Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi judicial body when it he's requests for rezoning 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 rezoned 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 5 minutes to speak speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to
speak good evening and welcome to the February 6 Planning and Zoning uh meeting for the board of County Commissioners we have a quorum I'll call the meeting to order uh invocation this evening is by uh Donnie leg from second Adam Ministries sir you recognized for invocation let's pray father we're so
humbled again just to be able to come before your throne we recognize you as the God you are You Are Holy you are just you are a sovereign God that is in control father I'm thankful that you have demonstrated Your Love To Us in so many ways and father yet I'm thankful for a government of councilmen and women that desire a prayer before the meetings
like this are held that the only way we can have the true wisdom to be led in the way that is right is to go through you so may your spirit lead this meeting tonight as Only You Can may you give our Council men and women the wisdom father with the responsibility of decision making for so many in this County I'm thankful for them uh may we continually pray for them individually not just for them but their
families as well and so father we'll we're grateful for who you have appointed as our leaders in this County I pray for the people behind me father that they are all here with an agenda may we conduct ourselves father in a way that we know that your spirit is present in this room and so father we'll give you the praise for the outcome again father we're grateful for those who are behind the scenes to make a meeting like this possible uh father people that
don't they don't even know who they are who make this happen so we lift them up to you and their families as well so father have your will and way in this meeting tonight and we'll thank you for the outcome in Jesus name I pray amen commissioner ainson for the pledge of the United States of America
and to the stand indivisible okay commissioner alman's going to be a little bit late I think he got stuck in traffic I don't think he'll miss the uh Main Event though uh so we don't have any minutes for approval um we don't
have any resolutions or sent agenda um and we don't have any cards for public comment is that right yes okay all right uh we will go um to H1 H1 and H2 are companion applications I will read them into the record together however they will need a separate um decision rhr Construction
Development LLC request a smallscale comprehensive plan Amendment under 24.12 to change the future land use designation from PI to Res 4 under application number 24 SS excuse me 24 ss002 in District 1 HR excuse me rhr construction and Development LLC request a change of zoning classification from
gu and ru- 1-11 to r- 1-11 under application number 24z 0042 located in district one okay Robert is it Robinson okay sir uh you're recognized to explain your item ladies and gentlemen of the board thank you for seeing me tonight uh my name is Trey Robinson Robert Robinson um
I represent rhr construction on the matter of 3970 Curtis Boulevard um today I'm just going to talk to you a little bit about the the lot why I'm doing what I'm doing um our plans for it and then its justification uh to begin 3970 Curtis Boulevard it currently exists as a 1.1 acre lot in Coco Florida uh this lot is very peculiar as it's uh it's considered one lot yet it's divided into two separate tracks track one and track two each with their own future land use and each with their own uh zoning
classification tract one is on the left side of the lot and is a future land use listed as planned industrial with a zoning classification of r111 and track two is on the right side of the lot and has a future land use listed as plan industrial with a zoning classification of General use in addition to the tracks being divided by a track divider line they're also divided by a 40ft drainage ditch easement which runs down the middle and then along the back of the lot the desire is that the future land
use requested to be changed from plan Industrial to Res 4 for both tracks uh in addition to the Future land change request I also requesting the zoning be altered slightly uh the current zoning of the tract one is r111 like I said uh I'm Desiring to keep the zoning the same for tract one the current zoning of tra two however is General use and um this is the track that I'm seeking to change to ru11 uh the requested future land use of res 4 will match the surrounding area as well as the rest of the
neighborhood and the future land use will also match the surounding neighborhood that's all I'm doing is trying to make these Lots able to be built upon one house to whatever it's going to be but just to match the neighborhood we're not going up in density or down but that's all we're seeking to do all right hold on a second there sir uh commissioner Delany would you mind explaining to me like um like your what you guys are doing there what you're wanting to do what's the reason for the change what's what kind of is your plan sure so the lot like I said
has two separate zoning classifications in future land uses in I'm sorry in order to build a house you have to have the same zoning and same future land use for the lot otherwise you can't build a house there so that's all we're trying to do make it able to be built upon so you are am I understanding this correct that you guys are trying to build two houses on there uh that will be probably the end goal probably but currently this is the first step in getting there is just getting this zoning changed regardless of one lot or two lots and are these like personal houses of people are you
representing the person are you the land land sorry excuse me I'm a developer and we're just developing houses it'll probably be spec homes to sell around the neighborhood but it it will match the rest of the neighborhood the same zoning classification same future land use so nothing nothing grander you know changing densities like that right we're actually coming down right that's Commissioners any other questions for the applicant okay uh we don't have any other cards um is there any discussion
on the item dy I have some some concerns about this um this project mostly because of the wetlands and because of the drainage ditch that goes through it and if you're if you look at the maps um this this lot is extremely important for the drainage in this area and so I'm really concerned about if it's messed with what is it going to do to the to the rest of the area is it is it going to impact the
rest of the area so we actually had an environmental study performed on the property before we even bought it and the wetlands are confined to the ditch themselves the only Wetlands per say up on the highlands the buildable land is pepper trees and that's probably because when they were Excavating the drainage ditch they just piled the spoils on there and so it's just growing pepper trees um but if we were to build on the Lots actually the Lots would become higher theoretically and the ditch would actually be deeper so if anything it would actually improve the function of the ditch itself is that what the study
shows what's that I'm sorry sorry is that what the study shows the envir the environmental study yeah that the ditch will be improved right well it's the study was just for Wetlands right to determine if there's any Flor or fauna there's no go for Turtles uh scrub JS anything like that uh there's no protected Wetlands within the buildable area of the lot just to the ditch and the banks itself which will not be altered because there's a a ditch easement that you can't you know impact at all and that that's not what we would do okay M thank you
any other discussion is is that a question that you want to ask staff potentially talked okay uh this is this is your District um um would you guys be amendable to uh a bdp that would um could you commit to doing an engineering study to show how this will not adversely affect the drainage of the
surrounding streets sure rep needed to okay mhm if with that I'm okay with this um okay for the purpose of the of the clerk um and and Billy maybe could help us here so that she could she could read the motion again uh to include that bdp yeah given that the first motion would be the land use the bdp would be the second motion with the zoning okay so let's do the first one okay so um what do you want to do with on the first one I'll make a motion to
approve we have a motion to approve by commissioner Delany is there a second there's a second by commissioner ainson clerk will call the RO commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes Atkinson yes commissioner Alman chair felner yes Commissioners will show that one adopted we'll go so for H2 we need a separate motion that one's going to include the bdp Billy you want to help with that potentially yeah my the motion
would be to approve the request of from gu and ru11 to ru11 with the bdp as outlined by commissioner Delany so moved okay we have a motion by uh commissioner Delany is there a second we have a second by commissioner Atkinson clerk will call the role commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes chair fer yes congratulations sir thank you thank you
all right we'll go on to H three Wanda and Dennis Crocker represented by Tim Timothy vulpus request a change in zoning classification from Au to rr1 under application number 24z 000059 located in District One your Timothy yes sir ladies and gentlemen the board I appreciate you hearing me out today I'm just trying to um rezone this property from Au to rr1
to make it build buildable um you know residential put a single family residence on it yes sir okay yes uh all right there questions for the applicant no no questions you're the only card that we have is there any discussion on the item no commissioner Delany this is your District I'd like to move to approve this item all right we have a motion by commissioner delini is there a second we have a second by commissioner ainson
clerk will call the rooll commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes chair fer yes congratulations sir thank you very much adopted all right h four lose nales request a change of Zone and classification from Au to rr1 under application 24z 00
60 located in District 2 I think the applicants here yes lose you recognize ma good afternoon members of the commission thank you very much for hearing me here today my name is l nois 1455 Martin road Rockledge Florida 32955 uh we are requesting to change the
zoning from um Au um to rr1 for one acre of a 5 acre lot um the purpose of this is to be able to continue the AR uh agricultural portion of the rest of the lot and separate the there's a single family home on the one rr1 um and that's pretty much what what what our request is thank you sorry I just a little nervous you're you're doing fine commissioner Goodson yes uh
how long have you owned the property almost two years okay and when you bought it you realized that it was one home for 2 and a half acres right that's what's zoned on either side of you correct um well there's five acre lots next but one home per 2 and a half acres and you're what you want to take out is in a severe Wetland or a flood plane correct oh I didn't know that that was a flood plane or or um okay let me ask
Billy the portion she wants to take out and put in the flag flag lot is that in a flow yes sir what does that require her to do to build on so in in the one acre portion the home is already there but on the remaining portion um natural resources is here to to discuss further but depending on what the elevations show there's density restrictions associated with the whether it's in the 10-year 25 year or 100-year flood plane okay let me
refer to Department of Natural Resources what is it in we can't determine that until we get Topography of the site and then compare it against the St John's uh Water Management District technical report so it takes some research to figure out what those flood planes actually are which year they're in if you know anything about the site in in Martin Road it's definitely floods correct I mean you always have we have a problem with that all of that area
I'm not really familiar with the what the site conditions are out there but I you probably know that area better than I let me refer to Ted Ted do you know the area I'm somewhat familiar with the area and I do believe there's been some flooding out there it's pretty low in in that in that area yeah now do you plan on I guess if you get this Zing you plan on building on it right no no there's already a the rr1 the area why are we
then why are you asking for PL a zoning change if you're not going to build because I want to separate the two lots one is going to be a flag lot um which is the 4 acre lot and then the rr1 is going to be the lot that currently has the house on it but if you're going to own it what is the purpose of separated well there's other Lots in the area that have also done that and it's also for purposes of Homestead um that to separate the agricultural portion of the of the lot from the house so I can get
my Homestead of of that particular property um here there's a th less than a th000 ft away there is a lot here that is zoned rr1 so it's not like I'm asking for something that doesn't already exist in the within the vicinity of the um of the lot um I my intention is not to um add additional structures to it we have also uh come here and um asked for variances there's a barn on the on the flag lot and um the variances have
already been approved to uh once the flag loot takes place and if this is approved tonight then um uh the these the the barn itself would have within the correct setbacks um but you're going you want to go from agriculture to rr1 just on the house is the house not already zoned R R1 no oh so the full the full partial zoned Au this is the request for the one acre with a house on it to go to R1
which would increase our taxes there may be some tax consequences with a homestead on the other other four and a half okay thank you and if if I may commissioner um just so just a note administrative policy number seven does allow the board to consider um that the propos you shall not cause or substantially aggravate any substantial drainage problem on surrounding Properties or significant adverse and unmitigable impact on natural Wetlands water bodies or habitat for listed species so you can consider that as part
of your question oh yeah thank you ma'am okay um just as a point of clarity I think you can have Homestead on agricultural uh so I mean you know if you have an Orange Grove and you have a house in the middle of it I think the the property appraiser says okay well that's not you know the agricultural portion of that where the where the house is all the rest of it including even a pole bar and all those kinds of things are included for the purpose of an agriculture classification if and
