaping without having to come back and change the Binding Development Plan; and everyone seems to be satisfied with that language. Mr. Amari stated he believes they have eliminated most all the issues except one; the problem they face is that the building spans the right-of-way of Summer Street; and the issue that was discussed at the last meeting is the number of units that would be placed north of the right-of-way to be vacated. He stated their original site plan showed 36 units located on the portion of the property north of Summer Street right-of-way; the concerns the residents had is placing too much density on the northern end of the property close to their Subdivision; and his client went through much reiteration and redesign of the project. Mr. Amari stated as a result, they have come up with this design; and explained the design to the Board. He stated the design shows an entire floor missing from the building, reducing the density of that building to 12 units, a huge concession; and for the other building, taking the right-of-way line of Summer Street and going up in the air and counting the number of units that touch that line or northerly of that line, it will come to 26 units. He stated if they had RU-2-15 zoning on the northerly parcel, they could put 35 units on that parcel; and they did a drawing that complies with all of the County’s setbacks and wetland density, and came up with 26 total units; 12 units in one building and 14 in another building for a total of 26 units. He stated that is the site plan they are working with; and it has 26 units. He stated Mr. Williams told him they would agree to maximum of 26 units; however, he has a problem with that. He stated they still have to go through the site plan process; the Binding Development Plan makes it clear that they have no vested rights to put buildings anywhere where they are shown on the drawing; so when they go through the site plan review process, it very well may come up that they have to move the building five feet to accommodate something that they did not see; and if that occurs, they may need to have 27 or 28 units. He stated they do not intend to go beyond 26, but they need that flexibility to respond to the site review process; they could agree to 30 units; they do not want to put 30 units on there; but if they have the flexibility, they could agree to limit the units to 30. He stated unfortunately, the residents want his client to limit it to 26; and that ties their hands to such a degree that they are concerned they cannot get the 77 units on the property that they need. Mr. Amari requested the Board to not lose sight of the fact that his client is down from 100 units; that is what reasonable zoning would give him; but they have made compromise upon compromise trying to get to a point where they would make the decision easy for the Board. He stated they are at the point now where they have done all they can do; they came to the Board with a very good rezoning request; they would agree to restrict to a limit of 30 units if they need to; but to ask them to restrict to 26 units could force them into a position where they lose another unit. He stated his client has already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars; he is at the point where he needs to be able to get what he designed; and inquired how would it affect the residents to have another unit in that building. He stated they cannot add a floor to the buildings because both are at their maximum height; and on one building they agreed under the Binding Development Plan not to increase the height; so there is nothing they can do to make those buildings taller. He stated they provided the setbacks; it is not as if they could push more buildings into that area; if they get additional units, it may be the building could be five feet closer; and inquired how would that really affect the neighbors. He stated it would affect his client tremendously if he cannot get that unit; it is very important to him; they have gotten to the point where they cannot reach a consensus; and he is sorry because they tried. He requested the Board approve the rezoning request as they brought it to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the number of units in both buildings would change if the building had to shift northward.

Mr. Amari advised that number would not change; it is just a question of whether they would have to shift the building a little bit to the north thereby placing some of its units north of that imaginary line. Commissioner Pritchard stated so the number of units would not change, just the location of the building predicated on whatever site development staff comes up with; with Mr. Amari responding that is correct.

Ted Bart of Cocoa Beach inquired if it would be possible to have Mason Williams speak first for River Falls Subdivision.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to allow Attorney Mason Williams, representing River Falls Homeowners Association, to speak first. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Attorney Mason Williams, representing River Falls Estates, advised he lives in River Falls Estates just north of the subject property; they did try to reach accord on the project, and ended up with two issues, one the density and the other the landscaping. He stated the big issue is the density; that is why the Board has seen so much opposition; it is a transitional area; zoning to the north goes into a trailer park that is coming to the Board soon for rezoning; then there are a small retail area, single-family homes, and townhomes. He stated they have been very concerned about having a great deal of density on the northern parcel; the Association wanted 20 units; the developer came to him with 26 units; and he thought he could get the Association to agree to that; but then the developer said he can only agree to a maximum of 30 units; and that created the problem. Mr. Williams stated all of the support for the project has been from realtors and owners of property to the north that have a financial interest; the opposition has been from people who do not have a financial interest and are concerned about the scope and intensity of the project; and they have heard very little about the lot in River Falls adjacent to the property because the developer happens to own that lot. He stated somebody is going to buy it some day; the Association does not want the lot to lie fallow; it wants it to be built upon; but the issue is the Code should be uniformly applied to the development being proposed. He stated the Code reads “compatible in scope and intensity”; it is not compatible with the single-family lot adjacent to the property; so it must be a denial, and they will go back and work harder on it. He stated it does not matter who owns the lot; the Code does not have an exception for ownership; throughout the County there are situations of adjacent ownership; but the question is if the project is compatible in scope and intensity to the adjacent parcel. Mr. Williams stated it is a 40,000 square-foot multifamily building 55 feet from the lot line of a single-family home; that single-family home in River Falls Subdivision runs between 3,000 to 3,500 square feet; the question the Board has to ask itself is if RU-2-15 with a 40,000 square-foot building 55 feet from a single-family home is compatible in scope and intensity to the single-family lot; and the answer is no. He stated if someone owned the lot, other than the developer, that person would be in the Commissioners’ Offices screaming about the development, saying it is not compatible in scope and intensity to his single-family home; and inquired if any Commissioner owned that lot, would he or she think a 40,000 square-foot building 55 feet from their lot line was compatible in scope and intensity with his or her property. Mr. Williams stated it does not matter who owns the lot; the issue is if the Code is going to be uniformly applied or are they going to end up with that kind of situation in the County. He stated he does not think the Code contemplates that; he does not think the Board should contemplate that; the rezoning should be RU-2-7 or at the most RU-2-10; and that would allow the transition to take place properly and not lead to problems. He stated the RU-2-7 or RU-2-10 would be more compatible in scope and intensity. He stated the developer simply proposed that his landscaping should be accepted by the County; and if he changes it, then the County has to approve; they want the County to have final approval over whatever landscaping plan the developer has during the site plan process; and that is all they ask for, which is reasonable.

Chair Higgs advised the current zoning on the property is BU-1; and inquired if Mr. Williams contends that BU-1 is more compatible or less compatible than RU-2-15; with Mr. Williams responding the issue is the folks who bought the lots knew BU-1 was there; it would create one-story light retail; and that is what they have anticipated to be on that property. He stated with BU-1 they are not going to have a huge building on the property; the character of the area is residential; the underlying plat was 13 single-family homes; so his expectation was that even if retail came in there, it would be light retail, which is what is in the area right now.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the community is willing to deal with whatever might go there, which may be low use commercial or multistory commercial. She stated it could have trucks, etc. and a lot of things that are unknown; and inquired if they prefer all of that compared to a controlled environment with a lot of concessions; with Mr. Williams responding they would go for that versus 30 units; but if the Binding Development Plan limits the northern parcel to 26 units, the Association would go along with that.

Paul Mouris of Cocoa Beach advised this is the fourth time he has addressed the Board; it has a very difficult job and decisions are not always easy; and they are not snobby or rude people as sometimes portrayed. He stated at the last four or five meetings they had, the developer took different angle pictures of the community that were somewhat deceptive; and they are simply private citizens who want to preserve the way of life that they paid for ten years ago, slow things down for a more gradual transition, and push for lower density and fewer units looking toward their property. He stated they strongly believe condominiums are not compatible with single-family dwellings; and they could probably compromise if they were townhouses with 35-foot towers. He stated someone has to look after the environment that protects the ecosystem and preserves the natural beauty of the river; someone has to cut down the traffic with all its associated problems and preserve their way of life; and all they want is lower density, gradual transition, and development compatible with single-family dwellings in scope and intensity.

Ted Bart of Cocoa Beach thanked the Board for allowing Mr. Williams to go first and express the position of the residents of River Falls Subdivision. He stated Commissioner Scarborough was very astute in picking up that originally the rendering of the location of the building was taken from the base of the wall near their fence line and did not represent what the people who live in the Subdivision would view. He stated the last time they had a vision from the far end of the Subdivision that did not represent anyone’s view of what the new condominiums would look like; and they made a lot of progress in coming to something that seems to be close to what could be satisfactory to the residents. He stated they appreciate that very much; they express their interest in continuing to have a transition zone of lower density as the development comes closer to the single-family homes in their Subdivision and other homes behind their Subdivision; and that would be more in character with the neighborhood they live in.

