Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey.
Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Give give the U. Board of County Commissioners acts as a
quasi judicial body when adheres requests for reasonzoning and conditional use permits. Applicants must provide competent, substantial evidence establishing facts or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the zoning code and comprehensive plan criteria. Opponents
must also testify as to facts or provide expert testimony whether they like or dislike a request is not competent evidence. The board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and the existing rules in the zoning ordinance, property
adjacent to the property to be reszoned and the actual development of the surrounding area. The board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands. If a commissioner has had communications
regarding a resoning or conditional use permit request before the board, the commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place before the board takes action on the request. Likewise, if a commissioner has made a
site visit, inspection, or investigation, the commissioner must disclose that fact before the board takes action on the request. Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless time is extended by majority vote of the board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal.
Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak. Okay. Uh, next on the agenda is our invocation which will be given by pastor
I hope I get this right. Pastor Lucian Gandalfo, Beacon Baptist Church. >> Yes. Thank you. Yes, I'm uh Lucian Gondalfo at the Beacon Baptist Church. And if anyone is interested in checking us out, you can
do so at beaconbaptistfamily.com. But uh before I offer a prayer, um I just like to just say a couple of words and read a little passage of scripture. And um I just want to take note that in these days um our culture uh in our
nation has um uh has kind of revised our history and our values. Um and uh at times it's um not compatible to uh to the traditions of uh that we've founded our our
republic in with the word of God. And so, um, some of our values have been turned upside down. And so, um, I just want to read a passage that deals with that. Uh, in Isaiah 5:20, it says, "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, and
put darkness for light and light for darkness." That put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. And so, I'm very grateful and I'm honored to be here. Um, and I'm uh representing the county, many in the county, I'm sure, uh, that are
very appreciative that you guys take the time to, uh, take a moment to just ask God for help in making the decisions of this county. So, I really appreciate that and thank you for that. And with that, let's offer a prayer. Heavenly Father, we thank you, Lord, for the
privilege that we have uh to come uh in this uh before this body. Lord, we thank you for them. We uh pray for every uh level of our government from the federal government to the state, county, and cities. But we pray this uh evening for
this body, this body of commissioners. Lord, for the uh county manager and for the county attorney and for the professional staff that assist them. Father, we ask that you give them clarity and wisdom and that Lord, you illuminate and inform every decision by
the truths of your word. And father we pray that you uh help them Lord to make sound decisions that are pleasing first in your eyes and then Lord will be beneficial for the residents and for the uh people of this county. Uh we give you praise and thanksgiving for your
goodness to us and Lord we ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Next I am pledge of alle allegiance uh by Commissioner Felner. >> Please join me in the pledge.
To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Okay. Uh
next item is resolution awards and presentations uh E1 uh resolution u celebrating the life of Sandra Collins represent Felton. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh I have a resolution honoring and celebrating the
life of and service of Sander Collins and we have the family here tonight. If you'd like to come up uh to the podium and then I'll I'll read the resolution. You're w you're very welcome. Thank you for being here tonight. Whereas Sandra Collins, a planner in the employee of Bvard County Board of County
Commissioners, passed away on December 18th, 2025. And whereas the board of county commissioners extends its deepest condolences to the family of Miss Collins. And whereas the planning and development department in particular mourns the loss of its esteemed
colleague Sandra Collins who faithfully served the residents of Bvard County with dedication, professionalism, and integrity. And whereas Sandra began her service with Bvard County Planning and Development on November 11th, 2023, and throughout her tenure demonstrated
exceptional commitment to public service, earning the respect and admiration and friendship of co-workers and the community. And whereas her colleagues will especially remember her beautiful, outgoing, and uplifting personality and the joy she brought to
the workplace and those around her. And whereas the passing of Sandra is a profound loss to her family, friends, colleagues, and the community she serves so faithfully. And whereas the board of county commissioners celebrates the life and legacy of Sander Collins, recognizes
her dedicated service, and will remember her fondly always. Now therefore, be it resolved that the board of county commissioners of Bvard hereby honors the life, service, and legacy of Sander Collins, and extends its deepest condolences to her family and loved
ones. Done, ordered, and adopted this fifth day of February, 2026. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion. >> Second. >> There's a motion second. U discussion. >> All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I.
>> I. Motion carries. >> Would you like to say anything on behalf of Sand? Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Um I think we're going to get a picture. Look at me. Okay, we're now going to move to uh the
rest of our agenda. I don't know how we're doing with the crowd out there. If we can proceed. >> Yeah. Those who may not have heard that were not in the room, uh we had such a large group waiting outside to get in had some
delays in the security processing. So, we we did not want to begin the actual zoning hearing until everyone who was waiting in line to get here for the zoning, some of them, which could even be applicants, we want to be sure they were in the in the room. So, we're going
to we began with some of the non-zoning items on the agenda. While we're waiting, is there any items on the consent agenda that anyone's requesting to remove? I don't think we have any items on the consent.
Okay. Um, we have about 30 folks probably still in line trying to get in out there. Maybe maybe a public comment part of the nonzoning. Do we have any cards on public comment?
>> We don't have any public comment. >> We don't have any public comments. Okay. We'll wait an additional five or 10 minutes. >> I think that's probably prudent. I'm sure there's some items on here that um that probably aren't controversial and
wouldn't have anyone speak, but we just don't know until the folks get in. Uh the best I could do is try to make announcements in the hallway, but it's pretty loud out there. >> Okay. >> Um there there is one item H15 that um
the local planning and zoning requested a continuence because the applicant wasn't there. Is that one that we would feel comfortable possibly voting for continuence? >> The board could proceed with that. Absolutely. >> Okay. They're not here today that we
know. And they weren't at the planning and zoning board. >> You want to send that back to the planning and zoning board meeting and staff can give you the dates to announce. >> Yeah. So the staff is requesting that the board continue that item till March 5th, 2026 board of county commissioners meeting.
The PNZ board already continued it to their own meeting. So we're just looking. Okay. >> We don't have any cards on. >> We have no cards. So motion be in order. So, I'd like to make a motion to continue um to the local planning and zoning and that would be March 5th, 2026.
>> I'll second >> a motion by uh Commissioner Delaney, second by Commissioner Felner to table to March 25th. Did you >> March 5th, 2026? >> March 5th, 2026. Any, >> if I may clarify, you'd be tableabling
it to the March 5th BOCC meeting, your own zoning meeting. PNZ's already tabled at their own P&Z meeting. Okay. >> This is because it was already advertised for this meeting. We're just looking for you to continue this one on the record so we don't have to readvertise >> for our meeting.
Yep. >> So moved with that amendment. >> Motion with amendment, second with amendment. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carries unanimous. So let's go and take another fivem minute break and hopefully it'll be cleared. We'll have everyone
here. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey.
Gar Gerald Gerard. Gerard Clawson. Clawson. It's not your handwriting. It's clear as a bell. It's my reading. That's >> We'll call the meeting back to order. >> Good evening.
>> Good evening. I'm here today to get my answer. Last time you said you'll tell me in the next meeting why my taxes went up by 7% in my house and 8% in my commercial property. I'm here. You're not going to answer me
commissioners. I know that the county manager looked into this and he sent an email. I'm not sure if that just went to the board or if I don't know if he had contact information for It's on my card. But in any case, um I'm not not here to fight. Um I didn't really expect you
guys to give give me an answer today to be honest. The answer is because your budget went up by over 8%. In one year and the reason your budget went up by over 8% is because of the county sheriff. That's why.
Why you penalize my commercial property against my private property? I also know because I vote but my business doesn't so they cannot it's there's nothing they can do about it.
My house is valued at 25% less than my commercial property. My commercial property is taxed three times three times as much as my house. But the reason it is is because of the Bvard County budget, the sheriff budget
specifically. The reason the budget went up is because the sheriffs don't get paid enough. Basically, we can talk here and there, but that's the reason it really went up.
I found out that sheriffs got a $5,000 increase in 2024. At the time, that's about a 15% increase. Four years later, we have to do it again. Now, I still make the same money I did
four years ago because I worked myself. I don't see even a small amount of financial discipline among the people who are supposed to represent my my interest. Nothing. Not
one little bit. We spend a quarter of a billion dollars on the county county sheriff. He's responsible for 112,000 people. That's 1,600 bucks per person per year
in a place with virtually no crime. The amount of money we spend on cameras is it's insane. We just fitted every bus with a camera. Why do we have cameras everywhere in
this county that leads back to the sheriff's office? What's the point? I don't expect that answer. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you for your input. Okay, we'll move next to um H1. I'll
have staff introduce I got it. >> Item H1 is J. Stanky and Grant Stye request a zoning classification change from GU to AU under application 25Z0038
located in district 2. >> Uh first speaker Jay. Yes, sir. >> Yes. Or you have the floor. >> Oh, yes. We uh have a 21.48 acre property just off South Barton on the very far west side of Fisk and we it's currently zoned general use and we
want to reszone it agricultural use. I bought the property for my son Grant. He's a zookeeper at the Bvard Zoo and the intent was for him to eventually put a residential home out there. He's also environmentalist. So, we're looking at wanting to put some blueberries out there and some honeybees out there. And
then down the road, if he has a family, then they can have a little produce farm. I want to put in some elevated produce beds in there and possibly raise some peppers and tomatoes and those kind of items. And if he decides he wants to sell them down the road, they can. Uh I know his girlfriend likes chickens and
she would like to put a few chickens out there. So, we want to just reszone it, put a couple of beef cattle out there, and that's what we're looking for. >> Okay. I do have any other cards? I don't think that is the only card.
Okay. What's the desire of the board? >> Move for acceptance or approval. >> Second. >> It's a motion uh Commissioner Goodson by Commissioner Access and second for approval. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Good luck. Sounds like a good use. >> Uh, next item H2. >> H2 and H3. I'm going to read into the record together. They need a separate
motion. Laugh Laughing Clown LLC request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 25S.15 to change the future land use designation from RES 2 to CC under application 25 SS00009
located in district 5. Item H3 is Laughing Clown LLC request a zoning classification change from RP to BU-1 A under application 25Z 00028
located in district 5. >> Okay, we do have a card from Clayton Bennett, the applicant. >> Good evening. >> My name is Clayton Bennett. I'm uh the applicant for this project and we do have two uh requests in and uh the one
is the comp plan amendment to go from res 2 to uh CC and the uh reszoning from uh RP to BU1. This is to allow for uh general uh retail at a previous um
dentist office. The site is located off of uh Mittton Road, which is an arterial roadway. So there is the commercial um access. Uh the project was or the applications were
heard at the planning and zoning in January. There were no one to show up to object to it. We did have one written objection which uh the concerns were traffic in the uh neighborhood. Again, the site is going to be accessed off of
Mitten Road which is Arterior Roadway. also concerns of uh sound and lighting. Um we're not asking for any uh deviation from the count the county's ordinance regarding sound and lighting uh that the
development plans to comply with those requirements. Um and planning and zoning did unanimously recommend it for approval. Uh if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer those. >> Okay, any questions? I have none. And we'll need two separate motions, right?
So, we first need a motion for approval for H2. Um, is there a motion? >> So, moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Delaney. Second. Second. >> Second by Commissioner Felner. Uh, any discussion? All in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. >> Carries unanimous. Now H3. >> Motion to approve. >> There's a motion and a second to approve H3. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you.
Okay, I think we have everything here, everybody here. We can move on. Uh what I'd like to do is since the large number of people, the vast majority of people are here for H11. And um like to move that item up and
yield the floor to Commissioner Goodson. >> First the staff to explain the the item. Item H11, Merit Bitco SPV LLC being represented by Kim Rzena, request a zoning classification change from AU
with a BSP to RU-2-15 and RU-2-30 with removal of BSP under application 25Z0054 located in district 2. And if I may, Commissioner, um staff is requesting
that this item be continued. Um we received um information from the applicant um a sign significant amount of uh new evidence and under the BVAR County Code of Ordinances section um 62-184 um that any new evidence must be
submitted at least two weeks prior to the board of county commissioners meeting and failure to do so may result in the continuation of the public hearing. staff is requesting that we have time to do a preliminary review of the TIA and other evidence that the applicant has provided and therefore is
requesting a continuence. >> Okay. Any discussion on behalf of the board? >> Commissioner Goodson. Well, with that being said, what Billy said, because the applicant submitted new evidence, I move this item goes back to planning and zoning for their March 16th meeting and
giving staff time to review the new evidence for PNZ to consider and provide us with recommendations for April the 2nd zoning meeting. And what they got what they got was a 400page study of traffic
and staff did not have the time to review it. So that's my motion. >> A second. >> Okay. Second by Commissioner Goodson, second by Commissioner Atinson. Any discussion on the item? Um, so
under the policies and procedures, parliamentary the motion to continue the item or second. There'd be no discussion. So anyone can submit written information. And what was the dates again? So we know the dates, sir. Everyone's heard that.
>> So, the uh my understanding of the motion is that it be sent back to the planning and zoning board at its March 16th meeting and then to the board of county commissioners at its April 2nd zoning meeting. >> Okay. Just so the public know this is a
something provided for in our code when information is asked that is staff does not have time to review. It requires that our staff have the ability to respond so this issue can be in the best posture
as possible for whatever action we take. So um uh all in favor of the motion signify by saying I I >> opposed. Motion carries unanimously. >> Anyone here for H1?
>> Anybody here for H11? >> Have a few. >> They can go. >> They can go. You have Yeah. So, I appreciate you taking the time to come out and give your voice, >> but we've continued it and encourage you
to come back. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. We'll let the crowd clear out and we'll proceed with H4. >> So you got H4, got the applicant here, Kimaka, and lots
of cards. Okay, we will move on to H4. Okay, we'll have staff introduce the item. H4. >> Item H4, Strata Development LLC being represented by Kim Rosena, request a zoning classification change from AU and
RR-1 to SR with a BDP under application 25Z 00039 located in district 2. >> Kim, we have a card for Eric. Is he speaking as well? Okay, good.
>> My presentation will be myself, Eric, and Hosan Kamal during the 15 minutes. >> Okay, good. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, chairman, members of county commission. My name is Kim Rosena with Lacy Rosena here on behalf of Strata Development and the um the purchaser Miranda Holmes. With me is
Eric Sergy from Miranda Holmes, a regional vice president and Hassan Kamal, a professional engineer of 36 years experience with BSE. Uh the story of this land, it's 142 acres. It was a citrus grove forever according to Mr.
Chrysafoy and then the freeze of 1989 wiped out the trees. So it became cattle grazing. The owner sold it and um and Strata, which is basically a land bank, purchased it for Miranda Homes. Uh th this is a request for a change of
zoning to SR suburban residential to allow 1/2 acre lots or larger with the clustering of homes to protect the wetlands and to develop a comprehensive subdivision with proper storm water drainage things like that. This is a common sense and logical
approach to development. It's a far cry from the proposal which Island Forest Preserve started a couple years ago to do over a 100 lots using the open space subdivision that it did with Island Forest Preserve which is to the east of the project. Um unlike Island Forest
Preserve, this housing will commit to the 1 half acres and will commit to 61 lots. All the homes will be in the middle to avoid the wetlands. Uh, the density will be 2.3 units to the acre. As you know, AU allows 2.5 units to the acre. The current zoning allows 70
units. It's on page one of your staff report. 70 units. We're asking for 61. We'll commit to 61. And if this is approved, the BDP will be changed to put 61. So using that 70 units and what I could what I could guess from the property
appraisers mapping tools 23 units 23 acres of that property is currently RR1 which is one unit to the acre and 119 acres are AU preserve point will not open the open not utilize the open space subdivision at this zoning it goes forward and we
will commit to that in the BDP as well. Rhonda is being transparent about its plan. It wants you to know what it's doing. It's not doing a PUD because that takes engineering. It takes 60% engineering, but it will have to abide by all your codes, including the increased compensatory storage in North
Merid Island. I'd like uh Mr. Sergy to talk a little bit about Miranda and its plans. >> Thank you. We took a look at the site and with Miranda Homes. I've been with them for, you know, over uh seven years now. Um, you know, we've been good
partners in Merit Island and and in Central Florida. We want to continue to do that. We looked at the site. We didn't want to oversaturated with homes. We want to make sure that we are being good neighbors to, you know, the abutters and this is a good plan which
will help alleviate a lot of the concerns that are out there that our engineer will speak to to the board. Um, I came here today to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. Kamal will come up and this is the plan that I handed out to you that's been shown at every meeting that we've
had. We've had a community meeting, we've had a North Midall meeting, we've had a planning and zoning meeting and this is the plan that's been shown throughout. Somehow it didn't make it into your packet. Uh unknown why because it was submitted to the to the county. So with that, um Hassan will talk about the plan.
