Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi judicial body when it hears requests. for reasonzoning 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. Good evening and welcome to the planning
and zoning meeting for the board of county commissioners. We're going to start this evening with a moment of silence. Thank you for that. Um, we have a quorum. I'll call the meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of >> allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stand [Music] indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, commissioners,
we do not have minutes to approve tonight. We don't have any resolutions and I don't think we have a consent agenda. I don't think we have any G portion of the cards, right? So, we're going to go right ahead. We're going to go to H4. I think we've got several
items that uh we don't have cards for, so we can go through pretty quick and then we'll come back to the main events. So, on H4, good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh H4 is for the Housing Authority of Bvard County represented by Michael Bean requesting a
CUP for mitigating a non-conforming use in RU2-30 zoning classification under application 25Z0022 located in district 5. >> Okay, commissioners, I do have um the
engineer of record if we have questions. So first, are there any questions questions on the item? We don't have any cards beyond the engineer. Any discussion? Any discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item? >> So move, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Altman. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Fner? >> Yes. We'll show that passes 40. Thank you for that. Commissioners, we'll go to
H5. Under H5, Lawrence Crumbley is requesting a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-13 under application 25Z 00023 located in district 2. Okay, commissioners, are there are there
questions? I do have the applicant here. Are the questions for the applicant? No. Um I only have the card for the applicant in discussion. Is there any discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item on H5? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Atinson. I
have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner. >> Yes. We'll show that one passes 40. Thank you. Commissioners will go on to H6. Under H6, Richard Brandon is
requesting a change of zoning classification classification from GU to AU under application 25Z 00030 located in district 1. Okay, questions? Are there questions?
No, we don't have any cards on this one. We're in discussion. Is there any discussion on the item? >> I love making more AG land and I'd like to make a motion to approve. >> Hold on one second. That's not an H6 card, is it? It is not. Okay. All right. Have a motion by Commissioner Delaney.
Is there a second on H6? >> Second. >> We have a second by Commissioner Altman. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner? >> Yes. We'll show that one passes 40. Thank you, Commissioners. on H7.
>> John Mloud requests a change of zoning classification from GU to SR under application 25Z 000031 located in district 5. >> Uh we do have the applicant here if we need commissioner uh commissioners. Are
there questions? Are there questions? Okay, I only have a card for the applicant. Is there any discussion on the item? >> Is there a motion? >> I move approval. >> Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Alman. Have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney?
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Altman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner? >> Yes. We'll show that one passes 40. Thank you for that. Commissioners, um, do we want to do the signed ordinance or I guess we can come back to that. So, Kim, I told you I'd split it with you.
So, let's um let's do that. We'll go back to um let's go back to H1 then. Under H1 is a request for the adoption of a petition to establish the Santara Lakes Community Development District. Uh
developer is Gen Florida 48 LLC located in district 5. >> All right. Are there questions? Sorry, commissioners. Are there are there questions?
No, >> I have a question. >> Um, Kim, are you on this one? >> Tell tell us your name, ma'am. I'm sorry. I have a few cards that I think are associated with it. >> Yes, sir. My name is Tucker Mackey. Okay.
>> I'm with QTAC Rock and represent the >> I wouldn't guess you were a Tucker. >> Oh, well, I get that a lot. >> All right. Very good. >> Okay. questions for the applicant. Commissioner Atkinson. >> Yes. I don't know if this is appropriate place for this question, but when I was
going over this with staff, I'm learning obviously and we're talking about spine roads. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um and I know that's not exactly what we're talking about here in this, but um the spine roads, is that something that the county may be asked at some point to
to take care of to be our responsibility in future? >> Great question. And so to the extent familiarizing with uh the commissioners with community development districts, what we're here asking the commission for today is the establishment of a community development district for the
provision of public infrastructure including roadways within the district boundaries that would include both the internal roadways and the spine roadways themselves. Um this is not a zoning approval and it's not um a land use approval. I think there was a binding
development plan that provided for the county to own, operate and maintain those spine roads uh once they were developed and the district may be the financing tool that delivers that infrastructure. However, if that's a continuing conversation between the petitioner and the county, that's
something that the district as a local government could own, operate, and maintain as well. >> So, we will be talking about that with >> I I think it could be talked about further. Um representatives of the petitioner are here today. Um, but this does not bind the county to any one determination here today by approval of
the district. >> Absolutely. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Let me let me ask a question. Is that something we want stipulated tonight for for us going forward? >> It is certain certainly something the board can consider uh making clear. part
of its motion that the as she said that the the exhibits indicating that the county does have responsibility to maintain its pine roads are not binding going forward and are subject to future discussions and negotiations >> and the petitioner is fine with that. Absolutely.
>> I think I'm thinking I would feel more comfortable with that myself. Okay. Um I didn't have any other cards except for um the folks working on the project. Any other questions for applicant? Okay. Um, is there any discussion on the item?
Commissioner Alman, sorry. >> Yeah, I've met with the staff and I have no problem with the CDD to help provide the infrastructure, but we would like to put some language in the CDD that would just make things more clear. Love to
have the staff kind of read that into the record and fold that into my motion. It does not address the spine road, but if you felt that the spine road should be included in that, we could probably move that in. >> And if I could read it, I I do think that the the potential language would
include discussion on the spine. I'll read it. Yep. >> Okay. So the a potential motion would be to find that the petition meets all statutory requirements for the establishment of a CDD and to adopt the ordinance establishing this Ontario Lake CDD with the specific understanding that
any language contained in the petition which designates ownership or maintenance responsibilities are non-binding and shall not be used as a basis to argue that the board has consented to any obligations to construct or maintain any infrastructure identified in the petition including
including but not limited to roadways. >> So that would include the SP. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Well, I'll make that a motion and >> cl all of that. Okay. Have a motion by Commissioner Alman with the language that Billy read for us. Have a second by
Commissioner Atinson. We'll call the role on H1. >> Commissioner Delaney. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman. >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner. >> Yes. We'll show that passes 4. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. >> All right. We will go on to H2.
>> Mr. Chairman, H2 and H3 are companion applications. I'll read them together, though we'll require separate motions. H2 City Point uh Landfall LLC represented by David Bassford and Kimberena requests a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment under
application 24S.11 to change the future land designation from res 1 res 2 res 4 and NC 2C and res 4 under application 24 SS 00009
in district 1 and H3 is cityoint Landfall LLC represented by Mr. Rosena request a change in zoning classification from EU and RP with an existing BDP to PUD with the removal of existing BDP under application 24 PUD
00003 located in district 1. >> Kim, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Uh Kim Rosena, Lacy Rosena here on behalf of City Point Landing who is the owner of the property. Um just
for clarification, is Mr. Goodson >> to pull the mic closer to you. Kim, I'm sorry. >> Is Mr. Goodson here online or is he not here? Okay. Um we have been here before. We went to planning and zoning twice. Uh you're all very familiar with this area I believe
and you've had many many emails and probably meetings with uh members of the community. Uh this is a slight change in density uh to an area that was binding development plan was put on it
in 2008. And this is an increase in future land use, but it's really only a tiny increase in density from 19 units to 13 units. So while the flu is changing to a different density, the map I gave you in
the first document shows you that res one doesn't really make sense where it is. And I suggest to you that that was done back in 2008 because of the economy at the time. That was uh a difficult time. The
bankruptcy of Lurman Brothers, the crash of 2008. It happened in September of 2008. And I suspect the developer took whatever it could get back then because they were trying for more and they took less. Uh this is a troubled property.
