260112 PNZ - Jan 13, 2026

They chart the course of every lane, the position of every sign, the mix of materials that lies under every foot of asphalt and concrete, the tilt and angle of every street to ensure roadway water.

Please stand, and Mr. Neal, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Please join me. I pledge allegiance 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 slash Local Planning Agency. It's an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners who will make the final decisions on these items. Items H1 is an LPA item. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on February 5th, 2026, at 5 p.m. When a motion ends in any kind of 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 comment on agenda items will be given two minutes. Please, when you come to the podium here, if you would, spell your last name for the record. At this time, if any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application, please disclose so now. All right. Seeing that, I need a motion for the approval of the P&Z Minutes from November 17, 2025. So moved.

Second.

Got a motion by Neal. A second by John. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed. That passed unanimously. We do have today, it's going to be a day that we need to elect the chair and the vice chair, and we were going to do that at the end of the meeting if nobody objects. All right. So item H1.

Item H1 and H2 are companion applications. I'll read them into the record together. However, they're going to need a separate recommendation. Laughing Clown LLC requests a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under 25S.15 to change the future land use designation from Res. 2 to CC under application 25SS00009 located in District 5. And H2, Laughing Clown LLC requests a zoning classification change from RP to BU-1-A under application 25Z-00028 located in District 5.

All right. Is the applicant here? And, sir, if you could state and spell your last name for the record.

Sure. My name is Clayton Bennett, Bennett, B-E-N-N-E-T-T. I'm the applicant for the project here with Bennett Engineering and Consulting, 4940 Orange Lane Road. We're here, as we just mentioned, we have two applications. One is for the comprehensive plan to change the comp plan as well as the rezone. This is a developed piece of property that has previously been used for a dentist office, so it's a professional office. And the applicant would like to use it for a general retail to be approved. This is on Menton Road, which is a arterial roadway. Access would be granted or is currently off of Menton Road into the parking lot, so there would be no traffic pushed into the community and to the west. There was a letter that we received of objection, and I think part of that was is on the traffic. And, again, this is accessed off of Menton Road, so there would be no additional trips towards the west and to the community. And then, as well, it's an existing development, and they intend to comply with the county noise ordinance and lighting ordinance, and so we're not asking for any deviations from the county ordinances. If there's any specific questions on that, I'd be glad to answer that on that.

All right. Well, Mr. Bennett, while I got you right there, I need to take this out to the audience. Is there anyone here want to speak for or against this item? That's really good news. Go ahead. Stay put. Okay. All right. I'm going to close this, then, for public comment. So go ahead and proceed, sir. No, you're good. Any questions to the board? All right. Seeing that, I'll bring it back to the board. We have any questions for Mr. Bennett? I'm going to need a motion, then.

Motion to approve. Can we do one and two in the same motion? No, just one. Okay. Motion to approve, H-1.

Second.

Okay. We've got a motion. We've got a second by Erica. All those on item H-1, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item H-1 passed unanimously. I need a motion on item H-2. Motion to approve H-2. Second. Got a motion again and a second by Neal. All those in favor, say aye on item H-2. Aye. Any opposed? And item H-2 passed unanimously. Good luck at the county commissioner's office. Or meeting, I should say. Okay. Item H-3.

Item H-3 is Strata Development LLC being represented by Kim Rizinka. Request a zoning classification change from AU and RR-1 to SR with BDP under application 25Z-00039 located in District 2.

Chairman, if I may, I just want to let you know, my office is, I have not personally worked on this project, but my office is representing it, so I won't be voting on it, but I do think it's a good project.

All right. Thank you.

You're welcome.

While Ms. Rizinka is setting up, I also want to mention that when this item went before the North Merritt Island Board that they recommended denial, they also recommended a zoning of SEU or RR-1.

Good afternoon, Chairman Wadsworth, members of the Planning and Zoning LPA Board. We are here on a rezoning property in North Merritt Island off East Christofilly Road. It's 142 acres. It's owned Agricultural and RR-1. The purpose of this is to do a subdivision of 61 homes. I know our BDP says that we will limit it to one unit to the acre. We are now willing to limit it to 61 homes, which is less than can be developed per the staff report. Staff report says 70 could be developed. So with that, I'd ask you to consider that we would only be using 61 homes. With me today is Representative Miranda, Katie Peck. She is the Director of Land Acquisitions. Miranda Home is under contract strata development as a related entity. It's already been purchased, so they're hopeful that this rezoning goes forward so they can move forward. Also with me is Hassan Kamal with BSE, now LJA. He is the Engineer of Record, and he can explain some of the issues that have arisen. We did have a neighborhood meeting on December 15th. We had approximately 25 people from the neighborhood show up, and their concerns were maintenance of the road, the conditions of the road, traffic, stormwater, flooding, which you have heard most of the times. They also suggested that perhaps we could connect to Dalbora Road, but there's no public road or private access road that we could reach. It's all private property. Excuse me. We did attend the North Merritt Island Board, and those same issues were raised. The North Merritt Island Board failed to recognize that this property can't be developed because of the amount of wetlands. Their suggestion was, oh, just put one-acre lots over the entire property. Well, we're saving quite a bit of wetlands, as Mr. Hazan Kamal will tell you, Mr. Kamal, is that we are building only in the uplands, in the middle of the property of about 60 acres, I think is the number he used. So we can't do one units per acre because we have to cluster, and that cluster allows us to preserve wetlands. Also, too, since we're only doing 61 units, we're doing less than what the staff report says we can do of 70. The staff report also comments about – lost my train of thought – about that the majority of the area here is AU. And that may be true, but if you look at where our property is, which on page one of what I handed you is, the blue portion of that is the top portion of this 142 acres, and it's next to SR, which is what we're seeking, suburban residential, half-acre lots. We're willing to commit to half-acre lots. The SR to the east is Island Forest Preserve, which you're going to hear a lot of complaints about today. Miranda has purchased lots in that, but Miranda was not the developer of that property. They are now developing homes in those individual lots. SR was done by Island Forest Preserve at SR, but they used the open space subdivision concept, which allowed them to use quarter acres. We are committed to not doing that and to doing half-acre lots. So it will be a transition from the quarter-acre lots to the half-acre lots to the larger lots. But there are quite a bit of RR1. That SR is over 100 acres. So there is a variety. Also, to the north is PIP, which is unusual as well in this area. So what I did provide to you as well, this flooding and stormwater is a huge issue. You'll likely hear complaints that the canals aren't draining properly, and we understand that. We've committed to doing what we can to help with the canal drainage, and Mr. Kamal will talk about that as well. But Section 62-3724, on page 3, Section 4, this is the portion of the code that was adopted, I think, in 2019 due to issues that came about in North Merritt Island. This requires a special modeling program for anything developed north of Paul Road. It's only been used by one other subdivision, to my knowledge, Pine Grove subdivision to the north, that's being developed by Titan. And so it is a special criteria that is to ensure that, as page 2 of this project says, there will be no net change in the rate of volume of floodwater discharge from pre-development floodplains. So that is a site plan issue. It doesn't say you don't approve – nothing in the code says you don't approve new zoning because of existing flooding problems. We just can't contribute to them with this development, and they won't. The other issue that was raised is the condition of this road. It is a squirrely road. It's got two 90-degree turns. You'll hear about accidents that have happened. It seems like people do not listen to the laws, and, in fact, there are speed humps on the road. And people say there are too many trips on this road, too many cars on this road. But in order to put speed humps on the road, which was just done recently, there had to be less than 1,500 vehicles per day. So this, although it is an unusual road, it's not got too many trips on it, and this won't generate too many trips. Page 6 is the FDOT, basically generation manual of what you can have, your average daily trips. And if you look at the third column, a two-lane road, level D, which this would be under the county standards, in theory, they could have 14,000 trips on that road. It doesn't make sense to have 14,000, but this road is not at capacity. If there are issues with people not abiding by the speed limit or things like that, as page 5, which this was pulled from Brevard County, they should contact the sheriff's office. And I understand that doesn't always work, but the speed humps are there to hopefully help, but there is limited traffic on East Pustle Foley Road. Also, issues were raised about the drawbridge and how that contributes to people getting in and off the island. The drawbridge is not open during peak hours, which generally is when people complain about traffic. So on page 7 and 8, I just pulled this from the, oh, the Cruising Authority. It was actually a marina website, and it talks about the hours of operation, that the Crystal McCullough drawbridge is closed between 6.15 and 8.15 and 3.10 p.m. and 6 p.m. So I understand these are issues that have been raised for anything that's been developed in North Merritt Island, and these aren't issues that can be solved with this particular development and won't be increased by this particular development. So with that, we're requesting rezoning from RR1 and AU to SR with the BDP limiting this development to 61 units. With that, I'd like to introduce Katie Peck to tell you a little bit about Miranda, what they plan to do, their price point, things like that, and then Mr. Kamal will talk about the concept plan that's been developed. It hasn't been reviewed by staff, but it's a concept plan to show the one-half acres and the access and things like that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Katie Peck, Director of Land Acquisitions for Miranda Homes, and just here to present the project with Kim on behalf. We're currently building an island forest preserve and have had great success out there, and we had the opportunity to purchase this property. And with that, we've taken a lot of good care and review of coming up with a concept plan that works really well on half-acre lots in the upland areas of the site, knowing that the property is primarily wetland. And so there's a lot of preservation that's going to be occurring, and obviously, as we go through the construction planning and the engineering, we'll make sure that we follow the model that is being required up in the area. And there's a concept of basically the monument entry that we're looking to do, and we'll be looking to build the same product that we're currently building in the island forest preserve.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam.

