Board of Adjustment on 2026-01-14 1:30 PM - Jan 14, 2026

of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, everybody ready? I now call this meeting of the Brevard County Board of Zoning and Adjustment for, what's today, the 16th? 15th? 14th. 14th of January, 2026, to order. In introductions, we are the board today, and staff members, quarter, whatever, whatever. Planning and development office, please describe the function and operation of the board of Zoning and Adjustment to our applicants and the audience. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The board of adjustment is a quasi-judicial body established by the board of county commissioners under Chapter 62, Article 2, Division 4, Brevard County Code. The board of adjustment is empowered to hear requests for variances to the zoning regulation and the signed regulation in Chapter 62, Article 6, and Article 9. Pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, any person or persons jointly or severally agree by any decision of the board of adjustment may, within 30 days after the date the order is signed, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. Mr. Chairman, you have nine items on your agenda today. Thank you, Mr. Booty. Appreciate it. Since we don't have a vice chair today, Mr. Hoffman, would you care to read the undue hardship to the audience? Very good. Definition of an undue hardship. A variance may be granted when it is not contrary to the public interest and where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. The term undue hardship has a specific legal definition in this context and essentially means that without the requested variance, the applicant will have no reasonable use of the subject property under existing development regulations. Personal medical reasons will not be considered as grounds for establishing an undue hardship, sufficient to qualify an applicant for a variance. Economic reasons may be considered only in instances where the landowner cannot yield a reasonable use and or a reasonable return under the existing land development regulations. The applicant must answer a hardship worksheet with six questions. The Board of Adjustments will discuss these questions today with each applicant who has requested a variance. That's it. Okay, that's it, huh? Okay, these are our board procedures. We're now going to address the board members, applicants, and the audience regarding the board procedures for today's hearings. The Board of Zoning and Adjustment, as a quasi-judicial board with members appointed by the Brevard County Board of Commissioners, will utilize Robert's Rules of Order to conduct its proceedings. The chair is asking all board members not to ask questions while the applicants are making their presentations. Once the applicants have completed their presentations, we will begin board questioning with the board member who represents the applicant's respective district. When concluded, questioning is open to the full board. The chair will recognize each board member and turn. Once all board members have completed their questioning, we will then open the floor to the audience who may be here to speak concerning the applicant's application, whether you're against or for. Anyone from the audience wishing to speak will be given the opportunity to address the board only once at the podium. At the conclusion of the public comment, the applicant will be given additional time for rebuttal, as well, to present their final comments. As I said in the beginning, please make your sentences short, concise, to the point. We have a lot of people, but we will address things in a good way if it takes a little longer. It's no problem. Once completed, no further comment will be heard from the applicant or the public. The action then moves to the board for discussion and action. We will not use a timer for this meeting. Instead, we are asking each speaker to be concise in what they have to say. It is important that you stay on the subject and avoid information that is not relevant. All persons speaking must provide the name and address for the public record. Those wishing not to verbally state their address may ask the clerk at the podium for an address card. Please fill it out and return it to the clerk. Good enough. Yeah, where is that? Our next order of business is to approve the minutes of the previous meeting from last month. Are there any corrections or additions? Motion to approve. None. None? Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. No, opposed. The minutes are approved. We now move into consideration of the variance applications. Mr. Bodie, may we have the first applicant that is requesting a variance? Yes, item H1. Roger Roth, Kumar, Mugluga, and Sudipita Karnati, represented by Steve Monroe, request two variants of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for a principal structure and a lot depth in a BU-1-A zoning classification. It's located at tax account number 2727-306 in District 5. The applicant, come forward. Before we proceed with the first one as chairman, I have a suggestion, and it will be for everybody. Possibly, since the first one seems to be more complicated than the rest of them, could we move it to the end? Would it be beneficial to everybody here? No? I think that it needs to be heard in order myself. Okay. That's good. Good enough. Please step forward, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Monroe. I'm the president of Monroe Engineering. I'm the engineer record for this project. I reside at 3080 Brandywine Lane, Melbourne, Florida. Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is true? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speak in the microphone, and it's all yours. I'll try to be as brief and precise as I can. The applicant is requesting approval of two variances. The variance number one is to allow a 27.06-foot setback variance to the required 50-foot. This may seem extreme, but the property already has a 25-foot approved variance that's in place. The applicant is really only asking for 2.06 feet in addition to that. Variance number two is to allow a 0.58-foot, 7-inch variance for the required 75-foot lot depth. This is a result of the parcel being platted in 1961 prior to the BU-1A zoning code being codified in 1979. Since the parcel does not meet minimum lot width, 75 feet, it's considered nonconforming. Let me see if I can explain the variance as requests in a simpler manner. Mr. Chairman, if possible, we could have each of these considered individually, provided the board may decide not to approve one or the other or both. It's essential variance number two without approval of that, that the property couldn't be developed because it's nonconforming. Location. The project is located at the southwest corner of A1A and Terra Shores Drive in India Atlantic. It's about 1.3 miles north of 192, beyond the west side of the road. To the north is Banana River Dental, Dr. Collins' office. The south is Beach Masonic Lodge, and to the east are several high-rise condos. So it is a commercial corridor. The project, the site is Zone BU-1. The applicant is proposing one two-story building with a first-floor real estate office and a second-floor resort dwelling that would include two units with one bedroom each. I recognize we're not here to discuss uses today, but both of these proposed uses are in the approved under the BU-1A zoning classifications. The site plan you have been provided is the best layout we could come up with that would require the smallest variance possible. The site will enter and exit off of A1A and not off of Terra Shores Drive, and this was agreed upon by DOT. Variance one, this reduces the front setback. This parcel is irregular in shape, much like a slice of pizza. It's long and skinny, so to say. The plat for this parcel was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1961. The parcel of Zone BU-1A, BU-1A created in 1979, requires a 50-foot front setback along A1A and a 25-foot rear setback. These setbacks make the lot virtually undevelopable. There's only 32 feet left at the widest end of the piece of slice, so to say. In 1982, the Board of Adjustments recognized that the parcel cannot be developed without variances. They approved two variances for this site. The front 25-foot variance to the front 50-foot setback. And the rear variance, the 25-foot variance to the rear required 25-foot setback, which basically made it a zero lot line setback in the rear. These variances are in place today. In 2006, Brevard County created two new landscape buffers. Specifically, the new Type-A buffer requires a 25-foot green space adjacent to residential and prohibits parking and structures. Due to adverse site conditions, the parcel qualifies for a waiver and would be required to provide a minimum of 13.2-foot setback. This requires the project to be shifted east toward A1A. Essentially, the rear 25-foot zero setback was revoked and now would be required to provide 13.2-foot setback. This is a hardship that wasn't created by the applicant. This is variance number one. The applicant is requesting an additional 2.06 feet to the existing 25-foot front setback variance. This is formally requesting a 27.06-foot variance to the required 50-foot. Variance number two, this has to do with the required lot width. Again, the plat for this parcel, part of the Terrace Shores subdivision, was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1961. The parcel zoned BU-1A, a zoning district created Brevard County in 1979. Today, the current code in BU-1A requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet. So, this parcel has a lot width of 74.42 as we are instructed to measure it. This is due to the code created after the parcel was platted. So, thus, it's a non-conforming lot. This, again, is a hardship not created by the applicant. This is variance number two, requesting a 0.5-foot variance to the required 75-foot lot width due to the hardship created by the BU-1A code. The agencies, we've met with Brevard County in a pre-application conference on August the 28th to 25, you know, with all the departments. We've met with DOT. They've seen the plan that we provide. And then, the City of Melbourne, of course, are providing utilities, and what we've provided them said it looked good. In closing, the applicant is requesting the approval of the two variances. Variance one, a 27.0-foot setback. Variance one is allowed a 27.06-foot setback. Variance to the required 50-foot setback. This is 2.06-foot additional to the existing 25-foot variance in place. And variance number two, 0.5-feet, variance with a required 75-foot lot depth. This is due to the code that is considered non-conforming lot. And my understanding, it's important that this variance be approved for the lot to be developed. So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, again, if we could consider, the board could consider each of these requests individually. Provide one or the other may not pass. I'd appreciate it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Let's hang on for a second here. Your application is in five. All right. Mr. Hoffman, you have the floor. Very good presentation. Thank you. I just want to clarify in layman's terms. So, the distance between the road and the building, that is, it was already decreased to a certain amount. You're asking for a small additional. That's correct. And how much is that additional? Another 2.06 feet. Okay. Okay. And you say you did meet with DOT, and they were okay with that being out? Yeah. In what they consider the clear zone and all of that? This is a very challenging lot due to the geometry. It's long and skinny. We're very narrow at the north end and wider at the south end. The north end, you know, there was no way to really work with anything. So, we're not proposing any access on the terraced shores at all. But to answer your question, yes, we did meet with DOT, and they were good with our entrance. There is a crosswalk there. They were good with what we had shown, you know, in contrast to that crosswalk as well. It's not interfering with that either. So, your driveway has a proper distance from the intersection for DOT's purposes. That's correct. And we also align with the driveway across the road from us. I notice that the building is very close to the Masonic Lodge on the south, at least according to this map. So, your property is next to the Masonic Lodge, right? That's correct, yes. Yeah. And there, now, is there a, I know that it's, I was out there and looked, I know that it's all shrub out right now. So, is there a fence between Masonic Lodge and this property? I'm not aware of a fence that's there, no. Are you proposing a fence? At this point, no. Okay. You know, again, that's another commercial lot, you know, we're a budding commercial. I think we've got a five-foot setback that's on the south property line, and we're going to, of course, meet that set. It's quite close, and there's the, I guess it's a utility easement next to the property line? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Around now to the west, and this is where there are, you had mentioned in your presentation a dentist office. Yes. Is that across Terrace? To the north side of Terrace Shores Boulevard. So, it's outside, it's beyond the road. Yeah. Okay. It's on our same side of the road, but across Terrace Shores Boulevard. Okay. It's not a budding. No. This property. No, it's Dr. Collins' office. Okay. So, let's talk about the backside. These are residences on the west side, correct? That's correct. Is there a fence there? There's an existing wall that's there, and that would be a code requirement if it wasn't there. But there's an existing wall there that's required. How tall is the wall? It should be six foot. Six foot? Yeah. Okay. And then you're going to have a buffer green space between that wall and the parking? That's correct. That's one of the new buffers in 2006 that the county enacted. So, we'll be required to meet those buffer requirements and provide all the trees, the shrubs, and the ground cover required by that code. Okay. Yeah, that's not an option. And the north side, it just abuts up to the roadway then? Yeah, that abuts Terrace Shores. Now, the type B buffer is what abuts roads, so we'll have a 15-foot green space on the north and on the east that we'll have to provide that landscape and that requirement there as well. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Back to you. So, my questions are, you said that the entrance into the parcel is identical to the east side of A1A, right? The same orientation on the lot? The alignment, it lines up with the driveway for the condo on the east side. On the other side. So, it's a good traffic design to align them. Just north of the crosswalk? Correct. And then the parcel, or the building that you want to build is going to orient to face east, correct? It's actually going to be facing to the north, into the parking lot area. Okay. So, it'll be facing north. Okay. And it'll be retail residential, you said, on the bottom, and then residential 2-1s on the top. Are those planning to be short-term or long-term? Those would be resort dwelling. So, those would be, you know, and again, those are allowed under the current code, you know, code there. Okay. First floor real estate offices, second floor resort dwelling. And keep in mind, there's going to be a one-bedroom, so there's not going to be, you know, the intent is not to have big crowds of folks, you know, come in and go on. A one-bedroom unit, you would expect it to be, you know, a couple, maybe a small family. Okay. And then the number of parking spaces? The parking spaces are dictated by the building square footage or vice versa. So, what we've got provided here is the most that we could provide on the site, and it meets the code requirement. And what's that amount? I believe it's 12 parking spaces is what it comes up, and that includes for the resort dwelling as well. Okay. And then can you give me the square footage of the building to include the upstairs? Yeah, I sure can. Forgive me. Eyes aren't wanting to work here. The plan you have listed as the first and second floor is 2,448 square feet. Total is 4,896. Thank you, Mr. Bode. That's correct, yeah. My eyes aren't wanting to work a second. Was that in there and I missed it, or is it? What was that? Can you speak into the mic? Was that in there and I missed it, or? Yes, it's in there with the site plan that he provided. Right in the footprint. Okay. On my copy. Right inside the building is where it's located. Gotcha. Thank you. I think that completes my questions. Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple questions. Could you tell me, have you had any meeting with the housing development behind you with the people there in the building that's going to go up? No, sir, we haven't. No? Honestly, it's been the last few days that we've actually received copies of the letters that have come into the county. Could you give me just a couple sentences in your own word? You understand that these variances are based on hardships and things of that nature. Just in your own words, you know, you can read this all day long, but I'd rather hear it from you. So just a couple sentences or four sentences, whatever you feel comfortable with, exactly what the hardship would be if you did not get this variance. The hardship here would be that variances were approved by the Board of Adjustments years ago with a new code that came in. It basically revoked that rear setback variance, which is a hardship. It wasn't anything due to our client. So you're trying to legitimize that, correct? Yeah. So we had a zero-foot setback, and now we've got to move everything at least 13.2 feet away from that last property line. So that was due to the code coming into play, and it wasn't anything that the landowner applicant did to create that situation. So that would be variance one. And variance two, again, as a code being non-conforming, you know, was a .58 short of the 75 foot. So we're talking seven inches short. Again, it was platted before the code come into being. So, again, it was something that was there that wasn't created by the applicant. It's a hardship. So that has to be approved before they're able to go ahead and develop on the site. Did you have an architect do this up? No, this plan was created by myself, as an engineer at record. And do you have a plan created? If you don't get the variances, do you have a plan for that? We'll have to research our options. But you don't have one currently, correct? No, sir. Okay. I don't have any other questions. I have another question. Please have a seat. I have another question. Sorry. I just want to confirm that the entrance to the upstairs residential spaces is on the east side of the property. Is that correct? Is that the only access so there would be no up and down on the side that affects the neighborhood? The short answer is yes. We went through many iterations on laying this project out. And we come up with many required variances that we would need. And one of the best options that worked was have, and you see the stairway on the site plan, having that entrance on the east side of the building. And it further provides privacy in the back. Okay. And there's no balcony or anything like that? Mm-mm. Okay. And then my second question is for you, Paul. Okay. Do we have, is there anything about that previously approved variance that we have to take into consideration? No, you can't get a variance to a variance. So they were approved in 1982 for two variances. One was to the 50-foot front setback of 25 feet, so they could build right up to the 25-foot right today. The back one was a zero setback requirement. Okay. So they had variance to let them go all the way up to the property line. Although looking at the plant and the survey, there is a five-foot public utility and drainage easement back there. That would have had to be vacated to get to the zero setback. So with him saying that now it requires a buffer that was enacted, that's where he needs to move it again and get a new variance of a little over two feet to the very front. So that was approved before. Okay. So we don't have to consider the prior variances at all. I'm sorry, what was that? We don't have to consider the prior variances at all. We're considering them as if a brand-new variance based on – Well, this is a brand-new variance. Right. That he can't get a variance to a variance. But they do have a variance that allows them to build right up to 25 feet off the front property line today. Okay. So then why the two feet? Yeah, he's asking for, like, get another two-point – 2.06. So we're giving up that 13.2 feet in the rear. So we're having to move our entire development to the east. So we're only asking for another two feet to offset that, if that makes sense. It makes sense. Right now they could build right up to 25 feet, and he's asking for it to be built at 22.98, which is only a little over two feet to that. That's correct. Does that answer your question? It does. It makes me wonder why you need the two feet. Why would you go through the process of this? That's where we ended up with the layout and what we require. Like I said, we went through many, many iterations on this building to get it to fit. Some of them had six foot in addition to what we're asking for today. Some of them had, you know, eight foot. That was the least that we come up with to do to work. So you can't scale the property down enough to offset the 2.6 feet? Let me go back to my site plan here. I think, to be honest with you, that two feet hits the very front corner of the building and also the stairs. And it actually is a can storage facility for the waste and also an elevator. Those are the things that are encroaching. So those are very minor, so. But, again, you can't minimize the size of the building so you don't have to even ask for that variance? Yeah. This being basically beachfront property, it's across from the beach, so to say. The owner, the cost of the land, and I know financials are not a consideration, but it has to be a certain amount of footage to offset the cost of the property. In this case, you know, we're very comparable to beachfront property. So the owner is trying to get as much as possible. Maximize the use. I understand. And because of the shape of this property, much of it's not usable to the north. Right. We can't fit parking, and we can't fit any more building. So that's how we arrived at the footprint we've got. So of the two variances, your preference to be approved would be the second? The second one would be needed just for housekeeping. The non-conforming. Because of the non-conforming. I understand. And then the second one, again, the applicant feels that they're giving up that 13.2 feet that was already approved. Previously approved. In exchange for just a couple of more feet. I understand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Monroe, have a seat, and we'll move forward here. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak in favor of opposition to their variants? Whoever wants to be first, please, come on up. I think they're all different now. Would it be better in interest moving forward if one person spoke for everyone, or does everyone have their own? Everybody has their own keys. Okay. Good afternoon. Hi, Lynn. Hello. You got it, though. You're speaking clearly into the mic. Okay. First, we're going to raise your right hand. Do you swear in front that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustments is true? I do. Name, address? My name is Susan Bond. I reside at 1890 Bell Court in Indy Atlantic. Okay. You're good to go. Okay. I've owned my home in this community for 28 years, since 1998. The rear of my property adjoins the parcel of land in question here today. So I want to address the issue of hardship, because that's the legal standard here. In 1992, this property was granted a variance, allowing a zero-foot rear setback, as we've discussed, because it was expected at that time that both that parcel and the land behind it would all be used for commercial properties. Well, three years later, that changed. That parcel of land behind the one in question was developed into four residential homes. So that was 40 years ago. Those homes had been there for 40 years. So once that happened, the justification for the zero-foot setback no longer applied. So recognizing that, in 2006, Brevard County amended the zoning code, and Ordinance 0655 eliminated that zero-foot setback and established a 20-foot residential buffer. And that was to protect the existing homes from commercial encroachment. The applicants purchased this property in 2022 with full knowledge of the size, shape, and setbacks. So under Florida law and Brevard County code, a variance may only be granted when a unique physical hardship prevents reasonable use of the property. And that's not the case here. This parcel is zoned BU-1A and can be reasonably developed in full compliance with code. It is not landlocked, not environmentally constrained, and not burdened by any physical limitation that prevents development. The request to encroach into both the A-1A setback and the residential buffer is a design choice, not a hardship. Florida courts have been clear that financial convenience, increased building size, or preferred design do not constitute legal hardship. Hardship means a property cannot be reasonably used at all. This property clearly can be. What the applicant is asking for is permission to move the building closer to homes that have existed since 1985 to increase their profit. That is not hardship. That's preference. The 2000 ordinance did not eliminate use of this property. It simply eliminated the ability to build directly against a residential neighborhood. And that's what zoning is meant to do. For these reasons, and based on the legal standard, I respectfully ask the board to deny this variance. Thank you. I don't go anywhere. Any questions? Anybody have any questions? Of those four residences... Of the four residences on the west side of this applicant's property, are you living in one of those houses? I do. Which one? 1890 Belcourt. The one directly in front of the parking spaces. So is it... So there's one, two, three, four from Terrace. That's the second one. You're in the second one? I'm the second one. Okay. Yes. Thank you. That was... Ms. Clements? I think I'm good. You're good? I have one question. Have you tried to discuss this with this gentleman, the problems you have with the... No, I just only recently became aware that they were attempting to do this. Okay. So this is a new... Something new? This is new. Anybody else have a question? All right. Please have your seat. Thank you. Thank you. I guess you're next, huh? So raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustments is the truth? Yes, sir. Please state your name and address. My name is Kurt... Please speak in the mic, please. My name is Kurt Waterman. I live at 1859 Belcourt. The floor is yours, sir. Okay. I've been a licensed realtor, Florida realtor, and state certified general contractor for 20 years. As a reminder to all parties, a variance is intended to provide relief only to the extent necessary to address a genuine hardship, not to grant preference or maximize developmental potential. In this case, the applicant's request goes beyond the minimum relief needed to overcome any alleged hardship and instead seeks an added benefit that is not essential to reasonable use of the property. Granting more than the minimum necessary variance would undermine the purpose of the zoning regulations and set an undesirable precedent inviting future requests that prioritize convenience and profit over compliance. The applicant has not demonstrated why a lesser variance or a design that conforms more closely with the ordinance would be insufficient. For these reasons, if any variance is considered at all, it should be strictly limited to the minimum relief necessary to address the proven hardship, and the broader request should be denied. Additionally, the notes on the site plan indicate the future use as a resort dwelling. However, this conditional use designation is not permitted on the west side of A1A when abutting a residential property. That's not correct. It's a B1A zoning. It's permitted with permitted use. The resort dwelling is in B1A. Okay, and I would ask the board to reference Section 62, 1945.2, resort dwellings. That's if it's in a single-family zoning, that code is used for single-family uses and single-family zoning, not commercial or multifamily. There's a, worth noting, there's a map that the county has published. It's a resort dwelling map, and I think it's from 2020. It's highlighted with various designation areas in largely the west side of A1A between the causeways highlighted a red saying not allowed. So that's where I referenced that from, and the section. Again, that subsection might not apply to the zoning. I might have pulled it from the wrong section. So I would ask that you look that up and clarify if that designation is allowed. Yes, resort dwellings are permitted use in the B1A zoning, also in multifamily zoning. Those two codes in the 1800 and the 1900 are for single-family zoning classifications. Regardless of their budding A1A in a single-family zoning, you have to meet the conditions to be able to have them, not in the B1A. Okay. Also worth noting, nothing has changed since this applicant purchased this property. All of these setbacks existed when they purchased the property about three years ago. The last thing I'll say is that the property can be scaled down. As the building would scale down within the confines of the existing setbacks, that would also reduce the number of parking spots required. So it's certainly an option. One more thing that wasn't referenced is the rear setback, or what they're referring to as a buffer zone with a 20-foot. The proposed site plan references, excuse me, I don't have it in front of me, about requesting a, not a variance, there's another word for it. It's on there from a waiver to reduce it to 13 feet. So we're acting as if they're not asking to change the rear setback, but it is. We're talking about building a two-story building 13 foot away from a property line. And as a general, you know, I don't want to say rule, but most of the time you see rear setbacks at 20 or 30 feet, between 20 and 30 feet, and largely for airspace, light, and also fire separation. And so having a two-story building 13 foot from a property line of single-story residential buildings would increase the risk of fire. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Hold on. Yes, sir. Mr. Hoffman, question? Clemens? I do, and I would have asked you as well. But I guess my main question is, are you opposed to the development altogether, or are you saying that the reduction in the size would be satisfactory? Certainly. I'm not opposed to anything that meets the current zoning regulations. And it is possible. As the applicant did mention, or the representative did mention, this all has to do with scale and profitability to the size that they want to build it. But very easily, a 1,200 to 1,500 square foot building can fit on that lot, two stories. And that's the average, you know, light commercial, that tenant size is in that 1,200 to 1,500 square foot, square footage. I do have a question, but it's for Mr. Is there a minimum size for those two upstairs residential, you know, that would require the building to have a larger footprint? Whenever you're doing a mixed use, you have to look at the RU-210 zoning classification, and it's off of those whenever you're doing a mixed use. So it depends on whether you're doing an efficiency would be like 400 square feet if you're doing efficiency. If you're doing an apartment, I think it's 750 square feet, and there's another 100 square feet for each bedroom after that, a single one. But it's based on the RU-210 zoning. So if they're doing a mixed use where they want to do a commercial building and then build a single family, it's 1,100 square feet. They'd have a minimum for a single family house. But it's all based on that mixed use code. So depending on their desire for whatever type of occupancy, that would dictate some of the footprint requirements? Yes. Are you an actual resident? Yes, sir. I'm approximately 150 feet, my house, from the lot. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Does your property abut the lot? My property does not abut the lot. Okay. Thank you. I'm across the street. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Raise your right hand for us. Yes. Thank you. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes, I do. State your name and address. My name is Margarita Pecoraro. My address is 1-884-Bell-Court, in the Atlantic, Florida, 32903. Podium's yours. Okay. Thank you. I also have an email and some photos from the owner who lives at 1896 Bell-Court. She is actually the first home that butts up to the property that the applicant is asking for the variance. She is unable to attend, but I believe she did email this. But we also have photos of her property that we're going to reference in my, I guess. Is that Ms. Nelson? Ms. No, it's Mary Williams. It might have just been emailed to you yesterday. Yeah, but they're really good about getting that to us, so. Yeah, I don't even know. So, I have her email and also photos. We probably have it. Okay. Give us a second. Okay. Thank you. You here on her behalf? I just wanted to drop the photos on. She is unable to attend, so. Oh, I got you. And she has her concerns and an objection to the variances. I see her. And she is the first property on Bell Court that backs up to the commercial property in question. So, you just want to drop something off? For her, yes, but I'm also a resident. I am the third house in, on Bell Court, that butts up to this property. And I am the house that my backyard will have the structure, will be most impacted by this two-story commercial property. So, with that in said, my home, again, is extremely close to this main structure. My serious, my safety concerns are increased lighting, noise, privacy. But most importantly, since you did clarify, they will not be putting a balcony because there are electrical lines that follow right exactly by the cement wall. So, they can't put a balcony, but they can put windows. And I have grandchildren that live with me, and I'm very concerned for their safety because of the transient clientele that could possibly be there. And plus, whoever comes in that first floor residential, I'm concerned for their safety because people on that second floor may be taking photos of my grandchildren who will be playing in my backyard and living there. So, that is a very serious concern. And now that they're asking for it to be built even closer to my property, again, my serious concerns on that. But today, I do reiterate all the concerns that my fellow neighbors and residents will be or have and will continue to say and have written in about. But I'd like to speak, specifically speak about the flooding and drainage issues. So, if I may, I'm going to proceed. So, I'm writing on behalf of my family and other residents of Terrace Shores Community to formally object to the variance request of 25B-0073 and to the proposed commercial development plan behind my home. This objection is based on serious, well-documented concerns regarding storm water drainage. And I do have photos of this issue that I don't know how you want me to present them. Of flooding, public safety, property damage, and long-term insurability, all of which are already existing issues in our neighborhood and will be significantly worsened by this project if approved. Our block currently experiences storm water drainage failures and flooding during heavy rain events. These conditions demonstrate that the existing drainage infrastructure is already inadequate to manage present runoff volumes. And I will say that when they built the dentist's office north of Terrace Shores, that has really increased the flooding that occurs at the entrance of Terrace Shores from A1A. Because it is a four-lane highway, please note. So, when the traffic comes by, and since it is a downgrade, it rests right at Terrace Shores and Belcourt and goes west to several houses. And unfortunately, to Belcourt, it flows into Belcourt, into our driveways, even to my house, which is the third house from Terrace Shores. So, our block currently experiences the drainage failures and flooding during heavy rain events. These conditions demonstrate that the existing drainage, I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, drainage infrastructure is already inadequate to manage the present runoff volumes. Approving this commercial resort building, commercial property, is introducing substantial impervious surfaces, such as buildings, parking areas, and paved access roads that will inevitably increase storm water runoff, overwhelm existing systems, and intensify flooding on adjacent residential properties, including my own. This proposal raises serious concerns regarding public health and safety. Increased flooding places my home and my family at risk. Structural damage to our residences, our foundations. Possible mode growth and associated respiratory health risks. Electrical hazards, when lines go down, we won't be able to see them because of the flooding. Unsafe access during storm events and emergencies. In addition, if the integrity of that cement wall, which is five foot, not six foot, because I can look over it and I'm not a tall woman, behind our homes on Belcourt is compromised in the building process, we believe we will have lost an important defense for hurricane storm surges. That will be a tremendous loss. Health and safety, additional drainage issues on Belcourt and Terre Shores, which most likely will lead to flooding risks to the homes directly behind this property. Improper drainage can cause flooding or erosion to our surrounding residential areas, resulting in liability claims. It's even hard to drive through that standing water. Like I said, I have pictures of my children. They thought it was fun because it looked like a little lake, and it stays there for quite a while. It's hard to drive by, so that's another safety issue, too, for all the residents of Terre Shores who are going home or leaving. In addition, the environmental hazard of the drainage water and what was hazardous waste will accumulate in increased amounts of standing water that will be created by the removal of the natural drainage that this lot has right now of the unbuilt lot and paved or with, because of the paved and cemented parking that this project is planning. The poor drainage can happen in any commercial residential setting, although it may not seem like the problem at first, but the economic and environmental impacts of poor commercial drainage and residential drainage can be enormous in the long term. The impact of less-than-desirable water drainage can affect all of us as it allows the water damage of, like I said, the foundations, the homes, the yards, all those things, and it can destroy our roads and other public areas and even affect our health. So unsanitary conditions are one of the scariest things that can happen from poor drainage systems or the lack of drainage systems altogether as conditions become unsanitary and stagnant water is present, and it stays stagnant. All kinds of waterborne diseases and illnesses can come forward. So in addition, worsening flood conditions may result, and this is a big one for a lot of us, in insurance premium increases, loss of coverage, or outright cancellations, which is a growing and documented issue of Florida homeowners in flood-prone areas. This represents a direct financial and legal harm caused by the approval of a development that fails to adequately mitigate storm and water impacts. Florida law and Brevard County development standards require that new construction must not adversely impact neighboring properties and must demonstrate the post-development stormwater runoff will properly be managed. And I looked on this plant site, and it says that I believe they're going to look at a dried retention pond on that little top of the pie, pizza pie, pizza pie. And that is where most of the water comes from. And I will tell you from the experience of the dentist's office, they have a huge retention pond, dry one. It doesn't work. I guarantee you can drive by and see that whole flooding, and there's no water in that dry detention pond. So I'm saying that I don't know how that would be effective. Given the existing flooding conditions, I strongly question whether any stormwater management plan associated with this project can realistically meet those requirements without significant and independently verified mitigation measures. I respectfully request that Brevard County deny approval of this proposed development as currently designed. Require a comprehensive independent hydrological and drainage impact study that fully accounts for existing flooding conditions and downstream impacts. Ensure that any approved plan includes enforceable, long-term storm controls that demonstrably prevent increased flooding on the surrounding residential properties. Approving this development without fully resolving these issues would place nearby homeowners at an unacceptable risk and expose the county to potential future liability. I strongly urge the county to prioritize the safety, property rights, and well-being of existing residents over this high-density commercial development that is incompatible with the area's current drainage capacity. And for all these reasons, we respectfully request that Variance Request 25V00073 be denied in its entirety to uphold the integrity and intent of the BU-1A zoning and the community protections it is meant to provide. I request that this objection be entered into the official record and fully considered prior to any decision. Thank you for your consideration and for protecting the character and livability of our residential neighborhood. Thank you for your time and your commitment to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of Brevard County residents and for ensuring that development in our city remains fair, lawful, compatible with existing neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Please have a seat. And I have the photos and who do I submit them to? Okay, yeah. You can submit them. Yeah, you can give them to us, the photos. Over here? Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go any further, could we hang on just for a second? In this photo for your residents, it's one, two, three, four. I think it's the fifth house. It looks like it has a pool. Is that a pool? That's the fifth house is my next door neighbor. I'm in house four. You're in house four. So they're not here, correct? Correct. Okay. Well, you're in house four, correct? Yes, sir. She's in house three. House three. She's in house two. You're three. I'd like to speak to this gentleman first, if you don't mind. Before you come up, sir, could you just sit down for just one second? Bear with me. Mr. Monroe, could you come back up just for a second? Just remember you're still on the roof. Yes, sir. I only have one question. It's a quick question. Would you be willing to have a meeting with these folks at some point here before anything and start to try and work out some of these things rather than take it the route it's going? Yeah. Listening to the speakers, and I've been making notes, most of the concerns I think they have are site plan design issues. Those are items that will be addressed when we permit it with Brevard County site planning. But my question was, now, before this goes any further, would you be willing to meet with these people outside of here on your own time? Yeah. What I'm getting, I think many of their concerns are not variance-oriented concerns. The two variances we're asking for have to do with the front set. No, I understand that, but that would be between you and them. That's all. Yeah, I would be happy to answer questions they have. Okay. For instance, the... Okay, please have a seat. Okay. Thank you. Okay, sir. Sorry. Yeah, I just want to refocus the board also. And remember, you know, there's only two things being considered before you today, and those are the two variances. All the other things that have been mentioned are not before you today, so I just kind of want to emphasize... I think we understand that. Okay. Okay, sir. Okay, raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? I do. Name and address? Jeff Fisher, 1878 Bell Court. Your fourth house, correct? Yes. Okay. Who'd him, sir? Oh, I just thought you wanted me up. I really... What we've all explained is basically what we all agreed on and the situations we have. And we have one more speaker that wants to talk about that crosswalk where that's going to be an issue, but... Well, let me ask you, since you're the fourth house, there's a parking lot here, apparently. What is this building? That's the Mason's Lodge. The Mason's Lodge? Yes. So when the Mason's Lodge is going and there's cars in the parking lot, is that any problem at all? No, sir. There's no lighting or they're quiet. They only meet like on Tuesday nights, so they're very quiet. And on your neighbor's house, they board are right to the back. Correct. And that... Is that a pool he has? Yes, sir. Yeah, it is. Okay. No, they're getting my questions, aren't they? You guys? No. Thank you, sir. Okay. Appreciate it. Sir, raise your right hand and we'll move this along. Thank you. Do you swear in the firm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes, I do. Name, address? My name is Thomas McDevitt, 1861 Terror Shores Drive, Indian Atlantic, Florida, 32903. Thank you, sir. Podium's yours. If you don't mind, my wife's going to be here in case I have to make reference to this plan. Her name is Cecilia McDevitt. Cecilia, please, do you plan on speaking? No, sir. No? Okay. I'm Vanna. First of all, I want to thank you guys for what you do. I was a retired fireman paramedic from this county for 30 years, and I know how hard you guys work, so I appreciate you. I have some pictures I'd like to present. I don't know how I do that, whether it goes up here, but I would like these pictures to be viewed. Right there. I can put them up there. No, you can put them underneath that right there. You can put them on the viewer right there beside you. Oh, right here. Oh, okay. I'm not sure how that works, but thank you. I said I'm not sure how that works, but thank you. Oh, very good. So, I brought the wrong glasses. These are prescription. I'm not trying to look cool. Unfortunately, I left my other glasses in the car. This first picture is, you're looking at the Masonic Lodge, and that sable palm in the right side of the picture is the corner of the property. What you're viewing is a crosswalk. You're viewing basically half the crosswalk. You could see the center of it where the lines go towards the bicycle. So, you're seeing half of that crosswalk, and that's facing towards the south. And the next picture, I'd like to go to that picture. This next picture is looking from basically the same place I took, and now you have the whole view of the crosswalk in entirety, including the center where we cross through. You could see there's two poles in the center of this picture that are close together, and then you see the next two poles, the two poles after that. That's where their entrance is going to be, just like the gentleman said, which aligns with one of the condominiums. But one of the problems that I have is this, and I think all my neighborhood would agree. I don't think there's been a proper study on this from DOT or anybody else. What happens is when we go into Terra Shores, which you can see the very northern end, you could see the street sign, too. When I'm doing 35 or 40 miles an hour, maybe breaking the law a little bit, and I make entry into Terra Shores, it's like very careful because when there is traffic, I have to just kind of slide in easy and make it to my street. And sometimes, even at 35 miles an hour decelerating, I even overrun it. So, they're planning, when you're coming from the south, planning to go between these two power poles, which is immediately after this median. My concern is, for our neighborhood, as well as for being in the business of picking people off the street, which I have picked somebody off right there, is that it's a safety concern, and I'm afraid that there's going to be an accident caused by the entrance into this property. I want to let you know I'm not opposed to this property being developed under the current zoning. Sir, can I hold just one second? I don't see the relevance of your arguments to the variances of the setbacks. It seems like you're using this argument to blow away the development, not talk about the variance. Well, sir, I can. I'll address the variance then. The site plans that were submitted for the variance had the entrance, as you see, on the site plan. So, I don't necessarily agree with it. I'm trying to address a problem that could be a liability, maybe for the county, for the state, for somebody. Yes. I don't know whether it addresses what you said, sir, and what you said makes sense, but I am concerned for the safety of the individuals turning into terror shores, or even the safety of the individuals turning into this property, because they're going to get rear-ended, or they're going to wind up not getting into that middle lane in a proper time. I believe there'll be a problem. I just don't want anybody to be held to liability. That's beyond me. I'm just, I really appreciate the time that you've given me to speak. I just see that there is a potential problem. Is it a relevance, sir? No, I, maybe not. I'm going to let you guys decide it, but all these factors need to be thought thoroughly out, and maybe even a study by DOT to see if this is feasible, somebody to make an entrance into this property from the south. You know, from the north, it's not a problem. So, because I know, and I have a little bit of a problem getting into my street after this median. And the other thing, too, is I don't know, well, it's maybe not relevant, but I don't want to have this approved. The next thing I know, that this whole median gets moved a block away just to accommodate these folks. Like I said, I don't know your rules. I don't know DOT's rules. These are just concerns. And let me go to the next picture, and I'll be almost done. Yeah, this one here. Thank you. You see these two poles in the center, side by side. Basically, right after that is where the entrance of the building is. It's a very short distance between the end of the median and the center lane to make that turn into there. That's what I was discussing. And we'll go to the final picture, which is, yes. As you can see, we're looking from the north to the south. And you can see the two poles, the first one and the second one, where somewhere right in between there, the entrance will be. Which, I get it, but I'm just telling you that there's going to be a problem. There's going to be an accident there. Sir, excuse me, I have to, as chair, I have to agree with my honored colleague here. I mean, the variances are based on hardships. I mean, that's what we're trying to determine here, whether this is fair, not fair, or take into account all your problems. But we have to stay on the line here and understand what's going on with the hardships. Why this gentleman is trying to do it for a hardship? Yes, sir. I understand. I appreciate you hearing me and hearing my concerns and, you know, and being worried about what could possibly happen. Like I said, I'm just worried that there'll be an accident. No, I understand your feeling. And I agree. But I do appreciate your ability to let me speak. And even if it doesn't maybe go along with the hardships on this, but there are other concerns that the people in the neighborhood have, and for the four homeowners that are basically sitting right behind that, I'm also here to stand by their side as well as a person who lives in that neighborhood since 2003. So with that said, I'd like to make one other statement that the gentleman, the people who bought this piece of property, bought it knowing that it was zoned or had whatever the variances that were in place there. And then they went ahead and put it up for sale for almost two times what they paid for it. We're unsuccessful doing that. That's probably why they want to do a variance and maybe build now. And then maybe make it more palpable for somebody else for a profit. So that's all I have to say. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Sir, I'll just add a comment. The Board of Adjustment has limited jurisdiction, so they're not passing any judgment on the merits of your issue because they don't have the ability to do so. I appreciate that. And I agree with you, but there are concerns. And I was, you know. And there may be, but there are other places to voice those concerns. Well, I have a question for you then. But with the plans that were submitted, like where the entrance, the egress, and, you know, everything is onto the property, maybe there should, who would we go about to have studied this property before possibly somebody can grant, you know, a variance that, because that may, I feel, and you guys don't have anything to do, but I feel that that was, hasn't been studied properly. Well, as, as has been mentioned, I think, by one of the other speakers, you know, there are certain things that relate to permitting and so forth. That's a state road, so Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation has input on that, but this board does not. Agreed. So, we could go to DOT and complain about the possibility of that. I can't give you legal advice, but they have jurisdiction on the road, because it's a state. Can we get those pictures that you had for our file since you used them? Anyway, thank you so much. I appreciate it. I just wanted to reiterate that the engineer has already spoken to the approvals from FDOT, has had communications with them to go through the permitting process. He'll also go through site plan process with our department, where we'll have other departments, engineering, public works, natural resources. I believe there's up to maybe 10 other departments that will review the site plan for compliance. So, all of those things will be addressed at that time as well. No pictures? Well, that's not good. Please raise your hand, sir. I have something, but they have nothing to do with this. Raise your right hand. Yep. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is true? Absolutely. Please state your name and address. Robert Pecoraro, 1884 Belcourt. I'm the third house on the left. The podium's yours. All righty. I was just, I know we covered a lot, but the one thing I wanted to cover that I looked up using my chat GPT is that a hardship really can't be granted solely for the need of profitability in a property. So, in other words, if you can build on it and you can build a house under the restrictions, you really can't get a hardship because you say, well, I'd like to build a bigger house on there. And so, that's my whole gist of this is I don't think a hardship should be granted in this situation. The buyers knew full well coming in what the restrictions of this property were. They weren't, you know, blindsided by it or anything like that. This is all public record type material. So, that's why I want to leave it with you, and I thank you for your time. Just one second, sir. Sure. Any questions? You got a question? I have one question for you, since you're the third house. Third house. Just in one quick sentence, what would be your main reason for this? For not having a problem with the variance or the building? Number one, I don't like the fact that they want to build so close to my backyard. I think if it was further out, I'd be okay with a larger buffer, so to speak, between my house. And the other thing is, there's the power lines. I don't think anyone mentioned, and I'm sure they got the clearance from FPL. I can only get so close to the wall in my house. I've lost six feet of my backyard because I have to have that easement always open for FPL. And so, I think with a commercial building, I think there should be a slightly bigger buffer between a residential house and a commercial building. And back to my wife's main concern, you're going to have transient residents on the second floor looking down into my backyard where my Garin children currently live and come over all the time. So, you have other issues besides the variance, correct, with the building going up? I do have other issues with it, but I will adhere to following the law. How about that? If you say, it's go, it's go. I'm not going to protest in the street or anything like that. Trust me on it. Thank you for your time. Sure thing. Mr. Monroe, would you mind, feel free to take a couple minutes if you care to rebut any of this or have anything else to say? First of all, I'd like to thank the residents for being professional in your presentations. I appreciate that. I made notes of each speaker. Maybe I can try and highlight real quick. The information I was able to find, speaker number one referenced. Please speak in there, Mike. I'm sorry. Speaker number one referenced commercial. The Terrace Shores was slated for commercial. The information I was able to obtain online, the plat showed residential lots throughout the Terrace Shores area. That was 81. I'm not sure what was present before that, but that was the information I was able to locate. If you could, I'm sorry to interrupt you. If you could, just keep what you're saying in line with your variance request. If it doesn't have anything to do with your variance, don't worry about it. Yeah, I can