[Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. Hey.
[Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music]
Hey, [Music] [Music]
Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi judicial body when it hears requests for resoning and conditional use permits. Applicants must provide competent substantial evidence establishing facts or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the zoning code and
comprehensive plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts or provide expert testimony whether they like or dislike a request is not competent evidence. The board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the
comprehensive plan and the existing rules in the zoning ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be reszoned and the actual development of the surrounding area. The board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to
stand up or raise their hands. If a commissioner has had communications regarding a resoning or conditional use permit request before the board, the commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place before the
board takes action on the request. Likewise, if a commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the commissioner must disclose that fact before the board takes action on the request. Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless time is extended by majority vote of the
board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed 5 minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak. Good evening and welcome to the planning
and zoning meeting for the board of county commissioners. Uh we have a quorum. We'll call the meeting to order. Please join consent agenda tonight. Is there anything anybody wants to take off consent agenda? Is there a motion for And I don't think
we have cards, do we? Do we have Okay, thank you. Is there a motion for consent agenda? A motion to approve consent. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Atkinson. We have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes.
Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes. We'll show that passes 40. Thank you. Do we have any cards on the G section? Nothing on G. No. Okay. Very good. All right, commissioners. We're going to go to H1 and Trina.
Item H1, Cababella Development LLC being represented by Kim Rosena requesting a zoning classification change from BU-1- A to RU-2-6 under application 24Z 0064
located in district 4. Okay, Kim, you're recognized. Reporter asked me to wait a minute. Oh, all right. No, first I knew [Music] Are we all set?
Just one moment, please. Okay. Uh, yes. Sorry. You're here for item H2, correct? H1. Okay. Okay. I don't think I have other cards on each
one other than the applicant. Nathan Malone is here. I don't know if he is the one that's here for Weederman Malik. Okay. Are we set? Yes. Okay. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Felter,
members of the county commission. My name is Kim Rosena with Lacy Rosenka, 6013 Farcenda Place in Melbourne, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Dep Prima Construction Corp., which is the contract purchaser for the property owned by Ron Levy. Uh this parcel is 5
acres. It's currently zoned BU1A restricted neighborhood retail and we're seeking uh RU26 to build town homes. Um according to the staff report currently we did this under live local. We could have 30 units to the acre based
upon the residential 15 to the uh future land use to the west but we are seeking just RU26 which would limit it to 30 units. We have provided a concept plan without any engineering that shows 20 units, but it does show the buffering.
It's avoiding the impacts to the wetlands and it's the uh desire of the Prima construction to build 20 to 30 town homes. They will be twostory. They will have a sale price of approximately $600,000 and it will have twocar garages. Uh with me today is uh Demar uh
Demar Han who's the chief operating officer of DE Prima Construction Corp. and Evan Mcllohen who is also at Depria Construction Corp. This is uh on Wickcham Road. It's across from the post office uh near a three-story apartments
legacy at Oakwood. It's adjacent to RU 1111, the Cababella development. The RU 1111 allows 7,500 foot lots. Um, 1100 foot minimum. This is to the north of the Cababella office complex.
And, uh, as you see from what is in your, uh, your aerial map on page 65 of your agenda packet, this a large vacant lot. This is actually not part of the Cababella office complex, but part of the Cababella Plat to the west. It's
donated as E for future development. It does not it's not platted at this time. Uh when it does go to town homes, it will be platted for town homes and it will be single family ownership. Uh the uh reason this is requesting for
town homes is because the need for commercial in this area is is isn't existing right now. There's actually a pad still on the Cabella office complex that's vacant. Uh no one's chose to to build it. U if you look at page 69 of your agenda
packet that is part of the Cababella phase 3 plat. It shows the uh 50-foot buffer to the west of this property to show that there will be a substantial buffer between this town home project
and the single family homes to the west. You'll see on page uh 70 that is the uh parcel itself. It does show the wetland there to the south and this is what is to be avoided with the town home project. Page 71 of your agenda packet
shows just the concept plan of what could be with the town homes. We did provide a traffic generation analysis. There's uh two pages we submitted to PNZ, but the entire packet has been submitted as well that shows this will be a substantial reduction in
traffic from what could be there should there be uh a commercial center there. Commercial center could be as large as 163,000 square ft and have net new trips of 7,127 trips. This will only generate 216 new
trips a day. So this is a much less intense use on a road wickham that especially at this area can be uh very challenging at rush hour traffic. According to the staff report, this is a mixeduse area. There are no concurrency
issues and there are no material violations of comp plan policies. Uh with that we can answer any questions and if there are no questions we request approval of the reszoning from BU1A to RU26. Okay. Commissioners questions for the
applicant. I think we had talked once before possibly about a BDP uh no short-term rental. I think the neighborhood next door would and that's fine. Okay. You would agree to that? Yes. Okay. Uh I don't think we have any other
cards on this one. Is there any discussion on this item? No. Okay. Uh commissioners, it's it's my district. Um and I'm fine with this. Uh so approval with the BDP uh uh to restrict no short-term rental. Yes, sir.
Okay. Uh anyone want to make that motion? No, I would like to make that motion. Okay. All right. Very good. We have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second? We have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney, yes. Vice Chair Goodson, yes. Commissioner Atinson, yes.
Chairman Felner, yes. We'll show that passes. 4 Z. Thank you. Commissioners, we're going to go to H11, if you don't mind. And Trina.