Good afternoon. My name is Hassan Kamal with BSC Consultants with a civil engineer for the project. Just a brief overview of the project in a little more engineering detail. The site's 142 acres on the north side of East Christofoli Road. Of the 142 acres, the development footprint, based upon the concept plan that we provide you copies of and you see on the map, is approximately going to be approximately 50 to 55 acres is what actually we're developing, which means about 85 to 90 acres of the property, or about 60 percent is going to be preserved either as existing wetland preservation areas or the upland buffers that are associated with that. So a relatively small, less than 40 percent of the property is actually slated for development. The current plans anticipate a total of 61 lots. All will be a minimum of a half-acre size, consistent with the requested zoning classification. The lots will be served by the City of Cocoa for potable water, and we'll have an on-site sanitary sewer lift station, which will collect the domestic waste and pump to the existing force main on Christofoli Road, so there'll be no septic tanks associated with the project. Drainage for the site will be provided by a series of pipes, inlets, and the stormwater ponds that you see. The plan that you see is preliminary in nature, but we are well aware of the very strict stormwater criteria that's applicable to this area. We've already had some preliminary meetings with county staff and their consultants regarding the detailed model, and I've started working that, and as we go through the process, when we go post-zoning into the land development portion, I will continue working with staff, and the requirements are that any of these projects that are within that we have to do a basin-wide model and confirm that there's no adverse impacts from our project. So in addition to the state criteria that we have to meet, we also have to meet some very strict project-specific criteria from Brevard County. The proposed wetland impacts to the site are minimal. We're subject to the limitation of 1.8% of wetland impacts, which is approximately 2.5 acres. The concept plan that you see in front of you is consistent with that limitation. We're going to be under that, and that will also be resolved both with Brevard County's Office of Natural Resources as well as with the local or the state agencies. I think that's all I have on my presentation. Mr. Zinke talked about some of the audience comments, which are generally dealt with during a detailed engineering and site plan approval through the county, and I'll be available to answer any specific questions about the concept plan.

Mr. Chairman, can we want to start drilling now or wait until the end?

We can do either or. I can go out for public comment and see what we have and or do you?

Well, maybe if we ask some questions, it'll minimize some of the questions that the public may have. Okay. Well, let's drill now. Hussan, if staff, you may want to answer this for me, if we lifted ag, which it is now, what would their single-family residence entitlement be?

Are you ag over the entire property or meeting the AU and the RR1?

What would, under normal conditions, what would they be allowed to do under ag?

So under the ag and the RR1 that they currently have, they can have 70 units. I believe it's something like 40-something in the AU. Repeat that number. 70 total right now would be 40-something units in the AU and I believe 20-something in the RR1. Okay. But that does not account for wetlands. Thank you, Alex.

Okay. The road, East Christofulli, have you done any analysis of the road configuration is in that? It's widths, it's really, I mean, without, a lot of people are going to tell you it's substandard. Some areas it's 17, some it's 18, and every now and then you might see 20.

So it's, we haven't done any structural analysis or any, I mean, we've done surveys. We know the road widths in front of the project where we're at the speed limit. We know that a project of this size that we're proposing would add, you know, based upon the IT trip generation, around 600 trips per day or 60 trips per hour on the peak hour. But we have not done a structural analysis of the roadway.

Okay. D, you've actually got two accesses to this property. You've got one that's further to the north, and it's in the first bend. We're going to call it the first 90-degree bend. You have access to this piece of property. Did you, have you looked at that to do any geometric alignments or anything?

The challenge with any access besides what we've shown is that would involve significant wetland impacts, which would push us over the 1.8% limitation.

So it's beneficial to you more so than the people that may live up there.

I know we've looked at the north, and we don't have any ownership to the north. But I know going to either the east or the west or even shifting the driveway or the entrance location further west on Christofoli would require, would involve additional wetland impacts.

In your technical analysis that you're going to do, wouldn't it be worthwhile to take a look at that and see if it falls within the scope of this project?

We can certainly make some estimates with the wetland impacts. We'd obviously have to work with the state as well as Brevard County to see what those total wetland impacts would be.

See, some of the things that I see is, Chris Foley's, some improvements have got to be made. And it's right up, we're right on the threshold right now. And technically, we need to, you're the last guy's in. So this is always when the last guy gets to not really reap from the benefits, but make the necessary improvements from what everybody else has done. The subdivision way to the east, et cetera, et cetera, and Southern Baronda, too. They didn't have to do anything. Nobody's had to do anything that is Chris Foley. And I am just extremely reluctant to allow anybody else in there without, you know, some improvements have got to be made. And it's easy for me to say, but it's all prescriptive rights. So let me tell you, nobody's going to raise their hand and say, hey, come get my 10 acres or five, you know, or five feet. So that's a situation now. You all look at, to the north is Dalbora. And it's, on paper, it looks to be so simplified to get, to have access to the north part and eliminate. I mean, it's easy for me to say, but you can eliminate some of the impact that's going to be added to East Chris Foley. Did you all even think about that?

Well, I know they don't own their property to the north. The other problem, I think, is my understanding of the roads to the north are not public right-of-ways. They're private lanes. So we haven't evaluated what those improvements would need to be in order to bring those up to acceptable public right-of-way standards. But I don't think they're public roads right now.

Hussan, I think you've heard it from probably 500 people before you got here, but you haven't heard it from us. There's a lot of water up there. Is there possibilities that you guys can expand your retention areas to accommodate some of the East Chris Foley water? There is a possibility.

We obviously have to study that very detailed model and work with county staff on that. We've got to, even before doing the engineering, we've got a pretty good understanding of where the water is coming from and the volumes associated with it and how to deal with that. So if there's opportunity there working with county staff to slow that water down or accommodate some of it and still meet the criteria and we're capable of doing that, we'll certainly evaluate that and see if we can work it into the system.

Well, I don't know how far this is going to go. So that's just some of my thoughts initially because that's – I have a little knowledge of that. You know, so that's it. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

Yes, sir. Would I be in order to ask a question about wetlands at this point? I'm sorry?

I couldn't – can you use your microphone on?

I thought it was on. Would I be in order to ask a question about wetlands at this point? Yes, that's fine. But we were hearing just now that you've met the 1.8% requirement for preserving wetlands. I'm having a hard time figuring that out.

Can you get a little closer to your microphone?

We're hearing that you've met the 1.8% requirement for preserving wetlands. And maybe I'm not understanding, but I'm looking at one of the maps. This is FLU CCS wetlands, and this shows nearly half the property covered by wetlands. So I'm wondering, is this irrelevant? Am I looking at the wrong thing, or it's not?