pretty well summarize. A lot of the concerns are site plan oriented. Those are going to be covered. We had a pre-application conference with Brevard County, and that we meet with all the county departments, what have you. We had a pre-application meeting with DOT. The crosswalk was discussed. The driveway was discussed. They took all these into consideration. Stormwater, we're going to be designing for Brevard County. St. John's. DOT, we've got to meet 48 different storm events. So all the concerns are legitimate concerns, but me as engineer of record, licensed professional engineer of the state of Florida, I've got to design for all those requirements, and those will be addressed in the site plan. Those are items that are here to consider the two variances today. This board is looking to consider those. We feel like variance number one, the property had granted a zero lot setback. That was revoked with new code that came in. So what we're trying to trade off is that 13.2 feet for just a couple of more feet that they lost to that. And the second one, again, is a housekeeping item. For being nonconforming, we need to have variances no matter who owns this property to be able to develop it. Do you have any questions for that? Do you have any questions? Yeah. Does the variance request give you more area for your stormwater ponds? It actually does. The area of the green space can also be used as a stormwater retention as well. And if you had discussion with St. John's or DOT regarding that stormwater design? That's something that will get more detailed in the site plan. Okay. You know, there's requirements we have to meet, but those, once you get into it, it gets quite in-depth when we do design, soil borings, water tables, that sort of thing. But looking forward, just to share, I'm looking at 100% on-site stormwater, so there will be no discharge from the site. Okay. Good. Thank you. Mr. Monroe, I have one question before we're done. You said you did the drawing and everything for this structure yourself, correct? That's correct. What is your background? Are you a builder? No, I'm a civil engineer. I'm licensed in the state of Florida. I'm a professional engineer. Okay. Thank you. I sign and seal the drawings. Thank you. We are done. Well, you base it on a footprint, right? You're not doing the architectural interior? That's correct. For clarification, no, I do not do architecture. Yeah, you're not doing the building design, just using the impervious footprint. Yeah, the civil site plans go as far as using the footprint. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, do we have a motion? Per Mr. Monroe's request, he asks that we do these, do one and two. The one, Mr. Bode, help me out here. Which one of these legitimizes the 75-foot depth? Is that number two or number one? Number one, I think. Yeah, hang on one second, please. Variance number one is to allow a 27.06 reduction in the 50-foot front setback. Variance number two is to the lot depth, the 75-foot lot depth, and that's of 0.58 feet, which is approximately seven inches. Okay. So I would like to make a motion on variance number two to begin with. I'll make the motion, then I'll have some discussion. I move that we approve variance number two on the application in light of the survey dated. That's probably getting old. What's the date on this? 11-19. 11-19. Okay. Based on the survey dated 11-19. Ms. Clements? I approve. I second. Second, sorry. Okay. And my argument, then, or my discussion is that we have nonconforming lots all over the county that arise just because of these small zoning and plotting issues. So I think that legitimizing this lot is fair and reasonable. Okay. No further discussion? You have to read the six. I'll read the six little guys. You didn't address one. Hmm? Are you saying that you're... We're separating them. We're doing them separate. This is two. All right. Sorry. I think I'm going to hold these since they're the same for one and two. Go ahead and read it. I'm going to have to read it again. All right. One, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. And number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting a variance request that will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship. on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Board members, keeping these six criteria in mind, I now call a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion is passed. Okay. Variance number two passes. Okay. For the purposes of discussion and vote, I'm going to make a motion that we approve variance variance number one in accordance with that same survey dated, what was it, 7-19, dated 11-19. Is there a second? No. No. And no for me. So there's no motion? No motion. Second variance is not approved. It is denied. First variance. First variance. I'm sorry. You have to have another call for a difference since you didn't vote on it and you didn't get a second. You have to have another. We got a second. No. There was no second. Oh, is there a second? I don't second it. I made the motion. You made the motion. Mr. Chair, you can second. He's saying, is there a motion to deny? Oh, you did? No, I did. Oh, well. He did. He said no. I missed that. I said no. We both said no. So you'd have to have a motion to deny then. Yeah. I make a motion. So they were in order to do that. I make a motion to deny variance number one. Now we need a second for that. I'll second that. I'll second. So now we go to discussion and vote? No. Motion's been denied. No, no. You're making a motion to deny variance number one. So you can discuss why you want to deny it or you can just proceed to vote. But, I mean, I think there's compromise. I think he can reduce the footprint. I believe that variance number one does not meet the undue hardships on, let's see, three, four, and six. Okay. We need a vote for the motion to deny. All in favor? Aye. I vote aye to deny. So we have three denials. Yeah. Okay. Motion to not, or the variance to not deny. Denied. All right. So variance one was denied. Variance two was approved. Yes. Sorry. I think we forgot that point. Please vote first. Okay. Now, 2008. Mr. Boney, may we please have the next applicant? Yes. Item H2. Dewey Defoe requests variance of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for an accessory structure in an RU-1-7 zoning classification. Located at tax count number 2802-337 in District 5. Sorry, I missed that. We ain't got nothing on them. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. We made it. Yeah. Raise your right hand. We'll get right to it. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Justice is the truth? I do. Name, address? Dewey Defoe. Please speak in their mic. Dewey Defoe, 8105, Henry Ave, Melbourne, Florida. Put them to your, sir. All right. So I was born in Melbourne. Love June Park. No intention on leaving. It's our community. Seeking this variance to protect my investments for neighborhood cats and influx of suspicious individuals that frequent our area, while also cleaning up my property and improving its appearance for the community. I've experienced ongoing issues with cats damaging my property, including clawing, destroying the sea deck material on my airboat, leaving dead animal carcasses. They've scratched my Corvette, sleeping on the roof of it. In addition, I've had gas cans and even a gas tank stolen out of my airboat in the past. In closing, I've had a neighbor went through this process and saw how much it improved his property. So I'm seeking to do the same, protect my investments, help maintain the overall quality of our neighborhood. Do I have any questions? Yes. My district. Yes. Your application rises in my district. I drove by. I did stop and talk to you. I noticed that this structure that you're – is it existing or is it proposed? Because on the aerial, there seems to be a roof line. It's proposed and then to remove all existing buildings. So you're going to remove what's there and replace it with something else. Correct. That's why there's roof lines shown on this drawing or on this aerial photo. Okay. Now, I'm asking, you have existing buildings? Correct. Back in that corner? Yes, sir. You're removing those and replacing it with this? Yes, sir. Okay. The smaller building, I was going to wait to remove until after the completion to carry my stuff along. Just wasn't shown on the sketch. Okay. I think Mr. and Mrs. Dondre about that property in the back. Have you had any discussions with them? Yes, I have. Okay. Yeah, they're all for it. I told them I'd remove an oak tree for them. It was hanging over their property, so they're excited about that. Okay. So there's already existing buildings there that they have no objection to or they haven't shown any? Correct. Yeah, they're super friendly and seem to get along well with them. All right. I don't have any other questions then. Do you have any questions? No questions. No? Sir, could you just stand to the side for a second? Yes, sir. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? Sir, could you have a seat right there for you? Good afternoon. Raise your right hand. Do you swear in front that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes, sir. State your name and address. Kenneth Farrington, 2300 Maple Street. Who do you injure, sir? I'm Mr. DuBose's neighbor, and I was in his shoes three years ago doing the same thing. I'm to the neighbor to the east of him. And it's a big thing to, you know, it makes the property values, everything come up. It makes everything cleaner. Since I've put my building up, I have had so many neighbors come by and say, you know, just absolutely stop and, you know, knock on the door and say, love what you've done to your place, you know, the shed, the shop, everything like that. So I'm all in favor for it. So just wanted to, you know, give my two cents. Perfect. Thank you. Have a seat, sir. Anything else? Make that motion. Nope. Oh. You're done. Bill, you want me to do it? Thanks, guys. Appreciate your time. Bill, you want me to do it? Yeah, I'll make the motion. Okay. What is the pleasure of the board? Do we have any motions? I make a motion that we approve the requested variance as depicted on the survey dated 11-29-25. 26. It's not 26. 11-19-25. Yeah. Did I say 26? You said 29. No, I said 11-29-26. Yeah, that's to say, if you're looking at the survey and it says 29, the staff comments had it as 11-26. Oh, well, actually, it's 11-26 now that I look more closely. All right. I make a motion that we approve this variance application as depicted on the survey of 11-26-25. Any second? I second. Any discussion? No. No further discussion? We'll read the little six gems here. Number one, that special condition and circumstances exist which are now applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Number two, there is a number two. Number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, to granting the variance request that will not confer on the applicant any special privileges that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, to literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Board members, keeping these six criteria in mind, I now call the vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. The application for the variance is approved. Thank you. Welcome. Mr. Bodie, may we please have the next applicant. Yes, item H3, Stephen and Jerry Snyder. Request variance of Chapter 62, Article 6 of our county code for an accessory structure in an EU zoning classification located at tax count number 2417048 in District 2. Hello. Hello. Hi. Hi. You ready? I am. Doesn't hurt. Raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes. Please speak into the microphone. Yes, hi. What do you do is yours? My name is Stacey Torres. I reside at 910 Newfound Harbor Drive in Merritt Island. We are the hired contractor and representative for the homeowner. Is that on record? Yes, she is representing them. Okay. So, the residential property in question is large. It's 1.22 acres per building code. They're actually allowed to build four separate accessory structures. That's a lot of stuff just sitting out there on your property. So, they already have water issues, standing water, this past year during the hurricanes. I mean, 75% of their property was, like, covered in water. So, they're wanting to get a variance for an additional allowable square footage in a single structure to eliminate multiple structures on their property, which would cause more drainage issues with less permeable space, so in the explanations provided, that's one of the logical reasons that they're requesting this variance. So, a two-story accessory structure will help eliminate additional structures on the property, allowing for better drainage. The two immediate adjacent neighbors to each side of this property submitted letters that they have no issue with what they're wanting to do. So, the site plan that was submitted shows the proposed two-story structure. I also want to note that they're planning two construction projects, this accessory structure, as well as increasing the square footage on their home. So, although the existing variance is for 798 square foot over what's allowable, once they increase the square footage on their home, this will actually fall in compliance. Right. Well, it won't be in compliance, but it will be much, much, much less of a variance. We also did some digging into other Merritt Island waterfront homes that have been granted privileges of variances, and we kind of stopped once we got four or five that have variances. And this does range anywhere from 75 square foot variance to 2,582, so by no means is their variance request exorbitant or more than anything that's been allowed already in the Merritt Island waterfront-type residential areas. I have the site plan, if you don't have it in front of you, if you'd like to look at it, but I believe that's a pretty good summarization of the request. Okay. Mrs. Torres is from District 2. I have a question for Paul. Hi, Paul. Hello. So, for example, if we approve the variance for the additional size, where does the four accessory structures come into place? Would those be eliminated? Each one of them couldn't be more than 50% of the living area of the house. Of the original. And then all four of them can't add up to more than the total square foot, not square footage, the square footage of the total of the house, all four of them. Okay. So they're still able to do those four accessory structures as long as it stays within, if they increase the square footage of their primary home? They should have to stay between those square footages. Okay. As a whole? Yes. Okay. All right. No questions? No questions? Yeah. You say you have drainage issues already with the four separate structures? There's no accessory structures currently on the property. If y'all approved this, they wouldn't be able to build any more accessory structures without coming in for another variance, though? Correct. My understanding was that there were already accessory structures on the property. No. Okay. There are not. Okay. All right. That's fine. Then that eliminates the question that I had. And there are no... Don't have any work. Just step to the side for a second. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? May I? Yes. I make a motion to approve the variance requested as depicted on the survey with the revision date of 11-7-2025. I second the motion. Is there a second? Yeah. I got a second. You second? Okay. Sorry. Here, no further discussion? We're going to read the six. Hardship. Put this home. Oh, now you're going to do it, right? Number one, the special conditions and circumstances that exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Two, that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Six, that the granting of variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. With board members keeping these six criteria in mind, I now call for the vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The vote is unanimous. The application for a variance is approved. Thank you. Mr. Bode, may we please have the next apple here. Yes. Item H4, Michael Scott and Hazel P. Arl, request two variances, Chapter 62, Article 6, Bevard County Code for a swimming pool screening closer and a principal structure in a PUD zoning classification located at tax account number 3019914 in District 4. They're being represented by Todd Harding. Todd Harding? It's been very challenging. Three years. Raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes. Thank you. Name, address? Hazel Arold, 7965 Millbrook Avenue, Melbourne 32940. Podium's yours. So, I'm assuming you know him very well, based on you. So, we had our pool and screen built by him, and originally, we were just asking for the variance for the pool screen, which was, I guess, six inches over the sprinkler, and so we contacted the HOA and asked, what do we need to do, and they actually approved it. I believe there's a letter attached from them when we originally requested this. They approved it, and my neighbor also was okay with it. That's why they didn't have any problem. And then, that was the only variance that we were aware of, and then we got a phone call saying that the house on the north side, I believe, is asking for .5 or .6 inches that they need to put that on top of our variance to get it approved. But, we didn't know any of that until we were contacted. So, originally, it was just a pool, the enclosure. Enclosure. Yeah. And then, I don't know if it's the Vieira builder on that side, because it's on the property. It's actual property. It has nothing to do with the enclosure. And they said, in order for that one, the enclosure to be approved, that variance on the right side of the house, or the north side of the house, has to, they can put it on top for it to be approved, if you guys approve it. You're talking about the blank space. Yeah. So, but, yes, we've been dealing with Todd for three years now, and I would love for this to be done. Todd. Where's Todd? Thank you. Thank you. I would like to know where Todd is, too. We haven't seen him. Questions? I mean, just for clarity, there, you need this because the owner of that blank space, it's actually, it's, we don't have any, there's nobody on our right side, it's just the water. But, um, for some reason, when we got the phone call saying that it was over 0.5 or 0.6 feet, yeah, 0.5, that in order for, because we want, we don't want to have any issues if we ever sell the house down the road, saying that this variance isn't, you know, it's, it's a, and it's affecting our sale of our house. So, they, they want that to be on top. In order for everything to be approved, they just want to put that on top of it. I'm not sure what that meant. What's the seven, what's the second one with the 7% deviation? I'm sorry, what was your question? What is the second request? The first request is for allow 0.6 feet from the required 5 foot north side setback for a swimming pool screening closure. Variance number two is to allow for 0.5 feet from the required 7.5 foot south side setback for the principal structure. So, it should have required 7.5 feet and is now at 7 feet per the survey. So, it's the pool and the house? Yes. Mr. Hoffman. Just, just to clarify, the six inches on the pool enclosure is against the house. This half a foot of the 7.5 is the buffer space for the drainage parcel from, from what I can see from these, the map and the overlay. So, the. So, you're talking about the screen enclosure is what you are? The screen, the screen enclosure is too close to the next house, six inches. No, it's, the screen enclosure requires for it to be at least five feet off the side and the rear property lines, plus it can't be in any easements. They already got, this is not a public easement. They got their homeowners association to agree that it would be okay to be into that easement. But, it does not meet the five foot setback off the north side property line. Okay. And, the other one is, is encroaching on the setback, but the adjacent property is the drainage pond parcel. So, it's not like there's a residence on that south side. No, there's a tract on the south side. Yeah. Okay. And, the tract to the back. Okay. Sorry. Just need to clarify that in my own mind. No. No further questions? Would you mind just stepping to the side for a moment? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? Please have a seat. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay, members, what is the pleasure of the board? Who's district four? Hmm? I'm going to say who's district four. No, I'm not district four. I'll do it. She can do it. I make a motion to approve the two variances as depicted on the survey with a revision date of 7-8-2024. Is there a second? I'll second. Discussion? None. None. Hearing no discussion, I will read the six-heart. Number one, the special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requests that will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. With the board members keeping those criteria in mind, I now call for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Motion passes. The application for variance is approved. Welcome. Mr. Bode, may we please have the next applicant. Yes, item H5, MJ Coop, LLC, request two variances of Chapter 62, Article 6 of our County Code for lot width and lot size and a GU zoning classification located at tax count number 2404042 in District 1. Been here too long. Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes. Name, address. I'm Corey Jones. Do you want the address of the property or my personal address? Yes. Which one? Personal. Personal? 4352 Blue Jay Place, Titusville, Florida. 327. Please speak into the mic. Podium's yours. Am I good? Yes. Okay. The current lot doesn't meet the 150 width for GU. It was split in the 60s, so we're just asking for those two variances. Variance one to the 300-foot plot width and variance two to the five-acre minimum GU zoning. The hardship would be that we wouldn't be able to use the lot for anything GU-related. Yes. Are you finished? I'm finished. You're finished. Any questions? What's the plan for the property? This is District 1. A single-family residential home on it. No, it's okay. Sorry. Go ahead. It's a single-family residential home to be built there, and you just want to keep it zoned GU, correct? Okay. No questions? When was the property split into two parts? It was sometime in the 60s. Ah. Yeah. Yeah, this property was subdivided per the survey book that was in survey book two, page 62, in September 1960. The thing is, is that it was GU zoning at the time, and it didn't meet the 150 feet whenever it was put into that width requirement when it was subdivided per the survey book. So we're just trying to legitimize this, correct? Yes. Most of those out there have the same problems. They didn't meet the width requirements for the GU zoning whenever it was subdivided per the survey book. Was it rezoned on Blanc by the county, or was it a... No, this is original zoning for the property. And it didn't meet at that time? No. Okay. Further questions? No. She just... Step to the side. Step to the side for a second. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? Please have a seat for a minute. I'm the neighbor. Oh, hang on, hang on. Can I raise your right hand? Do you swear in the firm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes. Speak in the mic, name and address. My name is Luke Jell, 341 Terracom Street, Cocoa, Florida, and I'm the lot next door. Okay. Podium's yours. Are you for or against this? I'm for it. I would love to have a good neighbor. But I was just going to... My part is coming up next because I put in a variance also. So I'm just in approval for the same thing. You're the vacant lot then. You're not the single family home. No, I'm the vacant lot next door. Yes. That was it. That's it? I didn't know if they had any questions. He wants his turn next. Okay. I want to be in approval. Please have a seat. Could you have any further questions or anything? No? Please, please. I just wanted to ask a question. Are you with... No. No? I'm the neighbor on the other side of the gentleman there. Please, I have to swear you in for... Yes. Do you swear in firm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? I do. Name, address? James Browning. I'm 3629 Oneida Street. I'm on the opposite side of the lot that I guess this lady wants to build on. Okay. My... I'm not for or against. I'm just looking for some information, actually. Trying to get through the legalese of... They posted the signs on the road, but I couldn't get anything out of that. But is this a one-acre? Can I address her or do I address you? Is this a one-acre lot? No. It's not. How... Yes, this is a one-acre lot. It's a one-acre lot, and you just want to put a house on it? Yeah, they will... We'll find... Boss does, yeah. He's a builder. We'll build a single-family residence. So you're just going to put one house on this acre? Yes. Okay. I'm okay with it. Okay. Thank you. Please have a seat. Stay seated? Yeah. Okay. You're good. I'm going to stay right here. Oh, maybe not. Hi. My name is Jerry Berenger. I live at 3670 Oneida Street. Please raise your right hand. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't even see you. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you were about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes, it is. I'm not for sure. Please. Are you for or against? Well, I came to get clarification on the signs myself. Well, because we weren't sure of the general use, and we're a small, dead-end street of all family homes, they purchased the last three lots. So we want to confirm that they were going to be single-family homes. And so that's why we came to listen, and we started getting information from her. I'm interested on what Mr. Tanner has to say. And if anybody has any information on the 3642 Oneida, that was another one that's here for today. So as long as they're all going to be single-family homes, the majority of our street are senior retirees, and we only have 14 lots. So we were just concerned that it stayed the same single-family homes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that is for or against this? Now you may sit down. Thank you. You're done. You're done. She's next. She's age six. Oh, you're age? It's just... There's three variances right beside each other, two of them, and then one across the street that all have the same variance requests. I'll do one at a time, though. Yeah. Okay. All right. Members, with a pleasure of board, is there a motion to this one? Go, Bill. I make a motion that we approve the variance as depicted on this survey, dated... 10-14. 10-14. I second. No further discussion? Discussion? No further discussion. I will read the six. And these are all separate that she has on the next one, right? Correct. Yeah. Okay. Number one, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requests that will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such use variance will be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The board members keeping these six criteria in mind, I now call for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. The applicant for, or the application for the variance is approved. Thank you for your time. I'll come back up. Mr. Bodie, may we please have the next applicant, which is the same? Yes. Item H-6, MJ Coop, LLC, represented by Corey Jones. Request two variances, Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code, for the lot width and the lot size and a GEU zoning classification. Located tax count number 2404048 in District 1. This is another one, so we're going to swear you in again, all right? Please. Okay. Right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Name, address. Yes. Corey Jones, 4352, Blue Jay Place, Titusville, Florida, 32796. Podium, yours. Okay. So this lot also doesn't meet the 150 width for GEU. It was split in the 60s. We're asking for one variance to the 300 feet plot width and one to the five acre minimum for the GEU zoning to be able to build a single family residential home there. Is this district, who's district one? None of us. District one? Doesn't matter. Do you have any questions? No questions. No questions. I make a motion to approve the variance as depicted on the survey by the applicant with a date of 10-14-2005. I second the motion. Okay. I'm heading no further discussion. I'll now read the six undue hardship. I feel like I just did this, right? Number one, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Board members keeping these six criteria in mind, I now call for a vote. All in favor? Aye. The motion passes. The application for variance is approved. Next item, Mr. Bode. Mr. Bode. Yes, item H7, Luke and Lauren Gale request two variances, Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for the lot width and lot size and a GU zoning classification and located tax count number 3031140 in District 1. Hey, Lou. You're back. Back again. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? I do. Please state your name and address. My name is Luke Gale, 341 Terragon Street, Cocoa, Florida. I'm the owner of the property. I'm the owner of the property. I would like a variance for the lot width and the rating or the zoning so that I can put a single family home. No questions. Do you have anything different arguments than the other two before this? I do not. Okay. Good. Please step aside just for a second. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? No? I make a motion to approve the variance requested as depicted on the survey and provided by the applicant with a date of 11-5-2024. I second. Motion passes. The application for variance is approved. Thank you. Thank you. It seemed we skipped something. Go vote. That's okay. Mr. Brody. No, you have to read your... Oh, I thought we already did. You didn't. Oh, no. Okay. Sorry. It doesn't matter. Sorry. We're out of order here. Okay. Undue hardship. Number one, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requests that will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter or other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Board members, keeping those six criteria in mind, all in favor, any opposed? The vote is? Approved. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes. The application for variance is approved. There, he's long gone. I'm going to take a deep breath and a break. Mr. Bode, may we please have it in the next applicant. Yes, item H8, Israel and Jennifer A. Alicia, request variance to Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for an accessory structure in an RU-1-9 zoning classification located at tax account number 2727022 in District 5. Sorry, my head's spinning. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you are about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Absolutely. Please state your name and address. Jennifer A. Alicia, 2140 Todd Lane, Indy Atlantic, Florida, 32903. Thank you. The podium's yours. Okay, so I am, okay, we purchased the house in 2019 with a pre-existing shed, no garage. I had the pool screened in and when they went to finish it, someone told them that the shed was not in accordance with the seven and a half feet. So I'm asking for a variation of 1.81 feet because without that shed, I would have nowhere to put any of my stuff since I don't have a garage. It's as simple as that. That is just, I've got letters from all my neighbors and they don't care. The chair recognizes Mr. Hoffman. Just District 5. More than a question, I just want to make a comment that it looks like you got the signatures from your neighbors and also a letter here from Ms. Smith. Correct. And frankly, your request is minimal. It's hard to argue with any of that if the neighborhood is in agreement. Yeah, I did my homework. Any further questions? No questions at all. Question, would you mind just stepping to the side for a second? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? I just want to call it. My bike hurts. Sorry. Please raise your right hand. Yes, sir. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes, sir. Please state your name and address. My name is Ezra Alisea. My address is 2140 Tide Lane in Atlantic, Florida. 32903. Are you for or against? I'm for it. Okay. And I spent 24 years in the Army, so I agree. I'm for it. Just want to throw that in there. That's all I got. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You can have a seat. I make a motion that we approve the application for the variance as depicted on the, where is the survey? 10-21. Survey dated what? 10-21-25. 10-21-25. Fine. Is there a second? I second. No further discussion from anybody? No discussion. No discussion. Okay. Guess what? I'll now read this. Oh, my gosh. Number one, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requests it will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. With the board members keeping these six criteria in mind, I call for a vote. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? No. The motion passes. The application for variance is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bode. May we please have the next applicant. Item H-9, Stuff and Properties of Florida, Inc., represented by David McMullen, request for two variances of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for the lot width and the streets out back in a BU-2 zoning classification located at tax account number 2427007 in District 2. Mr. McMullen, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the evidence you're about to give to this Board of Adjustment is the truth? Yes. Please state your name and address. Speak into the mic. David McMullen, North Grove Street, Merritt Island, Florida. Thank you. The podium's yours, sir. Okay. So, I own a tattoo shop on 520 there. It's right next to a Popeye's Chicken and a Wendy's. And... Would you mind? Oh, I'm so sorry. Should I start over? Thank you. Did everybody say... No, that's all right. Keep going. Just speak a little louder. When I first got the building, I put a couple of lighted signs up at the very top. It's a two-story building. They're fairly small, and I was having an issue with a lot of people not being able to find the building because there wasn't signage at eye level. So, I went to a sign company, and I paid for a lighted pole sign for the front of the building. I was purchasing it. I found out that there was a 15-foot setback in the front, which I didn't have. I only had, I guess, 10 feet or so. So, I went to a different sign company, and they said, we could take the faces off, and we could apply these to the size of your building. And so, I paid for that. I guess when they applied for the signs, they found out that the building did not conform to, you know, what was necessary to have these signs on the building. You know, the building, it was in 1925. A lot was created and platted in 1926, both predate the zoning code at the time, I'm requesting a variance to the 75-foot width, as the property currently has a lot width of 70. I'm also asking for a variance from the 25-foot side street setback. Thank you. Just hang on a second. This is District 2. This is me. Ms. Clemens, do you have any questions? I do. I just want to make sure I understand. I'm familiar with the property and the signs in the second story. Where exactly are you wanting to place them? Well, I guess, are you trying to do the pull, or are you trying to do the signs removed just on the side of the building? The wall signs attached to the side of the building. Both signs attached to the side of the building, not the pull? We've vacated the request for the pull? No, separately. Okay. Can you help me with what the two circles are on the plan? So, I see the two circles that are on Grove Street, but the two circles are where that's the side of the building that he wants the signs on? The setbacks that he's requesting is on Grove Street. The other one, let me pull up, hang on one second. You see them? So, the variance he's asking for is on Grove Street. The other one has a variance to it on 520. He's also asking for a width requirement as variance number one to the 15 feet from the required 75-foot lot width. But then the second variance is? The second variance is for the building on Grove Street. It's only half a foot from the property line. And those would be on the building, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. None of these are freestanding? No. Okay. And they are lit or not lit? They are lit. They are lit? Okay. That's all I got. Thank you. Mr. Hoffman. I'm just looking at the survey and looking at your date of 1925. This building's been in existence since 1925, almost 100 years. We're just legitimizing these dimensions that have existed for all this time. Yes. It's already got legitimized to the setback off of 520. He's trying to get it legitimized so that he can get his sign. But not because the sign code requires a certain setback whenever it's on the building, too. Okay. I was told the original size of the property has been shortened by 520 with six lanes of traffic. Yeah, you know, at least some of that's been taken away from the building. No further questions? Would you mind just step on the other side here? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this variance? Please have a seat. Members of the board, is there a motion? Can I make a motion that we approve these two variance requests as depicted on the survey date? 11-12. 11-12. Thank you. 2025, is it? Yes. Okay. Is there a second? I second. Discussion? No discussion. No discussion. No, it's legitimizing and insisting. It's right here. Well, I can't read. Okay, I'll now read the Undue Hardship Board sheet. Number one. Last time. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. Number two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Number three, that granting the variance requests that will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Number four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Number six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. With board members keeping these six criteria in mind, the vote is? All in favor? Aye. The motion passes. The application for a variance is approved. I'd like to address the board also before you close down the meeting. Sure. We have a gentleman here from Myra who would like to make a public comment to y'all. Do we need to swear him in? I'm not making any legal things here. He's doing a public comment. I will. Do we need to swear him in? No. I didn't think so. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Marcus Herman, and I serve as the chairman of the Maritano Redevelopment Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the board's decision a few months ago to approve assigned variants that exceeded the county's height restriction, as well as the recommendations provided by our agency following community input and review. I'd like to take a moment to provide some context about the Maritano Redevelopment Agency. Like each of you, our board members are appointed by the county commission, and we are deeply committed to serving the community in which we live. Our role is to gather input, evaluate impacts, and offer recommendations that reflect both regulatory considerations and community sentiment. This includes compliance with our redevelopment plan, which has been approved by the county commission. We work closely with the district two commissioner in support of the residents within our district. Over the course of my 20 years of serving on that board, our recommendations have consistently been aligned with the subsequent decisions of the board of adjustments. That history reflects mutual respect and cooperation that has traditionally existed between our boards. Our agency takes seriously every issue that comes before us, understanding that land use decisions can have a lasting effect on our community. I share this perspective not only as the chairman of the redevelopment agency, but as a former volunteer in that position on this board of adjustments. In that role, I found great value in visiting sites, speaking with stakeholders, and seeking as much information as possible to inform thoughtful decision. To my knowledge, you were supplied a memo about the meeting that Maryland had, but there was no further communication from this board to the Maryland Redevelopment Agency or the district two office regarding this particular case. In the future, I believe that increased collaboration and information sharing could be beneficial to all involved and help ensure the decisions are made with the fullest of understanding. I do acknowledge sincerely to each of you, and I thank you each for your volunteer service. I know these roles require time, care, dedication, and your willingness to serve. It is very much appreciated. I appreciate it. Moving forward, I am hopeful that we can continue to strengthen communication between our boards, recognizing that we share the same goal, making well-informed decisions that best serve our entire community. Thank you. Do you have any questions, comments, or thoughts? Please. What method do you propose for that intercommunication? Well, when I sat on this board, whenever I had somebody in my district, I went out and spoke to that individual at their home or their place of residence or whatever the case might have been. Certainly a phone call to have a conversation to understand if I didn't quite understand what was going on. Now, if you're going to follow our recommendation, fair enough. You've already felt that's the case. But if you're going to change that recommendation, I think there should be a collaboration, at least an understanding. I know that when the District 2 commissioner found out that we approved an 80-foot sign here, he was not a happy camper. He didn't even want us to approve a 40-foot sign. Now, we approved the 40-foot sign. I personally had gone out on his site, and that gentleman was a good business partner, I felt. He went out and cleaned up the site. He did a lot of things that made our community better along those lines. We told him, there's no way we can give you an 80-foot sign, but you have a 40-foot billboard sign there, so we can go at least as high as that. One of our concerns was that if the sign was higher, the light would shine over into the neighborhood across 528. And there was no hardship that we saw that was going to create that. But we still wanted to be able to help him. We certainly feel like we're pro-business at the MIRA board. We want to help as long as it's not hindering somebody else. So we have never had anybody come to these meetings because, like I said, in the 20 years I've been here, every time our recommendations were followed to the T. And that's true, except for a few times, on the Planning and Zoning Board also. But nevertheless, I just want some collaboration. I know we're trying to all do the best thing for our communities, but we live in Merritt Island. The people on the MIRA board represent all the residents in Merritt Island in our capacity, and that happens to be in our district. So if there's something else we can do to help you with that, I'm happy to be a part of that. Back to my question. How do you see that communication taking place? I guess at that point I felt there should have been a conversation. Someone should have picked up the phone and had a conversation with Myra. If there was going to be a 