Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Okay, if everyone would please stand and Mr. Neil, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please? 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. >> This is the planning and zoning board. It's a local planning agency is an
advisory board which make recommendations to the county commissioners who will make the final decision on all these items. Items H3H6 or LPA items. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission
on July 9th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. 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 the record.
Speakers for public comments on agenda items will be given two minutes. Please spell your last name when you come to the podium for the record. At this time, if any board member has had any exparte communication regarding any application,
please disclose so now. Okay. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board for a motion for the approval of the PNZ minutes from April 20th, 2026. >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> Second. >> Got a motion by Debbie, a second by
Erica. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> That passed unanimously. Okay. Item H1 H1 Sunshine State Wildlife Conservation and Bernard Egan and Company Ralph Brown
representing request a CP for land alteration in AU and GU zone 25Z 00061 district 5. >> Is the applicant here? Yes, >> sir. If you could come up to the podium,
state your name and address and spell your last name for the record. >> Okay. The name is Ralph Brown. B R O WN. My address is 3231 Northwest 3231 Buckingham Lane, Coco, Florida. >> And a little bit about what you're
wanting to do. >> Okay. My name I am a engineer and I'm a general manager for Bluegill Construction. to the microphone, please. >> Blue Goose Construction has a mine that's at the south end of Babcock Street next to the C-54 Canal called the Sunshine State Mine. Uh we've already
completed basically two phases of that mine and we're in for the third phase of that mine, which is about 180 acres. Um access will be off of Babcock to an existing driveway that went through phase one and through phase two to the
phase three. So, there's no new road connections. It's basically just expanding on the mining that we've been doing for the last six years. >> Okay. While you're right there, sir, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item?
That's a very good sign. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? >> I have a curious question. You said you've been completed phase one and phase two. This is phase three. How many phases are there?
>> Three is this is going to be the last phase. >> This [clears throat] is the last phase. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I guess one more if I could. >> Yes, Ruth. Go ahead. Um, in reading the the report,
the wetlands are going to be retained and I believe there's a buffer area for the wetlands. Um, but when you create the mines next to it, that does that not draw the water away from the wetlands over time? I was just curious about that.
>> It will if you don't take measures to stop it. So there's between 100 and 180 foot buffer between the wetlands and the top of the the lakes the the pits. Um and we have recharge ditches located between the um
the lakes and the wetlands. So the purpose of the recharge ditches is to pump your water in there and then that goes into the groundwater table and >> and it feeds them >> keeps the ground keeps the ground water from being lowered in the wetlands. >> Okay. >> And we have a district we have the St. John's River Water Management District permits, which that was one of the main
things that they looked at. Um, we've got both of their permits. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> Got a motion by Deb, a second by Neil. All those in favor say I.
>> Discussion, please. >> We've already made the motion. >> I Yeah, you can have a discussion after the motion. Discuss. We can do that after the motion. >> You can do that after the motion without it being approved. >> That's what I just said. >> We can do that after the motion. >> You've already made the motion and you
have a second, >> right? >> Go ahead. >> Okay. My question is who's Blue Goose? [snorts] >> Uh Blue Goose Construction is a uh construction company. Um the main office is based out of Fort Pierce.
They're owned by the Bernard Egan company which is a big agricultural company. So um you know a lot of the work is on is doing agriculture but we also have a mine in Vero Beach and one in Bvard County the Sunshine State Mine.
>> Okay. You have in these documents that they did the wetland survey. >> Well the wetland survey was done by a consultant that we hired. He flagged the wetlands and then we surveyed it in and it was approved by the water
management district. >> Okay. I was just concerned because the um it might have been a conflict if you do your own survey for wetlands and pushed it through as if it was a separate entity that did it.
>> No, we hired a a consultant who is a wetland expert who actually used to work for the water management district. went out and flagged the wetlands and then the district goes out and looks at the flags and confirms that they're in the right location. >> Okay. Yes. >> Because on the documents here it has
them as the engineer. It's uh Blue Goose Design and I can't even read this >> survey and design. Thank you. >> One plane report. >> It's a related company to Blue Goose Construction >> related to your company. >> Yes. So to do engineering or survey
work, you have to be in a licensed company to do that work. That's the company. >> I just wanted to make sure that they wasn't your company doing its own survey and and having that on record uh without somebody as a third party independent. >> That's why I'm asking.
>> As far as the wetlands go, they were confirmed by the St. John's River Water Management District. >> Okay. >> And a consultant that doesn't work for us actually. >> That's the hardest permit to get right there. The St. John's permit. >> Yeah. Uh the other thing is um
do you test for toxins and the materials that you use that you draw out of that area? >> Well, there's been testing done in the past. There's never been any toxins in the material that we've ever found. This is a third phase. So >> Okay. >> Um
>> I mean because you're you you're doing beach replenishment and stuff with the material. >> No, we don't do any beach replenishment. So we basically sell fill material and we sell FDOT road base, you know, the material that goes under roads, >> right? >> We do sell some rock aggregates,
>> but we're not we don't do beach sand. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Okay. Item H1. We had a motion by Deb, a second by Neil. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? That passed unanimously. >> Thank you. Good luck at the county
commissioner meeting. That was a surprise. >> Okay. Item H2. Item H2. Underwoods Equipment Repair LLC. Kimra Zena representing requests of zoning classification change from BU2
with a binding development plan to BU2 with removal of the binding development plan. 26Z0000006, District 2. You know the drill, Miss Kim, if you could state your name and address island. I apologize.
>> They recommended uh they recommended um B1 with uh a binding development plan for the specific use. >> Okay. >> You could state your name and address, spell your last name for the record. >> It's up there.
>> There you go. Uh good afternoon, Chairman Wsworth, members of the planning and zoning board. My name is Kim Rosena, uh Melbourne, Florida, law firm of Lacy Rosenka. I'm here on behalf of Underwood's Equipment Repair LLC. With me somewhere in here is Jimmy Underwood in case you have any questions of what
he intends to do. Uh essentially, uh Mr. Underwood bought this property that had the BDP, but it's not in his title paperwork. So, he did not know there was this BDP there. So, his intent was to take his mobile repair shop and put it
on this property and also too he'll have extra space. So, he was going to do boats and RVs and things like that. So, he needs BU2 zoning for that. Um, I believe you have in front of you the packet that I gave to North Island. Um, and the purpose of that was to show you the area. You all might not know what
the area is. U, the, uh, first page is John Ramsey's Alignment Service. It's an automotive repair place. It's immediately to the south of this property on Courtney. Page two of the property is uh Mr. Ramsay's property and it shows that it's used for a multitude
of things including boats, storage, container, all kinds of things. And that's actually in BU1. To the east of this property is Black's um property owned by Black's Lawnspaying, which they're using for outdoor storage of their trucks. Uh further to the north on
the east side is Midtown. Used to be Galaxy, now it's a liquor store. And to the north of that is a um working bu uh business called Space Shirts. Page five is actually property to the south of East Crystal Fully Road on the
east side owned by Mr. Row and I'm not exactly sure what he's storing there, but it doesn't look like it's properly zoned. Um, page six of the pro uh, packet is the zoning category and there's quite a bit of BU2. I know it's
stated in the staff report that these all have BDPs. They're not of record. We don't know their BDP state, but this is a BU2 zoning uh, that we have. It has a BDP with limitations. We're asking for that to be removed. There was comments
about um there might be more intensive BU2 uses if we remove this BDP, but there are BU2 uses all up and down this corridor. It is in fact a commercial corridor. There was a study done in 2005, the North Courtney Parkway corridor study. That's page seven, the
remaining package of the packet. Eight was the area studied. Number nine talks about the majority of the frontage are either neighborhood commercial, community commercial. Intensity of the development along North Kartney are defined by the uses permitted within NCC.
Page 10. Presently the BU2 zoning classification permits the outdoor storage of retail items such as motor vehicles, utility sheds, and nursery items. So that is what he intends to do. His main intent is to move his repair business there. Right now he's a mobile repair as I mentioned. So we'd like to
have the B but remove BU the BDP removed. So, it's just B but zoning. And I know we don't like BDPS. I've heard that over and over again because they get removed. Comments from made, oh, well, you know, they're not really binding. Well, zoning is not really binding if you show a need for the
change in the zoning. Um, this is vacant land. It's been vacant since this forever. And, uh, so he'd like to use this property. Again, bought it without knowing a BDP was on it. Um, we're looking into that. There may be a title claim. We don't know. But right now, he's just asking. he doesn't have a real
objection to a new BDP, but it they really don't make sense when they're not showing up in your title search. And also, um the BDPs are are becoming disfavored for what I hear. Um and also too, it takes an extra 60 days to make the zoning final when you do a BDP. Um he's not in a huge hurry,
but it's just another step in the process that should be unnecessary when this is a commercial corridor. Uh looking at the zoning history, this used to be industrial in 1962. It's had changes, administrative changes. Uh my client Jimmy purchased the property in
2024. The staff reports this uh removal of the BDP. Uh this development will not cause a deficiency in the level of service for roads or solid waste. It will be required to comply with the enhanced compensatory storage requirements uh
that we've talked about many times here. Property must comply with performance standards, must be enclosed with a six- foot wall or fence, and the staff report says there are no material violations of relevant policies of the comprehensive plan. So, we request removal of the BDP
so the property will finally be developed in this commercial quarter. And again, I can answer questions or Mr. Underwood can answer questions. >> Well, while you're here, Miss Rosena, I'll bring it back to the board. Let if we have any questions or let's go ahead
and address those now with her. >> I have a question probably for staff because it does say that um most of the properties that are zon BU2 do have BDPS on them, right? So then and and I know that they're difficult to find and
whatnot, but if they do have BDPS on them, how can we find that? Because it is the most intense commercial zoning there is and we may not want to open it up for that if every other property has
a BDP on it or most of them do. So, >> so in the staff report in the background, we note that there is a BDP BDP, excuse me, on the property. I believe it's to the north, which is also owned by the applicant. And there's a BDP across the street on three parcels.
Um, and we actually note what that BDP states um for the parcels across the street. Um, so they're limited. They exclude things like cemeteries, mausoleiums, crematoriums, uh railroad motor trucks, uh water freight, um
testing labs, recovered materials, seafood processing, um dry dry cleaning plants, fertilizer and storage and sales. I kind of skipped around. Um so that is noted in the staff report. And again, staff also notes that effectively
the corridor operates as BU1 with lower intensity uses because of that. >> And so I guess that would be my concern and and I don't know if that'd be something that you all would be willing to, you know, it says you you talked
about having this new BDP put on there. Um it's just a concern that I have. Well, and again, there's only two BDPs listed in here. So, there are other BU2 zoning in this corridor that we don't know what they're limited to there. There's I mean, you know what he's
intending to do. If you want a BDP, he's willing to do it. It just takes an extra 60 days and he didn't know there was one on it. So, that's that's the issue. Okay. >> Mr. Neil, did you have something? Jared? Oh, I was just going to ask if equipment
repair that's like tractors and hydraulic things like that. That was my assumption, right? >> Yes, sir. >> So, it seems fit next door at the mechanic shop anyway, but uh I would make a motion, but we haven't heard if there's any public comment yet. So, >> I would wait. >> I haven't done that yet. I was getting rid of the board question. Do you have
something, John? >> No, I'm not. >> All right, Kim, while you're there, hold on one second. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? >> Yes. Okay, sir and ma'am, we'll let the ladies go first. If you
want to come up, state your name and address and spell your last name for the record. And if you could, ma'am, get us close to the mic so we could hear you. >> Good afternoon. My name is Rose Plameumber, Plum MER. I am here
representing the North Merit Island Homeowners Association. The binding development plan governing this property was deliberately established to preserve the integrity of the corridor and to prevent the full
intensity of the BU2 designation from being exercised at this location. It represents a negotiated commitment made to the community and adopted to ensure predictable compatible development. Despite what Miss Rosena says, this
corridor contains a mixture of residential and commercial uses with hundreds of residential properties located along State Road 3 corridor, including properties ada adjacent to the subject site. Removing this BDP would
have a substantial and lasting impact surrounding on the surrounding area by opening the property to the full range of uses permitted under BU2 zoning. In doing so, it would weaken the protections that nearby residents and
prior decision makers making bodies deci prior decision-making bodies relied upon when this development framework was established. More importantly, approval of this request could set an undesirable precedent by
suggesting that binding development plans which are intended to be durable, enforcable, and central to responsible land use planning may be removed at the discretion of future applicants or commissions.
Such an action would undermine public confidence in the planning process and reduce the reliability of a tool used to guide consistent long-term development decisions. And although Mr. Underwood plans to use
it for a particular purpose, if the binding development plan is removed, >> it will it will stop. >> Thank you, ma'am. I may I ask a follow-up question, Tur, real quick? Yes. >> So, you're here on behalf of North
Merida. >> Do they have a um an opposition to the use that >> Hold on one second, please. Jared, ma'am, could you come back so we could get your voice on record? >> Yes, sir. >> Do they Thanks. Sorry. Do they have an
opposition to a repair shop or is there opposition to what else could be there in the event that the BDP was stripped off? So, at the uh North Merit Island District Board last Thursday, the recommendation was made that the binding
development plan stay with an additional binding development plan added to have language that would say he would only use it for the RV storage or um boat storage and that small shop that he
wanted. And so, but other than that, the Merit Island adviser Island Homeowners Association would recommend denial, but with an additional binding development plan that stated that, I believe that we would be in support of it. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Sir, if you could come up and if you would state your name and address, spell your last name, please. >> Sure. Uh, my name is Duke Wyn. Last name is uh NG UN.
I'm owner of adjacent property. Uh address at 110 East Christophy Road. Um uh I I hear some graph here. Do Am I allowed to pass to you? >> Well, you need to direct that to the staff first.
>> Okay. reason I want to pass that so I can have a good reference to it. So basically my my property uh I bought my property over 30 years ago and eventually I built a house on that. Um and basically my
property and and the subject properties is only 50 ft apart more or less. Okay. Um uh and we build house there. We raise kid there and same thing with the um well my property on the east side of it
and same thing with the my next door neighbor with on the north side of it which also adjacent to this property. She she can come today because she she had babies. So she she asked me to see if we I can speak for her too. So anyway
um my my point is um I bought the properties build a house or not with the assurance we had some kind of restriction surrounding um and it's doing good for the last 30 years over 30 years and uh so I I I need
to protect my property too. So, so I I I would like to ask the board to keep the BTPSS. Uh don't don't change anything because when I bought my property, I did my homework. I did the survey. I I I did the study and make sure every is protect
some degree and this is county land. So, not whole lot of protection as far as restriction thing. So um um I I I need to you know to uh to um to protect you know make sure whatever they do on their
property don't devalue my property and and and also my my my opinion is people come and go you know the land can be sold too. So if you drop this BDP I don't know what the next owner come in what they going to do with it. So >> okay
>> okay that that's all. Thank you very much. One question for him too if I might. Did you hear the question that I asked her before >> about >> about if if the B if if a BDP were in place on that property that allows
everything as it is currently with the addition of his shop and a storage would you be opposed to that? Um I don't know all the details but uh I I guess I uh you know with the current BDP we have
to abide to it. Okay. So I and I I still not clear what exactly what you're going to do and and with my property and that's probably right now look right through it 50 ft away just divide by little small pond and the driveway. Okay. >> All right. Thank you sir.
>> Thank you very much >> Mr. Chairman. Sir, >> sir, one second. [clears throat] >> You um do you have the lot there with the mango trees on? >> Yes, that that's my property. >> I just verifying where you were. >> Yes, I know that on the east side of the property.
>> No, it will. >> Yeah. >> Is that a question? Thanks. >> Anyone else in the audience want to speak for or against this item? >> Ma'am, if you could come up. Yeah, I think so, too. >> And here again, if you could state your
name and address and spell your last name for the record. >> I'll try. Mary Hillberg. Um, last name is H I L L B E R G 3780 Sierra Drive in Merit Island. Um I'm on the U North Merid Island Special Advisory Board for
zoning and this item came up and we uh discussed it at length and uh um agree with the staff's recommendations as well that the um uh current uh limitations on
the BD2 uses be left there and and the um applicant be allowed to have his storage for RV and for um equipment there and then he be allowed to also have his shop for repairs. >> So, we're trying to be compatible with
everybody and and uh but we want to keep protecting our other um residents as well. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Any questions? >> No. >> Board, do we have any questions for her? >> Question. >> Well, she already answered the one I
would ask, so that's >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to speak for against this item? >> Sir, if you could state your name and address and spell your last name for the record.