Rochelle Lawandales of Lawandales Planning Affiliates in Melbourne, advised all over the County there currently exist multiple instances where condominiums, not apartments, but single-family units that are stacked in high-rise buildings, peacefully co-exist and are compatible with adjacent single-family homes. She stated many single-family homes have been built after the condominiums were built; so the fact is condominiums and single-family homes not only peacefully co-exist but are extremely compatible with each other. She noted she will enter the board on compatibility into the record. Ms. Lawandales stated the development has gone very far in terms of making itself even more compatible than it started out being; it has removed a floor off the building that is adjacent to the lot in River Falls Subdivision; the nearest building is over 180 feet from the nearest home that exists in the Subdivision; and the landscaping will completely block any visual sighting of the building. She stated there is a wall that will also provide a visual and physical barrier; the architecture will look very similar to the existing homes in the area; and at the entrance to River Falls there is a townhome project that is well over 35 feet in height, lives very nicely adjacent to the first home in the Subdivision, and is similar in architecture to what the developer is proposing. She stated the overall density for the property is 11 units per acre; the trailer park is well over 11 units to the acre; and it is her understanding that a building can go to 65 feet in height with a setback of 15 feet from the property line. She stated in this case it is set back 55 feet from the property line; the building is limited to 35 feet in height; and the building that is further to the east will not be seen by the residents. She stated as a professional planner practicing for 25 years in Brevard County, she can say there are no compatibility issues relating to the project; and the project is extremely compatible with the adjacent Subdivision.

Mr. Amari advised he finds it fascinating that the residents are concerned about what might happen with the lot that his client owns in River Falls Subdivision, and urged the Board to protect that lot from the development; yet they have an offer on their desk today, from someone who lives in River Falls Subdivision, to purchase that lot for $300,000. He stated that person knows what their plans are; the idea that the Board needs to protect that lot is ludicrous; it is his client’s lot, and he has an investment in it; and he is going to sell it to somebody who knows what is going in next door, is going to build a house, and will not mind living next to the project. He stated they have shown the Board a real effort to reach consensus with the residents; the concessions made to date are: (1) they agreed to reduce density from 100 units to 77 units, a reduction of 23 units; the project is at 11.23 units per acre, which is not high density in a transitional zone; and the over 60-unit trailer park may not be the most attractive one in the County, but the residents are worried about it developing, which he does not understand because it does not make sense to him. He stated (2) they agreed to build an extension of the wall at their expense using the same materials of the existing wall; and if they cannot build it in an area where it is at least six feet in height, they agreed to provide a landscape berm and vegetative buffer; (3) they agreed to construct a parking lot, pathway, crossover, and dock in the public right-of-way to create access for the public to the river, something the public does not have now; (4) they agreed to limit the building area with only one building within 200 feet, not 50 feet, from their property line; (5) they agreed the building would be limited in height to 25 feet and would be set at an 83? angle to limit the view the residents would have of the building; (6) they agreed to construct a landscape buffer around the building so they cannot see any of the building, and told the residents to bring them what they wanted to see planted and they will plant it; and (7) they agreed to set the building closest to River Falls back another 25 feet so it is well over 180 feet to the closest home in the Subdivision; and the second building is probably about 300 feet from the closest home in the Subdivision. Mr. Amari stated his client has earned the respect of the Board as he has gone the extra mile and tried his best; he does not want to put 30 units on the northernmost parcel and only wants 26 units; that is what he intends to build; but if they get into the permitting process and find there was something they overlooked, they need the flexibility to be able to shift the building to the north and pick up two or three extra units. He stated that is not unreasonable to ask; they have shown a tremendous effort to work with the concerned community; and urged the Board to accept the rezoning request as presented and grant the vacating as presented.

Chair Higgs advised the language says 26 units unless required to move additional feet by the technical staff. Mr. Amari stated if the language says 26, but if as a result of some condition that staff brings up requires them to move the building, they need to gain additional units. Chair Higgs recommended a cap of 30 units; with Mr. Amari agreeing.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the possibility of moving the building causing a shift in the number of units above the imaginary line of Summer Street; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding there is no way to know at this point; there are all kinds of factors involved in laying out a site plan; it is conceivable that might happen; but on the other hand it is very possible it would not happen.

Commissioner Colon stated she is happy to see both attorneys come together; it seems like there wereas a lot of compromises, and she is happy to see that; it is important for folks who plan to go into a community to respect the wishes of the community; and this developer has shown that. She stated because of his good faith, she would move to move the project forward because there have been tremendous achievements. She stated she hopes it is an example to the rest of the development community that comes before the Board, that if they work with the community they are about to go into, they can achieve positive things.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve rezoning of property south of the City of Cocoa Beach, as petitioned by FBC of Brevard, Inc., from BU-1 and RU-2-15 to all RU-2-15.

Chair Higgs inquired if the motion includes approval with a Binding Development Plan limiting units in the one building to 26 units and a cap of 30 units; with Commissioner Colon responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will support the motion with one caveat; at one time in the public hearing, he heard testimony regarding the value of units; however, there is no value tied to the Binding Development Plan. He stated that becomes more problematic as the Board deals with Hank Fishkind and staff’s incapacity to have the value tied into the Binding Development Plan as opposed to square footage. He stated the Board is still working with that; but it needs to be on the record that the Board at this time is not prepared to put that type of language in a binding development plan. He stated unless somebody else has thoughts on it, that was just a statement for the record.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion as clarified. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Zoning Resolution.)

Chair Higgs advised there were cards on the vacating; she indicated at the beginning of the public hearing that the Board would take comments on both items; she took the comments and included those together; and inquired if there is anything else she has to do; with Mr. Knox responding no.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised they discovered a minor error in the legal description associated with the survey for the right-of-way deed for the dedication the County would receive; and recommended the motion be subject to receipt of a revised deed with the correct legal description.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating portions of Palm Avenue and Summer Street in A & B Bruners Resubdivision and A. L. Bruners Resubdivision of Burchfield & Bruners Addition to Crescent Beach, and accept a Right-of-way Deed and Drainage Easement, subject to receipt of a revised Deed with the correct legal description. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 04-043, Deed, and Easement.)

Chair Higgs inquired if the additional property the developer will dedicate to the public is part of the Binding Development Plan; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.

DISCUSSION, RE: ST. JOHNS VALLEY CAMP SITES SUBDIVISION

Chair Higgs advised Commissioner Pritchard indicated everyone is in favor of Option 1. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is his understanding that the people involved with this have supported the creation of an MSBU to provide sanitary sewer service to the area; the estimated cost could be approximately $10,000 per lot, and the landowners are in full agreement with it; and inquired if that is correct. Margaret Wehner responded no. Commissioner Pritchard stated then the Board needs to hear public comments.

Margaret Wehner of Cocoa stated there was a meeting last Thursday with one of the County staff members and some property owners, that other property owners were not made aware of; so some of the information the Board received is probably incorrect about how others feel who live out there. She stated the first option is to put in a sewer system; something is not clear in the paperwork they were sent; and that is whether or not property owners who have septic systems would be required to pay for the sewer line. She stated she understands they do not have to hook up to the sewer line, but wants to know if they have to pay for the line if it is put out there; some of the property owners who are going to help pay for the line are probably not going to use it; she just put in a $9,000 septic system a year and a half ago; and she does not think she will hook up to the sewer line any time soon. She stated it is a great option and she would like to see a sewer system put out there to help the people who have lots to be able to build; in 1986 she tried to build on one of the lots and went through all the variances with the State and other agencies; but she does not have a home on that property, and it is still vacant. Ms. Wehner stated another option is keeping trailers out there that have their own systems to remove sewer; there are about three or four trailers that have been out there for some time; and she has never seen any of the septic removed from any of the trailers, so she does not know what they do with their waste. She stated Option 3 is to permit lots less than 75 feet to be deemed buildable in instances where a portion of the lot lies within a manmade water body; and she is not sure if it says they can fill in the lands to be in compliance and be able to get a septic system. She stated Option 4 is to put in a neighborhood system; there is not enough land out there to put in an individual system, so she does not see how they could put in a neighborhood system; and there are a lot of questions and concerns from the homeowners. Ms. Wehner stated she would like to see more development out there; there are 18 vacant lots; years ago she wanted to build because she did not think it was fair to own property that she was not going to build a house on; and she understands the concerns of people with vacant lots, but they all should work together to find something that is financially feasible for everyone. She stated she should not have to pay to help people develop their property when she bought an additional lot next to her home so she could put in a proper septic system; the homeowners who live out there live in rural Florida in marshlands, and do not destroy the environment; but they need something if more development is going to come out there. She stated the issues need to be addressed to others and not have private meetings that everybody is not involved in.