>> Good evening. My name is Hassan Kamal with BSE Consultants. Address is 312 South Harbor City Boulevard with the civil engineers for the project. Just want to give you a project overview from an engineering and development standpoint. Uh as Kim mentioned, it's 142 acres. It's located on the north
side of Christophley Road. Um of the 142 acres, we're proposing to develop 61 uh lots. The actual development footprint that you can see uh with the lots and roadways is approximately 50 to 55 acres, meaning that about 85 to 90 acres
of the overall property is going to be preserved. Uh the dark green is the preliminary wetland delineation. We haven't gone through a full jurisdictional review yet, but that's based upon the preliminary mapping. Uh the lighter green is preserved upland areas that will serve as uh buffers both
for the wetlands and for the project area. Um, as Kim mentioned, the the project is centralized within the property to maximize the perimeter buffers. Uh, on the east side, we've got buffers that exceed 600 ft to the
nearest property line. On the west side, it's over 300 ft. On the north side, it's uh about 25 ft. And on the south side, uh, if I remember my numbers correctly, we're almost 300 feet, about 280 ft. So the plan is really focused on
bringing the subdivision in and maximizing uh the preservation and buffers to the adjacent properties. Uh the lots will be served by the city of Cocoa water system and will have an on-site lift station uh to provide gravity uh to provide
sanitary sewer service. So there'll be no on-site septic tanks. Uh drainage will be provided by a series of uh storm water ponds and inlets. They'll be designed to comply with the North Merit Island storm water requirements as well as the more recent
uh more stringent state criteria for water quality. Um and that will uh be sized so that there's no adverse impacts to the to the surrounding drainage systems. uh the even based upon the preliminary uh wetland mapping, we
designed the site to minimize wetland impacts and comply with the county requirements to make sure that wetland impacts are less than 1.8%. Um so we're less than uh between two to two and a half acres of total wetland
impacts uh based upon uh the project. Uh from a traffic perspective with 61 homes, we anticipate uh maximum trips per day of about 580. Uh which means on the peak hour we're looking at about 58
trips. Um which is less than what's currently allowed in the zoning because under the current zoning uh with 70 units we'd be about 668 trips. So with the development plan we're proposing it's about 13% less trips than what would uh occur under the current zoning.
Also from a concurrency standpoint, the school board has completed their concurrency evaluation and confirmed that Lewis Carroll, Thomas Jefferson, and Merit Island High School all have adequate capacity to meet uh potential uh demand from the project area.
Uh there was a traffic study dubbed by the county a couple years ago to support the uh speed bumps uh that are constructed further west. those that traffic study indicated traffic volumes on Chrisley between,00 and 900 vehicles per day. Uh all of which are
significantly less than the uh level of service C for a two-lane roadway. So even with these additional trips, we'd still be functioning uh at a at less than 20% of the traffic uh volume for the an acceptable level of traffic volume for this roadway.
Um, and as we go forward, uh, hopefully after we're successful with a resoning application, we have multiple steps to go through with both Bard County and state staff to make sure that the project complies with land development and comprehensive planner criteria.
We'll have to submit subdivision plans to Bvoulevard County where uh staff will ensure that the comp plan elements that have been discussed during the zoning application and any uh binding development plan criteria will be adhered to and then we also have to go
through the water management district. Uh they will analyze the project for wetland impacts as well as storm water and drainage impacts. So, we've got a long way to go, but we're committed to making sure that this project uh has no adverse impacts, and I'm confident that
county staff has enough regulations and very difficult regulations that'll help ensure that at the end of the day, the project uh meets all the criteria and doesn't have any adverse impacts. I'll be available to answer any questions as we go forward. >> Do we have any questions
so far? Okay. I I just want to talk a little bit about the staff report and the staff addendum. Uh this addendum is something I've never seen before and it actually flies in the face of what the staff report says. It's contrary to what it says in the staff report and I'll detail that in a moment. Um the
administrative policies are guidelines. The guidelines are then enforced by your land development code. The future land use map is a guideline. That future land use map is currently residential one which should in theory allow 142 units. We're asking for 61. So, we're not
messing up the future land use element. Um, the policies do not state that the applicant must provide a traffic study or a pavement and subgrade structural evaluation and review of subsurface voids. That's one of the opponents. I'm not even sure what subsurface voids are.
The proof that the policies are met are when the developer complies with the land development code with all the codes when a plat or construction plans are submitted. None of these can be processed. The staff can't look at any engineering per se until zoning is complete.
Staff could allow us to go forward as a matter of right with the open space subdivision, which we choose not to do. Miranda wants to be transparent, which I provided to you a little bit of the open space subdivision. And again, it's of right. Only staff reviews the plat that
allows a 25% density bonus and smaller lots. With the RR1 lots, they could be half acre. At 23 acres of R1, it could be 46 homes. With 119 of AU, they could be 1acre lots. That actually turns out
to be 119. So, in theory, open space subdivision allows 165 lots. We can make the old-fashioned subdivision without centralized storm water, without centralized sewer, and put in more lots, at least 70 currently. And that's not what Miranda wants to do. It wants to do
the subdivision that makes sense that is good growth management policies. Uh the county code section 62-1511C has five factors. The staff uh addendum talks about things you can consider
under that such as environmental constraints, drainage, flood hazards, and transportation impacts. Those are nowhere in your land development code for zoning. Those are not part of the five factors at all. those are elucory. Uh even if they were in the code, there's no engineering evidence before
you to show any of those are a problem at this stage. You only have a professional engineer who's told you he can make this work and he'll follow the codes. The staff addendum claims the resounding is an increase in density, but it's not. Right now, we're asking for 61 when the staff report says 70 is
permissible. The staff report analysis before the addendum says policy number three, the request will not significantly diminish the enjoyment or safety of quality of life. Number four, the proposed use will not materially inadverely impact the
established residential neighborhood. Actually, this is not even an established residential neighborhood as residential area. Staff report did not comment on policy 7 and indicated information on policy 7. However, if you look at administrative policies six and seven, they talk about the use of the
land, not a reasonzoning request. So, the administrative policies are guidelines to be enforced by your land development code. The staff goes on to suggest that a PUD would be appropriate, but a PUD does require an engineered plan. Engineering cost for this project
will be over a quarter of a million dollars. Not even though if you like the plan to go to a PUD, all that engineering could be done just to be turned down at this level. So with that, there's nothing in the comp plan that requires full engineering or platin design. The analysis for this
zoning is whether the use is compatible in meet your land development code in the five factors in the zoning code, which we do. This is a residential area with large lots. This will be better for the neighborhood because it will hold the water. It will treat the water under
the new uh state requirements. And with that, I'd like to reserve my two minutes and 30 seconds for rebuttal. chairman. >> Okay. So, your time reserved. >> Thank you, >> chairman. >> Yes. Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> That's all right.
>> I'll round up the three minutes. >> Okay. Um, I'd like to ask Billy some questions. Okay. Billy, can you tell me about this site in the coastal high hazard area? >> Uh, yes, Commissioner. The vast majority of this site is within the coastal eye
hazard area. The coastal eye hazard area is defined by state statute and it's required to be incorporated into all counties comprehensive plans and that's why we have it in our plan too. Specifically, we're required to show how we mitigate issues within of development within the area. So, objective seven of
our coastal management element of the comp plan states that we should limit densities within the coastal hazard area and direct development outside of it. So meanwhile, administrative policy six states that the board should consider whether reszoning applications are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
So putting those together, if the board were to find that this application is not consistent with the coastal management element, it could deny the application on that basis. >> So has that been done yet or is that coming?
>> Um so so it is current it is in the coastal eye hazard area. So that's it's really a question for the for the board on whether this application um meets that objective of limiting density within the coastal asset area considering that they would be um um
going to SR zoning which allows for halfacre lots. >> Okay. Can you tell me how this site could affect drainage? So >> there are known and pervasive drainage issues in the area which the county is
devoting significant resources towards improving. Um we have some experts here um from county staff and from natural resources um if the board is interested in learning more detail but the issues are probably not surprising considering that the areas within the coastal eye area are as I mentioned and the FEMA
flood zone as shown on the attached maps to your agenda. Um and again in connection with that administrative policy 7 states that quote proposed uses shall not cause or substantially aggravate a substantial drainage problem on surrounding properties or significant adverse and unmmitigable impact on
significant natural wetlands, water bodies or habitat for listed species. So given that um if the board were to find again that it would be detrimental to the public interest to approve this resoning and the BDP associated with it at this time because of its impacts on
wetlands or drainage problems. It may deny the application. >> Can you explain to me why a PUD would be more beneficial in this case than a BDP? >> Well, you could argue it is because this
application uses a BDP. It's a it's a little bit unique of a BDP compared to the ones that the board normally sees. Um in this case, it's being used to establish consistency between the future land use density of res one and the SR zoning which allows halfacre lot. So you
have a res one one acre and SR halfacre. In other words, it is allowing clustering through a BDP beyond what normally is allowed under the comprehensive plan. Um this has caused problems in the past in administering the land use regulations and in any case
at least in in staff's view there is probably a superior mechanism available that allows flexibility for all parties including flustering. As always entering into a BDP is voluntary on the board's part just like it is on an applicant's part. As such, the board may choose to
decline to enter the BDP, in which case the board should consider denying the resoning application because the requested zoning class would be inconsistent with the future land use. >> Okay. So, would you say that right now this needs a lot more studying, a lot
more discussion before we agree to something we might not know is good? If the board has has looked at the application and is not convinced that has met the comprehensive plan policies, um it might consider denying the application. And like I said, through a PED and the engineering that Mr. Rosena
talked about, they would be able to demonstrate and the board would able to condition until it's satisfied that all those policies are met. >> Okay. Um chair, >> yes, >> for the reasons discussed, I'd like to make a motion.
Okay, we'll proceed. >> Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> He has a lot of cards he needs to hear first. >> Okay. Okay. We have a lot of cards to hear from first. >> Okay. So, we will go to the comment cards then. >> Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry.
>> I do have a question though of the applicant and I guess this would be the time to ask. Um so um have you the applicant broken down the site in terms of the
percentage of per pvious surface paving building footprint versus what you're leaving open? Have y'all done an assessment on that? We haven't done a full analysis because we haven't done engineering plans yet. But as I mentioned earlier,
um just the development footprint itself, the back a lot to back a lot is only about 50 acres, 50 to 55 acres. The preserved area is about 85 to 90 acres. So 60% of the property is going to be
natural. And then the balance that 50 to 55 acres is going to have a combination of you know the roads the house pads and so on. Generally single family developments of this size lot is probably about 35 typically about 35% impervious. So at the end of the day, if
you take those weighted numbers, you're probably looking that um this is an approximation, probably 70% of the property is going to be pvious and only about 30% maybe impervious consisting of roads and uh driveways and
and and buildings. >> Okay, >> that's a ballpark number. >> And so all this open space will be surrounding the development to buffer. >> Correct. You can see on the site plan we showed earlier, it's all perimeter. The
development is interior to that. >> The area that you're preserving uh that you're keeping green belt, do you have any sort of management plan for that? Will will there be restoration? How it will be mana managed? Will there be any mitigation environmental planning? What
do y'all have any thought of what you may be doing there? >> There will be a management plan that generally happens during the permitting process. There'll be an evaluation. Uh there'll probably be some um exotic removal. It's a mix of most of it's
forested. I think there's some some herbaceous wetlands, but there will be a management plan and it'll be required to be put into a conservation easement. And there'll be some permit requirements for exotic removal and things of that nature. And that happens during the permitting process with the water management district.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions? Thank you. >> I don't know if that counted in your two and a half minute. It did not. Okay. Didn't you still have rebuttal? Okay, good. >> Sarah Hajj is our first speaker.
There's a lot better speakers than me. So, I'm just going to take a couple of comments. I've sent you uh comments last night, so I don't know if you've seen them or not, but my husband and I are strongly opposed to this zoning because
of what happened to the neighbors with the other subdivision next door. They didn't take precautions to keep their runoff on their property. They some of these houses next to them were three feet underwater and they may
never be able to go to their homes again. No one seems to care. Uh the regulations, the Bird Harris Act, it says you must retain your runoff on your property. They didn't.
And we've got a big huge impact with another one that's going to make it even worse and more people will be flooded. This is unconscionable and I don't know why you would ever
think to do this, but I'm sorry. Read the comments I sent you. That's the main thing because there's more important people that have better information. Our next speaker, John Nunan. Good evening. I'm John Nan Merid Island.