>> My name is Jimmy Underwood at 1850 Harley Place. I am the owner of this property. Um, wife and I bought it to expand my business. I'm fully mobile right now. I want to put a small shop on there to help offset some cost and have
the room. I was wanting to do RV boats with the way that things are building cuz growth is inevitable. It's come it's coming. You know, there's going to be houses. HOAs don't allow your boat or your RV to be in the driveway. So, I'm
trying to utilize my land also to help them also to help me. Um, I'm not looking. I grew up in North Merid Island. I don't want to make anybody any of my neighbors mad. That's why I'm trying to go through this
all the right way. Um, everything I'm doing, there's nothing. I would I originally wanted the BDP gone totally as we discussed in our other hearing, adding the
addition to the BDP to allow for the outside storage, you know, plus my my uh small work area. You know, I'm not opposed to that. You know, I don't it's just growth's going to happen. I'm not
doing anything to hurt anybody around me, >> right? So that's >> all right. While you're there, board, we got any questions for Mr. Neil? >> Yeah, just a clarification. So the BDP as it sits would allow you to have the
shop but not the storage? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So all you're asking is to be allowed to have the storage as well. to my knowledge because I think that's the only thing I've seen difference between BU1 and BU2 other than some other
as they said the seafood processing plants the crematory all that but I right now as a BU1 if they're really worried about it I could go and put as many mini storage units on there because it's allowed >> yeah I was just trying to clarify
between what is there what you have now and what you're trying to get and maybe uh Miss Rosena can clarify that for us. >> So, it's not RV storage and body disposal. >> No, [laughter] not
>> I'm sorry, sir. It's his first day. >> It's okay. [laughter] >> I actually enjoyed that. >> Thank you. >> We need to lighten this room up some. Trust me. Miss Razinka, >> could we clarify a little please? Ma'am,
>> I believe the uh repair would be heavy industrial would be a BU2, not heavy industrial be heavy vehicle repair, which would be a BU2U. So, we would need to be in the BDP as well. Uh the BDP currently covers two properties. he only owns one of them and it has a provision
that you can only have one access which is problematic when you have two separate owners at this point. That's another reason we need this removed. If you want a completely new BD BDP that's fine. You can specify the criteria. Um I would suggest though that this is a
heavy commercial um area. I mean you can see it by the character of what the pictures I've shown you. There are no in this area shown by the report that the staff chose for you. There's no nothing but BU1 and
BU2 uses. There's no agricultural adjacent to State Road 3. Uh again, this property hasn't been developed. That means the restrictions on it haven't allowed it to develop. Um
the gentleman who lives to the east, he's got two 25- foot flag stems between him and the property. There's a 20 foot setback with an opaque buffer that will be on this side on on uh Mr. Underwood's property. So, there is
uh some distance between them. I mean, he bought the property next to BU2 that was supposed to have mini storage, but again, this you've seen by the pictures, this appears to be outdoor storage heaven and may not be zoned properly as it was mentioned at North Island. Perhaps code enforcement should come out
there but this is the existing character of the area. So and again the change of conditions BU2 whatever goes there they still have to have performance standards. They can't vilate noise odor vibrations
lighting. So BU2 is BU2. I can't imagine a crematorium going here. I don't think it's big enough for a seafood place. I do like the body of disposal. I thought that was very clever. >> So But if you if you do want a new BDP, again, I would submit one's not
necessary. He wants to be a good neighbor. He said that to you. But please specify the conditions. Remove this one and add new conditions >> because the new one is a mess. >> Question for you while you're there. I don't know. I'm not an attorney. You are
staff. I don't know. Can we do the BU2 but limit? >> Yes. >> Without a BDP? >> No. You have to limit by Well, other jurisdictions do conditional zoning ordinances and resolutions. This one does not. So, you would need a BDP,
>> but but I know Mr. Prasad wants to get rid of BDPS. So, >> can I ask a question follow? >> We can in one motion though remove a current BDP and add a new one. Correct. >> In one motion. The qu the question was can we can we
remove a BDP and add a new one in one motion or does it take two motions >> you can do it in one motion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I'm waiting. >> All right. I'll do it. Okay. uh motion to recommend approval with a uh removal
of the BDP and the addition of a BDP that has language that allows the current uses but also allows RV and boat storage and equipment repair. >> Second, >> well, let me ask. >> Okay.
>> Question. >> Can you turn your microphone on, please, sir? Can you turn your microphone on, please, sir? Okay, >> it's off. >> Uh, should the BDP also allow for two
entrances? I thought I understood that the current BDP only allowed one entrance. >> If you remove the existing BDP, that condition will go away. >> I see. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Okay. I had a motion by Jared, a second
by who? I didn't. >> Mr. Chair, >> I'm sorry. >> Can um Mr. Jared restate his motion to state specifically to allow BU1 uses and
retain BU2 use of outdoor storage and equipment repair and the entrance. >> Oh my. You say is what [laughter] >> I can do that what what you said. Yes. [laughter]
>> The BDP to allow BU1 uses and RV and boat storage and heavy equipment repair. >> Entrance. >> And >> why do we need a second? >> And and No, they were trying to help you out.
>> Yeah, don't do that. and remove the requirement for the second entrance. Oh my. >> Is this okay? >> I'll just let Ron do the BDP ones for now. >> I thought the removal of the second entrance went away with the removal of
the first BDP. >> Question. >> Question. Um, this is Trina. This is currently a BU2. You're changing it to BU1 now. >> No, we're leaving it BU2. Well, his motion said and which you restated
>> it is a BDP to retain all BU1 uses and retain the BU2 use of outdoor storage um and um heavy uh equipment repair. >> Isn't that kind of backward? Wouldn't it be easier just to make it BU2 with a
binding development agreement to red to minimalize it to the mini storage and the and the repair [cough] >> already being >> I know that's why I'm saying she's treating it as a BU1 >> no >> with BU1 rules that's why I wanted to
correct that >> no so the BDP being proposed is to include all BU1 uses plus those BU2 specified uses that Understood. But under the BU2 rules, >> it has nothing to do with a BU1.
BU2 has its own separate list >> until you put a BDP on it, taking all that away except >> that's what I'm saying. Hang on, Derek. >> That's that's what the motion is. >> And I understand that, but is that correct in doing it that way? Sure. or should it just be a change or
restriction on the BU2 rules rather than stating that it's they have all the BU1 rules which has nothing to do with the BU2. You understand what I'm getting at here? >> I understand what you're saying. We we just want to make sure we're retaining BU1 uses and we're retaining the BU2 use
of the outdoor storage and equipment repair. >> Okay. Just doesn't seem right >> like what you're saying. to go list everything you're taking away. All we're doing is listing a couple things. But you're taking it down. >> Are we clear, staff?
>> Okay. We had a motion by Jared, a second by Neil. >> And I'll clarify that my second was as his motion was just stated. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> That pass unanimously.
I'm almost afraid to say this. [snorts] Item H3. applications. However, you're going to need a separate separate motion. Item H3, Defender Homes Airway Heights LLC being represented by Kim Rosena. Request
a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment under 26S.02 to change the future land use designation from REZ 4 to RES 6 under application 26S002 located in district 5. H4 Defender Homes
Airway Heights LLC being represented by Kim Rosena request a zoning classification change from RR-1 to RU-2 under application 26Z 0008
located in district 5. Is this the new one? Good evening, chairman, members of Planning and Zoning Commission, LPA. My name is Kim Rosena here on behalf of Defender Home Airway Heights LLC. Uh
with me today is Jake Wise, the engineer of record. Um I wanted to let you know that we have heard the neighbors. We have read all the comments and we are withdrawing H3. We're no longer seeking a change of the future language. [cheering]
Thank you. [applause] >> Can I go on record saying that's never happened before? >> What? PE people cheering for me? >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay. So, if we can move to H4. [clears throat] >> So, Kim, correct me. We're only We only
got a zoning issue now. >> Yes, sir. That is >> and that's going to get better too. >> This is so much easier now. >> Well, I hope so. So, um we have again listened to the neighbors for the reasoning uh 26Z00008 and we are amending the application from
RU26 to RU11. So, that will allow 7500 square foot lots or larger. This is a constrained site, so we're not sure how many exactly we can get on there. So that will change it to purely single family residential
subdivision. >> Perfect. >> So uh again please everyone if we could. It's hard enough to hear again. Um, we have with us Jake Wise, who is going to address the utilities, the flood zone, and other site plan and
plat issues that really aren't before you, but they've been raised numerous times. So, he has a few things that he will discuss. Um, I wanted to discuss the reasonzoning criteria. Many of the comments in uh from the public indicate
that we should be doing full-blown wetland studies and full-blown drainage studies and things like that. The uh requirements of a zoning application are found in 621151. The name of the owner, the written consent of the owner, the legal
description of the property, the current zoning classification, the requested zoning classification, and a recorded warranty deed. That's all that's required for this application. And that's what been submitted. What you are to consider
also in 62-1151C is the character of the use the character of the land use of the property surrounding the property which is single family residential or mobile home park. The change in conditions of the land of the property be considered and the surrounding property since the
establishment of the current zoning classification. This zoning classification is RR1. It was used apparently for a radio station which has been defunct for many many years. So it's now a non-used property with RR1
also has wetlands on it which will have some issues but that's a site plan issue with the wetlands determination. character uh criteria three, the impact of proposed zoning on available and protected projected traffic patterns, water and sewer systems, other public
facilities and utilities, and the established character of the surrounding property. Staff report says the surrounding property is mostly single family residential. But if you look at that last page that I gave you that shows the full area, page seven,
there are four mobile home parks near this property. There's one immediately to the east. Uh there's one further east of that. There's two or three to the south. I think there's three. And then you do have single family to the north
of um larger size. to the south, even further south across Aurora, you have RU17, which is 5,000 square foot lots. And then you have Fox [clears throat] Bay to the to the east. Yes. Yes. To the east. I know that was brought up. To the west
are the mobile home parks. And uh so this is a single family residential area with mobile home park surrounding to the south and west. the compatibility of the Brazo zoning classification on the conditional use or
conditional use with existing land use plans for the affected area. This is residential four. Maximum use can be four units of the acre. That is what we're proposing. So, we can have some flexibility with the size of the lots at 7500. Some will likely be larger, but
they cannot be any smaller than 7500. The homes to the east in Fox Bay according to staff report range anywhere from 0.15 acres to.33 acres. So they're of similar size.
The appropriateness of the proposed zoning classification based upon a consider consideration of the conditions contained in this article and other laws la health public health safety and welfare. So again all we're here is for resoning. We're not here for site plan. I'm not here for platting. Everything
that has to be done will do be done by the staff. Uh also look at the comprehensive plan and its policies which your staff report has done and has said there's no material violation of relevant policies that have been identified. Want to talk about the complaints by the neighbors. Um most of
them are the same. Most of the letters are identical if you've read them. Uh the zoning we're requesting is single family. It was single family before, but now it's single family detached subdivision, 7500 foot lots. It's similar in size of the subdivision
uh to the east. Uh they are larger lots than the TR3 mobile home park to the west to the TR1A mobile home park to the south or the RU17 south across Aurora Road. [clears throat] Regarding traffic
and safety, the staff report has stated uh that previously for the possible 86 units, now the maximum units would be 57. But even for the 86 units, the staff report says that the corridor is anticipated to operate within maximum
acceptable volume, still only at 28.66% of capacity, and that specific concurrency issues will be addressed at the time of the site plan review. Also at the time of site plan review, the county may require dedication of rightaway, may require turn lanes, may
require analysis of the intersections, whether the stop signs that people complain about are acceptable. So those are all things that will be done at the site plan stage, actually platting stage. The other concern is drainage, wetlands, and flooding. Staff identified the wetlands, which will be addressed during
planning of the site and will likely reduce the units. All storm water and drainage issues will also be addressed at site plan and platting. All water that currently drains to the site has to be maintained on the site. As you know, postdevelopment runoff cannot exceed
pre-development runoff and that's something staff is very good about. Several neighbors cited 62-3724 which are development regulations for flood plane. I have put that in your packet.
Page five and page six. Um, page six is the first page of 623724. It goes into estrine and riverine and all those things that make your eyes roll back in your head. But no one's addressed that in any of these comments.
They've decided to this and said we have to meet with them. We have to meet these. We do at platting stage, not now at zoning. But if you looked to page five, which is what starts this whole section, article 5, division five, article 10, division five, flood plane
protection, section 62-3723, general provisions, site plans, subdivisions, building permits, and other active development orders. This is not a devel a development order. It's not an active development order. This is a reasonzoning
school capacity. According to the April 21st, 2026 school district capacity determination CD 2026-06, the 86 units previously sought, now down to 57, [clears throat] that there were sufficient capacity in
the elementary, middle school, and high school for this area. So, school capacity is a non-issue. Property values was also a concern raised. There is a speculative statement in all of these emails that the proposed reasonzoning and resulting development will negatively impact the property
value of surrounding residential. The form letters claimed that the individuals made investments based upon the established rural residential character. This is not an established rural residential character. When you have five mobile home parks in a subdivision to the east of from 0.15
to.33 acres, that is not rural residential. In fact, um the beginning the uh the criteria for RU 1111 on page three says this is single family zoning classifications
devoted to single family residential development of spacious character. That's the same language used in RR1 zoning as well. Again, the compatibility for RU11 is apparent just looking at the map.
The Fox Bay subdivision to the east is on 17.754 acres with 46 lots ranging in size from.15 acres to 33. The Village Glen Mobile Home Park to the west is 27.2 two acres with 143 units average over five
units to the acre. Uh the TR3 zoning only requires mobile home sites of 4,000 square feet. There's also uh I don't know if you've received it, but we found on Facebook that the city of Melbourne is objecting to this based upon utilities and
[applause] and I believe I believe Miss Sanders is here to talk about it um as Jake will talk about it here shortly. Um we received it from Facebook. I don't know if you all have it or not, but this is not a zoning issue but a platting issue. We have not asked for utilities yet. We
know it's available, but we could do quarter acre lots and we could do septic tanks once the moratorans removed. So that is a platting issue. It is not a zoning issue. You're to look at the compatibility and whether this makes sense in this location. Uh the fact that
it's a vacant site, I don't know what's on it, but it it's probably um a derelic site and we would ask that you consider the reasoning >> everybody please. Okay. Thank [clears throat] you. to RU 111.
Um, also we are not within the city of Melbourne. We are not contiguous to the city of Melbourne. We cannot annex into the city of Melbourne at this time. U, with that, I would bring up Jake Wise and ask him to talk to discuss the storm water and the uh, special flood zone.
[clears throat and cough] >> Mr. Jake, you know the drill. >> I do. Thank you. Uh Jake Wise, civil engineer for the project. Last name is Wis. Business address is 2651 West Ogalli Boulevard. Uh just like Mr. Rosen said, we don't normally dive this deep
at just a resoning. Um but just to reiterate, we're not asking for any change in the density. No land use change at all. Just um bringing the zoning change. Uh the property uh on Turtle Mountain Road. I used to live on Turtle Mountain Road. I used to drive past here multiple times a day. We
definitely understand and know the character of this area. Um, it is in flood zone A. Flood zone A just means that there's been no base flood established yet. That is something that we work with staff on during site plan development. I have a project that's
under construction on VR Boulevard right now that we did exactly that. Had flood zone A. We worked with staff established the flood zone and move forward with our site plan. The site also has a nitrogen reduction overlay. That means that there has to be some type of reduced type of
septic treatment whether that is connecting to a municipal system or one of the more higher efficiency uh nitrogen uh type removal systems. Uh again, at site plan is when we uh
dive into water and sewer connections, storm water, uh power, all those types of things that are related to a specific development, which at this time we don't have. Uh we did reach out to the city ourselves um and we did find out that
they had water adjacent to the site, but that their nearest force main, which is where wastewater could connect to, was at capacity. Um, so there's different ways to work around that. Their plant has uh plenty of capacity, but the closest force man just doesn't. So that
is just a factor in uh the site plan when we move forward with that in the future. Um, for storm water, we get this all the time. We cannot exceed, in fact, on most projects, we
decrease the amount of runoff if there's any runoff coming into the site. and we don't even have a full survey yet. We're just asking for zoning, we would anal analyze that at that time. If there's runoff coming into our site, we have to accommodate that runoff. We can't block
it. We can't reroute it. We can't push it back onto somebody else. That's not allowed for a county or state uh regulations at all. In addition, just late last year, Water Management District has changed the way they review storm water treatment and
they also have a significant increase in nitrogen and phosphorus removal. So, that's even further helping to establish that. We do know there are wetlands on the site. We do know with Bard County rules that there are limitations to uh
impacting wetlands. We have to work with the state as well and if they are determined to be federal wetlands we would work with the US Army Corps of Engineers as well. Uh again we're not there yet. We don't have a specific site plan. We try to always do as much preservation and avoidance and
minimization as we can for residential projects. Preservation of wetlands can be a huge benefit. Um [clears throat] and so that's something that we always work work towards first and then look at the rest of the site plan second. Uh, as you heard earlier, um, schools do have
capacity in this area. And as we go through a site plan, once we get to that point, we look at utility concurrency, we'll look at school capacity again, and we'll look at traffic concurrency as well. Um, so that being said, be happy to answer any questions the board may
have, and appreciate a chance to respond to any public comments. >> Jake, I got a question. when [clears throat] you on our early submitt, how many units was that? The very first threshold before you spoke to people and got input from
people. What was the total number? >> The original request was go to four to six units an acre. >> Okay. >> And that's what was withdrawn for item three tonight. >> And you're going to get to 50 some now. >> Um >> I mean it's going to happen around 50. We probably won't get that high because
of the limitations of the site, the character of that zoning we're requesting, and the size of the lot. >> So, it could be 40s. It >> could be. Who knows? >> Yeah, it probably be a lot less. >> Yeah. So, you you didn't you didn't do a
preliminary environmental assessment. I mean, just a broad brush >> just to know that there's wetlands on the site. We haven't done a full Yeah, we haven't done a full survey. We still do a tree survey, elevations, topographic survey. Uh, none of that has been done yet. We're just trying to
establish a zoning >> to make Kim happy. I hope we never have to require that before it comes here. >> Thank you. >> That was a morning, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Neil,
>> so at the zoning of RR1-11, how many units per acre would that work out to be approximately? the land use was still four units per acre. Um, but R1 has different uh zoning requirements on it
and as as I'm sure you're aware used to have a radio tower on it site. >> Any other questions from the board for the engineer? [clears throat] >> I I have one just for the purposes of
calculating. Do you have any idea how much wetlands were on that property acreage? >> I don't know what the total acreage is. I do not. >> Does anyone on the applicants team haven't have a ballpark on that? No. Okay.
>> If J don't have it, they don't know either. >> I thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, I know pretty much everyone in here is wanting to speak about could I see a show of hands or who wants to speak
about this. Now, we can be here till 10:00 at night or I'm more than happy if everyone would listen please. Here we go. We had like 25 30 people raise their hands. So, I'm more than happy to pick
one or two people to go speak for this item and give you 15, 20 minutes each because we don't need to hear it's going to lower our property value, the traffic's going to be a problem, how many wetlands
is on. We're not here for that. We're here for zoning. So, does anyone want to do that or does everyone want to speak? >> [snorts] >> Sir, what did you say? >> Speak to the zoning because all the rest
of it we already know all of these concerns. >> Previous land owner before this person bought it. >> And I'd like to submit a petition for the record. Yes. >> You'll have to see staff over here. [clears throat] Thank you.
>> And that's what everyone's going to be saying. >> May I haven't opened it up for public comment yet. >> Sorry about that. I thought that was that. >> Nice try. [laughter] >> I would like to speak up. Well, I'm going to open we'll open it up
for public comment, but you're going to get two minutes and that's it. And please, if someone has said what you're wanting to say, >> don't we we don't make any money up here doing this. We're just an advisory board for the county commissioners. They're going to make the final decision. And
there's so many things here, like Mr. Jake said, Miss Kim said, they don't even know how many units they can put on this property yet. So, >> hold on a second. They don't have a clue.
>> So, anyhow, I know there's the previous owner sitting back there. He doesn't know neither because it's never been permitted. >> Never been permitted. This is a bigger deal. Bigger deal.
>> So, anyhow, Everyone's got an opinion, ma'am. I I appreciate that. But we're going to I'm going to open it up to the public. We're going to get two minutes and when the bell goes off and if everyone could just funnel down towards this end that wants to speak
and we will go from there. And if everyone please everybody >> if we could be respectful. >> Okay. Ma'am, >> ma'am, you can speak when it's your turn
if you want to come get in line here. And yes, we can do that because we're not we're not going to get into shouting across the audience and everything else. >> All right, ma'am. If you'd state your name and address for the record and spell your last name. >> My name is Diane Balmer Moyetek. That's
B A M E R T- M O Y I K. I live at 2445 Turtle Mountain Road, Melbourne, Florida 32934. Good afternoon, Chairman Wadssworth and planning board members. I am here to open our neighborhood's formal testimony
requesting a recommendation of denial for comprehensive plan amendment 26s 0000002 and resoning request 26Z0000008. I submitted a petition just a few moments ago of over 2300 signatures and
we have another 500 from our residents. Under Bard County Code section 62-1151C, your primary legislative duty is to evaluate whether a proposed zoning change is structurally compatible with the established character of the
surrounding land. The properties immediately to the north, south, and west are large acreage style single family homes. And I know there's been some changes here at the meeting today, but we ask that the county only
maintain the RR1 zoning. No compromise. The applicant has completely failed to meet their burden of providing harmony with our existing neighborhood, and we urge you to recommend denial. Thank you for all that you do to help our county
grow properly and at the same time protect our quality of life. Thank you. >> Thank you, [applause] >> Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before we go to the next speaker, Mr. Chairman, we had a member of the audience, I believe a member of the press with a camera walk
up here behind us. I would remind you that is not allowed, sir, and do not do it again. You are not allowed back here. Members of the board, my name is Scott Schiffer, S C H I FFer. I reside at 1891 Fox Bay Drive in Melbourne. Before this
board proceeds further, I need to raise a procedural issue that I believe requires this item to be tabled. Bvard County's notice to applicants for change of land use regarding applications generating public opposition is clear. When an application generates opposition through letters, petitions, phone calls,
or testimony, the applicant must meet the concerned pri parties prior to the planning and zoning board hearing. And critically, the policy goes further if this board finds that the application is controversial and the application has applicant has not met the affected
property owners met with sorry, the item not may but shall be tabled to the next agenda to allow the meeting to take place. This application is controversial. 159 pages of public comments in the agenda packet and numerous petitions of concerned neighbors. I personally submitted an
18page detailed opposition to the requested changes to the board on June 8th and the applicant has not reached out to us. Not one member of the opposition has been contacted for a meeting, a discussion or even an acknowledgement of our concerns. I anticipate the applicant may respond by
saying they intend to meet with us before the board of county commission hearing. I want to address that directly. that does not satisfy the requirement. The policy requires a meeting to occur before the board acts on a request. A future promise to meet before the BBBC BCC is a different stage
of the process entirely and it does nothing to inform this board's deliberation today. If anything, offering to meet only before the BCC while skipping this stage underscores that the applicant has not complied with the policy as written. The policy is not discretionary given this application is
controversial and no meeting has occurred. The applicants must be tabled. We respectfully request the board tables item now four to the next agenda consistent with that requirement and direct the applicant to meet with the opposition before this matter returns to the board. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. [applause] >> Hey, good afternoon. My name is Glenn Juber. J U Ber 2320 Hamlet Drive in Melbourne about um oh half a mile from the proposed site. Um we all know what the environmental concerns are. [clears throat] We're in the Indian
River Lagoon drainage basin. Um but what we can address today is the applicants come up and say we're just we're just here for a zoning change. Don't look at all the rest of this over here. That doesn't really matter. which is
absolutely nonsense because the zoning regulations existed and were built to provide a plan for stable development. Now, unless there's been a change in the underlying conditions, better water, better roads, better sewer, something, there's no reason to grant a change for
higher density because those conditions that came out with the RR1 still exist. Now, it's a little bit disingenuous for the engineer to say, "Oh, we haven't looked at the drainage. We don't know about the wetlands." when it's nonsense. The US Geological Survey publishes a map
available to anyone that lists a site elevation and half of this half of this property fully is wetlands. The engineer knows that and he's here before the board saying, "I don't know. We're just here for a zoning change. Don't look at the other stuff
right now. We'll see if we can slide this by while the developer from Washington state comes in, drops $800,000 in his property in 2021 and now is looking to maximize his return, but will not suffer any of
the consequences. Not the traffic, not the displacement of the turtles. There are turtles on Turtle Mountain Road. I know I live there. We have all kinds of wildlife that are all at risk. I personally have to put in a new septic system to meet the 2030
regulations which are driving this entire area to either sewer or new septic to preserve the Indian River Lagoon. We don't want another 200 dead manatees, nor do we want traffic concerns, but we want honesty from these people and we're not getting it.
>> All right. [applause] I I just have one very quick comment. My name is Cynthia Sachchin. S A W CZ YN. I live at 4155 Carolwood Drive in Melbourne. I would ask the board to
consider the um references to the different trailer parks are absolutely irrelevant. They have been there for 50 years. They were there when we built our house 38 years ago. Um
to use them as an example to have a multiple residential area intruding now um does simply does not hold water. And that's all I that's my request is that
you realize that those multiple areas uh are decades old and don't re don't do anything to um warrant the change in zoning.
>> Okay. [applause] My name is Richard Nink, N I N K. My address is 3035 Gentle Breezes Court in Melbourne. Um I'm just off of Parkway. Um my land is my property is affected by
what happens and your actions today. Um this is a planning issue. This is a reasonzoning issue. That's why all these people are here for you to consider concerns. Keep it RR1.
There is no need to reszone to RU1. The applicant is making an argument that they don't want to increase the density. They are not clear why the need to the reszone to RU1. They're not clear. Why
not just keep it R R1? They said it's the same amount of density. They need to be clear and we need to understand that and not make rash decisions. Um they say they heard the neighbors but yet they're still trying to reszone and it's not
clear why are they trying to resone. Keep it RR1. Now the the applicant will explain that to you and and she's very good at at quickly explaining it and dismissing the concerns.
We request an opportunity to respond to her dismissing our concerns today. Ask one of us to come up. I will gladly do that to ask follow-up questions because she will quickly dismiss our concerns to why it needs to be reszoned. And we'd
like to have an opportunity to follow up on that quick dismissal. That's what we're asking. So, we'd like you to ask her those questions. Why the need to reszone if you're going to keep the same density? And okay, we heard your explanation. Now, let's give the
residents an opportunity to follow up uh to your statements. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. [applause] [clears throat] >> Hello, I'm John McKinley, Mck K I N Y, and uh I'm at 1697 PGA Boulevard in
Melbourne, Florida. I am the previous owner of the property. We bought the property in pro about nine years ago from the radio station. It was MBD properties. I'm the M. So I can tell you a little bit about this property is
we initially put in knowing that is R1 zoning, knowing that we had the trailer park and the other restrictions. We put in the zoning department of Bard County that we get two per acre. It was immediately denied and we were written that it will never be anything but RR1 ever. We came back. We had a
plan. We figured that was probably going to fail. We had an RR1 plan that was very good. We thought it would be a very nice neighborhood. I had put in previously we had put in Fawn Cove neighborhood and we had put in Atlanta Lane off Lake Washington Road. Both of those neighborhoods. All of those were
1acre lots. So, we came back with a good plan and it was again denied by the zoning department and the reason is is they would not let us access that road from Turtlemound. They said if we wanted to do it, we had to go off White Road.
Now, these folks they're putting in this application, they are going to go off Turtle Mountain Road. I guarantee you. Okay. I'm just saying is why were we denied when they're going to put in they're going by the way they're going for six per acre if you do the math it's pretty simple it's about six per acre the
environmental regulations on Atlanta are not that strict I did a I did a survey myself we had one done so they will get at least five per acre when I couldn't get two and I couldn't get one when you went to one off a white road it was economically unfeasible the
lots did not work. So basically the zoning department said the land that I valued and had was worthless. All we could do at that point was to sell the property and we're here today. >> So of course I'm preserved the zoning department. Thank you for your time.
Hope everybody has good afternoon. [applause] >> What what year what year are you saying that all occurred? >> About 10 years nine 10 years ago. >> Huh? about nine or 10 years ago because I was n only nine or 10 >> about 13 now
>> about 13 now 13 yeah just before I got sick so that's probably from the radio station >> I was telling them when it was bought >> okay that was 2021 right yeah so we had the property for a long >> we we had the property for a long time
before we did move the property and it was mainly because we couldn't get the zone the county would not allow us to use R1 coming off of Turtle Mound. Basically, you property for us. >> All right. Thank you, sir. [applause]
>> Hello. Uh, I'm Kelly Rich. Last name is Rich Ric. I live at 4095 Carolwood Drive, my wife and I, which puts us within 500 ft of the property in question. And since the uh uh development team has already said they're going to throw out the six per
acre, that kind of changes the agenda and the tone of this meeting. And that's really what I wanted to point out. I'll be very brief. I only have two points now. And the one point is the agenda items have changed. So I think the public does deserve a chance to come back again if uh the board feels they
really need to vote on this today. The other item I would ask is that the public understand that uh wetlands will not stop development. I want everybody to realize that there's wetland mitigation that's possible. So even if there's two acres of wetlands there, that doesn't mean it won't be developed.
I just want to make sure the public knows that. And again, these are things that have come up now with them throwing out the idea of going six per acre. So it's kind of changed the agenda items on the meeting. And I think the public has it deserves a chance um to ask the the
the board maybe not to even vote on this today. They've already thrown out their six per acre. Don't vote on the four per day till you hear more from the public because the public wasn't prepared to talk about four per acre. We were prepared to talk about 85 lowincome
proposed housing. That's what we were prepared to talk about. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. [applause] Hello members of the board and county staff and all the citizens that are here today. Just for the record, my name is Julie Kennedy. Uh not Julie Sanders. I
had a name change a few years ago. Um and I am the vice mayor of the city of Melbourne. And I do recognize that this property is not within um the city of Melbourne. It is within county. However, a lot of the adjacent properties are within my district, district 6, within
the city. Um, and uh, at last Tuesday's meeting, I brought up this project and every single member of the city council for the city of Melbourne opposes this um, particular uh, property being developed and the zoning changes. I
appreciate um, us not going for comprehensive plan change. Um but uh in hopes to not reiterate what I know everybody else is going to say here because I know what that's like um being up there. Um I do want to I do have a copy of the mayor's letter that he did
post on social media. I have about eight copies. If you all want to um share and see, you're more than welcome to. Um but just to sum it all up, um while the city of Melbourne recognizes the importance of providing additional housing opportunities within our community, it's
imperative that growth occur in a manner that is supported by adequate public infrastructure. At this time, the city's existing sewer force main infrastructure serving this area does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater demand that would result from the proposed multif family development. I realize that now it's
going to be smaller because of what they're proposing, but um as others had said, it would be nice to be able to go back to take a look at this to see if we now can or cannot and where we stand as a city knowing that now it's going to be decreased. I can't speak to the lower
amount. Um but our wastewater, our roads, our infrastructure is just not equipped um within the city to handle this type of um development that was being proposed. So, thank you. Thank you, [applause] >> ma'am. Ma'am,
it's a little a little strange for the city to get involved in a county thing. Does the county go over the city, too? >> Um, sometimes, yes, sometimes goes over there. Sometimes West Melbourne comes to us at meetings. Sometimes we go to West Melbourne meetings. Absolutely. Because we are so close together, our
infrastructure is intertwined. >> Yeah. I thought it was a little strange that I've been around a long time. Well, our infrastructure >> I mean, not that not that you're entitled to it, but >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You know, you got some problems. >> Our infrastructure is intertwined. >> And our roads are intertwined. [clears throat] [applause]
>> Good [clears throat] afternoon, board members. My name is Suzanne Bella. I live at 5225 San Lake Drive. I do not know if you all have this flood map, which is page 243 in your packet, but I
just wanted to draw your attention to how large the flood wetlands are on this piece of property. It almost takes up the whole piece of property. And to cram all of these units into this little tiny space, it's going to be very, very hard.
I don't think that the massive permanently altering dirt ridge that they would put up around this property also if they tried to develop it would be a good thing for the surrounding properties. Water seeks the path of lease resistance. The ridge will
displace storm water push severe runoff directly into the backyards of the longstanding single family neighbors on Windmill Drive, Teresa Drive and White Road, Carolwood. those little old trailer homes that have been there since
the 1950s and60s are going to be floating away. The other issue I just want to mention is if there is a traffic study done, somebody should take the time to do it when there is an accident on 95 and everybody heads down O'Galli and goes down Turtle Mound Road because
at that point in time there's no way to get in and out of your neighborhoods. So concerned residents, we don't want it. We want you to deny it. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Hello. Thank you. My name is Amanda
Cyel. I live at 4399 Lake Glenn Drive. I have been a resident of Lake Washington area for most of my life. Um I think that they're being very disingenuous in how they approach tonight's meeting.
If they want to change it, then we should be able to address the changes, not come and surprise us. Also, I'd like to know their company, their out ofstate company, they do rentals. Is it still going to be
rentals? Is it going to be rental units or are these houses going to be for sale? That's important. That has an effect on my property value. I want to know. We don't want this. It's not the character of we bought out there because
we wanted a rural way of life. We don't want zero lot line homes crammed on a wetland built lot. It's just it's not it's not feasible. The traffic's already bad out there. If you do the if you if you try to go on
Turtlebound during rush hours, you're backed up 10 12 cars. It's It's not It's not built for it. It's not built for it. We don't want it. Please, I urge you just say no to more development.
>> All right. Thank you. [applause and cheering] Put that up on the screen. >> It can you turn on the projector. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. My name is Scott Dangler. D an L E R. Address is 5085 Pino Street here in Rocklage, Florida.
Uh, as I'm sure you can understand, the residents here are very happy to go ahead and hear about the withdrawal of the future land use map change. Uh, but I think quite honestly, it's fundamentally unfair now to go ahead and address a zoning change that has not been presented to the residents. Staff
has not had an opportunity to go ahead and do a report. And quite honestly, I think if you pulled the people here in the audience, no one knows what an RU 111 is. Like they were here prepared to go ahead and talk about RR1, RA26. So I think first it would just be it it's premature to go ahead and have a zoning
decision made today by this board. This should be heard by staff have a full report full notice to the community so then a properly noticed and informed uh decision could be made. The other thing I would say is you know uh council had raised the issue of you know four acres
you four lots per acre is kind of what they're anticipating with their zoning change but it's still incompatible and inconsistent with what's actually built there in the community. Now, this table was done to go ahead and address whether an R res4 should be changed to a six. If you look at all the communities that are
nearby, what you'll notice when you look at the units per acre, Fox Bay is 2.6 units per acre, Oakwood Trails 2.3 units per acre. Uh Hammet Estates 2.4, Oaks of Holly, Oaks of Ogali are 2.2, Creekwood
1.1, Anson's less than three, Aurora uh Woods is 1.2, to in Aurora Oaks is the only one that's four and that's all the way at John Roads that is so far away from the rest of the community. So if you look at what's compatible with what's actually built in the neighborhood of this particular piece of
land even four is incompatible. That's why it's RR1. And the last point I'd make, if you look at the corridor of on the west side of Turound, every single lot is RR1. This is a consistent neighborhood. There are no greater densities other than R1 as you move up
that corridor. Thank you. [applause] >> Hello, my name is Cassandra Reneer. Uh, for purposes, this is Khloe Reneer, my youngest child. Um, I live at 4576 Mustang Road. And I have had the privilege, I'm 34 years old.
I've had the privilege of living in this area for 30 years. Not only did I get to be raised out here, I get to raise my children here. The reason why we are fighting so hard against this zoning is because this is one of the few places in Bvard County left where you can go and drive down the
road and see a cowgirl on a cow on her horse walking down the road. You can see donkeys, you can see cows, people's freeranging their chickens in their little gardens that they've made. This is magical. It's what you see in story
books. And that's the way that we want it to be preserved. We don't want more houses that are cookie cutter. If we wanted that, anybody could do that in Vieira. We have it now all down the St. John's, you know, passageway. We have
it, you know, huge ones going in now in West Melbourne. That is not She wanted to, Miss uh Rosena wanted to talk about the trailer home. She really wanted to focus on that. Go north. You have horses ranging in front yards. You have children running around in their
sprinklers in these huge beautiful plots of land with these beautiful trees that are strung with mossy oak that you know with the Spanish moss and that is what we want to preserve. It's one of the few areas we have like this left in Bvard
County, not just Melbourne. And to come and be like, "Oh, it's it's not that bad. it this area and the reason why we are all fighting so hard. This area is magical not just for us but for our children. So please
do not take this away from us. >> Okay. [applause and cheering] >> Does the overhead work? If you could turn it on, please. >> It should be on. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Good afternoon, Victor Page. uh PEJIC 3205 Aurora Road. Bottom line with
this that we've gone through this for years, uh the seat is the common term right here. The reason the seat 7500 square ft that seems like a large lot. That's 0.15 acres roughly. Um we're
going to only build a what is it 30 40 50 homes. That is just a vehicle to get in. There's nothing there's no money to be made once you develop that mon that land if you build small amount of homes. Rest of the homes are generally 75 acre
on a small side but usually couple acres there. So it would completely be different even if it's four four acres I mean four homes per acre. Uh also out of the 14 acres there was five acres annexed about five five years ago from Melbourne. So there's not 14 acres now.
there's a couple more lands that are about three acres aside that probably will be purchased and next thing you know oh we we want another zoning change because now instead of being 14 now we are 17 or 18 acres and now we want even more denser. So, the reason I wanted the overhead turned on, this is how it looks
like. Uh, let's see. Let me see. How can I make it bigger? This is There we go. Now I got it. This is how it looks like after a rain. Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's how it looks like. And that wasn't even a big rain. So, let me go a
few more pictures. This is how it looks like in front of my house after a rain. Okay. This is how a Northwest Plaza looks like after a rain. >> All right. So, you don't have to be a rocket scientist geological engineer to
figure out that water don't run uphill. You bring these houses there, you got to bring Phil to be what about 30 in above the crown of the road. You bring that much dirt in, everybody else will flood. Thank you. [applause] Hello. Uh, my name Sean Stlo. I grew up
in Carolwood Estates. Uh, I think the average lot size there is, uh, acre plus. I just want to remind the board currently there is or there are no homes on the property. It's a derelict radio station. Sorry, I'm getting a little
emotional. Um, I spent my whole life in Carolwood Estates growing up. That area is sorry, uh, very special to me and everyone here obviously, otherwise they wouldn't show up. The current owner of the property bought the property knowing
what it was zoned as. Even if they developed it under the RR1, that would be 14 new homes. That would be a big change to everyone here at just what it's currently zoned for. If they were to change it to five uh homes per acre
or 7,500 square foot lots, that's 5.8 homes per acre, that is drastic. That's 50 times more than what is currently there, which is nothing. So to allow an out ofstate uh developer to come in and build 50 more potential homes is a
drastic change to our current way of life and what we're all used to there. even the 14 potential uh one home per acre under the RR1 would be a pretty significant change. Nobody wants this at all. And that's not to mention all the storm water uh people have talked about
before, traffic issues and uh things of that nature. Um, I don't get how a developer can come in and knowing what the zoning currently is and then piss off the entire community to change it
when it just makes no sense. You knew what it was coming in. It's not upon us to come up here, take time off out of work and out of our day to fight for our livelihood. They should be able to just step in and and take over uh our way of life. So, that's a little bit jumbled,
but that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> [applause] [applause] >> Hello uh planning and zoning board members. My name is Ethan Pachy. I'm here representing St. Anthony the Great Orthodox Church. Our address is 4031 Aurora Road. Uh I'm treasurer for the church. We received a notification
because we are also within the 500 foot boundary of the property. And I am p I'm probably going to be the controversial person here say today saying I think it would be okay to move forward with the resoning because we ourselves are looking to doing a project soon too to expand our own facilities and we are
coming up against enormous storm water and sewer infrastructure requirements that we're personally having to pay for out of pocket because of how little public investment has gone into this neighborhood somewhat at the desire of neighborhoods but also because it's just been further out and now we're getting
closer. I'll remind the entire audience that there is a brand new Amazon warehouse facility right down at the end of Turtle Mound less than a mile away from this site. So, it's not as though there is no development nearby or that it is genuine rural. You can drive 10
miles out 192 still be in Breard and be in actual rural territory. Um, so I understand a lot of the storm water and sewer discussion is going to be handled later. That is the way the process goes. I'm actually representing the Boulevard County School Board on Melbourne's planning and zoning is another one of my
volunteer activities. But today I'm here for the church. We're interested to see how this propo how this development would be interested in going forward to see if there are more public resources being developed in the area because we ourselves are suffering for having to pay for all of our own storm water and
sewer and all the costs that will come with building a larger church as we ourselves grow. Our church has expanded by its population by over 50% from some 120 members to just over 180 in the last two years in our reporting to the arch dascese from 2023 to 2025. So there is
more out here than just pure rural residential. And if you want rural in Bvard, you can go further out, but uh I don't think anybody would want to get off of city water. They don't want to do wells. So uh they're still they're still living where the city can get to them.
Thank you. Thank you. >> Republicans. >> Hello. >> Please, everyone, please. Okay, we're >> Go ahead, ma'am. >> I'm Melissa Pedrick. Um, PED R I C. I
live at 5165 Peran Drive, which is west of 95. But, um, a couple things I'd like to address. First of all, that Amazon facility bulldoze wetlands. Doesn't matter. They'll find a way. Um them saying that they can, you know, that
they're going to go uh check everything out after they get approved. Buyer beware. They get approved, they're going to do whatever they want because they already got past it. Um Mr. Minibbo Buu, I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name, but um Turtle Mound Road, I'm sure
there's a lot of residents here. if they wanted water there, a lot of them were on wells. They had to get annexed to the city of Melbourne to get their well water. I mean to get off of well water to be and had to go into the city. So they had to pay for it.
>> So all these concerns um you know I'm like I said I'm west but I was flooded out. Um my property looked like um it was an island because of all the water has nowhere to go. So, you just keep bulldozing and putting more concrete and
asphalt. We don't have anywhere to go. Our property um goes up higher because we're having to pay for flood insurance. It's ridiculous. So, >> please consider that. >> Thank [applause] you. >> So, I think if if they have all these
plans, they should do those plans before they get approved for the reasoning. >> We have to do it ourselves. [applause] >> [clears throat] >> Greetings everybody. Smile. My name is Chris Hardy. H A R D Y. I'm
at 4395 Lake Glenn Drive 32934. We the undersigned registered voters and property owners and residents of Bvard County please urge the planning and zoning commission to deny the proposed reasonzoning of the affformentioned property parcel due to the things that
I've heard you stand up here and say you've heard it all before. Okay. If I'm not mistaken though that is your job as the committee, the zoning committee to hear what the people have to say. So we ask that due to safety, increased
traffic, congestion, water management strain, environmental impact, property value, and strain on the fiscal, city, county, resident finances, and the equestrian rights as well as our agriculture and green space that you've heard everybody talk about here today.
The proposed reszoning violates the once established neighborhood comprehensive plan. Where is the money coming from for the necessary road expansions and improvements? Is it apartments or is it houses? And how many are we specifically
talking about? How will drainage infrastructure be upgraded and funded in this area that is currently already experiencing major flooding due to many retention ponds, poor canal maintenance, and lack of city council response? What is the plan in the funding source for
expanding police, fire, rescue capabilities? Will the developer cover all the impact fees or will the existing taxpayers bear the burden? This area was meant for wooded larger lots, both deed and non-deed restricted homes where homeowners can expand and garden and
enjoy wildlife. We have protected scrub jays and tortoises all over the area. This is about the character and the density of the area. It's about a saturated market already. There are currently 8,000 completed apartments and
housing in Melbourne that remain unsold and empty, representing roughly 17. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> That was too Wow, [applause] good afternoon. My name is Roger Baxter. B-ax t. Um, I'm going to touch on a
little bit of what John McKinley had said because I was a homeowner, a owner of that property as well. I am the B in NBD. Um, what's amazing to me is we bought the
property trying to put two per acre. I mean, two houses per acre. And it can't be done. It really can't because by the time you mitigate wetlands and by the time you give the turtles a new home and by the time you deal with accessing the putting the road through there and the
sewer and the whole bit, there is not enough property there to follow the rules to do the development with two. We did get approved for 11 homes after we did all the mitigation for the wetlands
and dealing with finding homes for turtles. Unfortunately, it was completely too much money to bother to go forward with the with the project. And all of this information was given to the current
owner. We did the studies. We we we know what the wetland's going to take. We know we did it all. It has the deepest ditches you'll find on each side. They're they're trying to drain those ditches. They flow. You can go to the side of the bank and you can see the water coming out of the thing on a dry
day. There's always water in the ditches. So, yes, there's a lot of wetlands there. And for the the now owner to come back and try to do this when he already knew before he bought it because we gave him everything is is
just a little bit um >> it's it's not it's not sneaky. You have to try to make money with the decisions you make. And I just think like us he made a poor decision. That's it. >> Okay. [applause]
May may I ask him one follow-up question? The gentleman that just spoke. >> Sure. >> Did you and your partner or partners in that venture? >> There were four people. There were four partners. [clears throat and cough] >> Did you ever try to go through this this
particular channel, reszone it? >> No. The city told us there was no way that they would let us do any more than the 11. They would not county. >> The city has to do when we put the sewer and everything. >> Hold on. Hold on, sir. Please, everyone,
could you, if you want to speak, come get in line. Let's just don't sit there and yell out. >> Thank you. >> When we were put our development to them, we have to hook up water because we can't put a well in in any of that. You can't. It It's just not going to
work. So when we're cutting in roads and putting in drainage and and doing the whole bit, the city gets involved with sewer and water. And they came and said, "Nope, not going to do it. You can have 11."
The whole thing is you can't >> So for their for the city infrastructure that that property ties to, >> right, >> was getting denied. So you never formally requested a reszone >> from the county. We didn't bother cuz if we were only allowed 11, we couldn't make the
>> we couldn't make it work. >> Understood. >> And all of that was given to them. >> Okay. >> Nothing sneaky about it. >> No, no, I wasn't implying that. I just wanted to find out how far you guys tried to take it. Thanks. >> Thank you, sir. >> As far as we could. [applause] >> Hello, my name is Chelsea TR and I've
lived in Mar Island for 5 years. I originally am from Washington State and very familiar with the Spokane and Airway Heights area. We don't want to see Bvard County make the same mistakes as Seattle and Spokane, where rapid highdensity zoning completely overran local infrastructure. This project
brings Pacific Northwest style overdevelopment to a rural Florida wetland, threatening our environment and creating flooding and traffic issues we aren't equipped to handle. There is currently a rat race to take up all of our um green space in Bard County. I specifically just dealt with one less
than a month ago. Um, let's keep Florida Florida and not turn into Washington State as someone who personally fled from it. [applause] >> Good afternoon. My name is Steven Losi. L O H E pronounced like a grade average.