Al Glover of Cocoa stated he personally sent to every single property owner out there a letter telling them about the meeting; and he used the addresses on the record with the County. He stated if those addresses are not correct, then they did not get it; and in addition, Commissioner Scarborough’s staff was good enough to notify everyone of this meeting, because he received a notice and a phone call. He stated what they are asking for is the County to do a survey of the property owners to get 66-2/3rds majority vote to go ahead and put in the sewer system; there is a force main out there, so it would only involve a shallow sewer line; and they would pay for that. He stated when they hook up to the system, that is when they have to pay to install a lift station to tap into the shallow sewer system, which would cost about $3,000 over and above what it would cost to put in a line, which would run between $8,000 and $10,000 a lot. Mr. Glover stated there are 20-plus lots out there that could be built upon if they had the sewer system; the only people objecting are those who already live there; they do not equal 33% of the property owners; so he believes the County would get the majority from those who own the majority of the properties out there. He stated he owns one lot with his wife and shares ownership of another lot with an individual, so there are two votes; they have other property owners who will tell the Board they are in favor of the system; and that is what they are asking for, not to get the Board’s approval today, but to get a survey, and if there is 66-2/3rds majority not in favor of installing the system, then the existing residents have to live with their neighbors who cannot develop their properties. Mr. Glover stated another request, assuming approval comes back from the majority of the property owners to install the sewer system, is that the Board give them assurances that other agencies will not say they cannot build after spending $80,000 to $100,000 for the system. He stated they will not build walls, just houses on stilts like the ones that are out there now; he has owned his property for 16 years, but those who did not build immediately got penalized because of erosion; his lot is the largest out there and half of it is sitting at the bottom of the canal in the St. Johns River; and the other side is filled in tremendously with weeds. He stated the State comes out and sprays the weeds that go to the bottom and kill the fish; ten years ago they could not fill because it would kill the fish; but the State comes out every three years, and by killing the vegetation, it kills the fish. He stated that probably would go away if they lived there because they would keep it clean; he wants to build a small place for fishing; he loves to fish and that is why he bought a lot there; not all the people who live there are opposed to the system; unless he is mistaken, Jansen Davis, who owns a place out there, is in favor; and other people are in favor. He stated they are asking for a survey to find out if it gets the majority vote; and if it does, like in a good democracy, they could move forward with the sewer system.

Cheryl Butler of Cocoa stated she is one of the landowners in St. Johns Valley Camp Sites; her lot is deemed unbuildable; and they live next door to a home that has been there since 1965. She stated one of the original landowners is her neighbor to the west Ben Scott who has three pieces of property; he has lived there for 25 years; and her neighbor on the other side lives on Tuna Road. She stated the first proposal for the sewer system was supposed to stop at Tuna and King; Bernie Simpkins’ son-in-law Mark Jacobson owns property out there; and three of the landowners who own eight lots were not invited to the previous meeting. She stated the notice she got for this meeting was the first one; many other landowners out there also got it as their first notice; and she has had that address for 65 years, but there is some reason she did not get the meeting notice. Ms. Butler stated her septic system is in good working condition, but if she wanted to rebuild, she is not sure what the footage provision is for a pre-existing septic system. She stated they have County sewerage at one corner; their property is about 50 yards from that corner; and inquired if she would have to tie into the system if she wanted to rebuild her pre-existing home. She stated there are wildlife, protected animals, and nesting birds out there; the County does not come in and take out weeds; those are natural habitats; there are king grass and nesting gators; it is a very natural area; and she wonders about the environmental impact.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table discussion of St. Johns Valley Camp Sites Subdivision to allow Commissioner Scarborough to speak with the property owners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard expressed concern about the lady who spent $9,000 on a septic system and what effect the sewer system would have on her property. He stated septic systems are creating problems around waterfronts; but to have a $9,000 investment and have something else come in that negates that investment is a concern.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY (FIFTH STREET) IN
PLAN OF TOWN OF PINEDA - TIMOTHY STICKRATH DEVELOPER, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way (Fifth Street) in Plan of Town of Pineda, as petitioned by Timothy Stickrath Developer, Inc.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating a right-of-way (Fifth Street) in Plan of Town of Pineda, as petitioned by Timothy Stickrath Developer, Inc. and accepted an Easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 04-044 and Easement.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION FOR NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution establishing a uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution providing for a uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for municipal service benefit units (MSBU), pursuant to Section 197.3632(3)(a), Florida Statutes; describing the boundaries of the real property subject to the levy for such fees; providing an effective date; and providing for adoption. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-045.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY WITH
A. DUDA & SONS, INC., AND AMEND WATER RESOURCES CIP SOUTH-CENTRAL
ROADWAYS PROJECT

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution authorizing the exchange of property with A. Duda & Sons, Inc.

Water Resources Director Richard Martens advised there are two issues; one is the property owners, A. Duda & Sons, Inc., have requested a property exchange with the County to facilitate some of their future plans on the property around the wastewater plant; there were issues with access, particularly for the public to go out to the wetlands, the birdwatchers, the Audubon Society people, etc.; and staff saw this as an opportunity to clear up some of those issues. He stated in addition to the exchange of property identified, there will be extensions of a pedway and roadway for public access to the wetlands; so it is a positive thing for visitors to the facility.

Commissioner Carlson stated it will also serve as a connector to Brevard Zoo and will go from the birding area in Viera near the ponds all the way through the Zoo and back into the community; so it will be a great asset to the community.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution authorizing exchange of property with A. Duda & Sons, Inc. adjacent to the south boundary of the South-Central Water Reclamation Facility to facilitate the relocation of its Cocoa Ranch office; execute Exchange Agreement; and authorize amendment to the Water Resources CIP South-Central Roadways Project by adding $170,000 for roadway improvements to the facility and provide pathway and roadway for pedestrian and vehicular public access to view the wetlands. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 04-046 and Agreement.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD
VALOREM EXEMPTION TO DELTA GROUP ELECTRONICS, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Delta Group Electronics, Inc.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Delta Group Electronics, Inc.; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of Chapter 196.012 Florida Statutes; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Delta Group Electronics, Inc.; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-05.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE DISSOLVING CENTRAL VIERA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance dissolving the Central Viera Community Development District.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the item needs to be withdrawn to be advertised correctly and rescheduled on the March 2, 2004 agenda.

The Board accepted withdrawal of the ordinance to dissolve the Central Viera Community Development District.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING LAND ALTERATION
REGULATIONS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article XIII, Division 4, Land Alteration Regulations.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article XIII, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, relating to land alteration activities; specifically amending Section 62-4391, Definitions, and Section 62-4397, Location of Land Alteration Activities; providing for interpretation of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed and an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-06.)

*Note: Motion amended later in the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION
REGULATIONS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article V, Floodplain Protection Regulations.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board adopts the ordinance, what effect will it have on a property owner’s ability to develop property; with Sherry Williams of Natural Resources Management Office responding it should be less expensive to construct a house for property owners because the way the Ordinance stands now, they cannot exceed 18 inches of fill without resorting to alternative construction techniques such as stemwalls, pilings, and pumps for septic systems; so by removing the limitation for the 18-inch fill and requiring compensatory storage be provided, it should lessen construction cost.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 62, Article V, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, relating to Floodplain Protection; specifically amending Section 62-3724, Development Regulations; providing for the interpretation of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed and an effective date.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised on the Ordinances amending land alteration regulations and floodplain protection regulations, the Building Construction Advisory Committee (BCAC) made recommendations; and inquired if the motions include incorporating the recommended language. He stated the recommendation for the land alteration was to allow for a person permitted to use the local roads to request an extension if the person was not able to complete the work in 60 days, by coming back to the Board with legitimate reasons; and staff has prepared specific language for that.