that's a different that's a thing that's a that's a tax question does that that sound am am I right it's been a while since I worked there but yes sir and Debbie left already she'll think that's funny um okay so so just to clarify for the board here you're you're not uh planning to sell that to somebody else who then is going to build a house on it no it's within it's everything within my own family you're doing this for the purpose of establishing you haven't you don't
have Homestead on your property now not yet okay is that is that something that the property appraiser told you that you needed to do um well they they said that it would be better if the property would be separate and then I'm also looking at here this rr1 is is a lot that is taking Homestead and the rest of the area is also owned by the same family which is not taking Homestead and it is agricultural so I'm basing that also on that um on that information that I
have okay commissioner is that okay but what but no as of right now there is no and no future plan either to build on on anything or further split the lot or anything like that of course we're changing what's been zoned down there for 30 40 years for a long time so I I just can't support this I you know would you would you would I'm not I'm not sure
if the purpose of Homestead that we that we have to we have to do this um but uh commissioner just just talking it through is something like a bdp where you know they're not putting another structure on that property does that does that help satisfy this situation ask them I I I would be willing to accept that is is that now the bdp would I'm sorry I'm I'm I'm not
sure if that would really operate because the the the resoning request is to the one acre portion so the bdp it sounds like would be concerning the remaining four acres that aren't the subject to this request so that's all thanks for that clarification okay regardless if even if it's at a rr1 it's I'm only allowed to have one structure on their on the r R1 zoning so I mean that's already on the on the property so I'm not intending to put anything else in there maybe a pool
down the future but nothing else back to where we are the the rr1 is just on just for the portion that the house is on yes right sorry commission I cast a question that's okay the rr1 request is just for the port portion of the house is on yes commission that doesn't speak to what's going going to happen to the and whether it's split in the future or any of those kinds of things that's yes Comm CH it's just the one acre that's on the northeast Northeast portion commissioner Goodson the properties
haven't been divided yet correct correct okay I think we could probably make because the request even though it's rezoning a portion of the property it is a rezoning um related to the entirety of the property although it's just a portion so I think we could probably structure a bdp in a way that could restrict um development of another residence on the on the remainder on the entirety of it really but because what we'll have after the res resoning action
still one property just with 4 Acres zoned agricultural and one zoned um rr1 correct so I I think there's a way we can make it work and the the four acres I'm sorry to interrupt also has the barn and a stable already on there so wanted to make sure that we know that and I would agree with what the commissioner said I don't think that you need to do this if the only purpose is for purposes of establishing a homestead through property appraiser but if this is what she wants to do I
think you can make mitigate that with a binding development plan if that's the board's desire I have no issue with that as long as I I assume somebody's going to bring it back to the board we're not going to vote on it tonight because I'd like to see it prior to voting on it well you you'd vote on the zoning tonight subject to The Binding development plan and The Binding development plan will come back to you right now is that okay with you Billy oh that Mr Richardson if he thinks they make their work my only concern is that the is the legal
advertisement I'm I'm I haven't checked it but I I would assume that it was only the one acre so I I understand and you're probably correct there again we're flying by the seat of our pants a little here because it's just coming up now but I do I do feel pretty confident that we can do it through a binding development plan understood okay okay commissioner yeah okay U maybe we could restate that for commissioner Goodson uh for his for his
motion though that includes that yeah Billy so my understanding would be to approve the rezoning request from Au to rr1 with a bdp li limiting development on the entire five EO parcel to one residential unit which is already there which is already present right is that okay yeah that's fine with me that's fine chair we have a motion by commissioner Goodson is we have a second by commissioner Atkinson I'm sorry did you have a question no okay I'm I'm
sorry uh okay we have a second by commissioner ainson clerk will call the role commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes chair fer yes congratulations ma'am if I could just say one thing I'm sorry I um I know this isn't my district but I know this area very well I pretty much grew up on that street and so um yeah I just wanted to say that congratulations thank you very much thank you
thank you go to H5 Tiffany and hen Tiffany and Henry lir request to change the zoning classification from rr1 to AGR under application number 24z 000058 located in District 3 what that I'm sorry we had two cards on H4 that uh we didn't we didn't call yet and I apologize for that that's my my mistake um
Morris what uh should we should we have them come up and talk we should if there are cards then we should have them come up and then if the applicant is still here she should probably stay around for a minute okay stay stay around ma'am just for a second I'm I'm sorry I apologize for that um okay let's do the cards real quick Alice deacons is that right I apologize oh that's okay I was just confused on how it worked I didn't
have my glasses on there for minute thank you for hearing us out I appreciate it so I guess I'm just still a little bit confused because if it's rezoning for Homestead uh anyway sorry for 1469 Martin Road I'm a resident glad to have you um I guess I'm confused I don't I'm not sure what got approved because I don't really know the terminology but if it's rezoning for Homestead and that doesn't play aart I don't understand I guess why we were going that route I guess and to explain
it's it's all about the Integrity of that property I got extremely lucky uh almost 10 years ago able to get that property extremely and we're blessed to be out there it's rural it's Horse Country um we want to keep it that way that's what we're looking for every time something gets built every time there's a change on Martin Road it is Extreme flooding extreme flooding there um the property that was talked about is the buyer's property and they are here today and I think they're going to speak also um that splitting of the lot was over 40
years ago when they purchased it it's one family that purchased it and it's one family still there so that was done but it was done like 40 years ago and they haven't messed up that integrity at all because it's still that one family owned so I guess I'm the one and I know with other neighbors that approved the barn not having to be moved and those lot you know those lines however you say it um because I'm right next door so it's me that approved that the barn didn't have to be um moved the first
time nor the second time cuz I have no issues they're great PE people I think they're going to be great neighbors they haven't moved in yet but I think they're going to be great neighbors uh I have no issues with the structures that are already there and I would never in a million years want them to move them and make it you know um a heartache for them but I think it just kind of draws the line here because it makes me nervous because why are we doing this why are we splitting it if it's just for Homestead if it doesn't make a difference then why are we going that route that's where I'm confused about I and I think we were
trying to figure that out too um and so what uh commissioner Goodson uh imposed is that there's not going to be another residence on the other portion of that property so that's that's going to continue to be some agricultural use right yes sir so that bdp will follow even after the lot split so that'll yeah so I think she had said there's no F there's no plans right now to do anything which doesn't negate the fact if there would be future plans but
I guess in this then you're saying that nothing else could be built on those and then I guess we're back to why are we doing this to begin with because it sets presidents well no I could see that's possibly cleaner for the purpose of Homestead for the property appraiser I I did work there for a while and I I could I could see that they they would do that um in um because they typically do carve out where the where the house would be they say okay that's the residence and you have Homestead on that portion the rest of it is agriculture
Ure and if it's an agricultural use it's actually a Bonafide commercial growing operation not not a hob hobby Farm then then you get that classification on the rest of it so for the future though um they're not going to be able to put another residence on there even if they split it and someone else were to buy it so if if that were to happen in the future I think someone else would have to essentially do agriculture on on that does that that sound right yes it would
have to be something non-resident consistent with agricultural zoning so I guess my first question is I thought for the a um that it had to be 5 acres to get that tax EG am I wrong I you know and I don't know that that I that might have been a a role I don't know if that's a hard a hard fast um rule that's a really a question for the property appraiser um and then I guess and then I'll let you go um because then if they decide to sell it which they could easily sell it then again we're reating
the atmosphere of a rural with just there's you know very few families out there at this point and we're we're not looking for a busy street you know we're not looking for multif family houses there's two 10 acre lots that are for sale that you know we dreading God forbid and but they're being you know the owners are steadfast that they're selling to certain people they're not looking for a subdivision to come in so we're just trying to keep that Integrity I I think uh your commissioner just
basically put a deed restrict on there to try to protect you does that sound right Fair sir it's it's no different than a rezoning so it follows the zoning until unless or until the board amends the bdp it'll be on that property it follows the property so I'm sorry I might not understood you we'd be back at this again if somebody challenged it so a new owner could come and try that but you probably have a commissioner okay would want to do the same things okay but that could also happen if this isn't a
approved and some buys a lot in the future so sure right okay thank you very much yes I apologize again uh John John Angeline Angelo Angel Lilo Angelo Angelo okay good evening my name is John Andre low I live at 1475 Martin Road um I've
lived out there for almost 40 years and uh I guess the biggest concern we we have with this is not what they're what they're doing is anything that's going to set a precedence where the Lots on the north side of me the 2 10 acre partials that were sold that they wanted to come in and start a subdivision and I guess that's the biggest concern you know we don't want to disrupt that area out there it's nice it's quiet and um like Miss Deon said we
are we are being flooded out there quite often I mean the County's well aware of what the situation is they've done studies they've doing surveys and U when they put the Philip's Landing in they put it three foot higher than my property and my whole driveway is disintegrated because they with water so I guess what uh Mr gson was talking about was um if that's the case that you know they have to come back and try to get it reson
I wouldn't have a problem with that but it's just it's just my my concern was setting a precedent and I know how that works um chair commissioner Goodson John I must correct you now Philips Landing is Rock Ledge they're the one that raised it three feet the county I know but um uh the county had approved the drainage I don't think anybody knows the drainage there John they don't I do okay well thank you very much uh commissioner deling hold on Sir uh she
we have a question for Sir Sir John I just wanted to say something um the so that area which I remember very well um Circle SE Ranch if I'm remembering correctly the two lots the the 21 acre lots um I I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it would be irresponsible for us to put subdivisions on those properties and so I can't imagine that happening I don't for see
ever voting on something like that um so I totally understand your concern and um but I can't imagine that happening um but this those properties back there I know they flood like crazy yeah so um but like uh commissioner feltner and commissioner Goodson were saying that this can't be built on unless it comes forward to a future board and you know we have to go through all this again so
okay well that's the biggest concern for sure you know I don't care I mean they could build a mansion over there on their property or whatever they want to build but I was just concerned about rezoning and setting a precedence where all of a sudden bang you know here we go again in mushrooms so but thank you appreciate it thank you yes sir appreciate everybody's forbearance yep first vote was taken an error so you need the motion again and a vote please so
um maybe we should restate the motion uh real quick Billy we'll vote again the motion was to um to approve the resoning request from Au to rr1 with a bdp ac across the parent parcel of 5 Acres um limiting a residential density to one unit commissioner Goodson that's your motion sir that's fine okay so move we have a motion by commissioner Goodson we have a second by commissioner ainson the
clerk will call the role commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes chair fer yes and we'll show that passes okay congratulations again ma'am for a second time thank you everybody appreciate that uh H5 Tiffany and Henry ler request to change a Zone and classification from rr1 to AGR under application 24z 00005
eight located in dist uh is is Henry here I think I have a card sir thank you thank you you recognize you recognize to explain your issue uh I just want to rezone it to AGR for short term to be able to put a pole barn up because legally I can't even put one up with it being R1 and then the longer term is to do a deer farm