How do you handle this? Well, so the process is it's – we're limited to impacting no more than 1.8% of the total property. So we've got 142 acres, so we're maxed out at around – I'm giving you rough numbers – 2.5% – I'm sorry, 2.5 acres. So we have – the client has hired environmental companies to go out there and field flag the wetlands. They're in the process of meeting with the state agencies to verify those lines. And those are very, very close to what you're seeing on the plan right now. But that's all going to be done through the permitting process, both with Brevard County and the Water Management District. And Brevard County's criteria is the one that's 1.8%. The Water Management District doesn't have that criteria. They have different criteria for what's allowable. But that's really going to be governed by Brevard County. So that's something that happens through the detailed subdivision approval process. But just to kind of give you an idea, I don't know if you have the exhibit that shows that. On the maps that we provided, the heavy green line is the preliminary wetland lines, the heavy green coloring, I'm sorry. And the lighter green coloring is the upland buffers that would be preserved around the wetlands. And everything inside it, we've identified – you can see some of the red shading and hatching. Those are areas that are, on a preliminary basis, would describe the areas that are going to be impacted. And that's what's less than the 1.8% responding.

I'm not sure if I understand, but I'll listen. Okay, Ms. Ruth?

Do we know approximately how many acres there are in wetlands on that property?

There you go. Thank you, Ruth.

It's probably pretty close to the 85 to 90 acres. And we haven't done a formal delineation yet, but we're preserving almost all the wetlands. Well, let me take that back. It's going to be a little bit less than that because some of what you see in the light green are uplands that are going to be preserved associated with that. So I would probably say somewhere between 70 to 80 acres of existing wetlands are on the property.

So about half, then?

In round numbers, that's accurate.

Thank you.

If we have any other questions there for the applicant, Mr. John.

Yes. Kim. Hi. You said you're putting one unit per acre on the entire site?

We're actually going to put 2.33, one unit per 2.33 acres, because we're limiting ourself now to 61 units, even though we could put 70 by the existing zoning now.

By the AU. The flag lot, 23-231-6617, is designated to have quarter-acre lots.

You mean the property to the east? To the east of it, yeah. Yes, that's good.

Which is in part of yours.

No, that's not part of ours. That was Island Forest Preserve. That was developed by Chad Giannone.

No, not the big one, the smaller one. It's got your name on it, Strata.

Oh, well, it's all being rezoned. Those four units, those four parcels have all been combined for this rezoning.

Okay, so you're not going to keep that one-quarter-acre designation?

Well, I don't see that on my map, so...

Yeah, I know. It's not shown on your maps, but it is shown on the appraisal district website.

That, is it 515? Is that what you're talking about? That's not part of this. No. That's the flag lot. No, 6617. No, that is part of this zoning application. So, yes, that will be pulled into that.

Okay, so that will change that, what the original designation was?

Yes.

Okay. All right. I'm having difficulty bringing up on my computer here the wetlands.

Well, this is in your package, the map package, and that's, Mr. Wise, all the white on this is uplands, right? So, that's where the development will be, is where the white, where the uplands will be.

That's all I got.

I have a question for staff.

Yes, Ms. Ruth.

For staff, can I get some clarification, please? If about half of it, 70 acres, is in wetlands, would that make it unbuildable to one home per five acres if it's in 70 acres is in wetlands? I asked him how much was in wetlands. He said roughly about 70 acres. Wetlands, doesn't that, it would be one home per five acres in wetlands?

Yes, in wetlands it would be one home per five acres, but they're not constructing in the wetlands. And so, they can impact 1.8% of their total acreage of wetlands. So, they can impact 1.8% of the 142 acres of the wetlands.

The question was asked if currently how it sits, how much could be developed out? And if half of it's in wetlands and it takes one home per five acres, instead of one home per 2.5 acres, wouldn't that be considerably less than 70?

Well, Jane from Natural Resources is also joining us, but I also believe, as Mr. Hassan already stated, that they can only impact about two acres of the wetlands.

So, subdivisions, they are, under our code, they, Trina stated it correctly, they can impact 1.8% of the total area of the parcel, the acreage?

I understand that. I was just, if it weren't developed into subdivision, I was trying to come up with a number of homes that would be sitting on that property. That's all.

Let me see if I understand this. So, it's ag now, so that's 2.5 homes per acre, but half of it's wetlands, which would limit it to one home, I said that backwards, it's ag now, so it's one home on two and a half acres, but if half of it is wetlands, then that's one on five. Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, so I follow. So, that's not 70, it's half of 70 plus.

It's actually not the way you're practicing. I mean, semantically. So, semantically, that makes, it sounds good, but it doesn't relate that way. Am I trying to answer you? It's somewhat of the opposite. I mean, it.

I understand.

They're going to be on smaller lots.

Sure. Yeah. But in a hypothetical sense, when you asked how many homes could be built on the property the way it's owned now, two and a half, you can't just blanket it with two and a half because part of it's wetlands, so some of those would have to be on five. Is that right? Am I doing that math correctly?

So, because this is a subdivision and not just an individual lot, they'd have to do a subdivision, and so that particular part of the code, from my understanding, wouldn't apply. They couldn't do one unit per five acres. They would have to do the 1.8%.

That's correct. The 1.8% is basically one unit per five acres. It's just been calculated out. Usually, it's for smaller lots that come in that are under five acres and that were established post-1988. So, if they don't have five acres, they could impact 1.8% of the property's wetlands. For parcels that are greater than five acres, they could do the 1.8%. But for subdivisions, we usually just go ahead and it's the 1.8%.

So, is 70, the way that it's zoned now, ag, you could put 70 homes with the wetlands that are there? So, what is that number? Do we have that number?

Are you, in a hypothetical, are you saying the 70 acres as one parcel itself or?

As it's zoned, right? No, two and a half acre, the way that it's zoned with ag, it's really the same question Henry asked. Is the way it's zoned now, how many lots, buildable lots?

So, the way that it's zoned now, just the AU portion, not the RR1 portion, the AU portion would be 47 lots. That's not with counting the wetlands. With the wetlands, they still would only be able to impact the 1.8% of the total acreage of the wetlands or total acreage of the property in wetlands.

I think ultimately what needs to happen is a wetland study needs to be finalized so that we can calculate out what the actual acreage of wetlands are on the property as a whole and then deduct that based on the 1.8%. So, maximum is 70 units, right, total, right now in the best pristine condition. But with the wetlands, it will obviously drop down.

Exactly. So, I think we do need that number to make a good decision.

Yeah, I think so, too.

Okay, thanks. Ms. Kim, could you come back up, please?

I just want to clarify. The zoning is RR1 and AU. And with strict zoning, the max could see 70. The wetlands, the access, the road, what has to be improved, those are all site plan plaiting issues that are not before you yet. You can ask for conditions to be added to a BDP, such as the 61 units. But, you know, the SR, the half acre lots, is what we're trying to do. And if it comes up that the wetlands are greater than that and we can only do less than 61, then we have to do less than 61. But wetlands is a separate criteria from zoning. And any other questions?

Is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you would state your name and spell your last name for the record, please.

They always want me to come up first. Anyway, my name is Terry White, W-H-I-T-E. And I live just south of this proposed development. My neighbors, if they're going to come up, will talk about the traffic issues. But East Crystal fully cannot handle the current traffic issues, the condition of the road and that. And we've been asking for a traffic survey of the road that would spell out that it has a lot more cars than what they're saying is on there. So the last little bit of study they did was reference to the speed humps. And they only monitored down where they wanted to put the speed humps. And a lot of people turned north or south prior to the speed humps. So anyway, the developments that have been built in the past 25 years in this area have raised the groundwater levels. The retention ponds hold water, but they increase the water level of the surrounding area at the groundwater levels. My land stays wet longer after storms than it did when I first purchased the area. Officials say it is because I live in a bowl, but it was not always a bowl until the development of the past few years has made the water levels in my area rise up. I was not required to have flood insurance on the property in 1993. When I purchased it, and bottom line is my land isn't sinking. The water around there is coming up and impacting my land. In 1968, Congress created a flood plan, plane management plan. And I'm interested, does this project comply with the federal plan? Does Brevard County's water management comply with the federal plan? Does North Merritt Island comply with the federal plan? I want to know, are the developers aware that the current pumps on Pine Island Road and Hall Road that handle the storm water, like the recent storm we had in October, have they figured out that that's handling the water up here? Because it's not. And it's even worse when Blue Origin turns on their pumps. So, last thing, I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Yep. I asked, though, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this? Because if there's a bunch of people, I don't know if you want to get one spokesperson, you get longer than two minutes in. I mean, I would work with you. There's no one else wants to speak for or against this?