*Chair Higgs inquired if it was the intent of the maker of the motion and the seconder to include the BCAC recommendation in the Ordinances; with Commissioners Pritchard and Carlson responding yes.

Mr. Peffer advised the second clarification is not necessary as exemptions for pools are already included in the Ordinance. He stated for the Floodplain Protection Ordinance, the BCAC recommended include the upland buildable area within the floodplain; and that was referenced by the one-third acre for the fill limitation.

Chair Higgs inquired if that was the intent of the maker of the motion and the seconder; with Commissioners Pritchard and Carlson responding yes.

Chair Higgs advised the provision for hardship variance was not advertised; and inquired if the Board wants it to come back as legislative intent. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the opinion for bringing it back; with Mr. Peffer responding if there is a reason to go beyond the current Ordinance requiring the fill to be in one contiguous area. Mr. Peffer advised there may be circumstances by which the applicant feels that fill could be done in separate areas, for example a barn and a house that would not be contiguous; and the recommendation is to allow the Board to consider that.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to bring back legislative intent to amend the Floodplain Protection Regulations providing for consideration of not being in one contiguous area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:21 a.m., and reconvened at 10:32 a.m.

BOARD DIRECTION, RE: GOAT CREEK LANE

Chair Higgs advised she met with Mr. and Mrs. Glaubitz last week and talked about what their interests were; and requested Mr. Glaubitz explain what he is interested in doing and clarify his request.

Scott Glaubitz of Goat Creek Farms in Malabar, advised they are interested in keeping the access that currently exists, which serves their grove and their neighbors; it has been there 32 years; it is 30 feet wide so it does not allow development, which requires a 50-foot right-of-way; and they prefer to keep it at 30 feet. He stated they have an agricultural business and want to keep it going; another reason they need the roadway is if the road is closed, with other folks living on the road, they would have to access through his grove; and the spread of citrus canker is a real possibility. Mr. Glaubitz stated citrus canker was discovered in Palm Bay two or three years ago; it was brought in by a lawn care service; any time a person touches leaves of a diseased tree and brings it in and touches other trees, that person can spread citrus canker; and his concern is to keep the 30-foot easement so people do not have to access through his grove. He stated they understand FAA has to look at it and that there is a cost associated with that; and he and his wife are willing to bear that cost to keep it open and protect their agricultural business and keep everything status quo.

Chair Higgs advised when they talked, Mr. Glaubitz indicated he built a bridge so he invested in that road; and inquired if the bridge is wide enough to be accommodated by a 30-foot easement; with Mr. Glaubitz responding yes, the bridge is nine feet eight inches wide and 60 feet long; it was used originally by asphalt trucks; it can support fertilizer trucks, grove trucks, and fire trucks; and they spent $30,000 on that bridge. He stated the culvert crossing, which was a ten-foot diameter pipe originally put in collapsed; and the then Public Works Director Henry Minneboo authorized the work to be done. He stated it actually improved Goat Creek because they do not have a culvert there and have a nice creek; it is rock lined and functions like it should; and they made a big investment. He stated in addition to that, he keeps the road up, puts rock on it, and grades it to keep it passable. Chair Higgs inquired, if the Board were to consider granting an easement, would Mr. Glaubitz define the easement for residential and agricultural uses only; with Mr. Glaubitz responding yes. He stated when he talked to Chair Higgs, he was willing to say as long as he has an agricultural exemption, he wants to keep the roadway open and define the exemption as 20 acres, which it is currently. He stated a few years ago the County raised the exemption from 10 acres to 20 acres; in the future, the County may raise it from 20 acres to 40 acres; and if it is 40 acres, the grove is only 35 acres and he would not be in compliance. He requested the Board keep the exemption at 20 acres, which will work for them. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Glaubitz understands the value of the easement has to be established through a reasonable process; with Mr. Glaubitz responding he understands that it might be an appraisal process.

Thomas Miller of Malabar stated his property adjoins the subject property; he has owned it for 13 years; they stay there six months out of the year; and he wants to make sure he has an access easement to Valkaria Road. He stated he does not want to go back the other way because it is quite out of the way; and most of their travels are to Palm Bay, so it would be inconvenient if they did not have the easement there.

Janis Walters of Valkaria requested the Board not sell the right-of-way since Mr. Glaubitz is not the only property owner on Goat Creek Lane. She stated once the easement is sold, there would be no way to protect the access rights of the owners of property at 3330 Valkaria Road, in this case Mr. Miller, whose only means of egress/ingress is Goat Creek Lane. She stated Mr. Glaubitz and any successor have other options to come and go from his property; there are gates up to reserve those options for his exclusive use; and inquired what would stop him or his successor from cutting off egress/ingress for Mr. Miller or his successor once he owns the only route out. She displayed an aerial map of the area from the Property Appraiser’s office; advised that Mr. Glaubitz owns the property in pink north of the Airport; and for him to buy the dirt road going out the back when he has a smooth paved road out the front raises questions in her mind. Ms. Walters stated the blue is the Harris property; they have the property to the north and a little strip to the west of where the easement occurs; there is also a dirt road that is heavily used; and she wonders what is coming there. She stated she was encouraged to hear Mr. Glaubitz say that he would like to reserve the easement for agricultural and residential uses; but as long as even one landowner besides Mr. Glaubitz relies on that easement, ownership must remain public; and since the easement is through the Airport property, she would hope the ownership would remain with the County. She suggested the Board make a reasonable lease agreement but not sell the land.

Curt Lorenz of Valkaria explained a map of the area depicting the grove property, paved access through Tadlock and out to U.S. 1, a second access to the grove, the Airport property, and several homes in the area. He stated what does not make sense is that there are gates in two locations and no one is allowed to go through the grove because it is gated, so the spread of citrus canker is not a real possibility. He stated with the Miller house in the back, the Board needs to maintain the access; and a lease agreement is the way to go. He stated the land is right on the curve of Valkaria Road; as long as the traffic from that strip remains low, it would not be a traffic problem; but if there is a development of the grove and 1,000 houses put in back there, it would cause a lot of traffic and would not be a good use of the property. He stated if the Board sold the easement to Mr. Glaubitz, it could be sold to someone else; and one house may not have access, so a lease agreement is preferred. Mr. Lorenz stated if the Airport property is bisected and a small strip sold out of it, it would devalue the rest of the property to the extent where the County could actually lose money; airport security is a big issue these days with FDOT and FAA; and he believes those agencies would want the County to maintain control of the easement. He stated since the property is in Malabar, the only way the Board can maintain control is ownership.

Commissioner Pritchard advised some good points were brought up; and inquired why does Mr. Glaubitz want to purchase the easement, and why not a lease agreement; with Mr. Glaubitz responding he is looking for an easement and not a purchase. Chair Higgs advised Mr. Glaubitz originally started with a purchase, but to meet his needs, an easement or some other mechanism could be used. Mr. Glaubitz advised he originally approached staff with a 30-foot easement request; through some Department comments, staff said perhaps a 50-foot right-of-way would be more appropriate; staff was thinking roadways and permits, which was not his intent; and when they realized that was creating some problems, they went back to the 30-foot easement; and that is all he is asking for because he does not want a right-of-way. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the easement would not prevent other property owners from accessing their properties; with Mr. Glaubitz responding absolutely not; in fact if Mr. and Mrs. Miller could be a party to the easement, he would have no objections; and that would give them clear use of the easement with no ambiguity.

Commissioner Colon stated if Chair Higgs is comfortable with the issues, she is willing to make a motion to go forward.