40-foot recommendation and we're going to go 80, I think I would have never gone beyond that. I would have had a conversation, why did you pick 40 feet and not the 80 to start with? And I'm sure that you guys talk, you all talk to your individual constituents when they have a problem. You go out, look at their property, see what their concerns are, to know what's happening. So that's what I would think is that you would have a conversation with someone. Just in a collaborative conversation. Did your letter back then, I remember a letter came from Myra, maybe this was on a different one, it was about a big sign. It was 80 feet? Yes. And you in the letter said 40 feet. Correct. Right? Is that correct? Yes. We gave him a variance that we felt was very generous. We have a number of concerns. The two biggest concerns, one is our area is getting developed. And there are a couple of businesses right down the street right now that are there that sure enough can come back to us now and ask for an 80-foot sign. And it's going to be hard-pressed to suggest, well, gee, the guy down the street got one. I remember that. I remember the lighting issue. Did we approve the 80 feet? Yes. So you both were here when they originally came. Yeah, because I fought against that because Myra. He didn't, he never presented. He never presented. When he came back, it was Dr. Bass and Sonia. And I agreed with the Myra recommendation and the two of them approved the 80-foot for visibility. But I remember the lighting issue. And if I recall, he gave up on the lighting. It was only going to be a day. It was an option for compromise. Yeah. I believe there may be some conversation where he may be going back down to a more reasonable height. My concerns are about going forward. And I know you guys are doing the best that you can. Whatever we need to do from our part, if we need to be here when those things come up, that's one thing. Or if there's concerns, please reach out. We work very hard, just like you do, to make sure we're doing the right things. And I think if he had been given a little bit more information and understood a little bit more where we were coming from, maybe there would have been a little bit more consensus in how we were going. That gentleman, when he left our building, was completely happy with the 42 feet or 43 feet that we gave him. He was happy that he got that. So the fact that he got the 80 was surprising to us, at the least. I was here. I remember that. I do remember the issue. We do serve a lot more than just a recommendation board, Bill. We really do. And as you said, you sat on this board. It's five different districts. And I'll be honest with you. We get applications. I only look at my own district. I agree. And I'm not throwing somebody else under the bus. No, I agree. But, you know, and you can see two people, you know, just couldn't make it and aren't participating here today. It's difficult to have only this one forum right here right now to address those issues because we don't – I honestly don't research the other districts. I only research my own. I think that's fair, and I understand that. And that's why I tell you how much I appreciate the service. This is a volunteer position, and it takes some time and effort. And I do appreciate the work that you guys are doing, but you have a tool in your toolbox when you're dealing with the MIRA board or somebody else. And I think you can either have some faith or pick up the phone and have a conversation. Had we thought for one second there would have been any discussion other than what we would have recommended, the whole board might have been here. See, some of the problem is – I mean, is there any way – well, I guess that would be another discussion because we only get these things a week or so ahead. Well, and again, I only research District 5 in my case. Generally, in the staff comments, we will state that this went through the MIRA board and what they recommended. And I think that those also were – and I even called them out during the MIRA – during the Board of Adjustment meeting about MIRA's recommendation. So there was also – Do you guys talk to MIRA about – We send anything that's in the MIRA district. We have to – the applicant go to MIRA and present it before them before it comes to the Board of Adjustment here. So the MIRA has their recommendations just like they did on the one. And I read them into the – into y'all – to y'all what their recommendations were at the Board of Adjustment meeting. Yeah, but I guess what we're saying is if we could – if MIRA or some outside agency is going to be involved in what we're doing, we would need to get something. Like we provide that. We did get – we did. I think you – We do provide that to you. We shared with our – No, no, no. I know we got that. But we only get the paperwork a week before we come here. So there's – you know, that's a lot of – Well, generally, the MIRA meeting might be only a week before the Board of Adjustment meeting. Correct. And I will say – I don't remember who made the comment, but the gentleman, the applicant, was here advocating for himself. And he asked for the larger dimensions. And as far as MIRA perspective, all we had was the letter. So in the future, you may want to consider attending. In particular, if it's an issue that you have concerns about, send a representative. We can do that. But again, the last 20 years that I've been on that board, the times it's come before here, our recommendations held some water, we felt, that that recommendation was there for a reason. I believe it was considered, but – Well, and the point that I'm making is I think when you sit on this board, this is not a knock. This is a thoughtful consideration that you have to ask those questions to the people that are making those decisions. And had we gotten a call, you would have gotten very complete, hard information about why. And we discussed this for a good hour at our meeting with this applicant. And it was a question, and we came to the conclusion that we would work with this gentleman some because he's gotten rid of a crack house and done this and done that because I'd gone out and actually visited the property and walked it with him. And I thought he deserved some form of leniency, I guess, for the hardship of what he was saying he had that was a little bit questionable. But, you know, so if we have to be at every meeting, we will. Well, keep in mind, whatever has transpired over 20 years is not really relevant because the board has changed over many times in that time. So they don't have that historical perspective. So I'm just saying, I don't think Myra's viewpoint may have been – Well, that might be a county paid – a person that might have to come to this board. And in this particular case, if you're going to do that, then you should have that – I would imagine things I've done at the Myra board is I've moved those cases up front so that that person that's being paid can go back to work. If that's what you think and you need to do. But, again, I think a phone call to the District 2 office, you'd have heard straight from the horse's mouth how they felt about it and why they felt that way. Same with the Myra board. So – Did you watch the video? I did. How does that affect talking to them about a case that – So you're aware that I am District 2 and I was – I'm aware that you're District 2 and I'm aware that you asked a lot of great questions about what was happening. I was a little disappointed that you didn't vote the other way. But I understood what you were doing. But you understand that there's – the two women that were here were in agreement for the 80-foot. And I asked specifically for the compromise. It was a four-to-one vote, and, yes, you asked for the compromise, and thank you. It didn't go that way. But – so I'm just bringing it to your attention. Isn't that the point of the board? In addition to your point, it's been four or five years. I can remember maybe two or three times that the Myra issue came up. And what I'm saying is it – if we could set a soft procedure where if there's a Myra letter in an application and it comes up for the board, maybe the board could – or the staff could just make a courtesy phone call saying this application is coming up, give you an opportunity to have a representative there. And like I say, it's been only like two or three times in the last many years. I would agree. We don't get a whole lot of, you know, adjustments to come through our board. A lot of it's zoning changes as opposed to that. So I'm happy to try to, you know, have Larry or Lisa or the staff be here on those situations. But I also don't want to waste county employees' time if, indeed, you guys are feeling like, well, this is a no-brainer. The board's voted 5-0 against it because it's, you know, not acceptable. And you're going to go – but if you need somebody to be there for that, then we'll have to make adjustments to make that happen. It would help to reinforce your – I don't know, authority or influence. I think it's safe to say you're welcome to call me. Right? Well, that's your district, yeah. Well, I think that going forward, the purpose of this was that we could work together so hopefully you won't – you'll recognize you can call us and we'll recognize we can call you. And we're going to make a better effort to collaborate together on these type of situations for the betterment of the community. I'm not putting this all off on you, I'm not putting it all off on us, but we didn't get the result that we felt was appropriate for our community. And we thought we'd given information that was going to help you do that. And had we thought that we needed more information, we certainly would have done it. We're going to learn to be more proactive on our end. I'm asking that you guys do the same. If I recall that hearing, whatever, we only got his point of view. I know we had your letter, but we only got the benefit of the presentation from his point of view. And a counterpoint – you can see today in the proceedings – a counterpoint of view carries weight. Well, I mean, the letters are all parenthetical. You're just reading through the lines. So, I mean, it's – Somebody voted no, and I can't remember if it was you, Stephen. Yeah, I did. It felt like the weight of Myra's decisions didn't weigh, whether if someone spoke it up front or not. I'm hoping that when you get a letter, you recognize that's the position of seven board members that live in Merritt Island, that have a concern for what's happening. You can assume that that's exactly what you're going to get. If you think you have to have somebody here to say that, that's one thing. But that letter stated exactly how we felt. I do have one question. Talking to Myra about a case that's going to be here, does that fall under the Florida law? Well, yeah, I mean, that's – it's another entity. It's a governmental entity. I don't – I forget if you're dependent or independent. I am confident that anybody on this board can call the staff. Maybe not me as a chairman. That might be sunshine. But that's – yeah. So – but that's why it's permissible, because it's not the governmental entity weighing in. I think that's a great question, Stephen. I don't know. Yeah. But I know they can call staff and talk to staff. Yeah, staff. But I think it would be under the Florida law, if I'm wrong, for you and I to discuss a case that's going to be here. I think you're probably right. I think it's reasonable to assume that. I don't think that would have anything to do with the Florida law, because you're not on the board. You're not voting on it. If it was a board member, that would be a little different. Is that not correct? But what your concern is, I think, is with interested parties. And so, typically, any communication you would have outside of this forum, you would disclose that in the meeting? It could be considered a conclusion. I don't know. It just seems that to avoid all of that, you just call the staff. You call the District 2 staff. You call the MIRA staff. They have all the answers that the MIRA board did or didn't do. I guess we could ask for legal opinion on that, but it probably makes more sense just to do that. They have the answers. But I wouldn't hesitate to stand up and help share anything that we have ever decided and why we decided it with any of you. So, again, I'm not trying to – it wasn't trying to beat anybody. But I'm just trying to share with you that we tried very hard to work this through with this gentleman, and good for him for working it over and getting one over on us. You know, a little disappointing. Like I said, I think that in the end, he may come back with something different. I hope that's the case. Is it an auto park or something? It's a parking cruise on top of that. It's a parking cruise. Yeah, I remember there was something about people that were going by who wanted to make sure they knew to turn and go into his parking lot and all of that. And he has a – yeah, it goes on a little deeper than that. But nevertheless, all we're trying to do is serve our people just like you guys are trying to do with yours. So whatever we can do in the future, MIRA wants to help. We want to be a part. So if you think we need to reach out to you, if there's something coming before you, I'm going to make sure the staff understands. We're going to call our District 2 representative. And please, on your end, or anybody else that fills your shoes, if you decide to resign from that, please give them the same – tell them the same things that, hey, reach out to these entities so we can make sure we're on the same page. Okay. Thank you. Sounds good. Go have supper. Appreciate you very much. Thank you. All right. That concludes our agenda. Also, before you – I declared a meeting of a reporter. He's got one more. Before you all leave, I'd like to recommend that we have a meeting on what really is a hardship. We did this before about three or four years ago, and I think that Bill was the only one who was here at the time, and nobody else went through that. And maybe after the next Board of Adjustment meeting, stay for a little bit so we can go over what really constitutes a hardship on a property. Sounds good to me. Yeah. Is that okay? Yeah, perfect. We'll reach out to also the other two ladies about it so they aren't surprised. All right. Everybody go home. Thank you, Paul. Appreciate you. That will not be – Meetings adjourned. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida.