Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Okay, it's 3 o'clock. If everyone will please stand and if Miss Debbie would lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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, this is the planning and zoning board planning agency. It's an advisory
board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners and the county commissioners will be making the final decision on all these items. Items H9, H11, H12, and H13 are LPA
items. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on July 17th, 2025 at 5:00 pm. When a motion ends in any kind of a split vote, a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy.
As a reminder, each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on record. Speakers for public comment and agenda items will be given three minutes. At this time, if any board member has
had any exparte communication regarding any application, please disclose so now. All right. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We need a motion for the approval of the PNZ minutes from April 14th. Move for approval.
Second. Got a motion by Debbie, a second by Erica. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That passed unanimously and we will be moving item H13.
It will be following item H10. All right. Item H1, please. Item H1 is Aubrey Lucille Williamson. request a change of zoning classification from RU-1-9 to RU-2-10
under application 24Z0052 located in district 5. Okay, sir. And are you the applicant? Good. Good. Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Maloon. I represent the applicant. I'm an attorney. All right. Go ahead and tell us a little bit about
what you're wanting to do there, please. So, we recently came before the board of adjustment where they approved um some variances to the RU2-10. My client, as she'll explain, just got married and is looking to kind of have this house as an investment property. She has a um current contract for
somebody starting in July to be there for one year. Um and in order to just kind of make it more conform in conformity with the area, um to the north there's a big block of RU210. Um directly to the right or to the east is some RU212. So, in order to kind of keep
the conformity with the area, um we're just we're seeking a zoning change to RU2-10. Um it's it's compatible. It's it's consistent with the area. Um and it's in line with what else is in that area. This is right outside the um the
shopping center with the Long Dogggers in Indantic, just south of where the uh Health First is and the Dunkin Donuts is in Indantic. It's kind of the the weird enclave where you have the portions of the county and then in the Atlantic um right right over by the beach and and we're asking the board to approve the uh
the zoning request to make it more compatible and consistent with what's in the area. All right. Well, sir, while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you could you and your applicant could grab a seat.
Madam, if you could get as close as you can to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. So, my name is Sandra Sullivan. I'm from South Patrick Shores. So, I have a a friend that was on the street and um there have been two reasonzoning requests uh on
Franklin Avenue. Uh, one of them is next to uh, Clifage and they had requested uh, um, to have two duplex at the front and the back of the property. 26 of an acre uh, and it ended up by the county
commissioner being a split vote and it failed. They had request the BDP that was proposed was two two duplexes uh, front and back off of Gross Point because there's a lot of traffic issues there. And the second uh uh no
short-term rental was specified and no more than one story. Uh two you mentioned in the item that there is a property 200 feet to the east. That property is under a BDP. Again, no short-term rentals by the county. This
is an area of no short-term rentals. So, a BDP that uh they could put in uh again a duplex but no short-term rentals and an existing BDP on that property. The this property is already so unlike those
other two lots which are 26 of an acre. They go from from Franklin all the way over to Gross Point. This propertyy's already been split. So, if you were to be consistent with the surrounding area, the maximum would be a to allow a uh a a
duplex on the property. Now, I do want to point out regarding the short-term rental aspect, you do realize and it's missing from the the map uh that was made by staff, which is a major red flag from my perspective. There's there is
Hoover Elementary School literally a house away from this particular property. Now, you know, I don't know about you, but as a parent of elementary school kids, I wouldn't be happy to have a uh short-term rental hole, which is inconsistent with this area. And I would
beg the question, why did this go to the board of adjustments for a short-term uh rental for a zoning that they don't have yet? So, that's a that's a huge uh red flag as well. So, uh um so my comment is this is
inconsistent for the BDPs that are in this area and um like I said, the Clefflage property was denied by the county a 22 vote uh and the uh but that also had stipulated no short-term
rentals. Thank you. So, vote no. Is there anyone else would like to speak for or against this item? All right. Seeing that, I'm going to close it for public comment. Sir, if you could come back up and you hear the
issues there that the surrounding properties are having even I see now on the west is that the west side of that is zoned RU12. Let me pull up the map and make sure I'm looking at the same thing. There's to the east is RU212. To the
north is RU210. Um to the south it looks like a multifamily zoning in Indie Atlantic. And then there's some more RU1-11 further to the south. But then there's a commercial property with a a strip plaza and a the Publix, the Long Dogggers, the
kind of a multitude of stores. Um I also um the the former resoning was an open lot. The property is a one-story. There's currently a building on site. Um, so there's not it's not where we'll be there will be a new building. My client is um willing to keep this as a
single family and not have it be a duplex. That is not her intention. Um, and like was stated, there's a um there's a one-year lease that is in place that begins in July um for for the property. Um, so it's intended use is
for for long-term rental use as a rental property for long-term use. Um it's obviously as a owner she wants to she has a vested interest in in keeping the area nice and not having right bad things happen in the area. Okay. Does
anybody on the board have any questions for the applicant? You going to do a BDP on that? We're willing to we're willing to have a BDP that it'll remain a single family. Are you willing to do a BDP that there's
no short-term rentals? See, I'm I'm very familiar with that area and we keep talking about long Dogggers and we talk about Publix, but what's at the end of that street right there at that address is um Hoover Elementary School as was
mentioned and also what is it? Uh Busy Bears Daycare which is right across the you know which is right there too. So, I I would just suggest that we say absolutely no short-term rentals. I I don't think it should be zoned as such. Yeah. So, so we're not willing to do
that because we don't want to give away one of those bundles of sticks that my client would have as a as a property owner and have that go away forever. Who knows what the world would look like in 50, 75, 100 years and have that on there and potentially restrict that there. The school could be there. The school could not be there. The daycare could be
there. Could not be there. Again, while it's across the street, it's an equal distance away from from these these commercial establishments. True. Um it's five or six blocks down from some from zone NC. There's the CC and then there's the Indie Atlantic. It's just as easy to
get from there to the daycare or to the school as it would be from my client's property. And while I realize that there's bad things that happen in the world and there's bad people in the world, we can't sit here and and think, oh well, what if somebody rents that? Well, there's hotels and I'm sure if somebody had bad motives, they could
stay at one of the hotels that's a quarter mile up the street and come down and and look and and do whatever they wanted to do to the school or to the daycare and and god forbid that would be a horrible thing to happen, but that wouldn't be a reason for taking a bundle of one of the bundles of sticks that my
clients has as a property owner in the area. I understand that. But I do have friends that live there and they live in the condos on the south side and and they're saying right now as it exists today there's just way too much traffic
that and people are speeding by and there's kids on that street and that Hoover Elementary School has been there for 50 years and I think it's probably going to be there another 50 years. So I I really have a you know a hard time approving this especially with no BDP.
It would just be impossible for me to say in my good graces. I mean, the daycare may go out of business, but as it is today, I mean, you know, that that's that's my thoughts on it. I I've stood there in front of my friend's house and almost been run over. I just
don't think we need to add to the problems that already exist on that street. Any other comments from the board, Mr. John? I I tend to agree without a BDP for short-term rental restriction, this this
won't fly. I would concur with that. Who said that? I'm sorry, Miss Ruth. Okay. Any other comments from the board? Are you willing to do a BDP on that?
Yes. Yes. We're willing to do a BDP on no short-term rentals. So the BDP would be on because the previous BDP that was put on for the other property said developer agrees not to use property for resouring purposes
and therefore such is prohibited. Also shall limit density to two units constructed as a duplex maybe it's already constructed restricted by any changes to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations. And
finally, the developer shall limit e ingress and egress to one unit on Franklin and one on Gross Point. So, I don't know if that's I think what So, what we'd be willing to do um and obviously we're open for input on this, but to have no resort dwellings and then
to keep it with one unit on the property and you already have the one unit, correct? Correct. The one unit is already in existence there. How many bedrooms is that unit? It's a 32. So, we're not talking a whole lot anyway, but no short-term rentals. Correct. It
would be no resort dwellings and keep it as the as the single family one unit. So, we would single story as well. Single single story. Single story as well. I mean, in keeping with the character of the street. Yes. Yeah. Okay.
Miss Erica, I'll need a motion then. Okay. Okay. Well, I will make a motion that we pass this with the following binding development plan put in place that states that it's going to have no short-term rentals, single story. What else do we say? No resort use
and single residents. Thank you very much. I'll second that. Okay, we've got a motion by Erica, a second by John. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That pass unanimously. Thank you.
Okay. Item H2, Quinton Betett, Jr. request a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-11 under application 25Z00006 located in district 1.
Mr. Dina Hold, I've got an issue with this timer. Does anyone know how I get power to this? I'll be right down. So, so Lo Logan from SCGTV just spoke down. Uh, he'll he'll be down in a
second, it sounded like. Okay. Thank you, Logan. Sir, are you the applicant? Yes, sir, I am. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Quinton Bessett, 10:15 London Drive. and a little bit about what you're wanting
to do, Mr. Clinton. I would just like a single resident home and for single zone. All right. While you're right there, hold on one second. Does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? All right. Seeing that, I'm going to
close it to the floor for public comment. Do we have any questions board for Mr. Quinton? John, I know you got something to say. Come on. Do you have Is there sewer on that property? Sanitary sewer? No. Not that
I'm aware of. Not that you're aware of. Yes, sir. So, you're going to go on septic? Yes, sir. Okay. 2.8 acres, right? 2.9 2.9
Usually a third of an acre is what they use as a as a cuto off. Okay. But you're close. Okay. That's all I got, Mr. Chair. Any other questions from the board for the applicant? I need a motion
for approval. Second. Got a motion by Deb, a second by Ruth. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Have a good day.
Item H3, please. Item item H3 is Thomas Dhorty request a change of zoning classification from GU to RU-1-11 under application 25Z
00007 located in district 1. And chair if I may uh before you begin uh the staff report is um has some inaccuracies in it. Mr. Dohy actually produced a deed
from 1952 that has this property in the same configuration that it is now. So, we'll do um an addendum for the board. But, um just wanted to clear that up. All right. Thank you, Miss Dina.
Sir, could you state your name and address for the record, please? Thomas Doerty, 4970 Curtis Boulevard, Coco. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do. I just want to put a single family home there. I know um on it's on
the corner of Dunar and they just put the four houses on Dunbar on smaller lots than mine. So, I didn't think it would be an issue. All right. While you're right there, hold on one second. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item?
I'm going to close it for public comment, then I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? Mr. Ron, you're not saying much. No, I don't have any questions. Thank you. I guess I have another question. Okay. So, since it fits the zoning
requirements of RU1-9 and RU1-11, why are you asking for RU1- sorry, RU1-9, RU1-7? Why are you asking for RU1-11? I believe it's GU now. So you would need
five acres to build on it. So I don't don't really have a choice if I want the setbacks. It says the subject prop property would also meet the lot size width depth requirements of RU1-9 and RU1-7.