Item H11 is Lindy, Inc. being represented by Kim Rzinka. Requests a conditional use permit. CUP for IU-1 heavy industrial under application 25Z 00017
located in district 1. I know you didn't think we were going to get there that fast. Okay, Kim. Uh, good evening. Uh, chair chairman Felner, member of county commission. My name is Kim Rosena. I'm here on behalf
of Lindy Inc. I with the firm of Lacy Rosena 6013 Place, Melbourne, Florida. Here with me also from Lindy Inc. is Dave Yulgeski who is the director of capital improvements and Sean Chase who
is the uh supervisor at this particular plant in Mims Florida. Um we were back before you in January for the reasonzoning and comp plan change to heavy industrial. This was part two. This is the conditional use permit. At the time we came before you,
we didn't have a site plan. Now we do. Um that's been presented to you. It's at page 474 of your agenda packet. And I do have other copies for you as well, uh, in case your screen is too small. Um,
but I'll pass those out in a minute. So, um, on January 13th of 2025, this was approved for future land use and zoning of heavy industrial. This is on 10.46 acres of the north parcel owned by Lindy. The south parcel
already has a cup and has an existing industrial gas manufacturing plant. This is basically expanding the plant to allow for additional gas production because of all of the activity at the space center. SpaceX is one of their major
uh uh customers. Uh and SpaceX has submitted a letter of recommendation asking for support for this as has uh two other of their customers from the space center. This is located in North MS. It's been
existing since 1965 or 66. And we do need the conditional use to do this uh chemical manufacturing, but there are no specific requirements in the conditional use application. This is one of the odd conditional use
ordinances that has no specific criteria. So, it's up to you to put in your criteria on it that you might think would be appropriate. They do have to meet the uh performance standards of the county code. They do have to meet all safety regulations. They have to have a
state permit. they have to have an ERP permit. So, there's a lot of permitting agencies that oversee this regulation. Um, I'm going to ask Dave Yagleski, I apologize if I messed up your name, to come up again. He is the director of capital improvements for Lindy and he'll
tell you a little bit about the Lindy operation and why this expansion is necessary. You just hit the enter button. Okay. I appreciate the time tonight uh for you to consider our um conditional use permit. You when I was here last
time in January, we talked about what Lindy does. We're um the world's largest industrial gas company and really simply we take air and separate it into its constituents, oxygen, nitrogen, argon,
and allow manufacturing processes um and things like space launch to happen. They use the oxygen that we generate uh there. Our plant has been there since 1965. We've done um in the past six
years two other expansions already. This would be our our third in order for us to continue to support the the markets that we supply on top of the aerospace industry. We do supply steel, gas, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors. So there's a wide range of of users of our
products. Um, and I'm flipping through the slides, which I know we showed last time, so I don't know how how much more you want to hear about it, but a lot of different um, uses. This is show an example, not not the exact plant that we're going to install, but a similar facility that
we're putting in. So, we really take the air, separate it, liquefy it, so it's easily transported to where it's being used. So we'd be trucking the products over to customers throughout Florida and and the space center as well. This is the existing facility that we
have there today and we would be expanding to what is the the left of the photograph which is to the north. So okay uh questions are there questions for the
applicant? Any questions for the applicant? We do have a card, so let's go to the I'm not done yet. I'm I'm sorry. Okay. Again, Kim Rosena, what I've provided you is a copy of the site plan. It says it's
conditional use concept plan, but this is the site plan. This is what they're um Kimley Horn is in process of designing uh with the addition to the north there. Um we do have some issues that have to be addressed such as the paving of the road. Um some distance
separations from residential property and things like that. Uh the big issue that has continually come up is the concern for traffic at US1 and WY. So we did hire a traffic engineer, Walsh Traffic Engineering. He just got this to me yesterday. I apologize for not
getting it to you sooner, but FDOT did a study at this intersection um in spring of last year, 2024, and he was able to review that. He reviewed the crash reports. They went out there to do a traffic count, but it was shut down because they're doing some um what do
they call it? Resurfacing. So, uh he went through this, he looked at the four-year crash data, said there was no crash trend identified. This is a 65 mph uh speed zone, but FDOT did not see a need to reduce that based upon what Mr.
Walsh said is they're doing this resurfacing. If they thought there was a need to reduce it, they would have done it during this resurfacing project. So on page two, Mr. Wall states that u based upon the review of the study the fact that the existing unsignalized
minor street stop controlled full median opening is being maintained under FDOT's milling and resurfacing project and that the pres Lindy facility expansion will marginally increase traffic at US1 wy no improvements are recommended at this intersection currently there are
approximately two trucks a day an hour going through that that intersection so 24 or 48 trucks a day. This will increase to about 90 trucks a day and it's still very um minimal for the traffic coming out of there. At uh
planning and zoning, we had Michael Ashton from Lindy talk about how they've had no serious injuries in a very long time. No, no serious uh truck issues and over 10 years there are multiple safety mechanisms in these trucks to prevent
any accidents. Uh I also did want to briefly uh talk about the staff analysis from the staff report um that this use can be considered compatible with the character. There is residential in the area but it's it's very nominal. Uh the closest house is 500 ft from here and
then uh others are half a mile away. And this has been here first. This was here a long long time ago before these other houses came in. Preliminary currents review says there's no potential to cause deficiencies in traffic. there's access to potable water,
their need to comply with performance standards, but these are the same impacts for this conditional use that already exist. The CUP review again says no substantial impact on adjacent or nearby properties. It's anticipated 9 to 15 new employees
on 8 hour shifts. So, there's not going to be a lot of employee traffic either. There's no odor, particles, smoke, or fumes from this facility. The noise would be of the same type. There's no adjacent residential and the hours of operations have been the same historically. Uh with that, we would
request approval of the conditional use permit. Okay. Commissioners, questions for the applicant. Okay, we have one card. Sandra Sullivan. Sandra Sullivan. the person who likes accountability and transparency.
So that site you're showing right there, that's not the parcel we're talking about. We're talking about to the north. So it would have been good to include the diagram that was in the agenda packet uh that showed the lot towards
the north. Um, so I just want to bring up we know we've seen a lot of media attention to an LG plant, uh, and a lot of discussion about that on social media and it's kind of like
look over here, but this is happening over here. So I just want to just say that I actually think this is a good location, but I just want to just the way we went about this. So when this came before P&Z, it was like, oh, we're
just expanding our operations from something that was zoned, you know, pre before comprehensive plan, so not consistent with the surrounding area. So residential was reszoned, you know, uh utility.
Um so the the statements made at that time in the questions that was asked was this was going to expand this particular plant with liquid oxygen but now we see it's liqufied natural gas and I I just
think when we do these things this should have had the right location to the north which there's a street up there and there's some residences. Now the good news is this is very low residential. there isn't a lot of residential to the to the west is
wetlands. So, yeah, I do think it's a good uh location. I just wish I'd just like to see, you know, a little bit more um transparency and accuracy for the benefit of the public. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Um Okay. Any discussion, commissioners? Any discussion on the item? Okay. Is there a motion? I'd like to move to approve um
a conditional use permit for um IU1. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. We have a second by Commissioner Goodson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes, Commissioner Atkinson.
Yes, Chairman Felner. Yes. We'll show that passes 40. Thank you, commissioners. Uh I think we had a request from applicants on H4 to table,
right? And so should we read it in and then we'll we'll vote to table that? Is that okay? Trina, go ahead. on H4. Item H4, Thomas Dohy requests a change in zoning classification from GU to
RU-1-11 under application 25Z 00007 located in district 1. Okay, Commissioner Delaney, that's your district. I've got a letter I think we received here that they want a table.
Yes, I'm okay with that. Okay. So, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney to table and do we need table to a future meeting or we can just table it just you need to to avoid uh readvertising if you continue it to a specific meeting.
Which meeting should that be continued to Trina? It actually will need to be readvertised. He amended it. That's right. Because he's a submitting the application to argue once. Okay. Needs to be readvertised anyway. So, just continue. So, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second to table the item?
Okay, we have a second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney, yes. Vice Chair Goodson, yes. Commissioner Atinson, yep. Chairman Felner, yes. We'll show that one. 4 Z. I think also just to be efficient here, I think
H8, didn't we also have a request? Yes. To table. Okay. You want to read that one in in the bowl? Item H8, Emerald Plaza Development Incorporated, represented by Lewis
Repasta. Request a CUP conditional use permit for alcoholic beverages for onremise consumption accessory to a cigar bar in units 1 through 5 under application 25Z
00014 located in district 2. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Goodson, this is your district. You okay with tableabling it? Yes. So, moved. That's okay. We have a We have a motion by Commissioner Goodson. We have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Sorry, this one we should have a
specific meeting. Correct. August 7th. August August 7th. Sir, you want to amend that to continue? Sure. To the August. August 7th. August 7th. Okay. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner
Goodson. We have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney, yes. Vice Chair Goodson, yes. Commissioner Atinson, yes. Chairman Felner, yes. We'll show that. Um we'll show that passes. 4.
Okay. Um we don't Let's go to item H2. Item H2, Aubrey Williamson. She's being re represented by attorney Malone Malone, excuse me, requests a change of
zoning classification from RU-1-9 to RU-2-10 under application 24Z0052 located in district 5. Sir, you're recognized. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners.
We're here on a uh one parcel in just north of uh Indie Atlantic in um in the unincorporated county just to the west of Gross Point Avenue near where the Long Dogggers is in Indantic. Um what we're seeking to do here is to to make the property compatible and consistent
with with the neighboring uses. Specifically, the property property to the north is a daycare center. Um the property to the east is um has similar zoning and it's more as you get to the west there's the our one zoning um at the planning and zoning meeting we did
ask and we stipulated to a uh a BDP that will remain with one property one with one structure one principal structure on the property single family one story just like it is this was built in 1952 um and pretty simple request happy to
answer any questions um Aubrey Williamson the property owner is where um it's planning again there's a stipulation for a BDP with no vacation rentals with no no resort dwelling use. Um there's a current long-term tenant that's under lease for the property for
I believe it's a year. Um again, happy to answer any questions and we would ask that the commission approve this. Okay. Are there questions for the applicant? I have one question. Okay. Commissioner Atinson. So changing this zoning, what does it do for for the for the owner? Yeah, we're
we're trying to make it compatible and consistent with the other uses in the area, specifically the the daycare across the street. The intent is to keep using this as a as a single family home. Um, but it I I saw the same thing in the in the commit in the agenda packet and essentially what it does is it allows
for the same for the for the use and for it to be um consistent. This house was built back in 1952. There was a a reasonzoning done in 1976. and just in looking at it and and what we've done um was making sure that it could be compatible and consistent with the area.
So, is there anything that that this new zoning will allow her to do that she can't do right now? No, I don't believe so. Other questions for the applicant? I know Commissioner Alman couldn't uh make it here this evening, but um
commissioners, we have this before us. So, um I don't have uh I'm sorry. I have one card. James Eric Prey. Did I say that? Pre pray. Good afternoon. I'm James Priest. I live or I live somewhere else, but I own the
property that's two units from Miss Williamson's. Uh that's at 198 Gross Point. And uh all the units that are in that area on the north side of Franklin are RU210. I don't see any reason why
she shouldn't be able to get hers changed to that. And I really there shouldn't be any kind of BDP or anything put on the property because nobody else has that in the area. And the other ones nearby are RU212.
That's it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Commissioners, in discussion, is there any discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item? We have a motion by Commissioner Goodson. Is there a second?
I just have a question. I apologize. Um, with the motion, are we are we saying that there is a BDP on the property to keep out short-term rentals? I Okay, Commissioner Goodson amended to read that. Okay. Um, Commissioner Goodson amended
his motion or his motion to include uh BDP on the short-term rental. Can I second? If I if I may, Mr. Chair, sir, is does the BDP include all three conditions that were recommended by LPA? That's no not to be used for resort dwellings, limited to one single family
unit, and it would be a singlestory structure, or are we just doing the BDPA for the vacation rental? I'll amend it for all three. I'd amend it for all three and I will second that. Okay. Commissioner Goodson amends his motion to include all three of those conditions. Commissioner Atinson
seconds. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes. And we will show that passes 40. Okay. Very good.
We're going to H3. Item H3, Quint Quinton Bent Jr. requests a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-11 under application 25Z00006
located in district 1. Sir, you're recognized. Hello. I would just like to do a single family resident home. So, I'd like to change from AU to R U RU1. [Music] All right. Very good. Are there questions for the applicant?
I don't think we have any other cards but the applicant. Is there any discussion on the item? Commissioner Delaney is your district. I'd like to move to approve um the zoning change from AU to RU1-11.
All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Second. We have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes, sir. Congratulations. Thank you. Have a good day. Thanks for being here today.
Okay, commissioners, we will go to H5. H5. Trina. Item H5, John A. and Christine S. Connley being represented by Ken Lewa and or Savannah Parley requesting a
change requesting a zoning classification change from BU-2 to RU-1-11 under application 25Z 00010 located in district 2.
Ma'am, you're recognized. Good evening. Uh my name is Savannah Farley. I'm with BSE Consultants um representing the uh owner. Um they're looking to uh reszone this property from BU2 to RU1-11. Okay. Are there questions for the applicant?
No, I don't think we have any other cards. Uh is there any discussion on the Commissioner Goodson? Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Goodson. I think I heard a second. Second. Okay. Commissioner Delaney. Second.
Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, we will go to H6.
Item H6, Steven Schultz Jr. requests a zoning classification change from AU to RU-1-13 under application 25Z 000011 located in district 5.
You recognize sir Steve Schultz 275 Grey Road Melbourne. I just want to I'm trying to do an addition on my house. They said it wasn't zoned properly, so I have to reszone. Okay. Uh I don't Is there any questions
for the applicant? I don't have any other cards uh than the applicant. Is there any discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item? Second. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Atinson. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call
the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes. Sir, you did a good job. Thank you. Congratulations to you. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Yes, but that's okay. All right,
commissioners, we will go to H7. Item H7 is Eduardo Bertat and Brett Bertat request a change request a zoning classification change from BU-1 and RU-2-10
to all RU-2-10 under application 25Z 000012 located in district 1. Okay. District. No, we're on seven H7. Yeah, it's it's
D1. is D1. Uh you're Brett. Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. You're recognized, sir. Okay. So, the property currently has two zonings on it and it has an existing triplex and I would like to change it to all RU2-10.
Okay. Uh are there questions for the applicant? I don't think we have any other cards on this one. Is there discussion on the item? Is there a motion for the item? I'd like to move to approve the zoning class class well
sorry zoning classification change from BU1 and RU210 to all RU210. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second? We have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney,
yes. Vice Chair Goodson, yes. Commissioner Atinson, yes. Chairman Fner, yes. We'll show that pass 4 Z. Congratulations, sir. Okay, commissioners. We're going to go to
These are nines. So, I'm still on eight. No, we table eight. Oh, there we go. Sorry. H. Go ahead, Trina. Item H9 and H10. I will read in together. They're are companion applications, but they will need separate approvals.
CTX Equities Incorporated being represented by custombuilt con contracting request a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment under 25S.09 09 to change the future land use
designation from NC and NC and CC to all CC under application 25 SS00003 located in district 1. CTX Equities Incorporated requests a change of zone requests a change of zoning
classification from GU and BU2 to all BU2 under application 25Z 00013 located in district 1. Okay. I have uh Chad and and James. Which one are you, sir? You're James.
So I'm James. I'm the representative of the builder and Chad's the owner. You're recognized, sir, to explain your item. Okay. We just want to reszone it from the uh general use to the BU2, please.
Okay. Are there questions for the applicants? Commissioner Delaney. I was just curious what you guys are planning to do here. We're building a 12,000 square foot um shop, I guess, is best way to work on semi-trailers.
And that's about it. Awesome. Are there other questions for the applicants? I don't have any other cards except these two gentlemen. Uh is there discussion on the item? The only discussion I have on this was
um I saw that there's a pretty good amount of wetlands on here and so as far as that goes um we're deal we have it all surveyed and all flagged out and everything's going to be outside of the uh outside the wetlands. Okay.
Yeah. Awesome. Well, with that, I would like to um if nobody else has any I will say one more thing that Sure. You may have addressed it, but we are also H10, which is a a notion. Yeah. Okay.
That's your companion item. Let's let's do these um so we'll do H9 then we'll we'll do the next one on on H9. Uh, Commissioner, I would like to make a motion to change the future land use designation from NC and CC to all CC.
Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney, yes. Vice Chair Goodson, yes. Commissioner Atinson, yes. Chairman Felner, yes. We'll show that one passes 4. Let's
go to So H10. Do we need to read that again or Trina? Do we need to say anything else on H10 the companion or we're set? I'm sorry. I I didn't hear you last. Do I do we need to read H10 again or we're okay on the on the companion?
No, sir. I've already read it into the record. Just want to make sure. Okay. Any other questions on this item on H10? Okay. I don't have any other cards. Any discussion on H10? Commissioner Delaney, I would like to move to um change the
zoning classification from GU and BU2 to all BU2. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson?
Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes. We'll show that passes 4. Okay. Commissioners, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you all. Yeah, congratulations.
Okay, we will move into 11. Okay. I think we got a card on H11 after we took the item up. What should I What should I do with that one? Morris, if the card came in after you took the
item up, the board is already acted on it. If you didn't have the card at the time, there's nothing you can do about that. Card needs to be in before the item's heard. All right. Okay. idual know if they're still here and waiting maybe.
Is there Sean Chase who's still here? Okay, very good. Okay, let's move into uh H12. Item H12, adoption of a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment under
application number 24 LS 00001 24-04 ACSC regarding the Bvard Bard barrier island area BBIA
as a new element to the comprehensive plan under the state coordinated review process. Yes. Okay. Questions, sir. Commissioner Goodson, Billy, can you tell us what is the
purpose of doing this? The Bvard Barrier Island Protection Act was a law that was passed by the legislature. It creates an area of critical state concern in the South Beaches. This is one of the steps that is required under that law and under the
area critical state concern process is to implement it in our comprehensive plan. So it effectively implements the guiding principles contained in the Bvard Barrier Island Protection Act. Okay. Chair, may I? Yes, sir. Now, could you tell me are you
increasing density? Absolutely not, Commissioner. In fact, this reinforces existing policies that prohibit residential density increases in the area. And chair, may I? Yes, sir. Then this is going to go back to state
for state approval, right? Yes, sir. This if the board were to adopt this, they would go to Florida Commerce for review. Okay. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Billy. Any other questions for staff? Okay. We do have four cards. Sandra Sullivan.
Good evening, Sandra Sullivan. So, this is the first area of critical concern in the state in 45 years is a tremendous uh accomplishment. Um, I do have two small issues uh wi with it that I would like to see
corrected. We do have some time that uh as the county got an extension until September that this could be done. Uh the first one is that the level of service standard for evacuation is not explicitly stated and the county's
intent to make it a variable does not meet the state statute definition of a standard to not exceed. So that's the first concern that I would like to see. that is the most uh uh probably critical for evacuation because there's one way
out. The bridge to the south floods pre-land when it's a wet event and you got 30 miles to drive to get out of there. Uh so that's the first one. And then the second issue has to do with a
statement uh uh made by the planning and zoning director uh when issues came up at the planning and zoning board about um saying that they're that the future land use is a property right. And so I
have a copy here that I give you after I'm done talking where under Bard County 21101 ECR the staff report um this was a section on property rights uh and the uh
state wrote back and said um DEO recommends that prior to adoption the ordinance be revised to remove the reference to the amendment being applicable to the future land use element of the comprehensive plan and to clearly reference the property rights
element as its own standalone element. And so the staff had agreed that um you indicated that the original intent was to treat property right elements as a standalone element and agreed to revise the draft ordinance prior to adoption.
So I want to give you that uh I think this is is of importance because HB 180 passed this week as you know and you cannot go back after and revisit it and make a comprehensive plan more
restrictive. So either we make this change now or you you know you're not going to be able to make this change in the future based on what I'm reading of HB1 180. So, I'll give you a copy of this letter
from the conversation with DEEO. Ma'am, uh, she still has some, is that it, Sandra? Yeah. Okay. Commission Morris, could you explain to the board in reference to what you just heard
about the HB bill and all that or help me out? I can only assume she's referring to SB 180 which did lock in um the ability to make a comprehensive plan amendment or other land development regulation that's more restrictive. However, that's already applicable. That was
retroactively applicable. So, it already applies. Uh doing something now doesn't take us out from under that. But there is an exception for the areas of critical state concern as long as it's processed through the state process that we've gone through with the transmitt receiving the comments back from commerce and what we're doing now. So
everything that we're doing uh here is perfectly in accordance with SB80. However, if we were to try to do something more restrictive than what's required of the area of critical state concern legislation, uh we would almost
certainly be a foul of SP 180. So, um, so I would I would disagree with the idea that you can start adding things now at this point that aren't substantially consistent with what was reviewed and approved with the transmitt.
Thank you, chair. Okay, we um we still have some cards. Okay. Mary Spar. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Mary Spar and I'm representing Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. Sierra Club totally supports adoption of
the BBIA amendment as is tonight. This amendment is extremely important for adequate protection of habitat and coastal resources. After the BBIA amendment is accepted by
Florida Commerce, work on the LDRs can begin. However, there may be some improvements that would need a future comp plan amendment to provide the legal basis for corresponding ordinances
provisions. Such future amendments would be considered substantial changes at this time. So, they can't be part of the amendments to hopefully be adopted tonight.