Because, okay, because we just, if y'all hear any of these folks who were going to meet any other night, is there anybody that can speak for a pistol?

The only thing we're trying to prevent, ladies and gentlemen, is we don't want to hear the traffic. We don't want to hear the flood. And we've already heard all that. Correct. You know, if you have a new item, please come forward and speak. But if you're just saying the same thing we've been hearing, please bear with us.

Well, it is the same thing. I mean, I've been out there 40 years. My name is Robert Adams, A-D-A-M-S, and I know that the road is substandard. I also know that it was put together for orange trucks and buses with workers on it. And the groves were pumped all the time. My house is two feet above the crown of the road. And I had water this past time, six inches from being in my house for the first time in 40 years. And that's after the little subdivision up the way, and now you want to put another one in. And as far as anything new, I don't know what else could be new. We don't understand why they don't listen to us when we tell them that. Does anybody here know whether or not all the figuring you've been doing, did the 17 inches of rain get that memo that you were going to have too much water up there the last time in October? And how many of you walked this preserve area that you want to be in after that rain or during that rain and tell me how much of that was still above the water? That are things that you need to think of when you're cranking houses out here. I mean, it's just, we don't have, I can't jack my house up. I also heard the last time that when they look around for building homes out here, when I built my home 40 years ago, I had to build 2,000 square feet on my acre or I couldn't build. The last time I heard it was 1,250. So everything changes except for the surrounding area. We don't have anything, and we don't know who else to speak to, and they use goofball studies for cars, and it doesn't do us any good. So that's what most of these folks here are fussing about, and we just don't. If you can get near the microphone.

I'm sorry.

How much, how much, how much, how are the teeth of this group any good when you go to the commissioners, or do they blow you off like they blow us off? I can't think that's our question. All right. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the living daylights out of it. Okay.

Good afternoon. I'm Mary Watkins, W-A-T-K-I-N-S. I am a native Floridian. I have worked for the county in building and development. I have worked for St. John's River Water Management District and flood control data collection. Both of those were over 10 years' worth of employment. And I'm aware of a lot of the situations. Water takes the path of least resistance. Yes, you've heard about flooding. I'm going to ask the engineer directly, how many times have you been out to North Merritt Island after the rains? Any amount of rain. 5 inches, 15 inches, 17 inches. I don't care. I've lived out there since 1985. I have seen the water get progressively worse. Any time you dig through a hard pan, which was done in Island Preserve, to build their little lake, you're pushing the water somewhere else. That will happen. That is a known fact. I question you cubicle engineers, and I call you cubicle engineers because you sit in front of a computer and model. Come out after the rains and look at it. That's all I have to say about that. Now, with regard to traffic, I've had to sell my Mini Cooper because I can't get it over the speed bumps. I have a neighbor that sold a Maserati because he couldn't get it over the speed bumps. Nobody asked us out on Broadacre Street if we wanted those speed bumps. So, I think we need to look at everybody that has been there for some time and consider that. And my next question also is how much dirt are you going to bring in, bring the level of this property up to at least two feet above the center line of which road? Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Well, getting back to the subdivision, the flooding, the traffic, et cetera, et cetera, is pretty much everyone's concerns, correct? I would highly recommend everyone here that wants to speak go to the county commissioner's meeting. We are just an advisory board. And what's in front of us right now is just zoning. You know, it's not about they haven't even went through permitting or even started the process. And once that happens, they're going to be held to a very high standard. And the man that was doing the speaking right here has been here longer than probably all of us put together. And he knows Merritt Island. He lives there. We're discussing. So, I mean, I still will bring people up. But, I mean, we're well aware of this. Everyone on the board knows everyone's issues. Go to the county commissioner's meeting because we are just an advisory board. And the only thing we actually have is we need to determine whether or not we want to rezone this. And then they're going to be going through hoops to make this happen because there's – Kim, if you could come back to the mic, please. You still haven't delineated a wetland-upland line. Is that correct?

It has not been approved by St. John's or the county, to my knowledge.

So, see, when that gets either expanded or shrunk, the engineer there, you've been doing this a long time. That's going to determine units. And, Jared, what you said, in fact, I need to bring this back to the record. Items H1 and H2. I didn't mention Jared's name. He made the first motion. But anyway. It's my only claim to fame. All right.

Can I ask a question for the staff?

Yes, sir.

I'm not sure if I'm in the right order, but I'd like to know – we read in the notes that the transportation corridor will not be affected adversely by this traffic. I'd like to know how – when the last study was done of traffic in that corridor, the study that you're basing your recommendation on.

So, there is no available data for East Christofoli. The preliminary traffic concurrency was done for the segment of North Courtney. That is the closest traffic concurrency point that we can get. So, I'm not able to answer the question about the traffic on East Christofoli. And the study of North Courtney was when? The last traffic count would be 2024. What's the last traffic count for North Courtney?

For either Kim or the engineer? Yeah. I've got some suggestions.

Hussan, you want to come back up? Is doing your analysis on the drainage, can we try to take into account a broader or a larger retention area that can handle the water from both the portion on East Christofoli as well as the subdivision? Can we incorporate those two distributions?

So, I want to make sure I understand your question. So, your suggestion would be when we're doing the subdivision design analysis and the stormwater design to take a look at the drainage that's coming from the portion of Christofoli Road adjacent to the property and see if we can incorporate that? So, yeah, I mean, that's something we can certainly do and see what the impacts are. That's a feasible process to go through.

Kim, you understand that?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Because if this board does any approving, I'd like to put that into BDP. I don't want that to get away because I think it's extremely critical. Kim, on this, I'd like, I read your DDP and I went through it and you didn't have, and this may be a little out of the ordinary, but I want to do an NTE. If you're an attorney, you know what an NTE is, not to exceed, I know you'd be happy about it. You know, I'd hate to see that area if it's approved to exceed 60 units. So, I mean. Are you okay with 61? I know you guys. You guys are going to get in there and you're going to do the counts and there's going to be 68.

We've agreed to limit it to 61 of the BDP. I can't answer it. Miranda will have to answer us to 68.

Okay. But if that's in there, I'd like you to put it in the BDP. Yes, sir. Okay. There's no reason why they can't, you guys can't collect some data for the county to do the ADTs on the road.

So, what's likely, and you're absolutely right, what likely is going to happen or what does happen with each of these subdivisions is that when we go through the land development process, staff will require a traffic impact study, which will include the traffic volumes on Christofoli. And, you know, we'll obviously hire a traffic consultant to do that and make the evaluation as well as traffic volumes and trip distribution on Christofoli.

Well, I was just trying to beat the staff to it. That's all. I mean, that's what I know the staff's going to do. Do you have any indication what the finished floor elevation is going to be on the houses?

We haven't, obviously, said any, but I would expect that that site will probably take at least three feet of fill for the finished floor. It may be a little bit more in certain places.

Above the crown of East Christofoli?

Well, I haven't done that analysis compared to the crown. I'm talking about above existing grade. But if I look at that as elevation, I can do the comparison, but I don't have that information right off the top of my head.

Because I think that's extremely critical. What the newer houses are doing, I think, is imperative to what Miranda would like to do in there as well. Yeah, agreed. Yeah, okay. Those were some comments I had. And I know, Kim, you marked everything down. I'm sure.

I guess I have a question for staff. I know you said under pristine conditions we'd get 70 units in there. And I guess I'm still stuck on how many units would actually fit. So for me to make a decision, or a recommendation, feels like we need to know what's more realistic. It was sort of Jared's question that you had asked previously, and we don't have an answer to it.