I believe the 11 is you can build a larger home. Right. Right. But I can always go down because I didn't go out and get building plans until, you know, till I get it get it approved. That the the only thing that I see is that this approval uh would be
the introduction of a new zoning classification to this area. So that that just for consistency since it would already fit on, you know, the other two zoning models. I'm just and that may be a question for staff. Are we
moving to our U1-11 or you know if it can fit on a you know lesser zoning criterion should we go with that? So as you stated in the area there is
RU19 and RU17 I believe already established. Um I think there may have been some um confusion that with the RU 1111 that requires 1100 square foot house that he could build smaller than
that. And so I explained at the North Merit Island meeting that or um the Port St. John meeting that um that's the minimum house size. So he has to build 1100 square ft. But the RU19 obviously
would allow for 900 square ft minimum. an RU17 700 square feet minimum. So, it's just I think up to him about what size house he ultimately wants to build and pick the appropriate zoning to fit
that. But with those other ones, you can go up, you know, if you have 700 or 900, you can still build larger than that, but that's just a minimum. I would pref I would prefer 11, but I mean, if I had to go smaller, I would. I'm just saying with in keeping with the
characteristic, you know, in keeping with concurrency with the area, it would fall into RU1-9 or RU1-7. I mean, so I think I think you're misunderstanding. You don't have to build or you that
doesn't let you build a bigger house, but the other ones let you build a smaller house with the R with R 1111. The smallest house you can build is 1100 square feet. With the seven it's 700 feet. With the nine it's 900 feet. You can go up as far as as long as it'll fit
on your on your property with your setbacks. You can you can fill that up. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Let's do that. Thank you for explaining that. Motion to approve item H3 with an RU1-9
zoning classification. Second. Okay, we got a motion by Erica, a second by Rob. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Item H4. Item H4, Forbes Remodeling and Construction LLC, being represented by Chester Forbes, request a zoning classification change from AU to RU-1-13
under application 25Z 009 located in district 5. Is the applicant here? Forbes contracting or Forbes remodeling and construction.
Are you here? Okay. Well, seeing that I bring it back to the board, Mr. Chairman, move the table. Second. Okay, we got a motion from John, a
second by Ruth to table item H4. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That item's been tabled. Item H5, John A. and Christine S. Connley being
represented by Ken Ledo and or Savannah Farley request a zoning classification change from BU2 to RU-1-11 under application 25Z 000010
located in district 2. Okay. And hello Mrs. Farley. Hello. Uh my name is Savannah Farley. I'm with BSE Consultants representing the owner. Um, we're looking to reszone this project property from BU2 to RU1-11.
Um, the owner wishes to build a single family residence. Um, the current uh zoning of BU2 is actually not allowed under the uh existing future land use designation. So, by uh reszoning this property, we'd bring it into compliance with that land use designation. All
right. While you're right there, is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? This is an easy one. See here, you're rolling right along. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. Help her out, Henry.
Unfortunately, I know it too well. Is this the last of the Jiren piece? Didn't Jiren own that whole piece down to 24 marker? I don't I don't know. So, I'm going to let you know that our office is
obviously representing that. Savannah is a great job by the way. Um, I'll recuse myself from voting on this. We took this project before I was um, asked to be on the board, but I don't believe so. But it is the property. It's the parking lot piece just north of Market 24. Right now
on the east side, the north side. Yeah, but the east side of South Banana. Yes, sir. Okay. It's good. There's a lot of history down there. You're just an attorney. Yes, whatever.
I'm good. Uh, what's to the north? What's that? Another BU2 right to the north. Henry, you know, it's there's more houses there. There's residential. There's residential there. So, yeah, two residentials. And but it's still BU.
It is BU2. And so what's happening is as folks come in for building permits, they're having to go through the resoning process to align the zoning with the underlying land use. I'm sorry, I didn't mean So there's homes along that side and what's happening is folks come in for building permits, putting on a porch, remodeling, that sort of thing.
They're having to correct their zoning to become uh to get into alignment with the underlying land use. So there won't be any any more BU eventually. There will be no more BU2. Oh, we had there's still a few to the north, but one at a time they're they're being taken down.
Okay. All right. That used to be where everybody lived in the trailer. Those days are gone. Yeah. Are we good board? Because I got a motion by Debbie. I'm going to pick up on that. I need a second. I'll second
it. Okay. Item H5. I got a motion by Debbie, a second by Rob. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Good luck with the county commissioners. Item H6.
Item H6, Steven Schultz, Jr. requests a zoning classification change from AU to RU-1-13 under application 25Z000011 located in district 5. Sir, if you could state your name and
address for the record. Steven Schultz, 275 Grey Road, Melbourne. Can you get a little closer to the microphone there? Steven Schultz, 275 Grey Road, Melbourne. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do, Mr. Steven. Um, I was trying to just do an addition on my
house and uh Mr. Body told me that I need to reszone. It wasn't zoned properly from the last last time they subdivided it before I owned the property. Okay. While you're right there, let me Is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item?
All right, I'm closing it for public comment. I'm bringing it back to the board. Do we have any questions for Mr. Steven? Move to approve. Second. I got a motion by John, a second by Erica on items H item H5. All those in
favor say I. I. I said that wrong. It's item H6. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That pass unanimously. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Have a good day. You too.
Uh item H7, please. Eduardo Bertat and Brett Pertat request a zoning classification change from BU1 and RU2- RU-2-10 to all RU RU-2-10
under application 25Z 000012 located in district 1. Sir, could you state your name and address for the record? It's Brett Berto, 2680 Sugar Pine Run. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do,
sir. I'd like to add additional units to the property if I can, and um I was told it needed to be reszoned because it has two different zoning classifications. Um it's my understanding that one of the zoning classifications would allow for it, but the other would not. So, I'm
looking to combine to the zoning classification that would allow me to do so. All right. And how many units you looking to add? I was told I can go up to three. And if I can, great. If uh if I can't, minimum one. Maximum three. So,
all right. While you're right there, if you could stand by. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? All right. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for the applicant? I need a motion.
I move to approve H7. I second. Got a motion from Debbie, a second by Erica on item H7. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Good luck with the county commissioners.
Item H8, Miss Trina. Item H8, Emerald Plaza Development Incorporated, represented by Lewis Repasta. request a CUP, conditional use permit for alcoholic beverages on premises
consumption accessory to a cigar bar in unit in units 1 through 5 under application 25Z 00014 located in district 2. Okay. Is the applicant here? if you
could come up and get as close as you can to the microphone. And sir, if you'd state your name and address for the record, Lewis Reposta, the address of the business, 925 North Courtney Parkway,
Merit Island, and a little bit about what you're wanting to do. Well, we've uh been in business four and a half years. Uh built a good quality business. Uh we currently have beer and wine. uh in the past year, year and a half, there's been three other cigar bars that
opened in the county uh within 15 miles of me and basically it's eroded a little bit of my business. Um it was always my plan to get liquor when I could afford it. Um and now's the time uh to try and protect our uh our position in the uh in
the county as the top cigar bar that people want to go to, but they want that liquor. So, it's going to help me to uh maintain number one. All right. While you're right there, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item?
All right. Closing it for public comment. I'll bring it back to the board if we have any questions. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Applicant. This gentleman's the only guy that doesn't have a CUP in Merida for liquor. Well, I'm waiting on a motion. He's entitled.
I'm everybody on North Tropical Trail or North Courtney has one. So, this gentleman sure certainly deserves it. So, I'm going to make a motion. You're going to make a motion to approve. Oh, yes, sir.
Well, we we already have a motion now in a second. We can have a discussion after a motion. I just wanted How close are you to the high school? Um, footage wise, I I couldn't tell you. 800
ft. It's down It's down the road beyond It's It's a You got to get in a car to get there. Okay. Not across the street. Arby's is across the street. Uh, an abandoned car wash is across the street. I just got sold. Yeah, I saw the sign actually. Yeah. Okay. So, you're you're
not close to the school so the students can go and partake. No, they even solicit us for donations. They were like, "Why?" You know, we do have a coffee bar with great milkshakes and stuff, but uh that's not who we do. We're cigars.
I have a question right here. Yes. Um how does how does it work with it being within the 300 ft of a church? That's that's why I'm here. Um I don't know how to explain it in in in
a short form. When I was granted the uh business license with the beer and wine for almost 5 years ago, the the the ministry was there. Um they're open four hours a week on Sunday from 10:00 in the
morning to 2:00 in the afternoon. Um, I had to pay uh the surveyor here recently $1,500 to affirm the distance between the schools and the churches. He didn't even know it was there. It's so nondescript. So, that being said, that's why we're
going for, I guess, as the notice in my front yard is a variance in understanding that I'm applying for this application. Can I ask staff? Yes. So, let me add something to that. So, at the Myra meeting, uh the board of
directors reviewed this proposal. Um they approved it 7 to1. Their recommendation is that the cup will no longer be in effect should the space be leased to another tenant or if the use
of the property is modified. So Myra understood the situation with the church. I believe the church maybe moved in afterward. I think um the way I in my research they came in in 2011 and it's changed hands once or
twice since then. Right. And it was much more active back in the day, but now there's tumble weeds in front of the door. Um, so the reason why we're submitting this application is for the b the board to make a determination of whether or not it should be approved knowing that there is a church that's in
the same plaza. May I add something? Uh, there's a marijuana dispensary next to the church with a marijuana do marijuana doctor. Marijuana dispensary. You know, we're all trying to get along. Um, but that's
the reality. All right. Any more comment from the board? Just one more. Did Did they need a cup for the beer and wine? This gentleman here. No. And and Well, yeah, for that beer and wine. Did he have to have Did he have to have a cup
for that? You do. Yes, you do. So, this will be their second cup. Yes. Okay. All right. So, any other questions? I was just going to say because he's expanding the use beer and wine to full
alcohol, that's why he has to apply for another cup. Yeah, understood that. I was just curious if if the there was an original CUP for the beer and wine. Yes. Was there any objection? Hang on a second. Is that a full coop license? Yes. Yes,
it's full. It's quarter license. I had sold my house to get the money to put down on it. I was going to say that. Was that the down payment? No, I put a good amount down and Yeah. Okay.
Any other questions from board? I've got a motion from Henry to approve item H. I'll second eight. I already have a second here from Debbie, but all those
in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Opposed. All we have one opposed, but it did pass. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Good luck with the county commissioners. Thank you. Item H9, which is an LPA item.
CTX Equities Incorporated Customuilt Contracting request a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment under 25S.09 09 to change the future land use designation from NC and
CC to all NC under application 25SS 00003 located in district 1. Also, I'm going to read in item H10 because they're companion applications, but we'll need a separate recommendation. Uh so again,
CTX Equities Incorporated request a change of zoning classification from GU and BU2 to all BU2 under application 25Z 000013 located in district 1.
Sir, are you the applicant? He's the applicant. I'm the representative from the construction company that for a project. If you could state your name and address for the record. Um, my name is uh James Graham and the address for
the business or for this address for business 250 South Courtney Park Parkway Merid Island. All right. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do. We're looking to build a 12,000 square
foot uh building, metal building to do work on tractor trailer trailers. All right. While you're there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item?
Closing it for public comment. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the applicant? You going to do any welding on that site? So I can if you want to I just have a fresh I finally got it from the survey. The wetland has been Yes. About
welding. Is that what you said? Very little. Oh, I'm sorry. Very They will be doing welding. Very little. Yes. Okay. Which is okay under BU2, right? Yes. Unless he puts a BD BDP on it. Yes. Okay.
Um, but you're just doing the trailers, not the uh, not the tractors. Okay. You doing any chemical washing or anything? Nope. No. Just basically body panel repairs. Mhm. On on semi-trailers. Okay.