It's uh been through foreclosure a couple times. certificate of titles were issued and it hasn't been developed because the zoning for it is not consistent with what's in the area or what's needed to develop. This is an interesting piece of property. It's uh goes from a higher elevation to a lower
elevation and the neighbors have concerns about that because Indian River Drive has flooded. I drove it this weekend. There was still some flooding last weekend from the weekend before's rain. Uh but again, that road is a maintenance road by the uh county. It's
not maintained by the developers, the owners, or anything else. If there are improvements or right-of-way dedication that has to be done, that will be done during the platting time period. But this is a troubled property. It's 17 years of non-development.
I do want to address the Sudterman's. Um, they have been the most vocal. They do live nearby. And when I say that we thought we'd addressed everyone's concerns, we meant about the zoning, the PDP. We know they've had concerns about the flu, but what they don't recognize
is that flu is limited by the PDP. The PDP is binding both the narrative and the document before you. And when I say that, we have tried to meet all of their requirements at both community meetings. The first community meeting, they were
dead, set against town homes. The first uh large page I gave you that um that was the first PDP. That's the single one that had the town homes. that had two buildings of RV storage. We have come way down from that uh development
proposal. Um and I say by way down uh we have no town homes. We have no access on Parkchester. We have no access on Indian River Drive. We have a walkway for the community to go to the dock which is able to be built on the other side of
Indian River Drive. uh all of that was changed based upon community input. So that's what I mean when we thought we had satisfied the neighbors. Everything I've read is they're con concerned about the future land use. The future land use is already
four units the acre on four acres of the property on Indian River Drive where it doesn't belong. We could move that to to to flume to res 2, but it takes a legal description. This was the most convenient way to do it. also to transfer the density that we should be
able to have on the wetlands to the center area. And what we're putting in that center area and with that uh the four acres of res four already there is two units the acre which is what the uh
Parkchester to the north already has. So this is consistent. It's made consistent by the PDP, the PUD zoning. Uh, also I do want to put into the record, REZ 4 is not high density. It's never been considered high density by
anyone in this county or or anyone in land development. In fact, if you look at your future land use code, um you start with res 30 and then you go all the way down to um you know res 10, which is a transition, res six, again
transition between higher and lower intensity uses. Res 4 an additional step down in density um from the more urbanized. So it's not a high density. It's a misconception. I do also want to explain that the PUD
can't just be changed willy-nilly. Uh I know there's been some comments that a BDP can be changed. The PUD zoning starts with the PDP and you get a tentative zoning. If a final development plan is not approved in three years, the resoning the zoning reverts back and
that is in uh the land development code starting at section 621448. So if there's no final development plan, the PUD zoning is terminated. And yes, that does raise the issue with the res 4, but the res 4 of the wetlands is never going to be able to be developed,
and they will have to come back to do anything else for zoning. As mentioned with the PDP, uh there's a preliminary development plan. There's this 10-page document that's binding on this property that tells you exactly what they're going to do and when they're going to do it. The large set of
documents I provided to you that is the entire PUD drawing that explains what the zoning is going to be. The one waiver request which is on the tracks and open space exhibit. There is a waiver information. A waiver from the
undisturbed 15t buffer shall apply to the project and back belt should be landscaped to provide a vegetative buffer and shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width. That's because of this this uh change in elevation from US1 to Indian River Drive. So that's why that waiver
is being requested. There will still be a 15oot vegetative buffer. It just may not to be in its natural state because of what they're going to have to do to the property to account for storm water, to account for the building pads um and to maintain that wetland. So this does show you the changes that were made. You
can see um on that tract and open space exhibit, they've cut the commercial use in half. So, there's now only one RV storage. They've gotten rid of the town homes. They have uh made the amenities through
some of these storm water tracks and some of that open space. The staff report still says we're asking for a waiver from open space. We're not. Um the boardwalk is going to be able to be the bike path is part of the open space where there is no storm water ponds. So
we do not need that. So what we're seeking is 23 homes on 10.94 acres. Currently there's a res one of 6.44 acres. There's a res 2 of47 acres and a
resz 4 of 4.2 acres. So to make that consistent we went to res 4. Again, the intent is not to put 54 units on here. The intent is to do exactly what the PDP says. Currently, the EU zoning is inconsistent with the res one and the res Well, I
guess it can be res four. The administrative policies um and the staff report says that this is consistent with the character of the area. What is proposed, the size of the lots next to Parkchester are nearly identical. And the staff report does indeed say it is consistent.
The peed is to encourage planned residential range uh range of residential types as well as industrial commercial institutional uses. So this is a commercial on US1 transitioning to single family homes. There are no concurrency issues in
traffic or schools with the PDP. The lot sizes are compatible. The proposed uses are compatible. Proposed common open space is compatible. And the staff report does indeed support both the future land use and the change
in zoning to P to uh PUD. Uh again to repeat that BDP is only for the seven acres in the middle of the property. It's not over the entire property as many people seem to believe. Bruce Moya, the engineer of record, has spoken to public works and there are
some concessions that um have been made regarding dedication of rideaway and other conditions that public works has asked and Bruce will discuss that. Uh in conclusion, we request that you uh change the future lane use as requested and approve the PDP with the one waiver.
