Board of Adjustment on 2026-03-18 1:30 PM - Mar 18, 2026

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all.

This meeting is now called to order. This is the Bavard County Bono Zoning Adjustment for Wednesday, March 18th. Mr. Bode, can you please read us our first reading, the function of the board?

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 of the Bavard 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 Florida rules of appellate procedure, any person or persons jointly or severally agreed 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 11 items on your agenda today.

Thank you. Ms. Clemens, can you read us undue hardship definition, please?

The definition of an undue hardship, a variance may be granted when it will not be 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 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 the existing development regulations. Personal medical reasons shall not be considered as grounds for establishing 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 reasonable return under the existing land development regulations. The applicant must answer a variance hardship worksheet with six questions. The Board of Adjustments will discuss these questions today with each applicant who has requested a variance. Thank you.

I would like to address our board members, the applicants, and our audience about the procedures that will be followed during this proceeding. The Board of Zoning Adjustment is a crazy board with members appointed by the Brevard County Board of Commissioners. We'll utilize Robert 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 presentation, we will begin board questioning with the board member who represents the applicant's district. When concluded, the question is opening to the full board. The chair will recognize each board member in 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. Anyone from the audience wishing to speak will be given the opportunity to address the board only once. At the conclusion of public comment, the applicant will be given additional time for rebuttal as well to present their final comments. 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 be using a timer for this meeting. Instead, we're asking each speaker to be concise in what they have to say. It's important that you stay on the subject and avoid information that's not relevant. All persons speaking must provide their name address for the public record. Those wishing not to verbally state their address may ask the clerk at the podium for a dress card. Please fill it out and return it to the clerk. Are there any questions regarding these procedures from the board members? Seeing none, are there any questions regarding the procedures from the applicants, from the audience? Seeing none, we move to our next order of business. We'll go right to our meeting minutes. Any changes or motion to approve? I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes. I'll second. We have a motion to approve and a second by Mr. Humbert. Thank you. And now we'll open up with our first application. Mr. Bodie, please.

Do we have a vote? We got a vote.

Oh. The vote for the meeting minutes? Can we take a vote, please? Sorry. Vote to approve? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Mr. Bodie, please.

Yes. Item H1, Matthew S. and Gretchen W. Solar, represented by Dan Cole. Request five variances, Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for a fence slash wall in an RU-1-7 zoning classification. Located tax count number 3007937 in District 3. Can the applicant come forward, please?

Just put the mic to your mouth. Let me swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Your name for the record, please. Your first and last name? Dan Coe, C-O-E. Can you hear that?

Repeat it again, please. Dan Coe, C-O-E. Okay. How can we help you today, please? Well, good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. I'm Dan Coe, and I'm here on behalf of Lifestyle Homes and the homeowners of Matthew and Gretchen Solar. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. This request is narrow in scope. It does not involve redesigning the site, changing drainage, or expanding the use of the property. It arises from a situation where state-mandated life safety requirements and local zoning limitations intersect on this particular lot in a way that makes it impossible to comply with both requirements at the same time without relief. Because of the lot's topography and the approved site design, retaining walls were necessary to properly grade the property and manage drainage. Those walls were designed by a licensed civil engineer, reviewed by the county, and approved at heights up to the maximum allowed under zoning. Can I approach with documents?

Yes. One moment. Mr. Bode, is he clear to speak for the company? Yes, he is. Okay. Yes, you may approach. Thank you.

