Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi judicial body when 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 pull 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 five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um like to ask Commissioner Delaney to lead us in prayer. >> Thank you. Um, dear Lord, thank you for this beautiful day that you've given us and for bringing us together for this important meeting. And I just pray that
you're with us and you give us clear minds and open hearts to do what's right for our community. In the name of Jesus, I pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> Hey, thank you. Um, I'd like to uh lead you in the prayer in the >> pledge
of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley andice for all. >> Okay, we do.
>> Do we have any minutes? I don't see any on the agenda. I think we're fine there. Uh resolutions, awards and presentation. Uh we do not have any uh consent agenda. Do we have any items to move from consent or on the consent? >> Yeah, no consent. Uh public comments. Uh
individuals may speak under both the first and second public comment sections. We have one now. We limit the number of cards uh so we don't delay the start of the meeting. Then we'll have one at the end of the meeting. >> We do not have any comments for public comment. >> We have no cards for public comment.
Okay, great. So, uh, we have, uh, cards on every item but one. So, I thought we'd pick up that one now so that they don't have to wait through a long meeting. So, H5, which is Alex Paul and Rosemary Estz Deus request zoning classification
change from BU1 to binding development plan to BU1 with removal of the binding development plan. Are they here? Dejus de Jesus. Are they here? De Jesus.
>> Okay, we'll we'll just go ahead and start at the beginning of the agenda. Okay. First one is H1 City Point Landfall LLC. David Basford requests a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use
designation from res one to res 2 res 4 and NC to CC and res 4. Okay. Representative for H1. >> Mr. Chair, if I may, there are companion applications H2 H1 and H2 and we
generally read them into the record together, but you have to make a separate decision on them. Okay. Well, let me read H2. That's City Point Land Fall LLC as well. Request a change in zoning classification from EU and RP
with an existing uh binding development plan to PUB uh with with removal of the existing binding development plan. Items in district one. M >> before we get started, let's have staff give us a summary.
>> I I was going to read the applications into the record. Application numbers. >> Okay. >> Okay. So for H1, the smallcale amendment, the application number is 24 SS00009 located in district 1. And for item H2,
um, City Point Landfall under application number 24, PUD 003, also located in district 1. >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman Alman, members of
the county commission. My name is Kim Rosena, law firm of Lacy Rzanka here on behalf of City Point Landfall, the the owner and developer of the project. Um, also with me is David Bassford with MBV Engineering, the engineer of record if you have any questions. Uh, I I feel like I've given this presentation four
times, but because of um the the last comments that we heard, we did work with staff. So with the future land use, we have changed the res 4 to a res 2. And the reason we hadn't done that before was because we didn't think we could because part of the land was in the
coastal high hazard area and because of the spreading the density, we weren't sure we're able to do that with the size of the houses clustered the way they were. But working with Mr. Prasad and Miss Gilliam, we they determined in opine that we could change it to res 2 and with the density bonus uh provided
in your comp plan policy 1.8, eight, we could ask for the density bonus of 2.5 to keep the 23 units we're requesting. So, uh, with that, we have changed that. What I've provided to you is exactly what's in the staff report. It was provided on January 24th or 26, not
January, November 24th or 26th. It's in Legisar. It's nothing new. It's what's already there. I just thought it might be easier to see up close in this uh document. So, um the page two that is
the uh the PDP that we're requesting to be approved with the PUD zoning. It shows the zoning currently is EU. Page three, it shows the um existing future lane use of res one and the res
four to the east and a little bit of res 2. That will all now be res 2 if you approve it. So the res 2 will be exactly the same as what's to the north, the Parkchester subdivision, and the houses are compatible in sizes. That's what what the engineer was able to do. Um it
takes the wetlands of res 4 and makes them to res 2. It hopefully helps some of the neighbors with the idea that we're really trying to do 48 units when all we want to do is 23 units. So if the PDP is never built, it's res 2 and it's
res 2 all the way to the river. So it does protect the wetlands to some extent. Uh there was a request that we put that in private conservation. It wasn't large enough to put in private conservation, so we could not do that, but it will definitely be in a conservation tract. The uh the wetlands to the east.
Uh the next page is just um showing the wetlands area and the temporary impacts. There's going to be a bike path, an elevated bike path through the wetlands as an amenity for the residents. Then the last page is just the overlay to show the houses next to the houses
and uh where the storm water ponds are then the wetlands to be protected. As you may recall, the residents have been very engaged uh very vocal. They asked us not to have town homes. We took the town homes off. They asked that no access on Parkchester. We took that
access off. The only access now is from US1. Uh they did not want any access on In River Drive. At one point we had a little parking area for as an amenity. We've taken that off the the PDP. Um and so the remaining issue which we could address was the res 2 which we have
addressed. They have had concerns about flooding and storm water. That's been discussed several times by the engineer of record Bruce Moya for MBV. Uh and again that's something that has to be engineered. This is just zoning. So any flooding issues would be addressed
during the site plan stage plat plat stage actually. So with that we would ask that you approve our alternate request of res 2 and then the small parcel um of CC the
1.94 acres of CC on the west against the uh US1 and then the remaining 10.94 would be res 2. Then with that, we would ask that you approve the the uh PDP and the PUD request
uh with the waiverss. The last page you have has a waiver request and that's dealing with the perimeter of the uh the perimeter of the uh subdivision because we have to deal with some canals and
some drainage that we've asked um that that waiver be accepted with the PDP. Although there still will be a buffer and they'll still commit to um to whatever type of buffer is necessary uh to make it compatible. We have indeed put on the PDP
towards the uh east side the requirement of an opaque buffer that was requested by um Mr. and Mrs. Hows. And so you'll see on the PDP page two, it says uh 225 feet of an opaque buffer, and that's to
buffer the homes that would be adjacent to their home. So that is is on here and would be um a requirement of any uh plat going forward. So with that, we're here to answer any questions.
We'd ask that you approve the the residential two, find that it is compatible because it is next to res 2 so that we could use the density bonuses to achieve the 23 units in the PDP. With that, we're here to answer any questions and I would ask for the opportunity to respond to any comments.
>> Okay. Do we have any questions? >> Commissioner Atinson, >> this is this kind of the same question I've asked before. um the buffer that's going to be sort of to the north west side between the houses. What is that going to look like?
>> Yeah, that that's it's going to be an opaque buffer. We don't know exactly. It's it's going to be either a fence or foliage that you can't see through. >> So, it's going to be opaque all the way across the whole back. >> It will be we've only committed to the fence towards the area to the to the
against the house's property. If you want to make that a condition of an opaque fence or an opaque buffer the entire way, we'd certainly accept that. >> Well, I was just thinking about are we leaving the the native trees that are already there? We talked about >> Right. Unfortunately, because of the
elevation difference and there is a a ditch through between the properties, >> those trees will likely have to come out. They intend to save them, but they don't know because all the engineering hasn't been done. And there have been some elevations done. But if that I mean and by the way they all have fences
there already. But if you if you want a condition that we have an opaque buffer the entire uh against Parkchester we can do that. >> See for me the opaque thing is not as much is not as important as the actual like trees and stuff that we're going to lose. >> Right. >> So would they consider possibly if they
have to take out a big deciduous tree putting a decent sized one back in there? >> Of course. If if you want to make a condition that like trees go back in we can do that. That could be a condition of the PDP. >> That's my own question. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Okay. Seeing no other questions, I will get to cards. Uh first cards. Uh David Bassford needed >> question answer questions if needed. Okay. Um, James Sudterman
Um, my name is James Sudterman. I live at 3469 Indian River Drive, which is just south of this project. Um, we were happy to see all the new the new addendum
number two from staff. Um, and there was several u pieces of that that we would like to comment on. Um, so in light of the new alternative proposal submitted by City Point Landfall on December 25th
and the new staff comments addendum number two, we would like to voice the following. While we recognize that the latest proposal from Citypoint Landfall does not preserve the original existing binding development plan that we have uh
we keep asking for. It does address to a greater or lesser extent most of our remaining ongoing concerns with density growth potential, storm water and groundwater discharge issues, wetland preservation, and roadway flooding.
If the commissioners were to adopt all of the conditions, staff comments, and applicant offers outlined in addendum number two and in the city point, the new PDP, their 2025 11126 applicant
alternative proposal that I think she just handed out. uh [clears throat] Beverly and I would be willing to accept them as something we could live with. Be assured though that we only represent
ourselves in this and cannot speak for the rest of our neighbors who have fought with us so long and hard to get this commission and this developer to listen and respond to all of our comments. Specifically to grant our support, we
would like to see number one application of the resto future land use map designation on the entire 10.94 acre residential portion of the property
and we'd like to make sure that a ban is imposed on all residential land use on the wetlands. Um, the staff comments also mentioned that a public works engineering evaluation of
the outfall pipes across the Indian River roadway and of possibly raising the road should be performed. We'd like to see that uh memorialized here. [clears throat] As suggested by staff,
they talk about creating a new binding development plan which incorporates at least the following provisions. Any future change to the PDP will be considered a substantial change and require board approval for the change.
overall reduction of the rate of storm water discharge from the subject property and overall reduction of the volume of storm water discharge from the subject property. Uh the BDP, the new BDP should conduct a
groundwater analysis to identify any groundwater concerns and address them accordingly and [clears throat] dedication of up to 50 ft of rideway for Bvard County maintenance and roadway projects along [snorts] the North Indian River Drive.
And finally, a provision that says the future land use designation to revert to revert if the final development plan were never filed. And uh with that um
we'd like to say again if if um all the provisions and uh comments from the this new addendum staff addendum are included. We
could we could live with it. We could support it. >> I have a question. >> Okay. >> All right. I noticed uh and it may have been just an oversight, but you left out one portion in your comments. I was following along with you and it's the
one that says um preferably without the 25% density bonus based on FL1 policy 1.8. >> Yeah. >> If limited to 21 units. I didn't hear that. I don't >> I'm sorry. I I did skip that.
>> Um that's true. If we uh um we definitely uh appreciate the res 2. Um if we had our preference, we would like to see it uh be without the 25% density v bonus,
which uh gets them up to a potential of 25. Uh although, you know, with the PUD being approved, that would just limit it to 23. Um, and I did make a comment here. It says if limited to 21 units,
the developer could incrementally increase the lot size of the small southern lots, which are pretty small, and or could donate a portion of the southside property as an access path to the 1800's pioneer cemetery, which has
been landlocked now for decades. And that would be a nice gesture. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, our next card is Greg Burroughs. I get that right.
>> Good evening. Thank you for your time. Um, just kind of reiterate what my previous speaker just said and and really the main thing we're looking at is wetlands. um how that's going to affect uh any runoff that goes down into the river. Um anything from the soil and
obviously from the grasses and fertilizers, things like that that could end up in that river going straight down. We do appreciate the two uh units per acre. Not sure what how that's going to affect with having the RV storage in the front. Um, I wouldn't mind seeing a
turning lane dedicated into that neighborhood so that the three lanes which have been reduced to two right in front of that property don't cause any bottlenecks or any more accidents. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Uh, Diane Burroughs
Good evening. I'm Diane Burroughs, uh 381 Chester Drive, live in Park Chester. Um again, wanted to reiterate, um along with Mr. Sutterman, thank you very much for the consideration uh for reducing it from a res four to a res 2, continuing
to keep in mind um the conservation area, the flooding, and those um those very serious issues that are currently happening um in that area and how this is going to impact. Thank you. >> Thank you,
Sandra Kennedy. Sandra Kennedy, uh 3711 Warwick Drive, um in Coco. I'm about half a mile north of this project. Um, so [snorts] no matter how many public
hearings and how many residents complain about this project, the criteria are set in the rules and regulations that are applicable to this board and they are binding. Um, and the applicant has not met the requirements for a variance. Um,
Citypoint Landfalls application does not meet the criteria for a zoning variance, even limited, and the county commissioners must reject the application in its entirety. Not once have they addressed the community, the neighborhood,
their their title is City Point. Well, City Point is a community that stretches from a little bit north of 528 around City Point Road all the way to at least Blacks Road and really beyond and it's along the Indian River Drive which is
basically at sea level in this area. Um, this is not your Indian River Drive portion that's on bluffs in Coco. This is sea level and we have a flooding problem that already needs to be addressed. One of your criteria that absolutely must be met before any
variance can be given is that they must not uh increase or cause flooding to the community. They failed that one right away. Their recent change, which I received late last night while I was preparing for this hearing, um was that
they're giving you another paragraph on what their flood control plan is. And basically they had nothing to say but what they had said before that they plan a series of ponds that they are going to allow to overflow. That's their that is
their strategy. Ponds that overflow. They're going to go down to the wetlands. And those wetlands are not sponges. They're not dry. They don't need to be appropriately wetted. They are soaking wet, folks. There are ditches that run along Indian River
Drive and they are constantly full. Our capacity for more water does not exist. They are going to cause flooding. Not only that, but their project um they do not abut the full wetland. They only
abut a portion less than half of the wetland. And the other portion of the land that is it is a lower elevation to them and is going to get flooded out is residential property and there's no ditches in front of those people's house because there it's not an appropriate
location like it it is in front of that wetland. So they don't have a flood control plan. They say they're going to use offsite flooding systems and that just means a ditch. Fancy way to say a ditch. Um we are between US1
cityoint road basically and blacks road or farther north and the Indian river lagoon. This is our whole community. The whole thing is large homes on large lots. All recent developments since the
60s has been single homes on an acre or two homes per acre. So they are blowing that out of the water. They're trying to say well Parkchester is to the north. That is not the community. Why have they titled their company name City Point? Parkchester is a re remnant from the
past. It's what the planning and zoning rules and regulations were trying to get away from, which is strip all the trees down and put a whole bunch of homes, cram them in. You know, that's not bad if you're on flat land, but you can't do it in environmentally sensitive lands
where you've got oak, live oak hammocks. You're on a slope in uh US1 is like some 75 ft or so and it's slide. It's like a giant water slide that goes down to Indian River Drive and the the open
spaces are needed to absorb the water. um the community. They go around saying, "Oh, Parkchester and all these small communities and they talk about, oh, this little property here is 0.2 of an acre and they talk about the industrial area way across." Well, that's a different zone. And that is not the
neighborhood. So, they don't match the neighborhood. They don't meet your own criteria to receive this. And they are not even a PUD. They are not entitled to exceed to get that bonus that two. They are now there's with that bonus they'd
be getting more than they've ever sought before. They are not a planned community that is fully uh encompassing everything that the community would community would need. This is a very small strip of land. It's not a PUD and they're not entitled to a bonus. They need to stick
to the regular zoning like the rest of us. Follow the law, please. >> Okay. Thank you. I do I I have a question of staff. Um she used the term variance. Is this is this a variance or
a zoning change or >> no sir this is a zoning change in a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment >> and >> so we don't use the variance >> criteria. >> The criteria are for reszoning. If I should I I don't know the difference between resoning and variance. I'm a
construction lawyer, not a land development lawyer. But your own criteria, say for resoning, you have to meet these criteria. >> So it's flooding that has to be met before and compatibility uh match the entire community. And the other thing,
their PUB, they have to hide that extra density within the community so that it can't be seen from the rest of the community. That's the only thing that would allow you to do it. And this is such a small strip of land. There's no hiding anything. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. I
understand your point now. Okay. I think that's all our cards. We'll bring it uh to the board. Are there any any discussion? Questions? Motion >> question. >> Mr. Goodson. >> Um and it might be Mark your question.