Chair Higgs suggested a motion to allow staff to work with Mr. Glaubitz and other property owners and develop an appropriate easement that maintains ownership with the County for the existing residential properties and the agricultural operation, but not for others, and that it allow the County, at such time that there is a need, to dissolve the easement; and staff bring that back to the Board. She stated she is concerned about giving away or selling ownership, but would support staff working with Mr. Glaubitz and the other property owners in the area.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to work with Scott Glaubitz and other property owners on Goat Creek Lane to develop an appropriate easement that will maintain ownership with the County, provide access for existing residential properties and agricultural operation, but not for others, allow the County to dissolve the easement or take other appropriate action if necessary; and bring the easement back to the Board.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca requested Board direction on the County Attorney’s recommendation to formally terminate the License Agreement with the previous grove owner.

Chair Higgs recommended terminating the License Agreement with the previous grove owner simultaneously with working out the arrangements on the easement. She inquired how long will it be before it comes back to the Board, and if staff has to get an appraisal to place a value on the easement; with Ms. Busacca responding staff has an appraisal that was done last year, which is relatively recent; but it will require the FAA to contact staff, so it could be at least 60 days. Chair Higgs stated the Board will see the item again and will share it with the public as it moves forward.

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

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT, RE: FP&L AND RELIANT ENERGY POWER PLANTS

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board asked him to report back on the effects of the Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) and Reliant Energy power plants; he has done a considerable amount of investigation; and they discovered there are some issues relating to ash falling out of smokestacks from at least one of the power plants and some issues relating to possible health problems expressed by residents living in the area. He stated that is what he calls anecdotal evidence of people who have claimed they have been affected health-wise by the discharge from the power plant stacks. He stated in investigating whether that was really an issue or not, he came across a few reports and studies that indicate it might be an issue; and since the Board asked him to look at the issues from a standpoint of an injunction, that is an issue that would be important for a court to consider. Mr. Knox advised they are ready to go forward with an injunction; and he would be remiss if he did not come to the Board and seek authority to see if there is some basis for determining whether or not there is a health issue concerning the two power plants. He stated he contacted the scientists who prepared the studies that he reviewed; they have expressed an interest in coming down to look at it; and the first phase would be $15,000 to evaluate the problem and determine if there is a methodology they could adopt that would allow them to evaluate the health risks.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that means to determine the study methodology and does not mean to do the study; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct.

Maureen Rupe of Port St. John advised it is imperative that the Board move forward with this issue and have the best possible weapons and ammunition it can. She stated after 15 years of fighting this in Port St. John and putting up with bad air, the Board must have a good solid case; and urged the Board to go forward with option 1. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Knox and the Commissioners.

Amy Tidd of Rockledge, representing the Turtle Coast Sierra Club, thanked Mr. Knox for all his work in researching this issue; and stated she has been working on it for ten years and really appreciates the Board looking at what it can do to solve the problem. She stated the health study would be very beneficial; they asked for that earlier when this issue first came up; and the Board needs to move forward with care and caution to safeguard the health and safety of the residents. She stated she has concerns about the length of the study; and inquired if it is going to be six months, a year, or five years, as there are people in bad health who do not want something that is going to take a long time. Mr. Knox advised he will not know the answer to that until they come down and evaluate the problem. Commissioner Carlson stated it does not guarantee a study will occur; and it is just to determine a study methodology if it is appropriate.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Attorney to contact scientists who prepared previous studies of the Florida Power & Light Company and Reliant Energy power plants to come down and look at the situation, and evaluate the problems to determine if there is an appropriate methodology that would allow them to evaluate the health risks. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chair Higgs inquired, since the federal government, through Environmental Protection Agency, regulates air, and the State, through Department of Environmental Protection, has air regulations, and both entities have Health Departments, can the Board get some assistance from those agencies since it cannot regulate air. She stated it would not stop what it is doing, but to get assistance in a parallel manner through the various health agencies funded by the federal and State governments.

Mr. Knox advised he contacted the Department of Environmental Protection and the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; and there does not seem to be a lot of interest in helping the County at this point. He stated probably the most help those agencies would be able to provide would be the information the scientists will be looking at; and some of those agencies will have that information; so they know where to look for it and are experienced in doing it.

Chair Higgs stated this is an example of County government being in the gap of federal and State regulations when it looks to solving community problems that are regulated by both those governments. She stated the consequences are to the residents who come to their local government first because they have not been able to resolve it otherwise.

LETTER OF OPPOSITION, RE: PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION ALLOWING SALE
AND USE OF ALL FIREWORKS

Commissioner Pritchard advised what is being proposed by industry legislation effectively and totally guts anything the County, cities, and the public have been supporting; and that is reducing the amount of fireworks that is being used. He stated Cape Canaveral advertised in the paper this morning that at its next Council meeting it will be pushing forward with its own act to restrict the sale, as well as use, of fireworks. Commissioner Pritchard stated the proposed act is called “An Act Relating to the Consumer Fireworks Safety Act”; it has nothing to do with safety; the first part is an exemption for personal noncommercial use of fireworks; and what it is saying in essence is let them sell their product and do with it as they choose. He stated the Board needs to fight the proposed legislation; and recommended a letter be distributed to the Brevard County Legislative Delegation, Lobbyist Guy Spearman, and the Florida Association of Counties asking them to vehemently oppose this industry legislation.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if implicit in Commissioner Pritchard’s comments is that the legislation would preclude the County from doing anything contrary to State law; with Commissioner Pritchard responding absolutely. Commissioner Scarborough stated therein lies the danger where people are losing the capacity to approach their Commissioners and discuss it locally. Commissioner Pritchard stated what the Board would be pursuing at this point is enforcing current State law; what this would do is change the law and give free reign to the fireworks industry; and that is not what the Board wants.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chair to execute a letter of opposition prepared by the County Attorney’s Office, to the proposed industry-led legislation to allow legalization of all fireworks, and distribute it to the Brevard Legislative Delegation, Lobbyist Guy Spearman, and the Florida Association of Counties requesting they actively work to defeat the proposed legislation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPEAL TO SECTION 62-3205, TIME LIMITATIONS, RE: CASABELLA OUTPARCEL 1

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve a six-month extension to the site plan review time for Casabella Outparcel 1 from the previous expiration date of November 7, 2003 until May 7, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPEAL TO SECTION 62-102, WAIVERS AND APPEALS, RE: ACCESS TO PROPERTY
OWNED BY DENISE HARRAH

Dominick Matalone of Satellite Beach, representing his daughter Denise Harrah, requested the Board consider the hardship situation regarding a road that is the only access to his daughter’s plot. He stated in 1998, she obtained a survey, but it did not show an access; it had a mailing address on a different road because before they split the property it was one parcel; and now that it has been divided, she has no access to her home. He stated when her mobile home burned, there were three fire trucks, police vehicles, and emergency vehicles on that road, easement, or whatever it is called; the County says it is not a County-maintained road, but they have no other access to the property; if the Commissioners looked at the survey or paperwork he submitted, they will see the problem of getting to the house; and he cannot build a house if he cannot get to the property. He stated he received a lot of help from Duwayne Lundgren of Commissioner Carlson’s office; and now he is here before the Board to see how things turned out.