No paint. No paint. Nope. Basically drilling out rivets and putting new panels on and re-iveting them inside and out. back together again, you know, refreshing them. Signage. Oh, yeah. Vinyl decals and stuff like that. But that's But no
paint. No paint. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from board? I need a motion, please. Motion to approve. Second. Got a motion by Ruth, a second by Rob.
All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Item H9 passed unanimously. Now we need a motion on item H10. Make a motion to approve. Second. Item H10. A motion by Rob. A
second by Debbie. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you guys. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Now, we're going to move up item H13. H13,
please. Recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding amendment to chapter 52 article 7 division 2 section 62-2844 entitled performance security to allow
the public works director to release or reduce performance security as appropriate for the construction of improvements associated with subdivision and plats upon ISS. issuance of a
certificate of completion. All right. Does someone want to give us a little bit about what's happening there? Good afternoon. Uh Rachel Denna, public works engineering. Uh so this was identified under Can you hear me? There
we go. Okay. Normally I talk too loud. Um, this was identified under an efficiency review originally. Uh, it subsequently went to the board for legislative intent, but we're just looking for a recommendation. Right now, when we have
a performance security performance bond, um, we issue a certificate of completion. It goes, it has to go back to the board of county commissioners before release. Uh, it's really pretty administrative. they never get commented on. Uh so this would be allowing the
delegation of the administrative release of the bonds to be at the director of public works level. All right. Is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? So seeing that I'll close it for public
comment, bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for staff? I do, Miss Ruth. So, in the current process, how many times to release it does it go before the board? It only goes one time. Uh, but by that
time, the certificate of completion has already been um given. And so, this just adds additional time before uh developers can get their performance security released. And how much time does that add?
usually about a month, month and a half depending on when the board meets. Mr. Chairman, hold on one second. Miss Bruce still got the floor. Are you Are you good? I'm thinking. Go ahead. All right, Mr. John. Yes, sir. Um, is this
after all the punch items are done or is it just that the certificate of completion? The certificate of completion is not issued until all punch list items have been addressed and as bills have been received. So there are no items remain want to
release the bond. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. So that'll just it'll save you time essentially in bureaucracy and getting that released. Yeah. It saves staff time as well as just allowing people to get their performance bonds
securities back in a more timely manner. the contract. Yeah, I understand. Okay. And sorry. No, that's all right. Hold on. Yes, Miss Ruth, go ahead. I'm just curious um because I'm not generally in
favor of taking things away from the board of county commissioners. Um does it not benefit them in any way to see um this coming before them? I mean, it's not I I would say that's kind of neutral. Uh
I guess it's an FYI if they're interested. We've just never had any interest um from the board really in these items. It's really just one more step in the process. So, did the county commission act as
oversight? The county commission has really never taken any action in terms of the actual certificate of completion issuances. Okay. But they could if it was before them. Uh by the time these go before them, the
certificate of completion's already issued, but the money is not released. As a contractor, I applaud any efforts to streamline the ponderous
um amount of paperwork that builders and and and uh contractors and and people in the construction industry have to go through. I I greatly applaud that. Any taking out any unnecessary step is a is
a great thing in my in my eyes. Miss Karina, could you maybe mention about the maintenance bond component of it too that is part of the projects that come in after performance bonds do just to give that level of assurance maybe to the board? Yeah. Um so when a project
has a public component that is going to be publicly maintained, so if it's a public street, public sidewalk, anything like that, uh before the performance bond is ever released, a two-year maintenance bond is put in place. um and
then goes back through a final inspection process at the end of two years to make sure that it's still uh in good condition and that there were no workmanship, you know, issues that weren't identified at the time of acceptance. Um so there's another two
years on those types of things for maintenance bond purposes. Um, but I mean as far as the performance, you know, the code kind of already identifies what's needed to be complete
and it's a pretty extensive process in terms of the asbuilts that are required and the punch lists uh that get formulated from all the different departments at final completion and those inspections. Um and no certificate
of completion is ever issued prior to all of that being complete. Um this is really an administrative process. Uh it going back to the board for release. Um and so it was identified as a efficiency
review. Mr. Sure. Um in in the ordinance you're stating uh a release or a reduce a reduction. Okay. Um what you've been stating is is
a complete release. But you're giving it to the discretion of the public works director. Correct. So the ordinance uh does have the ability to do a bond reduction but in the way that ordinance is written currently in the code um that requires
that type item of work to be complete and acceptable at that time. So, um, sometimes you'll have where the whole utility system is complete and acceptable, but as a whole, it's never a partial,
oh, you put 10 ft of pipe in the ground, we're going to release that much. So, that is contemplated as also being an administrative release, but it would have to go through that same process. So, for those items that are complete,
um, they would have to be as builted. They would have to be final inspected and then you could get that partial release of security for just those sections that are complete. So then the project could be phased. You could get release as a phase is
completed. Yes. Okay, that helps. Thank you, Miss Ruth. Any other questions from board to staff? I need a motion. I'd like to make a
motion for approval. Okay, we have a motion by Anna, a second by Debbie on item H13. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Item H13 pass unanimously. No, I
opposed. Mark. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Okay. Ruth opposed. Did we get that? Okay. Item H11. Mr. Chair, may I please ask for a fivem
minute recess? Yes. Thank you. I need to so myself. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.
Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. order and we're going to move on with item H11. Item H11, staff is seeking a
recommendation for adoption of a largecale comprehensive plan amendment under application number 24 LS00001 regarding the Bvard barrier island area BBIA as a new element to the
comprehensive plan under the state coordinated review process. and seeing this staff, somebody has been doing their homework. Yes. Very hard. Great job on this. Can we bring up the presentation, please?
Before you have discussions, we just have a a small presentation for each one. So, we'll start with the uh BBIA one first. And I wanted to point out um as you go through these slides, these pictures
um that you'll see was done by a local artist. Um her name is Lora Sims. She's given us permission to use her um her her photography in our slides. Okay. So the first one, can you go back?
Should be go forward. They don't have the updated slides. Okay. Well, there's a Go go go to the other one and we'll use the slide in the other one. Pull up the other one, please.
Sorry for the technical difficulties here. Is it on there? The ear one. Yeah, but it's missing this one. The ear process line. The mouse is underneath. Logan, can you pull up the ear um
presentation also? I'm going to use the slide slide two from the Okay, there we go. And we can just go to slide two. Thank you so much. This one? Nope. Slide
two. Yes. Thank you. So, we're going to start out with a brief history and explanation of the comp plan and the air process. So, the 1988 comprehensive plan, it
outlines the long range vision for growth, conservation, and development. It serves as a guiding policy. document. The land development regulations are the primary implementation tools
used to carry out the goals, objectives, and policies established in the comprehensive plan. So, the evaluation and appraisal, which is called the EAR, it's a statutoily required review that Bvard County must
conduct at least every seven years to determine whether or not amendments to the comprehensive plan are necessary to maintain consistency with the changes in chapter 163 Florida statutes. So, the
EAR process has five steps. The first step is evaluation of the comprehensive plan to determine uh if updates are needed due to statutory changes. Second step is notification submitting a letter to Florida Department of uh Florida
Commerce stating that amendments are necessary. The third step is the transmitt. Amendments are prepared and then they're transmitted to Florida Commerce within one year of the notification. The county's transmitt was required to
be received by Florida Commerce by December 1st, 2024, and that's pursuant to subsection 163.31912 of the Florida statutes. The request to transmit was approved by the board of
county commissioners on November 7th, 2024. So, Bvard County received um uh received from uh Florida Commerce or I should say Florida Commerce issued a
ORC report. It's called objections, recommendations, and comments. They issued that to us on January 21st, 2025. So at that time um the county continued or to collaborate with Florida Commerce
and other state agencies and stakeholders to resolve the objections. Objections are things that are required to be resolved before it moves forward to adoption. Additionally, we incorporated many of the recommendations
and comments into the comprehensive plan that was also provided by uh Florida Commerce as well as some stakeholders and other state agencies. So, Boulevard County did request an extension to the adoption of the ear
based on the amendments and the BBIA element. We wanted to ensure accuracy and continuity of the plan. So this extended our response time to September 17, 2025. We requested the extension because, as I
stated, we were collaborating uh with so many different state agencies and stakeholders and residents that we wanted to make sure we got it right before we presented it to you. The next thing I want to point out is that in the documents that you received,
the blue underline are additions and the red striketh through are deletions. Those represent the changes since transmitt. Any text that is in black underlined and black striketh through represents changes that were already t
uh transmitted and effectively accepted by Florida Commerce, meaning we didn't have to do anything to those. I also want to point out that if the board issues a directive to make any changes beyond what has effectively been
accepted by Florida Commerce, it may be considered a substantial change. And if so, Florida Commerce may determine that our comprehensive plan is out of compliance. So, after the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the county is
required to update the land development regulations within 12 months. um those land development regulations is what's going to implement what we put into the comprehensive plan. So Florida comp Florida Commerce also has to review
those land development regulations as well. We have to submit to them. Um and so you know I want to start by saying you this is not the end all. This is just the beginning of a long process.
Can you switch the slides? go back to the BBIA one. Please, can I ask a question? You said this is a long process. How many times are we going to review this? Because I think this is our second look on the
comprehensive plan. After it's adopted, then we'll be working on updating the land development regulations and that will take hopefully less than a year, but it will be a long process more so for staff and other collaborating agencies and and stakeholders. Okay.
That's just under the BBAIA both under both under both. Yes. Thank you. If I could just add one thing, you know, the BBIA is a never- ending thing. So, um, when we're talking to Florida Commerce, they're going to expect continuous changes in perpetuity. So,
this this project doesn't ever really end, but this is the starting point. Okay. So, from this slide, you can see the area of critical state concern. Uh, that act was enabled in 1972.
Um there are currently six statewide six area critical state concerns and that includes the Bvard barrier islands. So all development that goes on in that area has to be reviewed by Florida Commerce. So whether it's a building
permit, a resoning, a future land, anything has to go to Florida Commerce for review. Um and so the guiding principles for development provides the key statutory protections. uh it was designated in 2023.
Uh land local the our local plan is based upon existing comprehensive plan with new and strengthened policies. Um, as you know, we had a public workshop. We had 254 participants
um, attend that and 184 respondents and survey and um, and that began uh, moving to adopt part 16 of the county comprehensive plan for the BBIA element.
So, back to the objections, recommendations, and comments. So, from Florida Commerce, we only received one objection. Uh, we did receive, I believe it was three comments, but only one objection.
So, again, the objections are the things that the county has to resolve before it can move forward. So, this speaks a lot to all the work that, you know, was put into it prior to it being transmitted. So as you can see um what the objection
was and what we did as a result to uh satisfy that objection. Can go to the next slide. So next slide is uh one of the comments that was uh provided by Florida Florida Commerce um and it's to review the use
of should and shall um and put those policies listed. So as you can see our result we updated to shall in the um in the sections listed below. Next slide. So here's a definition of should and
shall. This is in our glossery. Uh so should expresses an obligation. So that's a mandatory action. Why shall expresses the ca the command must express what is mandatory. So here is another comment uh
intergovernmental coordination uh and we did we coordinated with FWC to address their agency comments. So as you can see that was the result of uh our collaboration.