My wife and I own a couple acres on the south end of Broadacre Street. I'm deeply opposed to any zoning changes and the facts are is because of the impacts that Island Forest Preserve is
has uh has created to our community. I've been to several meetings. I've uh voiced my opinion and my knowledge of the area and it falls on death years. We have a very serious problem. We have
flowing water through the neighborhood. It's not just standing water, nuisance water like it was 30 years ago. Now it's flowing. It's moving things. It's moving soil. It's moving concrete. We've got damages. We got a lot of problems from Island Forest Preserve from um their
these developers. These developers are going beyond the scope. Uh the density is not uh compliant or compatible to our area. uh these developers are violating our policies. We have these special district
policies, these admin policies, and they're not being followed up on. These developers should be fined. They should be penalized and they should be banned from building beyond the scope. And the data that they're using, these uh flood
plans, the the uh the island forest preserve flood plan is is nothing. There's no facts in there. There's a lot of bad information. We work with John Denninghoff and John Denninghoff gave us nothing but uh disinformation about the
water flow. Uh my concern is that a lot of the water now that's in some of this property during the rain season is there. They've got flooding that they already that land is underwater. The lowlands is wetlands. If we our properties is the highlands, we live on
a sand ridge and now that's being impacted. I've sent pictures beyond a bunch of information to congressman to uh Commissioner Goodson's office and I presented uh facts. I've showed videos of flowing water. Uh we've got a uh
telephone pole that's in the path of this uh flowing water. I've tried to get support from our county. We get no support. It's fallen on deaf ears. And I want to know why. Why? When you all are in charge of our safety and our
well-being and you deny it because these corporations somehow are able to sway you in developing this property beyond what it's capable of. uh you've impacted us beyond imagination by voting and allowing these developers to just
develop uh uh every lowland uh filling ditches. Uh the Island Forest Preserve had a relic ditch that held a lot of water and that I think was the u fork in our butts so to say that uh when that
was filled in that took a lot of the water coming from the cape from the surrounding agricultural property and uh that that's caused our property down the south end to flood. So I've got a lot of problems with the county right now and we're not getting the support. I've uh
voiced my opinion to uh Mr. Goodson or Commissioner Goodson and this is his his comment is buy more fill dirt. Um I'm sorry. I'm I'm all out. I'm done moving dirt. Uh but we really need to get some intelligence, some competent and uh
serious leaders about fixing this problem and uh ending these zoning issues that are beyond uh my community's uh ability to survive. Thank you. John Calhoun. >> Hi, I'm John Calhoun. I live at 900 East
Crystal Road. I also own property directly across from there, the new development's exit. So, I'm going to just read to you. I want to speak to three things. The flooding, the traffic, and the safety. So just to to clarify the GE the Sykes
Creek and Judson Canal are the same thing. It's it's our drainage. That's the only drainage we have. Okay. So the flooding in 195253 Bvard County dug the canal on Judson Road to increase the flow of water from
our area to the Judson Canal south to Barge Canal and north to Pine Island. And everything worked well. Everything was great. In 1995 St. John's Water Management came in and plugged up both ends of Judson. They put the Judson
Canal, they put pumps on Pine Island, they're supposed to pump into the North Pond. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble here. So, when St. John's came in 30 years ago and they plugged up the Judson Road Canal. They put pumps to go to Pine
Island and they put pumps later on at Hall Road to go into the barge canal up lower Sykes Creek and the barge canal. Well, the county doesn't turn the pumps on until after a rain event comes and we're flooded. So, when they turn the pumps on, if they turn them on at all,
it's after the flood. And then we have pumps on Ransom Road, which is a 42 inch pump from NASA. They when they pump, they pump everything south from NASA Causeway through Blue Origin back into Judson Road. All the all the exits, all
the water exits are plugged up by St. John's. They have culverts in there with 2x6 we stack up so water can't go anywhere. So with all the flooding and then you have traffic. So you have a road that's underwater. You have traffic
from a new neighborhood and the speed limit is 30 mph which is totally ignored. They got by my house at 60 and 70 and that's the God's honest truth. So why can't Miranda buy a piece of land through Island Forest Preserve and run
the traffic out to NASA? Car I mean out to State Road 3 out to They're all going to NASA anyway. 90% of them work at NASA to get the traffic out that way because we have horses, we have bicycles, we have golf carts, and at 30 m hour it's,
you know, it's it's not bad, but at 70 mph, it's crazy. Somebody's going to get killed. And so when somebody gets hurt out there if we have a flood and you guys somebody gets hurt, there's a flood, there's a car in a ditch, they can't see the road, and then an emergency vehicle can't get in there to
get them because only one way in and one way out, then somebody dies. And then whose fault is that? It's certainly not ours. So if you guys vote If you guys vote to have this, you're just adding to it. until we until the county takes the pumps out of Judson Road. The Juds are
the the pumps are dams. They're just holding water on us. We're a retaining pond. And that's so if you add more development, it's it just makes the problem worse. It's not going to get any better until somebody does something. We need an exit out of there besides Chris
Road and we need the flood control done. It put it back to 1995. Get the pumps and the wheels out and we'll all be happy except for traffic. All right. Thank you, >> Rose Plumber. Good evening, commissioners. My name is
Rose Plameumber and I'm here representing the North Merit Island Area Association. Our organization serves nearly 5,000 households and approximately 10,000 residents on North Merit Island with around 500 active
members and business partners spanning from the space center property to the barge canal bridge. On behalf of these residents and businesses, we respectfully recommend that the application submitted, including the associated binding
development plan, be denied. Our recommendation is based on several significant concerns including non-compliance with administrative policies. The application does not align with the future land use element specifically 3A compatibility which
addresses traffic impacts. Section 4A criteria also related to traffic. Section section 5 A through G road infrastructure which is directly affected by increased traffic. Section seven, environmental impacts,
particularly regarding drainage, flooding and wetlands. It is important to note to our knowledge no comprehensive traffic study has been conducted for East Chrysaly Road in relation to this project. The only
available study dates back to 2023, prior to the original Miranda development that was 105 homes, and that included a 24-hour speed survey. The study recorded
1189 vehicles in a single day with 45% of the 969 vehicles passing Judson and Chrissy exceeding the posted speed limit of 30 miles hour. Using Miss uh Razanka's
numbers, if I use that to add the cars from the 105 homes and then the 61 homes, we're looking at 2715 vehicles a day in a 24-hour period passing that area.
Some of these vehicles go as fast as 70 plus miles per hour. There were 11 in front of Chrysopille and Judson in that 24-hour period. East Chryslee Road was not designed to accommodate this volume
or speed of traffic and it is illequipped to handle the additional load. There are numerous reasons for this board to deny the petition. The points points outlined above are among the most pressing. Repeated approvals of
incompatible projects have already had detrimental effects on our community character and well-being. In conclusion, we urge the commission to consider the long-term impacts on North Merit Island and to deny this petition in the best
interests of our residents and environment. Thank you for your attention. Chris Cook. Good evening. My name is Chris Cook. I've been a resident up in North Maryland for over 35 years. Um I just going to kind of simplify this issue. I
was at the PNZ meeting and if you read the minutes, there was a little bit of confusion about what was really going on there. But to simplify it, they got um current AU mostly AU and there's some RR1 and about half of the property is wetlands. So they so with that taken
out, they can the way it is right now using the calculations, I think they can get about 30 halfacre lots in that without doing anything. What they want to do is change the zoning to all SR with a BDP for 61 halfacre units. Um, we
don't like BDPS in general because they're only binding until they aren't. Um, it's much better to change the zoning and it's u it's a it's it's harder to change a zoning than a BDP. Um, you're going to hear a lot of stories
about existing flooding in the road conditions. So, I won't harp on that. But, I just want to know that all these recent developments, they all come in and say, "We're going to put a new development in and it's going to help you." And you know what? It hasn't. Uh, it gets worse. I'm sure this guy's a great engineer, but we we've heard that
story before. Um, one thing that we would like to see is on these new developments is if the if the if the board could require a performance bond to repair the road after they bring in thousands of cubic yards of fill and destroy the road
that's already in bad shape and make it back uh to to fix it up a little bit. Um but I think they the comprehensive plan the comprehensive coastal management plan objective seven says move development away from these areas. It's
also in the uh special flood FEMA special flood hazard area. So why are we increasing density there? It makes no sense. Uh the other part is the rural character. No one's talked about that to be rural in character. It is a rural character area. You have to have at least 1acre lots to pursue rural
activities. Um, so we like to see 1acre lots and also the Northland Homeowners Association, the North Island Special Advisory Board, and your own P&Z board all voted to deny this. Um, I haven't heard one person except for people on
the applicant staff speak for it. So, we think you like to do the right thing and deny this application. Thank you. Hassan Kimmel. Did I say that right? H A S S N
K E M E L. Oh, that's the applicant. Sorry, I missed that. Okay. William Bell. Good evening. My name is William Bell. I live on East Chris of Holy Road. Uh I'm here to also uh against the uh uh the
new development. Uh Miranda Holmes recently built a uh uh community at the end of the road and after the storm of October the uh there was a river coming out of there and was contributing to most of the uh flooding on Chris Foley.
The flooding has deteriorated the road. The road is in dire uh need of repair. It's full of potholes that were repaired. uh the eastbound lane headed up due to the heavy traffic and the truck going trucks going back and forth have the road is down like 12 inches.
It's just sinking away to nothing. And uh now after all that they want to take and put in uh 65 more homes surrounded by wetlands and raise the elevation four to 5 ft. Add an additional 150 cars and
another several years of construction vehicles causing more damage. find it hard to believe that they won't further impact our community. And if I may, I just have some pictures here. >> Absolutely. those pictures taken?
>> Pardon me? >> When were those pictures taken? >> The day after the storm. >> October of this year. >> Yeah. >> Or last year. Great. >> Oh, last year. >> No, I said it. Thank you. >> October. >> No, thank you. >> Emily Robinson. >> Hello. Good evening. Thank you for the
opportunity to give my comment. Um, I just want to say that I do recommend that you guys vote no currently on the zoning. Um, to give a little bit of a different perspective, I actually live in Island Forest. So I do greatly
sympathize with all of the um neighbors on East Crystal because um during the big storm of October um my backyard actually experienced 6 ines of flash flooding in the matter of just an hour.
So the next morning to emerge and see all of their homes completely underwater um really was awful. So for me to see that it makes me wonder where was the
original engineering and planning then. So my other reasons for to strongly advise against no on the zoning is the lack of infrastructure improvements on East Chrysley. Um the
electricity power lines have not been improved in a long time from what I understand. And then lastly, um, to not, you know, be a broken record up here, really, the road improvement. In terms of having another access road, I would
strongly urge that there be no more development until we have another road. Strictly from a safety perspective. During after the storm, had my family not had an SUV, you honestly probably couldn't have passed through safely down
the road. It was um that deep. And I know several other people that could not leave the neighborhood because they did not have an adequate vehicle. Now, I know that that is their responsibility to take care of themselves, but
we should all be good neighbors and not um not approve things just because we can, just because they did follow all the regulations. Um I think this plan needs a little bit more time to cook. And so I really strongly um urge you
guys to reconsider and have them do more engineering and um follow more guidelines. So thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Um Mary Watkins. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I am Mary
Watkins and I own two pieces of property in the Broadacres subdivision which was actually platted in the 1950s on Sand Ridge at the east end of Chrysopille Road. When you're driving out Chrysopille Road, you are going uphill
to that sand ridge. Island Preserve is very close to that sand ridge but at the time of the development the highest elevation was 2.56 feet whereas my low lot the elevation is six
5.97 ft. So you can imagine the amount of field that has already come in. This other development that Miranda is talking about building is downhill from Island Preserve. It is down a natural hill. So to bring
in a lot of field dirt, that water's got to go somewhere. With all due respect to engineers, I can go back to a civil engineer that told my father to dig the channel deeper under the Pineita Causeway so that the water level would go down so he could get his
sailboat under the bridge. I had a commissioner's representative come out and look at my house at one point. While the house was not flooded, the property was, and I had to walk through flood water to get to my house. His answer was, "Build a deck around
your house." Really, guys? Come on. Also, something that has not been brought up about the traffic. I was working for the county and had an opportunity to do some overtime on a Saturday.
Unfortunately, the Friday night, two young individuals new to the neighborhood had killed themselves in an auto accident on East Chryselli Road. The coroner was taking his sweet time getting there. So, I had to use a
private access to get off of the property and to get off of Chrysophili Road. There are several hundred people that do not have access to that private property in order to get off. What's going to
happen when something like that occurs again? And it will with the speeds and the curves in that road. Thirdly, when it comes to flooding, when you break through a hard pan,
a geological term, water is not going to go down unless you pump it down. It's naturally going to come up. So, I don't care how deep they dig the holes as retention ponds. The water will not go anywhere except the path of least
resistance, which is downhill. Please be considerate of that and please turn this down. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Terry White >> didn't give you time to sit down. >> I know. I was trying to catch you before.
>> Thanks for letting us speak this evening. So my name is Terry White. I live at 5595 Joseph Court. A resident of Meridon since 1965. There's a couple things that's been stated here already that I would uh like to talk to a little
bit, but uh I just wonder how many sitting up here in front of me have been out to East Chrysafully Road since October >> one. >> No, I've been there. >> Okay. All right. But and seen the condition of that road. It was stated
earlier that the it's a typical two-lane road. Nothing's typical about it. If you look at Hall Road, Chase Hammock, Pine Island, and and North Tropical Trail, they are far better roads than East Crystal Fully is. Okay.
The current road cannot handle the traffic. It cannot handle the increase in the traffic. And the survey that they mentioned about the speed hump area, that didn't take into consideration people like me and a lot of other people sitting back here that don't drive East Crystal Foley all the way out. We go
north or south along Judson to get out of our neighborhood. It's a dirt road. My truck's dirty all the time, but um that doesn't even consider the additional traffic right there. Now, another thing they talked about is this
is a wetlands, but 40 years ago it was an orange grove just like part of my property. I used to own the oldest orange grove on North Merit Island and the citrus died off in that. But old-time citrus growers did not plant in
wetlands. Period. >> Yeah. So, something has changed over the last 40 years that turned those high pieces of ground that raised citrus into wetlands. If >> in my in my case where my property is, there's two developments that have been
put in south of me and one that's been put in east of me. And ever since they went in, I flood. The county tells me it's because I live in a bowl. where the bowl didn't always exist there. Like I said, mine used to be citrus. So all those other ones and just like Mary
mentioned is once they raise that water table and they put in these ponds and that that water table's up. So now when it rains, my south pasture floods and it doesn't go away right away. It takes days and days and days before that water finally goes away.
Uh, and this new development says that they will not put any more water off of their property than there was in the past. We didn't see a lot of water flowing off of that property in the past, but they did say that once they develop it and it
raises above the water the water level in their ponds, it will discharge onto East Chrysafoli. So, they're not going to retain all of their water, which is which is sad. And uh there are many unanswered
questions to their plans. In the previous meetings we've gone to about it, they said, "Well, they don't have all the site development. They don't have the engineering for this and that." My recommendation is until they come up with a clear set of plans of exactly what they're going to do that you should
disapprove this zoning change. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Stephen Mir Mir. Good evening, folks. Thanks for your time today. Um I do have a photo that shows some of the flooding that we dealt with last October that I was just going
to share with y'all. So, I think, you know, many of these fine folks have pretty much talked about what is what is troubling most of us. Um, the flooding has been really bad. It's continued to get worse over time. Um, in addition, as as the canals have effectively saturated, the swailes that
that most of us have, you know, from from our individual properties to the canal have have flooded out every single time. Um, and I think more and more of us are seeing areas that are continually saturated with water that didn't used to be. Um, I think when when that event
happened, I was almost living on an island at that point. Uh, which was shocking. And and my home on East Chrysafully is actually just east of where this uh this proposed development is is going to be and we were in about half a foot of water. Um, everybody's
also talked about the the road condition and you know, I I think we can talk about fixing the road condition eventually and making it better, but the the concern that that I see when I look at at this is the property at the very end of the
neighborhood added about a 100 homes. And I think East Crystal has maybe 150 160 homes in total before this happened. And this new proposed development is looking to add another 60. So I think what we're looking at over the course of
a couple years is is Miranda is effectively doubling the h the homes that are in this neighborhood. And you know this this road is not made for that. Um the as we've talked about the the water just can has nowhere to go.
And even if we go fix some of those things, even if their engineering is 100% correct, it's just not going to change the fact that we are just shoving tons and tons and tons of people into this area that is just not meant from an infrastructure standpoint to be able to handle this many people. I think everybody that lives in this area can
attest to that. Thanks for your time, sir. Sir, I'm Is that our copy for the for the clerk? Okay, we're going to give that to the clerk. Okay. Yep.
Chris uh Christopher W. We wre >> Close. >> Hello board. My name is Christopher Wishmire. I live at 730 East Chrysafoy. Um it's right before on the way in the
Sbend. Uh, so I'm few houses down from the proposed neighborhood. Uh, I would recommend you guys deny reszoning. Uh, now I could talk about how the flooding has impacted me and my property was
underwater house, but that has been said before by many other speakers. Um, also somebody noted that the traffic study that they did was before many of the people moved uh, you know, their family members, their grandmas, everybody else
in on the other Miranda homes that they have built down the street. Uh, but besides that with the traffic, in Kima's own words, East Chris Fully is a windy, curvy, squirly road. It's not a straight road
like Hall. Um, my three little girls uh traffic stop for for school is right at that S-ben. When people try to make up speed because of the speed humps put in, they usually do it throughout the rest of the road. It's already a sketchy kind
of deal right now. Adding more cars into the already sketchy deal, it doesn't look good for the future. Um, now there was also talk of uh, you know, an exotic removal, something with the wildlife on there.
Uh, I I was kind of confused if that was towards plants or also, you know, the blue Florida scrub jay, the gopher tortoise, the osprey nest that might be out there since we are right next to a wildlife refuge. Um, the overall
synopsis of the area from everybody in here is nobody wants it. I don't want it. And I know most of my neighbors, I'd say a good 99% of the people sitting here do not want it. If Kima wants the neighborhood built because that's her
job. She's good at it. I wonder how she would feel if it was right down the street from her house. Um, I just wanted to come up here because I showed up to the meeting and I wanted to, you know, be a speaker. I I I'm asking you guys to
do what everybody here already wants you to do. That's it. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Hillberg. Good evening, commission. I'm Mary Hillberg. I live in North Merit Island and uh I'm also on the North Mid Island
Special Advisory Board and we had a meeting um on this topic and um as you can imagine it was hours and uh a lot of um impassioned um um explanations as as it is tonight.
And uh I would ask that um uh Commissioner Goodson's um um notice of the note of the um coastal high haters hazard area and the fact that it's a flood plane as well should um should uh
help convince you that this is not a good idea for our area. Thank you. Thank you, Kim Tampa. >> Hello. And um thanks for having me speak. I just want to say that um just like everyone else has before me, the
flooding is horrendous and my house was flooded for 5 days and um the infrastructure needs to be done. People with the speed bumps, they light it up. As soon as they hit the last one, they they're speeding and someone's going to get hurt. Um the roads definitely need
to be addressed. And um that's that's about it. Everyone else has said everything else that I need. >> Thank you. Can I ask just real quick, ma'am? The pictures you gave us, is that for the clerk? Is that part of the record? Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Denise Christopher.