Again, the previous answer, it's still the same answer. So without knowing the total amount of wetlands on the property, we could not make a determination of actually how many houses they could actually fit on there.

If I could just add on top of that another layer, I believe Mr. Minaboo referenced. But you could set that as the cap, right? I mean, 61 maximum subject to the wetlands. I think that's implied already because they have to go through the subdivision plan and meet all the county codes and regulations. So, again, until we can identify what acreage is the wetlands, that will dictate how many units can be developed.

Good, Ms. Erica.

I think I am good. So you're saying, so as part of the binding development plan, we would say, subject to what's buildable, right? Subject to our rules and regulations regarding floodplains.

If that's the pleasure of the board, yes, ma'am. Right.

Okay.

Okay. Mr. Job.

No, I just, it's difficult for us to make a decision on this when you don't have all your information together. We don't know the wetlands. We don't know what the traffic analysis is. It's just, you know, usually when people come before us, we have more information to make an intelligent decision. On this one, I don't think so. I think we're guessing. Okay. And it's always, you know, well, we'll look into this, we'll look into that. Just give us the zoning first, and then we'll proceed. I don't know. I would rather have more information.

Can I respond to a couple of those comments? Sure. So, specific to the wetland question, and maybe we did accurately convey the status of, the lines that you see here are preliminary and based. There's been a substantial amount of field work that's done that. What hasn't been done is that we haven't taken the agencies out, and the process, this is just the way the process works. Once an environmental consultant delineates it, then they go out with agencies and confirm that. And that just, the nature of this business is that just happens in a later process. So, we're not guessing where the wetland lines are. We've got a very, very good idea. And they may change a little bit when we go out with the agencies. So, we're very, very comfortable that, at the end of the day, it's going to look very, very similar to what we've conceptualized on the plan. The traffic, I don't disagree that it hasn't been a traffic study done, but we also know that we've got 61 units. When a traffic study is done, there's established trip generation rates that all the traffic consultants use that assign a number of trips per unit. And that's generally between 9 and 10 trips per unit. So, we're looking at about 600 trips per day out of that subdivision. And so, we haven't gone downstream and seen if there's any impacts to intersections like that, but we know the traffic volumes are coming out. So, we do have some of that information. And like we mentioned and committed to earlier, those traffic studies for a project of this scope are generally done at the land development process.

That's true. Tell me, go back to the wetlands. What maps or data are you using for the situation there currently?

They go out on the site and they walk the wetlands.

No, have you done that? I'm sorry? Has that been done?

Yes, yes. That's what those lines are from. They look at the vegetative indicators. No, I know how it's done. Water levels and so on.

But my question is, you're not just using the maps from the county?

No, no, no. This is all based upon ground truthing, walking the site, spending days out there evaluating vegetation, water levels, soils, so on. It's a pretty detailed process. It's not just done based upon aerial photography.

No, I understand that. I just want to know what you are using because the maps from the county are from the 70s.

Yeah, no, we're not using those maps. It's based upon actual site conditions. So, actual feet on the ground?

As of the current conditions, yeah. And what he's telling you is the truth because I looked at the study, so he didn't arbitrarily. He didn't have anything to do with it, so it's pretty good. I said that wrong. Poussaint's extremely capable. It just, that wasn't his data, but it was professionally done.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that you actually did that, boots on the ground, rather than take the existing data that was available through the county. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

May I ask you another question?

No, sir, I'm sorry. You had your shot at us, but I haven't yet. But I'm still waiting on comments from the board back to the applicant or the engineer.

Seems like we kind of got off of format. Were there, is public comment closed? No, not yet. Okay. Okay, I have some, but I can wait until after that.

Is there anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Okay, sir, if you would come up and state your name and spell your last name for the record.

My name is William Bell, B-E-L-L. I live on East Christofoli Road. I'm curious about this fill section they keep talking about. They're going to bring the level up three to four feet. Back here a year or so ago, when I wanted to put a shed on my property, I was told I couldn't change the elevation. I couldn't do nothing. I couldn't bring no dirt in. I couldn't take no dirt out. How do they plan on bringing this level up?

Sir, that's going to be all with design, with the engineer, with stormwater retention, et cetera, et cetera.

All right. And also, can I leave these pictures here with the devastation?

Well, you would have to get those checked in over there. Okay. Over here. Are you done?

That was just a comment to fill section. I just wanted to show them pictures of the devastation of the violent forest preserve that was supposedly not going to impact any flooding on the road. And probably 80% of the water on that road is coming from there.

Okay. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you would, come on up. Hopefully, we know the drill now. State your name and spell your last name. I'll make it quick.

My name is Chris Cook, C-O-O-K. I'm representing the North Marin Island Homeowners Association. They sent me down here. We're over 450 homeowners north of the Barsh Canal. And they reviewed this application and recommended denial on it for many of the reasons you're looking at. The flooding, the roads, there's people came. I think when the road is completely overflood, they couldn't get access. When they were stranded in their home for like three or four days, she couldn't get out. So, we're looking at last year, the past, last year, the state of Florida had over eight 100-year floods. In the past year in Bavard County, in five, I think we've had a one in 1,000-year and one in a 500-year flood. And not only is this in a flood zone, we have to evacuate. And also, it's in the surge zone. We don't talk about the surge, when a surge comes. So, anyways, it's messed up. And so, adding more increased density to this area just doesn't make sense. We recommended that they do also – what wasn't talked about yet was the rural character of the neighborhood. Half-acre lots are not rural in character. I think what might be a good solution here is you may can put in one-acre lots, have the SEU zoning on it. The wetlands will take care of itself. There will be about – roughly about half of what they want to put in 61. But I think it will increase the land values. It will increase the impacts on the road and the flood and the whole area. And it's just something to think about. And that's all I had to say. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? All right. I want to say it one more time, and I'm going to close it. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Okay. I'm going to close it for public comment. Kim, we bring it back to you. And, Board, do we have any questions or anything for Kim?

Kim, did you get everything I had suggested?

I do. And as I started off this presentation earlier saying we would limit to 61. If you're dead set on 60, I need a response from Rhonda. I can't –

Let's don't debate over one lot.

Okay. So, and again, before we go to preliminary plat, a traffic study will be done on this road. We will do whatever the county says has to be done to upgrade it. If some of this was caused by Island Forest Preserve, the developer, that should be taken into account as well. Mr. Genoni did put in water, sewer, and reclaim, and he did go back and fix it. I've heard from the residents he didn't do a very good job. But, again, that was done. The county may require a performance bond. We don't know yet. But they don't want to harm anyone. They want to look at the water, which Henry will put that in the BDP. Excuse me, Mr. Mendebou. And, again, the reason they're seeking SR is because of the wetlands. Preservation of wetlands and clustering is in the comp plan and in the land development regulations. That's to keep the wetlands to do their jobs. So that is why they want to build just in the uplands and only in PAP 1.8%. The conditions of this property don't allow one-acre lots. Otherwise, we'd ask for our one. They've done the engineering. This used to be ag lands. It's not ag lands anymore. It's got wetlands that weren't there before because of the agriculture and the ditches and things like that. So this property has changed its use. It's no longer ag. The conditions have changed where it's no longer usable for ag, and they want to put in subdivisions, single-family homes, one-half-acre lots, which are compatible with the area. Single-family, single-family, quarter-acres to the east, one-half acres here, and then one acre and other sizes. There's nothing in the comp plan or the administrative policies that says anything about you must show what your wetlands are when you're asking for a rezoning. You just have to show the changing conditions of the lot. Your staff report shows that we're meeting the administrative policies. It even talks in Administrative Policy 7 on page 8 of the staff report about the compensatory storage, the code I showed you in that packet. This is a very strict standard. Hassan has said that he will look at trying to take other water in, and he already knows about the canals. He knows what's going on up there. I'm sure he's going to look at the pumps. He's going to look at what Island Forest Preserve did, and if water is now coming to this property from Island Forest Preserve, he's still going to have to take it, I mean, into his calculations. So this is all done at the preliminary plat stage. The staff reviews it, and this is just zoning. If it's compatible with the area, it makes sense. If we could do 70, we're asking 61. We're going to limit it to 61, just have smaller lots, and preserve a ton of property around the home so there will be buffers as well. With that, we'd ask that you approve the rezoning from RR1 and AU to SR with a BDP. The BDP will include the limitation of 61 lots.