In their proposal for dry retention ponds on the hill that eventually get to the wetlands, they're required to store 100% of their water for 24 hours. Is that a correct >> on their land?
Pardon me. >> Oh yeah. Okay. >> And while he's walking up be before we take a motion or vote, Kimbero would need we'll give you an opportunity to close. You might want to hear this first anyway. Okay.
>> Commissioner, I'm going to let uh Darcy uh answer this. So they're not going to be required to hold 100% of their water on site based on state storm water standards. They have to meet certain criteria to hold
I believe it's a 25y year storm and then that gets held to treat for water quality and then there'll be eventual discharge that'll go through the system that they show on the BDP or excuse me the PDP that goes down through the pond down to the wetlands and then out to the
river. So um it that doesn't account for the volume just the rate and then the water quality treatment. Who would as far as staff um how much water do you think's going to occur that goes through the wetlands to the river? >> I there's no way I could answer
something like that. >> Rainfall, right? >> Yeah. But I think in the package, Billy, this Trina, if this is correct, there was a um that the engineer had previously talked about maintaining the volume and the rate of flow. That that would something that he could engineer,
>> right? >> Yeah, that that's correct. Um Mr. Mr. Moy had previously uh advised that they agreed to uh engineering's concerns about ensuring post-development storm water discharge rate and volume for the site. Uh but because we you know this is
just at the zoning stage, we have not seen anything and can't confirm uh that it meets it. But that's what he has agreed to. >> And of course, we'll all agree that the City Point Road intersecting Indian River Road has always been low.
>> Always been low. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Now, Billy, may may I chair ask another question? >> Absolutely. >> Billy, would you tell me uh addendum number two, could you read off the concessions that you think are fair or
that you're willing to accept? >> Sure. If I if I may, I'll start with one that somebody had mentioned today and Mr. Ranken had brought up last time that we don't think is appropriate, and that would be the automatic reversion of the land use if the PDP was not recorded.
staff does not think that there's any legal mechanism to implement that and that's why we've left it off of the agenda report for board consideration. I just wanted to explain why you the public wouldn't hear me say that. So there's a so for the uh conditions that
the applicant has agreed to. I'll add one that they mentioned today which is like for like trees as part of the waiver request for disturbing the butter buffer. Then beyond that, an overall reduction of the rate of storm water discharge from the subject property, an overall reduction of the volume of storm
water discharge from the subject property, conducting a groundwater analysis to identify any groundwater concerns and address them accordingly. And they have volunteered to offer to dedicate up to 50 ft of rideway for Bvoulevard County maintenance and
roadway projects along North Indian River Drive. and staff would suggest that if the board is looking to implement those conditions that it do so and ask that they be implemented through a BDP. >> Question chair, one more. >> My question would be if this gets
approval and if this is built then how are you going to u govern the discharge of water? How would that occur? that would be done through the site plan process and and you know they would have to they would have to demonstrate um that that they're that they're meeting
all these conditions um through various analysis. >> Do you also would they be liable down the road 6 months after the project's done to make sure they don't put too much water in the Indian River Lagoon? >> Well, I would I will say this. So the
the BDP will carry with the land. Um now I I will also say though under our code that the maintenance of um of of discharge is typically on the private entities but I mean so I wouldn't say it's it could be enforced in the future.
>> Yes. >> Thank you chair. >> Mr. Chair, I have one other condition. >> Yes. That condition is to uh memorialize in the BDP that any future changes to the PDP uh be considered a substantial
change and be back be brought back before the board. >> Good. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chair, if I could also add one uh more. Um I don't know that this was agreed to uh during the last meeting but we had asked for the 50 ft of total
rightway that is uh proposed to be dedicated that they also agree to mitigate those wet wetlands in the granted rightaway otherwise that will become a future county cost. >> Okay. Okay. Commissioner Delaney.
>> Thank you. [clears throat] Um, I also did want to disclose that um I had a meeting with the um Twin Lakes Homeowners Association and I did drive by the neighborhood um by the location
to see uh you know the conditions and whatnot uh just on what day was that? Last night. Um and [clears throat] I guess uh There have been a lot of concessions
made with this project and I I really do appreciate that. Um I feel like the developer has tried to work with the community. Um and if this was in a different area, it would
it would be harder for me to to say no. But this this area is is so uh unique and there's just a constant of running running water
throughout this area. Um even the drainage pipes, I mean, you go next to them and they it it sounds like a a a shower all the time. Um and that's just the groundwater. That's it's not because, you know, they even have any
rain. Um, so I just I'm extremely concerned about uh the density of this project for this location. Um, because it's
because it it's just so fragile. Um, and then on top of that, we have the issue of the low-lying um, Indian River Drive. Uh, I mean, people's
people's vehicles are getting ruined. People are being trapped in their um on their streets. Uh, I had one resident tell me that they had to rent a car because they don't want to damage their vehicle. Um, you know, and district one,
we're experiencing a lot of flooding and a lot of property damage. Um my concern is that this [clears throat] we're going to hit a boiling point at some point um
to where this is going to be a countywide problem because we're going to have to start buying houses from people if we're not careful. Uh Valuchia, they have had to deal with this. Um and I don't want to see that have to happen in BVAR County. And I'm
I'm just very concerned that if we don't keep this binding development plan and keep the density low in this area that we are going to have huge problems. Um just in general I I I believe that you know a person should do their due
diligence when they buy a piece of property. And so it sounds like they knew that what they were buying. They knew it had a binding development plan on there. And um you know it's it's not right for the whole neighborhood to have to be affected by this when the property owner
knew what they were purchasing. It's not like somebody pulled the wool over their eyes. >> Um so that's kind of >> okay and you'll have probably closing or and debate. >> So we do we do have another card that somehow got mixed up with the other
cards. Uh, Bill Gower. [clears throat] [snorts] Sorry. >> No, that's all right. >> That's okay. Take your time. talk into the sit over there. >> Don't go too far.
>> Hey, my name's Bill Gar. I live at 385 Chester Drive, Coco, Florida 3926 in Portchester Estates. First of all, it keeps coming back. the original owners or the people that
bought this property knew that there was a binding contract on it. So what I've seen is basically they threw everything against the wall, see what would stick, make the people happy, what
they could get away with. Okay? After a meeting, they would say, "Oh, there's no reason for you to go to the next meeting." So there was 100 of those who started that. Then he said, "Well, 10 million showed up." Well, you'll need to go to the next meeting because we're
just going to postpone it. So, that's why we've twinned down in size that way. I've lived there since ' 89. That property was uh
Orchard Field. I was taking care for the owner. I know how big wide it is. It's not very wide. By the time you put a road through the middle for two lanes and then houses and then for the driveways, that's a lot of water that's
being added to that property. Okay? No place to go. And when I talked to the guys that did the survey, my property sits lower than anybody else on to that property in regards to it. And I do get
flooded out when it rains. and I'm up on the upper side, not even down to the lower side with these other people. So, basically, they threw everything against the wall and let's see what sticks. Now, what happens is if you approve something today, what makes this guy not go sell
to somebody else? And this guy, well, they got away with that. Let's go back and ask for more. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Oh, the only other thing I wanted to say I notic they keep ping
paperwork up there. I didn't see none of it from the developers. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I think this is the same as what's in the packet. The what the applicant gave us
>> online. It's online. Okay, that's all the cards. Kim Roseno. >> Thank you. Uh uh Chairman Alman. Um uh just briefly I I want to thank uh Mr. Sudterman for his comments. We have
tried to work with the residents. Um Mr. Burroughs asked about a turn lane. If FDOT says it's necessary, certainly that would be put in. I do need to make the point that right now water is just leading off this property. There's no treatment. There's no nothing. This will retain the water. It will treat it. It
will be better than it than it currently is after this has developed and the county has ensured this Mr. Bernath by asking for these conditions to which the developer has agreed. Reduce the volume of storm water to better control runoff. Reduce the rate of storm water discharge. So this will improve what's
going on with the water leading to Indian River Drive. Um again we did agree to like trees for like trees. This is not a BDP. These are all conditions of the PDP. We don't do a BDP. Usually, we're willing to do it, but usually we
don't do a BDP with a PDP for a PUD. And um any changes to the PDP u that's part of your code um if it increases density, but any changes could be a change to the road. So, I would not ask that be a conditional ask you just follow your code. If the PDP is changed in a
substantial way determined by um Mr. Prasad, then we would have to come back. So, I do not want that to be part of it. I mean, if you put it in there, then that we'll agree to it, but it's it's already in your code. I don't think it's necessary. And all these flooding issues, those are
engineering issues. Mr. Bernath, Miss McGee, they'll be reviewing all of this, Miss Darina. So, those are all plat issues, site plan issues. Uh, we can't prove a negative at this point, but based upon what your staff has required, it's going to be a better condition for flooding and storm water than it is
currently. And so with that, we would ask that you approve the alternate request to res 2. We ask that you find that that is compatible because we're doing likesiz houses, res 2 to res 2 to allow the density bonuses to 23 units. 23 is demanded by the PDP which governs
it and if not then it's just a res 2 all the way to the river and uh takes in the the uh wetlands that now have res 4. So we'd ask that you approve the res 2 and that you approve the PDP with the waiver. You may have addressed some of this
toward the end your conversation disc presentation but I do have a question maybe you can elaborate further. One of the big questions that has brought been brought up to us is that there was an agreement there was an agreement for a bonding development plan and now that's
being changed. So people feel like u that sort of a bait and switch or they're going against the commitment of the land owner. I don't think it was you at the time. What's your response? What are the reasons for going with a [clears throat] change? >> As I mentioned at the October meeting,
this has really been a troubled piece of property. It's been in and out of foreclosure. It's been back and forth between owners. It's not been developed. There are challenges to the land [clears throat] the land with the wetlands, with the sloping, uh, with access there. This is a challenged piece of property, really a troubled piece of
property. And a BDP was agreed to in 2008. and in 2008 was kind of the crash of the market or the beginning of it. So I believe they just took whatever they could get. Regardless, it hasn't been developed. It's only the seven center seven acres in the center. So there's
other developable land that's res 4 that in theory could put another 12 units on it as is. So we could have the 12 and the seven that's 19 as it is. So I it's just it's like a change of zoning. It couldn't be built that way. It's not feasible to be built that way. we had to have in all the storm water when you
have to add in all of the other requirements of subdivisions that weren't the same in 2008. Costs of construction have doubled in the last 5 years. So, it just it just it wasn't feasible for the owner in 2008. My client bought it 2021. Wasn't feasible for him. So, it's basically he's asked
for a reasonzoning. Removing the BDP is really just a resoning action. And we've we've said the reasons why we want to do it. Basically, [clears throat] it's the the conditions of the property. >> Refresh my memorando. I looked at the BDP's uh the binding original binding
development plan. It's on on the in the packet, but the original binding development plan, did it preserve the wetlands along the river? >> All it did was the seven acres were limited to seven units. >> Okay. Limit access to the river road.
>> I don't recall that, sir. That I don't recall. But we're not going to Indian River Road, right? We're definitely not. >> So, I was just there was some advantages. >> There was a limit. we couldn't access Parkchester and it didn't really define what that meant. Um, Parkchester has a road that goes directly into the property, our property in dead ends. So,
that was my interpretation of what can't access Parkchester. The neighbors thought it meant you can't use our road, which is really a public road, but that was the access. It wasn't T River Drive. You can't access Parkchester, which we have taken off access to Parkchester. >> Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner
Delaney. >> Don't you think that it it's maybe Don't you think that it would be extremely expensive to um mitigate this property to the point where you could uh build to that
capacity if if say you built the 12 houses on the res four portion and is that really realistic? >> Well, what you're missing is there's three acres that is not wetlands. That's still res four, >> right? But >> that's between the wetlands and the res
one. you would still have to um account for the storm water and all of that kind of stuff. So, it it's just I'm just saying the allowable density now in my opinion is 19 plus the commercial and we're asking for 23 and that doesn't include the wetlands. Staff
report says something else. I disagree with staff report. >> Commissioner Felner, >> this is just um out of curiosity really. uh you're [snorts] going to have to do a lot of work to this property. There's there's there's no doubt there's there's
expense in getting this this ready. So, ideal [clears throat] market conditions, how much are you asking for each one of these homes? I and I asked that because I think nearby neighbors sometimes like, well, I don't I don't want these cookie cutter houses that >> based based upon my other developers,
it's 450 to 600. >> Yeah. I I don't know about this, but from what I know from other developers, they're developing similar products. The sale price be between 450, and 600. >> Okay. >> Chair. >> Yes. >> Would you be agreeable to everything
Billy quoted that would be attached to this permit? >> Yes, sir. >> Is that is that okay with you, Billy? >> If I may just ask for one clarification from the board, uh Mr. for Zena I believe just said that she prefer not to have the condition that any change to
the PDP come back to the board and so that's completely up to board discretion whether they would prefer just to keep the typical which is any substantial change would come back to the board or if they want any change to come back to the board >> how would you agree with that I >> I I think you ought to stick by your
code and that was Miss Gilliam that stated that it wasn't Mr. decide that [laughter] >> I would prefer it not be if you add it in there we'll accept it but to me I think you have a code for because any change as I said could change the location of the road that to me shouldn't have to come back to you all
>> I think within reason we're not talking of those changes I at least are you Billy >> you said any change >> well the way it's written and this was mentioned at the last board meeting and that's why we put it in there >> um it does say any change so so I would say you know if there's some middle
ground the board wants to consider. You can do that as well. >> And and there may be a change that is better for the land than the neighbor. >> They could take out two units. We'd have to come back. >> They would not want to come back do that because they would have to through this. So I'm fine with having some flexibility
there. >> I am too. >> Thank you, sir. And may I sure Billy it's staff's preference to have these conditions memorialized in a BDP as opposed to as conditions for the preliminary development plan. Right.
>> Well, we could prefer to be both. So the conditions of the of the PUD memorialized in a BDP and we asked for that so it's both easy to track internally and transparent for the public because when they look up the map they'll see the PUD with the PD PDP and they can easily see those conditions.
>> That's I I apologize. I missed that. I'm not used to that for a PDP. That's fine. Certainly. >> Okay. Commissioner Delaney. >> Um, I just want to bring up, you know, what one of the one of the residents said
that um, you know, the reason why there's not a lot of people here tonight is because they've come out over and over and over and over and over again. Um, and the neighborhood still hasn't changed. They're they're the couple of people
that have come up and said they could live with this, it's not because they're happy about it. Like there I I district one, we still have hundreds of people that are not living in their homes right now because of the flooding
that we've incurred this year. And it just is it's frustrating to me that all of this is being overlooked in my opinion what I see happening right now. And
you know, this is this is my district and I know what my constituents want and need and nobody is guaranteed a reason. That is not a property right. And this is going to dramatically change
this community. And regardless of what they're going to say about uh controlling the storm water, it's it's going to I have not seen one neighborhood in District 1 where a new neighborhood goes next to an old neighborhood and flooding
didn't happen. Not one. So, it's just if y'all want this in your neighborhoods, then that's fine. But do you want elected me to speak for them? And we don't want this. And I know that you guys are are I don't
and I'm sorry. I understand y'all may not like me. You may not like my style, but this has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with them. >> So, I'm pleased asking you to do what we
have historically done in this county and listen to the district commissioner where the people elected me to speak for them. And with that, I would like to make a motion to deny this request. >> Uh, there's a motion for denial. Is
there a second? >> The motion dies for lack of sec. Lack of a second. >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Um, if if if I could please ask Mr. Rosena to come back up here if that's okay. Um would the developer be willing to
do any kind of um shoreline shuring up in this area? >> I I don't know what that means. Uh I'm I'm sure we can put that we will work with the staff to do what we can to help in that area because we do own property. So we can put that as a binding
condition that we work with county to work on shoring up the shoreline on the riverside. some of the um areas obviously not right on on their property but around it some of the owners have put more like I don't know if it's Phil or whatnot I've driven down there I've seen
>> yeah the coina rocks and stuff and that seems to help in those areas and I don't know if they're willing to do that but >> no we are the developer would be do because we did talk about that but we need staff needs to come up with a comprehensive solution that everyone can help and do the same thing and we're certainly willing to help with that.
Okay. And um so if I could, I' i'd like to make another motion. Um >> could could I ask a technical question? I don't I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Chair. Sir, >> is is that something that you have to go to D for? Um when you're when you're on
the edge of the of the river. I just >> Yeah, you'd have to get a permit from the state and you'd have to get a permit from natural resources as well. And we don't allow seaw walls, but they can do coina slope prevetments and uh native vegetation living shoreline. So there's
other strategies they could use. >> Okay. So they're not going to run into a c issue with the county. U I mean it depends on what they propose. >> Yes. But they should be able to get a permit from us. >> There are How about how about if I ask it this way? There are other property parcels along there that have these
treatments that they could they could potentially duplicate. That's that's that. >> And they could probably do better. Sometimes we see when people just do their own thing. Maybe it's not quite as fortified as it could be if it's properly engineered and has filter cloth and mangrove say that sort of thing. But
yes, so >> we do encourage that. >> Okay. And and some and some of those other things also D has signed off on maybe even the last few years. I I just I just don't want there to be false hope that they're going to do something and then they run into a problem with D. >> Yes,
>> that's okay. Thank you. >> I have a question about it. That's that's a good point. So, this property when it makes the transition, the lots have sold or it reaches a certain threshold, we go into a homeowners association, I assume. And the St.
John's you I think now requires that. So, they're responsible maintaining storm water. They also own the and that's part probably part of the amenity to the project. They have a pedestrian access. They can literally walk to the river. Um so that's their property on
the river. >> If if the shoreline starts to fail and even jeopardizes this the road, they they probably would have a duty to maintain it. Would they not? Or is that who who's that responsibility fall on? I know they may have a desire, but I'm
just never thought of that. But you own property on the river and if if it's eroded and the road's threatened, who's responsible for going on that property to protect the road? >> So I would say that it depends on um you know who actually owns and then the
mainten any maintenance conditions. Um I I may be uh missing something, but I was not aware that this goes all the way to the the river, in which case u they may provide the recommendations that uh Commissioner Delaney had just suggested,
but ultimately um if it's impacting the road, then it would be a public cost. I'd also just add while I have uh the floor for a second that we'd need to be very careful. uh a preventment system could actually wind up trapping the water, making it worse. We're in the
process right now of doing a major study for that road. And there's not an easy solution. I said this before, um but the actual solution is about a billion dollars. There's also uh lots of private properties that we'd have to figure out
even how to overcome that. Um so the the big issue is how do you keep the water out? It's not necessarily the the storm water that's going down the hill as much. It is the waves over topping. The road is very low as was mentioned earlier. And now if you if you raise it
up, whether it's uh some sort of preventment system or you build a great big wall, you have to raise the road. You raise the road, you move all the utilities and you move all the connections to all the houses uh to the um road system. And that's where the
billion dollars comes in. And when you say a billion, you mean the entire river road, not um you're talking a lot. >> Our study focused on 9,000 linear feet, which I would suggest that u the juice is probably not worth the squeeze at that point. >> Morris, you were you reaching for your
mic? I >> I I think Mark does pretty well. >> That's an issue. I'm sure that will deal with St. John's permitting and the homeowners probably would want to keep that as nice as they possibly can. Okay. Any other questions, Commissioner
Delaney? >> Um, so there's there's a lot in this motion obviously, so if if staff can help me, but what I'm what I'm looking for, and um, Mr. Rosinka, if you wouldn't mind um, is would they be
amendable to not doing the bonus density, doing 21? >> Yes. if we could do um if we could move to approve this with all of the things that staff has said
plus working with staff to um sh up the shoreline there. >> First you have to make a motion on H1 for the small scale amendment. >> Okay. >> Then the other one H2 when you make that motion you can
>> add all that stuff. >> Yes. >> Okay. But if I may commissioner, so when you make the motion, if what I'm hearing is the motion is to CC and res to without the finding required for the density bonus. So Okay.
>> Right. Yes. I move to approve that. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Second by Commissioner Felner. Any discussion? All those um favor sign by saying yay.
>> Yay. >> I I >> I carries unanimously. >> No. >> Damn. We voted. >> Did you say I'm going to be a no? I'm sorry. >> There's a no. A no by a no by the maker of the motion. >> Jeez. >> Okay.
>> All right. >> I don't know if I've ever seen that before. I have seen it in the legislature. People vote against their own bill, haven't you? >> Yeah. So it's not unprecedented. >> I've seen it at this level. >> So we're going to H2 then. >> Yes. >> Yeah. H2. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> So we're now in H2. >> Billy, could you help me with that motion? >> Do I need to read it into the record again or we've already done that? No, I think if you just say, you know, all the conditions as outlined in the agenda report with the addition of some of the
ones we heard from today, which is as part of the waiver request that would be have to be approved as part of this application uh like for like trees and then I also um to mitigate um any uh
wetlands within the 50oot rideway should they have to be dedicated? >> We didn't agree to that. would >> we can't agree to that because that impacts our ability to mitigate. We did not agree to that one. >> Okay. Which one was that? I'm sorry. So, we know >> the trees. >> No, >> let's have you come up. Yeah. And clarify that
>> it was asked that the the 50oot rideway that's being dedicated that we take on the responsibility for mitigating the wetlands and we can't do that because that impacts the wetlands we can mitigate on our site because it would all be done at the same time because we only get 1.8% to impact. So, we can't
agree to that. So, you're going to give up the land, but >> but we're not agreeing to >> mitigate somebody else's land, >> right? We may agree later on, but right now we can't because we have to mitigate our own. So, that was not something that was listed that we agreed to. >> Okay,
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> If staff may make a comment, please. >> So, I just wanted to add that when we were talking about the dedication of the 50-foot rightaway, we had talked about that not counting against their 1.8 8%
because that would be to the benefit of the county for that 50 ft. So that wouldn't count against your other wetland impacts for the 1.8%. But again, the mitigation being part of your >> cost. Is that right? >> Yeah. And and again, I would just add
that if uh they don't do it now, that's county rightway and the taxpayers are going to be doing it if we ever uh decide to uh widen that road. Okay, I have a question of that. But if we own it, wouldn't it be our responsibility to mitigate for widening
the road? That's the public benefit to widen a road. And if they've given up that right away, it would be the public's responsibility to mitigate for the public good of building the road. I mean, I can understand their point.
They're giving up the land and now they have to mitigate. I don't know. It's just I I I agree with the applicant on that. I I I don't think that should be a requirement. Commissioner, how about uh I don't know if they would agree to it, but buy
credits for the mitigation. I don't have the authority to do that. I don't have the authority to spend my client's money who's not here to agree when he's already told me not to agree to that. So I I can't agree to that at this point. >> Well, you're basically giving land. >> We are giving land that would have to be taken by imminent domain at a valuable
price. So I Right. >> And a lot of legal costs. So we appreciate you doing that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So with that said, then the conditions would be as outlined in the agenda report. If you'd like, I can restate them. Um but they I was I stated them before. Um, so it would be like for
like in addition to what's in the agenda for it, it' be like forlike trees um and work with the county to add potential treatments to shore up the um shoreline along Indian River Lagoon. >> I have a question on that. Um, on the
issue of clearing, because I'm for not clearing land as much as possible, >> but I've seen [clears throat] a lot of projects where and some of which I I voted on to preserve the the native buffer. You go back and the buffer is dead because when you do the
improvements of the property, you affect the draining, you affect [clears throat] just a little bit of soil and some of those trees kill it. So, I agree with not having to be able to go and it would have been a healthier, more attractive buffer if it was replanted. So, I I support that. I do have a question
though. When you say like for like, are you talking species or size? Because if there's some very large trees there that >> I think we're looking for similar type and size of tree, but I will defer to Darcy who whose department implements that code. uh like like for light can
work um depending on how big their lots are, what that buffer is. I mean they may not be able to put back um the same number of like oak trees that may crowd out or may interfere with the buildings, the structures. So >> I worry about their ability to do size,
too. >> Yeah. I mean, and that's kind of a tough one to apply at permitting because um you know, if you take out a 20-in oak, you're not going to put back a 20in oak. you're going to have smaller ones. So, um >> I haven't
>> I've been by the site many times. I don't think a tree survey has been done. So, I just I'm just concerned if we say light for light, the size shouldn't be a requirement. >> Perhaps similar within reason. >> Okay, there we go. That's good. [laughter] >> Yeah, we we like to make it specific. It
helps staff apply it when it when we get to permitting. So I don't know if there's Billy putting language in there to negotiate with natural resources for appropriate buffering vegetation that will thrive and mature into a good buffer. Would that be acceptable? >> Is that what we're looking for?
>> Yes. Okay. >> And I could just if I may add one more thing. You know these we're talking about P condition. We just asked that the motion include to memorialize that in a BDP. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> So,
um I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Not the right one. Okay. So the um the motion would be to change the zoning
from EU and RP with an existing BDP to a PDP PD PUD with the removal of the existing BDP, but to add
another BDP including the things that we had spoken about. Um, do I need to read out all of these? >> Okay. [laughter] And then
what do I need to say with the PDP? >> So, as part of the zoning approval, you'd be approving the PUB with the condition specified to be memorialized in a PDP. >> So moved. >> Okay. Okay. Is there a second to that motion? >> Second.