>> Good evening. I'm Denise Christopher and I live off the North Tropical Trail, Merit Island and um I've just been um on North Merid Island since 1977
and I'm opposed to any changes to the current zoning of any property on North Merid Island until something is done to improve the flooding and the traffic. One suggestion to um improve some of the flooding would be to grandfather in the existing vacant properties so that the
building code regulations wouldn't apply as far as raising the road and filling all the property with dirt. Most of the complaints are about the truckloads of dirt that are required to raise the land. Therefore, the existing um adjacent properties end up being flooded
on either side. The other issue is the traffic. When the addition of the cruise parking lots, and the space center traffic, the drawbridge, the traffic lights in 528, there are times that the residents on North Merit Island can't even get out on the road on State Road
3. Recently, I uh witnessed an ambulance that was trying to get through the traffic going south and the cars were at a standstill and it was near the barge canal and there was no way that the ambulance could get past at that point.
And what if it was a member of your family getting um you know to have to get to the hospital was a matter of life and death. And uh it seems like we have a lot of other issues. And um the other part
would be to maybe consider um and this is kind of do with the launches, the fact that our houses shake and we have cracks in our walls and stuff like that that the housing um should be changed the uh regulations to
build the houses to adjust to what's happening with the rest of the property out there. And uh I appreciate your time. Plus, I just wanted to put a little plug in for Pioneer Day that's
coming up on Saturday on North Merit Island. So, I give you a little handout and also about the mob, which I don't know if y'all are familiar with the mob, but it's got to do with the museums of Boulevard. So, thank you.
>> Great. Thank you, >> Robert Blevens. Good evening, commissioners. Um, thank you for your time today. Um, I reside I'm Robert Blevens and, uh, I reside at 825 Wood Sage Lane. Um, I got a little over five acres. Um, my lot's a flag
lot. It's right in the deep curb right where they plan on it's right after they they plan on doing this entrance a little bit after about few hundred yards after my uh entrance to my driveway. Um I can tell you just from I've only lived there for about four years. Um I I
most of my community has already voiced their opinion about it. The flooding is ridiculous. I mean we had 18 and a half inches on in about six hours and uh that that area just couldn't handle it. And uh I I work at the space center. I I
understand the growth that's going on out there. I got friends that are looking for homes and um are envious of me and my 12minute drive to work. I get it. It's it's lovely. Um but at the same point, it doesn't help the area. The
flooding is out of control. Um I I can tell you my my my h my property has two exits. I can get off of Joseph Court or I can go off of Chris Foley. And I couldn't do it off of Joseph Court because of a there's a culbert broken
right there that goes to my property. And I'm kind of glad it's broken because all that water off of Joseph Court would come onto my property because I'm I'm a real low low level property. Um I I there's not much I can do. I had 18 and a half inches in my garage. Lost
nearly everything in there. Um, you know, nobody sees my house. I'm back in the woods. I'm behind 70 foot pines and and it's gorgeous. Uh, we my we just had a newborn son. My family's growing out there. There's a family that just built a home behind us. Same thing.
Growing families. We don't want to be pushed away from our homes. I mean, I have to bring in subp pumps just to pump out underneath my house because the groundwater rises that quick. It It's It's serious out there. and to put an additional 61 homes on top
of it is is is not is uncalled for. That's that's putting the dangers of everybody else in our community. And um that you know, I just want to voice my opinion as concerned neighbor and uh taxpayer for this county and state and uh you know, hopefully you guys make the
right decisions. Thank you for your time. Susan Rogers. Good evening and thank you for your for your time. Uh I'm I'm not going to echo. We've all heard about the flooding.
Uh I live off Chase Hammock Road which is to the south of the East Chrysafoli Road, but as they say, we're all connected and we all live downstream and nature's a complex interconnected
system. So, we need to be mindful of of this. It's just not sustainable all this additional development. You know, I I heard the lawyer, Mr. Rena, say this is
a common sense solution. Well, it's not a common sense solution for the people who live there. and all the the the traffic issues have been discussed and and you know I have
family members who ride their bicycles. They say it's gotten terrible. It's dangerous. They don't go down that road anymore. So like everyone here I say no to the reszoning this we it's
not sustainable. this our North Merit Island. Enough is enough and and we just need to do the right thing. Thank you. >> Uh Diana Scario, did I say
>> Oh, thank you. times. >> Hi, I'm the last person that would normally get up and speak in front of people, so you'll have to excuse me. Um, I am going to kind of reiterate what everyone said. The flooding is terrible. Uh, my husband and I own a farm. We're probably the only agriculture people
that I've heard talk tonight and that's what we're here for. Um, the flooding event in October. Um, we're just south of the S turn. Uh, our pastures were underwater. Uh, we had to borrow a canoe from Terry so I could um bring hay out
to our sheep that were stuck on a small patch of uh land that was above water. But what I'm getting at is it's to add in any more houses and to raise any land out there. Water goes to the lowest point. Period.
It's not going to go anywhere else other than onto all the neighbors. You know how hard it is to see baby goats and baby sheep that can't get to dry land to have to and there's no place to bury them because it's all underwater.
I mean chickens that drown and I'm sorry if there's kids in here and I'm not trying to be too graphic but it's it's awful for those of us who are actually still trying to use the land for agricultural purposes and to take a a large agricultural plat and turn that
into anything other than agricultural land. You're never going to get that back. That land is meant to be green space. It's not meant for anything other than that. And also, I'd like to note, everyone's complaining about the road. I'm going to add a different spin on that because if
you've ever tried to haul a livestock trailer down that road and you happen to pass one of those 18-wheelers that's bringing construction material down to the subdivision, you can't get through the road. It's not wide enough for two large vehicles. It's just not. So, I
mean, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people have made um comments about the actual criteria that these people don't meet, but obviously we're opposed to this resoning, and hopefully you guys all do the right thing for the residents of
Bard County. I've lived here my whole life, so thank you. >> Thank you. You you said you'd be the last speaker and you actually are the last speaker. >> Okay. We bring this back to the board,
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> If I may, um I wanted to add something that should have been included in the addendum, which the addendum is to clarify and correct things that were um noted in the staff report. And so in the
staff report, it's noted that they can get 70 units. They can actually get 34, not 70. I do have a breakdown of that calculation if you'd like me to explain how we got to 34. >> Yes, that'd be good. >> Thank you.
>> Oh, so this evidence, this is out of out of order, out of line to bring it up at this point. Can you can you come to the mic? >> Yeah, this is this is unconscionable. This information should have been
provided before now and the fact that it hasn't has hindered us. So I I haven't talked to my client, but we need to be able to analyze this because this is the first time I've ever heard this. Sorry, I was trying to drink some water before I got up here. So I object to this. If it's going to be heard, we need time to
continue and to hear it. >> If I if I may, Mr. Chair, I can try to provide a little clarification. So the staff comments that Miss Rosena earlier referred to, she she stated 70 units. You'll notice there's an asterisk next to the potent the word potential. It
says zoning potential for concurrency analysis purposes only, subject to applicable land development regulations. So that that um potent zoning potential that we put in every staff analysis is a simple formula. the zoning minimum lot
size multiplied by the acreage. In cases like this, however, that the reason why that asterisk is there, it doesn't take into account the applicability of our land use regulations, land development regulations, sorry. So, in this case, that the numbers that Trina's come up with. They're estimates. That's all they
are. And that's what we're we were asked to provide because at P&Z um and the reason they're estimates is because of the type of reasonzoning application there is. There's not engineering to know how much is going to be used for storm water ponds, roads. Um, and we
also don't have the exact delineation of wetlands. So, Trina's come up with some estimates so the board can get an idea of how many units could be put on that uh parcel today. But I will notice that that's all they are is estimates because that's all the information we have at
this time. Okay. I I want to hear from staff, but Morris, did you have any comments? >> You'll have an opportunity to rebove with staff. Staff can testify. >> Yes, but we need to have time to expert testimony. We just got continued on another matter because of new evidence.
>> Why don't you hear the testimony and you'll have an opportunity to rebut it? >> No, we're not. >> You'll have an opportunity to respond to the testimony. The chair has asked to hear the testimony and he may hear the staff testimony. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. >> In the AU area, there's approximately
118.5 acres. There's approximately 80.5 acres of wetlands. And when we break that down, accounting for 25% of infrastructure in the 38 acres of the uplands, they
would be able to get 11 units. That's accounting for 9.5 acres of infrastructure. on the 80 acres of the wetlands, they would only be today be able to develop it at one unit per five acres. Also, taking into account the
infrastructure, we would minus out about 20 acres of that. That leaves them with 12 units. That's a total of 23. That is on the AU portion what they could do today. Again, an estimate in the RR1
zoning. It's approximately 23 acres. It's approximately 8.7 acres of wetlands. 14.6 acres of uplands. Again, 8.7 of wetlands. In the wetlands, they can develop one unit per 5 acres. Taking out
25% for infrastructure. We would be minusing out about 3.65 acres. That leaves them with enough to do 10 units for a grand total of the 34. >> Excuse me, 11 units and then take into
account the um the wetlands would give them one unit in the RR1 portion. So it's 11 units give them a total of 34. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions on that
and comments? >> Two minutes. Two and a half minutes. >> Okay. >> Now, you have the ability to cross-examine her and and you have the ability to rebut her. >> No, I need to ask for continuous because she's not an engineer and she doesn't divine subd design subdivisions.
Subdivisions can accommodate wetlands and individual lots, can accommodate infrastructure in individual lots. This is a down and dirty calculation that is not accurate. It's not how any engineer would design it. So, at this point, I'm asking for a continuence. >> She may request a continuous. The board
doesn't need to grant the continuous. >> No, but we have new evidence. The board policy requires a continuence when new evidence is put forward. We just heard that earlier. I have a question. Um, from a planning perspective, and this is
what we're doing here, this type of information is helpful in terms of planning policy and procedure and how we evaluate our comp plan. And that's why I wanted to hear it. I'm just curious of what what the development
potential under the larger broader scheme of planning, not necessarily from a specific engineering point of view. Um, and from what the staff is telling us, this is under our planning documents, under their interpretation,
what the land could be used for today. I just thought that would be helpful. >> It's uh it may be helpful, but it is um in contrast to what they've already provided to us and it's new evidence. I don't know if it's accurate or not. This
is the first I've heard of it. you would have thought we'd have been given it before now because I'm pretty sure they knew it was going to be presented tonight. So, um asking for an opportunity to review it. >> A question I have for you. Um under your interpretation, I'm sure you you've
evaluated the land, you looked at it, you purchased it under the rules as they exist today, what do you feel you could develop the land for? What density do you feel like you could obtain without changing zoning? Well, without changing zoning
based upon the staff report, based upon the zoning and that's available now, it's 70 units. If we were to go as of right, open space subdivision and again working around the wetlands, putting wetlands in lots using whatever means
method like broad acres, go back to the 1950s styles of plat road straight down the middle and put put lots on each side. So this is I didn't say this was a common sense solution. I said it was common sense development and it allows
things to be clustered as your code requests. So >> I still believe it's 70 under the zoning. >> Okay. >> Site planning hasn't been done. Engineering hasn't been done. >> Right. >> And it's not usually required at the zoning stage. >> Okay. That missed a good point. Thank
you. I understand. Yes sir. I would like to make a motion that for these reasons just discussed, we make a motion to decline to enter into a BDP and therefore deny the application for reszoning and would be consistent with
would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and I'd like for the direct the county attorney to draft findings of facts for the board consideration of a future meeting. >> Second. >> I haven't finished my rebuttal yet. I had asked for a continue.
>> You have two and a half minutes. just go ahead and finish the rebuttal and then we >> Okay. Again, I would begin by asking the board completely discount uh Miss Gilliam, who I I do respect as a planner, but she's not an engineer. Um I respect fully request that you grant
this resoning because of the use of the land is no longer available. Um what you have heard is that people don't want change. It's been stated time and time again, they don't want change. They also have a speeding problem. >> Please allow her to give her time.
>> They have a speeding problem. >> They have a flooding problem. >> No one designs to the 500year flood that happened in October. That's in no one's code. >> Raising the property don't help. >> What about 2022? >> Okay, I'm going to add three minutes to her time because she's being interrupted. You need to give her an
opportunity to present her client's case, but go ahead. >> Thank you. So there are issues but no one has proven that there is evidence to support we don't meet the criteria. They cite administrative policies. They don't site facts to go with them. They
speculate on what might happen. They don't understand engineering principles. There's not been a single engineer who has testified. Um there has been statements from Mr. Prasad about the coastal hazard. Well the coaster has said to limit density. We're not asking
for more density than current zoning allows. Current zoning allows 70. If we can make it under land development regulations is another question. But this is zoning, not engineering, not site planning, not platting. Um, second, to find it would be detrimental. There's no facts. You cannot say with any facts
that this is going to make the area worse. Your land development code prevents that. St. John's prevents that. Florida law prevents that. If they're having problems from Island Forest Preserve that Miranda did not build the infrastructure, they've done take down lots and build homes, then that's an Island Forest Preserve issue that should
be taken into account by the county and something should be done about it. Code enforcement or a lawsuit. I don't I don't know, but it's not proof that this subdivision is going to do the same thing. Um, this area is in the new uh code that
requires development north of Merit Island from Hall Road north to State Road 405 comply with the new modeling that was developed and adopted by this board in 2022. That did an entire basin study that knows everything about where the water
flows and any storm water calculations have to go through that process. And that is new. Only one subdivision's gone through it before. Island Forest Preserve did not. Um the staff report uh again when I looked at the addendum it was clear that it was to refute everything that was said on the
applicant's behalf. Um however we are not increasing density. We are directing development to the uplands which is what your code requests. Um a BDP is a zoning action. So yes, zoning can be changed as do BDPS can be
changed. Uh that road there is not it is a unusual road but there are many of them. Tropical Trail, South Tropical Trail, um South Banana River Drive and these are roads that have been there. Land has uh
the ability to be developed. There are private property rights that apply to this land. If this land does have 70 units now, uh then it should be entitled to try to do those 70 units. We are trying to be transparent and let you know exactly what is going to be built
here. Uh no zoning code has required full engineering and it's not in your code. Now, your staff report initially said that this would have no adverse impacts, that this isn't a neighborhood, it's a neighborhood area and that it is compatible. Your staff report says that
even the addendum doesn't say that. Uh uh there has been statements that once this is developed it will discharge. It cannot discharge more than it has discharged in the past. That's your law and that's how they design. That's how Mr. Kamal uh Mr. Hassan Kamal would
design it. Um, as with the city point that came before you not that long ago, we are willing to uh per put into the BDP that the developer will reduce the volume of storm water discharge on the property to better control the runoff and allow no more water than currently
comes from the property. This shall exceed the requirements of Bard County Code and St. John's River Water Management Justistic. And this shall be addressed at the site plan stage. That's what we did with City Point um in district 1 just in December of this year
to require and and that that was a PUD, but this still applies. Uh the exotics are exotic plants that are removed when you work with wetlands. They're not removing any animals. Again, I point back to the to
administrative policies and administrative policies require facts, but they're guidelines. The land development codes comply. Um, this is a logical development. It's predictable because you know what's going to be built. Uh, this is how the land
development code usually works. We have asked for uh a binding development plan to limit the density which is appropriate under 621255. And again, we would agree to a performance bond and to the enhanced storm water criteria that we've done for
City Point and District 1. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And again, I'd still ask for the continuence. Okay. >> If you're relying upon that evidence, >> make that note. We note that there's been request for a continuous. BCC97
allows an applicant to cross-examine a witness. When evidence is presented or to request a tableabling for seven days to submit a rebuttal um to the evidence presented, it's limited just to rebutting that issue. It's not reopening the public hearing or anything like that. Both of those are within the board's discretion. Cross-examination
must be allowed if it's requested. The tableabling for additional rebuttal does not. Crossexamination is required to be allowed >> if requested. >> If requested. Would that be at this particular meeting? Like >> yes. >> So if
if you would like to cross-examine, you're entitled to do that. If I can be given her numbers in 10 minutes for the engineer to look at it. Sure, we would do that. >> How about a break? >> We're in we're we're we're due for a break, so let's have a 10-minute break.