We believe that there is one particular substantial change that needs to be considered in the future, hopefully in the next amendment cycle. What's needed is a policy for the BBIA outlying a change of
BBI residential land use designations to BBIA commercial land use designations. In other words, a change of intensity of land use, something mentioned multiple times
during the transmitt phase. We are just getting a little more specific uh and asking for no changes from residential to commercial uh land use. This would prevent changing
BBIA residential f land residential land use designations to BBIA commercial to allow the building of hotels. This possible future improvement would also prevent changes residential to
commercial land use and zoning to allow a large multifamily affordable housing project under the state's live local act and prevent changing residential to commercial getting PUD zoning and then
taking advantage of the fact uh that A residential component of a PUD uh such a PUD can have a density greater than the original residential designations
pursuant to policy FLU 2.11 of the future land use element when we know this is very complicated and this is why we're asking you
uh to ask staff tonight like now um to whether they think it's a reasonable idea to look very carefully at such a possible future amendment. In other words, ask them if whether
they'd be okay in taking a hard look at this kind of amendment and then after that decide whether they would support it. In short, we would we would like to have staff put this idea on their radar screen for future consideration. Future
consideration. Now, even if people think certain kinds of unwise development can't happen in an environmentally sensitive area, it never hurts to head off such a possibility in the first place. I've seen a lot of unexpected
changes over the past 55 years in Bvard County. So in conclusion, Sierra Club is asking you to adopt the BBI amendment now and also to ask staff
to consider a carefully worded policy prohibiting this specific intensity change in their next comp plan update. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Laura Wilson. Hi, thank you. Um, I'm Laura Wilson. I'm executive director of Marine Resources Council. We're an environmental nonprofit dedicated to protecting and restoring the Indian River Lagoon. I want to echo and um, support comments made previously by both the Sierra Club
and the Sea Sea Turtle Conservancy um, regarding agenda item H12. I support the recommendation of low impact development practices and the attention given to living shorelines within the revisions of the BI BIBBIA
um particularly in policies BBIA 5.6 through 5.9 um that encourage the and encourage the commission to adopt the amendment. Low impact development and consideration of where our storm water go of the utmost importance for both our
beaches and our lagoon. um especially in light of future development and redevelopment, the application of LID to read developments specifically um has not been widely highlighted in land development codes um or ordinances across the county and
beyond. le green green infrastructure and nature-based solutions all strive to do the same thing of mitigating water where it falls rather than having it run off and become a problem somewhere else or for someone else to deal with. These techniques can help mitigate the effects
of storms and flooding. They help municipalities reach their BMAP targets while also minimizing pollution within our waterways. While there are larger uh issues um that can be addressed within the next comp plan uh comp plan as just
mentioned uh the current amendment is a good step towards growing a healthier boulevard through cleaner water within our waterways. Um thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you Dolores Conway.
Good evening, Dolores Conway, 123 Cardinal Drive, Melbourne Beach. Um, I want to thank you all commissioner staff for all the hard work you did on this amendment. We really appreciate it. I just have one question on um policy
BBIA1.4 in the very beginning. the uh objectives for BBIA 2 through 11 are are you know written down but 12 is left out. I just wanted to ask if BBIA 12 could be added
at the end of that and that's it. Thank you. Okay. So does anyone have that question? No. Would you would you like me to answer that, sir? Yeah. Okay.
Uh uh I think the the reason why BBIA 2 through 11 are specifically mentioned in 1.4 is those were expressly based on the guiding principles in the law. BBIA12
was a result of the um outreach meeting we had and it was very clear that people uh were very concerned about density and so we tried to address that in the element by adding a different policy or an objective I should say. However,
there is not a specific guiding principle it's tied to. So that's why that's not in there. Okay. Are there any question any other questions? Any followup? Okay, commissioners, that's the end of the cards. Any
discussion on the item? Commissioner Atinson. Um, so I haven't been involved with this from the very beginning, but certainly from the middle. And to all the people out there who have worked to make this what it is, thank you. Um, but as we
have discussed, myself and staff and everybody else, it's not done right. We need to get it transmitted and then we need to have a relook at some of the things, the unexpected things, the unintended consequences. So, it's not the end. And I have total support from
staff and their willingness to sit down and relook at some of the stuff once we get this done. So, if there's no other discussion, I would make a motion to approve. So, second, if I may. Excuse me, Commissioner. Um, I have a suggestion from our consultant sitting behind me that we include in the
motion the authority to make corrections to scriveners errors and the like before uh sending to the state. So move with that in it. Okay. Commissioner Atkinson amends her uh motion to include uh scrier
correcting scrier's errors. I have a second by commissioner Goodson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner. Yes. We'll show that passes 40. Okay. Commissioners, let's do this. Let's take
a 5m minute break and we're going to come back on H13. Okay. [Music] Hey,
[Music] hey, hey. [Music]
Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] feel
[Music] hey [Music] feel.
[Music] [Music] Hey,
[Music] [Music]
Hey, hey, hey.
[Music] Hey,
[Music] hey, [Music] hey. [Music] Hey,
hey, hey. [Music] Hey,
[Music] hey, hey.
[Music] [Music] Hey,
Okay, let's go on or we're on uh H13. Lucky number item H13, adoption of the evaluation and appraisal review ear based amendment to the comprehensive plan under application
24 LS 0002 24-3 ER under the state coordinated review process established by section 163.3184
Florida statutes. Okay. Um commissioners, let's um we do have some cards, but let's go on to uh questions. Let's start with questions. There are questions for staff.
I just have one. I'm sorry. Um, is anything in here different from the PNZ meeting? I'm sorry. Can you repeat that, Commissioner? Sure. Anything Was anything in here different from what was approved at the P&Z meeting?
I I believe there was once So there was a a changed um to the to reference the um capital improvement element for the potable water and some scriveners error changes. Okay. And none of those were considered um substantial changes or anything like
that? No, there was nothing of substance change at all. Thank you. That was it. Okay. Other questions for staff before we go to the cards? No. Okay. Uh Sandra Sullivan,
Sandra Sullivan of Patrick Shores. We're about to see a homeowner insurance tsunami. I'm very worried. So, biggest concern with the comp plan changes is what the impact will be to insurance as we saw uh just with a
little bit of rain last couple days. We had um flooding and of course. So, what's this gonna what's what's the impact of these changes going to mean to um increasing flooding um from taking
away the limitation of density on the flood plane and increasing density on the barrier island by two and threefold. So in front of you, you have the local mitigation strategy map and the two big
flood areas are zone A and AE. And so as you can see, Bvard has a lot of yellow and a lot of red, particularly up in district one and district three have the most impact of wetlands. Um, and
so yellow and red are flood areas. So when you develop on the on the wetlands and you fill them in, just a simple diagram to make it easy to understand, the water's got to go somewhere and you have flooding.
So here's an article that I've given you that talks about how four four Florida counties rank in the top 10 most at risk for flooding in 2024. So Bvard is listed as 10th in the nation
for flooding and fourth in Florida. And yet in our comp plan changes, you are removing the density limitation on the river and flood plane in my community on a barrier island just with a rain event,
not even a hurricane, we have quite a bit of flooding. And what that means in the hurricane evacuation plans is you can't get out on State Road 513 and you have to take A1A. So you back it up. Um and of course you
have the issue of storm surge 9 plus feet in our area and 13 up in Merit Island. So by your state statute you're supposed to protect human life. These changes of doubling and in
doubling and tripling the density on the barrier island and removing the density limitation on the flood plane. You have not done any studies to what the potential impact and what this will cost the county just even from a fiscal
perspective. But the lo the potential loss of life mass casualty event that you will be created is an additional liability concern for the county or should be. So part of my concern is previously we were mandated by the state
and the county said that um they cap the residential densities for the unincorporated areas and northern and coastal barrier island at existing areas. That was in 2000. Well, that letter was written in 2001 and
it's like the from what I see in the comp plan history is being wr written to where it's not factual where they're saying that the right sizing study was actually to maximize density and in fact it reduced res 30 in the future land use
map down to res 15. I don't understand how in good conscience any of you up there can increase the density up in Merit Island in Myra to res 50 with bonus density from res 15
and to res 37.5 in the rest of the barrier island except for the BBIA and putting all of our lives at risk. How are you going to fund widening causeways? I don't know. Our lives matter and the comp plan needs to
be changed. And the the the sad reality is after today, you take a vote to transmit this with Senate Bill 180, you can't make the comp plan more restrictive from what I'm reading. Don't broward our boulevard. Don't
high-rise it because what what it's going to look like at res 50, that's over 200 feet highrises. That looks like South Florida. what you're doing in my area, that's gonna be 160 feet. Our lives matter and it's pretty
disgusting what you're doing. And then, God forbid insurance and what it's going to mean to people. If you could, the first place dropped is the barrier island. Will we be even able to get insurance? Okay.