something I can do on small property and can be quite lucrative better than the fish business is that right you know my mom tries to keep up with all that but it's a lot of work for nowadays I understand okay are there questions for the applicant commissioner ainson so changing things to a I have a question the one thing that a says that just makes me a tiny bit nervous is it says agricultural Pursuits include
including the packing and processing of Commodities raised on the premises so if we're doing deer what does that look like like you know livestock I mean it's just going to be you know multiple thousand or thousand square foot holding pins for them and in and out with a trailer and just a barn to keep up with them right so no like big packing facility or anything crazy no deer processing No Deal it all be if they do leave there
they're leaving alive okay so then I have a question for staff and I'm not exactly sure who it would go to but just in general is this piece of property big enough that if we did switch it to a we could do something like a packing or processing structure or plant or whatever we would call it seems unlikely from a practical perspective given the size of the property M I couldn't say it could never be done but it just
it seems a little impractical could I ask a followup to that U maybe to clarify um that that would then turn into something commercial and when would that need probably a additional I mean if you're putting a plant this is well like the commissioner did point out you are able to do on this on this property agricultural Pursuits including the the packing and processing plant that is possible on an agricultural zoning I plan on building out there a house at at some point so I
promise you none of that's I mean you were talking about selling the genetics of the deer I mean you sell theal you know yeah so I would also just like to point out if I may that the current zoning which is R R1 is actually not consistent with everything around it so well my father back in 2007 yeah he went through I don't know if he had a big plan to sell the 5 acre lots and do that but so
this would actually bring it into line with the other zoning out it okay that's all I have are there any other questions for the applicant okay any uh I don't think we have any uh other no other cards right okay no other cards is there is there any I'd like to make a motion okay commissioner Atkinson um I move to approve the change from rr1 to
agriculture okay we have a motion by commissioner ainson we have a second by commissioner Goodson clerk will call the rule commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes commissioner Altman yes chair F there yes congratulations sir thank you thank you okay we're going to move on to H6 commissioner H6 and H7 I will read into the record together however they'll
need a separate motion this is Lindy formerly known as prier represented by kimbery rinka request a smallscale comprehensive plan Amendment under 24s 016 to change the future land use from PI and res 2 to all Heavy light industrial under application 24 ss016 located in District 1 Lindy Inc requested change in zoning
classification from IU to iu1 under application 24z 0062 located in district one okay Kim excuse me commissioner if I may before you begin okay I wanted to clarify that the small scale this is approval to transmit it to the state so this will come back if you approve it tonight after it's been
um reviewed by the state they'll send back in in an orc report then we'll have to go through the adoption phase thank you for that clarification okay Kim okay okay okay I apologize member of the board just that what she just said applies to
h8 not H7 this this is not for transmittal this is for adoption of the small scale comprehensive plan Amendment good evening uh chairman members of the County Commission uh what I've given you has already been in the record it was just easier for my sta my uh my team to review it if necessary and you don't have to flip through to find it uh that um picture with the truck on it has already been in the in the record the uh letters of support were provided but don't seem to appear in the record
they were sent to um individually so I did want to give those letters to support to you uh individually uh I am here today on behalf of Lindy Inc with me is Dave y I can't say his name yki director of capital projects he's in from Connecticut happy to be here uh Ben vquez the local facilities manager sea chase the local production superintendent and Chris Haren the environmental consultant who's here to answer questions if there's any questions about Wetlands uh Lindy air
formerly known as pra a is an industrial gas company that supplies products to support contractors at KSC and NASA also has a oxygen supplies to hospitals and has many many uses that they'll they can tell you about further than I can the property's future land use designation is currently planned industrial and residential res 2 the applicant desires to change the land use to heavy light industrial and Zoning to heavy industrial uh the purpose is to make the
that's all consistent so they can actually expand their production in 2018 they did expand their production there was a rezoning and they did put a cold box in um but they need more as everyone knows with two to three launches a week uh their product is in high demand uh it has no intention to build affordable housing that is not with the business there in and if you have concerns about there they'll willingly to enter into a bdp to prevent that uh the properties in rural Mims north of Titusville city limits along the Indian River West and
adjacent to the railroad 4 mil north of maxb Parkway and 8 mil south of Bard County Valia county line there's no adjacent developed housing and there industrial uses to the south in a county park Jones Avenue boat ramp in Mims to the north again we're seeking a small scale amendment in resoning on 10.46 acres to heavy industrial and Zoning to heavy industrial this is about 1 half of the two Acre Site that's already
developed the the as I said the reason is for them to expand production and to install a second cold box um I'd like to have Dave y jeski director of uh capital projects talk to you about Lindy what it does and why they need to expand and you can use okay thanks good evening I appreciate the the time to
come come and and talk to you uh about this I I'll start with a little bit of what is industrial gases I don't know if everybody is familiar with that but Lindy is a $ 34 billion company with 66,000 employees and we operate in about a 100 different countries we really take air and separate it into its constituents in terms of oxygen nitrogen argon um Xenon Krypton neon and all the different constituents of air um used in
many different areas of manufacturing if you look around um in in this room or as you're driving down the street almost everything that you'll see has some form of industrial gas that gets used in this manufacturing but most people don't ever recognize that that happens um we have a facility that's been on the property in Mims since 1966 to support primarily the the Pao program when it started we've used the products that we make there in all sorts of different other
applications uh manufacturer of glass metal Pharmaceuticals semiconductors so it's very safe process that we do we are on Dow Jones's sustainable index for the past 22 years because we do this process very safely um we also have industrial leading um safety performance for the processes that we do one of our big customers as Kim said is the space industry and with the the increase in
the launches they need our product to be fuel for the the vehicles so we're here to ask for this resoning to allow us to expand our facility we currently have about 30 employees at the site we would double that and then we would also double the production capacity of uh the facility as well so we you know request this um expansion we request this so that we can move forward with expansion and be able to support the the industry
out on the the Space Center if there are any questions okay uh commissioner Delany what type of um experience do you need to get some of these jobs that you're talking about I might ask uh Sean or Ben to come up here and talk about the the the interview process there a little bit sure good evening thank you excuse me um so we have various positions within the plant we Sean yes Sean Chase I apologize
um we we have various jobs on the facility um some of those jobs are are driving the vehicles um they would need to have obviously certified truck drivers with a Hazmat experience and tanker experience um we also have uh technicians on the facility some of those are instrumentation and electrical technicians um obviously would need some some training and skill set behind that um and then we also have just plant uh technicians which are essentially
operators so a little bit uh not quite as much education as maybe an I uh person would need but that's that's the vast majority of that outside of the staff the superintendent and the the plant manager awesome thank you any other questions for the applicant I have a question commissioner ainson so is this process noisy the I will say the the process does involve compression equipment and
cooling towers that have a level of uh noise that goes along with them but it's very difficult to hear once you're at the outside battery limit of our of the property so as obviously our area grows I guess this is more of a question for staff if it gets noisier or more frequently noisier how how does that play into what we have out there they are they are and will be continue to be subject to the noise performance standards found in count code um
particularly chapter 46 Article 4 sections uh 6214 83 and 6218 33.5 and so um and and in addition this is only the first step they're going to have to come back in for a cup and at that point the board will have the opportunity to consider to not only just reiterate that but um impose any other conditions that may see fit I'll ask a followup to that because you you've been operating out there
since the mid-60s yes is that is that right has has to anyone's knowledge has there been noise uh problems or conflict up there with this property to my knowledge we haven't got any complaints on this property okay yeah and the the expansion won't raise the noise level from where it sits now there's no new processes that are going to come in and be any noisier than the existing facility uh commissioner Goodson B prepared for complaints to
come because if you know anything about a railroad track you Bill besided and it's been there 150 years we have the same problem on North marit Island right now so it will come okay commissioner delini is an old light or new one that's a new one okay go ahead I just wanted to um I just hadn't gotten there yet the um I just wanted to put this out there when when it comes back for the cup some of the things that I'd like to be addressed is
the um the noise and the traffic cuz um we had talked about the increased uh semis coming in and out of that area and going onto US1 um that is a little concerning to me um with all of that being said uh I went into this community I I talked to the residents that are up there and they say that you guys are great neighbors and great partners with the community so um I'm not too
concerned about this uh plus you guys have uh all of those tree buffers on your property that you said that you're not planning on taking down correct and so maybe there's some other noise mitigation things we could talk about at a later time but that wouldn't be a problem thank you okay any other questions for the applicant we do have uh a card I think I actually wasn't finished chairman I'm sorry in your presentation that's
yeah also too if um commissioner Goodson one like the what they do here is different than liquid air they don't have the same piping and and things like that so uh but yes that would be a condition um when we come back for a conditional use permit which at that point you would be able to add conditions to it we haven't come with that yet because it takes a full-blown site plan the uh document that uh was provided to you that was in the materials already in the staff report it shows uh what the intended is on page four of just it's it's a conceptual it
hasn't been reviewed by staff but that's what would come back and uh to do that with the site plan and and the dimensions for the height and things like that so we're not at that stage yet as to Wetlands there's no impacts planned there's quite a bit of wetlands here and the staff report talks about it I also talked with Mr pad about that today there are some restrictions on that due to the res two being in place for so long the idea is to make this one compatible land use and uh
zoning the plant's been in existence since 1966 there's no houses around it also to the uh west of it is mostly Wetland property I know many people look to develop I don't think that it's going to be developed anytime soon because of the wetlands and the uh comprensive plan would prohibit that we are just attempting to make it consistent so they can expand and we will come back before you again with a conditional use permit as to the traffic
we did consult with LTG they're putting together a proposal to review the intersection at Wy Avenue in US1 because of the increase in trucks uh they're concerned that you can't get a full traffic signal maybe a flashing light or maybe some traffic calming or reducing the uh speed along that area so we have looked at it we just don't have anything to present to you at this time but that would definitely come back with a conditional use permit so I know that was a concern and they've even admitted it's a concern for them because people take that as a Speedway up there with that uh if there are any other questions
we have um as I said Mr Heen here is the wetlands expert and we're happy to answer any further questions if not we would ask that you approve both the future Lan use and the zoning as requested and the bdp if you'd like but again you could put that on the conditional use permit as well okay we do have one card are there any other questions for the applicant okay sander Sullivan good evening so I'm glad the noise issue came up um so just this
property zoned in 1961 before we had a Department of Community Affairs uh with with land planning comprehensive plans which came 20 years later or so so when you look at that you know it's it it is non-conforming with the with the area but obviously a great a great business been there for a long time as they take this property to the north and develop that where they're