This is not a dramatic increase. It's going from uh 19 potential units to 23 units and we've reduced the commercial so that's also reducing the intensity of the development currently in the residential four but for the wetlands we could have 16 homes there so again this is not an
increase a dramatic increase this does provide consistency with the PDP you all know exactly what is planned um and also if there's other conditions that's the time to do it right now is at the the PDP stage so with that I would uh Ask
Mr. Moya to come up. >> Good evening, uh, county commissioners. Uh, Bruce Bol with MBB engineering, engineer director for the project. Um, we did have a conversation with public works. We've had several conversations with staff, uh, mostly because of drainage. We understand drainage is a
huge concern of this area. So, we would like to uh offer uh kind of a way to may maybe make a difference, make it better. Um because if we don't do anything, then nothing really changes. And if you're familiar with that roadway, it it's it's it's low. It it's only um you only have
rights to maintain it based on a maintenance map that I don't think's been recorded yet. So, we would like to go ahead and provide property uh to allow you guys to maintain it and do any future road projects that you might have in the works, which I think might be happening since I understand there's a survey that's been done of that roadway
from 528 all the way up to where it turns into US1. Um so one thing we can do that we will do is we will not only just meet the uh the will reduce the discharge rate of the of the storm of the design storm, we'll also reduce the
volume that's that's discharged uh off the property into the outfall. So um beyond that would be beyond your code as well as the St. John's Water Management District code to ensure that no more water goes to that roadway than goes there. Now, we would reduce that and
we'll reduce it as much as we possibly can. Um, another thing we will do, I know there was concern about groundwater. We will do a groundwater modeling analysis to make sure that we we address any groundwater issues that might be contributing to that runoff. Um, if we
can dedicate uh up to 50 foot of rightway to the county to give you a lot of room to do any kind of drainage improvements that might need to happen in the future. Um so I think between all that we can definitely make a difference
and make it better make it better than it is now. So so having an improvement of what we are seeing now um even though you know we will be developing it but the way it drains now it's it's a it's a it's a really high gradient from US1
down to Indian River Drive. It's uncontrolled right now. the w the ra the romp just goes straight through there, flushes through that wetland, goes right over the road. If we can control that, we can slow down the rate, we can reduce the volume and make that the drainage in that area better than it
is now. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yep. And well, one other thing we did do because we were very intentional when we did this PUB design is the lots that abut Parkchester to the north are all the same size lots as their lots and the smaller lots are on the other side of
the road. So, I just did want to add that in. Thank you. >> Okay, let's go to questions first. We do have some cards, but we're we're going to do questions. Commissioner Delaney, >> I just wanted to clarify um for the new plan that you guys have, is it
Are there going to be swailes behind the houses to the north or were you guys filling that in? I feel like when we met you guys had talked about possibly swailes but >> yes ma'am. So that was one of the reasons we're asking for the waiver of the 15oot buffer because the way the code is written you're not supposed to
touch it. >> But those houses because they were built so long ago the houses are built high in the middle and they just drain away from it. So there's actually runoff coming onto our property. So, we don't want to block them. >> We want to make sure we convey that water >> down to down to the storm water to the
river like it. Yeah. Like it ends up now, but instead of going into our system, it'll just bypass. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do you have other questions for the applicant? Ready to go to the cards? >> I have a question. >> Okay.
>> So, um I have questions about the buffer, the 15oot buffer. I am not a fan of pulling out stuff that's been there forever. Right. So, are we talking about pulling out, you know, invasive species? Are you talking about ripping out everything? And if you
are, what are you going to put back? >> That's that's a good question. Um, it really is going to depend on what we need to do to make the drainage work because the last thing we want to do is is block the neighbor's drainage. So even though it is coming on our property, we want to build a system that
will handle it and not back it up. So if we have to clear it and replant it, we can definitely do that. Um if we can limitly, you know, clear it just very limited, then that's what we'll do. Um but we have to because you know, obviously we have to fill our lots. So
we're going to fill our lots. they got their lots filled and there's going to be a little spot in the middle and we got to make sure that that water flows because I mean there's a lot of subdivisions where you have subdivisions budding at subdivisions and if you don't get the water out from in between the two subdivisions then you get a lot of complaints. So we want to make sure that
we handle that and the only way we can is to make is allow us to be able to disturb that buffer. We'll only disturb as much as we have to if we can keep the trees or if we can replant it we'd be happy to do that. Um, we have to do landscaping anyway, so we could
definitely definitely uh reestablish any vegetation that's there. >> Followup, >> please. >> So, I guess what I'm saying and I maybe I'm asking Billy as well. I know that I'd like to know for sure that we're going to put back if we're taking out
big huge deciduous trees or something that we're going to put back something similar. And I appreciate your intention to want it to want to put it back close. Um, but intentions sometimes, you know, they're changeable. And I think somewhere in here, if I'm correct, it said similar. Am I remembering that
correctly, Billy? >> Yeah. The language included in the PDB says that they in lie of the undisturbed buffer, they would include something similar to a type B buffer. >> Is there a way for us to tight Sorry,
chair. Is there is may I is there a way for us to tighten that language up so that I, you know, I feel more comfortable that we're not just going to throw in a couple of palm trees and be done. >> Well, you if if you want to explain what a type B buffer is, but it's a combination of trees and shrubs every so
often, right? >> So, you can't and the trees have to meet minimum tree size criteria. You can't just throw in palm trees, right? >> You have to throw in canopy trees. >> So, similar means something, >> right? If there were canopy trees out there now, we'd put canopy trees back. Well, I guess could I clarify as would
you be committing to meeting all of the type B buffer requirements because I it is similar to type B buffer requirements. >> So, you're committing to meeting all of those requirements. >> Sure. >> I would I would be okay >> happier with that. >> Thank you. >> Anything that doesn't interfere with the
drainage as long as it doesn't interfere with the drainage. >> You have any follow-up question down there? Okay. You want to go to the cards? All right. Okay. Uh Sandra Kennedy five. That's five. >> Good evening. My name is Sandra Kennedy.
I'm an attorney with 30 years experience. Um I'm a construction lawyer. Um, litigating what happens to projects like this after they go south is what has kept me making a living for 30 years. Um, I reside in this area. Um,
I'm opposed to the change in zoning. This ch this zoning was not set because of the economy. It was set because of the many efforts of my neighbors to protect their area from flooding. We are being flooded out. And I think that you
all are not familiar with what we are going through. Um, it's been in the news lately. It's been on TV uh in Florida today. I didn't even have the benefit of seeing it, although I heard about it, so you may have missed it, too. We had no
wake zones on our road. The road has not been repaired or anything in the seven years that I've lived there. It floods over from the Indian River Lagoon and it floods down from US1. We are being
flooded out by FDOT. The ponds at 528. People don't understand this in Florida. The elevation goes from south to north. So what is south of us comes north and it gets into that ridge that coina ridge
and it fills up and then it just p it charges and it just pours down the ridge which is at least 75 ft if not more. It go and every pond that you put at a high elevation daylight at the low elevation.