And the other.

And the other. Looking at the whole entire basin. Thank you.

Hold on, Ms. Kim. Yes, ma'am. John, please.

You know the study that the county did on the flooding in the area that was presented to the Homeowners Association?

Are we talking about the study of Fay from 2008?

No. The one they did a new engineering program, it was two years ago. Yeah, that was approved two years ago. Right. Okay. How will that affect this property?

That's what resulted in that code section on page two of the packet I gave you. So they have to use this two-terabyte modeling program, put all their data into it, and see if it has no adverse impacts. Pine Grove subdivision to the north had to use that as well. It's the only other one that's done it. It's very difficult. In fact, Pine Grove had to hire the consultant that made the program to make it work right.

Is it a pass-fail?

No. It's basically – it is, pretty much. It's like you have no impacts. None.

Okay. So with your increase in the elevation on this property of three to four inches – feet. Three to four feet. You said feet.

Well, feet. Feet, yes.

He has to bring in fill. They won't even know that exactly right.

But it's going to be in the uplands to where the houses are going to be developed, and then the engineers do their magic.

So you're going to build a hill in North Merritt Island? That would be nice. Except for all the neighbors that are going to get all the runoff.

Well, that's why they have to compensate for that and use that modeling program. They can't – they're not allowed to impact others, and they're going to have all the wetlands.

It's like your neighbor's not allowed to put this fence on your property, but they do it anyway. Not on mine, they don't. I know. Thank you. Thanks, Kim.

Do we have any other comments from the board?

Mr. Chairman, I have a comment.

Yes, sir. Ron, you've been quiet all day.

This went before the North Merritt Island board, and they recommended denying it unanimously. I read through all their minutes, and I tend to agree with them. And one of the reasons for that is we're going to use a BDP to establish a consistency between the land use and the zoning. This process has been used several times in the past, and the county commission decided we don't want to do that. We want our zoning and our land use to be consistent, period. They even passed a resolution – our regulation says we can't do that. And then, of course, the state comes in and says, we're going to abolish your home rule, and you just have – so whatever you want to do, you can't do. But until – so some other counties created a lawsuit against that Senate Bill 180, we decided – our county decided not to do that. We're just going to talk to our representatives and see if we can convince them that it's a bad idea rather than going to court to do it. But whatever. However, I still would prefer to follow what the county commission did and not use a BDP to establish consistency.

May I respond to that?

All right. I know, John. I love BDPs. I love BDPs. But this is not the proper use of a BDP.

I'll give you one second.

And so I just – and for those two reasons, I don't really – I'm just not in favor of this, of approving this. I would recommend a denial.

Okay. Mr. Rod, I'm going to bring Kim back up to fight with him.

I do understand there is some disagreement with the use of BDPs. This is not in the comprehensive plan. This is in Section 621255B. It's been in the code for a very long time. It's been used for 25 years since I've done land use. I know staff doesn't like it. It's hard to track. I know people don't like it because it can be changed. But it's just like zoning is changed because conditions change. What Mr. Barcher is referring to in the comprehensive plan, the year that was set up to the state, was so you couldn't do it in reverse. You couldn't do a BDP to make a future land use consistent with the zoning. Here we're making the zoning consistent with future land use. I only know that because of Dunkin' Donut. That's why they did that. When I came and got an amendment to the zoning, we did a reverse BDP because it was asked by Brian Loeber, a commissioner at the time. So we made the future land use consistent with the zoning because they needed a drive-through. So it was reverse. And we've never been allowed to do it again, and that's what's in the comp plan. And I think Trina will back me up on that, that that is what the prohibition on BDPs is in the comp plan that was set to the state that has been rejected by the state. Thank you.

That was not my understanding. It was my understanding that the BDP has been used to establish the consistency between the two, between land use and zoning. That was its purpose. I don't understand when you say reverse BDP.

Right.

I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to tell me.

I think Trina would have to express exactly what's in there, but it's so you cannot use a BDP. What we're doing is making the zoning consistent with the future land use. Our future land use is RISE 1. With the Dunkin' Donuts project, we use a BDP to make the future land use consistent with the zoning. That's what I meant by reverse BDP. It's the only time it's ever been done.

How did you do that? Because you can't attach a BDP to a land use request. You can only do it for a zoning request.

I understand, and that's what's now in the comp plan that says you can't do it. But Brian Loeber, when he was a commissioner, made us do it. I didn't think it could be done either. No one liked it. We did it. We recorded it in the public records.

He got away with another one. I didn't want to.

I just want to clarify if you'd like. Yes, sir. Please, come on up.

Billy, I was trying not to get you. It's all right. So I think both sides are frankly right. I think there's just some misunderstanding. Ms. Rezenka is correct. The current code section, 62, 1255, I think it's B2, allows for this type of BDP to cure the inconsistency between the comprehensive plan and the zoning classification. So this would allow, effectively, as you can see here, clustering to exceed the Res 1. That's not that unusual. Even if we were to change it, that could be done. It's usually done through a PUD today. But with that said, that it is allowed today, and we were on a path to potentially change this. There was a comp plan amendment, and then there would have been land development regulations that followed that. And ultimately, it would have been up to the board whether to change this code section. But it was potentially on a path for this section of code to be amended. And SB 180, however, prevents that, not only the code, but it prevented the ear amendment that this board had previously reviewed from going forward. So as of today, the kind of underpinning to that, the comprehensive plan, was never amended because of SB 180. So I will just say that everybody...

That's another attorney's opinion. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I understand it hasn't actually been in effect because of SB 180. My take on it is it's the right thing to do, and to hell with SB 180.

I've got one, if I may, sir. Okay, Mr. Jarrett. Okay, so I used to live right around the corner. Not as close as Henry lives to this, but used to go shooting down to Christopher Lee Road every weekend, used to hang out down there. Um, and I lived there for maybe five years. And during that five years, we had many family members in the area whose homes flooded, who, these homes have been there since the 50s and 60s, um, never flooded until everybody built houses higher than theirs around them. Putting them in a bowl, as somebody mentioned. Um, and so the question was also asked if we have any teeth as this board, which we advise the commission, as you all know. Um, but we don't make the final decision. They don't have to listen to anything we say. We, we are just simply the first gatekeeper before you go in front of them, whether you're for or against. Um, I think that anybody can create studies to show anything they want, and reality is going to show what it shows. And it has shown that this type of development, especially in the low-lying area, which that is, is, uh, reality is that it floods people out. It runs water onto other people, and, um, I, I'm going to vote against this, um, for that reason, among others, not to mention the road. Um, you know, people walk their pets up and down that road. There's no sidewalk. Um, quadrupling the traffic, doubling the traffic, whatever this may do. I don't, you know, uh, know what those numbers would do. But, um, it's a, it's an old grove road. And, um, nothing's been done to improve it or raise it. And I do know people personally that were trapped in, what did we call it? What is this, subdivision? Island Forest Preserve. I know people that were trapped in their homes for three or four days because the road was 18 inches, maybe, underwater. Um, I've been back there. I have a cattle lease back there. And, um, it's wet. I can't even drive my four-wheel drive lifted by six-inch F-350 into that pasture because it's in a bowl. So, I, I would just, um, make a motion to deny it, um, if it's time for that.

Second.

I had a comment.

Okay, did we already get a second? I did not hear it. I'm sorry, sir. Your name helped me out there.

Sorry, I was going to go, if I could comment further before we vote.

All right, I'll hold the motion. Go ahead and do the comments, sir.

I think we ought to remember that this area has been through two small unit studies that both recommended that housing density be decreased in the zoning of the area. And, and because of that, and because it's 85, 90 percent in flood zone AE, and it's entire, almost entirely in the high hazard coastal flood zone, it just doesn't seem right to me to increase the density. Even with all the nice improvements that they're doing in their design. All right. We good, sir?

Yes, Robert.

