Good evening and welcome to the April 9th, 2026 meeting of the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission. I'll call this meeting to order and we'll begin with the pledge of allegiance, please. 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. >> Thank you. Um, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? >> No, sir. >> None. Um, first order of business is approval the minutes for the March 26,
2026 meeting. >> Dr. today. Um I noticed a couple of errors on the minutes. Okay. Um that Mr. Lawler's name was used instead of in instead of your name because you were the chair that night. >> Reverse. >> Reverse. >> Dr. Day was
>> you're going back two meeting. >> I went back to Sorry. On the last one then. Um your name was was put in on one of the spots when it should have been uh Mr. Wilder's name. >> I'd like to have been deleted. >> Did you see that in there? Anybody else see it? >> Yep, I did. >> Okay. So, if we can get that amended
properly, then I'll make a motion to approve with those amendments. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Uh the minutes for March 26, 2026 are approved. Um we have three agenda items tonight. Uh the first
agenda item is Bluewater Bay PD and this is a request for a preliminary plan development um uh plan approval for a 374 lot residential single family project. Dr.
Horton Incorporated is the applicant. BSE Consultants Incorporated the agents. Uh zoning CL classification is RS3 residential single family up to three units per acre. Land use designation is
L1 low density residential up to one um uh low uh low low density residential uh up to uh three units per acre. A proposed density is 2.79 units per acre. Um
are there um any declarations of expartite communication regarding this? And can all everyone affirm their ability to evaluate this with an open mind? >> No. >> No. >> Yes. >> Good. Is that all? No. And yes. >> Yes, sir.
>> Uh very good. Uh anyone who would like to speak on this, please stand and be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Very good. Staff presentation.
>> Good evening, chair and members of the board. Before you today is the Blue Water Bay preliminary PD plan and plat. So, just to kind of go over the process thus far. So this process was approved via a PD special exception and conceptual PD plan by both the PCC who
gave a recommendation to the BCC all the way back in 2005. This project subsequently came back for a revised conceptual PD plan that just affected the public benefits portion uh this past January that was also approved
by the commission and then you guys also saw it I believe on December 11th. So now the applicant is back here for the preliminary PD plan/plat which just requires a an affirmative PCC decision either approval, denial or approval with alternate recommendations. So as part of
the preliminary process, we're just here to confirm that this plan development conforms to what was already approved at the conceptual stage. So we don't we don't um hear about setbacks or lot coverage or any any of the design elements of the plan development. and
it's just does this comply with what you all approved at two different stages. All right. The property is located north of 85th Street, east of 90th Avenue, west of 86th Avenue, and then there's also an
unimproved 89th Street to the north. This is just an aerial of the site. As you can see, some of the site already started pre-development after their 2009 approval. All the storm water ponds were put in and then most of the roadway in infrastructure was put in. When they come back and develop the property, they
may have to make some alterations to the storm water ponds because it's been about almost 15 17 years. And then also have to clean up some of the roadway as well. >> Only one. >> This uh project is going to be developed in two phases. So um phase one is going to be the majority of their single
family tracks, their um community tracks. So, they're going to have some amenities that are going to be approved later via our administrative approval process. And then also phase 2 is going to continue those uh single family homes, which is mostly the 55 wide lots in the norththeast portion of the
development and then some of their wider lots uh throughout the development. There's also a proposed connection to a potential 89th Street. However, that connection will only be achieved if all the rightways is able to be obtained to make 89th Street actually happen.
This is the overall site plan just to kind of give you an idea of kind of what it looks like without all the phasing lines. You can kind of see that um some of their amenity sites uh located around the central storm water pond are now visible and then these will be again confirmed via an administrative approval
later down the road. Traffic circulation plan calls for one full access driveway to 86th Avenue. There's a pedestrian connection um to the south to Treasure Coast Elementary across uh State Road or County Road 510, which will eventually be State Road 510.
And then that future connection to 89th Street that I also mentioned earlier. There's a total of seven storm water ponds that are throughout the site. As I noted earlier, those are currently existing and they may have to be adjusted here or there based on growth and and how everything has developed
over the last decade plus. landscape plan is going to call for mostly a 25- foot typeB landscape buffer that goes around the entire perimeter of the site with the exception of a 30-foot type A landscape buffer along the north
portion of 86th Avenue entrance and then also an eastern portion um east of 89th Street entrance. Dedications and improvements are internal and external sidewalks. the external the external sidewalks is
germaine to 86th Avenue. Uh they're also going to have to do some more rightaway dedications along County Road 510 and a 15t portion along 86th Avenue. The rightway dedication along County Road 510 varies. So it's not exactly 5t 10
ft. It just it's a strip that varies. Uh street lighting is going to be required. their common area green space and then some traffic improvements that are described in the staff report, but they include the intersection improvements to County Road 510 and 86th Avenue. Those
would include a traffic signal, an eastbound left and westbound right turn lanes, and then also cost participation for intersection improvements to County Road 510 and 66th Avenue. Those would include a northbound left dual turn lane, a westbound right turn lane, and
optimized signal or cycle length. Staff recommends that the PCC grant preliminary PD plan approval for Bluewater Bay with the conditions listed in the staff report. These conditions generally are gerine to the final landscape plans and street lighting designs, final tree protection and mitigation plans which would all be
approved at our land development permit stage with public works. Uh install all landscape and buffer improvements, all the lighting improvements, install common area and project sidewalks, install all of the required off-site improvements, and dedicate all applicable rideway. And lastly, they
would also need to obtain um from the BCC an approval of the developers agreement that's currently working it its way through the process and the BCC should see it sometime soon. >> I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brandon. Uh any um commissioner questions of staff on the
right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I have a concern, but I also have a question. Uh hear me out. It's not doom and gloom, but uh it's my understanding we are looking at
a current RS3 going to plan development. >> It was already u it already went to plan development during the conceptual stage back in 2009. >> Okay. So in 2005 and I commend you. You guys did a great job on presentation.
infrastructure was there in place for the most part. But again, 21 years ago, >> a lot has changed. You've got an elementary school, you've got a high school, you've got, and correct me if
I'm wrong with the figures, 2600 homes in Vero Lake Estates. We just approved a fire station two weeks ago with a concern that traffic getting out in the event of an emergency was a problem on 510.