approaching where there are some houses uh at the north end of that and so I might suggest that there be a buffer at the North End just to address because s similar type plant had some noise issue the primary uh reason I came up here to speak is an objection to the staff report and the staff comments and so I want to bring your attention um and I would appreciate um M Rosena mentioned that she would be
amenable to a bdp to prohibit live local since that's not the intent so let's take at our word on that but staff put in here that the potential for this property was a because it has a far which is intensity use of 1.76 that they could put 313 dwelling units with a development potential of 30 units per acre pursuant to the live local act affordable housing you will own nothing and be happy law and to that
I um talked to Billy pad after the meeting and he said I said I've read live local a few times I don't see the language that you're saying in that bill so I went home read it again but he told me had a document oh just records request it I'll send it to you so I did send him a records request and so what he sent me paraphrases what is in live local which says additionally a county
may not restrict the height of such development below the highest allowed height for commercial or residential development in its jurisdiction within one mile of the proposed development or three stories whichever is higher which is what I stated so the issue I have is there is I've researched this very much there's no equivalency between intensity use and density use and so I think this needs to be cleared up on this particular property so don't have this coming
forward on other um properties that come before this commission there's nothing incate Bill 102 for about intensity use equivalency now this doesn't apply if this is you know light industrial but converting it to heavy industrial or any other heavy industrial the claim is made by staff that there is an equivalency between intensity and density and live local does not have have that and so um
if need be I am requesting this commission to go out to an attorney general legal opinion out to because this there's a lot of complexity with Senate Bill 102 and moving forward on this issue and make sure that we have some some clarity on this issue but for today I'm requesting to take Miss Miss Rena's offer since they have no intent for live local and build that into the bdp thank you
okay that thanks that was the uh only card that we had on that is there a discussion on the item commissioner delini we can deal with all of these things during the cup process the potential of the local the the traffic the noise all of that stuff I I'm not sure about the dealing with the live local through the cup the other things is the answer I think is
yes um but the live local we would need is a specific exemption from a rezoning so it it would still be a commercial or industrial zoning and therefore be subject to the live local act I would know that it is today it already is so the the request doesn't change that but I don't see I don't see a f how you could exempt it in any way from the live local act through a cup director Prasad is correct on all counts there but he's also correcting that the current the
current potential unit yield under live local as it's currently zoned will be the same if you grant the resoning there's there's no change regarding the local implications since the applicant is offering is that something that would build in any kind of protection if the applicant wants to submit a binding development plan we can certainly do that if that's what you would like commissioner do that thank
you and what is what is can I ask what's that bdp um consist of what is it I imagine it would be an agreement on the part of the applicant that they won't utilize the property for a a local project essentially correct they live local project or just residential apartment uh dwellings well they won't be able to do Residential apartment dwellings with the rezoning that's contemplated unless they were to do it as a live local project right okay because it's going to have an IND industrial zoning and there's the
industrial zoning doesn't allow for a residential component okay and we have we have these two items so um I think we got a couple things to figure out um is is that something that you're amendable to yes sir for uh commissioner Delaney okay and um so which one do we need to um do that on Billy
on that's what I thought okay all right so with that said uh commissioner delini is there a motion on H6 I would like to move to approve the land use uh designation from PI to to Res 2 okay we have a motion by commissioner delini we have a second by commissioner Alman clerk will call the role on age six that's not no it's pi and res two to all and high all industrial that's right it's confusing yeah from I'm sorry I would
like to make a motion to um go forward with the land use designation change from PI and res 2 to all um heavy light industrial okay indd and commissioner Alman that's your second as well okay so we have a motion by commissioner delini we have a second by commissioner Alman clerk will call the role commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes commissioner Al yes CH fman yes we'll show that one
adopted now we'll go on to H7 commissioner Delany uh I would like to make a motion to approve the zoning change from is it IU to iu1 with the bdp to restrict um a live local project okay we have a motion by commissioner Delany is there a second we have a second by commissioner ainson
clerk will call the RO commissioner Delaney yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner ainson yes commissioner Alman yes chair fer yes we'll show that that one passes too thank you very good thank you all for what you guys do for the community and scotsmore Mims there's 30 great jobs coming so get your applications and get over there thank you okay um Commissioners we're going to go on to a
h8 h8 is Christopher espinet represented by kimbery Rena request a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from res one to Res 2 under application 24 ss00 0013 located in District 3 and this one is approval for uh transmitt to the state um it will come back with the orc report which then will have the time to
um resolve any issues in that and um choose to adopt it within 180 days okay you have binders too huh pardon me
yeah you have binders too I do not not part of the new way for
all right uh again uh chairman feltner members of the County Commission Kim renka on behalf of Chris espan uh this is a future Lan use request to change from res one to Res two um my binder is the uh over 500 pages of public comment you have that I just received most of today and have not really had a chance to review
including the one on the screen in front of me but we are here to move forward um we are not requesting a continuance there are people here and we're moving forward I'm glad to see Mr Alman made it I was worried about that this is um you yall in a catch22 situation I understand that you have staff telling you one thing you have hundreds of people telling you something else you have bombarded by emails this is a problematic situation um that uh seems almost
illogical unreasonable and senseless the whole purpose here is to allow one house on 7 Acres your staff has told you you can't do this because it violates your comprehensive plan however we do not believe it violates your comprehensive plan because of the structure of your comprehensive plan and the glossery terms in your own comprehensive plan and Mr Jim mcnight is here with me he'll go through that with you also with me as Mr espot the residents of South rard Beaches do not want this they've uh tossed around words like
illegal and uh violate your comp plan uh breaking the law creating precedents none of this is true and we'll explain that to you tonight there's been a lot of unnecessary anger and worry about a matter that's really about one single family house it's truly a storm in a teacup so first I'd like to talk a little bit about the legislative text and addendum that your staff put together um again this request is also
for a bdp your staff says that can't be done but it's done done before it was in the packet I presented for you before that there is precedent to having a future Lan use Amendment with a bdp to make them consistent with your comp plan section 62.1 d1255 of your ordinances say that is the purpose of the bdp to make your comp plan and your future land use I me your comp plan and your zoning consistent so that has been done that's in your packet and it can be done now it won't be able
to be done again because it's also in your new comprehensive plan Amendment that's been up to the state and back it actually prohibits that from happening in your new comp plan so this would be the second time or third time it would have been allowed uh It also says in this legislative report that res 2 would create an inconsistency between RP and the flu designation um of the RP zoning and flu designation it's already inconsistent because of the size of the lot so it's already inconsistent now
they have said that Mr espan can indeed build a commercial structure that commercial constructure can be 12,000 Square ft based upon the far and the and the coverage lot coverage now a single family house which is allowed by the Declaration to be 8,500 Square fet which won't if Mr espano can build you can have a 12,000 foot professional offices to include group homes to include uh boarding homes to include a Learning Center things that don't make sense in this neighborhood but it seems that's
what the residents want but your staff has done that and said he is basically vested to build a commercial structure again 12,000 ft also it seems that there's no issue with access based upon the addendum that was provided by your staff also I'd like to point out um if you watch the pnz or you listen LPA listen to LPA they were torn on this issue they didn't want to vote on this issue but they did indeed recommend
approval because it doesn't seem fair and this is a fairness issue this is a policy decision that you all will need to make uh also to be clear it's a future Lane use Amendment it's not a resoning most of the emails that I review think it's a rezoning it's not it's a legislative decision a policy decision to be made by you um also Mr espot never agreed that he would not submit for a future Lan use amendment I see Mr Right Here Mr chantis
email says oh no he agreed that's not true Mr Bennett was working for the contract purchaser back in 2018 he withdrew the application because at that time they said you can't move forward they came to me I disagree with staff's interpretation Mr mcnight disagrees with staff interpretation and it's up to you to decide who is right uh regarding ing the staff report we believe there are um three statements
in opposition which are in error first that res 2 creates an inconsistency between RP zoning already has an inconsistency which will be cured by the bdp that we submitted that they don't talk much about any of the staff report but there is a bdp request before you uh the one that was in your packet was incorrect it was submitted again with my packet to LPA second is it would violate policy 1.7 because it's not a transition 1.8 B
does not say the transition has to be adjacent you have res one you have res two you have res four this is a transition and this is the exact same issue that we had with Santa which Mr Goodson didn't like I remember um but it is a transition and there is other res two and there is other res four in the area so it's not a violation of policy 1.8 uh third the request to increase intensity violat 7.1 however it is consistent with
objective seven of the coastal element so there's no need to review policy 7.1 again Mr uh mcnight will go through this information with you about your glossery and your terms uh the staff report never says how this CPA oh actually I take this back staff report goes in detail about how this request will not violate the barrier protection act the um vard Barrier Island area um that Mr Alman was
involved with that's section 38805 535 this is not on the beach it's not on the dunes there's no sea turtles there's no Wetlands nothing that's in that law that is intended to protect um increased density so and staff does a great job of supporting our position on that I ask that you look at this rationally I know there's a lot of emotion um that was in those emails and you may hear tonight uh one house is more compatible
than a 12,000 squ ft commercial professional office that can have multiple uses it's not in a coastal High Hazard area the map provided shows that Mr espot did not create the lot or the condominium that has caused this problem if he made a mistake it proves he's human but he will tell you he got direction from staff not in writing and that he thought that RP he could build a house um he's asking for assistance from the county placing blame on him for a
bad real estate deal is unfair and it's not evidence fourth this does not impact any concurrency levels of service your staff report supports that again this is a policy decision made by you uh six the Florida commerce department will review this this will go up to the state they will say whether or not it makes sense to them and they will
also review any building permit submitted by Mr espan so the department of caras will review this uh seven this will not create any precedential value as these facts this lot this condomini minum are unique and likely incapable of replication that word precedent has been thrown around like candy at a parade in all of these different uh emails it's not true and Mr Mr uh mcnight will say that I gave you a
sheet that I now can't find mine um on two pages the Law Dictionary from blacks and also a Cornell Law review article that talks about what a precedent is and you have to have similar facts similar property uh again the fact uh identical or similar facts and similar legal issues I cannot imagine nor have I seen in my 25 years of doing this anything like this before so this will not crece a princip a
precedent uh again you can submit a bdp for future land use it's done it's been done zoning regulations need to be looked at just like comp plan regulations according to the case law um Hoffman versus Bard County Board of Commissioners of fdca case from 1980 you have to give their terms the broadest definition so when you're looking at these glossery terms they need to be looked at in the favorable light of what
we're proposing here that you don't get to the policy if you don't meet the objective or if you meet the objective the policy is to define the objective I'd also point to the private property rights element of your comp plan and um the potential that applying this policy 7.1 in this manner to this property May indeed create a takings issue not that we want to go there but being involved in another Bert Harris with the county um this is the
application of a policy that definitely impacts his ability so um with that I'd like to turn this over to um Mr espot good evening staff Commissioners Commissioners sorry I'm not good with speaking with uh