So what I gave you was the approved, the original approved lot drainage plan that shows the walls on there, and then also picks of the property as it currently sits. The approved plans also clearly identified that where the drop exceeds 30 inches, fall protection would be required under the Florida Building Code. So on the plan on this second page, upper left corner, the section shows that walls were permitted up to six feet in height, and any drop over 30 inches would require fall protection. So the guard in this case is not intended to enclose or contain any area. It exists solely as a life safety feature required by state code to prevent falls. So in the picture packet, you can see the guards that sit on top of the walls. They don't enclose any. They literally just sit on top of the wall for fall protection. The plans were prepared by a licensed engineer, reviewed by the county, and approved through the normal permitting process. This variance request is not an attempt to correct a mistake, but to reconcile two valid requirements that were never intended to conflict. At the time the original plans were reviewed and approved, it was reasonably understood that the state-mandated guard was being treated as a safety feature, not as a zoning-regulated fence or as an extension of retaining wall height. If fall protection were treated as part of zoning-regulated wall height, then by simple math, any retaining wall exceeding 36 inches would, by definition, be incapable of complying with both the Florida Building Code and the zoning ordinance simultaneously. Now, at the end of this project, the way these two requirements began to be applied together changed. That shift created a situation where compliance with one mandatory requirement began to conflict with the other. That is the situation we're here to resolve today. The conditions giving rise to this request are very specific to this property. The recessed nature of the lot, you can see in some of the pictures how it's recessed. The grading configuration and the approved finished floor elevation required retaining walls that approach the zoning height limit of six feet in that area. We're here on the four and six. When combined with mandatory fall protection, that configuration produced a conflict that would not typically arise on most lots. This was not the result of an unusual or discretionary design choice. It was the result of approved engineering plans and mandatory safety requirements being applied to a unique site condition. The retaining walls were constructed as designed by a licensed engineer and approved by the county. The fall protection is required by state law and is not optional. The homeowners did not create this condition. They followed the approved plans and complied with mandatory safety requirements. On this site, there is no practical way to satisfy both the Florida building code and the zoning ordinance simultaneously without variance relief. Where fall protection is required, it cannot be eliminated or reduced below the state minimum required height of 36 inches. Without a variance, compliance with one code necessarily results in violation of the other. Can I present one more time? So what I gave you there was the proposed new plan. So we had already built this and this is what we're proposing to do and which is what this variance meeting is about. So the plans before you represent a good faith effort to request only what is necessary. Since the prior hearing, the plans have been revised further to reduce the wall height where possible and limit the guard to the minimum required by state code. The request before you today is narrower and more restrained than before. We reduced retaining wall heights wherever physically possible. We reduced the guard height to the state minimum of 36 inches and we removed guard sections where fall protection is not required. No additional wall height, mass or footprint is being added anywhere on the site. The request is limited solely to the incremental height created by mandatory fall protection. The homeowners are not seeking additional height, expanded use or aesthetic enhancement. This is not a general condition that would apply to most properties. It arises from a very specific combination of topography, approved wall elevations and mandatory safety requirements. Most lots would never encounter this conflict. Now the requested height relief does not create an injury to surrounding properties or the public welfare. Approval does not increase the retaining wall height beyond what was previously permitted, does not alter drainage patterns, does not change site function, and does not affect stormwater performance. All drainage and grading were reviewed and approved through the county's civil permitting process. Granting this variance does not change how the site functions. It only resolves a life safety conflict created by mandatory regulations. From a drainage standpoint alone, the site will function exactly the same tomorrow whether this variance is approved or not. Now I understand that large site changes can feel disruptive to neighboring properties, but for purposes of a variance decision, the question before the board is not whether the wall is preferred or disliked, but whether the limited height relief associated with state-mandated fall protection creates an additional measurable impact beyond what already exists. The retaining wall, sorry, the retaining wall will remain exactly as it exists today. The only question before the board is whether the minimum safety guard required by state law can exist on top of the wall that was already permitted and approved. For purposes of the variance criteria, the relevant consideration is whether the incremental height created by the required guard creates an additional impact beyond what already exists with the permitted retaining wall. Our civil engineer is present should the board have any technical questions related specifically to drainage or stormwater performance. And I believe he's listed on the document. For these reasons, we respectfully request approval of the variance. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. I see this application arises in District 3. Mr. Humberg, you have the floor for questions.

Hi. Hi. I know the house. I ride past it about 100 times a day. A question I do have here says here, special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to the other lands or building structures in the same zoning. Then it goes on to say the subject property presents unique structural and topographical conditions due to proximity of the home to the north and south side of the property lines. Well, those conditions wouldn't exist. Until the house was built, correct? So the house being built created this situation, correct? When you say situation, can you elaborate? Yeah, it's saying here that the subject property presents unique structural and topographical conditions due to the proximity of the home to the north and south side of the property lines, as well as required finished floor elevation. Correct. Well, those problems wouldn't exist if the house wasn't there, correct?

But the, yeah, I'm just, I'm sorry, I'm a little, the house is there with the finished floor elevation that was out of flood zones, presented, approved. With that finished floor elevation, you have required grading that you must meet and the retaining wall is required to allow that grade from the house finished floor elevation.

Well, what I'm saying is, without that house, there wouldn't be any problems, correct? Yeah, because there isn't. Okay, thanks. But we have a house. I have another, a couple other questions here. And I believe last time there was a problem with drainage. Was that not an issue?

It was, that's what the neighboring properties commented. However, again, our civil engineer is on site and he designed this as approved. All homeowners, builders are required to retain their own water. We did that. We have drainage going from the front of the house to the back of the house where we have retention area. Walls were built six inches above grade to retain our own water. There's not enough hydraulic pressure to cause any water problems to the neighboring lots. Neighboring lots are also required, everybody's required to retain their own water. So, the comment that we were creating flooding on neighboring properties is not accurate. That's false. Also, the neighbor to the, yeah, so we are doing our job by retaining the water on our lot. We are not causing flooding.

So, has anything been done since the last time you were here in regards to flooding?

There is nothing to do because we complied with all drainage requirements. Now, what I can say is the neighbor to the south installed a pool and a gazebo on their property that required lot drainage alteration to retain their water. And from my understanding, that has not been done. So, their requirement, again, everybody's requirement is to retain their own water. So, the water that was presented last time against the wall, when you build between two properties, neighbors are typically used to draining onto the empty lot in between. We now have a lot there. And regardless of whether you add walls or not, any house that built is going to be elevated to a finished floor elevation, and you're required to retain your own water. So, if that water was draining to the empty property before we built, and the water continues there without them altering their own drainage through the permitting process, then it has no choice but to dam up against our wall. But that's not our issue. We did and complied with civil engineering to retain the water on our own lot.