>> Second by Commissioner Atkinson. Okay. Any discussion, any debate, any questions on the motion? Uh, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying >> I
>> opposed. >> Nay. >> Nay. With Commissioner Delaney voting against the motion passes 41. Okay. Thank you commissioners. We've really, I think, come up with a good product here. We want to thank the
applicant and thank the residents who've been a part of this process. You've made a you've made an impact. Um, okay. We'll move to the next agenda item. And I think what we'll do was H5. You said we
>> we were going to move H5 so they won't have to wait through that. That should >> H5. We already we already started the process. you decided >> we started and he wasn't here, but I think they're here now. >> Are there any additional cars list?
>> I I don't mind moving them up because well, we'll just we'll just go down the list the way it is. We'll stay. We'll go to H3. Uh Jacob found requests a small scale comprehensive plan amendment 22 uh 25514
to change uh the future land use designation from res one to res 2 paragraph 255s00008 tax account number 2000804 district 1. >> Mr. chair. >> Yes, >> these are companion applications, so you
have to read in H4 as well. >> I thought I can read it in for you, >> I guess. Yeah, go ahead and read it for me. I should have let you read it for me. >> That's okay. Uh, Jacob Fawn requested zoning classification change from SR with a BDP to SR with removal of the
existing BDP and and an addition of a new BDP under application number 25Z000037 located in district 1. >> Okay, great. Thank you. I'm going to let you read it next time. You do better than I do. Okay, you're recognized.
>> I'm Jacob. I bought this land, submitted permits, got everything accepted and started building. I've already got uh concrete and block done. All my inspections have passed. I've had my trustes sitting for nearly six six months. My wife and I have spent our
life savings on this and just want to continue. Um I write I relied on the county and did everything as I should. Also want to uh clear one thing up from the last meeting. I'm an I am an
employee for a very reputable AC company. I do not work for Minnik. I do new construction HVAC for many small builders in Bvard County, including Minnik. >> Okay. Um if there are no questions, we'll go to the next speaker card. Thank
you, Pat Rmmer. Pat Rymer. I live at 6105 Mangrove Street, Scotsmore, Mims, Florida. Um, what I want to address has been already spoken about many times here, and that's the density. Increasing density in this
area, which is already prone to flooding, is only going to make the problem worse. And every time we approve a variance or a zoning change to increase the density, we're increasing
the chances of flooding in that area. People are suffering right now. During the last 2025 calendar year, we've had six flooding events in that particular area. I understand that the house has already
started to be built. It is significantly higher than the property behind it and it is going to cause flooding to that other property and I ask you all to consider that as you look at this request.
>> Okay. Thank you. Bigler. Michael Bigler. Go ahead. >> My name is Michael Biggler. I live at Golden Shores 4125 for 22 years.
I've been living in Bvard County for 61 years and doing construction for 40 years and worked for many contractors throughout the state of Florida. Some very big ones. I have never heard nothing like I'm
hearing that I'm going to talk about in my entire life of my career. Scotty Manik is a contractor who sold 0.454 acres to Jacob Fawn. Alterations were done to the lot which
violates the condition of the BDP, the section 62-2102 Bvard County Code ordinance which states that no person shall separate the lot in which a which a manner that violates the
law. But the land was unlawfully split and an unlawful permit was given anyways. Now we all would have been at the public hearing along with Clifford Mcnite
of 3900 Golden Shores November 17th if we were notified. But the notification only went out to a few people that live within 500 ft. But the letter
was deceiving. Wow. To the elderly to most of the elderly that got the letter. It states that the land change was for 6.24 acres, not for 0.54
acres. And that ain't right because for many years we have been paying taxes and living on Golden Shores and a lot longer than Scotty Manik Mnik
and the applicant Jacob Fawn who is trying to unlawfully split land and build a house with an unlawful permit on 460 Golden Shores Boulevard, which is going to be the launching site.
for Mcnite, McNick, whatever construction it is, and other builders so they can break up properties into smaller sections to build more houses and make more money. Now, there was a situation that took
place right beside me on 3.10 acres. The code enforcement was called. They stopped it because the law was being broke. And sad to be said, the homeown the guy that owned the land died and my heart
sunk for him. I cried for him. Okay? Because it was just a small little thing that he had to take care of. But he had three he had over three acres. Okay? We're not talking about 3 acres here or 2 acres or even
6.24 acres. We're talking under acreage, which we don't want up there. So, that just doesn't make sense to any of us that are here today.
Excuse me. I have to get to my notes cuz I was just notified about this just a little while this week. We are lawabiding citizens that have been living in Mims and
Scotsmore area for many years who voted for you county officials to represent us and uphold the law. We hope you do your job
and vote no for a law that has been broken. That's all I got to say. Stephanie Knight I'm Stephanie Knight. I live at 3995 Golden Shores Boulevard. The proposed
change alters the established character of our neighborhood where every residential lot is acre or more. I initially chose to build there in low density area relying on the zoning regulations that were put in place to preserve this area for my kids and I. Those standards should uphold by the
board and all employees of Bvoulevard County Zoning, Bard County Property Appraisers, and Bvard County Permitting. Allowing permits for substandard lot sizes is only inconsistent with our zoning requirements, but raises serious concerns about accountability with the
permitting process. When unlawful or improper permits are approved, especially using our taxpayers resources, it enables reinforces the very practices that created the issue. Each time commissioners vote in favor of these applicants, it further empowers
that department to continue using permits that do not comply with the law. This request is incap incompatible with our current development plan and it undermines the long-standing character of our community. Approving it would set a troubling precedent, opening the door
to further expectations that could gradually transform our area into a disorganized, higher density landscape. Precisely what many residents sought to avoid in that area. Zoning regulations should not be modified to accommodate negligence or oversight on people who
work for the county. Instead, enforce and accountability must be prioriti prioritized. Granting variances under these circumstances only complicates matters and signals to other builders and property owners that non-compliance will be excused. This seems to [clears throat] be a
problem within departments that they need to be addressed and corrected so this doesn't keep happening. It com it confuse me. I'm confident that if the department was audited, you would find multiple unlawful permits such as two properties on Todd Lane. This one on
Golden Shores. Uh there was problems with two properties on a ranch where squatters decided to try to um take over property and it was approved at the appraisers's office. Approved until the owner of that property got
wind of it and had to fight to get their property back. And the property appraisers office should know that in order to uh take over property, you have to be there for seven years. They were there for two months. So things are being overlooked. Uh from Mr. Mcnite. He
did want me to read cuz he couldn't be here tonight. It says, "Dear commissioner, [clears throat] dear commissioners, I am writing on behalf of numerous residents of Golden Shores Boulevard in Mims regarding >> Can we Sorry. Can we have Mr. McNight's first name, too?" >> Oh, sure. Clifford. Clifford Mcnite. He's at 3900 Golden Shores.
>> Uh, the removal of the existing BDP along with the new land land use request is inconsistent with the current development plan and undermines the character of our community. This change sets a concerning precedent that could transform our area into disorganized urban landscape. Something many of us
sought to avoid when we chose to live here. Even with the proposed halfacre variance, this resoning should not proceed. The Bvard County property website lists that parcel as45 acres, contrary to the 0 51 acres indicated by the new survey. Additionally, the house
is directly behind the parcel located at 470 Golden Golden Shores Boulevard is has a driveway running right through the proposed property, not on an easement. This situation raises significant concerns about access that impacts the actual usable acreage of the lot. We
emphasize the current zoning regulations should not be adjusted to accommodate the negligence and oversight of your department. And this discussion is occurring after construction had progressed to a quarter completion due to the breakdown in the planning process. It is critical that
accountability is enforced rather than granting variances that would complicate situations and set again a precedent for other properties and builders. Notably, the contractor responsible for the construction is also the seller of the property who is a realer. he should have
known better and given his experience building homes in the area, he should be should have been fully aware of the zoning regulations and BDP. Furthermore, it is important to note that alongside this property um well, we that was already addressed. I'm not going to go
over that again. Um our community cannot support such extensive changes and strongly implore strongly implores that the current BDP remain intact. Thank you for your attention in this manner and we hope that you will consider our concerns and seriously prioritize the integrity of
our community and I do feel for the person who bought the property but Mr. Minnik knew he was the one who did the BDP. He should have known not to sold it to that gentleman and it shouldn't be our taxpayers that have to suffer for your mistake that the employees made in
the peritting office. So that's it. >> Okay. Um, we I have more cards on this item, but we've been up for almost an hour and a half. So, there's numerous requests for a 10-minute break. We'll come back at uh
6:35. Okay. >> [music] [music] [music] >> Um Sean Sean Bohannan Shane >> Sean >> Sean Okay. Um, I've been a resident here now
for um, couple decades. Um, born in South Florida, our general baby. Parents have been here for uh, over 70 years. They're in their 80s. We moved up here um, specifically because we wanted to leave South Florida
and that urban environment and go to a rural environment. And that's why the and and the reason that this makes a lot of it really hurts me is because okay so I live in the home that Francis Threckle
and her husband who donated the property that under which Titusville City Hall sits today. Um, I live in that home and she built on Golden Shores
the Horseman's Association. And here we are where I had to spend over two years coming in front of the board dealing with everybody involved, all the unelected public officials and that just to be able to build a house
for my aunt who's 82 years old who it's on 6 acres and everything was perfectly done. It had to be redone multiple times. I mean, this is and I have nothing against this person.
I don't know him or anything, but it it just gets down to the point of where if I wanted to live in a high density area, that's where I would have moved and that's where I would spent the money. But no, we have spent tons tons of
money. And I'm not going to go into numbers because it doesn't really matter, but we we've done that. Whether it's trimming 100-year-old oak trees, preserving things, setting up roads, paving things, we have done everything
and every single thing by the book. And then this just pops up, is done illegally against code, against enforcement. And poof, here we are. Now we're asking for can I have an exception.
I mean quite frankly whoever sold it to him they're the ones who should be responsible. Okay that certainly shouldn't be the others because here's the thing my road is like a washboard.
Okay half of the weeks they don't even come out and grate it. I'm out there with my tractor, my box blade, grating the damn thing. Okay, sorry, pardon my French, but it's just because, oh, it
rained or no, it hasn't rained enough or whatever. Okay, but they're not going to pave it. They're not bringing in septic. They're not bringing in water. They're not bringing a natural gas. Okay, that's fine. I knew that. I accepted that. So, I have my own standalone propane. I have
my own four wells, all of which permitted, licensed, everything documented. And this is just beyond the pale. I mean,
this is it it absolutely is. So, I'm sorry. I I don't mean to get on a high horse or be loud or obnoxious. I know I I can do that but I'm trying to be very restrained. Um so um
thank you very much for your time and I hope you take into consideration the reason the people who have come up here and spent literally millions of dollars only to see this
abomination which was illegally done. And we should honestly, yes, there should be auditing and the audits need to go back to all of these things, all of these exceptions. And the people who did that who are not elected officials
need to be held accountable. And if the elected officials won't do it, well then, you know, the next election is coming. Have a good night. >> Thank you, Beth Byer. >> Righticky. >> Sorry.
Britz Britzky. >> Britzky. Oh, I didn't see the eye. I didn't see the eye. Britzky. [cough] >> My name is Beth Britzky. I live at 4055 April Lane. It's one street over from Golden Shores. Um my family and I moved
here to Bvard County to MIM specifically because that community is a rural community and we absolutely love it and we've only been here a couple of months but we really we love the community. We've been really involved since we got here and really all I came up to say is
that that's that's like the heart of our community is the these bigger lots of rural area. It's I my fear is that um concessions are made for existing um rules as to how big lot sizes are. It's I'm afraid that sets a precedent for
that to continue happening in the future. So that's that's all I wanted to say is I'm I'm fearful of that happening and continuing. Um and I hope that you vote no. Thank you.
>> Thank you. uh Ken Harrison and the next speaker will be Susan You might want to start walking down. Might save a little time for us. Okay. My name is Ken Harrison. I live on Gandandy Road in Mims. I live in that area. I've been in this county my entire
life. I've been in Mims 67 years. 54 years on my property that's near this. This came directly from the staff comments. What I'm going to repeat here. So, what they found that was wrong. Um,
in this particular case, the applicant is subject to code enforcement due to the actions of a predecessor in interest who improperly split the property into a substandard lot violating section 62-2102
Bvard County Code. The original BDP stipulated the developer owner shall limit development to one single family residence and may be further restricted by any changes to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations. Subsequently, the property was sold and
split into two lots of 0.54 acres and 89 acres on April the 20 April 27th of 2020. The 089 acre property was sold on October 22 of 2021. The 0.54 acre property was sold to the
applicant on June 4th, 2024. These actions violated the conditions of the BDP and section 622102 Boulevard County Code of Ordinances alteration of lot which states that no person shall sever any lot in such a
manner that a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter would be created on any new or altered lot, including their uses or structures. Subsequent to this unlawful split, a permit for a single family resident was
issued in error. This permit should not have been issued because the lot is a substandard lot as a result of the split. Upon discovering the error, a stop work order was issued by the Buffard County building official.
Um, administrative policy number seven, proposed use shall not cause or substantially aggravate any substantial drainage problem on surrounding properties or significant adverse and unmitigatable impact on significant
natural wetlands, water bodies or habitat for listed species. Environmental constraints. Natural Resources Management Department has identified that the subject property is located within a mapped FEMA special
flood hazard area a zone A. The board may wish to consider if the requested is consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area. In addition, the board should consider the request based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the
actions of a predecessor in interest which resulted in the subject property being turned into a substandard lot. And the last paragraph is mine. Furthermore, the residents are concerned that an unlawful split of the property and
resulting zoning change due to the unlawful split of the property could possibly leave Bvard County complicit and condoning of an unlawful zoning action. And as far as these maps, you will see
on the first zoning map, the little yellow square, that's the property in question. The property right next to it was SR. Those two were two. They were one lot before the illegal
split. If you look at this map, they are the only SR in the entire area. Everything else is something larger. And it's not that these are large lots. A lot of this area has one acre minimums.