Ruth motto. I have never used this before. Can I try? Don, would you be able to lend her a hand? Oh, I think she's
There we go. Okay. Hi, Ruth Amato, a resident of Mims 1950 tomato farm road. I come before you tonight as a farming family from 125 years on the same location in Memphis. Talk about change cuz I can talk about
125 years of it. My family farms that land. My family used to grow orange trees out there. You can't grow orange trees out there. It will be underwater. So, I come to you and I beg you, please do not increase the density on the flood
plane. We can't make it. We can't take your storm water anymore. The St. John's River narrows on the other side of Lake Harney with extremely high bluffs. So, it doesn't matter how much storm water you pump into that river. When it hits the north side of Lake Harney, it's only
going to flow out at a certain speed. And you can't speed that up. It becomes a bottleneck and then it starts expanding its flood plane all over our land. As you can see, it's already doing. We can't take it. So, you sit up there
today and you hold our lives in your hands. The people who feed you, I beg of you, please don't do it. Mary Spark Hello again. I'm Mary Spar and I'm representing Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group.
Sierra Club asks you to adopt the earbase amendments tonight as part of a periodic process to update the comprehensive plan language. We were hoping for more changes to
strengthen some of the coastal management element policies, especially a few dealing with floodprone areas and one dealing with the coastal setback line. Unfortunately, time has
run out, but there is a next time. And we hope you'll ask staff to consider strengthening these coastal management policies with a comp plan amendment in the future.
Coastal management element policies originally formed the basis of the BBIA amendments for floodprone areas and for the close to setback line. In other words, some coastal management element
policies were the original starting point for corresponding BBIA amendment by BBIA policies. Now, what happened is that Florida
Commerce flagged some weak language in the BBIA transmitt that was in November in their ORC report. The state didn't like some of the shoulds instead of shalls
and they didn't like the fact that there was no specific timeline for re-evaluating the effectiveness of the coastal setback line. To address the state's concern, staff fixed up the weak language in the BBIA
and they really did an excellent job. But the state overlooked this exact same problems in the coastal management element. So staff has not yet fixed key coastal management policies.
We want the problematic policies in the coastal management element to be reasonably consistent with the excellent new BBIA flood and coastal setback line policies.
Maybe not quite as strong as BBA policies, but at least a bit more consistent. And please note that Florida statute chapter 163.31772 states
coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. To sum this all up, CR Club is hoping
that you will ask staff to consider in a future comp plan cycle um stronger coastal management element language for flooding and for evaluation of the coastal setback line.
We support adopting the ear amendment now and we'd like you to ask staff to put stronger coastal management policies on their to-do list for the future. Thank you.
Thank you. Thea Thea Bethorne. [Music] Hi, my name is Thea Thorne. I live in the subdivision of Quail Haven and Mims. Um, who I am is not important, but my message is we the people, which I'm sure
you all are aware that's the first three words to the United States Constitution. We the people. A very important phrase. We the people say no to a change to the comprehensive plan. The flooding that occurred in Mems
on Tuesday was epic. There was water that intruded into people's houses. Our land itself were built up high. So we have no issues except the periphery. And the water that we had in our periphery, I put my waiting boots on. It
was up to my knees. And that is usually hurricane water. We have never seen that amount of water in a short amount of time. So it's very unusual. Something needs to be done with the drainage of course, but how can you build decre you
know you're changing the density you want to go on the flood planes. What's that going to do to the flooding that we already have now? That needs to be fixed before you can even think about going forward. Um,
to me it is unacceptable and it's pure negligence to we the people. And I want to read something from Thomas Payne, one of our great patriots. A constitution is not the act of a
government, but of a people constituting a government. And government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation must have some beginning. It must be either
delegated or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and the quality of either. Our founders were not
all Christians, but they all had a respect and a reverence to the Bible. And that is why they put many of the principles of the Bible into our United States Constitution. A group of godless people cannot make it
work. And I hope that each of you can find the conviction in your hearts, souls, and minds to be people of character, though that seems to be few and far between today. So, will you be a good leader or a bad
leader? The choice is up to you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that was the uh end of the cards. Commissioners, uh we're in discussion. Commissioner Dwayne. Um
I uh like Commissioner Atkinson mentioned when she was speaking on the BBIA, we unfortunately didn't get to be part of the entire um process with this. And um I'm not going to lie, I had a
two-hour briefing um in preparation for this meeting um because I I really do have a lot of concerns. Um but with that being said, my main concern is um
the flood plane areas objective con 4 and what I'm asking that we consider and I guess before I um bring up my request uh I contacted Florida Commerce and the St. Sean's uh river water management to
talk to them about what does it mean um what do substantial changes mean? And both of those entities uh were clear with me when they said that um language that was already in our comp
plan but has been struck is and us changing our minds and putting it back in would not be considered a substantial change and they wouldn't have any issues with that. Um, so what my request is is
that on policy con 4.1A 1 that we keep that language in there um for the residential density for B1. Again, keep that language in there for
the residential um density. and then C2 that we keep that in there for the residential density. And the reason why I'm I'm requesting this is because my community um like some of
the speakers had mentioned, we're very unique. Um not just in our land and the type of land we have up in North Bard, but our culture in North Bard is very different from the rest of the county. Um, we have people who feed
themselves by what they can grow on their on their land. Um, what cattle they can raise, their chickens, um, so on and so forth. And that land is unfortunately getting destroyed.
Um, and so I'm extremely concerned that if we get rid of these density um, restrictions that people are going to lose everything. And um
so I would just make that one request and I would be comfortable moving forward with this if if we could do that. Commissioner Goodson, I see you reaching question. Billy, we're back to density now. So are we raising the density by
doing this? No, this this policy is a little different. And Darcy's here to speak more specifically, but the idea here, the idea behind the changes we've proposed is to go performance-based.
So you follow the best available data. So rather than have this is density beyond what's in our typical future land use map and things like that, these are additional restrictions. rather than go by the route by by having like a a specific the language like I had before
residential density shall be limited to no more than two dwelling units per acre for example you have you follow the data instead so you may be more I won't say more restrictive but um it may be harder to do a particular development without
doing compensatory storage or things like that or it may be easier depending on the facts on the ground and uh Darcy here would would be more ability, but from what I understand that's that's the purpose of that amendment. Okay.