crowds makes me nervous I'm more of an introvert so you'll have to forgive me my name is Chris espinat I've been a Florida resident for 50 years my children and grandchildren live here as well I purchased a property from developer Doug La in 2005 attorney Phil no of gray Robinson drafted the condra dos and that are recorded in marvar County official records the recorded docks are attached to the Deeds of both units 1 and two as a general contractor since 1990 I've always done due
diligence prior to purchasing I made a trip to Planning and Zoning with Pat stay's listing info and the recorded documents from Phil no which included the plot plan by Allen engineering it appears staff in 2005 interpreted objective 7 differently knowing that if objective 7 is met policy does not apply although nothing in writing was received they didn't inform me at the time all looked good and there was no issues I went on my way and proceeded with the purchase of the property I sat on the property Through The Years with plans of
building a home a dozen or so years later I suffered financial and personal hardship along with health issues a difficult decision was made and the property was listed for sale it went under contract and the buyers hired Clayton Bennett to perform due diligence buyers withdrew the contract in 2018 after being informed a home could not be built on 710 of an acre a single family home to the surprise of myself and all parties parties involved staff has mentioned this is a one-of-a-kind
historic case if another property has had this issue I would be very surprised and would like to know about it uh so you know I would uh I think it's a sheer hypocrisy that some of the residents who live behind me in Lighthouse cover opposed to me building a home on a single family home on 710 of an acre saying it will impact the area lighthouse cove's multif family development consists of 80 twostory Town
Homes crammed into 10th acre lots after hearing inaccurate assumptions from two of Lighthouse CO's residents from the last meeting it is clear the unit owners do not want anything built on my property I yet to hear a complaint from Lighthouse Cove about the view I've enjoyed on my tax expense for the last 20 years someone at the last meeting even called the 710 of a lock substandard I didn't get that one but the other thing is throughout the year $40,000 plus dollars in taxes weren't
requested by the county they were expected and paid the county which is funded by taxes hasn't helped find a solution hopefully they can today it is evident from the opposition letters that the public are grossly misinformed and simply jumped on the bandwagon I have looked up the addresses of many opposed and have yet to find one that lives on a property larger than the one I plan to build a home on and uh also notice many of them have
arrived only in the last few years um so I don't know what they're being told I'm not sure who the ring leader is in all this but it saddens me that people would show up in a post someone building a single family home on a suitable 710 acre lot rather than offer support and help find a solution like a good neighbor objective seven states limit densities within the Coastal High Hazard Zone and direct development outside the
area the property is located outside the coastal High Hazard Zone therefore policy 7.1 doesn't apply as objective Trump's policy we meet objective 7 so policy 71 doesn't come into play you can't get past the overall objective because development has been directed outside the coastal High Hazard area when due diligence was performed in 2005 it peers objective 7 was interpreted differently by staff what we
all do know is that the South Beaches riddled within consistent zoning and this would be a good transition this would not increase density because we are building one single family home on one single lot I would like to point out that being in an area of critical State concern sets guidelines it doesn't prohibit development at the last meeting one of the staff members mentioned that bra Bard County entered into to an agreement with the state that they must make
people's land usable and you can't deny the use of a person's property the motion for this item passed at the November 18th meeting because majority of staff knew it clearly made sense you know let's do the right thing today thanks for your time thank you sir uh just real quick before you go are there questions of the applicant are there any questions for the applicant no okay we're going to go to to the cards oh thank you okay thanks
for your time all right I think they had their 15 15 minutes so we're we're done with presentation is there are going to ask for I would I would ask for more time for Mr mcnight to speak okay I think uh that's something that the board has to decide um do we do we want to give the applicant okay um five more minutes okay all right thank
you just for you John yeah thank you Mr chairman members of the commission I am Jim mcnight I am a planner I will make this quick I spent 40 years in local government on that side in a lot of meetings so I appreciate what you guys are having to do tonight I want to hit a couple of things that are very important in here uh one is when you look at the areas of critical State concern there are two primary things in the statute one is the beach the turtles and
protecting that resource the other is the Indian River Lagoon this project in no way will impact either one of those items in the 380 statute that we all refer to so it's important to to kind of Ratchet back on that there's also something that was troubling to me that I really read a lot today in the statute that we refer to because we keep going back to that it says it it does not affect existing land use or zoning with
the Barrier Island before July 1 of 2023 so on this side you have the res one on this side you have an RP zoning yet we're saying you can't use the RP zoning because it doesn't line up with the res one that's why the res 2 is being required because that's what the land use plan says so to me it's a conflict conflict with the state statute and that the individuals not able to
build this one home which we know RP allows you to build something that's a mixed juuse professional and residential or E each one can go the diff its different way residential or professional I think the most important thing is this is a transition an obvious transition that is very compatible with the area and from a planning perspective that's what we look at is how is this compatible and we can go over the
guiding principles and disagree on that but I think the most important thing that we look at is compatibility and I know that uh there are different opinions on that and even looking at RP the lot coverage in RP is less than you would have for any other type of use so you've got an opportunity I think to to look at what best fits this piece of property like I said I've been I did this for over 40 years I've never seen a case like this I've seen a lot of different zoning nuances odd things that
occur but never one that that actually fell out quite like this does also in you look at the goal the objective and the policy okay from The Bard County comprehensive plan and it says and and I'll just go beyond the goal okay because the goal's kind of up here and look at the objective that limits densities within the coastal High Hazard area and direct development outside of this area this area is while part of the
Barrier island is clearly outside of the area that has some major impacts and I think the objective is being met I would disagree with staff on that that the objective is being met by what is trying to be done by the applicant and I I don't see the the difference this is not a precedent setting case my opinion I'm not your county attorney I'm sure he has a different opinion but precedent is based on the case itself it doesn't
establish for something that's totally unrelated like this so I don't have a lot of I think Mr Ranka covered everything but I think the compatibility is the biggest issue does this fit in the area and and I think from a a planning standpoint it absolutely meets that so I'm only going to use four minutes Mr feltner and I'm done all right sir thanks for clarification there Erica
orus five minutes hi I'm Erica orus good to see all our new Commissioners up there I live at 263 loggerhead drive and so I am a member of the South Beaches and I did go I did attend the workshop that was held on um Wednesday August 28th for the critical area of concern and the biggest issues were uh getting people off the
island density growing density right so so immediately when I hear things like uh uh we are going to you know our our density is going to be increased and it does go against policy 7.1 where it says Bard County shall not excuse me uh increase residential density designations for properties located on
the Barrier Island between the southern boundary of melburn Beach and the Sebastian Inlet that's just that that's a truth and then we look at using a bdp should not be used as a mechanism to restrict density so I think that you know to look at this and say well it's one house it's so innocuous it's just one house house but let's look at the history so this
has tried to been shoved through two times before two times this has come to staff and each time the Advisory Board said no this time The Advisory Board actually said yes right unfortunately it was like a squabble I said no cuz I live there CU I know what it's like you know I try to get out on it isn't just the turtles it's the people we're trying to get out on A1A we want to get here we
can't even get here evacuations everything else is like like it's very difficult down there we have to do something different and so I think for us to immediately out of the gate after establishing a critical area of concern say okay well let's say back in 2005 a mistake was made I'm just finding it now right I'm just I'm just or I just
found it in 2018 but I want everything changed I think it's too much and it thinks it it does I'm going to use the word president because it does set a bad president so I mean yes it should have been caught a long time ago I've done a lot of real estate transactions myself and some of them have been horrific and you know what happens then I've had to eat it cuz I've made the
mistake I don't go to the county I don't plead I don't cry I don't say 18 years later oh my gosh I just noticed this I eat it all right like that's the most thing that we're concerned about is the increase in density so that's all I have to say I mean I obviously I feel bad I understand I've made mistakes but you know what it was a
mistake and and I think he needs a lawyer you know to help him do something different but not come before the board like this this does not help us thank you Sandra solivan
good evening uh first of all I'd like to start with thanking uh fat Alman for sponsoring this bill for the area of critical concern and responding to all the people and all their concerns that what Bard has is so incredibly special so I mean there's a lot of history down there from a small area study and um you know the the Archie car and of course of course the sea turtles are super important because that area is the
largest loggerhead nesting in the world it used to be Armon they used to have twice as much that's gone that ship sailed bards the future and I just want to read something so under this is the staff report administrator policy two uh three it says compatibility so we they talked about compatibility a lot so it says res one is the predominant flu design ation within the immediate surrounding area so the policy says
compatibility with existing or proposed land uses shall be the factor in determining where a resoning or any application involving a specific proposed use is being considered so that would not um comply with that I want to just give you a little bit of History so we had a situation a few years ago where an issue for an up zoning of a property in sou
peaches came here before the before the previous commission and at that time the District 3 commissioner listened to 37 people speak they were very prepared they they did talk about I don't like this they talked about and cited policy and he didn't care what the people said and it was voted through and they recognized at that time that the commission would not listen to the will of the people and so
they they said we're not going to waste any more time we're going to go to the state and so it was with a great deal of effort by a lot of people and again a lot of gratitude to Mr that Alman in bringing this bill forward what I have advocated for over the years and is my passion is evacuation because like the previous speaker said we have studies done by the eastern central regional planning council is part of disaster florida.org
we are 63 hours to evacuate the Barrier Island as it is right now we were much less than that they increased it recently I'll say that again 63 hours to evacuate now you start paying attention to some of the Hurricanes how many hours do you get 14 15 people die and that's reality and South Beaches is very vulnerable
basically got one way out on on a very congested Road and if you don't have adequate time to get out you're not going to get everybody out and that area is so environmentally sensitive you get a hurricane there's sections of that with a cat five or a cat four that'll wash right through and create you know new a new uh what do you call it uh area of water going into the Lagoon it's very narrow strips of lands in that
area so we're talking Life Safety here and so it might just seem like one up zoning one more house you know but it's the big picture I want to just show you something this was the group of people that showed up to the area critical concern meeting when when Bonnie Landry made their presentation there was a lot of people a lot of people wanted and came a lot of public engagement we the people and so they took a survey Bonnie Landry did and this is the results of
that survey and this column right here is density and intensity that is the number one issue of the residents in South Beaches so as you listen to your own staff report who does not feel like this is compatible and the people who have voiced their concerns and and our legislators just for how environmentally
sensitive this is not just for the sea turtles and not just for the Lagoon and the ocean and you know all of the wildlife but also it's very vulnerable for the people that live there so I hope you'll support the people and support the compatibility and the laws and vote no for this thank you okay thank you um Richard drapal did I say that
right good evening my name is Richard drapo and I live at 147 ciki Trail and I'm here to voice my opposition to converting uh the said lot from R1 to R2 it seems like an extreme and extraordinary request now I can't