>> Mhm. >> Now, it's not in the presentation and I think it should be. It's my understanding DOT is going to forlane 510. Is that not public knowledge? That's
absolutely. Yeah. >> Okay. >> For the record, right? >> But my concern is we didn't talk about a traffic study right now. 510 is broke and you add 400 more homes. You you've got a you've got a cluster there. But I
guess my question in it all is will the widening of 510 be completed prior to this development being completed? For the record, Ryan Sweden, assistant planning development services director. Um, Mr. Chair, Calvin, the timing is
pretty hard to estimate. Um, the first, so the 512 510 widening is actually broken into five different phases from 512 all the way to 58th Avenue. And uh, the first phase is already under construction. If you've driven in that area, you probably suffered through it. The second phase is the south leg of the
north south portion of 512 or or um this segment is the third phase. But I again I can't predict when Blue Water would would be reviving their infrastructure. I will say there was a fully approved traffic study re-updated based on
today's numbers with with this project. Um and all of the traffic improvements that are listed in the staff report and and in particular the SE signalized intersection at 86th Avenue and 5 510. Um but eventually yeah the widening the fourlaning will certainly
add tremendous capacity to that area. Um and and certainly 400 homes won't will not move. No, I I agree with you. It my I guess my point simply is this. Sometimes it seems like the tail's wagging the dog where we ought to put
the infrastructure in prior to entertaining developments. And you know, again, hopefully the widening will happen prior to this, but when you're talking about 2600 homes in Vero Lake Estates, I'm not an actuary, but
let's say on average they have 1.5 vehicles, that's 3,900 vehicles going in and out every day. God only knows how many go out of Sebastian River High School as well as the elementary school.
drive down 510. Now, I mean, you you got the narrow bridges. We we've got a transportation problem and I just want to make sure the infrastructure is in force. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the development. >> Sure. >> And my comments were hopefully to
appease some of the concerns that I would assume the other commissioners have, but you've got so much going on out there. It's glad I mean I'm glad to know that the widening's happening. I just didn't know the time frame.
>> Sure. And I probably should have also mentioned that the the applicant and their traffic engineer is here as well. But again fully approved updated traffic study based on this proposal and um you know yeah I infrastructure before the
development or likewise understood um that but it but the 510 widening is is progressing as we speak. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I had one question on that as well Ryan. I noticed in here it said uh on page
three that the northbound left dual turn lane going on to 66 from 512 and it was having that these have cost participation in that. >> Uh yes >> and and I was understanding from you
know all the sharetses and things that we did on the widening of 510 that that was going to be a roundabout. >> Right. So that that that's under the current intersection configuration. That's not based on the roundabout um >> on the future future development of that road,
>> right? Because right now it is a standard uh intersection. Um so based under the assumptions it would be a dual left under a under a traditional intersection. However, the roundabout would certainly alter that. Um but it's a cost share. So whatever the ultimate
improvements are, they're going to be on the hook for cost sharing. >> Okay. So it doesn't matter whether it's a turn lane or the roundabout or whatever. There's a cost share that that Right. It's based on that they have based on their traffic stats requirements. Correct. >> Thank you sir for clearing that up. >> And that'll be further defined in the developers agreement. But yeah, it's
it's basically it's a it is a actuarial out capacity versus trips that they put through the intersection. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I've got a question as well. Ryan, with this being a PD, what are the benefits that the county is receiving? Well,
we're as >> I know because they're going to have to come in and put the turn lanes and all that. >> What else? >> So, so the essentially the the list of public benefits are already in in the under item nine. Um, but we're not again
we're not we're not uh we're not reopening that that that >> that topic that that that's all been already agreed upon. Again, you all saw this in the PD modification in December and then the board implemented. >> And I guess my question is you're
absolutely right, but we had a fire department come before us what, two weeks ago, a month ago. >> Yes, sir. >> Building it right across the street. We have a road behind the fire department that tends to be a problem. >> So, we didn't know that. Okay, maybe they take part in helping this road
behind the fire department. If we'd had known that, we didn't know it. Again, we're putting a cart before the horse. All I'm asking is, you know, here we're going to build a fire department that has an inferior road behind it. It's not necessarily stable.
Why? If we were thinking about the fire department, it had to been in the plans. Of course, this was 21 years ago, so the fire department wasn't in the plans. >> Sure. All I'm going to, yeah, it's already been done, but I guess we can either accept
except with conditions or deny. He's looking at you, Susan. And being a former county commissioner, I get it. >> That's that's that's correct, sir. >> So, we can if you're telling me we can't
do anything, what are the conditions? Uh well again all the conditions that are outlined in the report again at this point of of the of the process essentially you all are confirming by way of staff and and and your input that it it satis it meets the what's already been approved at the conceptual level.
>> Right. >> Um so >> but then things have been thrown at us after all this is going on. Let me ask you this. If if we don't do this and it gets to the level of board of county commission and the board of county commission goes, you know what? Maybe we
do need to have that road taken care of behind the fire department. Can they do that? >> This stops at PNZ. This tonight's the final action. >> Well, this is it. >> This is the final action. >> So, we can't add let's put the road behind the fire department as part of this. >> I would highly recommend against that.
So, I we can only add we can only add what's required at this point. If you're asking for a PD, are you asking for extra public benefits? Is that what you're trying to >> Absolutely. I I think that's a huge public benefit that came to us after the
fact. Am I >> Help me out, guys? Am I wrong? >> And Susan, can I ask are are we allowed to consider things beyond when it was approved the first time? And is that influential enough for us to consider
that now or do we have to consider it based on how it was done at the time that it was done? >> Okay. So this one >> I'm saying >> so this one and this is a little tricky because are you talking about the conceptual or are you talking about way back and oh whenever it was when it was first?
>> Well I know what it was in 2005. >> Oh yeah. >> I I voted on that. >> Okay. So because in 2005 I believe some of it was a little different from my recollection of this particular project. >> Correct. >> It was as demonstrated here. Some of the um public improvements that were
required were that bridge like you're talking about 89th. >> However, that has um changed as noted in the staff report because of some other private property owners >> and some issues of them not being able to work that out. So from there in
exchange they weren't supposed to have to put a light at 86 and it's my understanding that they are now having to put a light and pay for a light at 86 >> where the fire department's going to be. >> No no no no on that >> on that east side there 86. So there
wasn't supposed to be they weren't supposed to pay for or whatever put a light there. It's my understanding that that's what's been negotiated since >> as an alternate public benefit since the um >> bridge >> I'm sorry since the bridge couldn't go through. >> So because I know what you're saying.