I might have a couple other questions, but I'll pass it on at the moment.

Okay. Ms. Clemons, any questions? No questions. Dr. Bass? No, I don't have any. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hoffman? None. Okay. Seeing none, I'll just ask you to step aside. I'm going to ask the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance? Can you come forward now, please? Seeing none, you can come back. Mr. Humbert?

I don't have any further questions, but I'll make a motion here if you want. How many? There's five of them, right? Five variances? It's five, right? Five variances you're requesting? I see five. All right, Brent. I'd like to make a motion to approve all five variances as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with a revision date of 12-16-2025.

I second. We have a motion approved by Mr. Humbert, a second by Ms. Clemons. Any discussion? Hearing no further discussion, I'm going to read the six undue hardships. One, as special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classifications, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, that granting the variance requested would not confer to 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, 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 will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant, and that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, and last, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have a motion by Mr. Holmberg to approve, a second by Ms. Clemon. We'll say to the board. Aye. Aye. Aye. Your motion. Your variance have passed.

Thank you, Mr. Holmberg. Thank you, board.

Mr. Bodie, our next variance, please.

Yes, item H2. Tyler Gardner and Shelby Hines request variance of Chapter 62, Article 6, Bavar County Code, for principal instruction and RRMH-1 zoning classification, located at tax account number 2406117 in District 1.

Can the applicant come down, please? Hello. Hi. Can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Can I have your first and last name, please? Shelby Gardner. And how can we help you today?

Me and my husband have come. We applied for a variance. We bought and purchased land in a manufactured home, and they placed the home on the land about a year ago, and we didn't find out until three days before our expected receiving of our CO that they actually placed it 15, or almost 15 feet over, almost onto the neighboring property line. Unfortunately, everything with the house has already been done, septic, driveway, water, stairs, electric. Um, the septic actually is over the property line. They also did not build the pad high enough, so we had to install a French drain, which now, uh, is on the neighbor's property line, um, as well. I think it pushes it, uh, about a foot onto the property. Um, unfortunately, nobody caught this in the entire year process. The appraiser didn't catch it. The county inspector didn't catch it. Um, so it's caused us, uh, quite a bit of hardship. Okay.

Well, I see you in District 1. That's my district. Okay. Um, I didn't get an opportunity to drive past your property. However, I'll start with opening questions now. Ms. Clemens, you have any questions?

I do not.

Mr. Humbert? No, I do not. Ms. Dr. Bass?

I do not.

Okay. Yes, I do. Okay.

In your description just now, you said that some of your facilities impinge on the neighbor's property? Yes. Have you made arrangements with that neighbor for an easement?

He lives in Ohio. We have tried every method of contacting him because originally, um, we were just going to buy a portion of the land because it was going to be the easiest or have our home builders buy it. Um, he, uh, made a mention to his realtor that he did not want to sell. We have had the title agent reach out to him, real estate. We've sent him a certified letter. At this time, he has no interest in selling any of his property.

So, what's the resolution?

Um, our home builder, um, suggested applying for the variance. Um, they said if the variance does get approved that they're going to move the septic over at their expense, but, um, that doesn't fix our drainage issues since they didn't build the pad up high enough. We can't actually have the house without the French drain because all the water just, I mean, it pulls completely to the house by like a foot. Um, so it would be like structurally unsound. Um, other than that, that's kind of like where we're at. They did say we did have an attorney on it. Um, and they told our attorney that the variance doesn't get approved, that they are going to make it right. Um, they did try to blame us for the longest time saying we staked our own property, which is a lie. We did not. Um, but finally, I feel like lately they've kind of changed their tune a little bit, um, that they are offering to fix it. Hopefully.

If you didn't stake the property, who did?

Um, our surveyors, which that company is now out of business. But the, um, we ordered the boundary survey and the home company ordered the engineering survey. They were done by the same survey company. Um, and my husband did find the iron rods in the ground. Um, so the, the, the boundary survey was correct. They just physically put the house in the wrong location.

Okay. Yeah, it's been fun. Trying to think. So, so, so by granting the, if we grant the variance, how does that solve the problems of these other things?

I honestly have no idea.

All right. You're just, you're following your attorney's advice.

Um, well, um, our home builder, we came to an agreement because originally, um, we basically told them, I mean, this is their problem. They have to fix it. And they said, uh, if we apply for the variance that they will, uh, get the mortgage deferred because the mortgage is due on it because we entered this agreement, this construction loan almost two years ago now. Um, so it was kind of our only option at the point. Um, but they did recently state that they would fix it if the variance didn't get approved, which would require them, um, moving the house.

Which would you prefer?

Um, I mean, since it already has issues with the drainage, I think we would prefer it to be moved, but we were just concerned that if the, if the variance was granted, um, that the utilities are still over, uh, and then we would like to put a fence in, um, but then we would have no room for a fence.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Are you living in a house now? No, it's unlivable because we can't get a CO. We're, um, we've been living in a camper for over two years now. On the property? No, in my parents' backyard. Oh, okay. Because we can't live, uh, in the camper on the property because they won't turn the power on because we don't have a CO. I've tried to call FPL, but they won't turn it on. So let me, okay.