The people don't want it to go below one acre. So the next map is the future land use. You'll see that the entire map is resz one. The proposed land use for this one lot would be a res 2.
Totally inconsistent with the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. And the very last map is a flood zone A that runs through the center of this property. the property behind it will be affected by flood waters.
And lastly, this contractor is known to do this on purpose, working through the departments through either uh strongarming them or whatever means to get what he wants. and did the same thing on Todd Lane, which is a quarter
mile away, where one of his electricians, who does all the houses, split a lot to a substandard size, built a house on it, and then got permission after the fact. Uh there's a pattern of this through multiple departments.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Susan. Susan and after Susan will be Jared Atinson. >> She's waving her. >> You're waving your time. Okay. Uh
Jared Atkins speaking for the Scotsmore Community Association. >> That's correct. Yes. Jared Atkins for the Scotsmore Community Association which is 3724 Magun A in Scotsmore. >> [cough and clears throat] >> So, um,
several people have, uh, taken the wind from beneath my wings here, so I'm going to truncate this a little bit. Um, we had a meeting with a group of concerned citizens, uh, this week regarding this particular application.
Um, everybody pretty much feels that uh they they agree with the former board that was here uh prior to you guys that the density needs to be limited and retained as it is in Scotsmore. Um, we did have a small area study that we were
promised in 2019 and 2020 that did not happen and uh had it happened, we might have some more data to support that. Um but this particular lot reszoned in 2019. Um
at [clears throat] that time the county zoning and this board assigned a BDP to which the owner agreed disallowing the exact thing that happened um that he uh put in place. Um, a few words from the
staff report include unlawful, substandard, violation. Um, those are not good words to have in a staff report if you're going to approve uh an application like this. Um, and then at the zoning board meeting,
um, the applicant spoke to this u stated that he bought the lot from Scott Minnik. um stated that he works for Scott Minnik. Um so we we know that's the builder that split the lot. Um
I would also agree with somebody that spoke earlier that I think that a an audit or investigation should be conducted to see why this continues happening in our town. Um,
couple of things that [snorts] you guys may also uh be familiar with. In fact, I'm sure you are, but that um no constitutional or Harris Act property right to increase planning allowances under Florida law. Purchase of land is generally subject to the existing zoning
or environmental restrictions. There's no property right to change them. Freedelland v. Hollywood, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals 1961 upheld again in Ellen v. Miami, Florida, Third District of Appeals, uh 1959
reversed those. The other one upheld the first one. Um I know you guys have all those statutes, but uh just wanted to give you a friendly reminder. Appreciate you hearing us out. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um Oapovich. Oapovich. Did I get that? >> Oh, thank you, Ed. Povich. >> You said this projector works, >> I think. So, >> so the gentleman that I wanted to have
up here today could not show up for various reasons, medical being the biggest one, but his voice, he does um he does spend a lot of time in Bvard County. It's uh Sandy uh Heinger. Um he he basically does a lot of construction for Bard County. And along
this the his whole point was just a handwritten letter on some calculations and verbiage that he uses on a daily basis. We use a a standard 3,000 square foot home. All right. When when you have that, you have a square footage footprint, so to speak, even with the driveways, the garages, carports, things
of that nature. So, we're just going to use that as an example. A 3,000 foot home having um u we just use one inch of uh rain per hour. at 6,230 gallons per inch of rain per house. So, with that
being said, we can use this. I can I can hand this off to the board and go from there. But, my name Ed Oapovich, 5175 International Avenue. Um, I'm here tonight because I want to oppose uh the the building further further continuing on with this. So, you know, in in the early
90s, I came to this area. I was uh born and raised, but I came back in the early 90s as a as a airman straight straight out of the Air Force. I literally wanted to live out in the in the country, the suburbs, raise my kids, shoot, hunt, fart around four-wheelers like everybody else does. We enjoy the community, the horses, things of that nature. What's
happening today is uh it's not an ideal uh living situation because it's turned into a suburbia nightmare. We're starting to see homes develop on top of each other, the high density areas starting to increase, traffic's increasing, you well guys are well aware of. Um, we don't want an HOA uh type scenario. We're already dealing with
seasonal snow snow burgers in Titusville. So, Mims has a kind of a cushion, you know, for for having some elbow room. Um, with that being said, when we first moved up here, I purchased a a one and a half acre lot,
and the average home to be built on was one to five acre parcels for for, you know, anyone anyone to purchase. And it was all zoned and cut up that way from the civil engineers back in the 60s. And there again, like-minded, everybody wanted that expansion to have some elbow room, and we don't want the the high
density in that in that scenario. So now we got uh based on what we're dealing with today's laws and rules are being uh being bent to accommodate so-called errors and and these errors are uh by contractors, realtors,
and title companies are are starting to affect us big time. We're starting to pay the price. Um, literally flooding issues so profuse the last 20 years, we've not we haven't seen anything like this in the last five years. And Katie's well aware of what we're talking about. Um, using that number off of u what Mr. Sandy had just
pointed out earlier, we had almost 3 ft of rain in a one-mon time time frame up in men's literally noted and water did not recede for almost three weeks. And I'm not exaggerating to the point where wildlife was uh literally coming up in the
drylands areas, pigs, deer, looking for things to eat. And I'm not I'm not, you know, I'm just I'm pointing this out to the simple fact that we got hogs just tearing up property. We have a really bad problem right now. We're trying to mitigate that scenario, but it's not going to happen until the water recedes properly. Um all I know is that the the
maintenance on those culverts, especially through 95, the box covers have not been touched or addressed. We've actually put our eyes on them. They're under they're overgrown. They're they're they're impacting the water flow to the St. John's. This is going west and not to mention the the flow problems we have through the east. Um, as a as a
registered voter in District 1, um I I want these mismanaged, overlooked areas to uh be audited as well. I want want more of the community to feel comfortable with what you guys do as a whole. We trust you. We've uh you know, brought you guys to to bear to to have be our voice. Katie's our voice right
now, but we want this whole community to you guys understand this whole community is really uh we're we're exhausted by by what's happening up there through the growth and development and the continued um passing or exemptions of of said parcels.
But other than that, I really don't have much more to say. I appreciate your time and uh hearing our voices. Thank you much. >> Questions? >> Yes. >> Yeah, Commissioner Goodson. >> Yeah. Um I hear you. I understand what you wish and all that and why you moved to Memphis, but can I ask you, are you
uh aware of the Farmington development that they're proposing? >> Very aware. I've watched it. I I I stumbled across it when I started my own personal and private distillery. I've been in front of you guys before trying to get zoning squared away. So, I have a functioning and uh legal distillery on my private property through ATB and the
and the and the feds. >> I think that's great. And also, I think we could open up hog hunting and it would be even better with liquor. >> With that being said, we can all have a good time. So, But but the Farmington issue [clears throat] is being proposed. You know, maybe in 10 years they'll start developing that. I
don't know. What do you think of that? >> So, we're we're opposing that as well. We don't like the large and it's actually a larger scale than what's already here in Vieira. We've seen all the plat maps. I've actually stumbled across it. It made me nauseous to think that we moved up here for this and it's going to be taken away from my kids are going to have to deal with it. Okay. So, probably not in our lifetime, but our
kids are going to be dealing with this type of growth and expansion, which is a sensitive water area. St. John's would not allow this. I'm wondering who's getting paid in that scenario. >> Now, also, you made a comment about the 95 coverts. Now, you do understand that's DOT. >> I do understand that. But do we not have a voice to get them up on a horn and
say, "Hey guys, we're we're drowning down here." >> If you know anything about DOT, that's kind of like blowing jalle. >> They're they're slower than heck. And they don't It's not their problem. But thank you. I I hear everything you're saying. Thank you. >> I do I do understand regulations and what you guys are up against, but right
now we're focused on one little thing. If we can turn the tides and start going by laws and and upholding that, we'd we'd be really appreciative of your efforts. Thank you. You want this? >> Okay, that's our last card. So, um I will give the applicant an opportunity
to close, but is there any questions or comments on the >> question? Okay. Yeah. >> Question. Here's my question to staff and to if this gentleman bought it from a realtor who was shady or whatever and didn't know what he was buying, then a
permit was given by the county. Where where is his justice? Where's his justice? Or where's >> And the title company >> would the title company be guilty? I don't know. Tell me. >> I don't I don't even know that he obtained title insurance. That would depend. Do did you obtain title
insurance? >> I do. >> All right. And have you filed a claim with your title insurer? >> I have not. No. >> Okay. That's uh you probably should do that quickly if you haven't already. I'm not going to give you legal advice, but um if you have title insurance, that's a
>> But if I'm not an issue, >> you work for the person that sold it to you. >> I work for the company that does work for him. I do HVAC all over Bard County >> and he's one of the builders that we work for. Right now, how much money have
you spent? Honestly, >> not for well for the cost of the lot and then for what you've done so far. >> Be 100 grand. >> Okay. And it's probably another 100 grand to finish it. I don't know. You tell >> at least. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Have you spoke to the realtor
about this? >> I have not. >> Okay. Why not? >> The realtor that I bought the property from? >> Yes. I have just talked to the land owner. I didn't have a realtor. >> I got you. Yeah. And the land owner says, "Tough luck or I don't care. I did
it and it was legal and the county approved it and yada yada." Right. Pretty much so. >> I reckon. I mean, I basically relied on the staff at the county to turn everything in and I got everything approved. >> Well, if you know anything about life,
you don't rely on anybody. You check and double. >> I'm starting to learn that. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, chair. Um, >> yeah. Um, go ahead. I'll let you finish. >> Um, one of the things is that
the homeowners around the area weren't notified of this meeting or anything. Um, everything has been posted in front. The county has put signs out there. Um, in the middle of October, they put out there the the uh amount of acres. is
0.54. I'm not sure why that's changed at all. Um, that's what I've been aware of the whole time. Um, for the flooding, I mean, I've already started building. If I can continue and put my covert in and everything to code, um, obviously
that would help. Um and then for um about the uh being not enough land, there's two properties um on Golden Shores that are actually less acres than what I have. Um one's 51
and one's five or one's 51 and one's 44. Um and I'm 0.54. Um, also said that my house is higher elevation than the neighbor behind me. Um, it's actually the same exact height
and everything's the code. Um, so like I said, I've done everything to code and it's all been inspected and everything's passed. So, >> okay. Yes. um if he's if he's done a >> I have a couple questions.
>> Um well, I think mine's more of a of a comment on a couple things that was said earlier, so I'll wait till after questions, Commissioner. >> All right, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, sir. >> That's all right. That's okay. Um do are you using a builder or is this a owner builder?
>> That's another thing, too. It's all owner builder. >> Okay. >> So, >> um who who drew your plans? We use an architect, an engineer. I think you're required to have engineer for the hurricane. >> Yeah. I just working construction. I
have friends that have helped me out. So, but everything's been owner builder and I've used other people's plans. >> So, you didn't use an architect to draw your plans? >> I did not know. [snorts] I used a previous plan that's already been used. >> Plans that have already been >> Yep.
>> Um, were they stamped by an engineer or architect? Do you know? >> Yes. Yes. >> Do you know who that was? I do not know at off the top of my head. No. But >> um when you um when you submitted your plans to the county,
>> did you have any idea that they what you were requesting was illegal? >> No, I didn't at all. >> You basically relied upon the county. >> Correct. >> And you What made you think that that you could build on this lot?
Um, I mean it was I've seen other properties that were around the same amount of land. Um, >> so you just assumed it was it was >> I mean there's been a couple new houses that have been built on that street in the last year or two. I put AC in them.
>> Um, I figured there wouldn't be a problem. >> Right. How many square foot is your house? >> 1600. >> 1600. Is it a one story or twotory? One story. >> One story. Okay. >> Okay. Uh, yes.
>> Question. You might ask my question. >> Commissioner, >> I have a couple questions for you. So, you said that um you didn't have a real estate agent, >> correct? >> Um that you just bought it from the owner and you do have title insurance, so that's good. >> When you presumably went to the person
that you bought it from and said, "Hey, I just got told that this is an illegal lot." What was the response that you got back from the the previous owner? >> Um, nothing really. I mean, basically to figure out what your solution would be.
Um, I was also told by the county that it'd be resolved in a day or two when I initially got the phone call, so I didn't really think much of it actually. So, >> okay. But the owner likely had an idea that they were doing something that wasn't okay and they just led you to
believe >> I would assume that it was okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Felner. >> Um I'm sorry, sir. I don't I don't have any questions for you. Um just a a couple of um things that that were
mentioned here earlier. First of all, I have a great deal of empathy for the um applicant. I think that's, [clears throat] you know, I don't stand in in the way of someone's American dream, right, to of home ownership and
what have you, but um you know, you can buy a motorcycle without a motorcycle license, but to ride it, you need a motorcycle license. And the person who sells it to you, that's not their job is to figure out whether you have a motorcycle license. So I don't mean to be difficult
but um in some of these things with the splits [clears throat] the prior board has been here with with a an issue when we took up accessory dwelling unit. Okay. And so you could think tiny house. We had a
debate over kitchens. You know what would be inlaw maybe detached thing and what have you. And I actually offered an amendment at that time that if you do the accessory dwelling unit, okay, you cannot then
split that property. Now, what's the what's the mechanical thing that's there that I don't know protects the county, if you will, from when you go into the clerk of the court and you re and you record a deed.