Next comment was BIPA feedback. Again, we collaborated with BIPA and that was the result um of how we worked to um incorporate some of their comments and concerns and their wishes into the
comprehensive plan. There were some nonorg amendments. They were very minor and that was to change policy 2.5 or I should say update it to clarify the shoreline hardening uh prohib uh
prohibition a closed uh potential loopholes um and some other policies were addressed in this as well and thank you for your time. I'm gonna start off by saying nice job.
Thank you everyone there on staff. I guess my microphone's going in and out, but to everyone on staff, nice job. Well, I'll open it for discussion here with the board. Mr. Chairman, I knew you'd have something to say, John. Just
a couple of comments. Um, acronyms and initialisms are rampant throughout this document. Is there any way to either publish a list of all the acronyms and initialisms so that someone
can refer back to them and know what exactly you're talking about? Because there are a lot of initials in every profession and they just get blurry after a while. Sometimes you have the full name, sometimes you just have the initials.
And it would be best if you either put the full name in or have a glossery. There is a glossery in a comprehensive plan. So I'd actually want to look at to see which ones of them are actually already in there. Um I would I would put all of them in there, make it easy for
people to read this. Okay, we can take that recommendation. Sure. Okay. Thank you on that. Um second thing the analysis of the public input um stipul stated that the the major
concern was density and then the secondary concern was sea turtle protection. That's what the public came up with. And I found that item 12, I believe it is, which deals with density,
there's a contradiction because there are with the comp plan. The comp plan says no density in the increase in the barrier islands. Period. But here in the BBIA,
they have concessions or conditions. So, how are you going to address that? So, we were asked by Florida Commerce um to put in a separate future land use to take our existing future land use, move
it into the BBIA and rename it. What that does is if we ever make changes to our existing future land uses, those changes would not affect the land uses in the BBIA.
Okay? But if the comp plan says no density increase, shouldn't the BBIA say the same? Let me clarify something. Policy 7.1 of the coastal management element that you are referring to still exists and will continue to exist after that as does 12.1. If you look at the
new BBIA, let me just read it out. Consistent with policy coastal management 7.1 of the coastal management element, Bvard County shall not increase residential densities within the BBIA by amending the future land use map designation for such properties. So he's
actually restated what's in 7.1, but now it's no longer connected to the coastal eye hazard area necessarily like the argument has been made with the coastal management element. So, we're removing that ambiguity and now it's just a flat statement clarifying flat out no
residential density increases and all the other policy any zoning or use of land for the people that have their that already have a certain land use, but we've made some some minor adjustments. For example, today in current land use,
you can get density bonuses for PUDS, but we've now restricted that. new PUDs won't get that density bonus by having these policies separated. It allows us to do that otherwise any pol. So in other words, it allows us to fork and
and apply regulations to policies that make sense in the area of critical state concern but may not make sense. Darcy Darcy seat I'm back here. See, I'm back here. Uh,
certain regulations would be uh relevant during nesting season. So, during um March 1st to October 31st. Okay. So, it isn't all year. It's just seasonal. Correct. Okay. All right. Um
um on 24 beach uh nourishment renourishment who's paying for all of that because we need it. Uh we have a beaches boating and I'm sorry I can't see you but I'm looking at you through Bonnie. Um we
have a beaches uh reourishment program through natural resources and that is a variety of funding sources. It's uh Army Corps, FEMA, state grants. There's uh the county chips in some a lot of it is reimbursement after hurricanes. So, we
have a very robust beach reourishment program. We just finished up another phase uh right before nesting season and as soon as nesting season's o over, we'll be right back up doing it again, putting some vegetation in and putting more sand down. Is that reenourishment what the core is doing currently? Uh
yes, there's a there's a Cape Canaveral as a project and there's a bypass project for the port where they have the inlet there where they have to pump sand from one side to the other. So there's a variety of projects that go on throughout the years. Okay. Just a side question on that.
Are there any specifications as to the type of sand that they're using for renourishment? Oh yes. Strict C, you know, it's the color, the grain size. is you have to make sure that it doesn't if it's too fine it'll cement up and be too
hard to nest in. The color needs to be correct because that can change the I believe it can affect the sex of the of the hatchlings making them I was more concerned about all the shells that are ground up into that renourishment that I saw in Cape
Canaveral. Well, I mean that's what sand is so but yeah they do have to check the grain sizes. They do civ analysis and it has to be approved by all the permitting agencies which ranges from you said Army Corps, FWC, FD.
Okay. Um 27 oil and gas exploration. Aren't isn't the coastal region in Florida banned from any oil and gas exploration and production? I could not speak to that with 100%
certainty. I think so, but I don't know. I thought the governor had done something to that effect to prevent it so that our beaches wouldn't be ruined like they are in Louisiana and Texas. Yeah. And and that may be the case. I just don't know that for sure. I
can find out and send you information on that. If if it's not, can we initiate a ban? No. I mean, I didn't say one. No. No. And that's that was one of the reasons why we worded it the way we did. Um, we we
can review and comment and obviously it's not in our jurisdiction to approve or deny. So, that's that's why it's worded the way it is. Would that have to go up to the state or up to the feds? I believe it's both, but I'm not I'm not 100% sure. Alex just said both from back
here. So, probably both. Probably both. Okay. Because I don't know if you all have ever gone to a beach that has an oil spill on it, uh like I used to see in Galveastston. It's horrendous. You have to wash your feet with gasoline after you get off the beach. So, it's uh
I'm hoping that they don't allow any of that to happen on our beaches. Let me see if I got anything else. You don't have anything else? I have a question. Sure. Go ahead. Okay. All right. We'll just go back and forth
here. All right. So, when we're at 6.7 and we're talking about acceptable hurricane evacuation times, um I live down in the south beaches and we know that there everybody's going to be
coming from the the Wabasa beach off it floods all the time. So, they're going to be taking A1A. So when we talk here about the level of service and the information is contained in the Florida regional evacuation study. So I I went
online and I took a look at the Florida regional evacuation study and it said to evacuate was going to take us the category 5 hurricane 61 hours. Is that is that somewhere going to be addressed or talked about? I mean that that's kind
of you know. So I'm going to turn that question to John Scott who's our man our director of emergency management in Bvoulevard County. Good afternoon. You guys hear me? Okay. Yeah. So the short answer in that is that 61 hours you're referring to is
what's called an operational scenario. If you saw on the table there's a variety. How about now? Okay, we'll try that again. So there's a variety of options. We follow the base scenarios. The operational scenarios contain a whole
lot of other variables that we use to just actually see what different modeling would be. So the base scenario that we would follow for out of county is I believe 26 24 standby 26.
I also want to point out here that when we talk about evacuation clearance times operationally, so where you guys are concerned about how long it takes to actually evacuate, that is just one piece of the factor, right? We do a lot of things operationally to work within
those times. So it is just a piece based on some modeling. There are three other three to four other factors that actually do more to drive clearance times operationally. Yeah. And it is a concern. It's my same concern when I read through um the
comprehensive plan, right? So, but we can get to that as well, I'm sure. But this is just an added layer of protection for us down there. But since we're since I live down there, I'm telling you, I'm I'm thinking to myself, we're we'll never a category 5's coming
our way. That's kind of scary, you know. So, let me bridge does does flood. Let me just also say we spend a lot of time planning for those kinds of things. We're very aware of the challenges in the roadway network. We're very aware of how uh we can be influenced by other
regions. Uh there's again many other things we do to help mitigate those times. I would also like to point out that like Hurricane Irma, which was in 2017, is the largest evacuation in the state's history. We put 7 million people collectively on the road. Um, and we
didn't have the kinds of backups and stuff like that folks may remember from the ' 04 and '05 season in large part because we understand the roadway network better and we evacuate slightly differently from how we actually implement it operationally. Thank you.
I didn't bring that up because the that was in the comp plan that wasn't in the BBIA, right? Well, it's partially in the BBIA and then it's in the comp plan comp plan about clearance times and etc. So, I'll have the same probably more questions there too. But
while you were on while you were having a quiet moment, John, I thought I'd hop in. Mr. Chairman, I had a question uh about our process today. some of the text that's in black,
some of the text that's in black then or I should say if we make a change to text that's in black underline, Florida Commerce may consider that as a substantial change because they've already effectively accepted that
to implement those things. Wish I'd known that last year. I would have had a lot of suggestion. I had a lot of suggestions, but everybody said, "Ah, don't worry about it. You know, it's going to come back and we'll review it a second time."
Well, well, if I may, just keep in mind the board may always suggest a new change and, you know, a separate text change. You're not limited to just ear or implementation. You know, this is you if the if the board of county commissioners and this
board re or this board recommends it to make a change in addition to that. I mean, that's something that can be done at any time. There's no limit to the amount of text change amendments that can happen. Now, what at where we're at, the stage we're at in the process today is kind of I would say the refinement
stage. You know, you come up with new language to meet the EAR process and in this case the implementation of the BBIA. you get that to commerce, they look at it to see what might may or may not need to be changed and then we focus on those things. So the it should be getting more and more refined. Now, if
you see something else in there that you want to make a recommendation, of course, we'll make that we'll draw your recommendations to the board of county commissioners, but I'm just saying, you know, the as far as what our risk is, it's it's in making changes that weren't in that work report at this point. Okay.
Uh, I would make a recommendation that in the both both this BEIA and the comprehensive plan that who's ever responsible for each one of the sections take a look at all of the uses of the
word should and either one change it to shall or two delete the policy. Uh the my reasoning for that is when you use the word should, you're implying that there's really no commitment behind that.
U and I also believe that making it should having should in there makes it difficult for the county employees to uh enforce that policy. Okay, Mr. Chair, Mr. Ron, are you good? Uh, yeah. Are we
are we going to talk about the uh uh comprehensive plan separately or? Yeah, separately. Okay. Um, yes, John, go ahead. Um, BBIA 4.5 stipulates where illegal or accidental
discharges of materials or violations. You have a fine associated with that for as a penalty. Please repeat the policy number 4.5. Yeah. One second here.
And you asked if there was a fine. Yeah. Um, that's going to depend on what the violation is and who handles that. A lot of times that goes to D, goes to the state. And we in uh natural resources, the county, we take an educational approach to, you know, sometimes people
will discharge their pool water or they're constructing a pool or something and they'll have they'll have discharges out to the lagoon. Um they may not know any better. Um you know, we get someone out there to talk to the owner and let them know what are the rules and why do
we have them, but no fines? I don't think that the county has any fines for this type of discharge. I think that's going to go to the state. We don't have home rule.