So my question, um, is going to piggyback off of his. So in approving, if we approve your variance today, is that getting you one step closer to getting inside your home?

Um, technically yes, but then we would have to figure out about the drainage issue. So no, I guess, I mean, the, the, cause the French drain is actually over the property line and I don't know how much the variance grants distance wise, cause the French drain goes out about two feet, but we have to have it or else our house foundation would be underwater.

Okay. So I'm going to address this to Mr. Bodie staff. So, um, just help me understand as I know I've been out for a month or two or three, but wait, my question is this, she's here for a variance because that's what she needs to go to the next step. Is that correct? Mr. Bodie?

The variance is only for the mobile home itself. It's not for any of the French drains or any of the other problems that seem to be, uh, she's trying to get addressed with the, getting this variance. Okay. So then let us help. We'll address the other problems. Okay.

Yeah. Our home builder basically said, uh, if you want to help apply for this and then the decision of this will depend on what they'll do to fix it.

Okay. So Ms. Hines, let me, let us help you today. Okay. Let us help you. Okay. Um, any more questions board? Okay. Just step aside. Let me see if anyone's in the audience. Is there anyone here in the audience that have anything to speak on this variance? Yay or nay? Seeing none, come on back. Okay. Can someone make a motion for me, please?

I make a motion to approve. I make a motion to approve the variance request as depicted on the survey, um, dated 10, 10, 20, 25. Do I have a second?

Okay. Ms. Clemens made a motion to approve. It was second by Mr. Humberg. I'm going to read the six to undo hardship. There are special conditions and circumstances exist, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or builders and applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures, and identical zoning classification. And that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties and identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter. And that it would constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Clemmings. We have a second by Mr. Humberg. Can I get the board to vote on approving this variance?

I vote against.

Okay. We have one against the variance from Mr. Hoffman. Dr. Bass?

It's a tough one, isn't it?

Yeah.

I'll vote in favor. I vote in favor.

I'm in favor. I agree. Your variance have passed. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Bode, can we have the next one, please?

Yes, item H3. Maida Janet Morales requests six variances of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Cove for three variance structures and an RU-19 zoning classification. And for fence height, the application number is 26V-00001. Located tax count number 2404346 in District 1.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Just be getting the mic for me, please. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, members of the board. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. Can you state your first and last name for the record, please?

Anna Ciani. Okay. Will she be speaking as well? She's my mother. She's a property owner. I'm here on behalf of her so I can speak.

Okay. Will she be speaking now? No. Okay. Okay.

Okay. How can we help you today? Okay. So, my mom and I have actively been working with code enforcement officers in the county to come into compliance. The application of the variances that we did is mainly for structures that were in the home before we purchased a house. We did not know, but we worked with county. We did a backing of the easement so these structures can stay. And also, I think the other variance was the fence. The fence is a fence that was there also before we moved into the house where we replaced it from being a rotten wood to PVC. And I'm sorry. I'm very. So, we did a backing of the easement so the structures can stay without conflicting with the utility lines. Also, the height of the fence coincides with many surrounding fences in our neighborhood.

Okay. So, you just said, I'm sorry, just bear with me. You just said the fence is the same size as the fences of the fences in your neighborhood? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Go ahead.

And that's pretty much it. I have.

Okay. Well, I see you in District 1 and that's my district. So, I'll ask Dr. Bass to start with the questioning, please.

I don't have any questions at this time. Okay. I have one. Okay, Mr. Hoffman.

This was existing conditions when you bought the property and you're just here trying to legitimize the existing condition, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Ms. Clements?

Questions?

Well, no one has any questions. So, let's just sum up what you're here for today. Purchase the property. Just help me if I'm not right now. You purchased the property. The fence is the concern, correct? Mostly, yeah. Okay. And when you say mostly, what else is the concern?

Well, they had, there's two structures that were in the back, there's two in the back of the house, were there before we purchased the house. But apparently they didn't pull permits for it. So, when there was a complaint and they came to, you know, do the investigation and all that, we found out that we didn't have permits for those. So, that's why we were, we were trying to bring the house into compliance.

Okay. So, today, I want to make sure we're clear, we're here for six variants, correct? Correct. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add today before we get started? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I ask you to step to the side. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this variant, whether opposing or agreeing? Yes. Can you come up to the podium, please? On this one. That's the one? Okay. Can I swear you in, please? Yes, ma'am. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please? First and last name.

Edward Reynolds. Edward Reynolds. How can we help you? All the compliances around the neighborhood, there are the fences and everything. I own 1.78 acres right behind where the problem is. All of our fences are equal. There's none of them out of order or nothing. I've lived there 13 years. They lived there, too. And then the other two ladies are going to talk. They've been there like 30 years. So, anyways, everything is compliance. There's this one guy that lives that just bought there and moved in, and he is trying to ruin the whole neighborhood. Well, let me ask you this real quick. Are you opposing or are you agreeing with her? I'm agreeing with her. Oh, you're agreeing. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, that's what I want to be clear of.