Anyway, [laughter] had to put that in there for a little smile. Anyway, I moved out. I live on 4065 Carolwood Drive. The property pretty much backs up to the back of my yard. Um, my major concern is
it's very scary. You can't walk down our roads anymore. It's it's unsafe. We don't have sidewalks. And we had to finally petition for speed bumps because we have so many cars coming down our road so fast. It It's No one wants to
walk on our road anymore. I'm a dog walker. You can't walk your dogs on the road. I walk them twice a day. My old dogs. Um you can't you don't see bicycles anymore. I know of one person that got ran off. My friend's wife got run off into a ditch and she came up
like a mud puppy which was not fun. He had to help her out of the ditch. And that's basically my concern is the safety that we're already overloaded with cars out there that there is we don't have the sidewalks. We we there's no one can no one walks out there anymore. No one does their dog walking
anymore. Everybody's scared to get out on the road and that's not right. And that's all I got to say. >> Okay. [applause] All right. Thank you, sir. My name is Dennis I O'Quinn spelling O apostrophe capital Q U I N. I live at
2685 Lake Road 32934. Uh I would like to be allowed to stipulate agreement with every pretty much everything I've heard. I want to bring up a different aspect. I have had or I did have a professional engineering
license in the state of Florida from the mid 1980s to just a few years ago. I'm currently in delinquent status to deciding whether you'd go ahead and retire or not. Nonetheless, contact information is available under uh Department of Professional Regulation um
PP PE 33714. I did some work about 25 years ago on that site for the owner at that tower time was twin towers broadcasting. I walked among those four towers. There are two pairs uh arranged in a
parallelogram and the distance north to south is something in the ne neighborhood of 500 plus feet and the distance between the diagonal towers because there were two the two towers on the other side where it went off at a uh different angle. The one thing I found
common to that site was it had a dump trash dump. Those radio stations were out in the woods and people threw everything in there. Specifically, a vacuum tube known as an 866 or an 866A.
They were called mercury vapor rectifiers. So, if you are going to go forward with this, and I'm not sure at what stage, I'm just making this information available. There should be extensive testing of that site across the site for mercury. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> [applause] >> questions? >> No, sir. We're good. >> Sir, if you want to come on up. stables and we're seeing an overwhelming demand for the equestrian. >> Could you state your name and address
please sir? >> Oh, Bandish Bis180 Evers. I own Banished Equestrian Stables and we're seeing we're receiving overwhelming demand for equestrian riding and boarding and stuff like that
to the point we're looking to maybe expand across the street. With the closing of Wickham Park and HW up for sale, it's just overwhelming people in this area love horses. So we don't we have to
decide if we want to remain a equestrian community. >> That's all I got. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. [applause] >> Hello. My name is Diane Periggo. I'm a little out of my element, but I'm passionate about this. I have uh 4700
Aurora Road. I um bought an acre and a quarter because I wanted a rural living. I've worked two jobs all my life. I'm by myself so that I can have that. I have horses and dogs and gardens and I see
encroachment more and more. You can't ride your horse on the side of the road anymore and it's a rural area and we've all sacrificed to live in a rural area. We'd like to keep it that way. >> Okay. [applause] Thank you.
Okay. Is there anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Okay, I'm closing it. I'm just kidding. [laughter] I'm going to give someone else a chance if there's anyone wants to speak for against it because I'm fixing to close it to public.
>> Hi, Terry Dexter. Uh 4400 Canard Road. I grew up on White Road. I was born and raised here in the area. I our property they took part of White Road took part of our property of the 30 acre track that my family had owned from the 40s.
Um this is a wet area. I remember when Village Glenn the trailer park they were talking about went in and this area if if this goes in we're talking about heavy flooding in that trailer park. I
mean it's going to be overwhelmed. It's you you've got a bathtub there and we keep putting blocks in it. Sorry. We keep putting blocks in it. That water's got to go somewhere. Uh White Road, where White Road and Merrywood is there.
We were just told that there's a possibility that it could go on White Road, the entrance to that. That's a deadly area right there. I mean, you can't see nothing. Are they going to buy the house? Who's going to pay for that mobile home park if it gets
flooded? Um it's it's bad. Um there's got to be another way of doing this and this is not the way. It really is not the way. WML, they've owned that property since 21 and that that building still there and there's no way that
building should been took care of. Anybody else in this area, if that would have happened to their home in four years, they would have told us to >> demolish. >> Yeah, absolutely. It's deadly a problem. But come on, guys. Don't Don't let this
go in. Please don't let this go in. Let us have time. They've come in here and changed it. At least give us time. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Hi, I'm Pamela Baxter, 35 ox te Hammock Trail, Melbourne.
I have been here since ' 61 uh 1961. Um the concern I have amongst all the others is the last of the large pieces of acreage out there, one including the dairy which is currently up for sale over 9 acres that's right down the
street on Turtle Mound. Does that suddenly become another large development? Those are things I ask you as a zoning board to consider. It's no different than what the first person was
saying change from certain u restrictions, but large property is rare. But again, down the street less than two miles, there's another large up for sale piece. You
could be doing this again. Just please consider that. >> Okay. Thank you. [applause] >> My name is Tracy Cody, 3251 Aurora Road. I want to address Mr. Atkins question to the prior owner. Because they pro
proposed 11 units on 14 acres, a reszone could not have been required on this RR1 property. I mean, how could it be required if >> that's back before us, >> right? But it's there.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Anybody else want to speak for or against this item? Going once. >> Done. [laughter] Okay, I'm going to close it though for
public comment. >> Miss Rosena, you like to come back up? >> Jake, we might have some more questions for you. Uh, good evening, chairman, uh, members of the planning and zoning board.
Uh, thank you for letting me speak again. Uh, I I actually don't know where to begin. Um, there's so much to say. First, development is not allowed to flood its neighbors. This development can't flood Village Glenn. There's absolutely no storm water treatment or
storm water plan or drainage plan of any sort on this 14 acres at this point. This will fix that issue of no treatment and storm water issues. Uh, regarding the former owners, I've never seen that before where they come
and fight against who purchased it from them. That's that's new. But they never came before you. There was nothing in the staff report that said they tried to reszone it. They were going into the city. We're not doing that. We are trying to reszone here because as they
said, this property doesn't work for 11 units because it flood there's got um flood planes. They've got wetlands. In fact, this is in your packet. This is the wetlands map. Again, these are 1988 maps. They're not accurate. That's why
people go and do their own new zoning. But if that area is wetland, you can't impact wetlands in Bvard County. You can in the city of of Melbourne. We're not eligible to annex into the city of Melbourne. So that land can only be impacted 1.8% of wetlands. So 1.8% of 14
acres. So there is no way to impact wetlands. We are trying to work around the wetlands by having flexibility of smaller lots of 7500 square foot lots or greater. So, but again, the best evidence is this land can't be developed with 1acre lots. You've heard that two, three times here
today. And you've also heard that it's derelict land that it needs to be redeveloped city. >> Everybody, please, she didn't talk while y'all were talking. Let's Let's be respectful. Thank you.
>> So, again, we can't build homes over wetlands. Um there might be a way to subdivide the wetland splint a lot. St. John's doesn't like that. Um it's not the best use, but you try to protect the wetlands and give them all upland buffers. Um the character
of this develop this area. Well, first let's talk about the zoning. >> That's what we're here for, Kim. Just zoning. >> Yes, sir. That's the zoning map. only onethird of the area around it is RR1.
Uh maybe a little bit more. But when you go south over Aurora Road, you have the RU17. You have to talk about the trailer park. That is the character of the area. They might not like it. They built there, but that is part of the character of the area. It's adjacent to it. It's land use
adjacent to it. And that land use is 5.26 units per acre. That's 143 units and 27.2 acres. You have trailer parks to the south. You have trailer parks further to the I get my
directions mixed up to the west. So this is the character. This is the zoning. You have RU2 to the east. There were many people said not RU2, sorry, EU2. There are many people that said zone it less. How about EU2? We've taken it a
step lower to RU11 to give the flexibility because of the challenges of this land. And let's talk about the character. They only want to talk about the rural lands, but there's a lot more out there than just rural lands. This is the pack. This is what's in your
package. Defender Homes is there. This is the Fox Bay up right here. No, let me see. I'm sorry. I'm backwards. right there. Fox Bay. >> Fox Bay. 1.15 acres.33 acres. Those are
not rural residential lots. Those are smaller lots. That's a subdivision. That's where most of these people are from that are complaining about this. >> Okay. All right. Let me rephrase that. That was most of the the the emails that I saw were from Fox Bay. But you do see
the smaller lots. You see the smaller lots all around it. And you see the mobile home parks which are part of the character of the area. It's just not denied by someone. Um, with that I would ask that you look at the character of the surrounding
areas, the five criteria that you are to look at the staff report that said even for a higher requested density we're not impacting any of the the capacity schools or traffic. The site plan will require
>> The site plan process >> please people >> and platting process will require staff to look at what needs to be done if anything for turn lanes improvements. Sidewalks will definitely be put in along the section of the road. Um impact
fees will be paid to assist with other improvements of the area. And with that we would ask that you approve the reszoning to RU 1111. Thank you. Kim, you might want to hang out there just a second. I'm gonna bring it back to the board. We've already heard from the public. >> I would like to go.
>> Miss Deb, go ahead. >> So, um, I first of all would like to say thank you to Miss Kennedy. Miss Kennedy, thank you very much for being here. Um, I was a Melbourne city council woman for eight years and termed off after two four-year terms. Um, I do understand why
we're here and it is important to have a PNZ and it's important to have that here. It's important to have it in the city of Melbourne. I have sat before many of meetings at the city of Melbourne just like this. And you know, probably 90% of the time I've I've
agreed with what the development was that was coming in and I probably approved 90% of the time uh the developments that were coming in. That being said, um my parents built in Carolwood Estates. They were the first home that built into Carolwood Estates back when um Carol Estates opened.
[applause] Um the character of the area is is is the character of the area of a rural area. It is meant to have oneacre lots per house. That's my opinion and that is the way that I feel. [applause] I also do believe in development and I
also do believe in developers for smart development and development that is important. The city of Melbourne does have a stake in this. They provide the water. Lake Washington is right down the road. We get our water from Lake Washington. That is extremely important. It's also extremely important for the
runoff and what is going to happen there with that. That being said, it could be improved. It actually could be improved. I think Mr. Zanka said that earlier. It could very well be improved, but we don't know that without having more information. Um, at this point, I know early on we had the first speaker that
came up that said that um the residents did not have a meeting. And I don't know. I would like to ask the attorney is there was that supposed to happen or is that necessary? for the developer to have pre- sort of application meetings with with the uh >> like the first first person that came up
and spoke and asked. >> No, ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a requirement. >> Okay. Um not not being a requirement. I would have I would have loved to have that been a requirement and for you guys to have that opportunity, but the fact that right now the whole plan has changed from what was brought to us
originally here um what we have read originally here. Um, I don't want to say that I'm definitely going to give an answer one way or the other, but what I will tell you is that I think it's extremely important that we get these answers before we make that decision as a board. So, as it stands right now, I would be a nay vote if the vote does go
to a vote. [applause] However, I also believe that they should have the opportunity to come forward and explain exactly what they want to do and how they want to do it and then you have the opportunity again to come and speak about it. So, that is where I sit. Thank you. >> Miss Kim, do you want to address that?
>> That wasn't really a question, but this is not a PUD. This is a reasonzoning. We've met the criteria of the code. We don't have the engineering studies. We don't have the survey. We've said we want to do single family homes of 7,500 square foot. >> Everybody, please, I've asked like four or five times now. Please.
>> So, thank you. The wetlands have not been ground proof ground truth. There's there's no elevations. There's no tree survey. So zoning does not require a site plan or a plat. And so that I would ask that you allow us to go forward and rely on your staff, which is what all the staffs do is to review and make sure
we meet the code. >> And I would just like to say to to finish, I think that is um is true. However, I would also state that this is completely changed from what we've all received previously. That's my follow. I go. >> Yes, Mr. John.
>> Okay. I'm I'm looking at the the document here that we received that I studied before I come to these meetings when you were asking for an RU26. Coming here today asking for an RU 1111 is totally different and we have not had
time to research it to get all the information necessary that that change would make. So I would ask for a continuence of this and let's get some real information so we can determine exactly what your client wants to do and
then we can make deci, you know, a decent decision. >> Mr. Hoffengard, what information do you want that we haven't shared with you? >> I want it all >> that we haven't shared with you today. What do you want? >> Well, you know, [applause] I mean, I I'm not having I don't have an opportunity to really think it through. I I don't go
through these and you know I always object to you bringing things to to the deis here uh for us to see right when you're making a presentation I want time to think it through to do my own research on every item that comes before me this is also one of them that I would
like to do that I'd like to go a little in depth find out what's going on what the impact would be with an RU 1111 I don't know so that's why I'm and also staff report is not based on RU 1111. >> It's based on 87 units instead of 57.
>> Maybe so. >> So >> maybe so, but they haven't commented on an RU 1111. >> You're bringing in something else. >> Ask them. >> They have to take it back. >> No, necessarily. Not necessarily. I already spoke to >> I would if I were they.
>> That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> I tend to agree with you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Yeah, I have a question, please. Um, I want to ask you kind of related to the couple of comments that you heard. Would you be willing to return and come back
with specifics with your revised plan and impact or would you rather have a vote on a denial or approval? >> Well, sir, you need to tell me what you want because the zoning code does not require storm water plans, site plans,
platting, or any of that. If you want us to do full engineering designs, no, we're not coming back with full engineering designs, sir. >> But that's the main concern of all the residents. >> But that's not zoning. That's not the law for zoning. >> Fine.
>> Here again. Here again. Hold on. Hold on. Here. Here again. We are an advisory board to the county commissioners. We're here for zoning. So, I mean, we need to make a motion and we need to
make a second and the county commissioners are going to make the final decision. >> I I I'll make a motion. I'll I'll make a motion to deny the application. >> I second. >> Second. [applause]
>> Okay. So, we have a motion by Jared, a second by Eric to deny on item H3. >> Four. >> All the >> four. >> H4. >> Four. I'm sorry. All those in favor for denial say I. >> I. >> I.
[applause] Gave you a chance. >> We We still We got to finish up here, ladies and gentlemen. Help us out a little. >> Anyone oppose? I I'm opposed to that. I
>> mean, we asked the question of the applicant. Would they be willing to table it? What would they want to do? I don't know that Mr. Zenk actually answered that question. I >> Well, I don't know that she did. I guess I would ask her to come back up and would you prefer a tableling or are you comfortable going forward with the denial to the commission?
>> But my question Well, >> if I can keep talking, >> we had a motion though. >> I know. >> I've already voted. >> Okay. I >> I would ask for a roll call vote because I don't believe everyone voted
>> what she said. >> Can we do a roll call vote? >> Oh, she's asking. >> All those in favor for denial, if you would. >> Your name? >> I >> I I >> I >> I >> Hold on. Ron,
>> I >> I >> Jared. I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> What's her say name? >> Okay. >> She had a chance. She had a chance. >> Yes, I know.
>> I think they should have an opportunity to take one. >> You should do the names. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, what was your vote? I'm sorry for the record. >> Nay. >> Nay. Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Okay. >> She blew it. I gave her a name. >> They We're We're putting names on it. Is
that what we're doing? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Item H5. >> Don't leave. >> Uh Mr. Chair, do you think we might want to take a few minutes? >> Yeah, let's do take a break. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> We'll do a fivem minute recess.
>> She blew it. She didn't care. >> [music] >> Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Okay.
Hey, hey, hey. Staff, we ready? Did anybody order food in >> Ruth? That was your job. >> Someone could have bought us food from Longhorns. I'm just saying [laughter] >> you didn't, Trina.
>> I I I I I didn't even go out to lunch. I ate lunch at my desk working. >> That's dedication. I'll bring a whole Longhorn in here. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Just a horn. >> He's talking about a real Longhorn. >> Okay. Okay. Mark is item. >> Mark wants to get back. Okay. Item H5 is
Gunner DS being represented by Jenna Tendale requesting zoning classification change from GU to AU under application 26Z00009 located in district 1. >> Is the applicant here?
Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record and spell your last name. Uh >> Gunnar DS uh 6645 Mirror Flores. >> And a little bit about what you're wanting to do. >> Uh I'm originally from Arizona. You know, I moved back out here when I was like 17 and uh I was raised on a rural
life and I've got six kids and we don't do good in a neighborhood. You know, we've got cows and stuff in Port St. John. So, we're trying to get out a little bit farther away and kind of live that rural rural lifestyle with the family. And that's the uh ultimate goal. So, I didn't know that with the current
zoning. I didn't know that GU meant general use. I assume that was a pretty vague term. That is not what it means. And apparently, you can't have gardens, animals, pretty much anything on there. So, that's what code enforcement said. So, we're trying to do a zoning change to hopefully move out there and be a
little more rural, I guess. >> All right. While you stay there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? >> Wow. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> That was a stressful two hours. >> I'm closing it for public comment.