Commissioner Carlson requested staff explain the hardship issue.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised Chapter 62-102 requires that in order to obtain a building permit, the property must have access on a County-maintained road or private road in a private subdivision; the Code allows a waiver by the County Manager; and there are very specific criteria that have been laid out for that. She stated in 2002, the County Manager established the criteria for waiver of the Code and established two areas, which were unique enough that they would meet the criteria; the first is islands where access to County-maintained roads would be very difficult; and the second is West Canaveral Groves area because the Board said it was legal for someone to get a building permit even though that person did not front on a County-maintained road; however, the Board amended that and brought it back to requiring access to a County-maintained road in West Canaveral Groves. Ms. Busacca stated the case before the Board is not unique; there are many areas of the County where there is no access to a County-maintained road; so the County Manager denied this request. She stated the Code provides that the Board has the right to determine whether or not that decision was made correctly; and the property owner has the right to request vested rights, which the Board has granted in the past for single-family structures such as the mobile home.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what are Gannett Plaza Avenue, Aspinwall Avenue, and Second Street listed on the drawing; with Ms. Busacca responding if she drove them she would call them roads, and the difference is whether or not they are County-maintained; and in this case, the portion of the road to Ms. Harrah’s property is not County-maintained. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about Third Street; with Gwen Heller responding the portion of Gannett Plaza Avenue, which abuts Ms. Harrah’s property is not County-maintained; the County maintains that right-of-way for a distance of roughly 250 feet from U.S. 1 heading west; but near the intersection of her property it is not County-maintained. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who maintains the portion that the County does not maintain; with Ms. Heller responding no one does. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is it a dirt or paved road; with Ms. Heller responding dirt road. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Third Street and Byham Road are also dirt roads; with Ms. Heller responding she does not know that. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is trying to get a feel of what the neighborhood is, what the properties on Lots 3, 7, 9 and 10 are, and whether they are mobile homes or hardened structures; with Mr. Matalone responding they are single-family residences. Ms. Busacca advised there was a recent rezoning request in the area from some people, and they all live in single-family residences. Commissioner Pritchard stated this issue is before his time, and to him a road is a road; and inquired if they have an ability to drive to a property, why does the County have stipulations about it being County-maintained. He inquired if structures on Lots 7, 9, 10, 5, and 3 had the same consequences as Ms. Harrah’s property, would they also be unbuildable; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca advised if property does not have access to a County-maintained road, then a building permit cannot be issued; in the past, the concern has been access primarily for emergency vehicles, as well as others; and she will cite an example. She stated in West Canaveral Groves where the roads are privately-owned, a gentleman pulled a mobile home into the middle of the road; his neighbor could not get to his house on the other side of the mobile home; and the County had no ability to have the gentleman move the mobile home because it was private property. She stated had there been a fire or need for an emergency vehicle, there would have been no way to access the property; so years ago, the County decided that roads should be maintained for health and safety purposes; and that is the reason for the requirement. Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands the emergency aspect of it, but these properties are developed; so if any one of those suffered the same fate, then it would become a vacant lot unless the County opts to take over road maintenance. Ms. Busacca stated there is another option in that Mr. Matalone or any other property owner could construct a road to the Unpaved Road Ordinance provisions; they would construct a road to County standards; it can remain an unpaved road; and at the time 51% of the lots have building permits for construction of a home, the road would be paved and adjoining property owners would enter into an MSBU. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is another option; the property owners currently pay taxes, and a portion of their property taxes as well as the local option gas tax are supposed to go toward road building; so that would be another option within the County budget to find money to pave the road. He inquired not looking at fiscal constraints, why does the County not have the ability to issue a building permit when they have access; it is a dirt road, but it is still an access; he assumes people drive on it every day; it is not like West Canaveral Groves where someone would park a trailer across the road preventing emergency access; and inquired who owns the current access; with Ms. Busacca responding it is an unimproved County right-of-way. Commissioner Pritchard stated so there is some County control in that it is a County right-of-way, albeit unimproved; and it seems like the County is mixing a lot of issues where the simple way might be to have another caveat that with the exception of something that has happened in West Canaveral Groves, it is not the situation with this property. He stated he can understand the County Manager taking the position that he did; and he does not know where the Board is going with it; but it would seem to him that if someone has access to a neighborhood, and it is an easement, then a building permit to reconstruct a fire-damaged structure should be allowed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was part of the development of the Ordinance; and one of the problems is when there is no entity maintaining a road. He stated there could be two entities that maintain a road, one would be the County and another would be a gated community, where the community has its own fee structure and maintains the roads; in either scenario there is something; but different people think different levels of maintenance are acceptable; and one person may only want to maintain to the point in which his or her property abuts the road to get to the property. He inquired how does the County get out there and adjust for all those different people with all the different interests. He stated the best thing was not to get to the measure of having those things open up because they become very problematic after the fact; there are places that have wilderness roads, which were difficult to get any vehicles on, not only emergency vehicles; and the County legal staff warned the Board it has a liability if it gives a permit out there because it would be saying it is okay to build out there. He stated constituents assume the same thing; and they say the County gave them a permit and they are part of the County as far as paying taxes. Commissioner Scarborough stated within his district he has dirt roads and people who bought in subdivisions in the County where the roads are paved; the people who bought where the roads are paved have paid for the roads as part of the purchase price of the home; furthermore, they have continually paid more taxes because their property values are higher; so they tell him that they understand some of their taxes are being diverted to give somebody else a road when they had to buy their road and have been paying additional taxes. He stated the equation actually works to a need for those persons to somehow be responsible; the one exception where the Board has paved a road is where a person built off a road, and the road evolved into a road that many people were using and became a bus location; there is a lot of activity on it; but the person did not intend for it to become a road for transit. He stated the County has a Transportation Committee that will take monies and pave roads as it finds the need; and it is a very complex thing and very political, but nonetheless it is only evolution from the single-family home on one dead-end street to a road that is being traversed by a number of diverse people. He inquired if what he heard was a circumstance that this item could be a vested rights issue as well; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would feel more comfortable handling it exclusively in that capacity rather than rewriting the Ordinance; but he is willing to rewrite Ordinances when the County made mistakes.

Commissioner Carlson requested the County Attorney explain the vested rights potential; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding Ms. Busacca can do that as she is aware of it and he is not.

Ms. Busacca advised Section 62-507 has four provisions for vesting; the fourth is if it was a single-family structure; the Board added that provision to allow it to look at unique circumstances such as this, so it could address it without changing the Code or setting a precedent; and she believes Mr. Matalone’s concern about that process is that there is a cost associated with it and the appeal process had no cost. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the cost to apply for vested rights; with Ms. Busacca responding about $600 because there is notification to all surrounding property owners, advertising, and a public hearing. Commissioner Carlson stated given the circumstances, the Board should take care of this appeal.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the appeal of Denise Harrah of the County Manager’s administrative decision concerning denial to access property by an unimproved County right-of-way named Gannett Plaza Avenue for issuance of a single-family building permit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to waive application fee, due to hardship, for Denise Harrah to apply for vested rights determination. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONDITIONAL AWARD, RE: MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPERS PURSUING
HOUSING TAX CREDITS FROM FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION

Commissioner Pritchard advised he met with Mr. Gilbert and discussed the item with Gay Williams; and requested Ms. Williams touch on including HOPE Properties into the process.

Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams advised the Affordable Housing Council recommended HOPE Properties, Inc. be included; it was one of seven applicants that met the threshold requirements; and they are conditional awards that would be bestowed upon HOPE Properties and others conditioned upon them receiving housing tax credit funding from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. She stated the County Attorney’s Office said on March 6, 2003, the Board disqualified HOPE Properties in the funding cycle, and it needs to determine that it is now a qualified bidder and accepted as recommended by the Affordable Housing Council.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve a conditional award of $150,000 to multifamily developers meeting the RFP criteria and pursuing tax credits from Florida Housing Finance Corporation in the upcoming March 2004 Universal Application Cycle, contingent upon final award of housing tax credit funding; determine HOPE Properties, Inc. is a qualified bidder; and authorize the Chair or her designee to execute award letters and certifications for those developers meeting the criteria. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

OPTION AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, RE: NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION
PROPERTY

Commissioner Pritchard stated he hates to give up title to property; and what the Board is doing with the Agreement is giving away property it purchased for $440,000 to the State for $220,000. He stated the Board should not do that and should control its investment; he is not going to support this because it should not give away title to the property; and an analogy of that is if Commissioners would give up ownership of their houses for half price. He stated he would not, and he would rather not get the reimbursement in lieu of losing title to the property.

Chair Higgs inquired if the County will get a management agreement with the State; with Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jack Masson responding yes. Chair Higgs inquired if the term of the agreement is about 50 years; with Mr. Masson responding yes. Chair Higgs stated she understands Commissioner Pritchard’s concerns; they have been working on getting a shared title arrangement with the State; it has been an uphill battle; but the citizens of the County will continue to have ownership through the State. She stated she recognizes the concerns and shares many of those; but the County will have a management agreement and it will be in public ownership.