If I could just um mention what areas I'm talking about, it's it's not so much the areas of inside the cities like for instance in Rocklage or um some of these other areas. My my main concern are for
the areas that are west of 95 um on the outskirts of the community. I just wanted to that out there. Okay. Is there other discussion on the item? If I if I may, Commissioner, I
apologize. I just have a correction to an answer I gave Commissioner Delaney earlier. There was an additional policy that was changed. It was based on a discussion we had about the commercial mining that was backed back backed out. So now the definition is as previously stated, which is mining.
Is there other discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item? I would like to make a motion to approve um with getting rid of the strikeouts on policy con 4.1 A1,
B1, and C2. Okay. Is there a second on that? Okay. Well, we we'll show that fails from lack of a second. Is there another motion on the item?
If I could. Um I Logan, if you wouldn't mind bringing up my slides. So, I I put this together just to show you guys what we're dealing with in North Bard. If you could kind of slowly go through them.
This is what we deal with on a pretty regular basis in North Bard. This is 10 inches of water. You'll see that on the
it it it's this is not a normal issue. And if we build on the flood plane in Mims and Scotsmore, people are going to lose their homes. And we are going to become the next Valuchia and Edgewater who are purchasing people's
homes because they're getting flooded out. This is not normal. And I am pleading with you all to please consider this this look if you could pause right here.
This is somebody's farm. If you you can't have cattle in that situation. You can't have horses in that situation. they get hoof rot and they have to get put down. Um I know of a constituent
where they literally had to um rescue their chickens because they were up on top of their coupe um because there was feet of water. I'm not being dramatic here. The pictures are right there. They are from
this week. And if we start developing the flood plane in North Bard, this is going to radically affect people's lives. So I'm I'm asking that
this can't be undone with the language that that came from the state. Once we do this, we can't undo it. Is there other discussion on the item ma'am? We have finished with the comment cards. I'm
and and we appreciate your comments earlier. Okay. All right. Is there is there another motion on the item? Okay, commissioners, I'd like to make a motion to table this item.
Um, we have time to September. Um, and so I would like to make that motion. Okay. Uh, let's ask staff real quick. What what does that that do uh for us and what we need to send to the state?
Um, commissioner is correct. We do have until I believe it's September 22nd. So in that period to to adopt there was a previous extension. Okay. Um I'll second the motion.
Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I may. So my understanding in tableabling this item would also cause the BBIA to be tabled and it's transmittal to the state because they both have to go together as as one legislative package.
Is there is there a reason that the BBIA has has got to go in the say the next two weeks or what's what's the what's the um time limit on that? Just so the board knows, it it has the same time limit that the
the impact on that would just it would simply be the implementing regulations would be pushed back too. Okay. No, just to be clear, we voted on that and and and so whether it is sent in two weeks or 30 days, we the board
did did pass that, right? It wouldn't have to come back to the board. It just wouldn't be transmitted now. Oh, it just it doesn't go in the mail tomorrow. Is that is that the short of it? Does that change your motion? Your
second commissioner. Okay. All right. We have a motion by commission. Hold on one second though. There is So after the board has voted on adoption, how long do we have to transmit to the state between I know we have until September 11th now, but now that they've
acted on it, there's a fuse running, right? We just approved that area of critical state concern. You only have 10 days. Then I withdraw to send it to the state. Yeah.
So you wouldn't have to hear it again, but it does have to be sent within 10 days of your adoption. The BBIA and because it has to accompany the ear, that means we need to act on the ear within. We can't we can't send one without the other. What's that?
We were expressly told by the the the chief over there that they they need them both together. Then I have to withdraw my second. If I could just um go into a little bit more discussion.
The changes that I'm requesting with removing the strikeouts in these things. Um, this affects very little areas and
it doesn't mean that we can't change it or tweak it. And I'm open and willing to do that once, you know, once we pass this because I don't want to hold up the BBIA. That's an extremely important um thing that we definitely need to get up
there. But I just I just really feel like the whole story was not really looked at when these changes were made. And um like Billy has told us multiple times,
we can we can make changes in the future. And I'm open and willing to work together as a board to do that. um to because one of the issues that we had talked about in my briefing was there was a property on Plucky Bomb and
they couldn't um they couldn't build because it was within the county and our restrictions. So they annexed and so this change was to help um solve the problem of
properties annexing into cities or being required to annex into cities if they want to develop. and um which there's very few circumstances where that happens um
because of the flood plane issue and the damage that it would do to my community if we get rid of this um I personally feel like outweigh those few circumstances. is
I have a question. Okay, I think we have a follow-up question. Um, Commissioner Atinson. So, um, Commissioner Delaney mentioned that her concern that once if this is transmitted as it is, that it can't be changed later, that her concerns can't be addressed. Can you speak to that,
Billy? Well, unfortunately, um I there and I'll defer to Morris, but there's probably some there is truth to that because of the SP 180 regulations. I think once you make some once you make I I think once you take this language
out to put it back in would probably be considered a more restrictive regulation. Even though the the intent may not that might not be the intent, but it would be it would be hard to argue anything else, I think. I don't
I thought SB80 was retroactive though. Anyways, so SB80 is in effect right now. We can't do something that's more restrictive unless an exception applies like the exception for areas of critical state concern that allowed us to do what we did with the BBIA.
This one's an odd gray one because we're not saying, you know, right now, for example, in some areas there's a residential density cap in in the existing comp plan of um two units per acre, for example.
By replacing that with a performance standard, you're not saying, you know, we're increasing this now to 10 units per acre. So it's it's hard to say absolutely that one is more restrictive or less restrictive than the other because it comes down to an application of the specifics of an individual
property. But generally speaking, yes, if you move away from those hard caps that are currently in the code that are just kind of um uh arbitrary is not the right word, but they're uniform. It's just no more than X units per per acre.
Once you move away from those under 180 probably very difficult to reimplement exactly that. But that said, you know, the performance standard as applied could end up being more restrictive in some cases. It's um
you you just have to look at the particular facts of the area where you're applying it. I I have more pictures where I could show you guys um water lines in some of the areas that Miss Ma was talking about
where they're 10 14 feet high on palm trees. Okay. What what's the pleasure of the board? Can I make my same motion? Uh I don't I don't think we I think you withdrew withdrew it. She withdrew her
um second on that. So you can make a motion and and see if there's a second. I guess since Commissioner Atinson withdrew that. I'd like to make a motion to pass um the comp plan with the changes to objective
con 4 um policy 4.1 A1, B1, and C2. All right. Is there a second on that? No. Okay.
All right. Is there is there an alternative motion on the item? Do we want to table this and um to the 22nd? Is that is that possible?
Do we still have time to send the BBIA? Could we could we do that? I mean, we can we can we could if we continue the open public hearing now to the 22nd. This is advertised properly. So, as long as you do it here, I don't think we need to
renotice. Um, I think that same reasoning is applicable under 163184, but I'm looking at the consultant to tell me if that's wrong. And we have 10 working days, right? Not just 10 days. So 10 working days. Um yes, I you can continue this hearing on
the um the adoption of the ear to your meeting on the 22nd. What's the pleasure of the board on that issue? I'll make that motion to continue to the 22nd. All right. I have a motion by
Commissioner Delaney to continue to the 22nd. I have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney, yes. Vice Chair Goodson, yes. Commissioner Atinson, yes. Chairman Felner, yes. All right, we'll show that 40.