Gunner, I'm on your side right here now. [laughter] >> Seeing that, I'm going to bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the applicant? >> Um, I have questions about is there's an active code case on this property? >> There was. I like I for the having stuff
on the property >> for land clearing. >> Oh yeah, that that one I'm currently dealing with that one. So I got the property from a friend and there was already a lot of stuff done and there's a lady named Mary Hill. I guess she's had she's made like over almost 200
complaints this last year on people for code enforcement violations. So realistically I think I just got caught up in it. And I guess changing zoning is also going to help out with that. It's going to change like what I can do to mitigate what I've already done or what I already impacted to it. It's going to
like help I guess cover it, make it easier to deal with what happened. >> When did you purchase the property? >> Um I want like maybe a year, maybe two years, >> something like that. I just recently combined them. >> Do what? >> No, go ahead, Ruth. You you got the
floor. >> I didn't know you if you were done. >> Sorry. Um because I think the the original code case started in um May of last year. Yeah, probably. Yeah. >> And then it continued on. Um it wasn't a small code case. >> It was >> and um
still open unresolved. >> Yep. That one's still resolved. We're actually waiting on the zoning change. And to go for agricultural, I guess they like if we go bonafide agricultural, then I guess that changes the options of where I'm at. I unknowingly combined the two lots
together and the what impact I did was so small compared to the size of the property. But when I combined the two together, it increased the impact. So that changed. >> See, I I looked at the pictures previous and and before you freely available on the property appraiser website,
>> you can look year by year. Um and and I'm I'm generally in favor of agriculture. Love agriculture. We need more of it in Bard County and it a lot more of it. Um I'm just generally concerned um because I actually read through the very large code case on how
that's going to negative negatively impact or possibly just getting that cleaned up for the neighbors. >> Oh yeah. So like uh >> and is running it to AU the solution to get out of the the code case. Um is that is that what we're doing here?
>> No. A big a big part of it is it's going to so I wanted to have like I sold my house on Merit Island Allen. I had a house on North Merit Island. I sold that house in order to go build something here and move on to something else cuz I was in like a two-bedroom mobile home with like six kids. So, the whole goal
was was to sell that place and move on over to this place and build something new. So, that's the ultimate goal. I didn't know that there was as much legal stuff, I guess, tied up into what you can touch and can't touch. So, this was a option that was presented to me
from >> Mr. Who's the who's the the people the >> co um natural resources >> natural resources so yeah natural resources this was a a good thing they presented they said since you want to go for the agricultural pursuits already that's something you already wanted to do in the first place so like if you go
ahead with that we do have other stuff that we could work with you on to kind of settle everybody to make it happy for them make it happy for me so kind of has a twofold thing >> okay 2.5 acres just shy have right about
right >> should be 2.65 >> 65 >> combined >> yes I combined them yes >> what were what were the violations >> uh for land clearing I removed up like four or five palm trees >> didn't know those palm trees uh and then
they they I mowed down like a bunch of pepper trees a good percent of the whole front of the frontage that was on it was all pepper trees but I removed some palm trees and then she called about the palm trees and that's really what set it off was the palm trees What's that [snorts] look?
>> Oh, um, from the property appraiser website, if you look at it from last year to this year, it's pretty much tree lot to almost baron land. I'd consider that more than a couple trees. Sorry, my apologies for the >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, those were those were all pepper trees. So,
the palm trees were towards the back. >> So, if you go like down the side of the water, it's got key deer goes down from satellite and then it's got the canal. the palm trees were over here on the end the end of the end of where it's cleared. I left a good percentage of the palm trees. I didn't know it took out like maybe four or five of them or
something and that's what he actually said. He went back on the map and he's like, "I can see where you removed the palm trees." He's like, "We need to figure something out for it." And it was going to be something small, put back some plants, but once I combined the lots together, apparently that changed the whole entire dynamic of it, and I
didn't think that would. So that's why it's such a big deal now. So that was the only code >> violation was the clearing? >> Yes. >> Yeah. When I get the Brazilian peppers, I get that. >> Yeah. Well, apparently you can remove the Brazilian peppers, but you still have to get a land claim permit. I
didn't know. I was told they're invasive. You can just remove them, >> but you still need a permit to get rid of the root system. >> So your flowchart is to reszone it to AU and then apply for bonafide a exemption and then that clears out your code enforcement, right? Not all of it, but
I'll still put I'll still put stuff back, but that is what would satisfy a good portion of what they want. Land. >> I can never remember what they are. >> Okay, >> I make a motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Okay. Item H5. [clears throat] We got a motion by Ruth to approve, a second by Neil. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? That passed unanimously. >> I appreciate guys. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Item H6.
>> Item H6 and H7. I'm going to read into the record together. They'll need a separate recommendation. [snorts] Joshua Law and Jennifer Law request a small-cale comprehensive plan amendment. Under 26S.03 03 to change the future
land use designation from agricultural to res 1 to 2 and a half acres under application 26s 0000004 located in district 1. H7 is Joshua Law and Jennifer Law request a zoning
classification change from GU to AU under application 26Z 000013 located in district 1. And I assume you're the applicants. >> Yes, sir. Joshua Law,
>> Jennifer Law, >> Law, >> and your address, please, sir. >> 3608 Ellis Lane, Mims, Florida, 32754. >> Well, we have a Mims professional on our board. >> He's back there in the corner.
>> I've I grew up next to her father. [laughter] >> Okay. [gasps] >> All right. Can you tell us a little bit, Joshua, about what you're wanting to do here? I'm wanting to preserve Florida. [laughter] I've bought every piece of property I can afford out there and I have hit the
same roadblock with this GU. I wanted to build a house. It's way out in the future. So, I wanted to get power there so I don't have to tote water. My daughter's my young. This is the baby out of eight. >> I have f six boys, two girls.
>> And I want to preserve it for my children. It's going crazy. Walkabout golf courses behind us. There's not an arm drove left in Mims and I've palmed for Mr. H. >> I've cut palms. I've showed my boys how
I used to do it in high school. I'd go cut palms and hey, this is how I used to go make money for spending money. And it's hard to get power there. They wanted I was going to do it the zone it for residential. They wanted to put a temp pole there, pull a permit. It's
good for a year. I don't know when I'm going to be able to afford to build a house there, but I'd like to be able to put a well there so I don't have to haul water for animals because my daughter, my youngest daughter is five and we have a horse and she's showing a lot of interest in it. And we have the rails,
the trails right there by the property so I don't have to haul a horse to the trail. >> While you're right there, Mr. Law, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? >> [clears throat] >> All right, I'm going to bring it back to
the board. Anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant? >> I have a question. Uh, there's currently a code enforcement case. Um, yeah. Can you explain that a little bit? >> I started, we started going there. I had a wetland mitigation done first, so I
knew not to mess with any wetlands. I paid a third party wetland mitigator. And then I had the certified arborist come down because all these trees on this property are half of them when we bought the property were toppled over, tops blown out of them because they're all hollow. So I cut some trees down.
And when the code violation happened, the code enforcer said I had she had pictures of live foliage. Well, FPL cut that tree down. FPL was just there a week ago and they're taking P. Ash Flundo is there and they're taking
pictures of all these trees because they're hazard and they're going to try to get FPL to take them down because they're hazardous. And I, like I said, I have eight children. We love the we love being out in the woods. I could couldn't when I was younger, my cousin's best
friend's wife, they were walking in Lasita and a tree limb fell out and killed her while she was pushing her infant baby at Lita Golf Course. And I'll always remember that. So, when I have my little kids out there playing in the woods, I'm looking around at all these trees that are broken off. And
that's what it was. I didn't realize I needed to pull a permit to maintain the property. >> It says that it's um still pending because it is still pending. >> Yes. So, what needs to happen to have that not >> I They told me I was going to get a go in front of a general I could file for a
small land clearing permit, which was $400, which >> I'm a family of eight, single income. we're making it. I $400 extra dollars isn't in the budget right at the moment. And then so I said, "Well, what's the other thing?" He said, "You'll go in front of a general magistrate and
they'll do a land reourishment act." And I said, "Well, I don't have any money for $400 permit. I don't know how I could ever afford to renourish. I haven't done a lot. I've stayed out of the wetlands, did all my diligence before
I did any trimming of any trees, and then I haven't heard anything else from the code? Have not been informed because that one came in a certified letter signed for it. >> Okay. You haven't reached out to them? >> Yeah. Should we be reaching out? I guess
like been so busy. [laughter] >> I I'll be reaching out, but >> yeah, we haven't I haven't reached back out. question. >> But that's not why the intent of getting the a AU that's not to avoid code violations or anything.
>> No, but before I say yes, you know, change it if you already have a code in, you know, violation on it. I would hope that there was a plan in place to fix the code viol. >> Yeah. >> Yep. I'm willing to do because I, like I said, I'm I have wild orange trees
growing all over this property >> and I want to keep it that way. >> Okay, Mr. John. Yeah, Trina, could you clarify something for me? I remember back in 2019, the state passed a law that you don't need a
permit to remove trees on your property. So, I don't understand. Now, this is the second one that's come before us today stipulating that they were in violation because they removed some trees without a permit. But the the state had it was I think it
was 2019 that that came up. Can you clarify that for me please? >> Yes sir. Miss Miss Darcy from natural resources. [clears throat] >> Hello everyone. Yes, that's correct. Um the state requires an arborist to uh assess the condition of the tree uh tree
or trees before trimming it and that or removing it if it's a hazardous tree and the county code also allows the removal of hazardous trees. So, >> so do they need to get a permit? >> Well, it depends. Are all the trees hazardous [laughter] or any of them
exotics? I mean, there's a number of different things that come into uh to play, but usually if you have a hazardous tree, you can remove it if it poses an imminent threat. >> Okay. So, if this gentleman had removed a few trees because he was afraid they were going to fall on him, isn't that
legitimate without applying for a permit? And it shouldn't he be should he not be cited? >> Well, the state would require an arborist to confirm that. Um and no, I don't know every detail of the code case, but I would suggest that maybe we
can meet with the laws. >> Okay. >> Um to discuss the way they can resolve their code case. Um, I think there's might have been some wetland issues that maybe weren't >> part of it >> addressed, [laughter] but I I need to uh familiarize myself with the case and but we can meet with
you. We'll have we'll get with you on your way out. >> Okay. >> So, thanks Darcy. Appreciate it. >> Sure. No problem. >> There were wetland impacts. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, I was answering his question. There were wetland impacts.
I have the report. >> They were. >> Yes. According to the um >> code enforcement officer in this report that I have. Yes. >> Okay. Didn't didn't >> Yeah, it does look like there was wetland impacts, but I don't know how
far along that again when they serve a notice of violation to a property, there's still a process to go through to assess what impacts that happen at the property, if any. you know, we go with best available data when we send a notice of violation and then go from there. And I it sounds like maybe we
haven't had a chance to touch base on it yet with with the code enforcement officer, >> right? And I also before I cut any trees down, the neighbor two doors down is a certified arborist and I had him come down and he said he could deem all the
trees unsafe. I did not take all the trees out. And when I talked to the code violation guy, he made it sound like I should have I we're on a budget. If I would have just paid him the $5,000 that he wanted, then I wouldn't be having the problem,
right? With that code violation because the certified arborist, >> I would have gave him the $5,000 to cut these trees down and remove the brush and then I wouldn't have a code violation because the arborist did it. But since me and my family, we were we're building this
together, me and my children. So I wasn't I couldn't afford the money. I'd rather put my kid take him to Disney or something with that money. You know, they haven't even >> I don't think you can. [laughter] >> Not with that many kids. >> Kids, he's got five grand. >> Not with five.
>> I know. I know. But you know, >> all right. Well, let's We'll catch you on the when you guys walk out after this item, we'll catch you and we'll touch base and we'll sort it offline. >> Okay. move to approve. [crying] I need a motion on H6 first.
>> I I have questions for um >> staff. Go ahead. >> According to the maps, all but the teeny tiniest little corner is either considered and or um national
inventory wetlands or St. John's River Water Management Wetlands. And GU is one home per five acres if I'm correct right. And that is the restriction when you're building within a wetland. So reszoning it um
to 1.25 to build a home in a in where the maps are showing it's all wetlands doesn't exactly allow to build a home either. So what we would need to do is assess the age of the parcel. So if the parcel was established prior to 1988, they
could still do a house access and septic. Um, if it's a new newer parcel than 1988, then we would be looking at probably having to do some restoration because you'd be limited to the 1.8%. >> Cuz my biggest concern is I'm I'm pretty
familiar with that area out there. And down the road, not that far. Road and bridge routinely goes out and fixes where the entire road blows out due to drainage. And so if we
start compromising the one per five acres in a wetland to 1.25, all those folks that live downstream, which I believe would be administrative policy 7 that applies to this, would be suffering due to the excess. Like by the time you
develop all of these lots out, everybody just next door is going to be underwater and their roads aren't going to be drivable. And so this is my concern. >> Understood. And again, they would just need to meet our code of either the 1.8% of the property area, which is not a lot
of wetland impact. And if it's a very old lot, they are grandfathered in to be able to have it buildable for a home and access and septic. So, we'll assess all that. It's a complicated issue when you have land clearing and you have wetland impacts and you have to go back and some of it is like kind of forensic. So, but
we'll that'll all be addressed during the code case and um you know there there may be some restoration that they may have to do. >> Well, I I understand the code case. I'm talking about the reasonzoning in general because it's asking to go to one 2.5 and if we if we allow a home on half
the acres that's required or we reszone it giving giving the applicant the idea that he could build a home on 2.5 acres of wet that's wetlands that is not buildable because you have to have five. This has nothing to do with the code case. is I'm I'm asking about policy.
>> Okay. So, if if you were to reszone it to um so that it's one unit on 2.5 and the whole thing is wetlands, it's it then is not buildable. If it was subdivided after 1988, if it was an old
lot, this is this is the policy in the co code. So, if the lot was in existence prior to our code, they would be able to have the ability to impact wetlands for house access and septic. And then they would also have to mitigate for all the impacts as well. >> I feel like that might be valuable
information to have because I mean say we just unanimously voted to reszone this property but it still doesn't mean that this guy's going to get what he's want want um and he pays you pay money to come up before us. I just I feel like this is valuable information so someone
can plan their future. Okay. >> And that's up to you all to make that It was uh originally platted in 1911 and then subdivided in 1984. >> And then you put it back together now, right? >> What do you mean?
>> Three. What did you buy? Three lots. Is it three? >> All one. I bought it all at once. >> Oh, okay. >> 3.49 acres, one chunk. I have other properties there also because when I start first started this process the guy I was working with with the county said
try to acquire some more land around you to get your five and it's I got one but it doesn't touch mine. >> So there's two in between mine >> which we'll probably pretty soon have but >> I'm working to try to get the best deal
for it but I'm I want the property. [snorts] I'm not trying to disturb anybody. I don't want to I will do everything. It's going to be a long long time before I build a house there. I just want to be able to have a well and it wouldn't be on the front like the house would be
when we got those two back acres like in the very all upland like >> I don't want to mess any cypress swamp up. I don't want to natural those orange trees are 30 feet tall. I'm not going to
>> okay but so that I can understand to Ruth's point. So but when it's that much wetlands it's typically you know the restriction is different it's not res 1.2.5 2.5 it's, you know, one per five
acres, right? So that that is policy. >> I just did what >> I think. >> I just did what the county told me to do. >> Yeah. >> When I Harris, >> Kyle Harris is the one that I originally started working with and this is what he recommended I did. And then when I came
to do the resoning and actually sat down, the lady that worked with me, this is what she recommended I do. >> Right. I I don't personally live there. I know that Ruth does and so she's probably much more familiar with what happens there. To me, it it would
doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but the policy is what the policy is as far as I understand with wetlands >> policy administrative policy 7 talks about um infrastructure and um drainage issues. And that and that is my biggest
issue trying to digest some of this is um the people just to the west of that are already their homes are surrounded by water and rain events. And so I think when the zoning because let's let's be
realistic here. The zoning maps didn't come from anywhere. Somebody put a lot of thought into our zoning maps long before we ever got here. They've looked at this and they said this land out here is low. it's wetlands and we're going to zone it to apply it as such to meet our
code because if you have five acres and it's wetlands you can build on it. GU is five acres it's compatible. I think they put a lot of thought in it if you actually look at the plan and when you start compromising that plan that compromises other people's properties
and we are in a situation most of MIS is in a situation that every home new home that gets built out there is is pretty much putting somebody else underwater. And there's no real easy answer for it. I'm not saying I have the answer for it. I'm just saying these are real things that have to be considered and it's
going to affect somebody downstream. >> Move to approve if we can. >> Got a motion by John. I need a second. Uh, approve. >> Approve. >> I'll second. [clears throat]
>> Got a motion by John on item H6, a set H6, and a second by Jared. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? I >> I >> Ruth and Erica.