Commissioner Scarborough stated these things are very complex; one never knows if he is winning or losing; in North Brevard they do not have a beach, but have a National Seashore Park; and that does benefit the people of North Brevard because they have access to it even though they cannot approach the Board about the Park; so there are benefits in having other people pay the cost. He stated there is no perfect answer, and he has seen these things come back and bite the Board. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is his concern; he does not have a problem with the National Seashore, but the County did not pay for the National Seashore. Commissioner Scarborough stated his point is the property does not leave the County; and it is still here for the enjoyment of the citizens even though it may lose some local control. Chair Higgs stated she will support it, but shares Commissioner Pritchard’s concerns; and requested staff give the Board an update on where they are with the shared title. She stated they have been to a number of meetings on that issue throughout the State and they are trying to get it resolved.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay. (See page for Agreement.)

Chair Higgs requested staff provide a report on the status of the shared title issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would appreciate that because the acquisition is done; the Board is looking at a reimbursement for half the price of the acquisition; he thinks it should retain title; and if the State wants to pay the County for half the purchase that is great, but it should still keep the title. Chair Higgs stated all things being equal, she understands the issues and shares Commissioner Pritchard’s concerns.

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS, RE: JAIL ADDITION

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised at the February 19, 2004 Workshop, the Board asked for several items; it has a memorandum dated February 20, 2004 from Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten on the financing; and requested the Board authorize the use of the commercial paper loan program to finance the jail expansion project, authorize execution of the commercial paper and loan resolution, authorize the Chair and County Attorney to sign the necessary loan documents, and authorize staff to make the necessary budget changes to accommodate the project. He stated in addition, the Board is being asked to advertise request for proposals for an architectural/engineering firm; establish selection and negotiating committees consisting of Jaime Irizzary, Terry Altman, and Shaunna Heffernan; award the proposal; and authorize the Chair to execute contractors’ contracts, which will be directly overseen by in-house staff and the Facilities Department. He requested the Board authorize the County Manager to execute contracts with qualified responsive low bidders; authorize staff to direct purchase materials under each subcontract, if applicable, to have the sales tax savings accrue back to the project; and authorize shortening the bid process for subcontractors from required 21 days to 14 days in order to expedite the contract execution and commencement of construction for those trades that Facilities and Purchasing staff feel will be in the best interest of the County. He stated staff is also requesting a mandatory pre-bid meeting be required for all
interested subcontractors due to specialty work associated with construction of a detention facility.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if paragraph 2 refers to the second floor of the 256-bed facility; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, but at this time he is not sure they can afford it. He stated staff had conversations with Commander Altman; and he concluded that a second floor, from an operating standpoint, is not a good idea; so he recommended it be a building shell next to the existing building. Mr. Jenkins stated it would be a one-story building shelled in for additional space on the same ground level; but based on the cost of that and the correctional impact fees, it might be prudent not to take action on that at this time. He stated it is something that can be reconsidered by the Board at a later date; the correctional impact fee flow of income is very high right now because of the high level of activity that is occurring in home building; but three years from now they do not know if it is going to be there; so he does not know if the Board would want to extend itself based on the money it has to borrow to be repaid using the correctional impact fees and because it is not going to be a second story, it is going to be on the same level. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why did Commander Altman have a problem with a second story; with Facilities Director Sam Stanton responding a lot of it were operational issues. Mr. Stanton stated if there are ADA inmates, they would have to put in an elevator; and there were security issues, which would cause the building to increase in price because they would have to elevate the control room in the middle of the floor; and there were a lot of things that were not considered in the beginning. Mr. Jenkins stated the control unit is in the center of the facility and would have to go up to the second floor as well. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the cost of going to a second floor would be higher than building a building beside it; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated the reason the second floor was mentioned was because it would be less cost; it is going to be less to do it next door; and inquired if there was a news article saying Marion County was having problems with its facility. Mr. Stanton responded he does not think it was about the facility they reviewed; a firm is designing another expansion of pods for Marion County; and there are considerations Marion County is having there. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was a different level of incarceration than the newspapers reported; with Mr. Stanton responded yes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this deals with the 256-bed dormitory; the Board also discussed a consultant’s study; and inquired if that is coming back as a separate item; with Mr. Jenkins responding the Board established the selection committee for the consultant; it has received five RFQ’s; and it will be reviewing those and will bring them back to the Board as a separate recommendation. Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff is keeping the Marion County project in mind as they go out for RFQ’s; with Mr. Stanton responding yes, and they are interviewing correctional officers at Marion County because there are a few things they would do a little differently, minor things, but enough that staff needs to learn from other people how to do it better. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the facility will be integrated with the existing facility; with Mr. Stanton responding yes.

Chair Higgs advised the Board has not yet received the cost to furnish and equip the facility; while it may be able to use impact fees for that, it does not have the cost yet nor the final operational costs; so it is looking at significant budget impacts. She noted the Board needs to be sure it is on everybody’s radar screen that the equipping of the facility is not included in the costs. Mr. Jenkins stated staff is cautiously optimistic that much of the equipment can be paid for out of the impact fees, depending on the life of the equipment; the heavy items should be able to come out of the impact fees; but there may be some minor things the Board would have to fund as well as the manpower.

Chair Higgs stated the financing over a number of years that staff is looking at today may not be feasible based on what the equipment costs turn out to be. Mr. Jenkins stated it may take an additional year; but they will try to build as much of it in-house to reduce the cost, so it may come below the $2 million estimate.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is always concerned about the cost of not doing something; the Board has stretched this issue far beyond its life expectancy; something needs to be done; and while he is not overly supportive of having to borrow money, the payment is coming from the correctional impact fee, so it is a way of paying it back and using the money wisely. He suggested the Board approve the shell structure at the same time and focus on the interior of one building rather than bring someone back at a future date; and it would be a savings to the County. He stated inevitably the jail population is not going to reduce significantly regardless of what the Board does because they will still be arresting more people as the County grows; so the Board is stuck behind a rock and a hard place; and shelling in a structure is a good way of addressing it. Commissioner Pritchard stated another thing that was mentioned was that inmates requiring other types of treatment could be relocated to other types of facilities and that would also help reduce the jail population. He stated there was another recent suicide at the jail; whether it is related to overcrowding no one knows; but there have been four in the past several weeks, and anything the Board can do to create a little more humane treatment and provide safety for the corrections officers will be in the best interest of the community. He stated he hopes the consultant group will address the issue of speedier court sessions as a method to reduce overcrowding at the jail.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a motion to authorize the County Manager to go forward with the items listed on the sheet.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize use of the Commercial Paper Loan Program up to $1.6 million and $400,000 from the existing Correctional Impact Fees to finance a total project cost of $2.0 million for a 256-bed dormitory style facility at the Detention Center; advertise request for proposals for architectural/engineering firms; appoint Jaime Irizarry, Terry Altman, and Shaunna Heffernan to the Selection and Negotiating Committees; authorize the Chair to execute a contract with the successful engineering firm; grant permission to advertise for bids and award bids for subcontractors to construct the jail addition to be overseen by in-house staff; authorize County Manager to execute contracts with qualified, responsive, low bidders; shorten bid process from 21 to 14 days to expedite contract execution and commencement of construction for those trades Facilities and Purchasing staff feels will be in the best interest of the County; approve mandatory pre-bid meeting for all interested subcontractors; and direct purchase of materials under each subcontract, if applicable, to save on sales tax that would accrue back to the project.