>> So, I I need the number she read from. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We will take a 10-minute break. >> We'll get you Hey, hey, hey. that hey, Hey. Hey. Hey.
Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat.
Heat. Hey, hey, hey. I think We'll hear from u Morris Richardson first our legal counsel and then proceed from in the order that he recommends.
>> Okay. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. So the applicant has offer uh has asked to offer rebuttal testimony to testimony presented by planning staff regarding an estimate of the potential number of units that could be realized under the current zoning. And I believe uh Mr.
Kamal, the engineer for the project, is ready to speak on that subject. >> Okay. >> Thank you again, Hassan Kamal with BSC Consultants. Um, I I'd like to start out by noting that uh the information that
Miss Gillian provided uh came from a memo or an email that was dated uh January 14th. Um, today's February 5th. there was a an addendum to the staff report that was issued I think earlier this week. So, it's a little bit
disappointing and frustrating on our end that we see this information for the first time today at the public hearing where if it was uh provided to us and discussed with the applicant earlier, we could have had a uh a much better chance
to understand where they got their numbers from and discuss it and maybe reach some consensus on what those numbers really mean. So, uh, puts us in a little more of a difficult position, but, uh, again, we've just had a few minutes to take a look at this. And my
concern would be I I don't know where the wetland numbers come from. I don't think the county staff has uh, and I'm an engineer, not an attorney. So, I'm going to pose these questions uh, in the format that I normally would.
I don't know where these numbers came from. I don't think county staff has been on site if there or if they just used a a database inventory to generate those. Um the assumption for 25% infrastructure seems high based upon my experience. I've been doing uh
subdivision land development design for over 30 years. Uh that number seems high and I don't know specific to this for this kind of development. Um the assumption that uh when you go through the units that um all the 2 and
1/2 acre all the residential development all has to be in upland I don't think is accurate. We've done lots of subdivisions where you can plat into the wetlands place them in a conservation easement and provide enough upland development footprint to construct your
house pad yard and footprint. Um, at the end of the day, even with those numbers that were presented by staff, there's 46 units that in theory they could develop. We don't agree with those numbers, but
that doesn't I'm sorry, 34. Uh, and that's assuming with with all their worst case scenarios, that doesn't really change the calculus. We still have uh the most stringent storm water criteria in Bvoulevard
County that we've got to go through and I think the board has to trust their staff to enforce that criteria to make sure that this project whether it's 61 units, 40 units or whatever the number is doesn't adversely affect either upstream or downstream facilities. And
you have those regulations already in place. We've documented with traffic counts that Boulevard County provided that this roadway has an acceptable level of service and its current rate and even with the addition of the
project traffic, it's well below the acceptable level of service. So, uh I think as far as these numbers, we obviously got them 10 minutes ago. I don't agree with the basis for these calculations, but it doesn't change the
request. We we meet the criteria. We are less than what's allowed under the current zoning when you take a look at the raw numbers. We meet concurrency. This um school concurrency and roadway concurrency. So
I I again disappointed that we just got this today. U but that's our response to these values. Okay. Okay, thank you. Uh, do we have any questions? I don't think we have any questions.
Okay, let's bring it back to the board. >> Any discussion? No questions. Any discussion? Any motions? >> My motion? >> Okay. >> Okay. For the reasons just discussed and discussed throughout this whole meeting, I make a motion to sign to enter into a
BDP and therefore deny the application for reszoning. and it would be inconsist inconsistent with the comprehens comprehensive plan and I would like to direct the county attorney to draft findings to find to a fact for the
board's consideration at a future meeting on this matter. >> Second. >> That is my motion. >> Okay, there's a motion uh second by Commissioner Delaney. Uh any discussion on the motion? Okay.
Um, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion carries >> the applicant so he doesn't have to speak. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay.
>> Pardon me. Denial. >> Yes, it was a denial. >> So, >> okay. Our next item, uh, we have a >> You're welcome. Thank you for your input. >> Thank you for your input. >> Okay. Um,
H5, Stephen Douglas. Oh, go ahead. Yeah. >> Item H5 is C. Steven Douglas request a request a zoning classification change from TR-2 with a BDP to AGR with removal of
existing BDP under application 25Z 000047 located in district 3. >> Not necessary. >> Okay, I see Stephen Douglas. Yeah, I'm trying to get the uh
zoning reclassified from a TR 2 which has a binding development plan to a AGR. Mainly because I have property to the south, a farming operation, and this
would just extend it to a certain point. I want to put up a building to put the hay and the machinery in and stuff. >> Okay. I think you're in good shape here. Let me >> I'd like to make a motion to approve. >> There's a motion to approve. >> I'll second.
>> Second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All right. Thank you. >> Unanimously. Thank you very much. >> H6. We have one card. >> H6. Kimberly Smith. Item H6 is Clinton Smith and Kimberly Smith requests a
zoning classification change from RU-1-7 to SR under application 25Z 00048 located in district 3. >> Okay.
>> Good evening. My name is Kimberly Smith. Uh we own our property at 980 Central Avenue in Mo Road. I mean in MCO sorry. Um we are here to request a resoning from
RU17 with a existing FOU of residential 2 to an a zoning of SR. The property we've owned since 2016. It's vacant land. It's 2.26 acres and we're looking to build a single home on it. Right now
we have a permit that's trying to go through the process. >> Okay. Uh, any questions? Any discussions? Any motion? >> Motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Motion second and approve. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Carries. Thank you.
>> Okay, we now have H7. Item H7 is Lazy River Investments LLC. Request a zoning classification change from RU-1-13 to AUL under application 25Z0049
located in district 3. >> I'm David Bistarki. partner of Lazy River Investments LLC and uh we're requesting a zoning from the RU1-13 which is 13 units per acre total of 264
units on the 20.39 acres to AU light which would be eight units our proposed plat would be seven units a reduction of 257 units this AU light will be consistent with the flum established in
1988 8 res one 2 point two two 2.5. >> Okay. And you're David? >> Yes, I'm David. >> I have your card. And have Lorraine. Are you representing both? >> Pardon me. >> We have Lorraine. >> Lorraine. Yes. She's going to speak, I guess. >> Okay. All right. Good.
>> Oh, this is another David. >> Oh, is there another I only have one David? Do we have two? Are we missing a card? >> David, I guess you're >> Is it David? What's your last name? David >> Connor. >> Oh, David. Okay. I missed that. David.
>> Yeah. Sorry. Too many Davids around, I guess. >> Uh, my name is David Connor. I live um in Mo off of Mockingbird Road, which is just to the west of the property that David is trying to develop. And um my wife and I are totally uh for the
development of it as per what he's going to do with it. And um it's going to enhance the the neighborhood, which is what I like about it because he's taken a 22 acre property and dividing it into uh seven buildable acres, which gives it
2 and 1/2 acres and bigger, which is nice. So, the density is going to be pretty low for that area, which also won't increase the traffic uh by that much. So, uh we're pretty happy about it. and um and he and he he's has a good
reputation about doing uh with building and stuff. So, he's he does a nice job. So, um we just moved up here from Jupiter, so we're we're kind of in the know on some uh good builders and stuff like that. So, he fits the criteria and
uh we're for it. So, that's it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Now, Lorraine Good evening, commissioners. Lorraine Deontat. I am a uh 24-year resident of Miko uh resident of Bvard County since
1977. Um I've been before this my hearing fell out. I've been before this board several times to speak on um matters of zoning. Um I've also been through the process myself years ago. Um and um I am a strong advocate for
private property rights. Um, so I followed this request uh that he's made. He's been before this board several times with regards to this particular parcel. Um, his uh change is going to actually lower the density, which is a good thing for
our neighborhood. Um, I'd hate for it to have, you know, 100 plus homes go there or something else. Uh, so the planning and zoning uh commission had recommended approval several times, uh, including this time. Um, I don't feel like the
previous District 3 commissioner treated the applicant fairly. Um, so I'm looking to Commissioner Atkinson to support him on this application. Um, and along with the other members. Um, and I feel like the building department when it comes to
development, they are the ones who govern what happens and there are already procedures and policies in place to enforce what can be done. So, um, I think this is a great thing for our community and I'm here in support of it and I thank you for your time.
>> Okay, I think that's Nope. >> We That's all our cards. So, >> and you already had your time, >> huh? >> Did you have anything else you'd like to say? >> I don't need need any more time. >> Okay. All right. Good. >> Okay. Do we have any questions? Any
comments? >> Yes, I do. So, I was wondering um Billy and Trina if you guys could speak to um the development and where we are with how many at this point, how many units
could go on that site as it stands right now? >> As it stands right now, two >> two Okay, so two units at this point. If we grant this, how many units can go on that site? >> Eight units. Okay.
Can you also let me know from the tentative plan that I know is not binding that was submitted. We have two or three of the units that he is considering building in the coastal high hazard area. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. Three.
>> Three. Do we have septic or sewer available in that area? What would he have to do? >> SPE uh sewer is not available in that area. He would need a septic system. >> Okay. And in order to build these properties, do we have to bring in Phil?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Can you give me any idea what that Phil could possibly do to the neighbors who are new to the area? >> So, some of his elevations are very low in those areas. So, staff estimates that
he would need to bring in about 3 to four feet of fill. He needs to be at a um base flood elevation of at least 6.3. Um and so again with some of his elevations being about 2 and a half um
bringing in that fill, what that will do is when the storm surge comes up that will distribute that water outward and that may impact the neighbors. >> Right. >> Those are my only questions.
>> Okay. if you want to open it up to comments and conversation. >> Are there any other questions? >> I do have a question. The planning and zoning board approved this. Uh what was the vote? Do you do you recall? >> Unanimous. >> I believe unanimous. I believe it was
seven. Was it 7 to 7? No. Oh, this one was unanimous. Sorry. Excuse me. >> Now, has this request been heard before by the commission? >> Yes, sir. It has, I believe, two or three times. And the previous time uh planning and zoning board also approved
it unanimously. And >> how about the commission though on the commission level? >> The commission vote denied it and then a finding of facts was done and the resolution was recorded. >> So what was that finding effect and denial?
>> Do you recall >> in 2021? Um I I don't I don't recall the vote count, but it was um it was based on the reasons that were just stated. Um the evidence presented was um that because the properties were in a coastal eye hazard area and objective 7 requires
us to direct density outside of the coastal hazard area, direct development outside of the coastal hazard area. The the thought was that there was an increase in the number of units that was buildable within the coastal eye hazard area. And um at the time, Mr. Denninghoff, the former assistant county
manager, opined that um there was a a risk without modeling that it could uh have a detrimental impact on the neighbors. If if this is approved, would it establish a negative precedent or a dangerous
precedent? this question or Morris or Bill. >> Um, you know, the application of the policy um to direct development out of the coastal high hazard area. Generally,
that's interpreted to apply to comp plan changes that increase the future land use map density. Um, in this case, you have an application that uh, at least based on the the non-binding plan presented would allow for three units in
the coastal high hazard area where right now the maximum you could achieve or two. So, it's clearly increasing actual units within the coastal high hazard area, but I don't know that I would consider that to be presidential or binding on the board in a future similar circumstance.
>> Okay. Thank you. It was very helpful. >> Yes. So, I actually spoke to um one of my representatives on PNZ and I was very interesting to me that for whatever reason he did not understand that very
simple fact that currently two units would be allowed and that if this is approved eight would be allowed. My representative did not understand that on PNZ and I don't know why because generally we want our um future land use
to match up with zoning. That's what we want to do. >> But in this case and and I think that this property can be developed. So we're not worried about, you know, stomping on rights of people who want to build on their property because I believe that's really important. But I think it's also our
responsibility to protect um our water. And so if we can build outside of the coastal high hazard, especially since we're talking about septic tanks at this point, um then I could support this, but I I can't support this application as it is today.
So therefore, I'd like to make a motion to deny. >> Second. >> There's a motion to deny and second by Delaney. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying >> uh >> normally no, but we'll let you I'll let
you come and say a few words. >> I mean >> because I think you had plenty of time left in what we allotted you spoke within your time. >> I've I've done some research and I've seen numerous houses have been built in the coastal high hazard area recently. In fact, there's two that have been on
the Sebastian River recently that are in the coastal high hazard area. There's 10 on Bvard County side where I'm proposing to build the houses and there's only going to be three on my development plan. It's not binding at this time. Two
of them are on the highest area which is 3 and 1/2 ft elevation and one is 400 ft back because there's wetlands in front of that area. And I don't know where she's coming up to. I'm a builder
of 41 years experience. I've lived here for 69 years. I don't know where she's coming up with this enormous amount of fill at 3 and 1/2 ft. I have to go up to 6 and 1/2 ft to get out of the flood. The finished floor elevation has to be if I put those houses on stem wall. All
I have to do is slope from 3 and 1/2 ft. I have to get a 6 in slope in 10 ft. So, I don't know where she's coming up with this enormous amount of fill that I'm going to be bringing in. That's going to be very minimal. And the one house, if
you do you have the plan that I presented, the one house that is closest to the neighbor is going to be about 400 ft back because there's wetlands. There's wetlands in that area that it's going to force the houses to stay back unless I
for some reason want to pay to mitigate those wetlands out. But um I have the two houses that have recently been built there that are in the coastal high area if you'd like to see those. I also have all the neighbors I talked
to that 90% approved of what I was doing. I also have all the houses. This is Lazy River. This is Mockingbird Lane, which is RUD1-13 halfacre lots. All the houses, these were all 10acre parcels at
one time. All these houses have been reszoned to AU. All these lots to the west of my property. If you'd like to see that, I can bring that up. Also, the septic tanks. Bvard County now requires
all septic tanks to be nitrogen reducing, which will reduce total nitrogen 79% with a 15% for soil reduction. It gives a 6% nitrogen output. Seven houses at 6%
is 42% of what one house would have been. This is nowhere near. It would not even be equal to one house what was before when I proposed this back in 2021. If you'd like to see this information, I can give it. I don't know
where the septic tank it problem is coming up. But with the new every lot now in Palm Bay, everywhere in Bard County is now required to have nitrogen reducing septic tanks put in. These are reducing
it to 6% nitrogen output. So we're coming up with less than one house put of output of what I would have had in 2021. Um also everybody keeps saying direct out
of it. The statute says limit densities. There's 5.1 acres of coastal hide hazard area. That's 20 222,156 square feet. My three house pads if they
were 7,000 square foot pads would equal 21,000 square ft, which is a less than tw 10% impact on that coastal high hazard area. In fact, the house to the east is partway into what is not coastal
high hazard area where I show it planned. So, I don't know where all this calculations are coming from. I would like to see the calculations of actually how much I'm going to impact the river cuz I don't believe I'm going to raise
the river one 100th of an inch by these pads that are coming up. And in fact, if they want to know what happens, I live right next door. What floods our property when hurricanes come? They released C-54 Canal Dam and they let millions of gallons of water come down
that river and the opposing forces flood our properties. And I've been there 22 years. It's never come up above my dock. That's at about 3 ft above. So I don't know how we're coming up with this impact that they're saying I'm going to
have, but I would like to see the calculations is what I like to see. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Thank you. >> Um, I have a qu a question of staff. We're
not saying you can't build in the coastal high area. You're saying we're just we have a policy to not increase densities. and my concern about precedent and I appreciate the comment but maybe my point is that I think we
need to be consistent. We kind of get on a slippery slope when we start allowing exceptions. That's a pretty important policy that we have. >> He could as a matter of right build two units within the coastal high hazard area right now that there's nothing that prevents that. What he's requesting
would allow >> a third as planned on his nonbinding drawing but up to eight units. um you know and how that is configured ultimately would be up to him in meeting the applicable land development regulations but certainly at least one more than >> okay
>> what would be allowed now >> right >> okay any other questions or comments is there a motion on the >> and a second >> okay all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I
>> I motion carries unanimous thank you okay now we'll move on to I'll let you >> Yeah. Um applet A8. Um
>> okay. >> May H8 is uh 100 Flug Avenue LLC represented by Bruce Moyer. request a zoning classification change from BU1 to RU215 under application 25Z 000050
located in district 5. >> I don't think we have any cards opposed and I'm for it. So a motion to approve be in order. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I think the clerk was unclear. So he let's
say he made the motion. I second it. Okay. Okay. Oh, I made the motion. >> Oh, did you make the motion? >> I think >> I I think I think you said a motion was in order. In order. >> Okay, you did. I think you said it would be in order and >> and you made the motion or did >> Commissioner Goodson >> Goodson made the motion?