respond to all of the technical um terminology so all I think most of us there look at this as something that happened when the property was subdivided which created in my opinion a non-conforming lot and you know if the stated requirement for a buildable
lot is one acre and if the board is allowing variations from that requirement why do we have a residential one zone at all if somebody can just come in and make a request and get approval for something that appears to be substandard um so we I had
another comment oh I wanted to refer to and I know this may be objection to what's in the zoning variance process and CU I know that there's a hardship hardship that's being claimed here because of the taxes that were um have been paid by the um the applicant but I'd like like to read the definition of a hardship if I
could in some special circumstances makes it difficult for a project to meet the zoning cord a hardship may be established a hardship generally occurs when the physical charact the physical characteristics of a property are such that it cannot be used for any purpose permitted by County Cod a hardship may be created by the surroundings shape or topographical
conditions particular to that specific property however the hardship cannot be self-imposed or the result of the property owner's own action and then there is another section of the zoning process that states in no case shall the board of adjustment Grant gr a variance which will result in a change of land
use that would not be permitted in the applicable zoning classification so that's kind of where I'm at and wondering why you know this is even being considered thank you thank you sir Mark chantz going to say it's not possibly
left good evening everybody evening wel welcome new Commissioners my name is Mark shanus I am the executive director of the barrier islands preservation and Protection Association we've been around for 34 years um our our motive is to balance the development on the bar islands along with the uh natural habitat and Wildlife
that are there we are not anti-development we are about balancing the development because of things like evacuation um uh infrastructure which we have none of it's a two-lane road going in and out um there's no water sewer there's all kinds of problems one more what I'm going to call it illegal um septic tank is not needed there um
and basically what you've got is a uh property as this gentleman just before had said that was that was properly uh zoned and then got subdivided in made one property that was correct and one property that wasn't that was the making of the original developer who when he made it into a 2un condominium instead of cutting it in half so you'd have 085 and 085 like
anybody would do in a condominium a 2unit condominium made it one unit and 7 he was no dummy okay his one unit for one his one acre was compliant the others were not this first page that you're going to see right here is um from an application yeah you uh that was in 2019 and it flat out
says this is the the representative of the of the applicant that saying that the property is non- compliant he's saying it himself that he made a mistake okay what we basically can you turn me on up there hello okay what you've got here
is um the applicant saying that they have made a mistake and then you have staff saying that there is an insurmountable feat prohibiting this approval request okay Hello dot right well it's right there
okay so it's insurmountable is what they're saying in 2019 then what happens is the applicant goes ahead and says we're taking back our application we will not be submitting if you give us back a refund so they cut a deal with the county saying give me back my money and won't do this again okay then they went ahead and filed in 2022 again they filed in 2024 again and they're now here today
again okay insurmountable feat a policy which is prohibited approval that's that's the staff so the question is are you going to follow binding law and the Constitutional land use of the con of the CME of the of the comp plan you're going to follow the staff comments where 10 times they said said this does not comply five times they said it's in
violation of 7.1 okay if you take a look it right here up on the screen okay so are we going to break the law and violate 7.1 and increase zoning because of a buyer's mistake that he admits of his own making or we going to support The Binding
law okay are you going to support binding law the comprehensive plan or break the law it's as simple as that it's not complicated here's the law which is then duplicated again in 12.1 that was sent to Commerce just shortly ago so there is both 7.1 of the to plan and 12.1 since whoops up north to Commerce Chief
stanbury s that comments already and that's basically what you got so you've got a guy who went ahead and created his own problem you have a law that says you can't do that and now you have a choice of following the law or helping somebody else as somebody helping somebody make a profit on a on a property that they made a mistake hey I'd love to buy a stock have a go to zero and then you pay me for it all right Mark appreciate
it Robert to court uh yes good evening Commissioners uh my name is Robert Dort I live at 5610 South Highway A1A my property AB buts the applicant's property before I get going I'd like to make one correction to a blatantly false statement that was made and that there's
nobody else that's currently opposed to this that owns land greater than 7 of an acre my land is compliant it is inde one acre and the applicant knows that given that he is my neighbor um one of the things and I'm new to land use but it seems to me one of the key principles of it is is a changing something something that's been around for a long time in the legitimate
public purpose or interest does it do anything for the public does it help does it add a hospital does it does it provide access to where there is no access does it increase the wellbeing of the Citizens We're certainly going to make a big change here if if approved and the answer to that clearly no is there anybody if this is approved in rard county that wakes up tomorrow morning and says boy my life is going to be better the answer to that obviously is
also no um one of the other things I'd like to talk a little bit about and uh is numbers pesky little numbers they're necessary because obviously they provide a foundation for many many and many times certainty when we make a decision in life they're vitally important particularly here on the Space Coast do we launch the
rocket the numbers say it's okay important to people like nurses like my wife who dispense medication it's very important it says give them this much you give them exactly that much also turns out Financial professionals and not surprisingly also land use and planning Specialists they can't do their job without numbers now most of the plans are mostly words but if you read it very carefully
most of the words are about numbers so what we have here is that we all make decisions based on numbers everybody in this room makes a decision based on numbers when I bought my property I made a decision based on numbers I Bas I based it on the land used planning I based it on what had happened before and I struck a bargain for a price knowing full well what I was getting
into realizing that that under the current circumstances that lot could not be built on then as it is today as it was for the day that that Pro property was purchased so let's talk a little bit about the two numbers that we're talking about today zero and zero why why are they important well Bard
county has determined and stipulated in writing many years ago that the residential density between south of Melbourne Beach and Sebastian Inlet that the answer to that was Zero could not increase similarly the designation of the property as res1 given the substandard nature of the area of the property meant that it could
build zero residences what we're asking the applicant is asking you now is to basically for no reason of of public interest go change those numbers say it's okay to increase the density of the South Beaches it's okay to avoid to take the the res one and change that now to Res two with with with a a whole bunch of other contortions to make it uh to make it
palatable finally um the other number we want to talk about is the number one particularly as it relates to the the idea that the number of of homes that can be built on there for res one is one per acre we're now supposed to believe that 7 is equal to one and by corollary 1.3 is equal to one so by proving this there's a future
thought that you would be putting in place The Bard County land use 30% criteria rule why not build a house four stories thank you sir can I ask him a question real quick go go ahead commissioner did I hear you right by saying um that you live in the house directly next to to this property correct okay thank
you okay um Commissioners just so that you know um we have about 35 more minutes worth of cards here and uh so I'm going propose maybe we take a f minute break and come back and do those and finish this item okay can we can we do that Morris okay all right okay thank you we're going to just take five minutes thanks
Tracy Hines Tracy here your turn
Tracy you're it's okay you're recognized my apologies we were okay chatting away I didn't realize five minutes was up my name is Tracy Hines I live at 18 to ciki Trail and in Lighthouse Cove and I want to thank you
all for hearing us out today first of all I want to say this is not a tempest and a teacup this is a big deal in the South beaches in the grand scheme of things I know the word precedent has been thrown around I'm going to throw it around again there are three properties that are waiting on this zoning change to go into effect if you go on realtor.com they're already citing it and saying pending zoning change the large lot next door
5660 Highway A1A is saying it's ready for a boutique townhouse community so if y'all open this Pandora's Box and allow this increase from rees1 to R2 it's going to be a domino effect down the beaches in my you so again it's very important to us to try to keep the
character of the area I've been my family has been in Melbourne Beach since 1967 means a lot to me there's South Beaches has always been a special place there's no place else for the sea turtles there are gopher turtles Galore on this property can't ignore that they will just die if they're reloc ated wanted to also point out big differences we were talking about numbers one acre is 4
43,560 ft that's the requirement for a lot size in our area this 7 acre is 30,492 Ft that is 13,068 Ft of difference that's a lot of square footage now what difference does that really make well we have no sewer we have no water in that space you must have a well
you must have a drain field and you cannot risk contamination we have a well for Lighthouse Cove that is right on the northeast corner of our property it is a 4-in well if you look at it under the RS for the county is 200 feet there's just not the square footage that's why the original land use when it was set at one
acre was brilliant because it allowed for everybody to have their well their septic for everything else when you narrow it down 7 is actually closer to 05 than it is to one acre so looking at and saying we don't want contamination of our water supply also looking at it and saying yes it is in the middle but it's still going to have an effect on our runoff our storm drainage we flooded with the last
hurricanes A1A is always underwater it's a high-risk area so I beg you to deny this petition for the change thank you thank you very much any questions comments snip remarks I take them all we already did that you missed it uh
Rickman oh hello hello Commissioners um commissioner Goodson and Atkinson and feltner and Alman and Delaney my name is Amy Su Rickman and my family moved to indianic in 1950 and my husband and I have lived in Melbourne Beach for 15 years and so I'm here to ask you please to deny this request to change zoning
from Residence One to Residence to and there many many people in the room are here live are close close neighbors to this to this property and I have been to see 5610 I know exactly where it is you got to go slow but I because because there's a two-lane road the road is very very very thin as you know when you've heard Myriad reasons to protect this very very fragile piece of land but
everybody but all of Melbourne Beach is is aware of this so I live I like to say that meel you know that I live near the heart of Melbourne Beach the heart of Melbourne Beach is the South Beaches it's all of that it's it's so beautiful and this is not that's that's really what I think it's unfortunate that Phil no let LED led the the owner to believe that this that what he was buying could be changed when when all of
these important legal County and State uh bodies have have have weighed in on how fragile this is so I just want to let you know that there are a lot more people all over from Melbourne Beach all the way down to include even India Atlantic that are hoping that this gets to stay residence one thank you question question sir s Su was your maiden name
yes my father's James Su doctor yes my father's the first surgeon in Melbourne and Su Hardware yes and Su hardware and Su Hardware is Alive and Well great great surgeon great man yes sir thank you so much bye okay Robert logston good evening Robert Lon 9020 Highway A1A
Melbourne Beach Florida I want to propose that the validity of this application is questionable planning zoning has done a credible job of presenting the facts and criteria for your review I'm going to present some historical facts that are not provided in January 2019 the applicant file for a small scale Amendment for res 2 via professional engineer same thing we're discussing here tonight according to pnz correspondence they not even were aware of the divided parcel and advised the
applicants 7 Acres was inconsistent and the future land use designation um and Coastal elment prohibited it according to recorded com correspondence in the 2019 application the C County clearly states that future land use and 7.1 prohibit the approval of the request the applicant withdrew and received a refund what you don't know is included in the application narrative on page one item four is a statement by the applicant's
representative that Mr espenau solely relied on the condo documents to make his purchase there's no mention in any effort to contact pnz staff prior to his purchase he admits he was misled by the developer I find it very troubling that in the review of the land planning agency meeting on November 18 2025 the applicant's attorney implies two times that he reached out to pnz St for guidance prior to the purchase why are we here and why is the county being held responsible for a bad real estate