It's not like it goes into some magic hole to the core of the earth. It daylights on Indian River Drive. These problems need to be solved before you even consider another development in our area. As building a single house has not
as much impact as talking about increasing the density to Parkchester, that's a 1960s subdivision. And that's part of what's causing our problem. That coupled with FDOT recently saying that they're trying to restore the historical
flow of the water from the west side of US1 down to the lagoon. To me, that sounds like it's a violation of federal law. But it's also flooding out people with existing property rights. You want people to sue, we are the ones who will sue, and there's a lot more of us than
there are of them. There's only one of them. Um, and I really dispute what they're saying because I attended those public meetings and it was either Bruce Moya or someone with gray hair acting like him who said, um, I can't I asked
him, "All we really I thought I threw him a softball. All we really want is is to be assured that you're not going to increase the flooding in our area." He said, "I can't do that. it would be $100,000 for us to do that engineering and we're not going to do that
engineering to find out about the flooding until we get approval to go forward. So, this is what they're telling us. And then they come in here and they say something different and I'm sorry, but I'm going to call out people who've come before the zoning board attorneys and said, "Oh, this project
doesn't abut any residential land." This was a different project, same law firm, and it abuts my property. They came and they raised every single thing and by that I mean flattened everything and now I have absolutely no buffer from the commercial zone at all. It's all gone
because of the misrepresentations of this law firm. So that's the law firm and the engineer making misrepresentations. Mr. Vic Watson, the attorney, another attorney in this firm also acted like a member of the public spoke before the public hearing on
zoning and said, "Oh, I have basically no problem with this." Well, sure you don't because your law firm is the one representing the developer trying to get this done. Okay. So, they've also said that they have no responsibility for addressing hurricane conditions. So, I
gather that they're are going to say anytime there is a flood on US1, it was just caused by a hurricane. King tide happens twice a year and it doesn't go away. There's not one day where it's king tide. It's still king tide out there. I have seen weeks with the hills
flowing with water. Something needs to be done about it before we start thinking about and why change the future land use map that was designed to prevent against this. What's the reason for expanding it? And right when we're
at the worst of a a crisis on Indian River Drive, we have City Point Road to get out or we have to go all the way north to Brooks to Blacks Road and that area is usually flooded. I could go on and on. I wish I would get more time.
There's a lot of reasons for you to deny this and I'm begging you, deny them, please. Yes, you are. >> Okay. Hold on. Hold on one second. >> M Mr. Chair, if I may. So, in a in a quasi judicial hearing, and we're hearing right now, items two and three.
Item three is quasi judicial. Uh the applicant does have a right of cross-examination should be reasonable and within the boundaries of what she testified to as to factual testimony. Guess I get to stay here. Miss, do you live in
Parkchester Chester? >> No, I live down off of Indian River Drive. >> Do you live about a half a mile from here? >> Half a mile from here >> from the project. >> I don't know exactly, but I my only way of egress and ingress is City Point
Road. I live down the road north and this whole land use that you're talking about changing is the same consistent for my whole area. So, I'm in Brook Hill subdivision and this whole thing once you get a towh hold and you start
chipping away at this future land use, then everybody's going to be like, "Oh, well, that project warrants another one." And then pretty soon we're going to be flooded all over the place and you don't have to live with the ramifications, but we do. >> One more question. Aren't you adjacent to an FDOT easement that was between you
and the property that was >> my land? Guess what? Guess what? There's nothing that says that that's actually if you look at our plat. It's not identified as FDOT. It It's not even identified as an easement. But
notwithstanding that, that whole thing is my property on the plat. I paid for it. And I don't appreciate attorneys coming along and misrepresenting that. That's not my land. >> Okay. The property appraisals website does show it as FOT land, right? Do you you being an attorney, you know well
enough that the property appraisers office, it says right there, disclaimer, do not trust what we say because it may not be correct. And when I call the county and talk about what's going on around me, I say, don't look at the property appraisers office and they say,
"Don't worry, we don't. We look at your plat. You I own what the plat is defined as a lot." And you can't say, "Oh, well, we think that you don't own this or that." And by the way, your partner, Vic
Watson, dared to say that he represented me and he actually did represent me and take my money and tell me things that your firm had asserted. >> I've never been a partner with Watson ever. >> To the contrary, well, I
apologize then, but he has been involved in this Thank you. There's nothing in that is definitely my lot and you can look at it. You being a lawyer, you know that, especially a real estate lawyer. >> I've pulled up. It's an FDOT easement. I've pulled it up.
>> The There is a strip of land that goes right through the middle of my property and it's an easement and it goes right through the middle of my backyard. But that doesn't mean I don't own the land. >> Kennedy, part of our dilemma here is we don't pick up things on the microphone and what happens.
>> I'm sorry. She's talking about a a ditch. I had a drainage ditch through my backyard. It's not marked on my plat as being belonging to FDOT. And in fact, the actual FDOT easement was north of
the plat. And they put the pipe through my backyard, but that does not mean I don't own the backyard. And she actually did me misrepresent that that project didn't abut a residential property. when I got up and said it did and I I accepted. I believe what she said. She
gaslighted me. >> Okay. >> Thank you, ma'am. I just just for the record to be clear, I'm sure there's a a misunderstanding for whatever reason. Vic Watson is not affiliated with Miss Rosena's firm. He is, >> however, his law firm is located in the office that is just to the north of the
commercial portion of the subject property. Yep. >> I apologize. I thought they were in the same law firm. >> Okay. I'm glad we clarified that. Okay. Okay. Mary Jane Duncan. Ma'am, Mary Jane Duncan. I live at 304 North
Roundtree Drive. That's in Parkchester. And this is definitely such a heated issue. And I think one of the things that we all need to just be mindful of is what's what's the big goal that we're
looking for here? You know, what are we trying to achieve in our community for the best of our environmental issues as well as our population growth? And there's no simple answers, but it
takes all of you really doing your due diligence and considering all of the different options and possibilities from both sides to find the happy compromise that will meet everybody's needs in these situations
because it's not an isolated situation. And if this one sets a pre precedence for moving forward without all of the due diligence being done, then it does open up the can of
worms that other things could happen as well. So my request is just that everybody do your due diligence, really dig deep, and please consider all of the big options that are being looked at here.
It's not just the importance of allowing another development to happen and we do appreciate all that has been done by the developers. However, it's a little like negotiations. They
aim high and then they make it look like they've sacrificed a lot when really they were just taking away what we already had already established. So, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Bill
Goer Make sure they can hear you. >> My name is Bill Gar. I live at 385 Chester Drive in Parkchester Estates. I've been here since 1989. My property backs up to that property.