>> I second. All right. >> Just a second. Okay. For the sake of the clerk. >> All right. Good. Thanks. >> Okay. Item H9, Landon Sheets. Item H9 is
Eric D and Pamela S. Martin Trust being represented by Landon Shear requested zoning classification change from BU-1 to BU-1 and BU-2 under application 25Z 00051
located in district 2. >> So move second. >> Motion second. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Motion brilliant presentation. >> Thanks guys. Yeah. H >> H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H10 Blair Forester.
>> Item H10 >> is Blair Foster Foster Family Living Trust request a zoning classification change from GU to SR under application 25Z0053 located in district 5.
>> Okay, >> good evening. I am trying to reszone this uh it's general use at the moment and it came to our attention that that's 5 acres and for me to do anything on that property.
SR is what's everybody has around me and I just want to be consistent so I can move forward with anything we'd like to do in the future. >> I think a motion to approve would be in order. >> I'll make the motion, sir. >> Motion, a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Motion carries. unanimously. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item H12. >> Item H12 is Beverly Jean Richardson being represented by Angel Meyers. Request a zoning classification change from RU-1-9
to RU-2-4 under application 25Z 0055 located in district 1. I would like to make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> There's a motion second. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> Well, good evening every well done. >> Have a good motion carries. >> Okay. >> Item U H13 and H14. We have quite a few cards here.
>> Okay. We have >> Yeah, we'll have staff present it. >> Item H13 is Jacob Fawn request a smallcale comprehensive plan application under 25S14 to change the future land use
designation from RES 1 to RES 2. Application is 25 SS00008. This is located in district 1. I'm also going to read into the record um H14. This is a companion application. Jacob
Fawn requests a zoning classification change from SR with a BDP to SR with removal of the existing BDP and and addition of a new BDP under application 25Z 000037
located in district 1. And we'll need separate u motions. >> If I if I may, Mr. Chair, the board last heard this at his last zoning meeting. I did want the board had uh voted to continue it to have Mr. Fawn uh research with his title company. Um he did
provide a letter. I just wanted to make you aware of that since I know there was a lot of changes to the agenda in the last few days. A lot of extra documents being added. So Mr. Fawn did provide a letter as requested. It states that um this situation is excluded from his title policy. >> All right. Um, so I've gone to the title
company like you said. Um, I've sent you all the respon their response. They're not responsible for my certain issue and I've also contacted legal help um, which was asked in the last meeting. Um, they're aware of my issue and they feel it is not necessary to get them involved
just yet being that the title company was able to write me that letter. Um, I would also like to remind everyone that I've done everything by the book. I got my survey. I've turned in my permit. Got that accepted. I've also had my
pre-plumbing, pre-plumbing, concrete, and time beam inspection all um all passed. Um I was then stopped in the middle of block, but I asked if I could uh finish the block. Um being that I can pay the
block guy and um also get that filled. I was allowed to do that after being stopped. Um, and I was allowed to I was allowed to get that done um, after being stopped because this was supposed to be sorted
out in a couple days. Um, months later, I have since paid $2,400 for the reasonzoning fee. Um, and it's been nearly eight months since I have uh, started since it's been shut down. Um, I'd also like to state that in the
uh staff report that I'm going to have no impact on any flooding of whatsoever. Um, like I said, I've done everything by the book and uh that's that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, we have more cards
and if we have any questions we can ask after we're here. Eric and you're gonna have to pronounce like Paglia Logna. Eric P. >> Okay.
Okay. Eric waves his time. Ed Ostropovich. How are you guys this evening? a few things for you. So, evidently I didn't make enough copies. So, >> we can share.
>> We can we can share So, good evening. Appreciate you guys allowing us to speak tonight and uh hopefully we can get this ironed out where everyone's happy, including the property owner. Um, we turn this on here.
Does that do it? Oh, no. That did. Okay. So, Edostapovich, 5175 International Avenue. And I got it upside down. Bear with me. Sorry, guys.
talk. I'm still wrong. There we go. Good lord. So, on behalf of the neighbors and the community, we have uh gathered it to contest over this uh mistake and error for the zoning of this parcel. Um
starting out as a BDP and continuing with the building. Uh the size of the parial in relation to the square footage of the foundation creates an excessive amount of runoff um for the required road grade elevation. It is pretty high. I've got a picture in here for us to to look at. And not to mention this parcel
is a 045 acre and under the required halfacre variations. And based on that first picture, you guys saw the plat map there shows a road rideway or more or less agreement for a driveway for the guy in the back. based on this zoning piece here. This is
another little tangent to uh the the basically the uh attention that was given to this parcel before building off today's printer. And as as stated, you can see here they're uh well, the your picture probably does you more justice there,
but the guy's gated road is right in line with the property coming out to the roadway, and they're going to share this uh apron and driveway. So, nothing has been identified as far as uh any any legal matters that would protect the gentleman in the back.
So now getting into the runoff based on the elevation there is nowhere where for the property to perk. So because of the drastic runoff to the ditches and the lowlying areas, this parcel will not accept any perk. The absorption to this property is all but nil. And you can see here the runoff and the wash out has
been filled in probably uh five or six good times. Uh well, we'll go with the conservative side and say at least four, but uh not there every day to verify, but I did take these pictures after a pretty drastic uh rainstorm we had. So there's the back side of the
property. You can see the road degrade itself. Um there is no retention. There is nothing. So this is the neighbors, the gentleman in the back. It's his driveway. that this is 3 weeks after the late after the latest major rain we had. I think it was a 6 or 8 inch accumulation total. Uh this gentleman
because of all the rain from the summer was flooded out so badly was using a UTV which is a lot taller than an ATV to get to his own property. He's parking on the road. So this piece of property didn't perk anymore. So now it's actually flooding out the whole and didn't used
to do that until this showed up. So pressing forward, the layout of the parcel foundation is not in character of the surrounding homes that have followed the zoning guidelines in for this area, which is 1 and a half to 2 and 1/2 acres depending on the previous zoning, not the 045 that we're looking at uh right
now. The partial zone identified required and it's that is being required. the violation um that violated the binding development plan per the county zoning department before any future structures could be built. So the identified error has become an impact to
every homeowner dealing with flooding because of properties like this adding to the ditches and canals uh versus having enough property to allow good filtration and adequate soil absorption. This perk is what gives us clean natural water. I mean that's what we all thrive on. We actually literally we'll use an
RO system. It's not bad water. a little bit of iron, but for the most part, it's it's drinkable, very potable right out of right out of the uh right out of the well. So, with that being said, the the perk is what gives us clean, natural, filtered water and waste heavy to keep
river and salt intrusion away from the well caverns. Previous zoning and engineering knew how critical this land was. And I'm I'm going back to uh probably the 60s. So, it I appreciate your time, but didn't I get 10 minutes on this? Only five. Okay. Well, I appreciate your time, but for the most
part, you can kind of see where we're at here. And my time got absorbed by passing out. >> All righty. >> There's more. >> She did stop it. >> That's fine. I appreciate it. >> I have a question. >> Okay.
>> I was wondering um the discrepancy between the property appraisers form of 0.45 45 and the staff report that says 0.54 >> that was pulled from today >> just to verify nothing had changed
>> so um >> commissioner we we don't use the property appraiser um for the acreage we go by the survey and he did include a certified survey done by Holly and Associates that certifies the property
is 0.54 acres Do we know how large the original parcel was? >> 1.34 I believe >> stating back to 2022 when it was picked up by I don't mean to interrupt but picked up by mic. It was a large partial
that was broke up and basically hoodwinkedked the system moving moving land around and this was the resulting end piece of property from that parcel being cut up. >> And so I'm wondering what the other property is claiming to be.
I think it's currently 0.84, but if if you give me a moment, I I'll verify that. >> And that adds to the uh basically the shenanigans that this contractor, the be Minnik and White have done to the
northern part of the community for the last 20 years. Never had any issues with flooding until the last five years. But that's fine. I uh we got a lot more people with a lot better information. So, we don't know what >> I think we got more cards here. Uh,
Clifford Mcnite. >> So, Commissioner, I I'm going to state this but with caution. What we have noted as the original parcel being 1.34 acres. However, we don't have a certified survey to,
you know, really back that up. Um so again 1.34 is what we think it is and his parcel certified survey 5 point uh.54 acres. >> All right. My name is Cliff Mcnite. Uh first a little backstory. Um Golden
Shores is less than a mile long from end to end. This is primarily a horse country community. Uh we have the North Bard Horseman's Club at the end of the road. We have horse trails to the north. All the homes along this road are an acre or more of land uh zoned R1 or AU
with the exception of the houses right at US1. Uh now my son, my brother-in-law, my in-laws, my wife and I all live on this road and I have spoke with over 50% of the people on this road. There's nobody that I've talked to
that is for this. The primary argument has been focused on flooding. and we do have a flooding issue and the house will create new challenges for the area and they should be addressed. The bigger picture here is this house is being built illegally. All parties involved need to be held
accountable. What we do not need is to change the new BDP when the last one didn't prevent this from happening. Why should we believe a new BDP will help just because it's on fresh ink on a new piece of paper and when it dries and it gets filed, it'll be forgotten. the
president will be set and we'll find ourselves going through this process again. The house is also being built on a lot that is legally split. It's too small for its current land use of res one wants to change to res 2. Regarding accountability, Scott Minnik, who is a
licensed realtor, sold this property. As you can see from the construction plans provided, Scott is also the contractor heavily involved in this build. He's listed as a contractor on the trust layout, trust engineering plans, soil density test, and the energy efficiency
code for the building construction. Now, Jacob Fawn, who is listed as the owner builder, is someone we're supposed to take pity on because he's a victim. And yes, he is a victim, but he is also a pawn in this fiasco. As an owner builder, one would expect him to answer simple questions about the build.
However, at the local planning zoning meeting on November 17th, when asked if he went through a realtor, he said, "No, the guy that sold it is a realtor." When asked who conducted the survey, I don't know. When asked if Minnik helped
him in any way, we will see. I hope so. So, it's clear that Minnik is practically building this house for him. In the meeting on December 11th, when asked who stamped the plans, again, he don't know. When asked how many square feet the house is, he states 1,600. It's
actually 2240. It's a significant difference when the discussion revolves around flooding. I would provide the actual meeting minutes, but they have not been published yet. As an owner builder, especially since he claims to be spending his life savings on this, one would think he know would
know these answers as to where his money is going. He is writing the checks, so to speak. That being said, I find it hard to be empathetic in the situation when all parties involved have been misleading and shady in their practices. The county, possibly included included,
might need an audit to clarify this. As property owners, the county holds us accountable when with building codes and regulations. When we violate these codes, there is no forgiveness. We look for the county looks out for the masses, not the individual. They levy fines,
place leans on the property until the violations are remedied, including if we build illegally, we tear it down. Now that the county has made another mistake, the answer should not be to cover it up with a variance or make another exception. It should be
accountable. These mistakes add up. All these little problems accumulate to create big issues that we, the constituents, must deal with. I urge that you do the right thing, hold all parties accountable, and deny the zoning and future land use for the people you're elected to represent. The county did not let Jacob down. They let the the
county let us down. Please do not detract from our community. I have a minute, so couple things on 045 acres. It started off 045 acres.
The landscape requirement all that was applied 045 acres. Landscape land clearing 0.54 acres. State department uh site evaluation system started off 045 acres now 0.55
acres. We got three we can't even we can't even come to a conclusion how many acres this is. That is my time. Thank you. May >> I may I ask a question? >> Sure. >> What were those things that you were holding up?
>> Um, >> do we have copies of those? >> You can have all the copies of it. Uh, here is landscape. >> Thank you. landscape clearing affidavit. >> And so what you're saying is that there's three different numbers on here.
>> You have you have three numbers on three different >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh next speaker, Mike Beagler. here. I'll give you all this. That's a wife
for mill for minute. He's a realer and a contractor. And the address is what I'm pointing out. That's where he lives. He's a homeowner builder. And my name's Mike Bigler. Thank you for letting me speak. He does
a lot of homeowner builder throughout our neighborhood. And he gets things changed. Uh he built the house just down the road for a a lovely person that's here tonight. And
I just don't know about his homeowner builder stuff and how he gets things passed. Okay. Um he built the house down the road for me and he supposedly built it for himself.
Well, if you're building it homeowner builder, you have to live there for a year before you can sell it. Well, he wasn't planning on leaving there, living there, okay? Cuz nobody in their right
mind fills up the septic tank with so much grease that the new homeowner has to have it pumped out so they can move in and it ain't even a year old. So, there's also other things. this new
homeowner, which he refuses to get to with. This is the shower. Does How do you work this thing, y'all? This is the shower. It's taped up. That's one shower.
Here's another shower. Look at that. You see that where it's circled there? That's where That's where the shelf is for the stone. They cocked it in. And I'm pointing this out for Mr. Fawn, too, because I got some pictures here because
I wouldn't want a house that he builds that's supposed to be grouted. He it. So, there's two brand new showers that aren't even a year old that they can't even use. Another thing the builder does,
this right here is your hood vent. He vent it right in the attic, not through the roof. You're supposed to vent that through the roof. Some kind of a builder. Then the lovely homeowners take me right up the stairs. I didn't really I couldn't get up there. It was kind of
tough, but I insisted on going in. First thing I see is the nailing. They're not even in. The very first thing I see, this is over on the other side.
This is right over on the other side over here. That's just right in that little area. I wonder who that inspector was. So anyways, then for Mr. Fawn, because I know
everybody is feeling bad for the kid, but I don't understand is why he don't feel bad for himself. I would be upraged if this was me. He's not showing any emotions because he is a pawn. So here
here are them trusses that he's talking about. Why the heck would you want those trusses those bananas on your brand new house? They're bananas now. They're shaped in a banana.
And like my other partner says, the drainage, okay, the drainage coming out of here, I guarantee you that floor is going to crack. So, I don't know what kind of floor system you're going to put in, but
it's all undermined. Guess what? You better cover your tracks. That's filled in the dirt after the drainage. Oh, we better get back there and cover that up. So, the
thing about it is is everything's wrong about this situation. The permit was wrong. Everything has been wrong. And also, that's the only house on our street that's in front of another house. Every
house on our street has the view of the street except for that. Thank you guys very much. And I I'm against this and I hope you all are too. And it has nothing to do with Jacob Fawn
Sean Bohannan. Hello. Good evening. Sean Bohannan. I live on 3600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Mims 32754. Um, I'm going to read you something from someone who wasn't able to be here tonight who's a resident on Golden Shores as well as I'm going to give you
my own hopefully 45 second opinion. Okay. The bottom line is this should never been issued. That's just the rules, okay? Without getting an exception in the first place. Okay? We
need to know who or how or what or why that occurred. So, that needs to be an audit. Needs to be done by the county because obviously the county is the one that issued the permit that is inappropriate. Okay? So, that's number one. I am very empathetic for Mr. Fawn.