I'll defer to Billy. I'm going to answer. We've been preempted in several areas. Yeah, there's preeemption. Okay. Um on 5.2, two. It says, "Bard County shall address modification of existing development that does not meet storm
water management standards within the storm water management criteria and should use available financial mechanisms." What does that mean? I think when we're talking about public projects, uh, retrofitting a storm water
and looking for grants and funding, you know, other than, uh, normal sources, I mean, different projects are going to have different funding s sources. I mean, we've got sorrel projects that are storm water. You got capital projects that are
through your tax bill. And then there's a lot of resilience projects that have been ongoing. I shouldn't say a lot. There's resilience projects where you could get special funding for that. And my understanding is in the BBIA once we're
all adopted and cinched up here, there could be additional funding mechanisms that we can tap into as an area critical state concern. So that would be another um potential source of revenue for staff to look at to fund projects. And what's the timing on something like
that? I mean, if you have a failure in a development and you have to address it right away, but you need to get money to pay for that. Well, that that would be if if someone's in violation of their St. John's permit, that would be for St. John's because you have to if you're a
you know, have a subdivision, let's say, or a site plan where the storm water um system is permitted through the state and it fails, then St. John's would deal with that. We also do have uh site plans that have to be approved through the
county and some things are enforceable through our site plan process, but that would be on a private uh person and they'd have to deal with their own funding. Darcy, I know you're back there. Okay. Okay. So,
now I was just worried about existing facilities that fail for what whether it's storm damage or just bad design. that we have those financial mechanisms that will handle that immediately rather
than you have to go to the state and say, you know, we need money for this and it doesn't get repaired for months at a time, years. Well, and if it was if it's a private project that fails, you know, the county I don't think has
any legal I mean, you're you're putting someone else's the private person's funding financial liability on the county to fix it. I mean, and and correct me if I'm wrong, Alex, we would go, you know, the property owner would be responsible for that. But what about
the developer that turns over the roads or to any state agency or to any state agency, whether it be St. John's or FD. Um, and the county also has code enforcement mechanisms in place uh that would allow us to if there was an emergency
um apply or um bring those fines against the property owner as part of like the remediation of the case itself. So, if we had to go in and do an emergency uh repair, something like that, that would be an avenue to recuperate that those funds.
Okay. else. I live in Turtle Bay. They don't have water. So, just wondering. I'm sorry. Can you can you repeat the question? Were there any problems? Are there any um ideas about uh sewage on
BBI in the barrier in that critical area of concern? We have Eddie Fontin, our utilities director here. um the um
education of the public for by signage. Who provides all those signs for uh the public to see that it's a manity area? You know, they have it with the obligated at all. Are you referring to whether or not our
comp plan regulations would apply in an area that becomes incorporated? When I say when Vieiraa move goes into a city, potentially Merit Island goes into a city, they they will be under a whole new set
of rules. Is that correct? Yes, sir. They would the jurisdiction would have to update their comp plan to incorporate those areas and then they would be entitled to whatever Yeah. You know, land use regulations apply to them. That was my only question. That's a good point for
That's good. That's it. Thank So with that, we're seeking a recommendation to the board of county commissioners on approval, denial, and it looks like some members of the public may be looking to speak. Is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this? Are you the
only one, ma'am? Let's see. There's two. two. Ma'am, if you could come up and state your name and address for the record, I'll give you three minutes. Yes, Sandra Sullivan, South Patrick Shores. Uh just a couple things I want to talk
about. Uh the first one is about the future land use map and the the comments uh made that they are entitled uh to to additional density. So, I want to point out that the Department of Commerce,
formerly DEO, in response to Bvard County uh 21-01 ESR, uh made a comment uh pertaining to some property rights policy um letting them know that future land
use is not a property right. So, I will uh bring that up to the chair. Um I also um want to mention that the BBIA is something to celebrate because this is the first one in 45 years because and it
was essentially happened because a vote was taken under public comment to upzone South Beaches and um so in consequence of that got the assistance of our state rep as a checks and balance. Um,
so, um, sea turtle wise, we are the largest logger head nesting in the world. Um, we're the key to their survival. Uh, Arman was destroyed. They had about double of us. So, it's exceedingly important. One thing to uh
one thing that's missing in this report, it's called the CBR. The Coastal Resource Barrier Island Act is a federal act which prohibits federal monies within that area of the CBR. There's no
mention of the CBR in here. There are two areas of Bvard that have area designation. One is in South Beaches and one is up in Lake Palinda Beach. Uh so that is missing. Um but I think that
section 12 needs to be addressed given that department of commerce saying that the future land use is not a um uh a property right. Um I also want to address evacuation because I don't think
it's uh it's spelled out well in here. Um and uh I understand the clearance time part is in the other section. I'll talk about that. But this area is what 30 miles long from the bridge way down
the south. That bridge floods early on. So the only way out is north to 192 where everybody else is trying to get out. And so this particular area as an area in Bvard has unique challenges that I do not think that the um the
evacuation uh part is adequately addressed and it should be stated in here the um the the state standard is six 16 hours. Um so all right thank you
ma'am. Ma'am, would you like to speak? I'm Mary Spar. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Mary Spar. I live in Coco and I'm representing Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. Sierra Club has reviewed the BBIA
amendment carefully. This amendment is extremely important for adequate protection of habitat and coastal resources. Please recommend approval of the BBIA amendment to the county commission. We support approval of the amendment
recognizing that there is one particular change that needs to happen in the next amendment. We can't do it right now because it would be a substantial change according to staff. What's needed is a policy outlawing a
change of residential land use designations to commercial land use designations. In other words, a change of intensity of land use, something mentioned multiple times during the transmitter phase.
We are just getting a little more specific in asking for no changes from residential to commercial to allow the building of hotels and prevent changing residential to commercial land use and
zoning to to allow a large multifamily affordable housing project under the state's live local act and prevent changing residential to commercial getting PUD zoning and then taking
advantage of the fact that any residential component of that PUB can have a density greater than the original residential designation. Now, Sierra Club understands that prohibiting a change of BBI land use
from residential to commercial would be a substantial change, which is not allowed at this point in time. But in the next comp plan update, the county could transmit such a policy for the BBIA.
And just a little while ago, Billy Brasad commented that this is an ongoing process over many years. In conclusion, we're asking you to recommend to the county commission that they consider a
carefully worded policy prohibiting this specific intensity change in their next comp plan update. And we're also recommending adoption of the BBIA amendment now.
All right. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak for or against this item? All right. Seeing that, I'm going to close it for public comment. Bring it back to the board. Board, do we have any other questions for staff?
I'm only going to say one thing, staff, you've done a marvelous job. as much time and effort has gone into this, if anybody's got something critical to say, uh, you need to take them out. But,
uh, they, uh, you guys have worked. There's no question. Uh, that the amount of meetings you all have had and many of us tried to keep up with that, and I think you've done a great job. So, I don't know if the commission will tell
you, but at least we did. I need a motion. I make a motion we accept as submitted. A second. All right, we got a motion for item H1 by Henry, a second by Rob. All those in
favor say I. I. Any opposed? Item H11 passed unanimously. We want to read in item H12. Item H12, staff is seeking a recommendation for adoption of the
evaluation and appraisal review based on amendments to the comprehensive plan under application 24 LS00002 to the state land planning agency Florida Commerce for review under the state coordinated review process
established by section 163.3184 Florida statutes. Is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Okay, ma'am, if you could come back up and
have you already submitted this with the staff. Do we already have copies of this? Uh, this is the handout to the boards. They have a copy of what I'm talking prior to they vote. Yep. You want to put it on the big
screen then or No, it's not necessary. Those are those are for them. That that form there if you want to give that to staff that is from the um the state uh commerce that future land use is not a right property right.
Okay. Sandra Sullivan South Patrick Shores. Um see okay comp plan our lives matter too. Um so I um have some serious issues about some of the changes that have been made. Um
so there was um as a result of a 1999 evacuation study that found critical evacuation deficiency on the barrier island. There was a Merit Island and uh central barrier island study. This went from Merit Island all the way down to
Indie Atlantic. The relevancy of that was a it was a a downzoning study that reduced the density from um res 30 to res 15. Now the references
in the comp plan reference have changed history like that didn't exist and I take objection to it. I would even suggest that it's malfeasants which is a pretty serious allegation. Um, you'll see I sent a lot of you guys
this letter here on the back. This shows history. This is from the county itself. The county has shown a commitment to cap or even reduce densities on the barrier island. This process began in the South Beaches area with the adoption of the 192 South Beaches small area study and
has continued to present day. As recently as a two 2000B plan amendment cycle, the county adopted comprehensive plan amendments that capped the residential densities for the unincorporated areas on the northern and central barrier island at existing levels. So what have we done? We've
taken Merit Island and for the Myra area, we have changed the the density there to res 30. Now res30 in the comp plans and I sent you got a bunch of you. I don't I don't have everybody's email address. A document from the 2000B
comprehensive plan that explicitly that res30 was only for three properties. Only for three properties. So the other thing that is a major change is that of evacuation. So evacuation defined by
state statute uh 163 what is that 3178 or 2178? in there states that the state level of service is for 16 hours for a category five um out of county. And so
what the county is doing is they are shifting to a clearance time. A clearance time is whatever time it takes. It is not a level of standard uh level of service standard as defined by state statute. And so, hey, you ask the
question of staff, you know, does that mean we're going to revert back as a level of service to the to the state 16 hours because we're not defining it. And in the seat, I would appreciate this is a huge document. This should have been
broken down into sections and and and have be the public able to comment. Three minutes on a thousandpage document is absolutely ridiculous. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Ma'am, would you like to speak also?
Hello again, Mary Spar. I live in Coco and I'm speaking for Sierra Club to close group. Sierra Club supports adoption of the earbased amendments, though we would like to see one change made first.
There are a handful of inconsistencies between the coastal management element and the new BBIA amendment for the south bar south barrier island that need fixing right now. Let me explain. The
state agency Florida Commerce sent separate ORC reports on the EAR and BBIA amendments. They objected to some of the BBIA amendments and had negative comments on others, but they overlooked
the same exact problems in the coastal management element included in the ear. In particular, the state found that policy BBIA 2.6 six lacked a specific
timeline for a re-evaluation of the effectiveness of the county's coastal setback line or CSL, but they failed to mention the exact same lack of a specific time frame in the coastal management element policy
CM4.2. And obviously, it's very important to re-evaluate this really old line in a timely manner. Also, BBIA policy 5.8, which encourages
naturebased design and low impact development for areas vulnerable to flooding, was flagged by the state for weak language, specifically the use of should instead of shall. The state overlooked the same weak
language in coastal management policy CM14.9. In general, what the county did was change the BBIA amendment to please the state, but left the corresponding coastal management policies alone.
Staff's new changes to these two BBIA policies flagged by the state are really excellent. At a minimum, Sierra Club would like coastal management policies corrected for the same defects
the state spotted in BBIA language. In conclusion, please recommend to the county commission adoption of the ear amendment after correction of important inconsistencies
between coastal management element policies and updated BBIA policies. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else like to speak for against this item? All right, seeing that I'm going to
close that for public comment. I bring it back to the board. Do we have any more questions or comments for staff? I have questions for staff. Miss Ruth? Yes. Um, can I have clarification on what the state statute for uh level of
service on the barrier island getting off the barrier islands would be? Uh, sure. It looks like it's section 163.3178 and then it's subsection 8. Does it give an exact time?