Commissioner Carlson stated the last bullet of the February 23, 2004 memo requests a mandatory pre-bid meeting for all interested subcontractors due to specialty work associated with the construction; she assumes that is because the Board is not exactly sure how the forensics care part discussed at the workshop is going to play out; and she does not know what other specialty types of things would have to be constructed to deal with that. Mr. Jenkins stated he talked to Commander Altman since the workshop; and he is going to try to convert a portion of the new facility for the nonviolent forensic patients. He stated approximately 75% of those require maximum security; but approximately 25% can go into the new facility; so he is taking a serious look at trying to move as many of the forensic inmates as he can into the new facility. Commissioner Carlson stated there are additional costs associated with housing those kinds of inmates. Chair Higgs stated staff wants to ensure that the people who are bidding on the facility have knowledge of corrections facilities as well as forensic issues.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he thought Jack Parker was a member of the committee; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is on the Consultant Selection Committee.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

APPROVAL OF LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT TO HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BREVARD
COUNTY, RE: ISLAND LAKES PROJECT

Ron Sellers, Chief Executive Officer of the Brevard Family of Housing Authorities, advised the entity includes the Housing Authorities of Brevard County, City of Cocoa, and City of Melbourne; and collectively those three agencies administer over 1,300 units of public housing and nearly 2,100 vouchers in the Section 8 Program Countywide. He stated nearly two years ago they began a comprehensive evaluation of the housing inventory, and at the same time did an assessment of housing services they offer to determine if they met the needs of moderate to low-income individuals. He stated some of their developments have serious systems problems; they confirmed one major deficiency in the community with regard to housing services is the lack of available quality, affordable housing for elderly and non-elderly disabled persons; and he is here to brief the Board on a proposed initiative that involves redevelopment of two properties on Merritt Island. Mr. Sellers advised if they are successful in this endeavor, they would not only eliminate systems problems that exist today, but also increase the number of designated housing units for elderly and non-elderly disabled persons in Brevard County. He stated they met extensively with residents of the two developments involved, members of County staff, representatives from local advocacy groups, and other shareholders in the County as they developed the initiative and had at least two sessions with the Board; and they believe the initiative is compatible with the County’s Comprehensive Plan for housing and community development. He stated the copy of the Power Point presentation is identical to the one that was discussed with the Board at the last session; they brought it today and would be happy to go through it again; and what they are looking for is a letter of acknowledgment from the Board that would go with their application to HUD for redevelopment of those two properties. He stated they need the letter from the County to process their request for approval of a demolition and disposition plan by HUD.

Chair Higgs advised the letter is simply an acknowledgment from the Board that it is aware of the plan, but does not bind the Board in terms of zoning changes that it may have to consider at a later time in a public hearing. Mr. Sellers stated it does not bind the Board; and if HUD approves the plan, they will come back through the site plan approval process where those issues would be discussed.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what if the Board denies the rezoning, which has to be advertised for a public hearing, and the Board has given the Authority the go ahead. He inquired how does that structure Brevard County and the Authority with HUD in that it had gone through the process in advance of getting the rezoning. He stated sometimes it ends up inside and backwards; an example is at one time the MPO was considering six-laning A1A in Cocoa Beach; it had a public hearing on it and at that moment the MPO decided not to proceed with the six-laning, so FDOT punished Brevard County by taking those funds away and the County never saw those funds again. He inquired if there is potential that Brevard County could have a negative scenario play out that way with this issue. Mr. Sellers advised procedurally they identify a problem; before they can go to HUD with a proposed solution, they have to come to the elected body and explain what they propose to do and have it provide them with a letter of acknowledgment; and that simply allows HUD to look at their plan and run it through its approval process. Mr. Sellers stated if HUD comes back with approval of the demolition and disposition plan, they would come back to the Board with the things they would need to secure from the County before they put the first shovel in the ground; so there is still an opportunity for discussion and the letter does not bind the Board to anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated that was not his question; his question was what if it backs up on the Board at the last moment, how does that impact the relationship with HUD; with Mr. Sellers responding if HUD looks at their proposal favorably in terms of if they devised a good solution to the existing problem, it probably would raise the question of whether there are serious concerns locally that offset the value of the project; and that would be a legitimate question for HUD to ask.

Chair Higgs advised there are two other speakers; and inquired if the Board wants to proceed with the speakers or is it ready to make a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chair to execute a letter of endorsement for the Island Lakes project to replace Baxley Manor and Development 20-7C, to allow the Housing Authority to move forward with an application to HUD, but not constitute commitment of any local zoning, land use, consolidated plan, or other approvals.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested the communication to HUD fully indicate that the Board is unable to commit under the laws of Florida to any zoning, and the zoning decision could in fact, reverse this decision; and inquired if the maker of the motion would accept including precautionary language in the letter.

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

CITIZEN REQUEST - CURTIS DORMAN, RE: WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive permitting fee for the Space Coast Marine Institute Board of Trustees to construct a new student services/administrative facility that would house administrative offices, counseling space, lending library, clinic, education Department, and conference room. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST - GLEN KEMP, RE: SARNO ROAD LANDFILL

Withdrawn from the Agenda for rescheduling.

APPROVAL, RE: CHARLES STACK WICKHAM ROAD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTENT WITH PARAMETERS IDENTIFIED IN PROPOSED STAFF-DESIGNED
CONCEPT PLAN

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the item is a request for Bert Harris action on the part of the Board of County Commissioners; and the property is a parcel of 4.3 acres located near the intersection of Interlachen and Wickham Road on the northwest side next to the Sunoco Station. He stated Mr. Stack has claimed that his property was devalued by $760,000 when the Board enacted the forested wetland policy several years ago; under the Bert Harris Act, the Board has 180 days to either ignore the request or grant some other relief; and the Planning staff has prepared an alternative layout for the project, which is slightly different than Mr. Stack had originally intended because part of the wetlands that was going to be destroyed by Mr. Stack is being preserved in staff’s version. He noted Mr. Woolrich with the Planning Department is here and perhaps could explain what he did in the way of modifying Mr. Stack’s proposal. He stated what staff is suggesting is that the Board adopt the proposal as an alternative plan that would satisfy the E. Bert Harris obligation.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board has a draft of the alternative plan, if there are any questions from the Board, and what action is being requested. Mr. Knox stated the Board’s choices are either approve staff’s alternative design for the project, or take no action at all. Chair Higgs inquired if the motion would be to approve the alternative plan; and inquired if there would be some sort of waivers necessary; with Mr. Knox responding Mr. Woolrich could elaborate. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is considered to be the relief; with Mr. Knox responding yes, the Bert Harris Act authorizes the Board to offer an alternative development limitation; the Board can waive whatever existing regulations it has or can modify them to allow development to proceed in an area that would not otherwise be allowed to proceed; and what staff has come up with is an alternative.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the plan shows a 10,000 square-foot retail structure and 6,000 square-foot restaurant, which is what was proposed by the applicant; there is a requirement for additional parking over that which has been shown on the plan; and that would require a waiver of 30%, which is contemplated in the Code and which the Board has done in the past. She stated the second waiver that would be considered by the Board is that there could be some limited slope grading and native replanting in the wetland buffer; that is shown on an area to the far left of the site plan, which shows a wetland with a 50-foot buffer; and there is consideration for a waiver to allow partial use of an isolated wetland for stormwater management. She stated those waivers could aid in the design of the project; Mr. Woolrich did a fine job, but this has not been reviewed by engineers; there may be some additional requirements to meet all the Codes; but the Board can contemplate those two waivers and the parking waiver.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the proposed alternative changes what the applicant proposed for the property in terms of construction costs; with Ms. Busacca responding her guess would be it would decrease the cost. Ms. Busacca stated filling of wetlands is relatively expensive; mitigation is usually required by permitting agencies; so the less filling there is to wetlands, the less cost there is to the developer. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the developer could benefit from the alternative; with Ms. Busacca responding she believes so and in addition, less parking would also reduce the cost. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if less parking would affect the marketability of the property, and is there a requirement from an owner’s position that more parking is better than less parking; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not know that; they have people who come in and request a waiver down to 30% because they do not want all the parking; and they have other people who come in and want additional parking, such as Petty’s. She stated it would be difficult to decide that based on the information provided to staff by the applicant. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the alternative was presented to the applicant; with Mr. Knox responding they attempted to make that presentation yesterday, but the phones were not working so they could not contact Mr. Blake. Commissioner Pritchard stated it seems like a reasonable alternative.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the proposed staff-designed concept plan for Charles Stack’s Wickham Road property development with waivers of 30% of the parking requirements, allow limited slope grading and native replanting in the wetland buffer, and allow partial use of an isolated wetland for stormwater management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Stack does not accept it, what point will the Board be at then; with Mr. Knox responding they can do whatever they want to at that point; and they can file suit to try and get their devalued property reimbursed if they want to. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the fact that the County provided him relief puts it in a better position overall; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

EXECUTION OF LETTER, RE: CLARIFICATION OF PRESIDENT’S POLICY FOR FUTURE
FEDERAL FUNDING OF BREVARD COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to execute a letter seeking clarification of the President’s policy regarding future federal funding of the Brevard County Shore Protection Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

ATTEST _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)