If there are any monies because it's the county's mistake, sure, we can pay them back. But I want a full fiduciary forensic accounting
and audit of all these transactions from who and where and what and how and why. There's just too many things overlapping here which we have seen on all the records that are available and some that are not available on the
property appraiser site and the state records. Something is wrong. But finally, so this is from uh my friend Stephanie Knight in regard to the property located at 46 460 Golden Shores
Boulevard. It is my request you deny the approval of the reszoning due to the illegal split of the property on a previously issued BDP. There appears to be either a systemic loophole that requires immediate review or correction or significant oversight within the relevant departments. Specifically,
permitting and property appraisal related to property splits, adverse possession claims, and the issuance of permits for properties that should not have been approved. By the way, Semino County previously issued permit for a swimming pool constructed in a front yard in direct violation of their requirements. The error resulted in a
conflict and within the past month, a $40,000 settlement has been funded by the taxpayers due to the mistakes within the permitting department. Settlement was issued to avoid potential litigation from the air, an outcome that could occur in this situation. This matter reflects a departmental
error that should be acknowledged, corrected, and addressed in the appropriate manner with accountability. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the formal audit be connected conducted to both the property appraisers office and the permitting department to prevent these issues because becoming habitual occurrence in our area. It is both
time-consuming and deeply frustrating to repeatedly raise these concerns of public meetings after the fact, particularly when the preventable errors continue to be approved and overlooked by the departments responsible. These practices must be corrected to restore
public confidence and ensure compliance. moving forward. Furthermore, I respectfully ask that the consideration be given to supporting Commissioner Katie's votes within her district. She has demonstrated genuine effort to listen to and advocate for the residents who elected her. It is disheartening to
see when voices of other districts are consistently overridden by commissioners that do not resent the represent the other districts, thereby diminishing the will in the constituents and the ones she serves. When an issue does not pertain to her assigned district, she generally votes in alignment with the
other commissioners. It would be reasonable to expect the same consideration for district 1. Thank you, Stephanie Knight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> David Lennon.
Just bear with me on >> Lenny. Lenny Laney. >> Lenny. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Uh yes, you did. >> Okay, there you go.
>> Okay. Okay. And I am signed up for OJ13 and H14, however that works here tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. Good evening. My name is David Laney and I don't have to talk as fast now since I think I have 10 minutes. Uh my name is David Laney. I live at 3800 Sams Lane in Scotsmore, Florida. I've been following the issue regarding the
building permit request and then issued at 460 Golden Shores and the subsequent discovered the county had erroneously issued a building permit. Uh and the owners, Jacob Phone, and I apologize if I mispronounce your name. I'm trying here. Jacob F's request to reszone reser to an removal of BDP on the problem.
Now, Mr. Phone asserts that he had no knowledge at the time he bought the property from Mr. Minnik that there was a binding that there was a BDP on the property. It's appropriate to note that Mr. Minn cannot claim ignorance of the BDP since he's the one who agreed to and willingly encumbered the property with the BDP to start with. So, some
predicates to this argument. First, by the time I get finished, I believe we will agree to accept Mr. Fund's assertion that at no time prior to him submitting the invalid building permit for 460 Golden Shores was he aware that the property had been and still is encumbered by a legal BDP. Secondly,
we'll agree that Joseph S. Minnik was fully aware of the BDP on 460 Golden Shores Boulevard since he was the one who placed it on the property. So, he was fully aware at the time of sale and has already been noted he is real estate. We'll get back to that. At the time Mr. Munich sold the property to Mr. Jacob Fo, Mr. IC failed to disclose this
incumbrance in the form of legally binding BDP on the property. Mr. Phone being aware I mean unaware of the BDP at the time of his purchase as he asserts then submitted a building permit not knowing it would constitute an invalid application. We agree a BDP on the property does constitute an incumbrance
on the property and the reason that is so is we go for the definition of incumbrance and this is from the VAR County Clerk. any lean or liability attached to real property held by someone other than the owner that restricts its use or diminishes its value. There is a lean that is attached to this as such in the form of BDP and it's held by someone other than the
owner of the property. It's held by Bvard County. Bvard County has the BDP that is registered. Okay. Failure to disclosure. Let's talk about that a bit. Uh Johnson versus Davis. And this kind of gets back to Commissioner Alman's comment to Katie I
think in the last meeting that caveat no longer applies. Well, to a certain degree it does not, and that's because of Johnson versus Davis, 1985 Florida Supreme Court. The seller must have knowledge of the incumbrance and still failed to reveal it. Mr. Minik absolutely had full knowledge on the encumbrance. Again, he's the one that
placed the BDP on the property and he failed to reveal it at the time of sale. So, Mr. Minik had full knowledge that property was encumbered since he was the one that placed it. That constitutes fraudulent, conceiv, and actually is a civil violation and a misdemeanor. And that's just to get started. So, Mr. uh
phone in discussion with you at the last meeting. Mr. Phone replied that he had no real estate agent because he bought the property directly from the owner. Real estate agent I believe was in fact Mr. Minnik either he or his son through Land Shark Realtors or it may have been just directly that he purchased it from
the owner himself. However, Mr. Mo uh did state title insurance. Now, I heard the the letter. I didn't exactly get the content of it, but I think it said that his property was not covered. uh something to that content by the letter. I suspect the reason it is uh that was
what would have been stated is there was no real actual title insurance. I'm absolutely confident the Fidelity National would have discovered a binding BDP if they had done a full title search. They're an international company uh very well renowned, but I think I can tell you maybe maybe why he didn't get
title insurance. Uh okay, just a moment here. I I suggest that was perhaps he did not he was told he did not need it and shouldn't spend the money on the title insurance. The reason for that is what I just handed out to you. If you take a look at the
warranty deed of title which I provided you the highlighted areas instrument 1079/2366 as recorded by BVAR Property Appraiser site and as attested to by Joseph S. Minnik and Chelsea Chelsea A Minnik of 1968 Turpentine Road. If you look at the
highlighted paragraphs, what do you find? You find that Mr. Minnik and his wife attested that as the granter hereby covenants with said grantee and that this said property is free of all incumbrances except taxes occurring subsequent. He was fully aware of
encumbered and had a BDP. He is the one that placed it on the property. Now here becomes another thing from Mr. Phone and really where we're going to get to next. Uh under Florida state statute say 31.02 02 uttering a false or forged deed with
intent to defraud that's punishable by prison time fines and restitution. I'm going to get to the answer to your question sir in the last meeting when you ask how is Mr. Phone to be made whole on this property. I too I feel very very badly for him because I too believe he is a victim. I believe he is
a total innocent victim because I'm going to continue to believe his assertion that he had no knowledge of the BDP at the time he bought the property or at the time that he submitted that building permit. So, uh, yeah. So, that's kind of in going to be in response to your question, where does he get his justice?
But he gets his justice not by the county becoming party to a fraudulent activity by setting aside the existing BDP on the property and allowing Mr. Minnik to complete his fraud. In fact, Mr. Phone's restitution lies in him seeking for restitution for damages from Mr. Scott Minnik, who fraudulently
represented the property and sold it to him at 460 Golden Force. It is not the county's responsibility. Now, we have to go a little bit here on determining who is at fault if it's not the county. Well, first of all, five requisites to conduct of fraud. First, the false
statement. Mr. Minnik issued a false statement in the form of a false warranty deed. Mr. Phone arguably would never have purchased the property if he known there was a binding BDP on the property. Second, didn't Mr. Minnik have knowledge that was issuing a false? Absolutely. He was issuing this the false property deed. Uh, no question
about that. What was the intent? I think Mr. many intended to dupe, trick or deceive the victim in order to gain advantage and get him to buy the property. Uh, additionally, reliance. Was there a reliance established? Was the the victim, Mr. Phone, justifiably relied on the false statement and assertions made by Mr. Minnik. Was there
injury? Absolutely. The victim suffered actual damage and loss. Point being here, what are those five criteria? Those are the five criteria for fraud. Those are the five criteria which are fully satisfied to demonstrate an intent of fraud on the part of Mr. Mic. Now,
additional things to discuss and why I say this is not the county's responsibility. Yes, there was a building permit that was issued erroneously, but it was not the county's fault. The county is not at fault in this in that and we'll go a little quasi uh judicial. So, we a little quasi legal
here regarding who is at fault and responsible. If not for Mr. Minnik's failure to disclose an incumbrance on the property, Mr. Fo would not have purchased the property. If not for Mr. Mr. Minnik issuing a false warranty deed, Mr. Fo would not have submitted a fraudulent building permit. If not for
Mr. Minnik issuing a false warranty deed, the individual building permit application would not have been approved by the county erroneously. If not for Mr. Scott Munich's actions, we would not be here tonight discussing this. If not for Min Scott's for uh Mr. Mik's actions, Mr. Phone would not be before
this commission asking for legally binding BDP to be set aside and asking the property to be reszoned to accommodate Mr. Scott Menick planned to build on a non-buildable lot and even then the property didn't meet the zoning to flume requirements. However, the new owner did submit the
invalid permit and I believe Mr. Minnik was and this is his personal opinion and this is somewhat informed by past involvements with these folks. Uh I suspect that and again personal opinion Mr. Minnik fully realized it would be a false building permit but he also realized that if it
came before the county the county would have sympathy for Mr. phone as do I. However, it's not the county's fault that they erroneously issued this permit and it's not the county's responsibility to try to make Mr. Phone full of whole on this. His avenue to make him whole
lives in back with the lawyer as I believe it was Commissioner Felner who asked him did he have legal representation and if not he should probably consider it. Okay. So, none of this would have happened except for Mr. Scott Mick's action to conceal the bind of BDP on the property
of the AD2. Mr. Scott Mick is culpable and responsible for every adverse con consequence that Mr. Fon has and his wife has experienced in the efforts to build a home at 4060 Golden Shores. Uh couple of quick answers. The reason you
come up with different calculations on the property size is because if you do the calculation based on the warranty deed that was filed with the property appraisers's office, you come up with the 0.5 and that's setting aside 25 ft north, south, east, westerly for 145 ft
and 195 ft reserved for the observed rideways that are encumbering that property. So that's where you get that. I think what the county is going uh with is gross, not net square footage uh on the plat. Uh, let's see. I'll probably stop there.
That's good enough. So, anyway, I think the uh the obvious thing that you guys should be doing is now making a motion to deny this. This is not the county's fault. It's an error that was made because of a gap that exists in the administrative processes and procedures of Bavari County. But it
would never have happened if there had not been an erroneous false building permit issued. And by the way, the warranty deed, I think if you look at legal aspects of it, you will find that because it is uh inaccurate and false statements in it is uh going to be
rendered null and void. And it's possible, in fact, that legally Mr. Phone has never owned the property. Just a thought. But anyway, I'll have to speak to the county attorney about that. Uh thank you for your time. Any questions? >> Thank you. Have any questions? Okay.
Very thorough. Appreciate your presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. Can I point out something just real quick? I mean, there were doc stamps. >> That's okay. That's not a question. >> There were there were doc stamps collected on it. So, there's been a convent on the warranty deed.
>> Yeah. I'm not saying that there's not a conveyance deed, but when it goes to legal consideration, if there was a false statement asserting contained within the legally deed, that will invalidate the legality of the deed itself, I believe. But all to be found out, not by me, but by Mr. Phone's lawyer.
>> Thank you. We have one more card. Jared >> Atkins. Jared Atkins. >> And I think it's cruel to ask me to follow that. So I'm going to just wave that. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's all our cards. So, uh, we'll bring it back
to the board for discussion. Yes. So, um I I looked on and I know that you said that we don't go by the property appraiser, but from the number that you had said earlier, the 1.34, the property that's
um the long piece of property that got that this property got split off from is.98 or I'm sorry, 089. And if you subtract that, it's 045. Again, the survey that he submitted um
which was done by Holly and Associates states on there that it's 0.54 and that's what we go by. Is >> are surveys ever wrong? >> It's a certified survey. The certifier the surveyor is certifying that the information is correct.
>> So, um Mr. Laney was talking about uh the driveway and gross versus I forget what the other word was. um the way >> net um so what's the difference there in calculating
and do we have policy to to determine how that's >> um I'm going to ask if you don't mind if to answer that question we happen to have an expert on staff in the back there I'm going to ask him to come up if you don't mind Paul would you mind coming up
Hello, I'm Paul Bod planner. What was your questions though? >> Commissioner Delaney, would you mind repeating that? Sorry. >> Sure. So, um, when the last speaker was up, he was talking about there's two different ways to calculate the size of
the lot, net or gross. And so, I'm guessing it has to do with the right of way and the driveway that's going to the flag lot versus um, you know, >> I I would have to look at the legal description and go through it and
calculate it by the legal description. And I'm sure that that's what Mr. Holly did. So, this right here, would you mind taking a look at that? I think that's the survey. It looks like he's got it calculated
taken out the rightway here and it's calculated by how the corners are set. He says it's vacant 0.545 acres. So he has the uh rideaway taken out on his calculation.
>> Did we vacate a rightaway? Uh there is a I believe there's a rideway in between but he's taken it out. So >> yeah, the rideway is taken out and it shows it's 50 foot rightway. >> So in other words, commissioner, that
was not included in the 0.54 calculations. >> No, he doesn't include it in here by his survey. >> Okay. >> The square looks like it goes around the rightway. the dark line on the survey and then
there's points right >> in each corner. >> Yeah. He's he he's calculating it by the uh >> by the dotted line. >> No, by by the uh lines that are shown where the property corners are set,
>> right? So, but that includes the right of way. >> No, it doesn't. I'd like to have it on record, but >> there's the dark line. Do you see where the it says 190? >> And then if you look over to
your left, there's dashes >> from that dark line to the dashes is where that paper roadway would be. >> So, it's not included in that boundary.
I've seen the property appraiser be wrong on how much square footage is in a lot. I had mine calculated wrong before I had them corrected on mine and it was a platted lot. >> They were saying it was 45 ft wide and
65 ft. >> Well, um, thank you so much. I appreciate Generally, whenever you turn in something like that, the property appraiser rec uh corrects it by the surveyor. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Only a judge though can tell you
where your property is and how big it is. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I'm I'm surpris I I I have not seen a lot of properties get um
their acreage wrong. Um that's >> thank you for that input. Appreciate it. And so what I did want to want to also mention is that this uh while the circumstances
surrounding this are horrible um you know of course it's this is a horrible situation. Um but if we allow this new
uh future land use into the area, even if we put a a BDP on it that says no one else is, you know, allowed to do this, what happens 30 years from now when none of us are sitting here and this happens
again? Um, the only way to ensure that this doesn't happen is if we deny this request. And just like, you know, we've been doing all night, we have to look out for the greater good here of
the whole community. It's not just, you know, um, one horrible situation. This is introducing something that could change the complete outlook of this whole community. Um
flooding is also a major concern. Uh as we saw in those pictures, you know, there's there's nowhere for the water to go and um >> right. >> And well, excuse us. Hold on.
>> Yeah, let's we've had our public input. So the >> if you want to speak, fill out a card. >> Can have you filled out a card? >> He did. >> He waved. >> Oh, you've already Oh, you waved. Okay.
>> Go ahead. You can speak. Thank you for letting me speak. >> Um, I've been in Bavar County my whole life. I'm a state certified contractor since 1996. >> Please state your name, please. >> I'm a state certified contractor since
1996. >> What was your name? I'm sorry. >> Eric Paggley Longa. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, I've been doing a construction for 40 plus years in BVAR County. I have owned property in Golden Shores. When my when my son, he's my son, came
to me, I told him, the first thing you need to do is make sure before he purchased this property, make sure that you have approval from the county that you can get a building permit. We've talked about he didn't have a realtor.
Uh he he didn't have title insurance. He's got title insurance. We got proof of it right here. And you've you've got proof of it now. Um and it's a true we we talked to title insurance for two weeks on this. Um so
we've talked about how Scott Minnik is crooked. This that has nothing to do with what we're here for. We are here to figure out are we going to prove Jacob to keep this or not. That's what we're here for. We're not here to talk about
Scott Minnik. Whatever happened prior to Jacob getting this, that's that's some a whole another ballpark. Um, Bvard County gave Jacob this permit. I won't when I when I used and when I
was in construction, the first thing I would do was I wouldn't have trust the realtor because the realtor is not responsible if they tell you you can build on it. I don't trust anybody else. I told Jacob, I said, "Go to the county, make sure that you can build on this property." He did that. The county said,
"Yes, you can build it." Then he actually purchased the property. That's not what he said. He said he didn't see a realtor. I was a realtor. My advice to him was make sure the county says yes. When the county says yes, then you can go get go buy the property because you
can legally get a permit. And that is exactly what Jacob did. Now, Jacob is the best kid I've ever seen. He's put his life savings into this house. He's upstanding. I said, "Jacob, let's get an attorney." Jacob said, "No." He said, "I didn't do
anything wrong." He said, "I did everything that I was supposed to do. Let's go through the process. I don't need an attorney." Okay, that's the first thing I said was get an attorney. And he said, "No." Um,
and when he did talk to the attorney, the attorney says, "This should be straightened. You shouldn't even need me because everything I've seen, it should be straightened out." They've watched the video. They he he called her. He watched the video and they said, "You really don't need me right now." And we can use the example that the gentleman
brought up about Cinnol County. We don't He does not want to go to attorney. He don't want to get attorney cuz who loses when you get attorney? Everybody. The county will lose. He will lose cuz everybody's paying. Someone's going to be at fault. We don't want to do that.