So I'll have to defer to John, but my understanding of the statute is that it says there's essentially three prongs to it, right? So, a proposed comp plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high hazard provisions if the adopted level of service for outofcount hurricane
evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the sapphier Simpson scale. And then there's two other options. So, I'll defer to John as to how we calculated that. Yeah. So our understanding and the way we read it is because we have an adopted
level of service which is the out of county clearance time in the regional evacuation study which we're comfortable with. Uh we meet that standard and the purpose for removing the evacuation route map out of the comp
plan. So I'll take that one too. Um so evacuation route maps some of that's just cleaning up. We did that in our plan as well. Evacuation route maps are are candidly a bit antiquated. Uh most folks these days when they evacuate evacuate with a destination. That's what
we see over and over again. Most folks are using their phone at this point in time. Pretty much all roads are evacuation routes. Um so it just is it's no longer applicable to where we are in time. I was curious because I went on to the emergency um management website
because I was curious. So many new people move to Florida every day. They're completely unfamiliar and and granted we Yes, we all most people have phones these days. Um but I couldn't find a map anywhere. I even asked two extra people to try and find something for me and we could come up with nothing. Again, there you found we do
not post one. Interesting. Again, it all the conversations we've had and we spend a tremendous amount of time in our community doing outreach and talking to folks. the actual evacuation route that comes back from a period of time in 2004
and 2005 and prior to that where you were using actual roads where people didn't evacuate with destinations. That really is a big difference. The majority of folks today should you evacuate are evacuating with a destination. In 2004
and 2005, which I know is seared into our memory culturally, um you didn't have the ability to go on your phone and book a hotel. You didn't have the ability to look at those kinds of things. You didn't have ways. You didn't have Google or Apple Maps which model dynamically, which is sort of a
way to tell you if you have traffic coming up, take this off road instead of that road. All of those capabilities exist today. So, it it's just it no longer makes sense to do those. So, there won't be any more like
evacuation route signs on the road or anything. So, evacuation route signs are handled by DOT. So, I would defer to them for that because those are pretty much primarily their their roads. Go ahead. Are you done? I have more, but you can skip in. Okay. So, so this is
where I had my question too. So, um, so then the level of service that's acceptable for say a category five hurricane for those of us on the barrier island would be what? So, right now that level of service is 26 hours. We're
saying 26 hours and the state would like it to be 16. Right. That is if you do not adopt a level of service. Okay. So, all right. Now, all right. And and then that's in now. I had the hardest time finding this for our uh county
comprehensive emergency management plan online and seeing anything like anything. Whoops, excuse me. And then when I went to the clearance times, right, and then it says, you know, the Florida regional evacuation study. So
actually what Miss Sullivan pulled up is what I was referring to previously, the 61 hours. So the clearance time simply is how much time it takes to get people off where wherever we are, the worst case scenario. So the clearance time is a calculation based on a model that the
state runs where it runs a variety of destinations uh and it literally takes it takes the amount of people that would have theoretically evacuate based on several things that includes a behavior model. It then turns those folks into trips, so cars, and then models them.
They look like small little dots running around. And by the time all the dots get where they're supposed to go, uh you get a you basically get a number. And then again like I mentioned earlier that number is a part of the equation when we actually look at operationalizing evacuation decision making. Gotcha. So
those are two separate things. Operational clearance time or clearance times and then operational evacuation decision- making. Clearance time is a piece of that equation. Perfect. Okay. So, and forgive me if I I missed it somewhere in that does it
mention the level of service standard anywhere in the evacuation information in the comp plan because I feel like that would be beneficial if the level of service standard was put there. So again on that one of the reasons why we made the change to the comp plans to point to one specific place is because the comp
plan our our comprehensive emergency management plan and the regional evacuation study are simply on different times like when they get updated. So rather than always having to chase those things which we have done for years, this was a way to sort of streamline and clean those things up to just simply
point at the regional evacuation study. Let me answer this question ahead. If we ever reach to a point where we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we think the level of service, the regional out of county clearance time would be a problem for us to maintain, then we
would act and do different things, but right now we're comfortable with the number. I just think it would be good for transparency. Understood. I agree because I I really did have a hard time finding the level of service. Difficult. Um anyway, and then the the
last one was 8.3. So, Bvard County shall identify roadway and operational improvements to hurricane evacuation network based upon capabilities limitation vulnerabilities. And it goes down to criteria. Pri priority shall be given to
improvements of roadway networks serving hurricane evacuation routes with the greatest number of people. Well, I can assure you that the the people in the South Beaches, we do not have the greatest number of people, but it will
take us the long it's the hardest for us to get out of where we're at. We cannot it is um it is 30 miles if you go to get to 192 from the Abaso Bridge along with other people from, you know, like it's it'll be hard for us. So, I don't I
don't know if there's any priority. Do you know what I mean? Like, I don't want to say, "Oh, well, take us. for the best, you know, but I mean like so I I I will answer that in a couple of ways, which is one, so I'm born and raised here, so I get the South Beaches. In fact, I get quite a bit of this stuff. And again, transportation networks are
holistic. So improvements you make on all streams can affect things. But one of the biggest things we do, and it's it's why I talk about clearance times being a factor, but not the driver in this conversation, is the bigger piece when we talk about clear evacuation decision-m is how many folks do we put
on the road at the same time? because you can handle a lot and lot of people um over a long period of time or you can bottleneck a road uh just by putting you know a small number of people and the greatest example that I'm sure we all experience every day if you find one of
our pinch points throughout the county at 5:00 or 8:30 in the morning traffic is backed up roll through there at 600 6:15 it's flowing again so we spend a lot of time on doing something we call a soft phasing of evacuation so that were
constantly putting folks on the road, but we're never at one point dumping a lot of folks on the road. And we've seen that continue to work uh in 2016, 2017, as we began to implement those kinds of things. We saw it in Dorian. It is a statewide best practice. Uh we are in
line with all of those kinds of things. And it it really is about throttling roadway traffic and looking at where those areas come from. like what we do, you know, what happens on the west side of 192 and Melbourne definitely impacts
those kinds of things. But again, I'll just come back to because folks are using smart technology like cell phones and those kinds of things that are picking those things up. Some folks from the south beaches will cut over on Riverside and get to 192 faster. They may take it all the way down to O'Gall
or Pineick. That stuff is happening naturally. Um, and that is a more holistic and accurate way to look at evacuation modeling than just a sort of a clearance time, which by the way doesn't take into account time of day or any of those kinds of things when
storm's going to arrive. I know this is a lot in deep in the woods or deep in the weeds on evacuation planning. It's it's it's it is complicated. We take it very serious and we try to make sure that all of our residents, especially our barrier island residents, have
enough time to evacuate safely. Thank you. Yeah, because for those of us down there in the south beaches, you know, we can take oak, we can take Riverside, we can do a lot of things, but we have to take A1A for many miles, right, to get there, unless we want to
swim. So, that's sort of again, we pay a lot of attention to it. Thank you. Thank you. you you through I've just got one comment. When you did the evacuation
calculations for Merit Island, did you take into account the NASA route included in that? When you say that, so let me be clear like we don't do it by area. It's for the whole county. It's for the whole network. Okay. Uh, and yes, like we talk about
you're talking about the NASA evacuation around the visitor center, the NASA from the north end of Merit Island that transitions into the NASA causeway. Yes, sir. Did you add that to the system? That was part of the roadway network that was marked. Okay. Did you also add the other portion that goes straight up
and it's what's called old A1A? You're talking about the part that goes through Titusville. Did any active roadway that we can push cars onto is modeled? Yeah, because NASA has a tendency to change the rules when the weather gets bad. We
we work well with that. I I understand. Uh was there ever a determination the percentage of people specifically the Merit Island that would stay? So again, the way it looks at it is holistically. Uh it is based on a
behavioral model that samples. Um, so the amount of people that say versus go is is is one of the bins of our existence as far as trying to figure out what that is. I will tell you that is far more storm dependent. Uh, and trying to find good behavioral studies for that
uh is a struggle. Merit Island people are different. So I grew up on Merit Island, sir. They'll they'll stay before they go. Grew up on Merit Island, sir. There you go. That's it.
I have some questions about um utilities. Miss Ruth. Yes. Um Ruth. Yes. Before we get off that, can I ask you a question about the Yeah, go ahead.
Before we get off the topic, Ron, we can't hear you, sir. Sorry. There we go. Uh referencing policy CM 8.4. 4 says that essentially this board can recommend a denial of a development
if it's going to create a problem with evacuations. Uh and my question was the only thing that we already referred to is this table that shows how you evacuate the entire county.
uh and that to me doesn't have enough granularity if we wanted to say do we want to evac do we want to approve a development or not in BBIA be uh and our concern is our question is
what what about the hurricane so if we have 100 de people coming in that's going to affect our evacuation times sum to what So, how much of a change in the evacuation time do we have to have to
for this board to be able to recommend a denial? And the other question is uh who calculates that? I mean, I mean, we I understand about traffic studies and a developer
developer can provide a traffic study. Is a developer going to have to provide us with some data about evacuation times if it So, as of today, the the our emergency management group tracks that and they keep that in in their modeling
through their modeling. And so, if and when it gets to a point where their modeling shows there's an issue, they'll alert the planning department and we will take appropriate action based on that. As of today, that has not happened. But if that did happen, that's
how that would work. Uh I'm talking about development that doesn't exist yet. It's only in the planning stage. So how you can't have a model for something that doesn't exist.
Sure you can. So we've got a development in BIA that there's going to put a I don't know 100 homes, 150 homes in that area. and we would like to know is that going to create a problem with evacuation times.
Well, for one thing, I I'll just say that the BBIA specific comprehensive plan and that goes back to what we were talking about before that we're in the implementation phase, this is the comprehensive plan element. The next stage is doing the LDRs and so that may
be part of that then. Um, right now I'm we're we're really talking about countywide because we haven't done the LDRs for the BBIA as of yet. So that'll be the next phase that Trina was talking about earlier that has to be done within the next 12 months. Okay, last question I promise, but is
there any So I was so interested when I heard that and I'm I'm kind of new to this um that future land use are not property rights. Is that true? Is that a truth? I'm I'm confused.
I'll let Alex talk about, but I think context matters. I mean, in this case, the Bvard Barrier Island Protection Act itself said stated that people get to continue their zoning and use of land. And so, I think most people would take that to mean their land use or at least
to some degree. So, I mean, it's some of it's subject to interpretation, but I think when the act itself specifies zoning and use of land, they mean something beyond zoning. So um that in itself created some
property right as the but we wouldn't be able to change somebody's rights based on the act that says they get to keep it in other words if that makes sense. Yeah. So just to build on that there's certain expectations that property owners have or people that are going to buy property have. So yeah that is part
of their expectation what they could build up on their property. Thank you. Thank you, Ruth. You're welcome, Mr. John. Um, I he asked if Oh, hold on, John. Because Ruth did give the floor to Ron there. Okay, Ruth, go ahead.
Utilities, please. Um, I have some questions about the water supply work plan, page 16. And please correct me if I have calculated wrong. Max um in Mims the
average is 99 gallons per capita per day and 118 is max according to the outline. Um it says that the BEBR average household size in Bard County is
2.33. So, would I be wrong in multiplying 118 at max gallons times 2.33 to come up with the actual usage of an ERC or a home? Hi, I'm Lucas Freed. I'm the engineering
manager for Bvard County Utilities. So, um just give me one second. I'm just going to pull up what I have in front of me. No problem. No problem. Thank you. So I'm I don't have it directly in front of me. I'm just going to answer it. So
in in regards to the Bieber model, that's a general population analysis that gives you general populations. We're doing our own population study as well. In regards to the flows and what we're using for them, there's the 118 which is the maximum which was referenced and that's a planning number.
Mhm. And then in terms of sorry actually repeat the calculation or what you're asking your overall question. So the max the max I believe GPCD is per cap per per capita daily
um is 118 and right underneath that it states that loss of BVAR county comp plan adjusted with BBR average household size 2.33. So, in my thought process, if you took the average household size, which is
2.33 people, and you multiplied that by the single use of 118 gallons per day, um, is that how you would figure out how much on average with these calculations that an a household or an ERC would use?