I've known the people that have owned it for years back to the cells when it was Sins Groves. And by the way, when you're talking about trees, excuse me, right down in the center of that property is what the tree line used to be and still is. So you're talking
about rows of trees when you're talking about how many trees you're going have to take out from over there. That property was owned by uh Svin's Grove back way before me and okay he
lost the property due to property taxes which his friend that took over the property which died. That's part of the reason why that property has changed hand so many times. Okay. Uh
the other thing is why do we have a binding agreement if it's not going to be uh held to? Okay. Uh they this gentleman said the first meeting was like 100 residents. The second one maybe 20. And
even tonight we're a little thin because people can't just keep taking off to come here from work. They don't get paid to come here. But we do a lot of do come in for our reasons. And my property happens to be according to surveyors the
lowest part of Park Chester states to that property behind me. And I do get flooded out at times quite a bit again. But this individual bought this property knowing very well what the original uh
plan was. So why to make them think that they can go ahead and have it changed? And this is ridiculous how many times this is we how many means it's been already over this. Okay. It don't seem like anything
has changed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Sierra Collector. Uh, no. The next the next young lady. Uh, hi Sierra Collector, 383 Chester
Drive. Um, all right. Uh, I I object to this proposal. Um, I don't think that changing the zoning classification um and removing the BPD is
a good idea, mostly because of the flooding. Um, I don't know what Mr. Moyer thinks he can do to stop the flooding, but any development on that land is going to make it worse because it's wetlands. It
soaks up water like a sponge. More development, more flooding. Um, at the very least, uh, the, um, the wetland that they, um, proposed could be, uh, zoned as a
private conservation, I think. Um, you know, I don't I don't want to see more flooding. So, I oppose. >> That's all. >> Thank you very much,
>> Benjamin Downey. Or is it Dowry? >> Downey. >> Downey. Okay. >> Hi, Benjamin Downey. um 383 Chester Drive. Um our property um butts up
against the um proposed um land. I I don't agree with the proposal. Um the main part of the proposal that I don't agree with is the fact that they're ch changing the binding development agreement um or divine binding development plan. Um
it was put into um place for a reason and it I I don't think it should be changed. Um they um they were talking about um it's a difference of 23 homes and 19 um homes. That's only four homes different
that they're really talking about. Why should we change the what what's already in place to Yes, they're doing more than um just that, but why I'm sorry. I'm I'm I'm bad with um
speaking in front of >> You're doing fine. You're doing just fine. >> Um long story short, I I don't think it should be changed. a it's already in place and I I don't care to see that being changed. So,
>> okay, sir. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Need to make sure I use my glasses more. Tom Kenny. >> Good evening, commissioners. Sir, um before I get started, since it's a quasi judicial and I actually listened to the
promo at the beginning, I am not an expert witness. Can I actually talk? >> You you can talk. You can talk about things that you know, facts that you know, your familiarity with the neighborhood. You just can't render something that would require an expert opinion like an engineering opinion or an appraisal opinion or something like
Could I suggest that maybe in that intro you change it to say if you're a public speaker, a commenter, you're not helping. >> If you're on the clock, you probably want to >> I I got time. Um the other thing I'd like to mention is I saw you got copies of the plan, right? I didn't get one.
So, I'd like to object right away and say we got to stop now because there's a new plan out there. We need to look at it. All right. So, let me go forward. I got my two objections out there. I was really puzzled. I had other notes, but they want to move this to a res four, but they're building in
res one, res two. There's something I don't get here. Oh, let's make it all resz 4. Why? Okay, maybe an expert understands it. I don't. All right. So, um, another thing I heard up here was, you know, Parkchester drains under that
property. That property is probably just like it is up in Brook Hill, full of coina. a coina takes the water and filters it before it gets to Indian River Drive as opposed to let's put a culvert down and run it right down the Indian River Lagoon to take everything
with it. So I think we need to be very careful about how the water is taken off of that property. Uh in general in terms of just general boulevard development, you know, we talk about how bad our road is on Indian River Drive. It's a third world road
right now. Public Works is good to come out and patch it. So, let's not blame public works. I think they have a funding issue. They've got one asphalt truck for the whole county. They're going to take their asphalt truck when it dries out in Indian River Drive and spend three days on our road where it
could be North Boulevard probably needs it as well. So, I think public works actually needs some funding. We're not a county that can grow when we don't fund public works. And no, I wasn't paid given a a sponsorship uh by public works. Um,
and and finally, I like to say, you know, what happens to a deal is a deal. They bought the property with a certain zoning. Now, what can happen with developers, and I'm not going to say that this is going to happen. This is wild speculation. I get a great new
zoning. Now, that property is worth more money. I can go sell it to somebody else. Guess what? We go through all this one more time. Is there a commitment that when these people get a new zoning that they're actually going to be the developers? So, I go back to a deal is a deal. Let's not change anything.
Therefore, it's obvious that I disagree with any change that might occur. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Diane Burrough. And we'll make it easy for you. Greg Burrough afterward. Okay. Hi, my name is Diane Burroughs. I live
at 381 Chester Drive in Parkchester Chester. Um, so City Point Landfall is asking for the removal of our existing binding development plan that among other things limits the number of houses on the western half of the property to seven units total. It's key to remember
that designating that 10.96 as the gentleman just mentioned as res 4 results in a potential of many more units on that entire property. Um in their proposed PUD Cityoint Landfall self-declaring at least at one of the the last means we
had to utilize that 2.44 acres as wetland conservation area. We do acknowledge and appreciate the fact that the developer made some concessions to address our concerns and redesign the project. However, our primary concern is that there is fundamental mismatch
between the underlying basic future land use map designation of res 4 and the proposed use of the 2.44 acre wetland track as wetland conservation storm water drainage repository as well as the fact that the existing binding
development agreement for this land has not been honored by the planning board and zoning board. We totally agree that this wetland uh this is a wetland and it's low and swampy and readily floods as we have seen many times over
especially after these horrific rains these last couple of weeks. As such its current designation of res 4 is totally inappropriate. It should have a future land use map if nothing else of private conservation. But it's also most importantly to remember um that we
maintain this wetland as wetland no matter what transpires in the future. We are extremely worried about the absolute fact that a much higher housing development could go into this property um such as uh utilizing that entire
10.96 acres um and is resulting from any change. And just as our perceived certainty of the permanence of the existing binding development plan has turned out to be an illusion, we need the commission to review the existing binding development plan and keep it the
way it is. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Burroughs. >> Yes. Hey, my name is Greg Burroughs and thank you all for your time here tonight. uh means a lot to us as uh as residents that you do this and we appreciate you. Um couple things that
were mentioned earlier on uh that I would just like to basically touch on. You've heard all about the flooding. I know you guys are probably over it with that. Um but uh when you put in roads instead of having uh grass and sand to percolate water that now becomes a water
slide. So all that water is just going to shoot straight down the Idiot River Road. Would not be a terrible thing if they could control it. But what you're also going to have in that water that you don't have now is all the pesticides, all the fertilizers, everything else that's going to go in with all that grass, all that
landscaping for all the houses that is going to go right down that hill into Indian River Drive. And they're asking you now to foot the bill to dig out a bunch of trees and grass and native plants and put stuff in that also has to be fertilized and pest controls. That is
not being done now. All that's going to go straight into the Indian River. We've only been residents here just under six years. Um we've done a couple of the river cleanups and that's the biggest thing I hear from everybody is all the runoff that comes into it and a lot of the complaints are from the fertilizers
and the pest controls, that kind of thing. Um all I see is that just being again a water slide straight into the Indian River with you guys footing the bill to figure out a way to move that water off that road and not have it go straight in. The other thing was uh we used to have when we moved into that
neighborhood in Parkchester, we used to have a turn lane so we could get into our neighborhood. Now we don't. The city has engineered it. So now it's a merge lane from three lanes down into two with a stoplight right there. If you pulled our neighborhood, you'd probably find that almost everybody in that residence has almost been rerended from a
high-speed driver coming off of that stoplight by 520 and trying to beat the traffic to cut in into the other two lanes. If you're pulling campers and RVs in and out of that area, what's going to happen then? What happens when a camper and RV
pulls out in front of three cars flying to beat the light and now you've got a fatality right there on that road? It happens. We've got a new stoplight just passed or just north of our subdivision. But unless they put a stoplight right at that entrance, what's going to stop that from being a fatality? Thank you for
your time and your service. >> Thank you, sir. Beverly Sudterman and then and then James after you. >> My name is Beverly Sudterman. I live at
3469 Indian River Drive. I'm a resident right next to this property. Our neighborhood objects to changing the future land use map. Our neighborhood includes homeowners next to Cityoint
Landfalls property, residents on Indian River Drive, residents on Cityoint Road, and the following subdivisions: High Point, Point Place, Parkchester, Twin Lakes, Brook Hill, and Brierwood Manor.