Okay. Because it's all equal. All of our fences are all six foot. I have wooden fence. They have vinyl fence. Right. So, I mean, her house is one of the nicest ones on the street. Okay. So, it's not, you know, nothing bad there. I'm agreeing with her. She's legal. She's done everything right. Okay. Well, we appreciate you coming today and letting us know how you feel.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

That's a neighbor. Thank you. Okay. Who else would like to speak today? Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth? I do.

And your first and last name, please. I'm Tina Doby. How can we help you, Ms. Tina?

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? I'm agreeing. You're agreeing also. Okay.

My sister has cancer, and she lives right around two doors down from me, and I'm speaking on both of our behalf for Anna. The structure she's talking about, I've been living there since 1989, and those were there. I knew all the people that were there before, the people that bought in between, because there's been two owners since her, and then she bought, and I just love her. But they have done really nice upkeep. They've made, the fence is beautiful. It's made the neighborhood look nicer. They're excellent neighbors. They keep everything nice, and we're just happy that they're there. And I want to agree with the gentleman that spoke earlier. We've never had issues in our neighborhood. Everybody gets along. We don't have people that call and complain about each other. We're just, we're neighborly people. But since this person moved in, it's constant. Like, somebody's caught, you know, everybody's worried, like, oh, gosh, this person's going to call on us. But I don't understand it. But I just, I'm speaking on her behalf, and I took off work, and I never take off work to do anything. But I'm like, I'm going there because I want somebody to stand for her, because they are really done good for our neighborhood. And I'm very proud to have her as a neighbor. That's great. Thank you for coming and taking time.

Is the person who opposes, is the person here today? No. No. Oh, okay. I just want to make sure. It's the letter. It's the letter. Okay. So they wrote a letter. Okay. You saw that, correct? Okay. Good. Okay. Good.

Okay. I'd like to make the board aware that one of the sheds, the applicant put up themselves. Two of them, they were bought there. And the fence, they put up themselves, too. So. Okay. Just so you know that.

Thank you, Ms. Lover. You can come up.

Let me swear to you in.

Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. Yes, I do. And your first and last name for the record, please.

Tawana Franks. Okay. Are you a neighbor? I lived in 2945, Brandon Court. I called to sit right off Ipswich. She's on the corner. I'm on the little corner coming around. And I've lived there approximately 35 years. Probably more than anybody. There wasn't any red light in that place when I moved in.

Okay. How can we help you? Are you opposing or are you agreeing?

I am so much in agreement with her.

Okay.

I don't know. I'd just like to say, I don't know if you've gone down that road at all. But her house is very beautiful. I've been in there with the first owner. I didn't go there the second owner. So I know what looked like the first owner and what was in the backyard. And I've been in there since. I've been in Anna's house also. But from where I sit on my cul-de-sac, I see her yard. And she has never let it go. And she has put a fence up. And she had to cover the bottom part. Because we have neighbors on the corner of Ipswich that has two or three little girls that lets them run, run, run at night that's little. And they like to go in there and dig out and dig, dig, dig in her yard and everything. And she's probably afraid of something going to be harming. So she had to get something to cause it to go to the ground. So she does not have problems being, you know, with, you know, anything harming the children. But my opinion, she has done nothing but beautify the neighborhood. And we, I live by the rule of live and let live. I do not know if you have gone down Ipswich. Brandon Court is a five-house cul-de-sac. We mow yards when the first one starts mowing. But if you go down Ipswich, you will see boards on windows. You will see cops out there for drugs. You will see other people with boards on their windows. You will see she is the model homeowner, in my opinion. I have been there 35 years, and I cannot believe that somebody is going to say something on that house. I mean, it's ridiculous. Her house is as high. Her fence is just as high as anybody else's. Matter of fact, if you really want to know the truth of this, is this going off just a little bit, but may I go? So let me bring you back on in. I know I'm on in. I'm in my house. Okay? I could go down that street, and I could write up something on every house and keep you busy for the next six months.

Okay.

But I would never complain on her because there's nothing to complain about. But we've got boarded windows. We've got everything. But I live with somebody that has junk in their backyard. I'm a live and let live. He has no absolute. And as far as those letters written in, one of the letters is supposed to be Ethel Turner, my next-door neighbor. I'm surprised she would even write anything in.

Okay. Well, we appreciate your opinion today and you coming up to tell us that you're in agreement with her.

She is one neighbor I would love to live next door to. And compared to what you will go down that street and see in 35 years, shame on anybody complaining against her. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, what is the motion of the board? Oh, I'm sorry. There's a question.

I have a question for Mr. Boody.

Okay. Go ahead. Exit in the mic.

Mr. Boody, I have a question for you. Does this variance do anything for their code enforcement action? Yes. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Yeah.

Good. Dr. Bass?

I'll make a motion to approve the six variances as depicted in the survey provided by the applicant dated February 26, 2024. I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion to approve by Dr. Bass and a second by Mr. Hoffman. I'm going to read the six variants. You can come back to the podium. I'm sorry. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested would confer to 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. That literal enforcement of provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classifications. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the grain and the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. We have a motion to approve by Dr. Bass, a second by Mr. Hoffman, and we'll go through the board for an individualized vote. Ms. Clemmons? I approve. I approve. I approve. I approve. I approve. Your variants have passed. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a great day. Mr. Bodie, can we have our next applicant, please?