Sir?

This is the problem I'm having is, are we increasing the density? We don't know that. That's something with, that we, this is, this is very important for what we do. We don't know how many houses you are able to put on and in the current state because something's going to be done with this land. Um, uh, this is an old orange grove that it looks, it looks like, uh, um, uh, citrus greening or, or something got it. And it's not an orange grove anymore. It's just empty land. Someone owns this. They have the right to do things with it. They're going to do things with it. But, no, the, yeah, this is a little tiny road. No infrastructure has been done. Uh, everyone's flooding. I live in an old neighborhood and no development has been gone, has gone on around me because we're all built out. But yet, every year that water gets a little higher because it rains more. Um, theoretically, all these developments have to keep their water on their site. Um, some, some engineers do that better than others. Uh, but something is going to be done and I, I'm just having trouble because I'm missing a very pertinent piece of information. Uh, and, and generally staff is very good. They'll come out and they'll say, oh, yeah, they were going to be able to put this many and now they want to do this many. But today they're like, I don't know. They might have been able to do this and now they want to do that. This is, this is my only problem. Uh, uh, you know, I, um, I feel for you folks. I've, I've moved into a built out neighborhood. But I moved, I, my, my neighborhood I moved into is from the seventies and everything was done around it. And, and, um, but like I said, the air, the water keeps getting a little higher every year. Um, we're having more and more storms every year. So, yeah, I'm, I'm having a hard time making a decision here. It's, you know, the infrastructure, your, your, how's it being flooded? Yeah, that's, that's infrastructure. You need better drainage in your neighborhood. You need better roads in your neighborhood. That's not us. Uh, Mr. Chairman made a point that that is not us. We're here to try to look at what's going on and what people are doing with their land and to try to fit everything together and make a great community. We're not here, we're not here about drainage. That's some, that's someone else's department. They're supposed to do their job and we're supposed to do ours. Um, I would really like that piece of information though.

Question.

All right, one second. Kim, if you want to respond.

Question.

Mr. Brothers, I think it's really clear in the staff report and everything you've heard today that the zoning allows 70 units. The wetlands is a different issue. The wetlands is a whole different, is a site plan issue.

So, so you're, you're saying that 70 and you want to do 60. 61, yes, sir. That's a very important piece of information. That, that if we don't change the zoning, that you can go in there and put 70 houses there.

In, in theory, yes. The wetlands would come in and, and, but that, those are site plan issues. Why didn't we say that when we asked that?

Well, we meant it. Because, because that's, that's not really true though, right? Because this is what we asked and we don't have the equation. So, in theory, if there were no wetlands, 70 houses, right?

Wetlands is not a zoning criteria, sir.

I, no, I understand that, but it was asked in a hypothetical manner. If there were no, it, it does matter when you go to build a house though. And zoning, giving someone the legal ability to do so, it, that's where it starts. And then what? You give them the zoning and then you get past that. And then they, you know, we get any, any number of studies or things that can happen. And then it's another hurdle and another hurdle. I think it's important to look at all these potential issues before we just change the zoning.

All right. Well, Jared, you made the motion to deny, is that correct? I did. Seconded by Eric. Mr. Eric, you second. So, we have a motion by Jared still on the floor to deny, a second by Eric. All those in favor to deny, say yes or no. Aye. Aye. Can we have a show of hands who wants to deny?

Can I put it down yet?

Can we do a roll call vote, Mr. Chair?

Maybe that would make it easier to count them out. Okay. Mr. John? Aye. Aye.

Ruth? This is for denial, right? Denial. Aye. Jared? Aye. Ron? Denial. Mr. Robert? Nate? Erica?

Denial.

Aye. Debbie?

Aye.

We haven't voted on this side. No one said on this side. No. No.

All right. Here's what really happens. Now you've got nothing. Everything that's in the binding development plan, you just put in the trash. So everybody here accomplished something by not giving them nothing, and now they get to do 74. It just doesn't make real good sense, but... That's up to the county commission. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Kim, thank you.

I'm sure they know you abstained.

Mr. Chet? Just helping you out.

Yeah. That's right. I would... No big deal. Just want to make sure that the record shows that she did abstain from the vote.

They haven't.

Yeah, she got it. We're going to take a quick two-minute recess here.

Once that opinion was ruled, no investigation followed. Parents must have the right to seek a second medical opinion to defend themselves. This legislation is in the lifeline. The trauma of my daughter's unnecessary removal will affect us for the rest of our lives. I stand before you as a mother who did everything right. I fought for my child's health, and for that, we were punished. As a member of this committee, I ask you to ensure that child welfare decisions are fair, evidence-based, and protective of innocent families. Your support for SB42 is a crucial step towards making that happen. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Next, I have Sarah Mishler.

You're recognized. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today. I am hopeful and excited for the possibility of change. My name is Sarah Mishler, and I'm here because my family went through something no parent could ever imagine and something I hope no other family will ever have to experience. My oldest child was removed from our custody at just seven months old based on a misdiagnosis from a doctor located 174 miles away in Jacksonville, Florida, a doctor who never once physically examined my son. Because of an old bleed caused by a vacuum-assisted birth, we were accused of shaken baby syndrome even though he didn't have a single bump, bruise, break, or even a scratch on his body. We had to fight tooth and nail against the termination of parental rights for 11 months. We spent over $100,000 trying to bring our baby home, and in that time, we lost irreplaceable moments like first steps, first holidays, and first birthday. What ultimately saved our family was the ability to obtain a second medical opinion. With that opinion, DCF eventually completely dropped its charges and our son was returned home. But many families in Florida are not given the time or the opportunity to secure the second opinion before going to trial. Without ours, we would have lost custody of our son permanently. The impact on our family has been profound, and even with our son home, we are still working every day to repair the damage that was done. And while our story may sound extreme, it's not rare. We might seem like the exception, but unfortunately, situations like ours are far more common than most people realize. Families across this state are facing life-changing consequences because of preventable mistakes. mistakes that could have been caught with something as simple as allowing parents the right to a second medical opinion before a child is permanently taken from their home. All we're asking for here is a safeguard, a pause, a chance to make sure that the information is accurate before a decision is made that can alter the child's life forever. When the system gets it wrong, families like mine are left trying to reverse harm that should have never happened, children lose stability, parents lose trust, and the road back is long and extremely painful. By sharing our story, my hope is to help create a system that is fair, transparent, and careful, one where no family is torn apart without every possible step taken to ensure the decision is truly justified. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. I have Daryl Buchanan waving in support, Michael Patterson waving in support, Melina Weidel.

BDP. All right. We got any questions, board, for the applicant? Seeing that, sir, let me, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? All right. I'm going to close this item for public comment. I'll bring it back to the board. Any questions for Mr. Douglas?

Did it for approval?

Second. Debbie made the motion. Who seconded it? I got a motion by Debbie, a second by Robert on item H5 for approval. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Have a good day.

Item H6. Item H6. Clinton Smith and Kimberly Smith request zoning classification change from RU-1-7 to SR. Application is 25Z-0004A, located in District 3.

Okay, ma'am. And if you could state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kimberly Smith, S-M-I-T-H. So, we're here requesting rezoning classification right now. It's existing FLU residential 2 with existing zoning RU-1-7. And we have a current permit that we're trying to get through the process. And those two are conflicting, apparently. So, we are asking to rezone for SR. Like I said, we do have a current permit that's in process for just a single family home on the property.

All right, ma'am. While you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Then I'll be closing item H6 for public comment. Seeing that, I'm going to bring it back to the board. Do we have any comments for the applicant? I have a question. Ms. Ruth.

Is there still an active code case on the property? We can't clear it until we have the permit. How does that work with the rezoning with the code case?

So, usually code cases are held in obeyance until the zoning request has gone through the process.

So, the zoning is to fix?

I'm not sure about the nature of the violation. Do you know what the nature of the case was?

I believe it was, let's see here. Unpermitted land clearing and land alteration activities on the property under the jurisdiction of Brevard County Natural Resources Department, according to the agenda.

Can I say something?

Go ahead.