Okay, I understand the question. Thank you. So, for us, when we do that analysis, we're using real data. So the numbers that are listed there are the planning numbers. So it's the maximum flow for example you referenced is 118 right when
we look at what household actual consumptive use is we're referring to the actual data that we have from the plants in terms of what those flows are and what it is coming from residential density or from the residents as number of connections.
One more time. Okay. So, you're asking about the calculation, right? Because if you if you do that, it comes up to 275 gallons per day per ERC or home. And the
current regulations for this are set at 200 or 220 and it's going asking to be raised to 250. But if that's true, I would say that that level of service standard is still below the actual use.
That is my question. Okay, my apologies. So, let me clarify. So, you're focusing on the max gallons per capita value per day, which is the 118, whereas the number you'd really want to refer to be the 99. I refer to the max
per capita because state statute says that you have to have adequate water, implying that in times of drought, fire, or whatever that circumstance may be that you have adequate water for all of those circumstances. So I would refer to the max because that
is where adequate water comes from. Um so so Ruth a few things. So when we do level of service it's always based on average. Even with the average based on the 2.33 number, it'll still get us a
number that is by usage. It's it's a triangulation. So the 233 number by the calculation by the beaver density and by the 100 100 gallons per day per capita which is not only um stated in the water
supply plan but it's also a rule of thumb best practice usage still gets us at a number that we're having a level of service with um a margin of water supply. In addition, we also looked at
the current water usage. So, we take all the billing data and we associate it based on a 58 meter which is uh synonymous with a single residential home and looking at that to get an equation or a calculation on a level of
service based on a single h family home. And I believe we sent you a memorandum on three months of data, but we've looked at further. It gets you in a range of around 158 171. With that at a level of service of 250,
we feel there's still adequate room in there in order for unaccounted for water and water supply. So is the way that you formulate that somewhere in the comp plan. Did I miss that? because I thought and please I'm I'm not
but I thought the point of this was to lay out the way that it gets figured out and if we're figuring it some other way would be my is is my question. So so as we sit here and focus on the water supply plan I think and Billy was
touching base on this that the process that we're looking at is um it doesn't stop. So, with that being said, we're looking we originated with a um an old water supply plan and obviously a a
needed update to the ear. So, the issue is you can't make the and again I'm not the state and I don't make this process. Step one is you have to modify to the best of the ability within the current
comp plan the um the water supply plan. So as we go through this we have updated that to appease the state based on be best data available and based on what's currently adopted in the year. So until
the board approves it, we're still working off of that old information. I and I don't mean to refer to it as old and Um but it's the full intent that as um you know Billy described there was other actions after the year gets
approved. One of the other actions is to update the water supply plan to make it current. So, as we use the level of service that's being proposed in the in the ER amendment, we would then soon after be updating the water supply plan
so that both documents were consistent with each other because it was just updated in 2024 and again now. So, what's uncurren? Because we needed to have an updated ear to make the amendments to the water supply plan.
Yeah. Yeah. And I believe under statute the water supply plan only needs to be adopt. It's a snapshot in time and we've actually reached out to the St. John's River Water Management District about that. They would consider whatever is in your comprehensive plan as controlling over the water supply plan which is
meant to be like I said a snapshot a planning document that has to be done within a certain period after the regional uh water supply plan is done. So it's kind of like Eddie was saying there's one thing follows another and so there from a from a state perspective
there's no surprise at all that at any given time especially right after you do your ear that those two numbers would not match. And Billy if I may it went from 400 last year to 200 to 220 to 250. Is that correct for the level of service
standard? I mean that's a huge drop by half. The 400 you're referencing, Ruth, is something that was adopted back in 1990s. So, I can't explain where 400 came from. It's an extremely conservative.
What we have done is in order to get that level of service to a more appropriate number, we and this is going back to the triangulation that we've done with billing data um with data from the plant. Um, and it also coincides
with what's currently in the ordinance based on the level of service as referenced in I think it's 163 Billy if I'm not mistaken. That references 250. So, um, having a level of service that
is lower than the max level of demand is appropriate is what you're saying. the level of service currently the proposed and the one that's current the 200 and the 250 gallons per day per ERC that currently exceeds our demand in
both cases but not according to this no and that's and this is what the people see this is when someone goes to calculate something like people read these things and they can use it to calculate documents with to clarify what are you referring to the water supply
work plan page 16 okay So our level of service exceeds the current demands and this is calculated based on actual consumptive use. So what we see per ERC at our outwater treatment plants
um specifically MEMS but it's same barefoot bay and that's you know the 200 exceeds it and the 250. The other thing I would suggest is um not so many years ago, actually part of this was just like a
year ago. Um it wasn't a countywide service standard and the utilities aren't connected as my understanding. So Barefoot Bay is not connected to MIMS. They're each an individual rate payers and you don't transfer water back and forth is what my understanding is. And I
think it would be better if it was broke out per utility as those rateayers are in each individual area and they are not connected. Um that would be my other recommendation. Um so Ruth, what we've done in the
amendment is we've removed the level of service from the water and sewer element and moved the level of service to the capital improvement. If you look in the capital improvement element revisions that we propose, we do have it for what
we call North Bard Barefoot Bay water. So, it is listed under there. Um, I must have missed it cuz I'm have the capital improvement in front of me and it says BCUSD as a county. It lists Barefoot, Cocoa,
Melbourne, Palm Bay, Titusville, and Melbourne. And then I have it in the portable water element as well. I must have missed that somewhere. I'm so sorry. So for the ben um the um so portable water service, Bvard County utility service which is BCUSD,
the only um the only water facility that we have that falls under that is MIMS and actually San Sebastian which is a minute area. Barefoot Bay is would fall under the 150. So, they are broken out
within this except for Mim's shares with Sebastian. Is that what you said? We're just using the 250 um level of service for Sebastian, but it's it's for 75 customers,
right? And that was kind of my point like each area as many department heads and commissioners and people on this board have mentioned it's an extremely long county and it's very diverse and one of those utilities being on one end of the county and one being on the
other. Just my recommendation that they should be broke out into their own individual utilities since they are separate and each area has their own diverse needs. That's all.
The other questions I had are on um the conservation. And give me just a minute to find my page. It's never where you want it. um about it talks about reducing
or allowing more development in the 10, 25 and 100year flood planes. Um what was the logic behind that? That's a good question. So um we had um
have field footprint and density restrictions right now in the riverine flood plane. What it's doing is it's forcing people to annex into the cities that don't have the flood plane uh ordinance uh criteria that we do. We
have stronger criteria. So the goal is we're going performancebased for all flood planes. So no matter where you are, you need to demonstrate that you're not um causing any adverse impacts on surrounding development or areas or properties. And if Bach were here, he
would tell you the technical term about a rise in the peak flood stage. Uh but it's it's meant to be performance-based and take away the arbitrary criteria of density and fill footprint restrictions out in the riverine flood plane. Um, I
would just mention that and it's greatly concerning to to a lot of residents in North Bard that that would be removed. North Bard takes a lot of the storm water from the entire length of the county because at Lake Carney it
bottlenecks and cannot flow out at the rate at which it flows to North Bard. Um, many residents in North Bard are expensing experiencing flooding that hasn't been seen in over a hundred years. And so removing and reducing
those or reducing those densities and and not having them in there like the restrictions um is very much concerning to those in North Bard. Um could I provide you an example for densities? Um, so for instance, um, and
again this is a St. John's Riverine flood plane, not the Estrian flood plane. Uh, you could have a subdivision that has one unit to the acre and you could have them spread out. We call that peanut butter style. You spread it out over a bunch of area or
you could have a density that goes up. So your your footprint of your density can be this or it can be this. So, it's really not the best metric for trying to control flooding. The performance measures are more they're based on the
actual um site conditions and the engineering. And I'll also add that our storm water uh section program is doing a lot of flood studies right now. Uh we have a grant to do a countywide flood study. uh we're going to be looking at
uh rainfall on top of storm surge on top of future conditions. So we're we're gathering more and more data, actual site data and trying to get away on relying on for instance for St. John's River, we rely on a report from St. John's from
the 80s and I think Anna has probably had to deal with that in the past when you were doing engineering. um you know to look at the current conditions as they exist today and what's actually happening with the water. Yeah, there's there's a lot of even the
FEMA flood zone maps aren't current enough for North Bard. We use there's property in North Bard that I believe zoned for one home per 2.5 acres that sits under 10 foot of water. That was preen. You know, we use best available data whenever we can and that would be
uh you know, it might be a FEMA map, it may be a flood study that public works did. It could be something that we did in natural resources. Um so we do look for best available data and um I'm failing to find it because you never find anything when you want it. There
was an exception in here and it said see a different element and it took you to where um it was concern concerning the flood plane and it talked about allowing PUD on the flood plane. So would that be like development of the flood plane? I I don't understand that.
I'm allowing a PUD. Do you have a you're referring to a particular policy or Yes. I'm so sorry. Bonnie, I'm so sorry.
It was talking about the flood plane and I really tried to highlight everything so I wouldn't be looking for it. Um and then it talked about um except if you go to this certain policy and then it started talking about um PUB
on the flood plane. So Ruth, I'll just tell you from my personal experience in designing in Bvard County, whether it's PUD, R2, C2, it doesn't matter what my zoning category is, I'm required to meet that compensatory storage flood plane requirement. The PUD might give me flexibility on
where I locate houses, the sizes of my houses, those types of things, but I still have to meet all of the flood dependent criteria no matter what. Doesn't matter what my zoning category is. So, so that was kind of like my question because if it allows that, so
if you go from one home per 10 acres on depending on which flood plane you're talking about and then you can turn around and cluster homes on the flood plane, that's a huge difference in impact. that yeah so PUB if you're talking about doing kind of you know one of the other
goals that we have is from our parallel flood policies we need to codify them and strategies that you can use are cluster development to reduce your infrastructure of or your footprint of infrastructure so if you only have this
much impervious and you need you can reduce your amount of storm water and roads and all sorts of stuff so the PUD does provide flexibility ility that can hopefully get us to encourage applicants to do this type of development that will be a benefit to um to the environment to
the developer to the people that live there and to the surrounding area. So I mean I I would see that as an important tool to provide flexibility for low impact development and green storm water infrastructure. I don't know if that answers your question. Yes and no. Um my
my thought was um employees and like it's a very big and diverse county so I can't speak for for other what things I don't know but um no development I've seen come into the north area has developed on acre lots or
one home per two and a half acres. Those lot sizes are generally from what I've seen in my experience and I'm certainly not an expert owner builders generally. Um, and so allowing to switch that around I think just allows for more development on the flood plane and that
should be considered. Can can you restate the question one more time? I'm obviously not an expert on development everywhere and I don't claim to be. Just from where from what I've seen in my own neck of the woods, I
would say um most development that I've seen go into North Bard are really small lot sizes. Um not big lot sizes. So if if you allow if you change it on the flood plane from
one home per two and a half acres or one home per five acres and you allow cluster, you're actually I think inviting the PUB to the the to the flood plane because traditionally they don't build out that way.
That's just something I thought should be considered. And um the only other thing I really thought was um I think it's probably really important for staff to go out on site and um that was taken out of it. It
was put to it was one of the should shall I believe and where staff doesn't have to go do site visits. They may, I believe, was was the term. And with such a diverse county, I think it's important for you to see the site that that's
being developed to help your considerations. Understood. That's it. Was there a policy I'm sorry. Was there a policy number for that particular car? I can get it to you in just a minute. Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Uh I think I got John ahead of you, Ron. Okay. Uh Ruth, are you all right, Mr. John? Okay. I um I have to apologize. I didn't finish the whole document. Was there anything in there on
PUDS? Because I I've been concerned that we have a PUD res in the code. Um, and to me it's a workaround
from uh zoning restrictions. used to be, my understanding was a PUD was supposed to have all types of development, uh, commercial, residential, some industrial, but that PUD res that came up in one of
our planning and zoning meetings, it just seems to be a loophole and I was wondering, I didn't see it in here and curious if it still exists. I'm sorry, John. It's in here. It is. You have a
page uh page 1105. See, I never got that far. Future land use 1.1 criteria F, page 1105. Uh, in the past we have used BDPs to establish concurrency between zoning and
land use. And if I understand what this means is that now the applicant applicant is going to have to request a change to both zoning and land use. Is that correct?
Policy 1.5 policy 1.1 criteria F page 1105. Oh, okay. So, I I think there's just a misunderstanding. Um, so it says policies, just so everybody's on the same page, policies established and
specialized plans, including bind binding development plans as may be adopted by the board and county commissioners. And there's some new language, binding development plans shall not be used to used to establish consistency between future land use map designations and zoning class
specifications. So I think you're talking about more of use consistency. This is talking about there's actual chart in our code says, you know, for example, res 4 is consistent with exoning commercial community commercial. Yeah. Yes, one of our applicants has done it at least twice that I can
remember of using a BDP to say, "Okay, I'm going to it's got I'm not going to change the land use, but I'm going to use the BDP to restrict the number of housings so that it meets the zoning requirement." And then and and then we
said, "Okay, that's fine. Now, with this, we're we're not going to be able to do that. And that person's going to have to come in and do a land use change and a zoning change, right? They need to establish consistency between a zoning map and the future land. I just wanted
to clarify that should be done for pres for for multiple reasons, but we right. I wanted to understand I I understood what that meant. My comment was on the PUD, not on the BD. Yeah. If I can get back to that just just so there's there's a I'm going to
say a separate separate project from this going on. Um the board quite a while ago um issued legislative intent permission advertise for us to to look at amending the PUD code. And one of the things we were we are looking at is
making a uniform PUD and get getting perhaps removing the residential PUD and just making a single P uniform PD classification. that would be in the cars. We we that would be after this project. Okay. So, but that is something we're looking at. Yes. All right. I
appreciate it. My my next question is is um Merit Island considered a barrier island. It is, but I would say depending on the context, yes, 100%. 100%. Okay. Um because I'm looking at the affordable
housing ordinance. We have uh Wanita and Allan here and they've just been sitting through all this. Um damus the um no density bonuses on barrier islands which means that
um the affordable housing ordinances will prohibit any density bonus on Merit Island. Is that correct being a barrier island? are can um I I really want to look at
the context and give give me time to get get back with a specific answer. Okay. Um because it is considered a barrier island in certain context for sure. I but I want to make sure it's not speaking to the barrier islands along the beach in that context. So just for
example in Myra there's d specific density bonuses given in the redevelopment area for example, right? All right. So, I just I need to I will get I can get back to you with that answer. Okay. Thank you. Is affordable housing allowed on any of
the barrier islands? Well, per if you're talking about like live local, for example, we're preempted. So, um if they have commercial land use and they can meet every other all the other regulations, then yes, they they certainly can. But that's a big if. I mean they have to they have to meet all
the all the applicable regulations. The only thing they get preempted is zoning and and land use dens and um certain parking requirements and height restrictions and things like that. But assuming they could meet all of those criteria that could be done. Yes. But it wouldn't be the highest and best use of
the land. Depending on situation probably not. Okay. One other question I have. Um, if a developer has been granted variances on height on their on their construction,
um, can that height be used within a half a mile for another developer to take it? I believe that was addressed in the last update to the legislation. I would want to double check to make sure to give you the right answer, but I believe that was made clear that that could that would
not be used. But I would really want to check to make sure I'm right about that. But I think that was part of the glitch bill the last time around. Okay. If you could look into that, please, it'd be very helpful. Okay. Can I ask one more question? Are you done, John,
for now? No, you're not. Yes, Miss Ruth. What um it it some of the small area studies are included into the comp plan. What is the criteria that puts them in there?
Generally speaking, that's just the board direction at the time that the the small area study was um implemented and brought to the board. So that's a board decision on what if any recommendations are carried over into the comprehensive plan. So I was curious how come the MIM
small area study wasn't included because it was adopted by the board in 2007 and its future land use was transmitted with the comp plan. So it's it was a very it's quite a complex situation. So they adopted certain parts of it. They
adopted the future land use they um certain future land use maps changes that were recommended and not others. What they never did was adopt a text change to the comprehensive plan that would actually adopt certain policies into the comprehensive plan. So I guess
the word adopted it they they adopted certain things and they didn't adopt other things. Well, I thought they adopted the whole plan and then recommended for the future land uses to be transmitted to the state with the comp plan. They they what they wound up actually doing is is adopting certain
future land use map changes, not a text change to the comprehensive plan. So wouldn't those future land use map changes be in there as a part of it if it was transmitted only as to those map change only as to those maps? So, and that's where things get a little
interesting because the tax the reason for that for those future land use map changes were not applied elsewhere through the comprehensive plan. Now the small area study still exists and that can be used for whatever
a board member wants thinks it is appropriate to use it for but it is not actually adopted as a comprehensive plan by uh by reference. Okay, Mr. Chairman, Mr. run uh question on
policy uh future land use 1.2 criteria A and criteria C. Uh what is the word imp what what how do I define the word impact? It for example
it says that the advisory board cannot recommend approval of a project when uh the water or sewer will not be available until uh I mean yeah well we recently approved a project where the water and
sewer wouldn't be available for a year or two and I was wondering and and the reason we did that was because the applicant said they wouldn't they had all this engineering to do And so there wouldn't really be any impact
uh for that time. So it was all right for us to approve it. Uh does this criteria change that ruling or anything? Can you tell me the policy one more time? Say 1.2. Uh yes 1.2 criteria A and
C. Oh, that's the B. That's BBIA. Sorry. 1.2 of of which element? Criteria A and criteria C. I was looking at kind of looking for a definition of
when impact is. Is it when the development is approved by the board or is it when the first construction starts or is it when the first resident moves in? Well, I'd have to I'd want to check first the glossery to make sure that it's not specifically defined there. And
if it's not, generally that would be up to the board to to figure out what that you know that means at the time that they make the decision. Okay. So, we would be able to do again what we did then. So, that shouldn't be a problem. I guess I just I'd want to if I was actually had that in front of you
today, I'd want to check the glossery to make sure. Okay. Okay. And then I had a question on uh future land use 1.2 criteria E on page 1106. And the text kind of didn't make sense
to me. Criteria E says where public water service is not available uh development proposals greater than two years shall be required to connect to a central sewer system. I don't understand the relationship between the
water system not available and having to use a sewer system. I think that that refers to the second part. I think there are two different things within BMAP areas where public sewer service is not available. The
installation of enhanced nutrient on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems is required. I was just wondering if that first sentence should have been deleted because I still don't understand why. We'll look at that, but I I I don't necessarily think it needs to be
deleted, and I something I think it still would apply. For example, if you look up in criteria D right above it, what was changed was public water became public sewer. And I was wondering if in this case, either we want to change public water to
public sewer or else get rid of that sentence entirely. All right. You can take a look at that. Yeah, we'll take a look at Let's see. I had another question. Oh, just for your cl just for uh to
clean stuff up in future land use one page 1104 there's a list of criteria. It goes item F is missing. So, I don't know if you just need to renumber that. Did you say future land use 1.11? Which
policy? Future land use 1, page 1104. We'll go we'll take a look at it. Okay. And then in future land use administrative policy too, uh, it gets rid of using photographs, aerial
photographs. And it seems to me that aerial photographs help this board understand the project that's being developed and where it's being developed. So, I'd like to see us continue to use aerial photographs. And obviously we we there's live imagery
that is available today, you know, from a variety of sources. So I think that's the main reason why that was removed. Where was that Ron? Administrative policy 2, criteria B. What page? Page 1100.
Thank you. And then uh I have a have a favorite criticism which I hear all the time. people confusing number with amount and in policy CM8.3
criteria B on page 1069 uh we used uh the term volume of people are not measured by volume they're discrete entities so please change that to number of people noted
and I had one other general comment. Well, I'd already talked about the word use for the word shall and should and uh I was looking at the historic preservation element and found that there was no changes in that no changes for seven years.
Uh and one of the policies at HP 2.1 says the county should facilitate adoption of a historic preservation ordinance. So, we haven't been able to do that in seven years. So, my my I what I'm telling you is that
that's a perfect example of why should should not be used in ordinances in policies. There's no commitment to doing anything. And my suspicion is if we looked the previous seven-year cycle, we might even
find that that's been in there for those seven years as well. I'd recommend just chang take taking that policy out and deleting it. We're not going to do it. Why have it in there? We we do have a historical preservation ordinance.
Then why do we are we saying we should have one? If we got if we if if we if we met that why is it still in there and saying we should develop one? Um just as of a procedural matter, the ear is designed to update us and to be
in compliance with state statute. So there was no need to amend that section to be in compliance with state statute. Nevertheless, you know, as Trina showed up in the slide earlier, should has a specific meaning. Does it mean the same as shall? No. But it does actually have
a meaning particularly to staff. So you know, we do take it seriously. All right, that's all I've got. Thank you. Any more? I'm sorry. Were you gonna say something? Oh, no.
Ruth, you good? As good as I can be. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Ron. That's fine. Well, that's all I got. We missed you, Ron. Thank you. Appreciate that. John, I'm good. Erica,
I am really good. You know, I might suggest that we break this up into a couple of sessions next time rather than one just to just if anybody wants an opinion because it was a lot of reading, right? And it's a lot to retain and understand to you know, so a whole lot.
Thank you. And again, throughout all the conversation, I'm going to back what Henry said. Staff, excellent job. Excellent job. I need a motion for item H12.
I make a motion to accept item H12. A second. Item H12. Got a motion by Erica, a second by Rob. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Was that you, Ruth? That was me. We have
one oppose. That motion that passed. And Mr. Minibu, I did not remember you at the beginning of the meeting, but you had some things to say. I just going to welcome uh Ron back. It's uh you were gone for a little while and you came
back and uh we lost uh Brian Hodgeges. He was a good member here, but he's moved on to bigger and better things, I guess. State representative now, I think. So, anyway, and we've got a couple new Yeah. board
members back there. Mr. Eric and Greg, is it Thank you. Glad to be here. Please come back to the next meeting. Mr. Chair, we have a special I I wanted to also um say for those members who
knew Jack Rderman, uh we received word that he passed away. So, just wanted to acknowledge his service to the county and the time he put in um with his civic duties.
All right. Thank you, Miss Dina. All right. If there's nothing else, we say meeting adjourned. Yeah, we have them. Didn't work. It It's in our packet. 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.