I don't I don't know that there is one and I don't know how to do that. And I think um I think that's something for this board in the future to consider how we remedy this kind of a thing with u something we'll have to we'll have to meet with the clerk. We'll have to talk
to the clerk to see how that's done. Maybe another municipality does this uh to see how that we can um prevent this kind of thing. The property appraiser isn't the one to prevent it either. Just just so we're clear. They they don't do splits, right? So the, you know, you
record a new deed and then the property appraiser sees that as recorded and then they they note the change to the property. So just so we're we're clear on that. So um this this one's this one's troubling. I don't I don't know
that that voting for this tonight cures um all of these things. So look forward to seeing what the rest of the board wants to do here. >> Okay. I have a few more questions. So, you submitted the plans to the county
um thinking what you did was legal. It went through permit review and you got a permit. >> Mhm. >> Uh how many inspections you I'm sure you had a you poured your foundation. >> Yeah, I did uh pre-plumbing,
concrete, block. Um, and in the middle of block, I was actually stopped, but I said due to safety, um, if I could finish the block and get it filled. Um, so I've had that done as well.
>> And so you had a you had a inspection of the block where they inspected your lentil, your brick, your downpours, your steel. >> Yes. >> And they passed that inspection and allowed you to >> allowed you to pour the the block. >> Correct. Yep. So you have block up with poured.
>> Yes, block is 100%. >> So what is that? Three or four times, five times you acted in reliance of the county. You felt what you was doing allowed and they approved it and allowed you to proceed. >> So it was only after the block had run up. Somebody told you that it was
illegal. Who who told you? >> Um the st the staff called me. Um I believe it was Trina. >> The county staff. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. I have some I have a lot of comments, too. So, could >> could I ask a technical question? Is um
Mr. Sure. Is it is it a board of adjustment issue versus tell tell me when when these those two things um when it's board of adjustment verse trying to cure something that already happened versus now we're halfway through the
process and we're doing a zoning change >> in in this case because it would to allow the house to continue to be built under the current zoning actually be a violation of the zoning. it couldn't be cured through a variance. The proper cure for that would be a reasonzoning.
So, you know, you can't it's there's multiple issues um with the with the current with the land use and the zoning. So, that would not be able to be cured through a variance proceeding. >> Commissioner Atinson, >> um I'm wondering, we talked a little bit
about precedent. Um, how do we keep this from setting that in this neighborhood? >> Staff has suggested um proposed a BDP which I understand Mr. Foon has agreed to in concept with the following
conditions. Uh number one, the applicant applicant agrees that this resoning request and companion future land use amendment application was a result of an unlawful lots split by the predecessor and interest and will stipulate to that fact in any future proceedings regarding
that action. That would be things like a future code enforcement proceeding should one be initiated. And two, this resoning and companion future land use amendment application are not precedential, but instead are being requested to resolve the substandard lot
that have arisen as a result of that unlawful split and under these particular circumstances that it be recognized that these actions are being granted based on the unique conditions of the subject property. So if that with that BDP that BDP would also be mapped
and we have done our bet we we've tried to tighten up our processes just for so the board uh knows that. So any future applications in the area, if they were to try to point to this uh action, if the board were to choose to approve it, um staff would see that, put that in the
report that um it that this that was a result of a unique circumstances and the board's not intended to be presidential. >> Commissioner and then Commissioner Felner. [clears throat] >> Um
this is a horrible situation. um you know and it's really difficult um [cough and clears throat] but at at the end of the day I mean we have to be responsible for what we buy
and this property already had a BDP on it and this happened and I know that we're saying that you know we're going to tighten up process processes and whatnot, but maybe, you know, we'll see if that
works. Um, this this prior landowner, he is doing this all over North Boulevard. And you got to say you working with him, you're telling me that you had no idea of his of his business practices.
>> I mean, he has never done me wrong with work. >> You've never heard through the community. How long have you lived in Mims? >> I have I mean, I live in Titusville. I've worked for the AC contractor for six years. Never had an issue with them. You haven't heard any any rumors of
>> I mean there's rumors of everyone, >> right? [laughter] But I mean it's it's pretty well known in North Bard. You got to admit that that there are some there are a lot of practices that go on that shouldn't be going on. They've been
going on for a really long time. And um it shouldn't be everybody else's fault. And I I don't mean to say this with any hate in my in my heart or anything. It's it's not everybody else's fault that you didn't do your due diligence.
>> And so people shouldn't have to pay for that. And that's just how I feel about it. >> I I think you were let down pretty badly by the people who were around you who should have been looking out for you, whether it's a real estate agent,
the title company. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Can I ask one more technical question, Mr. Chair? >> What what is the consequence to the to the neighboring uh you know to the person who did the
split when there was a BDP that said that they would would not do that which they recorded and agreed to. Right. >> That's correct. There could be a consequence. Um uh it is a code violation. As of today, we don't have a complaint, but should the board wish to
us to proceed on a code enforcement uh action, we do have the ability to do that. >> What you've got out there right now, because the person who did the split and is behind all this doesn't own the lot next to it, that's already been sold and built and owned by another. So, right
now, you have two people in the same condition as Mr. Is it F? Is that Fawn? >> As Mr. Fawn. Uh, you've got two folks with substandard lots. The other one, the house is already built. They don't need a permit. But in the future, if they want to sell it or do any improvements or pull permits, they're
going to have an issue and they could have a code uh action against them. Traditionally, code enforcement is against a property. And so, you get it into a position where if you're going to proceed uh in these cases, historically, it would have been against the innocent
purchaser from a bad actor. But I I think I know a way that we can get after the violator and get a lean that would attach to their real and personal property aside from the property at issue here. Um I would just ask for authorization from
the board to be proactive in cases of this nature. By policy, we're reactive. We respond to complaints. As Mr. Prasad said, "We we don't have a complaint on this property and even though this condition has been known from some for some time, we haven't received a a complaint that we can enforce, but uh
but if the board just don't even need a motion, just if the board by consensus said staff, we'd like you to look into these circumstances and uh in cases like this authorize you to take action going after the folks who are actually creating the problem, right? Not the end
purchasers." >> Mr. Chair. Yes. >> Um, now the state allows us to be proactive in in those things versus >> the state does. That has been a a policy of the county for some time. >> Uh, the reactive that's not a state
requirement currently. >> All right. >> We do. If we receive a complaint, the state says it can't be an anonymous complaint. And I know there are things in the legislature right now that might change that, but >> but as of right now, the board could authorize us to be proactive just
limited to circumstances like this one. >> If I if I may add one thing, Mr. Chair, um sever several amen members of the public uh talked about the Todd Lane properties. Uh it's 38 3680 30 3690. That's actually an example of another
set of properties that were unlawfully split. Unlike here, those permits were not issued and errored. Those permits were lawful at the time and they were issued. The the survey showed that a proper lot and then it was split after that. So that's a similar circumstance
of what Morris is talking about. If the board were to give us authorization, we could proceed on those cases like that. >> I would love to see that happen. >> Yeah. >> Cass one more just legal question. I'm I'm curious how what the mechanism
could be for the clerk when when a deed is recorded, right? Or do they even does the does the clerk have the ability say, "Sorry, I can't record this deed. There's there's a problem with that parcel." >> I'd have to talk to the clerk's office about that. I I seem to recall because
in a lot of municipalities, including West Melbourne, where I worked, we do have a lot split ordinance that requires review and um and you can't do illegal lots splits that don't meet the criteria under the code. I seem to recall the clerk saying before they have a statutory duty to record deeds and
they're not the gatekeeper for that, but but I could be wrong on that. it. The county doesn't have an ordinance, so I haven't addressed it recently, but uh but if we had legislative intent to pursue one or even some direction by the board to do some initial research, I'd be happy to have that conversation with
the clerk's office. >> Well, um m for a followup, Mr. Chair, I I'd be interested in seeing that in a future um commission agenda um myself because I mean what's happening here is is it's a very unfortunate thing. It's very very unfair. Um, and I think we
should take affirmative steps. This is my opinion, uh, to try to put some mechanism in there to, um, and and maybe there's another another county, um, you know, the clerk is aware of that that does that and we can we can copy off of
them. >> Sir, and Mr. Chair, if I if I may, just I'll be happy to look into that. I thought for a long time we probably should have a lots ordinance. I just want to caution that I do need to give some consideration about SB80 as we do with virtually everything right now and
make sure that um >> I think there was a bill filed today so we're we're seeing it in real time. >> I think that's it for me. Uh Mr. Chair >> I have questions still. I'm sorry. Um,
and I know this is in a staff report, but I'm gonna ask it just to to verify. For his house to be legal, what would the size of the lot need to be? >> A half an acre. >> A half an acre. >> Yes, sir.
>> And what is the size now? >> 0.54. >> You mean >> for SR >> subsequent to the resoning? >> Right. >> SR requires a half an acre. What would we allow? What the smallest lot that would What would be the minimum lot
requirement? >> Right now it's one acre. >> SR requires half an acre. >> I'm trying to think of the the land use. >> The land use one or BZ two. Res two requires two units to the acre.
>> So the smallest lot would be a half an acre. So right now the the the zoning it it meets the zoning requirements for the minimum lot size. Um the it's res one however so it needs to be one unit per acre under the land use.
>> You said it meets the zoning >> the this the suburban residential requirements according to the survey the lot is 0.54 acres. So it is above the half acre. >> Is that the is that the zoning? No. So he's legal under the zoning
>> except for the >> except for the binding development plan and under but under the future land use map he's not >> okay. So he's over a half an acre. I mean I can understand why an applicant would be confused. He meets the zoning.
He gets all these building permits. um the act and reliance of of the experts, the government. Um I I I I want to say that the presentations by the public have been phenomenal, very riveting
um and and understandable. Uh I know I'm a builder so I I can identify with the discussion but I can tell you as a builder when I submit plans I sub submit a site plan you rely on the government and when
they give you permits uh the the reviews are quite exhaustive. is not easy. And for me, it's not deciding whether this person should have right to to continue.
It's whether if he continues, will it do replicable harm to the public? And he's only building a 1600t house on a lot that's over a half acre. >> I don't think that's accurate. And
I don't see if we respect this person's rights and he relied on government that it would create it's it's not going to create irreparable harm or any harm. It's it's almost Dominicus. Now if it happened all
over the place, yes. And so I I'm in I'm inclined to agree with this. may not be popular but I I think as a government entity we have a responsibility to um to be responsible and he did his job
he acted in reliance of our our government officials and I think I think the the harm that's done is minimal and I think as a body for we making this decision is is is determine what is the level of damage and I think um
respecting his property rights his is reliance on government, the substantial amount of money that he spent, and I would imagine $100,000 is very substantial for you. I mean, um I I think I think he could even possibly
have legal rights in terms of a taking or equitable stople or acting reliance, whatever legal actions. I mean, he did not intend to do harm. He relied on our our government and and that's not why I'd support him. I mean, the county made
a mistake. It's not it's not allowing concrete plant in a residential area. It's it's a relatively small mistake and the impacts of his home. I was even tempted to ask, but I don't know if I'd ask if he'd be willing to put a driveway that had impervious p concrete, if he'd
be willing to mitigate whatever runoff he has. And he's shaking. Yes. I think that'd be a small ask, but I I'm just so you know where I stand. I'm I I'm inclined to to support the recuss because he he acted in reliance on on the government and he did his job. He
submitted permit. He called for inspections time and time and time and time again and the county allowed him to consider continue and then suddenly the rug was pulled out from under him after he he not only acted in reliance on our our actions, he acted he spent
significant sums of money based on our actions. So, I I support him and I think the impact is is is I mean, you could have a 1 acre lot and build a 4,000 5,000 ft house
and have more of an impact than building a 1600T house on a halfacre lot. So, the code would allow actions that would have more of an impact on drainage than what he's doing. So, I I think I think given the facts of this this request, I think it's it's the right thing and the fair
thing to do. That's my opinion. One of five. So, >> I would have to disagree. Um, this area is already dealing with substantial issues and the more we pack into this
area, the worse it's going to get. Um, as a buyer, you have the responsibility to do your due diligence. All of us did that. All of everybody sitting in this audience did that and it's not everyone else's fault that he didn't. I >> I think he did.
>> No, I he went to the county with a permit request. They're the ones who interpret the property. It's not his duty to memorize and understand and interpret our code. It's our duty to do that. He did his duty. He drew plans. He got to build >> relied on the government
>> and that he has a right to do that. He has a right to rely on us. But we as Americans, you talk about property rights. We as Americans have a responsibility. We have self- responsibility. >> And when we're purchasing property, we have to, you know, look into what we're
purchasing in in all aspects of what we're spending our money on. It's not right that the rest of the community should have to bear the burden of this mistake. You're [clears throat] talking about a a
a theory of caveat mour buyer beware. That is long gone. That's our kid. >> I encourage you to come up to my district and see the trauma and the and the struggle that's going on. I encourage all of you to come to my district >> and actually drive into the streets, not
just through US1, not just to the space center, not just the main roads, drive into the streets and see the people suffering. And do you think denying him of his his rights, his permit to build a home is going to fix that problem? It will not. We have to do a lot more. As a matter of fact, his home may add to the
tax base and maybe allow us to do more. >> No way. I bet the people right around here are not thinking the same. >> I'm just I'm just giving you my >> The people right around here are not going to be feeling that when their homes flood. >> Isn't the harm already done >> for flooding? >> No, because you should have to put it
back to how it was. >> The neighbors flood all the time. every time it rains and floods. >> And I'm not disagreeing with you that and I do think we need to do something to fix that. I agree with you 100%. I'm How many times do these people's homes have to flood before we do something? >> Well, you I have a lot of ideas of what
we can do. I'll bring them to the board if you don't. But I agree with you. >> I've brought many things to the board, so don't even >> We need to fix this. But I I do think >> if you think denying this this permit is going to in any way, shape or form or this request will help in the flooding,
it will not. He knew what he was doing. >> I would to entertain a motion. >> I would like to um make a motion to table this until um he has a chance to go through all of the um through the title company, through his insurance,
through all those different um avenues. Before we make a decision on this, >> do you have to ask for a uh date? >> Okay, there's a motion to table. Now, typically >> if you have questions, I wouldn't second this motion and then ask the question because under Robert's rules, you don't
you don't debate a motion to table. So, is there a second? >> Just so we're clear. >> There's no second. So, >> sir, uh >> is there a second? >> Until he's clear. >> Well, just just clear on something. Don't we have to give a date that it comes back if we table
>> table this so that you don't have to readvertise. It'll have to be for a date. Would the February meeting would that be fair? Would that give you enough time to talk to all the people that you need to talk to? >> I mean, I don't know how that works.
I've never been in this situation. I mean, how long is this going to continue? It's already been 6 months. I have trust is sitting in the dirt. >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> and I I want to be clear, too. I'm not giving him legal advice about the title insurance. Typically zoning matters are excluded. But I would think because of
the binding development plan that was recorded limiting it to one unit to this property. I think that may be an issue for him, but that's between you and your title insurer and and your own counsel. Now >> also um for the reason I didn't call the title company is I didn't have a reason
of why we were stopped. I was just told of a zoning issue. >> I mean I didn't for >> have you have you conferred with an attorney? Have you talked to legal counsel? >> I have tried, but I've I mean, I've only tried to get with two and
>> and you don't have to answer that question. I'm more curious than anything, but I think Okay, >> I I I think I think you had a second. >> Do we get Oh, I didn't hear you second. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Commissioner. >> Okay. >> Giving him time to talk to legal advice
and his title, >> but I think we had a question about the date because >> it's a good question. Thursday, February 5 at 5:00 pm in these chambers. >> Robert rules of order says we can't debate, but it doesn't say the chairman has have good hairing. So,
>> sorry. >> So, all right. There's a motion to table to time certain and the date is >> Thursday, February 5 at 5:00 p.m. in these chambers. >> Okay. Thursday, February 5. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay. I
>> opposed. Motion carries unanimous. Yes. >> So, you can sit down. This is different. Um, I've heard repeatedly that Scott Minnik
um does this repeatedly in the area. Do does staff can staff enlighten me because I've only been here a year. Is that something? Is he a repeat offender? >> There appears to be a pattern of behavior associated with his activity. >> And Dwayne White,
>> I continue. So then, as we were talking about before, I think we should we should be proactive. We should do something about that. Um, we have to pursue these people so they don't keep doing it. >> How do we do that? >> Okay. Sorry, Mr. Go ahead.
>> Um, I think I'm going to see the clerk in the next couple of days. I'm going to make a mental note to ask her about this um situation and um >> maybe uh maybe if I get that could say something at the meeting on Tuesday
>> and then >> I don't want to leave this to just the clerk. I want to I want to give staff permission to to pursue. >> I I'm I'm with you. I I think we said it tonight that we'd like to see something on a future agenda. >> I what I mean by that specifically is how um what's the mechanism? What's the
mechanical thing? What's the, you know, hey, uh, uh, syntax error here, right? You can't, you can't continue on with with recording because I think that's the issue. You can go into the clerk and you can record a deed. >> But I don't think that's Mr. Chair, may I I'm sorry, commissioners, just I think
we're talking about two different issues. I think Commissioner Felner is speaking to something to prevent lot splits in the future, and I think Commissioner Atkinson may be speaking to enforcement of existing violations. >> That's correct. >> That's exactly. >> You're right. Sorry, I didn't say it very well. >> No, you said it. You both said it
perfectly. You were just talking about different different things. >> So, what do you need from me? >> I think all we would need is authorization for staff to look into circumstances like this, of which we're aware. And uh and I will counsel staff on on what I think is a good strategy to
address those um violations that are out there without going after the in purchaser like Mr. fun, but rather going after the bad actor who >> who causes the splits and um >> do you need a motion from me on that or >> I I just need consensus direct just
direction from the board that the board's comfortable with that and and frankly any board members when I say we're not proactive, I mean just at a staff level and code enforcement commission offices historically have reported violations to us before and we'll pursue it. So if a commission office is aware of a situation like
this, >> they're absolutely welcome to bring it to our attention as well. But but I think we have enough direction right now to address this issue. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. One second. >> Commission. I just want to
>> Mr. Chair, >> if uh if we were to go forward with that code enforcement action, you would want it before the February 5th meeting. If we were to find some way to do it, do you want us to go forward before then or
do you want us to report back on February 5th? >> I think it's the board. I'd prefer not to go forward with it and report back, but >> I feel like this applicant's trying to exhaust their administrative remedies and
I think I think the applicant, Mr. Font, is a victim. And I I think if anything this this this discussion shows is this board cares. We care about the people in the neighborhood, but we care about the individual. This is one individual.
Doesn't make big campaign. We get accused of things all the time, but this is doesn't make big campaign contribution. He's building a 1600 home. And we're all torn here. We're torn. This we're torn. We're worried about the neighborhood and their input, but we're torn about the individual. that shows
that we really do care and u that we spend this much time and the staff too. I you know don't let anyone tell you that that we're not responsive that we don't care because it's just a false narrative. So So we tabled this item. I
know there's we have consensus to direct the county attorney to pursue different remedies and um we'll come back February 5th. That that is what I mean. Okay, we'll
move to the next. Oh, yes. >> Good point. Let's find out. >> That is a great point. I'm sure the intent was to table both and just one motion to table both items will suffice. >> Okay. >> Motion to table H3 and H4. >> Motion table A3 and A4. Is there a
second? Second. All in favor signify by saying >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. >> Okay. Um. >> All right. >> Where are we now? >> H5.
>> Item item H5 is >> Yes, you read. Go ahead. Alexis Raul and Rosemary Estz de Jesus request a zoning classification change from BU1 with a BDP to BU1 with removal
of a BDP under application 25Z00003 located in district 1. >> Okay, we have one card, Ed [snorts] Scarosce. Scarosce >> and Ed, we were trying to help you. We brought you up ahead of everyone else,
but unfortunately you weren't here. So, sorry you had to wait through all that. >> No worries. >> Are you the applicant? >> No, I'm the land owner, adjacent land owner. >> Oh, so is the applicant here? >> Mr. Recognized that the applicant is here.
>> Can we hear without the applicant here? >> You can. The applicant didn't indicate that they wouldn't be here or ask us to table it or continue it. So, it's the board's discretion, but um absolutely you could proceed. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening,
commissioners. My name is Ed Scarosce, S K A R O SI. I live at 3735 Arancha Road, Mims, Florida. My family and I have lived and owned the property since October of 1999.
Our [clears throat] property lies directly south and east of the applicant's property. The predominant zoning classification on a rancher road east of US1 is AU with single family residents. I'm here tonight to speak in
strong opposition to removing the binding existing binding development plan. This agreement was put in place for a reason. It protects the surrounding community. It protects the nearby property owners and ensures that any development occurs responsibly and
safely. Removing it would not simply clean up old conditions. It would eliminate the very safeguards that were negotiated and relied upon when the land use changes were approved. The original binding development plans
include several critical predict protections, many of which affect my family directly as owners of the adjoining property. First, the limitation on the type of use originally restricted to a convenience store was
included included to ensure that neighboring residential properties would not be exposed to heavy commercial or high impact activities. If that restriction is removed, the property could host any type of BU1 use, including including operations far more
intense than what was contemplated or promised at the time. Second, all of the properties on East Ranchia contain plottable wells that is extremely vulnerable to contamination. Several uses permitted under the BU1
involve petroleum based products, solvents, and chemicals. Without a binding agreement requiring annual wellwater testing, my family and neighbors could face serious health risks and expensive remediation. Removing the binding development plan
provides no benefit to the neighboring community, but creates very real risk that falls squarely on us, not the applicant. If the applicant wishes to expand their commercial options, that discussion should include updated protections, not
the eliminations of the only ones currently in place. Excuse [clears throat] me. I'm not here to oppose reasonable business activity. I'm here to ask the county commission to honor the commitments that were made when this land was approved for commercial use and ensure that my family
and neighbors health, property, and water supply are not placed in jeopardy. At a public hearing held by the planning and zoning board on November 17th, 2025, the board recommended denial of the
request to remove the binding development plan by a vote of 12 to1. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to deny their request to remove the binding development plan. Thank you for your time and consideration and if you all have any
questions I'd be more than happy to answer. >> Okay. Do I have any question? Mr. >> Chair, I have a question. >> Yes. >> This is directed at staff. Have the people that wish this resoning have already been sanctioned for wrongdoing or something. Can you explain to the
board what that was? >> The trailers. There is there's a history of code enforcement on the property for uh uses that violated the BDP such as uh tire sales, car sales, things of that nature, running multiple businesses out of that
uh property. >> And the same owner had a different zoning violation on a nearby property on US one. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Any more questions? A
motion? >> I have a motion. >> Okay. >> If we're done with discussion. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion to deny this request. >> I'll second. >> There's a motion. Second by Commissioner Goodson. >> Atkins.
>> Felner. >> Like I said, [laughter] >> we both said at the same time difference. >> My wife's telling me I need hearing aids. Like I just don't listen. >> Yeah. in favor. >> Second by Commissioner Felner. >> All right. Any discussion? Seeing no
discussion on favor, say yay. I >> opposed. >> Cares unanimously. The application is denied. Okay. We go to the next item H6. Item H6 is Thomas Dawn requests a zoning
classification change from RR1 to AU under application 25Z 000024 located in district 1. >> Okay, you're recognized. >> Hi. Um, I live at 3131 LL Road in Mims
and uh my wife and I are wanting to open a commercial agricultural uh produce business to sell um fresh organic produce to the public. Um we bought an acre of land next to our
current land to do that and we combined them to make the land larger. Um and then asking to reszone to AU to do the do the business. >> Okay, we have no cards in opposition. Any questions? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay, motion. Uh who made Felner made
the motion? >> Commissioner Delaney. Second it. Uh any discussion? All those in favor say yay. >> Nay. >> Opposed. Motion goes unanimous. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Good luck. >> Good job. Item H7, Dick Holdings LLC, being
represented by Vahi Tamari, requests a CUP, conditional use permit for a private heliport in AU zoning classification under application 25Z0033 located in district 2. >> Move for approval, chair.
>> Okay. >> Second. >> There's a motion and second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying yay. Nay. Opposed? Nay. Uh, motion carries unanimously. >> Okay. >> Sorry to wait. >> Sorry I had to wait.
>> Item H8, Leslie Bishop requested zoning classification change from RU-1-7 to SR under application 25Z0034 located in district 3. >> Okay. Leslie Bishop is here. Yes.
Yes. Come on up. Okay. >> Well, let's see. We may have the votes here. Is any Is there a motion on this item? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. Second by >> Delaney. Um, all in favor say yay. >> Yay.
>> Oppos. Carries unanimous. >> All right. Thank you. >> That's good. >> Unless you want to say something. >> No. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. Item H9, Paul and Cheryl Pearson, being represented by Steve Totty, requested
zoning classification change from RU-1-9 to RU-2-6 under application 25Z0035 located in district 4. >> So, we have Steve Totty here and we also have Paul. >> Paul's also here
right here. Paul's right there. Okay, good. We got you in com. Okay. >> My name is Steve Totty, 339 Nautica Court, Indian Harbor. So, what we have here is a uh about a 0.9 acre lot and it is uh off of US1 near Post Road uh two
lots away from Marker 99 if we're familiar with that. >> So, Mr. Pearson purchased this property eight, nine months ago, something like that. And uh the concept is it it has a single family house on it and it also
has a detached garage. It's a goodiz detached garage. We thought let's uh let's put some apartments in there. So that was the idea. So we went working with staff on the concept, had them uh review all the requirements, setbacks, breezeway issues, and we're past that.
So um the next step is to come to you guys and see if that'd be okay to do that. >> Okay, great. Appreciate that. That's all the cards that we have. >> I have I have one. This is my This is my district. Um so the the apartments in
the house, the the um owner of the property is going to going to live there in the in the house. >> No, I I'm building a house next door. >> Okay. So, you're going to be next door. >> Okay. All right. I don't have anything beyond that. I'll make a motion to approve then. >> Second.
>> Motion uh to approve and a second. Um, any discussion? Seeing no discussion, those in favor signify by saying yay. >> Opposed. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you very much. Appreciate that >> very much. Appreciate it. >> Item H10, Sandra Walsh and Terry Canada
being represented by Monica Pritchard request a zoning classification change from AU to RR1 under application 25Z 00036 located in district 1. Okay, we have one card from Monica
Pritchard. >> That's me. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Monica Pritchard, 96 Willard Street, Sweet 302, Cocoa, Florida, 32922. I'm here on behalf of Miss Walsh and Miss Hannada. Um, they have a property
in Mims. It's two lots side by side that are basically family property. and they inherited this lot miss from her mother that passed. Um, Miss Walsh and her husband live next door. They would like
to request a reszoning from AU to RR1 in order to potentially do a flag lot so they can split the parcel so Miss Kennata can own the front half, Miss Walsh can own the back half. Miss Walsh's eventual goal is that maybe her children will take care of her and they
may build on the back porcel. Obviously, there's a septic moratorum. She's in no rush. She doesn't care if she can never build on it and she just has to keep a horse there or something like she's in no rush to do anything. But because it
was inherited together, they would like to separate the two, give the sister the house on the front end, and have Miss Walsh keep the back end. >> Okay. Uh, any discussion, any questions?
Is there a motion? I um I I guess my worry is is I I the idea of splitting lots in this area is concerning. Um so I I can't support this right now,
especially since you guys aren't intending like have a need to build at the moment. >> No, I think what they really the need is to separate the interest. While they are sisters, they obviously have different children, different heirs, different things like that. So, while they both inherited the property together, I think
they both want to keep it as family property since it's it's a unique situation. And I understand your concerns and I understand this is not popular in your district right now. However, while you're considering the larger concerns of the community, there's also the individual needs of the
property owner. These people, the lots are conforming. It's going to be over an acre on each. And two, she doesn't have any immediately plans for any of this. It's just that legally in order to separate it, make it fair for the two of them, she'd like to keep the vacant land
portion. Um, which right now her horses will just graze along with, you know, her property that's right next door and her sister will get to keep the house. So, I understand that this is not a popular thing to do in your district right now. I hear all the flooding
concerns, things like that, and I completely get it. But in this individual situation, she's not adding to your flooding concern. She's not adding to anything like that. And she has no immediate plans to build. But in order for her heir, should something happen to her and her husband be able to
inherit that piece of land without their cousins and complicating things further, this is what would be necessary as a reszone in order to split it. Would you guys be willing to do a BDP um and say no no no building
>> ever? >> Well, I mean a binding development plan eventually could be changed with the direction of the board. But >> so the goal would be if that her kids could eventually one day when the time is right, maybe when some of these
flooding issues are resolved, maybe when any of those things happen, the septic moratorium is lifted that they could potentially build there one day. So I would have to discuss that with my client um because that was not something that she anticipated.
>> Um could I ask a question? >> Yes, go ahead, >> Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir. Mhm. >> Um, is there a way to do that in a um, I don't know, BDP or whatever that says that that there won't be a building for three years as a as a means to to
split it. Is that >> Well, Morris, are there any other options for this family? I'm I'm hesitant to give advice that borders on legal advice. I um given if the ultimate goal is to build on the
property that this would seem to be the >> that's the option. >> So I mean and that's what I'm saying is listen they are part of the Mims community. They have you know livestock. They have all of those things. You know they
understand your concerns. They're over here nodding with their neighbors, you know, doing all the things. They get it. >> But while you're considering all of that, this is their individual property. It's between two family parcels. And the lots are appropriately sized. There's a
septic moratorium. I don't know how long it's going to continue. It sounds like it's going to be a long time based on the testimony that I've heard tonight. They're not intending on doing anything anytime soon. And when they do, they will go through all the proper channels again, retain counsel again, and you
will have the opportunity again to hear this. Um, because they're going to need permits, and they're going to need all of those things. >> Question. Um, >> yeah. >> Are you an attorney? Are you her legal rep? Okay. All right. >> Is this part of any sort of estate planning? Is that what they're trying to plan for the future?
>> Yes, they're trying to plan for the future. Currently, her and her sister own it. They weren't sure what they wanted to do with it, but in order for them to separate out, you know, her sister wants to keep the front half. Her sister's heirs will be able to inherit the front half. She'll get to keep the
back half. >> And the and the size of the individual lots once they're >> they will be over an acre. Okay. >> The parcel is, sorry, I should have this memorized. 2.94. >> What's the future land use for this?
>> Res one. was just one acre to build, right? >> Yeah. >> I would just like to point out that PNZ actually recommended approval of this 11 to2 after some pretty decent discussion. looks like.
>> I think that I understand exactly what your concern is, but I think in this individual case due to the uniqueness of this, the fact that they live next door, um I would say that this ameliates some of
those concerns. >> Can I ask a technical question? Are they are they going to be essentially uh equal almost one and a half acre lots? Is that >> they're almost equal? Yeah, I think on the application the surveys that we
submitted did show like what was intended eventually. Is there is is uh there a way commissioner Delaney, you know, for you to be comfortable that um they they can only have one home per the one
and a half acre lot um for the two lots for the future. Is that is there is there a way to get there? >> I'm pretty sure that that's already >> I I mean >> you can only have one. >> It's one acre to build, right? >> Yeah. And then I think you can have maybe an accessory building which would
be a barn >> which may be of interest to them given >> but I mean that's not the intention right now. She also isn't sure that her children are ever going to move to take care of her. So I mean I would say if you wanted to do a BDP with probably
three years would that be something? >> Yeah, that would be fine with them because they don't have any immediate plans for this but for estate planning purposes they'd like to make it clean. So, not a building permit for three years. Is that >> No building permit for three years would
be fine with them. There's no immediate plan to build on this, but there is, you know, they're both older. They would like to, they're getting their affairs in order, things like that. >> Did the staff have something? >> I think I saw your hand raised. >> Yeah. And I I'm I'm trying to think this
through because the the the there's the proposed lot split is attached to the item on the agenda, but that's for conceptual purposes at this point. >> Correct. >> So we um I'm trying to I'm trying to think about how to map the BDP in the future. The the actual description of
the land because we wouldn't or would it be across the whole property? Um no. So the prop the BDP could say uh the house can it'll be on the entire property with no more than two units across the entire parcel or sorry no more than one unit across the entire
parcel for the next three years. Subsequent to that there can be two units on the the parent parcel. >> Okay? Because we are going to apply for a flag lot after this because that's the whole point is to change the zoning to apply for a flag lot. this doesn't impede that then
>> it wouldn't we we just need to record the BDP along with the zoning action because the zoning is going to paint the whole property not not just the flag lot because that lot hasn't been created yet that's going to tail >> so if you're going to do it before we we have to bring the BDP back under the
code within >> 120 days >> 120 days so if you could >> apply for that right away >> that before >> then we could have that the BDP you come back just applying to the southern lot. Yeah.
>> And just for clarification regarding a barn on the vacant property, Yes. So, some clarification, two two points. We can't do the flag law application until the resoning is approved and the
flag and the properties are recorded in that configuration. And number two, you mentioned about having a barn on the property. You can't have a barn without primary structure. >> Well, they were saying that there can't be more than two structures. So, I
understand that you can't have the barn with it's an accessory structure. I understand that. >> Right. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. >> No, that's about no more than one primary residence on the entire property, correct? >> For three years and I think we're going to have to put the BDP on the entire
property with that limitation because I think you're right. It's sort of a standoff. I was thinking that um you could do the split and then we record the BDP, but you're not going to be permitted to do that until the zoning is in place. Zoning won't go into place until the BDP is recorded. So, it's a
circle. So, we can paint the BDP over the whole property. It's going to allow what they already have. It's not going to prevent what they already have or an accessory structure on the um other lot or anything like that. >> There's no current plans that I'm aware
of to build an accessory structure on the other lot. So, there's no >> You couldn't do it on the new lot without a primary dwelling. Correct. Correct. Um >> Yeah. So, if you're comfortable with binding development and if you have authorization to represent the entire
property, but we're going to have to put the binding development plan in place over the the entire property, not just the new flag lot. >> There will be no changes for three years. That's fine. Okay. >> If I could chair. >> Yes. Um,
[clears throat] I just want to um explain my vote just because um I I know that you're part of the community and um I hope you hear my heart in this because this situation is really um very unique. It's not a typical like I know you're not trying to
flip it to sell to a random person. Um, but for me, I I made a commitment to people to not um increase density in this area and um but I'm just one of five. So, I won't be
able to vote for this today. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve this with the BDP as discussed over the whole property with the no build for
three years. Am I missing anything? >> No, I think we understand that. And the BDP will come back to the board with the final terms. >> Okay, >> I'll second. >> Motion by Atinson, second by Felner. Any discussion?
All those in All those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay. >> I yay. >> All those opposed? Nay. Um 41. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner votes against. Thank you.
>> Item H11 is J. Stany and Grant Stany request a zoning classification change from GU1 uh excuse me GU to AU under application 25Z 000038 located in district 2B.
>> We have a card. >> We have one card. John Buck. >> No, this is for public comment. >> Public Oh, >> public comment. Okay, we have no cards. If the applicant's not here, >> does that mean you need a motion to deny
since we opened it? >> You need to act on it. You need to either approve table to a future meeting or deny. >> Can I look at this for just one second? I just want to remind myself of what this is. >> Okay. meeting if they show up.
>> Second >> motion to table. We need a date certain. >> February 5th. >> February 5th. Motion to table. February 5th. >> Second. >> I already second it. >> Second by Atinson. All those in favor say yay. >> I
>> or I. Opposed. Carries unanimous. Thank you. >> Item H12 is Linda Munz and Aaron Munz Jr. requests a zoning classification change from GU to AU under application 25Z0040
located in district 1. >> I'd like to uh make a motion to approve. >> There's a motion to approve and second. We need a card though >> unless she doesn't speak. >> And if you don't speak, we will need No, if you don't speak. Okay. >> So, don't worry. All right. So, all
those in favor say yay. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries unanimous. Item passed. Okay, I think that's it, right? We have one public appearance by John Buck. >> Yes, my name is John Buck. I don't want
to try and beat a dead horse, but uh back to HR3 and Mr. Dominic and um Dwayne White. I had the pleasure of them building my house 10 years ago
with life threats threatening my life. Bought 20 some acres from him. Uh it was it was a nightmare. So HR3 that Oh, I'm sorry. He honestly knew what he was getting into. If if you're sleeping with them,
you're you know what you're doing. Uh, six years ago, my father had sold a piece of property on Rancher Road, one it was.3 acres right next to 95 bridge. Sold to a buddy of mine out of Kentucky.
All he wanted to do is come down and put a camper on it. Went to the county after the deal was done. County says, "You can't even put a fireplace on it." Not even third, my father returned the money to him.
Not even 30 days later, Beach and Scott May are building a house on it. Now, I want to know how this works because it seems like all these mistakes are going one direction for the last 10
years, Scott Minnik, and Dwayne White. So, I think yes, you you need an investigation in what's going on in this county. I went to sell a piece of my property that beach already had sold. Went to the county and said, "You know,
you got to mitigate it." I go to the county. County says it. It was It was a buildable lot, which I'm glad they told me not to cuz I wouldn't want nobody to move next to me. I'm in District One. I want to stay in District One. I didn't move to the city.
I run a nonprofit refu refuge uh rescue. I mean, sorry I'm nervous, but I run. Plus, I'm aggravated. And Scott Minnick is still up to his old games. And like I said, something's got to happen. Either you're going to
investigate it or I'm going to take my own time and investigate it. Somebody has property appraisers is getting paid. Somebody's getting paid in this county by Scott Minnik and Dwayne White. And if you look where my property is and see what it was valued
at, $62,000 a acre for flood land. He didn't buy it for that. But somebody at property appraisers put it at that. >> I'm going to object to that, Mr.
>> Mr. Chair. I That's not true. Okay. I'm I'm going to I worked at the property appraiser. >> Well, I'm telling you what's true right now. >> I But nobody's being paid at the property appraiser. I'm saying I work there. saying something's going on. But the favoritism is always going one direction, >> sir. I never saw that in the six and a
half years I worked there. I just I just want you to >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'm done speaking, but I I said my piece. >> Okay. I just >> Thank you. >> Well, I will from January, no, February, I will have paperwork from the gentleman that had to return the property.
>> Okay. But since that's spread across the minutes, I just want that to be clear that didn't happen. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um I think that's our agenda. We have reports >> start with uh
pull the agenda here. >> No report, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Um yeah, district one report. >> Nope. District. >> Okay. Um, well, [laughter] [sighs]
I'm just as aggravated as you are, Commissioner Goodson. >> Let's just have a report. Let's >> The thing We won't hear you. I'm >> speaking >> I >> I just have to um correct some things that were stated at the last meeting that we were at. Um
there was a a person that came up and said a lot of things about myself, my office, that we didn't help them, so on and so forth. Um and that's just not true. I looked back in my records. My staff actually did a um meal train for
the family in that house. Um brought them all sorts of new stuff through my staff's church. Um, and so I just wanted to put that on the record since we were disparaged. And um, you know, that person doesn't even live in my district.
She lives in Commissioner Goodson's district. And, um, so I just want to make sure that that's out there and clear. Um, the feedback I'm getting from my
constituents is people are extremely frustrated. Um, they're frustrated that their commissioner is not allowed to represent them, which you guys heard tonight many times. Um,
I'm trying to figure out how as a board we are going to continue to move forward. Um, because I don't know how we keep doing this. This has been a year of constant just we've gotten nothing done. And at the
the last board the last board when when they were talking about infrastructure, I was in public comment speaking down there and commissioner the commissioner before me said the next board can deal with it
about infrastructure and here we are a year later and it's not being dealt with and the reasons in my community keep happening. The flooding in my community keeps happening
and I'm just trying to figure out what what do we have to do here to get some fair representation in district one. >> Okay, that's your report. Okay, Commissioner Goodson, do you have a report?
>> I hope everybody sees this. Commissioner actions, you have a report. >> No report, sir. >> Commissioner Felner, report. I have no report, but I I haven't forgotten. County administrator or the county attorney is um is there a report from the county
manager? >> No report, sir. >> County attorney. >> I have no report, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Meetings adjourned. Thank you. >> Thank you. The opinions expressed by any [music] 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 [music] Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. [music] 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 [music] or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period. >> [music] [music] >> Nic. [music] [music] Hey
>> [music]