Um, so, what, the gentleman that owns the two lots in front of us, we have, um, a shared right-of-way, and he cleared his property, and he put it in our right-of-way, and the neighbors, they called in a complaint about his, because it's, like, about two acres, and he cleared a whole acre and put it on the right-of-way for our property. So, since then, we, he didn't have the money to get rid of the waste either, so we had to pay to get it removed. So, we've been working with them, with that department to get everything taken care of. There's a lot of dirt on the property, too, that our other neighbor, because the land's because the land's been vacant, the whole, you know, since it was, I guess, made and created.

Since time.

Yeah. And the other neighbor had been, he had piles of dirt over there that are now, you know, like ours, that we're going to have to get rid of. So, we're having to get, take care of all of these things to not have the complaint and

to get it cleared. So, the zoning is clearly not the fix. You just have to fix it.

And they said the only way is either, like, not build on it and, you know, put more trees, I guess, or, or get the building permit. And we have to have the zoning to get the building permit. This is the last piece of that puzzle.

Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question, how, how large is the property that you're looking to build on?

It's 2.2 acres.

Okay. And you're building a single-family home on that property? Thank you.

Chairman, move to approve.

Second. We've got a motion by John, a second by Neal on item H-6 to approve. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. All right. Good luck at the county commissioner's meeting. Item H-7.

Item H-7. Lazy River Investment LLC requests a zoning justification change from RU-1-13 to AU-LITE. And this is application number 25Z-00049. And it's located in District 3.

All right, sir. If you would state your name and spell your last name for the record, please. David Starkey. V-I-S-T-A-R-K-U-I. I'm partner in the Lazy River LLC. And a little bit about what you want to do here? Well, I want to change the zoning for the RU-1-13 to AU-LITE, which is compatible with the FLUM. All right. Well, you're right there, sir. Is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you could just sit right there in the front row. Ma'am, if you could come up, state your name, spell your last name for the record.

My name is Linda Brannon, B-R-A-N-N-A-N. I live at 9675 Fleming Grant Road. I'm right across the street from Mr. Bastarki's application, and I came to say that I'm in favor of it. I own, I live on two and a half acres now, and he's wanting to rezone this to two and a half, one unit for two and a half. And I also own two half-acre vacant buildable lots that back up to his property on Mockingbird Lane, which would be impacted by whatever he does. I have no problem with it. Two and a half acres will keep the density down in our area. Most of my neighbors are on a quarter acre, half acre, or one acre. There are a few on larger pieces, but most of them are on smaller. So I would like to see this property be developed in the least impact. It's a wooded, beautiful area of land. And like I say, I live right across the street from it. I've been there 36 years. So I'm in favor of the zoning being as high as it can go to where there's less houses. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item?

Good evening. I'm Lorraine DeMotny, and I will have to spell that last name, D-E-M-O-N-T-I-G-N-Y. And I'm here to speak in favor of Mr. Bustarki's request. I also would like to see the zoning be less dense. So I think we're going to accomplish that with this change. I've lived there for 24 years. I have a little bit more acreage, well, than Linda did, but not more than he does. So I love the rural nature of the neighborhood, and I feel like these two-and-a-half-acre home sites would be a definite plus for the neighborhood in keeping with the consistency of the area. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record.

Yep. My name is David Connor, C-O-N-N-E-R, and I have a piece of property that I just purchased in June of 24 that's right next to his 20 acres, and I totally agree with what he's going to do. We've sat down and talked to him, and I agree with, again, the density and the two-and-a-half-acre thing that he's proposing, and I think it will really enhance the neighborhood.

All right. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? I want to speak for or against this item? Okay. I'm going to close at item H-7 for public comment. Sir, if you could come back up to the mic. Do we have any questions from the staff board up here for the applicant?

Only to say that it's the first time I've sat here, and we've had people for a development. I have some good neighbors. Yeah, you do. You're lucky.

We've still got a lot of items. Please don't jinx us, John. I tried to close out the other one. I need a motion.

I move to approve. Second.

Got a motion by John, a second by Ruth. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. I think I got Henry Beat. I've been here 69 and a half years. I don't know how long. He was probably building that road back then. Item H-8.

Yes, item H-8, 100 Pflug Avenue, LLC, with Bruce Moyer being the applicant for the application. Request a zoning classification change from U-1 to RU-2-15. It's located at, application is 25Z100050, located in District 5.

She's checking my authorization.

Okay.

Well, in the meantime, I'll go ahead and speak, since I was labeled as the applicant. Probably not as elegant as Kim is going to be, so I'll try to move this along. I do have some handouts. Mr. Bruce, even though we know you, we're going to have to get your name and offer the record. Yes, so Bruce Moyer, MBB Engineering, representing the applicant. My office is at 1250 West O'Galley Boulevard in Melbourne, Florida. This is kind of interesting. This is an area I grew up in. This is a piece of property that's right on A-1A that's never been developed. It's kind of odd for that stretch of A-1A because it's very, very busy. It's, I believe, its own existing commercial, and the rest of the surrounding area is zoned multifamily. So the plan is to go ahead and rezone it to a multifamily zoning and put a triplex on it, a luxury triplex. Pardon me? Three. Triplex.

Okay. I'm allowed to speak. Okay. My name is Kim Rzenk. I'm here on behalf of 100 Pflug. Also with us is a representative, Jamie DeRosa, if you have any questions of him. This is a .29-acre piece of property. As Mr. Moyer said, it's not been developed. The idea is to put one triplex on there. What I've provided to you is a larger aerial map showing that there's lots of multifamily duplexes, townhomes in this area. And also, if you look at page three of the staff report, there is RU215 to the south, RU215 to the east, and RU215 to the west, and that is what we're seeking. It is compatible with community commercial by the flue table at 62.12-1255.

So.

What about what you're wanting to do?

I'm trying to change the zoning. Right now, it's zone GU, which I'm trying to go to SR. So, from what I understand, the GU is for five acres. I only have one acre, and everything I've tried to do with this property has come back to that issue. So, I'm trying to get it changed so I can at least be the same as everybody else around me and be consistent with the properties around me.

All right. Well, sir, while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience who want to speak for or against this item? Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the applicant?

I just have one.

Mr. John.

How are you going to get access to this site? I have easements in my area. Where? On both sides. On both sides of my property there.

On the east and the west side?

Yes.

Because I don't see that on the, I don't see anything on there. Yeah, they're on there.

There are older easements that are there for many, many years that have access to all the other properties around there. Plus, they built a new community next to mine. On the east side? Yes, sir. You're talking about, right? Yes, sir. That big development there. Right. Greenleaf built that. And there was a designated easement there that they've given to the people that are already behind me that go right next to my place.

Okay, because there's no traffic on that easement that that development has shown between that and the bond.

Yeah, I understand it. What are you looking at?

The easement to the south that he's referring to was actually vacated by Bruce Moya when he did the development here. Okay. So that southern portion of the easement was vacated, but it doesn't affect his property.

It doesn't affect his property, right, because it's south of his property. Correct. There's no connection there. So, again, that raises the question, where is the easement for him to get access? Because there's no point in you putting a house on there if you can't get to it.

He does. Because there is an easement that runs along that, between the pond and his property, there's an easement that runs down that way.

You're talking about that dirt area there that's shown up on my aerial?

Yeah, it's all done in grass now. Yeah, and between his property and the stormwater pond for Greenleaf, there's an easement there. Okay. It was put in place back in, I think, 1985. Whether or not it satisfies 62-102 will have to be determined once he submits the building permit.

Also, they own both. This part that they're talking about and the parking lot.

Okay. Stamina. We'll do item H-12. Are you sure? H-12.

We're trying.

Beverly Jean Richardson. Beverly, this better be quick. She's being represented by Angel Myers. Request of zoning classification. Get your name and spell your last name for the record.

No problem.

Good evening, chairman, board members, and staff. My name is Angel Myers. Last name is M-Y-E-R-S. I'm a realtor at LPT Realty, and I'm here today representing Ms. Beverly Jean Richardson with her authorization. We are here to request that the two homes that's on the property that was originally built in 1959 be rezoned. I have moved to theush.

Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Michael. Thank you. Thank you. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here.