All right. Good luck at county commissioner. You got 87. >> You have 87. >> You have 8 H7 to go. >> No, with them. >> You don't have enough information to go with you. >> No, you I thought you'd want him to stay here.
>> He's He headed home already. >> Ah, we're doing another one. >> Yeah, you got a second. >> Okay. >> Got zoning. >> I'll move to approve on the second one. >> Got a motion by John on item H7, a second [clears throat] by Deb. All those in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? >> Same two. >> Same two. >> Ruth and Erica. >> Okay. Item H8. >> Okay. Now we're done. >> Item H8 do Prima Construction Corporation and Daniel Carson. Kim Rosen
representing. request a zoning classification change from RU113 and RU210 to RU215 26Z 00014 district 5. >> Good evening chairman, members of uh
planning and zoning board. My name is Kim Rosena with the lawyer Rosena Melbourne, Florida here. >> Excuse me. May I interrupt? Hi, Mr. Chairman. Um, I would like to recuse myself because I received a card. So, I
live very near to the property. So, >> thank you. >> That's fine. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I didn't know where it was coming from. >> I [laughter] didn't either. I was like, >> it's the other audience that came back. >> Yeah. Again, [laughter] Kim Roseno, LAR,
Lacy Rosena in Melbourne, Florida here on behalf of Dep Prima Construction Corp and Daniel Carson. I put the map up just to show the property that has the home is Daniel Carson's home. The vacant land is Dep Prima Constructions land. The
existing home is RU 1113 zoned. The vacant land is RU210. There's res 15 underlying both of those. Uh Mr. Carson and the Prima Construction have merged together. They plan to build one uh condominium complex, single family
ownership, and this was the best way to do it. Uh that house will be destroyed. Uh also too, you can see from that picture that most of this is multifamily. Uh many of it is rentals. A good bit of it is single family um
owned. The property immediately to the east is a single family. It's a piece of property uh that's it's a 1952 home. It's 1,000 square feet. It's uh it it's it's a widow's exemption. I
mean, it's it's going to be redeveloped at some point, I would imagine. Uh the property to the west has recently be reszoned and site plan to RU 215 has been site plan for eight units. Has not been built yet. So this area is mostly
residential uh medium density residential which is what we're seeking. We're seeking RU210 and our U113 to all our U215. The staff report indicates that this area is uh predominantly medium density
multifamily that there's RU215. There's actually RU230 to the south of this property, Palm Bay Colony. Not sure how that happened because it's under res 15 is underneath it. But uh so
we believe that this is consistent with the character of the area. Uh we do have a vacant land. I believe that it has been torn down. It was it was something else before that owned by the depre. And uh so with that we would ask that you
reszone this to RU215. Kim, while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item seeing that I bring it back to the board? Board, do we have any questions for Miss Kim? >> We do. I hate to do this to you, Kim,
but I love that area. I have a friend who lives the next street up Atlantic Street, and they're single family homes. They're not just It's not all multiv family. There are some quadruplexes and there are a couple, you know, duplexes
and whatnot, but there's some very nice homes. Now, we're increasing the density on the barrier island. And furthermore, if we end up putting 17 units going out onto A1A, we're going to need a stop.
We're going to need a stoplight. I mean, it's a mess as it is. We've got all those uh flashing lights on A1A down there. I just don't see us increasing the density on the barrier island. Furthermore,
once you get from Atlantic, you go over and you're at Holy Name, there's a a church there. There's also a school and there's a a preschool there. So, by opening it up to have uh RU215,
we can have transient occupancy, we can have, you know, a lot of things, resort dwellings. I don't I don't think it fits the neighborhood at all and I and I don't think we should be increasing density. I don't think we're allowed to increase density on the barrier island.
That's what I have to say. >> Yeah. Um there is comprehensive plan uh prohibition on clean and increasing the land use but not the zoning. And um I I have looked at this area. I would say yes, there is single family to the west,
but in this area, the only single family adjacent is the one to the east, which is that very old house, um, which I discussed earlier. But the traffic issue is a is a non-issue according to the staff report. But that is something that if it does trigger something, then a
light would have to go up. But currently, right now, the corridor operates at 55.9% 96 capacity and will increase to 56.24% capacity. So capacity is not an issue on A1A and I do not believe this isn't a
coastal high hazard zone. So there's no prohibition on increasing that density either. So um well >> I thought according to the comprehensive plan that there was absolutely no increasing the density on the barrier
island because the other comprehensive plan that went through didn't go through. So according to SB 180, we're not allowed to do that. >> This is not in the area of critical state concern, >> but but anywhere on the barrier island.
I don't know. To me, and I've been down there in that road and that area, I I don't like it. So I I know I'll be voting no, but thank you. >> Okay. To build off that, what is the evacuation to get off the island right
now? Does staff know that? What is the evacuation time to get off the island and what are the routes and how does this add to that? >> I do not have that information >> because I feel like if we without pertinent information like
emergency evacuation um information saying that people can safely get off the island prior to a hurricane. I mean it would be questionable for me to make a decision without knowing that information. I don't think I could do that. I don't think I could support that without that.
If the rest of the board feels strongly about the evacuation route, I'm certainly willing to come back with that information that's available. >> You want to continue this? >> I don't want to continue, but I don't want to deny either. So, >> we're talking it's it could be 17. It will it will be
No, it will be 15 or less because of the open space requirements when you get to that. So I mean I don't here again we're zoning >> I mean we don't need to go for plans and >> well >> you know engineering and all this
>> so even 17 units what what do we got two three people per unit >> it's about it's about seven trip it's about seven trips a day per unit >> you know I have a question for staff >> yes sir Mr. John
>> Trina, did you guys get your your uh comp plan approved yet? >> We did not. >> You have not. So, you're still sitting at 18 hours on the uh evacuation [snorts] >> if that is what was
>> that's what I recall. >> Yeah, I I I would have to verify that for you. I wouldn't want to answer it with inaccurate information. So, >> no, I understand. Okay. When when do you anticipate the comp plan being resubmitted to the state?
>> Won't it come back before us first? >> It will come back to you first. >> Right. >> Correct. >> So, what do you think? Another month, two months. >> I I think we're looking into some options right now. What path we're going to take on that?
>> Okay. So, you don't know? >> I don't know right now. >> Okay. Because we're getting into hurricane season. I'm just curious. >> Okay. Thank you. I'd like to move for approval. >> Got a motion by Deb. >> Second.
>> I got a second by Henry on item H. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> I. >> No. >> Who's opposing? Ruth, Jared, John, and Erica.
Everyone else is a yay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Item H9. H9. Robin R and Maxine M. Bland and Tara Brosman. John Campbell representing request a zoning classification change
from GU to RR1 26Z000016. It's in district one. >> Is the applicant here? >> Oh, good. >> All right. >> Tired amount. >> Seeing that, we'll bring it back to the board.
>> Make a motion to table. >> Second. >> Continue. >> We should be able to make a pretty easy decision on this one. >> Yeah. Not here. >> Gu to RR1. >> Yeah. But they're not the applicant's not here. So, I I'd rather
>> if they're going to use our time, they should use theirs, too. >> Yeah. >> I'd rather table it [snorts] without the applicant. That So, that was my motion. [clears throat] >> You want to >> or continue it till next month, whatever
the appropriate thing would be without the applicant. >> I need a second. >> We did. >> Second. >> Who did? >> Right there. >> John or Eric? >> I did. >> All right. Item H9. had a motion by Ruth, a second by John to continue till
next month. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Item H9's continue to next month. >> Do you need a a specific date on that, Alex?
>> Uh, yeah, that would be helpful if we know the next P&Z meeting. >> Um, >> well, I got the calendar pulled in there somewhere. What is it? >> If we could continue it to July 13th. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Very good. >> Okay. Item H10. >> H10. Recommendation to the board of county commissioners. revisions to BCC 100 evaluation procedures for development proposals pursuant to the live local act which are not otherwise
permissible. [snorts] >> John, you got your qu questions ready? >> Yes, sir. I do. >> You got the floor. Go ahead. >> All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is a Yiggby, right?
Yes. in God's backyard. Okay. I have a couple of questions. Um it's stipulating here that it's um when the property is more than 3 acres. Okay. You have a statement on your page
485, which is um Roman numeral 4 triple I. It states, can you get to that? I'll wait for you. the entire proposed development site. >> Yes. Okay. Got it. >> It says uh the entire proposed
development site is on property that is more than 3 acres in size. That the property is owned by a religious institution. I've got a problem with the comma because if you leave the comma in there, it stipulates it's three acres in size. And I don't
think that's what your intent was because it makes it separate. >> So you want an and in there >> or or or or >> I do see that. Um and I'm looking at the statute. The statute does not put a
comma in. It says is more than 3 acres in size and owned by a uh religious institution. Okay. So, you're going to correct that for me. >> Yes, sir. Noted. >> Excuse me. Why Why does there need to be an and there if there's an and in the
next I mean it's whether is more than three acres is owned by a religious institution and has contained a physical house of public worship. So, it is all three. >> Well, we don't think you're talking about number 17. >> Uh no. Okay. What? No. That's another
one. Oh, this one is um uh four triple I, >> excuse me, >> four. >> Yep. >> Article four >> from 485. >> Driple I on page 485. It's it's the same it's the same
composition. There's an and there the third line from the bottom of that subp paragraph and that the house >> and that the house of public work >> has to be all of those requirements have to be met. >> That's the question. Can't you do it
less than three acres? Some of these churches I received a map today from the um the state housing authority. They they mapped everybody in our county, every church in our county, and they covered all of them from the real small ones to the larger ones. And
and the question is, can someone with a active church that's been around for 10 years be able to uh develop it for affordable housing under under live local if it's less than three acres?
That's what I wanted to clarify. I don't believe that's the intent of this legislative change. Um, it does say is more than 3 acres in size and owned by a religious institution. >> Okay. If you're saying it that way, then
then you could say, okay, it's not a religious institution. It's just three acres, right? >> I would still group it together. It has to be more than three acres and a religious institution. So why isn't it stipulated a religious
institution greater than three acres greater than or equal to three acres and did it that way? This is kind of this is kind of backwards. >> Can you take a look at it? >> Sure, we can look at it. But yeah, I'm not necessarily
tracking be >> I'll tell you why. There's um the state came out with mandatory and voluntary. Okay. In the voluntary, it's less than three acres. What [clears throat] uh chapter of Florida law or section of state statute
are you referring to? >> You would ask me that, wouldn't you? >> Well, it' be helpful if I'm going to look into it. Then we can verify that we're either correct or correct. >> Off the top of my head, I don't remember. But um I [clears throat] can't give that to you
now. I don't have it. What do I have it here? Um, I have here a copy from them on how the two Yigv laws compare with local option and state mandate. Would you like to see
that? I can give you that. Yeah. You want it? No, don't get up. I'll get it. So, so if I can just clarify the affordable housing state statute 125.01055 subsection 7A which I believe is the basis of these changes that we're
discussing now. The language that the legislature included states that um the property has to be more than three acres in size and owned by a religious institution which has contained a house of public worship for at least 10 years before the proposed
development. >> Yeah, that's what I had read also. >> Right. So >> that's the mandatory. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And the permissive >> the permissive was less than less than three acres. >> Okay. What what house bill or state statute.
>> It could be live local 3.3 or something because they're up to what version four now [snorts] [clears throat] I mean, unless you want to state this as as mandatory only and then when we get into the voluntary
part of it, it'll come back as uh as a different ordinance because you're trying to comply with the state. I understand [snorts] that. It's getting late. Sorry, Mark. fall asleep.
>> We didn't have 600 people. pictures. We don't have that in our records. Um, we have the 2025 and 2026 spreadsheet of all the changes that are applicable to zoning and we don't see it
in either year, >> but we can go back and, you know, get it for you tomorrow if you want. >> Okay. >> Okay. Because I don't want to hold us up because we've been here all day. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay. So, how you want to table this
until or how do you want to do this? Well, we can always make it conditioned on if what you're proposing it being less than three acres. If that language turns out to be what the state statute was or whatever the bill was, then we can incorporate that with the recommendation brought to the board so it doesn't get postponed another month.
We can make it. >> Okay. You want a you want a a deadline or you want a deadline to get this thing back to the state? This is BCC policy 100. This is just for internal purpose. Okay. >> This is just for your own internal purposes for process. So >> there's no rush on it really. You just
want to the rush would be that the state law requires that things be put in place >> sooner rather than later. Right. So the quicker we can put something in place, the >> understood >> better it'll be for staff as well as applicants. >> Okay. All right. I'll get it for you tomorrow.
If we were if the clock didn't say six o'clock, I could have gotten it for you earlier. By the way, this did not come to Ahack. I was surprised. >> We didn't get it. My committee didn't get a chance to look at this. It was only me. >> Again, it was sent to um
>> Wanita. >> Wanita. We actually met with her as well. So, it was approved by housing. Billy uh Prasad made sure that we coordinated with um housing on this. All right. I I will get this back to you
then. [cough] [clears throat] >> So, Mr. Chair, my recommendation would be that if the board is good with the language that has been presented by staff, we can move that forward subject to Mr. Hopping providing us with the additional statutes or whatever that
have been passed. Staff will incorporate that in whatever we present to the board. >> All right. So that I I'll I'll approve that motion as you stated. >> Okay. [snorts] >> Read that back to me. [laughter] >> Sure. I think Miss Amato has a point to
make first. >> Okay. >> Um Yeah, I do. Um five, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement. Um B, the county manager or his or her designation shall have the authority to require a land use restrictive agreement in order
to ensure the development maintains affordability requirements under the Live Local Act. My question um would be it says they shall have the authority. Is that going to be a requirement or the county? >> It's already a requirement. We we we coordinate with housing on all of our
affordable housing site plans and um they they they work with housing to do the lure, >> right? But it says the county manager or his her designate. So I'm guessing you guys are the designate if you're working with them. Um my question is does this
give the does this mean you have to um require a land use restrictive agreement or is this saying that it's up to the county manager's discretion on which one to get this agreement or not I guess is my question. >> If if it says shall that means that
>> he shall have the authority doesn't say he shall have to do it. >> He has the authority to do it. We we require it right now for all of our affordable housing projects that come in under the live local act. Again, we coordinate with housing and work with
the applicant to get the lure done before development is approved. >> And my other the other thing I had a question about is I understand that this is complying with state law. I'm not arguing with state law whether I agree or disagree with it. Um, however,
having to deal with this because this is going administratively behind the scenes and it's not going to come before this board or the commission. Basically, it's put blindfolds on the public as to what's actually going on in their areas unless they until somebody breaks ground
and they're like, "What the heck's happening?" Right? Because they're not getting notices for 500 feet. They're not having meetings to come to. So, there's the public is absolutely blind to this. Is that correct? The state law specifically says that it's not required for reszoning. Um, so
they don't there's no requirement for them to have any hearings for this. >> If they have a commercial zoning or industrial zoning, they are allowed they are permitted to do this. >> And I'm not arguing with state law. I'm asking if that was a correct statement. >> That that that is correct. They they are
not required to come come before you. Dan, this is probably an unpopular thing, but I'm going to say it anyways. >> I don't think it's right on any level for the public to be blinded by anything going on in their neighborhoods. >> And we cannot fight the state on the
state has told us what we have to do. My recommendation would be to find a way to create a public-f facing website with just the information on the projects that are going on that stays up there so the public can see what they're not allowed to have a voice on. I think the
public should have be able to see what's going on even if they don't get to have a voice on it. >> And um I that way the true impacts of what this is doing can be seen because if the public doesn't know what's going on, they don't know what the projects are till after the fact, the problems
will occur and no one's going to know about it till the damage is way beyond done. And I realize that's a big ask, but that would be what I would recommend. >> Mr. Chairman Ruth, I agree with what you're saying on one part. However,
because because you're right, freedom of information, we need to know what's going on. This is only industrial and commercial properties. It's not like it's in somebody's neighborhood. >> Doesn't it include >> mixed use as well?