We'll continue it to the 22nd. Now, chair, there might be a problem here. Let's uh let's do this. Let's just take five minutes while do we need May we may have a few minutes to
consider some some legal issues involved in Yeah. Give us some some time here. This was unanticipated and our meeting is a 9:00 meeting on the 22nd. That may be a problem because uh there's certain hearing requirements. This may be one that has to be held after 5:00 pm. So even though you commenced it at 5
tonight, don't think you're going to be able to continue it to another meeting. that's, you know, doesn't also start at five. So, let's clarify that. But, but if you can give us just a few minutes to all right consult and get that because there's several different provisions at issue. Let's just take a fivem minute break and then we'll we'll come back on this item.
Thank you. [Music]
Hey, [Music] hey, [Music]
hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. Yeah. [Music]
Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music]
[Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music]
Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Hey, [Music] hey,
[Music] hey. Hey, [Music]
hey, hey. [Music] Hey, [Music]
hey, [Music] hey. [Music]
Maybe. He went on break, too. That's okay. All right. All right. Commissioners, uh, to just continue this discussion here. I think we need a motion to take it off the table. I would like to make a motion to
take it off the table. Okay. That would be bring it back up, right? Yes. Okay. Okay. A motion by Commissioner Delaney to further discussion. I I have a question. Okay. So
is is there can we move it to the next meeting or not? You were talking more something about timing. Yeah, because there's some requirements. Certain meetings have to be held at at a meeting after 5:00 p.m. But in this case, we're okay. We've already had one evening meeting on the transmitt, and
there's not a specific requirement in this statute requiring this to be done at night. But I off the top of my head, I wasn't sure of that. So, I wanted to verify and not get us in a situation where we couldn't do that at 9:00. That said, I think there may be a potential motion that might resolve this tonight if the board's interested in taking it
off the table and and um giving that an effort, but it's the board's pleasure. I um I would be uh willing to amend my motion to um continue with this change excluding
west of 95520 north. If I could get support by the board, I think staff would be agreeable to that, but for the board to even discuss that, you'd have to agree to take the item off the table. And there's a motion to do that, but no second at the top.
I second that. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Delaney to take it off the table. We have a second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role on that motion. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atinson? Yes. Chairman Felner? Yes. Okay, commissioners, we're back on
the item now. That's it's okay. That's is what they say in Tallahassee, right? We're back on the item. And Commissioner Delini, I think you you were just speaking to an alternative motion. We'll entertain that. I would like to make a
motion to pass this um and to exclude west of 95 north of 520 for um policy con 4.1
A1 B1 C2 Okay, we're clear on the motion. Is there a second on that motion? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson seconds. Sir, question.
Staff Billy, tell me with her motion, uh, Commissioner Delaney's, how is that going to affect people west of there, north of here, and over here to the right. So they would have you know the other changes that are being made to the policies would still be in effect but in
addition to that the existing language expressly limiting density in the 100redyear 25 year and 10year riverine flood plane flood plane will also still be in effect in that specific area but west of 95 would not be affected.
Correct. Is that correct commissioner? Right. Do you mean east of 95? West of 95 would not be affected by your motion. Correct. West of West of 95 north of 520 520 north would
keep these restrictions. So that if you're are you familiar with Tucker Lane and Plucky Bomb? Yes. That partial annex into Rocklage. Correct. Which would be a Rocklage issue, not a county issue. That's okay. I think that this thing needs to be
studied a little bit more and staff needs to come back because you're affecting people, a lot of people that might have owned land, might have owned land for a hundred years that might want to develop it even though they'd have to mitigate it or do whatever. Is that fair
to our constituents? Is that fair to our county? With with all due d I would want to see this on a map so I know what I was voting on, but you know, you got a motion, you got a second. So I hear you, but I can't vote for this.
With all due respect, these are my constituents. Okay. We're all have constituents, madam. I understand that. All right. You know, but you know, also Coco, you know, you're talking you were talking mess now you're down into Coco. So therefore, I would want to see it on a
map that I knew what I was voting for. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Clerk will call the role. Commissioner Delaney, yes. Vice Chair Goodson, no. Commissioner Atson, yes. Chairman Felner, yes.
Okay, we'll show that passes 30. Good. Okay, commissioners, we're going to move into the G portion of public comment of Sanders or I'm sorry, not the G portion, the K portion, I'm sorry. [Music]
When a hurricane hits, and it will, and there's mass casualty, I hope there's class action suit for what you did today, doubling and tripling the density on the barrier island and misrepresenting in this comprehensive
plan, changing history. And it's documented in black and white. Yeah. Shake your head. You know, I did records, Mr. Morris for the document for the 2000B and they said
no records found. So I sent them the document. It's pretty clear there's enough letters that read here giving you copies of it that the intention was to cap the barrier island. That was the mandate from the state. But it's okay to
highrise the barrier island when we can't get people off. It's okay apparently not to change to change the level of service standard a standard to not exceed as written in state statute a standard to not exceed
for evacuation. I had a letter from the department of Florida Department of Commerce that said you can't put live local on the barrier island if that number is exceeded. Oh, interesting. We now have a level of service now that is
a variable that you can never exceed because it's based on whatever the data is that is updated every two years by the Eastern Central Regional Planning Council. So our lives don't matter. Our deaths on the barrier island don't
matter when hundreds of people or more die way more. And you guys haven't even done due diligence to know what this is going to cost Bard County. What is going to cost when you add all that density and
height out on the barrier island? What is going to cost for you for new causeways and all that? Because it's not in planning. Somebody said something here that's in planning. The there's you got 528 that's in planning. You got 520 that was just added this year in planning.
You got 528 and no not 520. You got 528 and Panita that is in planning now. I was like shocked on Panita because of the three causeways that's the least of of the of the capacity. You got 520 that's over 100% capacity. It's like and
it has resiliency issues. So the issue is for the barrier island is pre-landfall. Yeah. Turn your head look up into space, Mr. Goodson. That's that's really respectful. I'm right here. Okay. The issue is when we have a
wet storm event, when we have a storm event, a hurricane, and it rains pre-landfall, which it does, not every hurricane, we can't get people off the Berry Island. I showed you the flooding that your own studies show you can't get
it off. You've done no fiscal analysis. You're going to put You're going to put Yeah. You're gonna put a lot more density on the flood plane and you're going to change that flood plane and you've not done the studies to know the impacts. The people, we the people don't
matter because this is clear. This is all about we the money and special interests. That's what it's about. You have spoken volumes today. We don't matter. Okay, we're going to move into board
reports. Um Tad in board report. No report, sir. Okay. Morris, no report, Mr. Chair. Okay. Um, Commissioner Goodson, none. Chair.
Commissioner Atinson, no report. We don't have Commissioner Olman. Commissioner Delaney, no report. Okay, we appreciate that tonight. Okay. All right. Okay. Uh I think we're we're done
everybody. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Take care. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or
the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. The board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such
period. [Music] about hey [Music] [Music] Back baby. [Music]