This is it's it's sad that this has happened, but he did everything he could to get this done. Um let's see. Another thing is is is it's not it's the
county's responsibility for this not to happen. It's not it's not anybody else's to come up. It's not a title company to make this not happen. A title company sells property. They don't care who's going to build on it. They don't care what you're going to do with it. They're just telling you that it's free and clear and that you have a piece of
property and it's yours. That's the only thing a title company does and tells you that hey, if it's if there's something against it, then don't buy it because there's something against it. You have a policy and later on if someone comes against it, that policy says protects you because there's something against it. But that's not what title insurance
does. Title insurance says you own a property free and clear. That's it. Um some of the comments made um a little disheartening because um most of them are not based on fact, they're based on feelings. Um, the reason that was filled
in because he's trying to protect the house until he figures out what can be done because until you finish a house, it's going to erode all over the place. Everybody knows that unless you have your sod, you have your stuff, it's going to erode. And he was trying to protect the pad from it washing out from underneath it
and not have further complications with the property. Um, Scott is not is not his contractor. He he knows Scott from the business, but he has no relationship with Scott. Doesn't talk to Scott. Is not Scott's friend. He
knows him from construction, period. So any kind anything that's been said is a lie. Okay? He said, 1600 living. He said, 1600. He meant living. He was not lying. He was telling you that he said, 1600 and the
house is 1600 living. Can I say two more things? >> Yes. Go ahead. Um, so he has no ties to Mark, no relationship. Um, and he has full title policy. So we're here to determine whether we're going to let Jacob proceed
or not. That's why we're here. We're not here to discuss anything else. That's it. And I thank you for my consideration. >> Thank you. Any question? Wait, >> did you speak? Oh, you waved as well.
I remember you waving. Anybody else waved their time? Just want to Okay. Jared Atkins, 3000 Sunset in Scotsmore. Um, I kind of just filled out a card in case
uh I came up with something intelligent to say and I hadn't but until the last speaker. So, um, I'm going to try to be quick, try to be respectful of your time. I don't think
that, uh, folks involved with this transaction have been respectful of your time. I think that they think you are all a joke. I think that they think that you're going to fall for this. Um the fact that there's no
relationship with Minn or Minute Construction to this project. Uh I would argue that's incorrect. Um I've got a series of permits in my hand for this address. They were pulled by Minute Construction. and they were
handed to you by two people and the mortgage on the property is being held by same individual. So that might be something to take into consideration when you're looking at the uh validity of that argument. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, I think that's all our cards. Um we'll bring it to the board. I know there probably a lot of questions here. Um, I know I have some. Did you have anything you'd like to say before? Because >> Are we gonna go around again?
>> Do you want to let everybody have a chance and then do a second round? >> Well, I haven't even said anything yet. We haven't even had a first round. >> No questions, no comments. >> Could I ask a technical question? Just one. >> Are are there houses up there in the
immediate area that sit on halfacre lots? Yes, Commissioner. There are some in the area >> on the same road over two roads. I mean, is it within within eyesight of the property? >> I couldn't tell you for sure on
eyesight. If you give me a minute, I'll pull up the map, but um there are multiple parcels in the area of >> h around a half an acre. >> Okay. Thank you. One of the speakers tonight has 044. Um that's going west, but most of the smaller lots tend to on
Golden Shores are clustered towards US1. There are number there that are in the halfacre range, but there is one, you know, in a rocks throw distance from this property basically that's uh that's under half an acre. >> Okay, fair enough.
>> How are those how are those um approved? It's hard to say um without, you know, researching it, but they could be non-conforming lots of record. I also I see some um a variety of zoning in the area um including RU19
um in other words, it's not all RR1. It's it's a mix of there's a lot of different zoning classifications in area. There's a large mix of different things in the area, >> right? But the it's they're non-conforming because the future land use is res one. I would expect that to
be the case. Yes. >> I have questions of the applicant if I could ask him to come up just because there was some conflicting information and just want to clarif >> correct. >> This this is your you're the owner
builder. >> Correct. >> You purchased it. >> Mhm. As your dad said, you went to the county to ensure that it was a buildable lot and they affirmed that >> you had plans drawn that are required to be drawn under code
>> standard building code. Those plans are submitted to the county where they did extensive review and they approved those plans, >> right? You took those plans, you did work, and then you called the county and you got the required
inspections. >> Correct. >> And you passed those inspections. >> Correct. >> You did more work. You got inspections and you passed the inspections. You did everything by the book, >> right? >> And the way you're supposed to do
things. Commend you for that. I think we should allow you to to build your dream home. I I've been in construction for nearly well, I've been a contractor for nearly 50 years. Haven't practiced the whole time, but and I've been in public office for for
31 years. We're taught as contractors to follow the law and to act in reliance and respect the local government, the permitting agency. And for us to penalize him for
doing what was right at great economic expense to him is so fundamentally wrong. I think this is one of the biggest wrongs I've ever seen. And I I I feel like we need to give relief. We need to fix this problem now.
And what will happen, a house on a halfacre lot, that is not going to be detrimental to this community. It's not going to be it's not like a a sewer treatment plan or a nuclear power plant. I mean, this is just a small I think an
honest mistake that the county made and this corrects the mistake. But I don't think we should any way, shape, or form punish um this individual for following the rules. By the way, I think we would be violating the law because if he acted in
reliance on the county and he has economic damages, he he has a right. We should correct those damages for our mistake. Now, I think we have an easy fix here that doesn't really harm anyone. I I don't think we should shunt
this off to a courtroom and clog our courts and our laws and cause incredible expense. We should fix it. We should move on. I appreciate what the people are saying and I do appreciate them wanting to protect protect their their community. I've seen pictures. You've done a really nice job on that house.
It's well done. >> I question. No, I don't think so. I don't think anyone gets penalized. I don't think this house hurts anyone. And I I I just that's my opinion and my belief and I so I support granting this
request and allowing him to move on. I really really do. I think it's the right thing to do. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I was wondering if I could just ask Morris um from your experience um how at risk is the county for this
mistake that we made? Should we deny this request? >> Not. >> Not. Okay. I think >> what what do you mean by not >> we're I have no concern about liability related to the issuance of the building permit. The law is pretty clear that the stoppple doesn't apply. Um
he clearly didn't know and understand but you know legally should have been on notice of things like the binding development plan of record that's referenced in the exclusions to his title policy and things like that. So I'm not concerned about monetary or fiscal liability. I don't think that should drive the board's decision. I think um you know all the other points
made were wellreceived but I wouldn't say that the county has financial liability >> legally. >> I will have to say that um you know the one of the last speakers said our decision tonight is whether or not we
let the applicant continue on or not. And I disagree. I think that what our decision tonight is to change the face of this neighborhood or not and that that is what we have to protect and it's
you know the the people who made this mistake are no longer working in the county and um our staff has made massive changes um in regards to training and whatnot and I I'm pretty confident that this mistake will never happen again
because of the changes that have been made. Um, and uh, I feel like it is completely unfair for the whole neighborhood. And with all due respect, Commissioner Alman,
the water situation in Mims and in this area is just as critical as North Merid Island. And one house does make a difference. So, if nobody else has anything to say,
um, I'd like to make a motion to deny. >> I'll second. >> Okay, there's a motion to deny the request in a second. Uh, any debate? I know I've already spoke, but I I'll debate again. I I think the other factor to consider here, not only the fact this
applicant did everything wrong, right, and relied on um county counties uh jurisdiction um acted in reliance. Had he been on a 1acre lot and built a
4500 foot home, it would be the same impact that's allowed. You could b build a 6,000 square foot. you could have more impervious space on a lot that's one acre size from a ratio point of view
than he has here. So, we allow we allowed in our code the amount of construction to take place. It's a relatively modest home and that's why I feel it does not create it does not create some sort of
damage to the area. I I'm going to vote against the motion. I um I encourage the board to to show some compassion. Gracious alive, a little bit of compassion. You know, uh there were county staff that was criticized. We had
a hurricane coming and he had a house built and he wanted to port to protect his property. They made an executive decision. I commend them. It shows me that they have a heart. Big bureaucracy. They didn't know. They thought it was the right thing. Have a heart. This this
is terrible for this couple. and family. >> I with all due respect, the the the idea that this house is owner builder, it's just
it's unlikely. I won't say it's untrue, but it's unlikely. with the amount of um how much Scott Minnik's name is all throughout all of this stuff, it's unlikely that this is truly owner builder. And frankly, I think that not
only should you go after him for that piece, but his his his uh license should be taken away from him from doing this type of fraudulent activity. And I think that you should sue him and get every penny back because I think that you would have excuse me. I think that you
would have a heck of a case. And um you know, it's not that I don't have compassion. It's just that there has been so much damage to North Bard and we can't continue. And I'm sorry that this is
that you're caught up in all this. Any other discussion? >> Vate not call the question. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Nay. >> Nay. >> It fails for three by 32 vote.
>> Okay. For debate. >> Denial um has has been voted down. I think would the next step be to vote to approve? >> You need a competing motion. Yeah. Is there a motion to request? >> I have a question.
>> Um what what exactly can we do here to ensure that Morris to ensure that this can never happen again? And I I'm I'm just I'm so disgusted right now with this and I really appreciate you,
Commissioner um Atkinson. Um this is well I think planning has implemented some measures administratively but significantly I'm pursuing code enforcement actions against Minnik for the behaviors with the lot splitting now
that it's it's come to my attention. So, we have two cases um that are scheduled for the code enforcement board hearing this month where we're seeking uh pretty substantial damages in code for violations causing irreparable harm, which should be enough of a disincentive
for the illegal lot splits to continue. And then in the future, if we're ever out from under the shadow of SB180, the board could certainly consider adopting a lot ordinance um which would put more scrutiny on the single lot splits, you
know, taking a piece down at a time to try to avoid the subdivision code requirements. So I think those are the those are the answers and the way to address the problems and go after the bad actors. >> Could I say something in this regard? respectfully disagree. However,
understand the problem. Um and and so um we did I Morris and I spoke about um statute regarding recording deeds and so how how to stop this um upstream before
it gets to the county. So I think that's something to look at, but that's something that the that would have to be done um with the state. Now with regards to lensure I mean DBPR right is where where this gentleman has
lure so I mean a complaint can be filed there so I don't know if that's the county or somebody else but there's there's remedy there >> I have a question um would
would there be any appetite um to try to purchase this and use it as um storm water retention. Uh the foundation, the trusses, I mean,
this house is is going to be pretty damaged at this point. And so I don't know. I mean, putting up banana trusses and um, you know, having a foundation, I don't I
don't think that that is a compassionate thing to set a young family up into either. >> Can I ask, sir, is that even something that you would entertain >> just for the purpose of >> that question? >> Okay. It's been this has been eight
months since I've been stopped and then now I just restart everything and purchase land. Then you can't even get a septic permit. So now what? >> Yeah. >> I'd like to pass the gavl to make a
motion. >> Is there a motion? >> Yes. I move that we accept this request. >> Is there a second? I'm going to second. >> All in favor? I >> I. >> All opposed? >> Nay. >> If I may. >> Motion passes.
>> I apologize, M. Madam Chair. Um I that motion, just to clarify, was on H3. That would be the small scale comprehensive plan amendment. If you recall, there's also a reasonzoning um to >> that was two items in chronological that
was for H3, the comprehensive plan. I'd like to make an additional motion to approve the zoning request with the BDP >> with the binding development plan. >> Do I have a second? >> What would the binding development plan say? >> Um the the two conditions that were
suggested and previously agreed to by Mr. respond was one. The applicant agrees that this resoning requested companion future land use amendment application was a result of an unlawful split by the predecessor and interest and we'll stipulate to that fact in any future proceeding regarding that action.
And two, this resoning and companion future land use amendment application are not presidential, but instead are being requested to resolve the substandard lot that have arisen as a result of the unlawful split. and under these particular circumstances that it be recognized that these actions are
being granted based on the unique conditions of the subject property. >> What about um wasn't there something about how these two properties we were going to be asking the the
owners to participate in however we go forward with Minnik. Well, as far as this particular application, that's what the first condition is to have Mr. Fawn should should the county attorney's office believe that it would be of assistance that he would agree to
participate and uh you know stipulate to the facts. >> And that's that's all part of this. Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second that one. >> Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. I.
>> All those opposed? >> Nay. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Uh, we've approved your item. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Right. >> Okay. We think we have one more item. Did I see that? We did that. We That's
right. We did at the beginning. Okay. That That is our agenda. We'll go to reports. >> Mr. Chair, before we start reports, may I apologize, but we denied an item earlier, the lazy river item. I probably should have asked the board in that item if they'd like me to bring back a
findings of fact. >> Yes. >> I apologize. I should have made that in my motion. >> I should have caught it at the time. >> I apologize. >> I'm sorry. >> Do we need a motion or a second? >> Please, just >> I'd like to make a motion for finding a fact. >> Thank you. >> Okay, there's a motion.
>> Oh, you're chairman. Go ahead. No, no. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. I'll let you finish. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Okay. No, that's fine. Um Okay. We
have uh unfinished business. None. I think uh we have new business. None. >> None. >> None. Uh we have um public comments. Do we have any public com No comments. Board reports. Uh county administrator.
No. Yes. No report, Mr. Chair. >> No report. Uh, county attorney. >> No report, Mr. Chair. >> District one. >> Yes. Um, I I just want to say that I am
I'm really uh at a loss with I support you all the time in your zoning. Um, I I go along with 99% of what goes on in this board. even things that I deeply disagree with like the
parking garage. And I this affects none of you. It affects none of you, but it affects the people that I represent. The the 40,000 people that voted for me have been
disenfranchised tonight. And I I I've never seen anything like it on this board ever. And I hope that that changes. I hope that that you all can understand while you may not
like what I have to say or or what I bring to the table, but D1 does. And that's why they elected me. And that's why I'm sitting here. And I'm here to represent them. and their voices should be respected. Um, in addition to that, I just wanted
to bring forward that I'm going to be uh bringing forward a uh another agenda item for our board meeting next week um to discuss uh some of the different things that were going on that were brought to us at the budget
workshop. um having to do with the different funding sources and the um storm water uh fee and and uh possibly the connection fee. So, I just wanted to let you guys know that. >> Okay. District two,
>> none. >> Uh district three, >> none. >> District four, Felner. District five. Okay. I have a short couple comments. Um, one, I will not ask any commissioner to vote in my favor if
they feel it violates their principles. I respect each and every commissioner and I respect you to stand by your principles. First of all, make that clear. I appreciate any difference that you may give and consideration, but I'm not asking for your um unconditional
support. No expose facto. what that secondly we are one county commission that's why we're called Bvard County Commissioners very very honored to have such a a job we represent the entire county we do not
represent enclaves or districts thieftdoms whatever um we are one single com commission and we can only act in conjunction and I trust the wisdom of of the five members So, um, I just just
been wanting to say that and I feel very strongly about it. Um, >> I'm glad you said that. I'm voting against you from now on. >> As long as you think it's the right thing to do, I I respect that. Thank you. >> If if you're by your principal, >> thank you for saying it. >> You're welcome. And
>> thank you for the board and tough meeting, but a good meeting. And um, >> meetings adjourned. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county
commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. The board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or
slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period. Hey, hey, hey.