>> It does. It does include mixed use. >> So, in commercial zoning, you can do a mixed use. You can do residential and commercial. I just think the public got to know what what's going on and there's not that I know of a current way to do that unless you actually know about the
project and then choose to do a public records request >> because while BAS is great and there have been some improvements oftent times after approvals get done [clears throat] that information disappears off BAS and it's no longer available to the public. So I I I just think the public got to know what's going on in their backyard.
That's that's all I had. >> Interesting. Is there a way to notify [clears throat] by ordinance the public that we're doing a live local project? Just all of them, you know, that come around.
No, Alex. >> Well, I'm just thinking practically what would be the benefit of that anyway? I mean, if it's an administrative process and okay, your neighbor knows, what can the county do about stopping it if it checks all the B, you know, the requirements under the statute? >> That's true. You're right. But again, it gets rid of home rule
>> where we don't have an opportunity to have 500 people show up. Uh but that's, you know, because they came for us. >> But um when you have a situation where nobody knows it goes up and live local and but like I said, it's industrial and commercial. It's not really in
somebody's backyard. Um which may not have an effect, but just the secrecy of it that Ruth's speaking about makes you question it. That's all. >> I mean, it doesn't I mean, obviously, there's no hearing. There's no nothing to be done. It's just a notice that this has been administratively approved. And
maybe you I mean, maybe a thought is you still do it for the 500 ft around the project, but it's not a notice for a hearing. It's just a notice that this has been administratively approved and this is going to happen. And at least some people know that it's going to happen. I mean, at least it's it's the neighbors know, right? I I don't know.
It it was just where my head went. [clears throat] >> Yeah. You can't stop it. cost. >> Yeah. >> Where do you stop? >> Yeah. >> It's called transparency, isn't it? That she's looking for.
>> You have an interesting point, Ruth. Really? >> Yes, ma'am. >> You got a You got the uh North Merit Island woman over here that wants to Can you have public comment? You can have comment. Public comment. >> Ma'am, [clears throat] would you like to
speak for or against this item? I would like to speak to it. >> Okay. >> For this item. >> Yes, sir. >> If you could come back up to the podium. [clears throat] >> Like these. >> You know the drill.
>> That's interesting. >> Mary Hillberg. H I L L B E R G through 3780 Sierra Drive in Merit Island. Um I have been getting quite a few calls and emails um relatively frantic
about this issue which is not anything that you can stop or do I understand right >> but this issue um and they do feel blindsided >> because in North Merit Island we have
one road state road three which is a state road, not your road either. And it's completely lined with commercial and industrial. And everyone's thinking, "Oh my
goodness, we're going to have huge depart apartment buildings lining the whole corridor down through the middle of the community." And um I keep telling them,
"I don't know. I don't know." I'm looking it up thinking, "Oh my god, I don't know. I don't know." But um I I would say that someone needs to speak to to let the community know that this has
been done. It is done. It's not You're not being asked to approve it or not approve it. It's done. Is that correct? Let me >> Mary. >> Yes, sir. >> You know, North Merid Island is sort of
gossip driven. We up there have a tendency to uh create stuff that really, you know, you say, I get so many calls. You think you get some? I get a bunch of calls.
I hear they're going to put this. Where'd you even get that? you know, nobody's I try to stay up with the development on that end. And some of the stories you hear, I mean, there's going to be two new car lots and a bus station. So,
I don't I don't know what at what point. >> Well, this this is about local act. >> Yeah. >> This isn't a gossip. >> Well, >> well, we're not set up for apartments either. >> Oh, I understand. I mean, you can defend that immediately. There's the zoning is
not there. >> So, what are they are they going to be condos? >> Are they going to be um hotels? I mean, people are asking me what is what are they talking about? Because I know we don't have any choice, [clears throat]
you know, so I don't know. >> Okay, Miss D. >> I think that at this point, you know, that's out of our control, out of the county's control. I think um it's already been passed. different things can happen. You have to remember and take into consideration that this is has to be something that's viable for a developer, right? That that they're
going to make money. So, I don't think it's going to happen >> like you think it is. It's very unfortunate that um home rule is not being allowed to be the way it is, but also there is a huge cost to putting information out via letter via, you
know, I mean, can the county commission state that when it's publicly out there? Yes, they can state that on TV, but how many people are watching? The same thing with sending a letter. A letter is probably there's probably a large cost if you start to think about the county and how many the county they couldn't just send it for one area. They'd have
to send it for all areas. That would be the only fair thing to do. And there's a huge cost to that. And so, you know, it's it's sort of a dilemma. I I agree. It would be nice for everybody to know, but I'm not sure that's >> I imagine in this air time of technology, we might be able to
communicate without stamps and letters. We might be able to >> I'm thinking that you could put it on a on a website someplace, right? There has to be some way to have this information, >> the information to the local paper that everybody doesn't get the paper, but they they get it online. A lot of people
get it online just to keep track of things. >> So, it wouldn't be a bad thing to do. >> Could you put it on the uh on the county website? Could you have like a thing like what's happening in your neighborhood? [laughter] >> People don't go to the county website. That's scary. I do. I get, but I get
scared going on it. So, it's okay. >> You could still put notices up on the electronic notice like um I forget what it's called, but the county has a where they notice their um meetings and whatnot. People go to look at it. I can't think of the name off the top of my head. I'm sorry. Um it could be
noticed there. And and to the expense thing, the county is already sending notices for these hearings only there's not going to be hearings. So, the cost would just be the same as sending the same letters to the same 500 ft in the same area. That's different because the people are the applicants are paying for
a zoning hearing. So, they're using that money to pay for it. Well, in addition to um in addition to um being informed and being fair to everybody, uh it isn't even fair to I don't I imagine it wouldn't be fair to
even the folks who own the property that could be used for that if they don't know that it's happening unless all the >> property owners are being told is everybody in commercial and industrial being told this or are they word passes
or I don't know how that goes But you know it anyhow that my community is very interested and very protective and and uh it's not it's not gossip. It's they're very protective and they're very um protective of each other and and
their their [snorts] um >> their surroundings >> their area. Yes. >> I think it's a great suggestion. I don't know where to take the suggestion to get it put onto the website. Right. there's an affordable housing project going on here or whatever.
>> Well, just just that the fact that this is has passed and it is in, >> you know, if I were going to buy a home behind a three or higher story uh building and I ever wanted to see the sunset, I wouldn't buy a home there if I
knew that that was possible. I would buy it somewhere else. You know what I mean? I mean, it's it's not just for the for the properties there. It's for the people around and I you know absolutely >> it's just just not a bad idea to let everybody know and then >> then uh if the 500 people come then they
come they love you you know. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you ma'am. >> Okay. Um, [clears throat] can I make a motion to approve with um recommending that
they look at a way to notice people in the vicinity of 500 ft of of projects that have been administratively approved. >> Is that viable? >> I mean, anything can be done. And it's just at what cost. It's up to the board to make the recommendation to the board
of county commissioners. >> It's up to you. >> Yeah, that's all it is. It's a recommendation that they look at it. >> We are. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask a question? >> What's What's I guess we need a second first. >> No, no, we haven't started yet.
>> Okay. She just started with >> my I guess my question would be what is the cost of that typically a range >> to do like mailers courtesy notices? >> No, >> for the 500 just >> 500 ft
or >> is there is there like a range >> you know >> like from 500 to a thousand or from 100 to 500? Why? >> Just depends on the location of the property in question, right? If you're in a highly dense area, you're going to have more notices. >> I know. That's what I was thinking.
>> I'm still angry with you. >> Regular postage. >> Just regular postage. So, price of a stamp >> staff time. >> Staff time. >> I think we pay >> printing. >> I think don't we pay a flat fee when we do site plans or things like that to you guys? And then the postage is on top of
that. >> So, there's a specific amount. What happens is she prepares all of the notices. They go to the mail room. >> They do that and then they send a bill afterward. But administrative services doesn't get
the bill. So we don't get to see what it costs to send out those mailers and notices. So, I would advise since I don't know what the cost of something like that is, [clears throat] I would advise then that if this is >> approved with that that you maybe look
that up before taking it to the commission so the commission can look at what the cost of that is as well to make sure to see whether they want to spend taxpayer money on that or not. >> Are there are there fees excuse me, Mr. Chairman, are there fees associated with the live local application?
staff time. >> That that's all is an application fee. >> Yeah. And I that's that would go through the site plan, but you know, staff time of having to review it, make sure it meets criteria. >> Trina, that's not what I was asking.
>> Okay. >> Is there a set fee like for like if someone wants a zoning change, it there's an X amount of money they have to pay for that application? Is there one also for live local? >> No, not a set fee. No, it's it's right. >> So, it's it's charged on an asused
basis. >> It's it's based on whatever the site plan fees are. >> Okay. >> Site plan, subdivision fees. That that's what it's based on. >> Okay. Craven's nodding his head. >> Yeah. >> It' be a site plan thing. Okay.
So, I was just thinking maybe it could be the fee could be upped in order to include what it would cost to notify the surrounding area that that is being applied for. >> I [snorts] don't understand what the hell the difference is notified.
>> Yeah. There just usually has to be a legal basis of what charges you're assessing to applicants, right? So, in this case, it's not legally required that that fee gets incurred by the applicant, right? or adding something additional >> that wouldn't otherwise be required.
>> So that's good neighbor policy. >> But I think that you couldn't charge that to the owner you or to the neighbor 180 would >> kind of lock us into not doing it. Yeah. >> Right. I think it's an interesting concept because she you know Ruth's
right in what she's what she's stating. So I don't like hidden stuff in government. >> How do you imply it? >> That's the hard part. >> Yeah. I would like to make a motion that we approve this with um we recommend approval of this item with recommending
that the commission look at either electronically or mailing notices to people that will be affected by the administrative approvals. >> I will second >> within the 500t area. >> Yes. Within 500 ft of whatever a normal
notice would be. I will second that. >> Okay. We have a motion for item H10 from Ruth for approval. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> That passed unanimously. >> Item H11. Last but not least, H11, request for recommendation, draft ordinance amending chapter 62, Bvard County Code of Ordinances, Land Development Regulations, specifically amending section 62102,
definition and rules of construction, and 62305, Reasonable Accommodation Standards and Procedures, as well as creating new section of BVAR County Code, section 62-305.1 entitled certified recovery residences.
Okay, I'm going to open it up to the board for discussion. >> Question. >> Mr. John, go ahead. >> Does this include halfway houses? >> This includes any type of residence that
would be considered a somewhere where there's a clean and sober environment. Okay, I'll rephrase the question. Does this include halfway houses, [laughter] is staff involved at in halfway houses?
I mean, >> sometimes you are >> there there. No, I mean, >> if you've been locked up >> staffing of a halfway house there there couldn't be any staff living there, right? I mean, any any any uh nursing uh nurses assistants? No, I was worried about, you know, prisoners
coming back out of jail that kind of halfway because this is mostly for people with disabilities, people with drug problems, >> right? And I was just wondering if there were convicted felons that are being released, would this also include them?
I I I I I don't know that they would qualify or or fall into the definition of of of of the intent of this. The intent >> could be a prisoner with a drug problem. >> It it it could be it could very well be.
So, the intent behind it obviously is so that people can find a place to live where they're in a a a clean and sober environment with other folks. Um, so if
if it's a someone who just got out of prison and they had a drug problem, I it's I guess you know that it's it's no more than how it was explained to me is um if you had an apartment or a house
and you're a college student and you want to have some roommates in your house, it's essentially what this is is is a bunch of people living together trying to create u an an environment for them to be able to stay clean and
support each other. >> So, does this come under group homes? >> This does not. >> Oh, so it's it's a separate >> it's it's >> an independent >> it's an independent anybody could do it in in any neighborhood in any house.
It's it's not something that they need to come in and apply with us for. um this is put in place so that um if there was ever an issue they would come in and um request a reasonable accommodation.
Um, I believe that maybe there had been some other maybe counties or municipalities that were kind of restricting these things. And so, um, since the state is trying to, um, help people with like o opioid addictions and
such, they put this into place so that they have somewhere that's safe, um, where they can fully recover. >> And how is this monitored? >> We don't monitor this. This is It's not it's not required to be monitored.
>> So, you're essentially putting in a neighborhood a home that's full of prior drug users. >> I mean, we are not again. >> No, I mean, you're allowing it is not that you're doing the physical thing.
Yeah. >> I I I mean, anybody can rent a home or apartment anywhere. We can't. >> Yeah. But now you're creating a conglomerate. >> We can't you know that there's no regulations against that. this. We can't prohibit that.
>> It's like a commune in the 60s. >> And >> no, it's worse. It's worse than that. >> And is this require Are we changing this because of state law? >> Correct. Yes. This is Yeah. state legislative change. >> But one of the things that I noticed or
I looked up and I might be wrong, but that you do not have to be United States citizen to get any of these services. You can come in and say that you need accommodations and you get accommodations. You do not have to be a US citizen.
>> Are they So, we're not allowed to restrict where these these places go. Is that the idea? >> Correct. >> So, they can just put them right next to school, daycare, parks. We're good. >> Your house. >> Again, we can >> we cannot restrict where people move in
and decide to be roommates with each other. I look at it because um there is a park down where in North Bard and there is a facility very close to it and all I can say is it's not super comforting when the police get called and there's somebody who's run away and there's all
kinds of crazy things and you're 15 or 16 year old kids are at the park and you don't know where they are and what's happening. It's it's just it doesn't feel like there was a lot of thought and I understand we don't have a lot of say. It's just concerning. I think we do have a lot of say, but I just don't think we have a lot of say
here. I think we talked to legislation and our house representatives, right? That is that is where we have some say. No, >> no, I don't think we should let it happen >> because what essentially they're doing is they're putting these oases of of
houses within the neighborhoods where there could be a problem. Okay? And especially when it's not just one individual, it's a group of individuals. >> And not everybody can stay clean and sober. >> This is >> at any one time. And you know, the
police can be called state law on numerous. I know it's state, but I can fight the state, too, right? That's what I'm saying. You know, I'm for home rule >> more than anything. And for somebody in Tallahassee to tell me that I have to allow the house next door to be a
halfway house um for drug offenders who are trying to clean their act up. It's all very nice, but I don't want it. >> So are what you let me understand what you're saying. Are you saying deny this, let it go back to the commissioners, and the commissioners could choose at that point to try to take legal action of
some sort if they did not want to go? let them do what they do uh without us giving a an okay to it, you know, because I don't think it's right. [clears throat] >> How many people can live in these homes? >> There's no limit.
>> Oh, yeah. Is there an occupancy requirement? >> And are they still subject to um zoning in these homes and sizes and and limitations? Yeah, I mean the property itself has to meet the zoning and uh be
consistent with the comp plan. But again, this is not something that they come in and apply for with >> they don't have to be certified through the state though. >> It's voluntary. >> So if Yeah, if you look at chapter uh 397, >> I I saw the certification. I missed the
voluntary part. I apologize for that. >> Voluntary certification of recovery residences. Don't everybody fall asleep on me. Let's go. >> I move to deny. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Okay. On our last item, we got a motion by John to deny, a second by Jared. All those in favor to deny, say yay. >> Yay. >> Any opposed? Not sympathetic. I love it.
>> I've been waiting. I've been waiting a long time to say this. Meeting a journ. >> Thanks, Mark. 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 [music] commissioners of Bvard County Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory [music] or slanderous
statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey, hey, hey. [music] [music] >> [music]