You're saying that road on the opposite side. Are you talking about 89th punching through and going behind the fire department or what road are you talking about? >> There was >> you were Yeah, you were missing that night too. 90 91st Avenue, which is west of the of the Eats, just off the screen there that um is a dirt road, an
unimproved road um just immediately west of the fire station 15 property. Um but again, I think the '05, so in in again December 11th of 2025, just a few months ago, is is when
they did modify those those public benefits. Um and then the board ultimately approved that in January. Um, but to right to try to go back yet again for the fire station for 91st Avenue, I don't think for this PD would be uh would be equitable. If if there were
another PD in the area, we could certainly contemplate that. >> Well, I and I guess my question is we knew all this with the fire department. Of course, we didn't know about the road because we had people talk about that the night that we had
the fire department here. We have this huge PD across the street that if the cart wasn't in front of the horse, I would have been one to say, you know what, they need to help and produce something right there. I mean, I
guarantee I could probably find a microscop here and go, okay, but I don't want to do that. I I think and again we can accept except with I guess well there's nothing we can
change or deny >> in in the scope of is it consistent with what's already been approved if I could >> and I just want to make sure that if we if you all are looking at that that whatever it is your choices whether it be accept except you
except with conditions or deny >> that we at least listen a little further to the testimony not only of staff but of the others because we have it >> we have to base it on what's actually heard here >> on the evidence that's here and anything that we you guys make a decision on you have to find through competent
substantial evidence >> um as to why you're accepting accepting with conditions you're trying the only other thing I want to note really quick is that if we're changing um for example We've said that one of the ones that they've negotiated out was to have a
traffic light here on 86. Um, when we're dealing with a PD and we're dealing with exchanges, we can ask for public benefits, but there's a almost like a weight, if you will, we have to be careful that we're not asking for more public benefit than what they're kind of
receiving a benefit for. It's almost kind of like a quid pro crow because then it can be looked at almost like an exaction if you will. So, you know, where you take the a little extra than what we're supposed to. So, we just have to be careful and mindful that we're weighing that, too. That's >> And let me let me ask you this. I guess
the road that was supposed to be maybe in the future, 89th Street. >> Yes, sir. >> Which is vacant and we have to get or they have to get right away. That is part of this PD. Correct. >> Half. So, they've given they've given
their half. You can actually see if you look at just show across the top of the screen there, >> right? >> Um Brandon, there's a there's sort of a hiatus between the dash line and the yellow line, right? >> Um there's a I believe shooting from the hip, it's 30 ft of rightway that they've already dedicated and then it flares out
a little bit where the bridge connection was going to be. So they they've dedicated their >> half uh of the of the rideway. The other half would come from the north. Uh a little bit to add confusion is that yellow dash line is actually the Sebastian city limit. So the properties immediately to the north are in are in
the city of Sebastian. Um so but yeah typically you know the county so when a when a county does a project they they uh split the rightway requirements between the two projects but they have dedicated all of the rightway for 86th Avenue on their side
uh as well as 89th Street. But the uh the bridge, again, not to belver the point because this is what we discussed back in in with you all in December and with the board in January, is that the lateral decal is actually not owned by STRD. It's actually owned by the
Corgans. Uh that was ruled by a um judge and there's a deed and then the Corgans said um we're not going to allow the bridge to cross our our property. So they had to go back to the drawing board to redesign the project and that's essentially what occurred in December
and January. And now this preliminary PD plan, but again we're just vetting that it meets that. Basically the way it works is that a conceptual plan is is just that it's it's a little bit more conceptual. It's not quitely tightly defined. At the preliminary PD plan,
it's it's more defined in terms of lots and tracks and all of those things. and it becomes even more defined at the LDP in terms of construction level drawings. >> So then will they come before us again for any other issues pertaining to this? >> No sir. The if Brandon if you could go
to the second slide. Um >> no I know >> uh it's so it'll it'll be if if you all approve tonight uh the next step is the LD land development permit at the staff level which construction level drawings and then the final step is the final plat which is no longer by the BCC. It's
actually by the county administrator. We got to update our standard slide. So this would be the final approval from from you all. >> Okay. I'll wait to listen to them. >> Okay. And just to final point of clarification, we almost always we're recommending uh approval with
conditions, staff conditions to make sure they fulfill all the other things they need to do. So u just to point that out, we're already re we are recommending approval with conditions. >> Thank you. >> Mark, you have a question? >> Uh yes. I was also going to ask about the roundabout that uh that seems like
it's a long way away, but maybe the the uh cost participation won't be that great. Uh but uh I the other thing I was curious about was all the uh uh narrow lots up in the uh northeast corner. >> Can't talk about it.
>> Right. So >> is that a done is that also a done deal? >> Yeah, essentially. Yes. Yes. So the the conceptual PD plan was what approved the mix of lot sizes and lot widths and then the preliminary PD plan is what actually lays those lots out. Um there is for
what it's worth that's the reason why the buffer is a little bit wider in that north uh east corner of the property. But yes, the lot width setbacks again those have all been agreed upon and approved. >> Okay, >> you good, Mark? >> Yep.
>> Yep. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to >> speak on this? >> Absolutely. Thank you. Mike Doula with Dr. Horton. Um I don't have any additional presentation or anything here. Again, we've worked with uh staff diligently through the AA process and
now bringing us here. Um I think Brenda did a great job of going through um what we've gone through. Again, it's been a long process um debating with the coreans about the bridge crossing, arriving at that and then renegotiating um with staff to provide a a significant
public benefit in lie of that bridge crossing, which is the signal at the the intersection there. Um I know as as Brandon said, I think our our PD is consistent with all of the regulations that the conceptual setup. Um so I'm I'm here and happy to answer any questions
you may have, but that's the long and short of it. Any questions for the applicant on the left? No. Tell me. No. Any on the right. Okay. Um, I'll go ahead and open it for public comment. Anyone in the public who
would like to speak on this? No one in the public. >> Yep. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. Name and address. Daniel Spencer, 757 Acacia Road, Vera Beach, uh 32963.
Um, thanks thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, my name is Daniel Spencer and for 43 years I've owned 38 acres up uh next to the Blue Water Bay project. Uh, my neighbor Dan Hess owns 40 and he asked me to mention it. He's out of the
country and couldn't appear tonight. Um we are the two last original members or participants in the developer agreement 20 20 two decades ago. Um and we follow we have followed that over all these
years. Um for the last 15 years the county and PNZ have informed me of any meetings for Bluewater Bay and any developments and I we really appreciated it. For some reason, we weren't informed of the December meeting or tonight's meeting, both of which are very
important uh for our futures. Um we uh we are very concerned over the the recent changes um that the county's made over the the developers agreement and uh um so forth. So that we we wanted we
didn't have an opportunity to come in and respond. So really all I'm asking for tonight is some time to respond because I don't know if it's a law that they have to inform us, but it was certainly a a a professional courtesy that we appreciated for many years. So I'm not sure why it stopped, but we
didn't hear about the December meeting, which was crucial, and we didn't hear about this one from the county. So we sent we did send some attorney letters in yesterday, my Mr. Hess and myself. Um and basically what we're requesting is
some time to respond. Um and uh that's basically what we're asking for is sometime and also it it seemed like we're moving away from the developers agreement which we've known all these years. It seems like we're abandoning all the different tenants. Um so we just
want to we just feel that it's going to have an adverse impact on our property values and our future options and so we just like some time to respond. And and also I'd like to know is it is it customary to inform property owners
or what I mean they did it for 15 years. >> How about this? Do you have any other question? I don't want to get in a back and forth. Do you have any other items and then I'll try to address them all at once. >> Well, no, we do, but this is I only had three minutes so we really just want the delay right now. So, so again the the
notification for this particular project for this level of the project is assigned posting by the applicant. They did fulfill that requirement. Um yet we have we have had an informal courtesy notification process for the county.
That is not a required process um for whatever reason. I'm not sure why that that that email notification was not sent out. Uh but we also have our formal notification requirements. So back in uh December and January was the was a public hearing was a legal advertisement and then for the preliminary plat is a
signposting by the applicant which was fulfilled. Um the again the removal of the the bridge and and and that sort of matter was again that was settled in December and January in a public hearing setting. Um so that
the but the notification requirement is the signposting which was fulfilled by the applicant. If this were a new PDU, and you guys, you've probably heard this many a time, we do an entirely new signposting, uh, a staff signposting, legal advertisement,
and notification by mail, 300 ft. So, that's typically a little bit more robust notification, but at this level, this is essentially a a second step of the process. >> So, just real quick, um, I believe m and
I'm sorry, your name is Mr. Spencer, you own >> Yes. >> It's one of the properties to the north of this >> north and Mr. Hes is the next one to the the 40 acres to next. >> So you're to the west and he's to the east. >> To the north. We're both to the north. >> Okay. So as as a neighboring parcel
under Quesol, they would definitely qualify as an interested person. So he is he is definitely allowed to have, you know, make testimony, give testimony, ask questions of people. Um he has his opportunity to be heard. So, we do have
to allow him that here today. So, I just want to make sure that >> we want to put together everything we're concerned about in a letter, not three minutes. And I was just wondering, this was just to give us time to respond before the decisions are made. And uh they're going to impact us pretty pretty
pretty bad. >> So, we as Mr. Sweeney has noted they did meet if they have met their their notice requirements, we can't make them come back for that. Um what we can what we
have to do as the board is allow public and yourself being an interested person you're noticed you're here today. >> Um you are able to give testimony and evidence and make cross-examinations and do all that here today.
>> Well, we weren't given time to prepare. We just heard about it uh the day before yesterday. So that's what I'm saying. We we haven't been informed. And who made the decision to take us off the list to inform? Like I said, for 15 years, we've been getting it. And it was very important. And as a taxpayer and everything else, it it would seem to me
that uh if I only get three minutes, that doesn't seem very fair because we'd like the whole reason we're asking for it is because we need time to prepare. We have we just we weren't infor we weren't informed of any of this since December. >> Okay. I don't think we've we're not imposing the three minutes. I don't think it's >> Well, I mean I I need to have it to
where I can write it and give it to I They told me I had three minutes, so basically I concentrated on give us the time to respond properly. That's that's all. >> Um when was all this the notice? Can you please elaborate on when the notice and items were done so that way we can make
sure that we have for the record that we have appropriate notice because that's what we need to know cuz if he's contesting notice >> well they they would send it right to us not in the paper they would send it right to us on the email and then I would send it to Mr. Hest. Uh it was a
lady with her first name with an O. And so we did it for many years. >> So but legally I think what Mr. Sweeney was trying to explain to you is that they're not legally obligated to do that. >> I understand that, but it should for a taxpayer it should be a professional courtesy when it's been done for 15
years and then it stops right when the most important meetings pertaining to us. We were excluded and so that's what's really got us going because we heard it from other people and we said what because we like I said this is the first in December is the first one we haven't been notified of. So, sounds
like uh there's not much we can do, but we can still submit our um concerns and >> yes, >> but the problem we're having is if the decisions already made, then we're not getting a chance to participate before the decision. >> So,
>> this is your this is your opportunity. >> This is your opportunity. And I know it doesn't it doesn't seem I know that you're arguing that it doesn't seem like much. >> You told me three minutes. So that's why I just wanted to basically ask for time to present it properly. >> You know, when you find about the day
before, we basically put some attorney letters in yesterday to let them know what we were very concerned, but obviously it didn't make any changes in the agenda. So that's why I came to make to make sure we presented it and I well I guess it's pretty disappointing if that's if that's if that's what
taxpayers have or that's what we get. >> What do you Mr. Spencer, what do you see here that concerns you that's changed from the original? >> Well, the development agreement is is really changing originally and we also are Hess and I are also developing with Ryan Homes. Okay. So, we were originally
supposed the development agreement from 20 years ago and not about the bridge so much, but share the road that came between our two properties. And that's what we were supposed to do. But that's that's all been changed because this time around the county said the first person in will pay for it. the first
developer and not split it. So that meant the first person in the developer would put it where he wanted which really hurt the other one. So either way we've we started on this process in 1920 or in 2021 and we still haven't and and we are in Sebastian but I like to remind
everybody the majority of our taxes are paid to the county. A very small percentage. So to tell us go to Sebastian it doesn't seem right. We're paying most of our taxes to the county. Um, so because you know, somebody said, "Oh, they're in Sebastian, but for you know, it just doesn't seem proper." Um,
>> so your property's in Sebastian. >> No, we were annexed in, but we've been in we were citrus groves for all those years, and 20 years ago, we were next annexed in. Yes. And um and so basically the decisions being made are making it
impossible for us to develop because now instead of requiring in the development to do that road right between the properties, they're allowing them to just punch into 510 and not have to develop that. So they were relieved of the money building that road and and we are it's put on us
by ourselves. So it's a combination things. We're property owners and we're also property owners trying to develop our properties at the same time they are and we feel like they're have gotten very favorable treatment and we feel like we have been kind of left out uh
landlocked and not even informed of meetings. So that's that's what it comes down to. >> I have a question for you real quick. Susan, you may be able to help me on this. The developer agreement is made between staff uh comes up with it and that's approved by BCC, is it not?
>> Yes. So I believe the developer agreement that Mr. Spencer might be um talking about I know that there was a very old developer agreement from 06 or something like that >> and my understanding is it's been updated sir you said >> it's been changed >> it's been changed >> without without
the county uh the county commission level >> so a number of things have changed first of all one of the properties was in the county the other was in the city of Sebastian more recently within the past five years they also annexed into the city of Sebastian so both pieces are are now in
solely in the city of Sebastian that I believe the developers agreement that Mr. Spencer is referencing is not in a developers agreement between the county and the developers, but rather a a private developers agreement between the developers, which we saw a lot in 04
>> enforced by the county. >> Not necessarily. Um, so so here's here's the other thing to be clear. The properties to the north, the the piece that was in the county before it annexed into the city, we had a lot more control over because we, you know, we it was in
the county. It was under our jurisdiction. Um, the property to the east was also approved as a PD and also had again I you all heard me mention that the rightway obligations are 50/50. They're split between each property. Bluewater
came out of the ground in 0506 sort of. They did all their rideway dedications. They started to build without actually securing the rideway from their neighbors which was a risk um that they took. But then again, the bridge
crossing all was a much more recent development, a ruling, I believe in 2023 with the deed soon thereafter and then the Corgans ultimately Brandon, if you can find the date of the letter from the Corgans telling Blue Water that they were not going to grant the bridge. I
mean, this was within the past two to three years. So, yeah. So, circumstances have changed, but not due to Blue Water's fault and certainly and not really to the county's fault either. I mean it's it's something that was unforeseen in 20 years ago. Um but again
the change the modification to the blue water conceptual PD which was approved by or recommended for approval by you all in December and then ultimately by the board in January approved this current layout with the connection to 86th Avenue to fit in the existing
rightway that they dedicated a signalized intersection a secondary u uh pedestrian connection down to 510 to the school. Those are all things that have been more recently approved. Um 89th Street
without the rightway from the north is is only a half road and that's why they have a future connection but that we can only I mean they they're trying to move forward under what they can control. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm confused about the
ownership of the land to the north. I think Mr. Spencer said you and your partner own those two lots. this one and this one, >> right? But it was u somebody mentioned Coran was the one that uh
>> it's this here >> they they own the canal. >> That's the canal. >> Oh, so and that's and they wouldn't permit the bridge over that. Yes, sir. >> And I also heard u the word landlocked. U how how is that going to work out? For all these years, we were able to use
what was the old Wabaso Fails Road, which would if you went down 86 when you come in, it went to the right and that came up to our property for 50 years. They were citrus groves and it was the old Wabaso Fails Road. Um, we couldn't never get them to grade it because they would say there's plenty of county roads
that are that are dirt, but um it was a road. It wasn't just, you know, and so that's what we used for 50 years when we were in business or before me and and when I was in business with the citrus groves. Um, >> so 86 extends further. Yeah, it comes it
it goes and then it it goes up and then it went to the left and it was what was the old Wabaso Failsmeir road that came down to my pro past the Hess and my properties and originally the developer I'd say my question was who changed the developer agreement because originally we were supposed to have a road between
the two properties and and and um and be able to do that. Now they're not being required to do anything there it looks like and it looks like the burden comes on us and we're sort of landlocked too. So, it's a combination of things as a property owner and also a property owner who's trying to develop but doesn't seem
to be getting as good a deal as the others are. >> And I have a question for you on that. Sure. >> Is the original developer you made that agreement with the same developer who is here Dr. Horton? >> You mean what? In the old days. >> Yeah. >> When they first started doing it was Blue Water Bay back then.
>> Blue Water Bay. Right. Yeah. Okay. >> But but and it was among the developers, but the county's the one that enforced it and laid it out. It wasn't like we got together and just made it up. the county enforced it and it was all enforced for 20 years. The only thing that changed was uh they did take the bridge back out um and they no longer
required them to share that road and so that leaves us see before in the original developer agreement the developers were supposed to split it evenly. >> The county changed that to the first one in had to pay for everything. Well, that meant that the the first one in would put the road where it was messed for him and the other people lost a lot of lots.
So, I just am concerned of who's making the changes in the developer agreement and if it's not, you know, I just and and and we're not privy to the decision-m. >> Okay. And and so Ryan, my understanding is the applicant has given a 30foot
right of way dedicated to the county there. >> Yeah. For both 86th Avenue as well as 89th Street. And they do flare a little bit wider at the intersection to >> Yeah, I see. I I see that there. >> Right. So they again they fulfilled their requirement. You also you can see the curve. They've already dedicated the
the curve. >> So at a time when when Mr. Spencer, you know, may want to develop his property or or do something in there. Um does he because nothing's being constructed in that ride ofway at this time. Am I correct? >> Correct. So that that that rightway will
exist. Um, and at the time of their development, can could they also do a 30-foot dedication and then have a total road where that would be split down the middle? You have your 60 foot of rightway between the two two people and they have rights to use that road at that time.
>> Right. The only other caveat, not to make things more complicated, is 86th Avenue also is only half is only a half a rightway. The the the property to the east, which I believe was Sebastian Lakes PD, um, they also have not come back to the table, so to speak. So they would need to dedicate their 30 ft in
order to make the north south rightway to get to 89th Street. I you know the term landlocked is relative um because at least the the western parcel does have direct frontage on 510. However again the Corgans being granted the
ownership of the canal are the ones that that control it. Up until three years ago we would not have considered that to be landlocked. Strid, we it was assumed, it was understood that STRID was the owner of the canal and they were the the permitting agency. Um,
again, the county try when all three properties were under county jurisdiction 20 years ago, we did our best to try to preserve the grid and ensure that 86th Avenue North South would be a full county road and 89th Street would be an
east west road with connections to 5 85th Street to the south and 90th Avenue both being 510 to the west. circumstances have changed beyond the county's control, beyond the developers control, and one of those properties has now annexed into the city of Sebastian.
So, yeah, there's moving parts. Um, so >> Mr. Spencer, the I guess the reason for one piece to be annexed into Sebastian and the other not, you might know that answer better than all of us. >> Just a timing thing. Um, I had done it
20 years ago and he did it just in the last this year, past year or so. Uh, the other thing too is it seems like I'm hearing that that we should be up in Sebastian that we're not a county thing. Like I said, majority of our taxes are paid to the county and we cannot we
cannot move. You are under the jurisdiction of the city of Sebastian. >> I guess I'll interrupt back. If we can't move forward unless the county works out the roads with us, otherwise we can't get back to Sebastian. We passed all the things we had to, but we can't get back because we cannot get from the county
help with the with the roads. And now it looked like what you're letting Blue Or do is very advantageous. They don't have to pay for that road, which they were supposed to pay for the whole road as of the last time we started this in 21. So I guess my other question is when you change the rules and regulations in the
middle of a project, we started in 2021. You're making changes in the developer agreement now. So you're making changes when we're in the middle of the stream. And so that's going to kill us on our value and also our development. So >> if I I just want to clarify I that I
will say that we cannot control as the county cannot control your property and your development rights because you all annexed into the city. >> But we have on the roads. >> I I understand that. But what I'm trying to explain to you as Mr. Sweeney has tried to explain to you, Mr. Spencer is
that your developmental agency is the city. The minute that you annexed in, it is the city. It is no longer the county. What about >> So, as far as hold on, as far as the developers agreement, if I'm correct, that developers agreement that was done in ' 06, it was never recorded
>> in the public record. Under Florida statute, all developers agreements are required to be recorded in the public record or they're deemed null and void. So, I don't even know that that developers agreement is actually valid anymore. Has there been an updated developers agreement entered into? I
don't know. The last I knew it was trying to be amended. Something was trying to get worked out. But as far as that, there's questions as to that even still being a valid document. So, I I'm not sure that that what you're
saying that the county is taking away that or that um the board would be taking away something along that is necessarily completely 100% accurate because my other question is I believe you stated that you have access from 86 up to the property. Um and that's why I
asked are you the property to the west just west of 86 or are you the property that's closer to 510? Yes, >> because if you're the closer property that's closer to 510, I mean it's it's just as I believe Mr. Vot said, you dedicate your 30 ft and y'all can get a
road in there. Um I I don't know how else to do that. Are you are you testifying? >> The only option was a bridge >> and we know that that's not going to happen. So that's why I say landlocked. So, but I guess my question is if you stated that you were able to access the properties through 86, what's stopping
you from going from 86 and going over what would be 89 to access your property in the future? >> Well, no, it's just that we were originally I I guess what I'm saying is how did they get released from having to pay for the roads and and the burden is all shifted to us. How did that how could that be?
>> It's >> so the >> it's it's a timing matter. They were never required to pay for it. It's first in has to provide access, right? So that happens one of two ways. They either agree to share in the cost upfront or one developer says I'm going to go for
it and they're going to provide it. They were not required to pay they were required to pay for it by way of needing to do it. Um it's it's not that they were specifically that Blue Water Bay was always on the hook for doing all of the improvements. In fact, I believe the inter developers agreement there was a cost sharing and there was a clawback
which you know that's all again private decision-m um as far as access from 86th Avenue like a rural access for agricultural purposes. It's it's just a like a basically a dirt track road that is sufficient for accessing it for
agricultural purposes or maybe one home. But for for subdivision access it's it's it's not adequate. It's again, it's only 30 ft wide. >> From from what I'm hearing, Susan and Ryan and Mr. Chairman, we can't we can't change anything that's
present us presented to us this evening. Anyway, those parcels are in Sebastian. We can't do anything with that. So, I think it's a mute point. We have what's presented. We have what staff presented.
And I think that's where we are. Would Mr. Spencer and Mr. Hess uh dedicating 30 feet along what is it? 89 would be 89. >> Would that help at all? >> It'll help
partially, but until 86th Avenue is also dedicated, it's still insufficient right away. >> Correct. This is a conundrum with >> I don't think that would solve the cost share issue that Mr. Spencer has here.
Um and I don't know that that this board can do anything about that uh issue between the the developer and this it to me it sounds like uh our applicant has come in. They're within their rights. They're within their bounds. They've dedicated what they have uh agreed to
dedicate to make that a possibility in the future. But I I do think that that Mr. Sweeney is correct. First one in, you know, is is there to do this and that's what we have to make our decisions on and and and I think uh I
don't think we can take uh a lot of that into our consideration because we have nothing to do with a developer agreement. Uh and I don't think we're we're debating the developer agreement this evening. Can I sorry I don't mean to cut you off one other just to clarify
>> the term developers agreement is being kind of tossed around quite a bit. The we are also considering a new developers agreement between Bluewater Bay and the county only only those two parties to further define all of the improvements off-site improvements uh traffic
improvements timing what it's where the details come from. What is it a for is it a mass arm intersection? Is it a what are the roadway sections? All those things. Um, specifically for Bluewater, once if they were receive approval of their preliminary PD, they will have to
go back to the board through two public hearings for a developers agreement to pend down the details that were effectively approved in January under the conceptual. >> And Ryan, would Mr. Sweeney have an opportunity to present Mr. I mean, Mr. Spencer have an opportunity to present
his side at that time when that developers agreement is being discussed in front of the BCC? >> I I want to chime in on something really quick. I just remembered and I'm sorry this slipped to my mind a little earlier and it's just hitting me now because Mr. Spencer's property is located outside of
the jurisdiction. It's questionable even if he is considered an interested person because he is not part of this jurisdiction. So for example, we can't go as a resident of Indian River County, I couldn't go to St. Lucy County and argue something. the same question comes
up as him being his property being in the city of Sebastian whether he has standing to make this argument about property in the county. So I am glad that we are still allowing him his opportunity to be heard in abundance of caution but with that particular fact it's questionable if he is in fact an
interested person in this proceedings or any other proceedings for the developers agreement >> and Mr. Mr. Vto, to answer your your question, um th that item will be reviewed at two public hearings with the board of county commissioners. However, the parties Susan, correct me if I'm
wrong, in that uh hearing will be the county and Bluewater. So >> that's correct. >> So again, public hearings, anybody can come up and say their piece, but you know, the it's becomes much more formalized in terms of a who who's
involved, so to speak. So Ryan of our hands here. >> Yeah. But to go back to what you said, I I think you mentioned there's there might be a redo of the developers agreement or go in and tighten it up. Correct. >> Only between the county and >> water. Correct. Not not the properties
to the north or even the property. >> No, no, no. Just pertaining to this correct >> this development. Which means that everything you've put in there you can change or move oright direct them to do. >> Yeah. Tighten up. Not not change remove.
Wish I'd have known that earlier. >> Mr. Spencer, I'm curious. Uh, this probably doesn't apply anymore. But who told you you only had three minutes? >> Um, when I looked I looked it up and I looked up how much do you get and it said three. Sometimes it could be
reduced to two or something. >> It must be city city council. >> We're well beyond. >> I think I was looking up. We wanted to give you every every opportunity to speak tonight and and I think we have done so. >> If we're not in the county, then there's not much going on. But my main point is
we can't move forward in Sebastian unless the county helps us with the roads and the it's been a major roadblock and and we can't move forward. >> Sounds like the city of Sebastian needs to talk to Indian River County. >> Well, it's all about the roads and and
Sebastian has to hear from the county on the roads before we can pro proceed. Well, it sounds like me. They're going to be putting some roads in because they approved a big development last night, I think. >> What's that? I'm sorry, >> Sebastian. It's going to be right down the street. So, you might have a chance approved the annexation last night. So, >> Oh, I don't know. I didn't.
>> Yeah, >> they did. >> I didn't hear. >> Do you have open conversation with Sebastian at this point? >> We can't move forward until we get the road issue figured out. >> But you can get them to talk with the county and figure something out, I believe. >> Well, we've gone back and forth for three years and nothing's and we're just
at an impass. So the city of Sebastian's not responding to us or we haven't done anything. >> They we have to get past the county before we can go back there. >> So what is the county telling you? >> Well, we were abiding by the developers agreement. Now it's like that was a
waste of time if that wasn't a real deal because >> without the developers agreement, if you were to talk to the county now saying, "Hey, can we have your support and help talking to Sebastian?" >> Oh, well, >> is that >> It didn't It certainly wasn't that way when we were doing it. I'll tell you that much. It was >> so I I can kind of speak to this a
little bit. So I have been part of discussions and trying to get somebody from the county to respond but me as a planner in the planning department I only have jurisdiction over county stuff. Public works on the other hand however does have jurisdiction over the roads. So I have opined to the applicant
multiple times that it is between them and public works to come to a solution. I legally cannot get involved. Can we you give a helping hand to public works saying, "Hey, can you two get together and make something happen?" >> Yes. Now that Now that we have a brand
new county engineer, um, him and I have a pretty good relationship, so I don't mind helping, but I can't be a part of any decision making. >> Correct. You just kind of hand it off. >> I really would like to refocus this back on this preliminary PD plan. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, we've we've talked this.
>> All right. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Yes, sir. Anyone else? So, we'll close the um uh public comment section. Uh any additional questions or call for a motion?
>> Move to approve the staff recommendations. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. So, done. Okay. Our second of three is Oceans
Unite Christian Center and its request for a major site plan and administrative permit use approval to construct a new church and associate daycare facility. Oceansite Christian Center Incorporated is the applicant. LJA Engineering
Incorporated is the agent. Zoning classification is A1, agricultural one up to one unit per 5 acres. Land use designation is AG1, agricultural one, up to one unit for five acres. Um, are
there any declarations of expertite communication and can everyone affirm their ability to evaluate this with an open mind? On the left? >> No one. >> No one yes. >> On the right, >> no one. >> Okay, very good. Um, anyone who would like to speak on this, please stand and
be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Staff presentation. >> All right. Good evening, chair, members of the board. Before you today is the Oceanceans Unite Christian Center major
site plan and administrative permit use. The site is located west of 66th Avenue and north of 53rd Street. The site is also zoned A1 agriculture 1. This is a aerial of the site just to give you an idea of what the proposed
plan looks with existing conditions. Most of the property is cleared. However, there is a heavy vegetative um area to the western portion of the site. Site plan is going to call for one 70,000 square foot church building.
There's also going to be seven accessory structures um that will mostly be a restroom facility uh daycare facilities that are going to be derained to just the church operation and then also administrative offices. There's also going to be impervious parking as well
as pvious parking provided as well. Traffic circulation plan calls for one full access driveway connection to 53rd Street. And then there's also a right turn lane improvement off of 53rd Street that is a required element of the project. Stormwater pond has three storm water
ponds throughout the portion of the site. Landscape plan calls for mostly a 15 foot uh landscape buffer that goes around the terminus of the site. There's also an undisturbed vegetation area to the southwest portion of the site and then also lural plantings that are going
to be within the stormwater areas. the dedications and conditions. Um, there's going to be, like I said, a right turn lane from 53rd Street that's required for the project. They're going to have internal and external sidewalks. The external the external sidewalks will be on 53rd Street. If I'm not mistaken, I believe sidewalks were included as
part of the 66th Avenue roadway improvements. Um, this also follows the specific land use criteria outlined in section 971.28 subsection 5, which is for churches um, in the A1 zoning district. And then I'd like to take special note that the daycare use is
considered an accessory use to the church and shall be limited to operation during established church hours. And then also a school would not be a permitted use on the subject property unless additional review and approval is obtained from Indian River County. As we learned at the last meeting, um schools are special exception use within any A1
zoning district. So it would have to come back through our full special exception use process. Um staff recommends that the PCC grant major site plan and administrative permit use approval for Oceanceans Unite Christian Center with conditions listed in the staff report. These conditions are germanine to the final landscape and
buffer plan, final street lighting design and installation, external sidewalks designs in installation of all off-site improvements. Also, the condition for the daycare and the school. As I mentioned earlier, I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any commissioner questions on the left? Uh the basic question, how how other than the school, how how is this different than the uh one we considered a couple weeks ago? >> It's a church.
>> Yeah. So, this is a church. So, the church only has to meet administrative permit use criteria, which means it just ends here. Um if and when they ever want to come back and put a school in, they would have to go through staff level review, um this board's review, and then also board county commission review as well.
>> Okay. Um, >> oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Anyone else on the left? Any questions on the right? >> Um, I had one question about the um as an infrequent use, stabilized grass parking is allowed for places of
worship. Um, so if there's going to be a daycare, it's going to be every day, right? No, >> only during church hours. >> Only during church hours. Only during what? >> Only during church hours. >> Oh, so the daycare is just >> it's it's more Yeah, it's a Sunday school. >> Okay. Okay.
>> And and Mr. Chair, if I could again, Ryan Sweeney, assistant playing don service director, if you see there is both uh paved parking and unpaved, but even the unpaved the drive aisles are still paved. So, it's only the spaces themselves that are uh grass. And that's very common for church type uses.
>> Yep. Okay. Um, I'll open the floor for public comment. Um, and if you hear um, your comment made, please don't make it again. So, um, come to the podium, name and
address, and fire away. Good evening. Uh, John Blum with LJA, uh, representing the applicant, the church. also have a few other members here of the church, the pastors and the architect. Um, nothing more to add to
Brandon's presentation. Just here to answer any questions. >> John, I have a question for you. On on here, it says it's got a membrane building. Can you sort of expound on that as to what that is? >> If you don't mind, I'll probably relay
that to our architect. Oh, perfect. >> I'll be more precise on that description. >> Elevation. >> Uh Austin Dingwall, Dingwall Architecture. It's a uh pre-manufactured uh metal building with a uh membrane
rather than a metal panel. >> Metal panel. Okay. And that that meets all wind modes and everything else. >> Yes, it'll be fully coded. >> I didn't think you could get this far without it. So, thank you. Any other questions? >> Well, so is there an elevation drawing
or an artist conception or anything like that? >> Yeah, we provided conceptual floor plans and elevations with our submittal. >> Yeah, we actually did coordinate with the building department on this one and the fire department in tandem to make sure that what they wanted to do was good to go and both of them approved.
>> You just don't get to see it. >> Yeah, you just don't get to see. Okay. Any questions on the right? >> All right. Anyone else like to speak? >> All right. I'll um go ahead and close the public um comment section. Uh any
additional questions? >> Call for a motion. >> Move for staff recommendation. >> Second. >> I second. >> All in favor? I >> oppose. It passes. Okay. Our third um agenda item tonight
is a public hearing and this is Indian River County Habitat for Humanity. Indian River County Habitat for Humanities Incorporated's request to reszone approximately 7.79 acres from RS6 single family residential district
and RSM uh 8 residential mobile home district to RM6 mobile home um or multif family residential district. Uh any declaration of expartide communications and can you
review this with an open mind on the left? >> No. >> No one. >> Yes. >> On the right. >> No one. >> Yes. >> Excellent. Um anyone who would like to speak on this, please uh be sworn in. >> You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Staff presentation. >> Good evening, chair and board. Um, today we have Indian River County's Habitat for Humanity reszonings request from RS6 single family residential and RH8
residential mobile home district to RM6 multifamily residential residential. To start the development pattern and zoning history, the 7.79 acres site is located within the urban service area on the north side of 45th Street
approximately.45 45 miles east of 58th Avenue with a future land use designation of M2 medium density residential which permits up to 10 units per acre and a split zoning of existing of RS6 and RMH8.
The applicant Habitat for Humanity proposes to reszone the property to RM6 multifamily residential to eliminate the split zoning and allow a mix of housing types including single family in support of affordable housing objectives. The surrounding area reflects a diverse
residential pattern along the 45th Street corridor characterized by older mobile home developments and established single family neighborhoods and nearby community serving uses such as the Gford Industrial Node. Adjacent to the west along 45th Street are multiple RMH8 zone
parcels developed with mobile homes primarily established in the 1980s. To the northwest lies the Shannon Walk subdivision created in 2000 zoned RS6. Directly north is the Lindsay Lane subdiv subdivision created in 2001. Also
zoned RS6 and further northeast are community facilities including the Gford Aquatic Center and Sports Complex. Adjacent to the east is Caviier Estates, graded in 1957, a historic RS6 owned single family residential subdivision.
And further east along 45th Street and south across the site lies the Gford industrial node, including general industrial zoning and the West Gford industrial commerce overlay. The proposed resoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent
with the location criteria outlined in the future land use policy 1.43 43 of the comprehensive plan with the subject property located along 45th Street, a major artiller road within Gford and adjacent to the Gford industrial node.