deal in June of 2022 the applicant filed for a zoning verification once again he was informed that property was non-compliant December 2022 the applicant filed again with an absurd argument that somehow Coastal element 7.0 was in conflict with 7.1 and this inconsistency should somehow allow us increase in density that applic morphed into a large scale text Amendment which imploded due to the implications it
would affect over 50 acres on the Barrier island that application was either withdrawn or rejected the county records aren't very clear on that this current application July 2024 contains the same previous arguments that rejected by the pnz but adds a binding development plan which the county staff agrees doesn't apply the applicant is providing testimony That clouds a factual issue that an increase in dity is not allowed per Coastal management element policy 7.1 Planning and Zoning
staff clearly states four times in their report to you that the application violates policy 7.1 this same letter was provided to the land planning agency but the new uninformed majority of the members were mostly concerned with the money the applicant spent they were fooled they voted on the issue using the false narrative that we must somehow help this applicant because he continued to pay his taxes and voted with their emotions and not their facts all all of this to help a buyer admittedly on
record made a bad purchase in December 2005 since when is it the responsibility of the county to provide relief to an applicant who bought a substandard lot just because he paid taxes on it it's buyer beware this is not a property light rights issue it's a civil case between the applicant and the condo developer that sold him the unbuildable lot it's very concerning that Planning and Zoning staff for the first applications were Flatout rejections but this current application comes to them loaded with speculative suggestions that
somehow they're asking the board to consider the following criteria is it consistent with the compatible and surrounding areas no it's not if it violates 7.1 and 12.1 of the bbia does it satisfy the locational criteria established in the future land use policy 1.8 no what not when it VI violates 7.1 and 12.1 is increasing the residential dis density designation consistent with the coastal management
element policy 7.1 no it clearly violates it does the request meet the intent of the Bard Barrier island of critical concern guiding principles no it also clear clearly violates it the applicants a State Certified general contractor with years of Land Development knowledge multiple real estate transaction and is also a licensed real estate agent the there's no hardship or burden caused by the county it's a bad real estate deal this has been a colossal waste of
taxpayer money it's a huge waste of Planning and Zoning time and dollars we believe it's a civil matter between the developer and the applicant he should be suing the developer the responsibility responsibility to help this applicant is not with the county the liability belongs to the applicant please vote against the application please do not provide a precedent for future crafty land owners to convert their property to a condo and then destroy the intent of
the future land use plan thank you very much I do have documents I want to enter for the record okay while while you're doing that Dolores Conway you're next um we're going to have to see about ask uh Dolores Conway 12 3 Cardinal Drive Melbourne Beach um good evening Commissioners thank you for the opportunity to address
the board um I oppose Mr ESP benet's request the future land use plan Coastal element 7.1 is very clear that there is no density increases in the South Beaches a change from res one to Res 2 is a density increase uh Mr espanet mentioned that he he just wants to put a single family home on and that RP zoning is the problem the problem is
the size of the lot the history of this lot starts with the previous owner Mr L he bought the parcel in 2003 the 1.7 acre lot was compliant it had no development issues in 2005 Mr L converted the 1.7 acre lot to a condo regime form of ownership Mr La split the parcel into two lots via condo declarations but the Lots were not
created equal one lot unit one or unit two I'm sorry was compliant at one acre the other lot unit one at 7 Acres was not compliant and it was not buildable the subject lot unit one now has development issues Mr Lally not the county created the problem so aside from the obvious respon responsibility Mr L has for creating and selling Mr espanet a non-compliant lot the applicant is
also responsible for not completing his due diligence it appears the applicant relied solely on the condo docks put together by Mr L at any time prior to closing Mr espanet could have visited Bard planning and zing and requested a written information about the status of the lot in 2005 the applic was experienced and knowledgeable in land transactions he already purchased a lot
in 1997 and another lot in 2002 from 2013 to 24 the subject lot was put up for sale multiple times at multiple prices Mr espanet has been a general contractor in Florida since 1990 he made a mistake so I asked the Commissioners to deny this request for the following reasons this request increases density
in the area of critical State concern changing the future land use map designation from res one to Res 2 would set a precedent using bdp improperly to make this law compliant may also set a precedent the condomini and property regime form of ownership Florida statute 718 may also suffer a precedent the greatest harm in approving this request is opening the door to one density request after another using this
lot as an example this is a civil matter thank you for your time thank you ma'am Beth Glover good evening I'm Beth Clover 6630 floridana Avenue Melbourne Beach um I
was born in Melbourne Mr Goodson I just have just I'll be brief I won't use my whole five minutes but I just wanted to show you the petition that we've got not only these people that are sitting out here in the crowd but all these pages are full of signatures and South Beaches that we got to stop this we do not need this increas in density leave it as rs1 do not increase the density thank you thank you ma'am we appreciate uh you
getting to the point Ralph is it Samus or sarus okay my name is Ralph samis I live um south of walkar I live at 7810 wiona Road in Mel Beach um um Chris and I've been coming here surfing since for like the last 50 years I think we're all viewing this wrong what we're really
looking at is audacity so what happened was you had somebody who was a lawyer and a developer that decided that they could dupe the way this is done and they figured out that Planning and Zoning does not have contact with the clerk of courts over condos is that correct so so basically what they decided was they decided was they could put through condo docks and not have to have it go to Planning and Zoning it went to the
clerk of courts they gave it um they gave it um tax numbers so it basically got put up there in a way that could go around people and dup them to go through and do there's no other land like that I guarantee that planning I'm sorry I guarantee that Clerk of Courts does not get condo docks from the South Beaches because Ocarina has something they could build there's a little bit of stuff left but there's really not a lot of space so it's not like the cler of Courts is continuously getting stuff and they let that go through it then let the buyer go through and do that look a little bit of background on Chris he's a good Builder
um Jerome pal the guy who's the FED chairman the last job he finished before he quit was he finished a huge condo for jome pal you don't get that job unless you're good he's thorough he don't want me to say it I don't want to call him cheap but I would call him FR I guarantee you he didn't drop 250 Grand on something go out and pay full cash full ask for something if he didn't go to the county and check on it for sure that's all I can tell you I've been to the county before and had stuff done in planning zoning and then back come back and had something change in that stuff too so I don't know if he saw me or not he stayed with me the whole time he came
I would suspect he went out there and had somebody look at it that's all I can tell you the other question is at some point in time the county knew that they deemed his property unbuildable like like let's say let's say five when the house was built up front they had to look and realize that they were going to make his lot unbuildable is there no responsibility to tell him your lot's no longer buildable you think you are but we know you're not in between that time the guy that did the divide that was the lawyer and the guy who owned the property both
died so there's nobody to sue but that system it's it's his fault but the way this went through with the clerk of courts there's also some cability there too so thank you for your time good luck y'all um one last thing you've had a hard night I'm sorry you all dealing with this I'd like to take you to the eery it's down the road it's down the road from his property it's 6200 ft it probably has 200 people a day go to the bathroom there the septic system seems to work I don't know you know New England New England eery yeah it's it's
about 300 yard from where Chris's property is so there's a lot of people that are un septic there that system works on the it's been a while since I've been down there come down that's a good night thank you guys all right when the snowbirds are there they're busy there's no doubt um e Eva and after Eva is going to be Katherine Eva how do you say your last name nagam mahali okay I wasn't going
it's Hungarian it's simple uh 6501 Highway A1A uh I heard everybody speaking so I'll be brief they said it all and everyone was very intelligent very Dynamic and very strong on their opinions um when you buy land you have to know what you're doing I'm sorry that he got hurt through it but it is important for the density to stay as low
as it is and everyone thinks they have a major problem you let it go this time it will go again the next time so please do the right thing hear the people here tonight and uh vote against it thank you thank you very much and be is it is it Dr Katherine yes everything I wanted to say said well okay w w
oppose oppos okay W wave and oppose that's the as the former uh house members are telling me wave and oppose okay all right very good we're done with the cards um so is there are based on what you heard are there questions for staff okay um Kim I have yeah uh I think Kim's out of time but uh we agree we want to give her a few minutes to for a
rebuttal yes okay all right thank you we're almost there everybody uh thank you uh commission um chairman felner for giving me this time to rebut U there's a lot that's been said nothing we haven't heard before again uh Mr esot did say he went to the county Mr espot did not split the lot Mr espot did not write that narrative it was Clayton
Bennett on behalf of the contract purchaser uh the 2022 application I put in for a text Amendment it was withdrawn because of Mr alman's barrier protection act um and the uh Consulting planners that I talked with said there's no way you'll get that through Department of Commerce because it's it impacts so many this impacts one lot this impacts only Mr espot it's one house versus a 12,000 ft commercial use building which makes
absolutely no sense um this property is not an area of critical concern it has not got bugs and bunnies it may have gopher turtles I don't know but it's not a dune line and it's not a beach um many of these people that spoke to you live in a condo to the west of casige Trail they're in an r210 zoning with a res one future land use and they're on condos so this density is a transition from what's really there so res 2 does make sense as
Mr mcnight stated regarding this road U uh A1A it's got a 36.1 6% um level of service there's quite a bit of traffic that can still go on that and it's it's it's only one house also too there are two evacuation routes one is north and one is South um this was put in place before I believe the bridge was down south at least that's what I was told when I was looking at the 92 ordinance I want to
talk about that 92 ordinance because I did pass it out that 92 ordinance is very confusing and I don't have um any information as to exactly what happened here but exhibit a to addendum number one says ordinance 93-02 all this says is the mixed use is changing to residential it doesn't say res one in here I'm not sure where that came about and we're trying trying to hunt that down um regarding precedence I'd like to cite from a Yale Law Journal
from 19 uh 2013 this is called City unplan and it states um the key to understanding map amendments is that they are s successive changes to the map considered one by one and limited to a specific area without any precedential value for other zoning decisions again this is a zoning decision what I cited to you earlier says that Rinker still applies um to comprehensive plan amendments regarding um administrative policy 3 that was
cited by one of the speakers tonight that does not apply here that applies to a zoning a rezoning only uh regarding the comprehensive plan glossery I implore you to read those you have a goal than an objective it's more specific than a goal identifies the steps necessary pursuit of a goal so the goal is um to statement of is to develop growth
management strategy the objective is to limit densities within Coastal High Hazard you're still doing that when you go to Res 2 so the objective is met and then the policy is to help with the objective but you don't need the help here because the objective is met uh this bill that we keep talking about um it it uh the only thing it does here
because the guiding principles don't comply as stated by your staff and by Mr mcnight is it will allow Department of Commerce to review this again this is a future land use not a zoning this is not a variance if we're not claiming a hardship uh the biggest thing I want to explain is that just because staff says so doesn't mean they're correct I know you rely on them they're very intelligent they're very good uh this
has been a position that's been in place for a long time Mr Bennett nor his client wanted to fight this we're here to fight this because we believe that they have made a mistake um Again The Binding development plan has been done before for Dunkin Donuts and I do want to take your attention to the last page of what I submitted to the Planning and Zoning which I now can't find but it is the Constitutional um amendment in the Florida Constitution that states staff is not entitled to difference that
changed in 2020 or 2016 it's it's stated on the page that I cannot find I ask that you approve this Department of Commerce will look at it thank you very much for your time thank you okay Commissioners uh before we go further Morris you want to clarify something for us uh yes sir thank you Mr chair and this is a little unusual and I'd ask the board to indulge a little you'll probably hear from me a little more than you usually would typically we bring to you applications where in your function