Their letters and petitions have been sent to all the commissioners objecting to this project. A wonderful former commissioner Truman Scarbor once told me, "Your community is the only community that has been able to
stand as one to protect yourselves from overdevelopment. All others have failed. It is up to all of us to continue to protect our way of life in our small but beautiful community.
I am asking you to please stand strong. to protect our way of life. Please stand strong to help protect our way of life. Development is inevitable. However, our historic gym in our
However, development is inevitable. However, our area is a historic gem and a concrete jungle. We have a historic scenic drive lined with historic spacious homes and natural
and nature all around. Visiting visitors to our area enjoy the leisurely drive and the slower pace. People enjoy biking, running, walking events throughout the year. It is not a
cookie cutter neighborhood. There are no condos, town homes. It is a unique community style that those of us who live here wish to protect and outofstate visitors love to enjoy.
Commissioners before you have worked hard to put in place a plan to protect our area. Is it perfect? No. We were all gu grand grandfathered in and rightsized when the commissioners
before you created a plan that worked for everyone. They spent years working on our community to achieve an agreeable plan that worked and continues to work for our historic area. Why have a binding development plan if
it is not binding? Why make it binding if it has no meaning? We just ask that you continue to protect our unique and historic community now and in the future. Thank you for your time and your support. I respectfully request that you
deny cityoint landfalls request to change the future land use map. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Sudterman. Um, my name is James Sudterman
and I also live at 3469 Indian River Drive right to the south of this uh proposed development. We've lived there for 30 years. Um, we continue to object to Citypoint Landfall's request to amend the
underlying future land use map to res 4 um over this entire 10.966 acres. Um, your own county staff comments state, and I quote, "The resouration
would allow up to 43 residential units. Additionally, the requested companion pud zoning could also result in a density bonus that would allow 54 residential units with a density of five
units an acre on the 10.96 acres. Time and time again, Miss Rzinka has gotten up before you and said, "We believe we have addressed all of the community's concerns."
This is categorically not true. Since the very first presentation at the first planning and zoning board meeting in March, all through every subsequent presentation before the commissioners, our community has been consistently
opposing city point Landfall's proposed flume amendment on the basis of inappropriately high density. There have been a total of 211 pages of
community opposition recorded under the various public comment files that's on the webs on your county website. All of the spoken comments have included concerns arising basically from high
housing density. everything from flooding to everything else that people have have uh concerns about have as a basis just this idea of a lot more houses on this
one piece of property. And we feel that this very significant display of community opposition has been pretty consistently ignored all through this process. uh cityoint landfall has been resolute in their
demand for res 4 on the entire non-commercial property. We have become increasingly disturbed by the in this insistence and have begun to suspect that there is more to it than just building the proposed pud.
What bothers us most is that if Cityoint Landfall is allowed to walk away from this meeting with a new flume designation of RES 4 on the entire 10.96 acres, they or any future unit or any
future owner will have the possibility of constructing up to 54 housing units on it. Cindy Point Landfall could simply sell the property to a new owner who could start the PUD reszoning process all over again. this time with a
starting flume of res 4 on the property or once the flume is changed, once they get through this meeting, City Point themselves could come back at a later date uh due to economics or um
business decisions or whatever, they could come back at a later date and restart with a new or amended development plan. 54 housing units is way too many. Res 4 is way too much to ask for. Please
reject cityoint Landfall's request for this flume change. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, commissioners. That's the last of the cards. Do we have follow-up questions?
Okay, >> thank you. I I apologize for my outburst earlier. I did not mean to offend you or Miss Kennedy. Um I do disagree with her interpretation of her land and what that is. It is a drainage track on her plat.
She lives 3100 miles to the north of here. And there is indeed a right of way owned by someone. and I thought it was FDOT and a triangle piece to the north of her. So there there's more to u what she says than it's on her property. Regardless, I asked you to go back to
this future lane use map. I want to address the Sudterman's again. Um the Sudterman's are right here next to the little res 2. They are currently res four. They could put four units to the acre there. They have one home. They don't intend to do that, but they have
res four. to the north is is the property issue. It's already resz 4. We're only asking for seven acres of future land use change. Part of it that little res 2. And the reason we have to do that, and I'm sorry they're disturbed by it, but that's what your
comprehensive plan requires. We don't have a choice because this res one only allows one unit to the acre no matter what the zoning is. So in order to spread our density to get 23 units instead of the 19 we could now we have
to change that res one. So in theory yeah we could change that to res four and change the res four to res 2 and we can agree to do that. We can't put it in public conservation ement because it's not large enough. Your staff has looked at that. We've discussed it. So we can't we have agreed to put it in a
conservation track. That's what's on the PDP and we're bound to that PDP unless we come back to you. So there there's there there's no subtifuge here. It's the law. We have to do it. We've talked with Mr. Prasad many times about how we might be able to do it, but we can't we
can't put more density on the future lane use than the future lane use allows. So that res one, you can only have one unit to the acre even if it's EU zoning, which it currently is. Also too, if you look, this is all resz one.
This is community commercial. This is resz 4. This is all resz 4. This is more commercial. So there is a very big mix here. We're not next to other res one to much extent except just to the south of us.
So again, to be clear, the res 4 is limited by the PDP and the peed zoning. We would be willing if we can work this out with Mr. Richardson a way to do an agreement that should this PDP zoning never be approved as
presented to you now that they we would agree to administrative go back to res one. We would do that in a divine a binding agreement of some sort that recorded so they could be sure that there was no substitute. And I I just came up with this because this is what they intend to do. They're not intending
to put 54 homes there. You couldn't put 54 homes there. So, if there's a way to make you all sure that we're going to do this PDP by an agreement, we're willing to do that. Again, the homes on the PDP to the north are the same size as the Parkchester
homes. All this slide off water has to be treated. It's not treated now. It will be treated once we go through this engineering process. Your engineering staff will review everything. The engineering staff will review the tree removal plan and the landscape plan.
everything will go through your staff. Um, regarding the new plan, that plan has been in the agenda record for a long time. I I apologize. It's on Legisar, but that plan has been in the city records or the county records, and there's nothing new that I presented to you that's not already in the the county
records and in Legisar. Um, regarding the camper and RV turnin concerns, that again is a site plan issue. If safety warrants it, it's it will be required by your engineering staff or FDOT most likely. Again, 4.2 acres of this 10.94 acres is already res
4. Um, regarding the permanency of a BDP, permanent, a BDP is a zoning. We're asking for it to be removed. So, we're asking for new zoning to go with the PEDP and the PUD. We've explained our reasons for the change. There's been no
competent substantial evidence to explain why those reasons aren't good. I mean, the reasons are is because what they have now doesn't work. It doesn't allow for the storm water treatment. It doesn't allow for everything that has to be developed to development standards today, which are even increasing in January through the state. The
regulations for storm water treatment are even greater. Uh why are we changing this plan? Because to protect the wetlands. They don't want to build in the wetlands. They're not supposed to build in the wetlands. So in order to protect the wetlands, they have to have greater
density towards US1. Um to repeat, there's no access from this project in River Drive. So, oh, and with that, um, I again, if you have questions, um, happy to answer them. If you have any questions, engineering questions, the only only
engineer that's testified is Mr. Moya, and he has testified that it meets storm water or will meet storm water requirements. >> Do we have follow-up questions for the applicant, Commissioner Alman, sir? I notice um on the map of this area
there's a title cityoint cemetery. I know we haven't talked about the cemetery. Like to hear about that and I notice on your site plan you show it. >> It's not on our property. We don't know anything about it. We don't know how
they access it. I believe it's it's accessed by the property owner to our south who spoke at one of these meetings. We don't we don't know anything about it, but I presume we're going to have to do a special survey to make sure there aren't any bodies on our property. I apologize that was rude, but that's what we've had to do on other
other um near cemeteries. >> I wasn't finished my question. I wanted Sorry, >> that's okay. Um, so I noticed you have a City Point Cemetery Point and it looks like it's a little bit south of you, but I noticed on your site plan you have a
little square area that's basically called a landscape landscape. Um, you title it track C, landscape track. It looks like it's real close proximity to the se cemetery. I wonder if that's
what it's there for. >> Uh that's a that that's a a required subdivision buffer of 15 ft around the entire subdivision. That's what that's for. >> No, it's just a square area right near the culac. >> That's titled >> I think that's where the lift station's
going. >> Oh, that's for the lift station. Okay. >> Or would go if it's approved. >> Okay. I was just curious if it was related to the cemetery. It did look to me like the cemetery was off your property. >> It is, sir.
>> Another question I have, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I know there's been a lot of talk about the RU24. You're u you're basically a little bit over 14 acres, but you're talking about 23 units.
So, what would be the effective density of your project? >> Two units to the acre. >> Two units per acre. >> Okay. Other questions for the applicant? Follow-up questions?
>> No. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Can I crossamine? >> Can't cross-examine counsel if they put on a witness. An interested party could,
but no, not Mr. Rosena. >> So you're saying >> No, you may not. >> Can I ask? >> No. Sorry. No, you you got to speak. >> Okay. Commissioners, we're in discussion. Discussion on the aisle.
>> Commissioner Delaney. >> Thank you. Um, so I really appreciate um, Mr. Moya um, going through and listening to the residents and um, you know, having two
meetings um, and making some changes. But the thing I keep coming back to is the person who purchased this piece of land, they bought it knowing that there was restrictions on this land. um
the the research that I've done regarding how that came about. Basically, the commissioner before uh not directly before me, but um who was sitting in my seat back then, they worked extremely
hard with our staff, with the property owner, with the community at the time. And this was a compromise. This was a strong compromise that everybody agreed to at that point and um I don't think it's right or fair to our
to our residents to go back on our word. Um especially when there's severe issues going on in the in the community. Um this community has come out over and
over and over again. um 211 pages of uh emails, 54 emails in total. Um countless public comments. Uh so many people showed up to the to the
first um community meeting, the second community meeting, even though there was less people, it was still the same sentiments. It was kind of heated. Um while people were, you know, glad that some changes were made, they still were
extremely uncomfortable with the whole situation. Um, our staff uh talked about in the staff report that uh there are a lot a lot of
environmental constraints, wetlands, aquafer recharge soils, uh the high coastal hazard area is, you know, on this property. um flood plane protection. Indian River Lagoon nitrogen reduction septic overlay was a portion
of the property um surface waters of the state um protected in specimen trees and protected species. And in addition to that, um there was um
Florida state statute talks about the coastal high hazard area and how we should not be um increasing density. Um, and while I understand it's only, you know, a small portion of the property that's actually in the coastal hazard
area, it's still the same, um, you know, it it's very close to it. And it says the parcel may be susceptible to nuisance flooding. Um, when I had my briefing, um,
our natural resources staff was talking to us about the, uh, the seepage that comes from the property. And it's what some of the residents were talking about um as far as the the way that the water drains off of US1. It goes through the
property and ends up on the other side towards the lagoon. Um, I think that it's a fair statement to say that if if somebody wanted to develop a piece of property and they knew what they were buying, why should everybody else suffer
when this person made a conscious decision? Nobody pulled the wool over their eyes. They knew what they were buying. They knew the restraints of the property. um you know, they could they could build seven, you know, big beautiful homes on
this property and make it make sense for them. Um which I'm sure the neighbors would love because all their property values would go up. Um, this is I'm hoping especially after
uh everything my district and I know there were some other districts that dealt with flooding last week, but um I I spend a lot of time with my constituents. I spend a lot of time researching. I don't have another job.
This is everything I do. Um, and I take this really seriously and I know my constituency. I know my my community and I'm hoping that just like I
respect you guys and your knowledge on your communities. I'm hoping that I can get that same respect. I cannot support this today and I'm hoping to get support on that. Other discussion on the item? >> No, I just quick I forgot to ask Commissioner Alman.
>> I know there's been discussion of the prior binding development plan. I didn't see that in our packet and I didn't ask for it earlier. Do we have a copy of that to see what it looks like? >> Sir, attached to the zoning H3 and I'm looking at it now. There's attachment
six is existing BDP, but I can certainly get you a copy of that as well, but it is attached to the item >> to the next item. >> Is it in the U public web >> item number? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I wasn't sure what's under to H3
to the other one. There's a second. >> Oh, okay. That's good. Thank you. Do we want to take a three minute break so you can review that? >> Yeah, I'm going to take a five minute break. Can we do that everybody? Let's take five minutes. Let's be back at
6:25. [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Heat.
[Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Okay. All right. We're still in discussion. Commissioner Alman, you had
some time, sir, to to look at um the prior BDP. Do you have further questions on that? >> I do not. Thank you. Thank you. >> Anything else in discussion? I have a procedural question, >> sir. >> I know we're quasi judicial. Just so I
know we cross that bridge when it comes, but >> if there's a tie vote since we're 44, does that mean failure? Does it mean a continuous? Do we know? >> Well, there are a few things. First of all, you are quasi judicial and you're not. So, for the for the future land use
map request, you're really legislative. That's a legislative action. for the second item, the zoning item, you're quasi judicial first of all, but um in in these circumstances, because either way, you're talking about an application for a development permit and statutes require
uh the county to act on applications for a development permit. So, I' I've always been concerned that if you just have a deadlock, you know, Robert's rules says if you're required to make an affirmative vote on something and if you if it doesn't pass affirmatively, it fails. to me in a in a land use or
zoning request, I think you need, you know, a majority denial to move forward. You either need to approve it or deny it. So, if there is a deadlock, my suggestion would be to continue it until you have a full board. >> Okay? >> But only if you get to a deadlock that
you can't break. >> Thank you. I think I remember that the prior board there was a motion on an item and we we didn't have the fifth commissioner at that point and um I think the applicant was starting to walk out thinking that
we had passed the item but since it was 22 the item did not pass is my recollection but I think that's because they made a motion to approve to your point. Right. >> Right. That motion failed. Yeah. And then what we would need is >> so if there was a motion to deny tonight
and that was 22 >> then that motion would fail and you'd have to entertain another motion >> and eventually either approve it or deny it or continue it until you have a full board. >> Okay. With that, what's the pleasure of the board?
>> I would like to make a motion to deny the future land use change. I second. >> All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. We have a second by Commissioner Alman. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson?
>> No. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner? >> No. We'll show that tied. Now, what do we need to do, Morris? >> We need to entertain an alternate motion. >> Make a motion to um continue.
Second. >> Okay. I think that just in discussion on the motion that probably given where we are that's that's probably the pragmatic thing to do. >> And I know I'm sorry. I know you haven't voted yet, but the motion needs to include a date certain that it would be
continued to. So our next zoning meeting >> December 11th. >> December 11th at 5:00 here. >> Commissioner Delaney, is that is that your motion? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. December 11th, right? We said >> yes, Mr.
>> Okay. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Delaney to continue to December 11th. We have a second by Commissioner Alman. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner? >> Yes. All right. We'll see you back here
on December 11th. Commissioners. Now, I'm I'm sorry. On H3, is that since they're companions, do we need we need a a motion on that? It's a motion to continue it to the same date. >> Sorry, Commission. >> I'll make a motion to continue item H3
to December 11th at 5:00. >> Okay. Motion by Commissioner Delaney, second by Commissioner Atinson. Clerk will call the role on H3 to continue to December 11th. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Atinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner?
>> Yes. Okay. Now, we'll see you on December 11th. >> Mr. May I say something to the residents who spoke tonight? So, if you came out and spoke tonight, your your um your comments and your input are going to be part of the record on this item for future hearing. Obviously, you're welcome to come out to the future
hearing, but if you're unable to, I don't want you to be concerned that it doesn't count that you came out tonight. That will be part of the record. It'll be made available to the um commissioner who couldn't be here tonight as well. >> All right. Thank you for making that clarification for us there, Morris.
Commissioners, we'll go on to H8. >> H8 is the first of two public hearings regarding the adoption of amendments to chapter 62, article 9, section 62, 3316, entitled on premises signs, and chapter 62, article 4, table 1, entitled signs
by type and zoning classification. This is done in order to allow community development districts to have specified signage for parks within certain zoning classifications. Legislative intent and permission to advertise for this ordinance was uh issued by the board on May 20th. Um BCAC heard this on October
8th and re unanimously recommended approval. PNZ heard this on October 13th and also unanimously recommended approval. >> Commissioners, questions on this item? Any questions on this item? I don't have any cards on this. We'll go into discussion. Is there any discussion on
the item? >> Okay. Motion on >> second. Oh, whoever. >> Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Atinson on H8. I have a second by Commissioner Alman. Clerk will call the role. >> Commissioner Delaney? >> Yes. >> Vice Commissioner Atinson?
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Alman? >> Yes. >> Chairman Felner? >> Yes. And we'll show that one passes 40. Thank you, commissioners. And I don't think we had any K cards, right? for public comment. >> Okay, we will go on to board report. Uh
Tad, sir, in board report, you have anything? >> No report, Mr. Chair. >> Morris, board report. No board report. >> No report, sir. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Delaney. >> Um, I'm not sure if I'm if if we're allowed to talk about this or not, but I
just um am wondering what what concerns there are that Commissioner Felner and Commissioner Atinson that you guys have um in regard to that item. Um, >> yeah, I wouldn't discuss that after the public hearing's been closed.
>> Okay. Well, I guess I'll just share my thoughts because I'm and not even regarding that, just in general, I'm I'm wondering about all of us are elected to represent our constituency and our communities. Um,
I spend a lot of time in my community and talking to residents. >> I apologize against this. You can do what you're going to do, but I wouldn't want you to do something that unintentionally and inadvertently might create an issue if there's ever a challenge to an action or anything like
that because you're not speaking to the other commissioners, but we're outside of the public hearing. The parties have left the room. They can't respond. Um I >> I'm not talking about this property in particular. Would that matter? >> I'm speaking in general about how we
represent our districts. in there. I respect what you're saying, but maybe we should that's a valid conversation. Uh but maybe we should talk about that in another meeting, not just right after this zoning because it the proximity
>> Yeah, it might it just might be it might hurt your case. It might be construed because of the proximity of time. I would agree with the council on that. I think he's trying to protect you and us. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Commissioner Delane, I have other
items. Um, I guess all I'll say is uh to my D1 uh constituents out there, I you know am will do my best to always represent your thoughts and your desires for your community and um you know that's what
you elected me to do and that's what I'm going to do. Um, and I did want to give a shout out to um our our road and bridge team in the north end. Um, they have been working like you would not believe and I just
cannot thank you all enough um for all the work that you are putting in to um clean up our community after those horrible floods. Um to all the constituents out there who are still dealing with issues,
um you know, feel free to reach out to my office, uh reach out to the county. Um there are I believe that uh the portal closed yesterday for requesting
assistance, but um if you still need cleanup assistance in your homes, uh help removing carpets, drywall, um you know, mopping, anything, um please continue to reach out to me because I
can try to help connect you with resources. Um and again, thank you so much to um our public works that has been working really, really hard. So, thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Atinson
and board report. Commissioner Alman, sir, and >> board report. I want to say something. I could say it off camera, but um um I I sent somebody to you the other day for astronaut uh hall of fame uh
advice. Okay. So >> Okay, good. >> If they say Commissioner Felner sent >> All right, I'll look for them. Okay. All right. Uh I think they're >> looking special attention. >> They're looking to bring a group up there, a big group. Um everybody's very excited about Artemis and and all those
things. So Okay. All right. Um >> All right, commissioners. Everybody, thank you all very much. Have a safe trip home. Thank you. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the
views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. The board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or
liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period. [Music] [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat.
[Music] [Music] [Music]