Existing versus versus proposed zoning, the current zoning RS6 and RH8. RS6 allows up to six dwelling units per acre and RH8 allows up to eight units per acre. The new zoning RM6 would allow
multif family residential zoning up to six units per acre. So in this instance, the density isn't actually changing. It's just the use of types that is being changed. The zoning and flu consistency per table 2.14 of the county's comprehensive plan. The above zoning
districts are permitted under the property's M2 future land use. Therefore, the proposed reszoning to RM6 is consistent with the future land use designation. And on the right you can see a zoning district's comparison standards table which outlines all the
um zoning district standards per each zoning analysis per chapter 902.12 items A through K. Starting with item A. Staff found no conflicts with the applicable land development regulations for the requested RM6 zoning. RM six is
an appropriate zoning district for the parcels's M2 future land use designation. Item B, the proposed resoning is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan aligning with policies 4.1, 2.2, 1.13, 1.14, and 1.43.
Item C, the proposed resoning is consistent with the existing and planned land uses in the area. The subject property has a flu of M2 which allows residential development up to 10 units per acre. RM6 is an implementing zoning district under this designation. The
request does not change the residential use or density of the property, but allows for a different housing type. Items T through K. Staff identified no inconsistencies with these standards of review specifically as it relates to the county's thoroughfare plan, roadway,
LOS, environmental conditions, public services, natural resources compatibility or compliance with county plans. Therefore, all resoning review criteria A through K have been satisfied. The requested RM6 zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the goals and objectives and policies of the county's adop adopted comprehensive plan, consistent with the county's land development regulations, and deemed suitable for the subject property overall supported by staff. Staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission recommend that the board of county commissioners
approve this request to reszone the subject property from RS6 and RMH8 to RM6. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions on the left for staff? >> Um, yeah, I think I've asked this before, but is this considered an
upzoning? And do we have any special uh requirements for upzoning? If it is, >> um, this wouldn't be considered necessarily an upzoning as the density isn't changing. All it's allowing is
different housing types. Um so um Habitat for Humanity's request is ultimately to support affordable housing objectives. And so in this instance, they're changing the zoning to allow for their affordable housing objectives uh
in regards to different housing types. >> No, no mobile homes, multif family, single family. >> Correct. >> Right. And uh the has has Habitat built uh multif family buildings before? >> Can you repeat that for me, sir?
>> Has Habitat built multif family uh buildings before, like an apartment building or something? >> I believe so, but Trevor Lumis is here to also answer any um habitat remaining questions as well. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I could um
>> Yeah, I So, yeah, Trevor will be able to answer that. I I believe the intent would be a mixture of single family and duplex. So, not like a full-blown apartment complex, but um they they're really starting to venture out into a bunch of different things, rental, elderly, what have you. But we'll let
Trevor uh earn his his keep as well. So, this is going to be a public hearing, so just remember to gavvel in when we get to that. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Any any other questions for staff on the left? >> Anyone in favor of affordable housing?
Would the applicant like to speak on answer the questions? >> I'll open it for public hearing after he's done. >> Sure, happy to. Uh Trevor Lumis, CEO of Habitat for Indian River Habitat for Humanity. Um thanks for the the chance
to speak on that. Um so we have built multif family uh a few times in the past. There's some some small town homes in Gford. I I I can't remember what street or 39th, something like that. Uh primarily we've built single family um throughout the county over the recent
years. Um one of the the things that we're trying to do with this and with a couple of other projects that we have is combat the outofcontrol costs that we're we're having. So we've seen 103% increase in per unit construction over the last four years. So it makes it
pretty difficult to do what we're doing. the way that uh land use regulations are structured here, it's nearly impossible to achieve the density that the zoning uh allows. Um in in most cases, we're at roughly onethird uh to less than one
half of the density that the zoning allows. Um so one of the tactics that we're using uh and exploring is smaller units um in many cases geared towards uh single people or seniors who may be on their own who don't need a three or fourbedroom house. a one-bedroom, one
bath duplex or something like that would be perfectly appropriate. Um, by getting a density much closer to what the site zoning would allow, we'll will greatly reduce uh the cost of those units along with the reduced square footage. Uh, so
we're not trying to build this is not we're not looking at like a tiny home neighborhood or anything like that. Um but we expect to see um once we have a a conceptual site plan a variety of single family uh duplexes and potentially some
small triplexes um interspersed amongst each other um which we hope will will give us something of a of a mixed income um mixed mixed use neighborhood um with many of those units geared to very low
income um residents. That's up. >> Great. Any other questions? Any on the right? Any on the left? >> Are you um have Have you been offered any incentives similar to Gford Gardens? Uh >> no.
>> For this? No. >> Those are hard to come by. If you've got any hanging around, Mark, we would take them. >> I imagine you'd like. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, this is a public hearing. I'll open the hearing for public comment. Anyone who would like to speak, please feel
free. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And any additional questions or call for a motion? >> Motion to approve. Second. >> All in favor? I opposed. Uh, passes.
Very good. Um, commissioner matters. Any commissioner matters? >> None. No commissioner matters. Any planning matters? >> Mr. Chair, I'm happy to report we will not be having the second meeting in April. I think we've had consecutive meetings since the start of the year.
So, uh, we will we are most likely going to be having the first meeting in May, but we're going to have at least a few weeks off. >> And And what will the date in May be? >> I want to say it's the 15th, but let me confirm. >> Oh, 14th. 14th. Sorry.
>> 14th. All right. >> Yes. Yes, sir. May 14th. So, we do have a little bit of a reprieve. >> Good. any um attorney matters. >> I just want to address really quickly because this was kind of a question about mobile homes. Um just so you all are aware that there has been some legislation that's been put into place
about restrictions on pre-manufactured homes. So um if that is something that you all may be seeing coming to us in the near future, if I don't know if the governor has signed it into law just yet or not. Um but it essentially allows pre-manufactured homes to be placed anywhere where there is uh single family
residential allowed. So that is a very big possibility. Yes. Yes sir. So I just want I just since I heard the question about mobile bubble homes I was like I should probably give you all a heads up that that's a possibility in the future. >> It allows but does it require us to approve? >> No,
>> we cannot. Well, not necessarily, but we can't we can't discriminate against them and we can't hold them any differently than we would a regular, you know, built on the site home. >> Is that a state mandate? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Hasn't been signed at all. I don't >> No. So, I'm not sure that it'll get
signed or not, but uh just a just a really quick heads up in case you all are watching anything up there and since the comment that came up. So, that might be one y'all want to watch. >> And that could be >> Can't the county stipulate what a manufactured home is? Has to have be built. >> Could try. >> We could try. I'm not sure that the
state would let us get past that with their definition. But, um, because they definitely they put that in there, too. You know, that they always try to rope us in. So, we can't do anything. But, um, just so y'all know, >> Central Beach say I'm a >> I'm in the city.
>> It's a possibility coming near you. >> Does that mean >> Thank you, Susan. Anything else? No sir, >> we are ajourned.