as policy maker uh particularly for these legislative comprehensive plan amendments you have broad discretion to apply your wisdom to the uh matters before you and make a decision likewise in zoning matters where it's quasi judicial you consider the facts and the law you and apply and you apply those and uh and you have discretion here it's staff's opinion certainly my legal opinion that there is no discretion and I would like to explain why I believe that's the case uh first of all saying I
have the utmost respect for Mr Ranka Mr mcnight their Professional Knowledge and skill but I I do want to talk a little bit about comprehensive planning under the Florida Statutes uh according to Florida statute Section 163 3177 the format of a comprehensive plan is generally provided as goals objectives and policies but the stated purpose of comprehensive planning is not to compel local governments to regulate their land in a particular way but rather to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of
land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed Land Development and use regulations uh objectives do typically follow from goals and policies from objectives but policies do not need to be narrowly written to further only the literal statement of an objective in our case objective seven states limit densities within the coastal High Hazard area and direct development outside of this area policy 7.1 clearly and unequivocally prohibits increases in residential density designations for properties
located on the Barrier Island between the southern boundary of Melbourne Beach and the Sebastian Inlet that policy is not inconsistent with objective seven it supports objective 7even as well as the overall goal of the comprehensive management element which speaks to the protection of coastal resources in human life and the limitation of expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters and if you look at all of the other policies under objective 7 none of them are limited specifically to application in the coastal High Hazard areas they talk about things like you
shouldn't place a hospital on a Causeway uh they talk about the cemp the coastal or the Emergency Management plan things like that that go beyond a narrow focus on the coastal High Hazard area uh most importantly the law affords equal equal dignity to policy and objectives it doesn't say uh if you check the box on an objective ignore all of policies underneath rather if you look at Florida Statutes 163 194 which is entitled the legal status of a comprehensive plan it
expressly States a development order or Land Development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses densities or intensities and other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives policies land uses and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all the other other criteria again doesn't say ignore the policies if you meet the objectives but rather compels you to follow those policies in your comprehensive plan the cases that interpret it say that a comprehensive
plan is essentially a constitution for all future development within the governmental boundary and the cases say that it is well established that a development order shall be consistent with the government body's objectives policies land uses Etc is provided in its comprehensive plan so I'm not in a position to advise you that you can ignore policy 7.1 simply because this property is not in the coastal High Hazard area uh rather to the contrary I feel that you're compelled to follow policy 7.1 if if I had my way and I think if
staff had theirs we would probably not have taken the applicant's money and said this is something the board can't approve but I I think we were told in no uncertain terms that the applicant wants to go forward and uh and possibly get a denial that could be subject to an appeal uh and that we may have even been uh sued to require us to process the application if we turned it away so it's here before you um have full respect to the board but again I I believe you know this is clearly inconsistent the request uh clearly constitutes an increase in
residential density uh can't be granted and I do want to remind everyone that there's a supplement to the staff report that does state that and I I believe the applicant talked about it earlier this is not an unbuildable or undevelopable lot a professional office could be placed on the LA sorry for talking so much again unusual but this is an unusual circumstance okay Commissioners discussion on the item question uh question I'm s I'm uh commissioner Alman sorry that's just
more of a clarification I'm a little confused I know when you look at this parcel on the tax map it's showing it as being owned um it shows it as a condo common area but it doesn't show the name of the applicant on the tax map shouldn't that be the case if it's a landowner coming for resoning that the ownership should be showed on the tax M I have I have noticed that auditing commissioner if you search on the property appraiser by
the tax account that's on the agenda report and I'm looking at it right in front of me the correct account does show up and if you hit the tax bill um the owner shows as Christopher espanet which is the applicant and it shows that the taxes are current and it shows so there's three tax accounts across parent parcel there's that full one that you're um I believe is what you're looking at there's a tax account on the east side and a tax account on the west side I'm looking at it
I'm waiting on the load it's just odd the way it's shown on the map I can't tell from liking attacks I'll probably have more questions of you about that but is this I've never seen this before I think it may have something to do with the way it was divided as with using the condo when it's in condominium ownership like if you were to look at the Condominiums to the West right you'll see they're all
grouped together even though the units are individually owned so I think that's probably why the property appr appraiser shows it that way but they are it is individually owned and Mr espanet does own the 7 acre piece and does pay taxes on it interesting if um if it was rezoned here today and they built a residential home they would still be able to file for home instead and show it designated that way or they need to change the the tax map the request today is a future land
use map change but if that were granted there may be an issue about inconsistency with the zoning which we'll ignore for a moment but if they did get to a point where they could build a home on it they could apply for Homestead um just like you could with a condominium or town H ownership they change the tax map or it's just odd to me there's tax account number sir the actual map the actual Tax Collector's map doesn't show when you click on the tax map you click on the details it doesn't show the owner it shows as part of a condo I mean when they when they do
a split or a combine that changes tax account number so that's that's possible that because of the condominium vehicle I think it'll stay that way because it's uh it's in a condominium essentially M okay I see I understand I understand you have other questions sir no I don't not yet okay any other questions for staff I have okay uh commissioner
ainson it question not necessarily I'm going to make a statement if you tell me if I'm wrong um first I I would like to say thank you to everybody who who came today I know this is a unique uh situation let me also mention I heard the word unbuildable just to reiterate what moris said I heard unbuildable several times you need to understand this is not
unbuildable correct that is correct commissioner this is s res one indicates it has to be one acre to have one residence correct we are talking about changing from R1 to R2 which means what it would double to the residential density right policy 7.1 of our comprehensive plan says BD County
shall not increase residential density designations for properties located on the Barrier Island between southern boundary of Melbourne Beach and the Sebastian Inlet correct that is correct that's all I got all right any other questions for staff commissioner Goodson then if you can't build a residential but you can build a 12,000 square foot commercial right is that what I heard is
that correct you would be able to build a a Prof certain types not all commercial but residential professionals so professional office as an example okay yes and that 12,000 Square ft I believe the minimum 7500 Square ft um okay which would um does anybody have an opinion of how much that would increase the density as far as traffic
so it very well obviously might depending on the use um we consider residential density and Commercial intensity as two separate things and that's why the policy doesn't apply to the commercial aspects of it it's only applying to the residential aspects of it okay thank you thank you chair thank you sir anyone else any discussion on the item is there a motion on the item okay
commissioner ainson I move to approve the denial of the comprehensive plan Amendment from res one to Res two okay commissioner Atkinson makes a motion for a denial second there's a second by commissioner Delany clerk will call the role commissioner Delany yes Vice chair Goodson yes commissioner Atkinson yes commissioner Altman yes
chair felner yes we show that Toni all right thank you everybody we will go on to we're going to take just one minute here to let the room clear out okay Comm Commissioners just one minute thank you everybody for
coming
e e
all right Commissioners we got one card Sandra Sandra we got your card for no you wave in oppose wave in opposition no all right I'm I'm kidding go ahead H Sandra I forgot about my public speaking card I just got so excited over that vote anyway uh so I want to talk about
the firefighters uh today and I'm sure you've seen the photos online of the wonderful rally and the tremendous amount of turnout including elected officials that came out today in support of our firefighters and uh so I want to just Express a concern on on a couple things so I went up to second floor today and there was a negotiations uh that the firefighters
were informed about two days ago now I've been to the meetings and recorded a lot of the negotiations and so I know the going back and forth between the attorneys they go hey are you available on such and such a day and the other one comes back no no but I can do Tuesday or Thursday of this dates and then they go well I can't do that one but I can I can do the six and they come up with a date boom 2 days notice for negotiation what a waste of Staff they
just sat up there there's no one else in the room I walked in there I'm the only person and I sat down what a waste of Staff time stand sitting there kind of just shooting the crap right so why did you do that that's the question I have is there going to be like okay you guys didn't show up to the negotiation so now we're going to set your wages is there going to be some Shenanigans like that it's just a question so a workshop that rally was
held because a workshop was cancelled and the to get this message out and during when that decision was made to cancel that Workshop what was said is can't discuss negotiations but there's documents that were shown to me that were walked or were given at allegedly because I wasn't there at multiple fire stations by staff
of one of your offices so you know is that a problem for these negotiations that they're supposed to be confidential but staff of a commissioner is dropping them off at a commission office so I'll bring that up secondly I want to uh just just say my concern that I have right now is I gave this commission an attorney general legal opinion that you can put the EMS
assessment below the line you have a problem that you're not even talking about at these meetings and that problem is legislatively the people we people passed a uh an increase in Homestead exemption you're going to be bringing in less money so when I bring you an AG legal opinion that you can put EMS assessment below the line you should have embraced that and I'm like you didn't so are you going to try and bust the 3% cap and take it
away okay um board report Mr County manager and board report I have no report commissioner okay uh Morrison board report I believe you've all heard enough from me tonight thank you sir uh fair enough commissioner Goodson none commissioner ainson commissioner delini I just um I just want to say that I hope that the intention of this negotiations
that went on today um that was just talked about is not the case and um I'm very frustrated about what happened today I'm frustrated that our staff sat in a room for seven hours Alone um especially when the uh I requested the emails between um County manager and the the uh attorney Mark sugerman and um Mark sugerman and the
union lawyer and from what I saw on the emails it basically stated that the union lawyer said that they were not available today and so I'm not sure why we wasted so much staff time knowing that the union couldn't be there that the lawyer wasn't available and um I don't see how this moves us forward to a better place and Fosters trust and um uh a better relationship moving forward
and um I'm heavily concerned that a Commission Office gave uh items paperwork with firefighters names on it their rank their time and service their um their uh wages um we're not supposed to be doing that and so it's very concerning um and I worry about the legal ramifications of that especially
when my workshop was shut down because of possible legal ramifications um even though in 2021 there was a workshop where fire was talked about during the the budget workshops and those concerns were not brought up at the time and so um frankly I I'm I'm frustrated and I hope that we can uh move through this in a better way that
gets us to a better place thank you thank you uh commissioner rman thank you Mr chairman um I just want to thank uh the board for um understanding me being late um it's interesting you know I work at the Space Center it now reminds me of the 60s and 70s um it's it's getting really crowded up there it was bumper to- bumper traffic
from the Barge Canal back about a mile I had the cars were different then yeah they were they were prettier yeah right and we have to leave 2 hours but that's a good thing I guess CU we have a lot of jobs up there AB absolutely I just apologize for that but thank thanks to the board and you you were you were here for the main event that's what matters yes okay um I think we're done I don't have a board report so thank you everybody have a good night 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 Bard County Florida Space Coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of County commissioners of bravard County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any in all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period