Yes, item H4, William R. and Sharon Molex Palmer request three variances of Chapter 62, Article 6 of our County Code for a swimming pool and a swimming pool screening closure in an RU-1-9 zoning classification located at tax count number 2419052 in District 2. Okay.

Come on up to the podium. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Can we have your first and last name for the record, please? Yes.

Monica Pritchard of Goldman, Monaghan, Thacker, and Bettine.

How can we help you today?

I represent Mr. and Mrs. Palmer. They're here in the audience today as well, and they are happy to speak on their own behalves as well if anybody has any further questions. But my clients desired to build a pool, and they hired a pool contractor in order to do so. About seven months into building, is that correct? Yes. Seven months into building, so they already have the basin in, they've got the pavers in, we've got a whole pool. They received notice that there was going to be a hold on their validly issued permit because variances were needed due to the fact that the pool was located in the front yard. So since then, this has created, obviously, a nightmare for them, and the project has been on hold for months at a time, and they have been unable to complete the project. The pool is, you know, currently a safety risk because it is open and in the front, and it's built. We're talking about a built structure in a pool. In order to have this righted, we need three variances granted. And as you can see by the renderings, they are in black and white. My client did provide them for me in color, and I'd be happy to give them to you if that would be more helpful as to what this is going to look like, make them up.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

So as you can see by the pictures and everything in our application, we're talking about a structure that's already existing in their home. The way that the property is facing, I don't know if you are familiar with the street, but they have no forward-facing neighbors. So neighbors from the side may have a slight view. It would be semi-obstructed by some of the vegetation and the things that are there, but they may have a slight view, but there's nobody forward-facing.

Anything else?

No.

This is in District 2. Ms. Clemmings, do you want to start off with a question?

I don't have any questions. It's pretty straightforward.

Yes. Thank you. Okay.

I have questions.

Okay. Yes, Ms. Ruffman. Me too. Okay.

We'll come on down the line. Okay. My question is, the house faces, it looks like, is that Brevard County property that it faces, which is on the waterway? I believe so.

It's a sanctuary. It's unbuildable in the front, so they'll never have forward-facing neighbors.

All right. So that is a, okay, that's a restricted property as far as building another house. Yes. Okay. That's my question.

So usually a swimming pool is permitted by a separately certified contractor as opposed to the building contractor. Who would have pulled permit on the house? So I'm asking, did the pool contractor pull a permit for the pool?

Yes. I believe aquatic pools applied for the permit. Okay. Is that correct? Yes.

Yeah. Were they aware that the pool is going to impinge forward of the house?

I can't speak for aquatic pools. Of course. I'm not. I'm here on the Palmer's behalf. Mm-hmm. I can tell you that my clients were completely unaware and relied on professionals and the approval of the county and have received approval from the county every step of the way because this pool has been inspected multiple times at this point.

Okay. Have you approached, well, has your client approached the pool company to rectify this physically?

We have separate conversations going with aquatic pools. But at this point in time, given that the pool is, I would say, 80% to 90% complete at this point, we're looking for a variance to be granted.

Okay. Still, the pool contractor is responsible for this? I meant to phrase that as a question.

Are you asking me if I believe that the pool contractor is responsible for this? Yeah, I'm asking that. I believe that the pool contractor applied for this permit and should have enough knowledge about applying for variances and putting in pools in the county, given the size of this pool contractor and how many pools that they've built.

I'll summarize what you just said as yes.

If that is your summary.

So my only question, again, I have to just say that my mind understand this fully. Yes, Chairman. So is the pool company, but they issued a variance at first in error. That's what they're saying, right? And now they need to, oh, they didn't do it in error.

There was no variances applied for. There was a permit applied for. The permit was approved. So there was no variances issued in error. If anything, the permit was issued in error because the permit, they should have been told that variances would be needed for what they were looking to do. And I could understand if we were in the initial stages of this, but we've got a pool.

Okay. So now we have this pool in the front of our house. We do. And now you need the variance to finish up the last leg of the pool to make it in the code. Correct. Correct. Okay. And I see you also send us a copy of the pool alarm. That's just to show you have alarm on the pool. Is that what that was for?

Yeah. I mean, they're taking every safety precaution that they can. Okay.

Okay. All right. That's my question. Is there a copy of the drawing that was used to pull the permit? Is that what this is?

I think the drawings that I attached are stamped.

I think this one?

Yes. You can see that the drawings, like the map of the boundary survey where it shows the pool in the front, that is stamped. And this was used as part of the permit application. And you can see where it says reviewed up top, along with I included a copy of the building permit. And these were all attachments to the permit, the renderings as far as what the pool would look like. It was included, but this is in color. So you can see it better than the black and white application.

But are the drawings consistent with the final? Yes. The drawings are consistent with the final product. Okay.

Yes.

So they've...

There's been no change in... No change in the decision. No. Okay. There's been no change.

All right.

Mr. Humboldt?

Yes. I have a question for Mr. Voting. Okay. In our handout here, it says the permit for the swimming pool location was issued in error. What exactly does that mean?

It means that the reviewer for the zoning department made a mistake and didn't review it for being in front of the front building line, along with the screen enclosure that's going to be in the separate permit. The county person we're saying, correct? Permit reviewer for the zoning department.

So I'm a little confused. He said he put the swimming pool in the right place and the wrong place. It was supposed to be in the back?

No.

The code requires a swimming pool to be five feet behind the front building line of the house. The front building line of the house is the line that's most forward of the house. So it has to be five feet behind it. The screen enclosure can be up to that, but can't be over it.

So I understand your question. Your question is, did somehow this change? It didn't change.

My question is, the reviewer was wrong. How did nobody notice they're putting a giant swimming pool in the wrong place?

Unfortunately, my clients are not real estate attorneys. That's my job. And I got brought in after this. So my clients applied. They told their pool contractor what they wanted to do. The pool contractor applied for the permit. It was always meant to be built in the front yard based on the renderings. And it wasn't until the pool was about 80% to 90% completed that construction was put on hold. And that's when it was noticed that variances were not applied for and a permit was approved in error.

Any other questions? Anybody else have any other questions, board members? Okay. I'm going to just ask the audience. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to oppose or in favor of this? Would you like to speak? Seeing none, come on back up. Who would like to make a motion?

I make a motion to approve the variance as requested, depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with the revision date of 1-2-2026.

I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion to approve by Ms. Clemmings, a second by Dr. Fast.

And just to clarify, you're talking about all three because there's actually three.

I make a motion to approve all three variance requests as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with the revision date of 1-2-2026.

I will second that. Okay. I'm going to read the six. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or builders in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requests that would 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. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in an identical zoning classification. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved otherwise detrimental. We have a motion to approve and a second. We'll go by the individualized board members. Mr. Hoffman? I oppose. You oppose. Dr. Bass? I approve. You approve. Myself, I approve. I still have some questions.

But I oppose. You oppose? Yeah, unless I can get some answers.

Do we stop now, lawyer and Mr. Attorney?

I can withdraw the motion and open it up for discussion.

I'd like to withdraw the motion so we can answer his questions so we can work on his variance today. I withdraw. And you can open it up for discussion. And now I'm opening up for discussion. Mr. Humbert.

Mr. Boudy, I just want to make sure I understand. You said it has to be, the pool would have to be even with the front of the house. No, the pool has to be five feet behind the front of the house. Behind the front of the building. Yes. The actual building of the house, right? Yes. Okay.

And it's our understanding that with the variance that would take place and it would be okay, correct?

Yes, they have three different variances to take care of this problem.

So right now, it's in the front yard. The pool never moved. It's a new pool, correct? That's a new pool. They proved it.

He's saying that the distance from the front of the home to the pool needs to be at least five feet.

So let's discuss this out loud because I want to make sure we're all clear. So the pool was built. It's new. It was in the front yard. It never moved. They just didn't have a variance for it. They had a permit for it, but not a variance, correct? Correct. And now they have to come for three variances to get it approved so that now they can enjoy the pool in the front yard.

Well, they can complete the construction. We'll complete the construction to enjoy it. Because we're almost there. Right.

We're 80%?

We're 80 to 90% there.

Would it be the only pool in the neighborhood in the front yard?

It's on a dead-end street in Merritt Island. Right. I'm asking this lady to question. This is the attorney. It looks like it from the aerial, yes.

So on that street, correct. Correct. But, like I said, my client, if you look at the aerial of the neighborhood, there is nobody forward-facing to that. It's an unbuildable area.

My question was, is that the only pool in the neighborhood in the front yard?

To our knowledge, there are about 12 others in the vicinity. In that street, you're correct.

So it's, okay.

No more questions on them. That is all safe space.

Anybody else have any questions? Just so we all get an understanding of this. So thank you. Now we would like to make a motion. Who would like to make the motion, please? Ms. Clemons?

I make a motion to approve all three variance requests as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with a revision date of 1-2-2026. Do we have a second?

I second. Now we will do individualized votes. I still oppose. Mr. Hoffman, oppose? I still approve. Ms. Dr. Bass, approve. I approve. I'm opposed. Mr. Humberg, oppose. Ms. Clemons, approve. I approve. This motion has just passed. Now do I have to read the six points again? Just to be safe, I will. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, 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 identical zoning, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in an identical zoning classification, and that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, and last, 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. We have a motion to approve, a second, and we have two nays, but this variance has passed. Thank you.

Our next one, Mr. Bode, please. Yes, item H5, Johnson Family Trust requests seven variances of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for accessory structures and an AU zoning classification. Located tax count number 2413235 in District 2.

Good afternoon. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, another with the truth? I do. Can you state your name for the record place?

Yes, it's Zara Shaw, Z-A-R-A-H. Zara Shaw. Thank you. How can we help you this afternoon? So I'm here on behalf of the Johnson Family Trust. They own five acres of Merritt Island. It's also home to Johnson Tree Company. The Johnson Tree Company operates a palm tree service, and they plant and garden and do other things. Well, so what we're looking for, it's the six variances. Along with this business, it requires equipment, trucks, trailers, and things like that to operate the tree service. And as part of that, along the east side of the property, they've erected equipment covers, if you will, carports, things like that. They've been up there for a couple of decades. In fact, some were probably replacing other structures. I have a photo here, if it would help demonstrate Merritt Perks.

You want to put it in to show us, or no? No, that's okay. Oh, okay.

Sorry. So that is some of the variances requested along the east side of the property. On the south side of the property is the house garage slash workshop and an RV cover. I'll speak first about the house. The house was the original post office of Merritt Island. It was built in 1936. The house and the garage associated with it. It's unlikely that there was any setback restrictions, and it certainly would have met any requirements. So the house has been there a long time, 90 years. And that's a couple of more of the variances. And the third one is the RV shelter that was probably put up about seven or eight years ago. Unfortunately, when it was erected, it extends beyond the facade of the house, but not beyond the fascia board, if you will, at the soffit. So it's just really close to meeting the requirement of being at or behind the front of the house. And I also have a picture of that I would share with the board that shows the post from the RV cover and the facade of the house. And there are no complainants. They have a great relationship with the neighbors to the east, which is an empty 4.3-acre lot, and a great relationship with the neighbors to the north, which is 44-point-some acre, empty with the exception of a house on the river. So it's just an agricultural working tree farm, and they just like to keep their equipment dry, out of the weather. And they've been there for a couple of decades, and so we would just ask that you guys look at and consider approving the variances.

Okay. I see. This is in Ms. Clemming's district.

Would you like to start with the question? Sure. Can you tell me what number on the boundary survey that you provided, what number this is?

I'm not sure which one was provided. I'm not sure which one was provided. That was quite a while ago. Perhaps Mr. Bode can answer that.

Of these three structures on the east side of the property? Sure. It's all three of those. Okay. I'm good for right now. Well, actually, let me take that back. Okay. And then this one, I'm assuming, is this pad in the front.

Which one?

Okay.

Okay.

I really need to speak into the microphone when addressing the board.

So, the second picture he provided is number six on the survey, boundary survey. And then the first picture he provided is numbers one, two, and three on the boundary survey. And one, two, and three were erected about five years ago? Is that right? Which ones? I'm sorry. The RV cover? No, that was number one.

Just the RV cover was maybe six, seven years ago. That one.

It says five on the form. Okay. And then what about this? When was this? A couple of decades. A couple of decades. Yes, ma'am.

And in fact, I think, believe some of those were replaced original ones that were there preceding that.

I'm assuming no permits pulled on either of those? I'm not sure. Okay. Would you know the answer to that?

The RV cover is for variance number five and variance number seven. Right, but no permits were pulled, correct?

Pardon? We don't have any active permits on file for those? No. I think that's my questions for right now. Thank you.

Mr. Humbert?

No questions.

Dr. Bass? You said that this property is being used as a business?

Well, it's a combination home, and they run Johnson Tree Service on that property. So it's 4.91 acres.

And it's residential?

No, ma'am.

It's agricultural. Property directly to the east, which is vacant, is that residential? I can't speak to the classification.

I just know that the property to the east is also zoned AU, agricultural residential, the vacant parcel to the east.

Thank you, Paul. And there is a house to the west? There is. That's a home? Yes. And yet, your property is being used as a business?

It's not my property. It's the Johnson Family Trust, but yes. Okay, I don't have any more questions.

Yeah, I have a question. Property to the east, the property to the east, the one that is vacant, there appears to be a tree line right there along the boundary. What is the drainage situation on that property to the east? Does your water go over onto that? Does that have its own drainage? I can't speak to that. You haven't seen it?

I just don't know. And to be honest, I don't know that it's ever come up with the Johnson family. And I know they have a great rapport with the neighbor. In fact, we offered to come and speak to this if needed, but we told them we didn't need it.

Well, my concern is that the house to the west looks like it's right on the boundary. It is. And if they tried to develop this property to the east, your sheds are going to be right on that boundary line if they decide to cut off, as they did here, a flag lot for a residence or something. And I was just wondering if, and you can't answer this, but I'll explain my thoughts. Or there might be a drainage easement there that would save you from having them come too close to the fence on that side.

Duly noted. That's smart.

And you're talking about the east property, right? The east property. Is there a reason for there to be a buffer there? I got you. To any future buildings? I appreciate that. But you don't have the answer to that? I don't have the answer to that. Because we don't have a survey that shows that.

I probably will call Paul in the next couple of days and ask him.

Well, it's less that we know in the next five minutes.

Well, I understand. I didn't know it was crucial to the decision. So, I mean, I... It's a thought.

I got you. It eases the... I doubt if there's any drainage easements on either of these properties. They aren't really platted properties. They're pretty big sections of land that was subdivided sometime in the early 20s or 30s, probably. All right. Of not this year. Okay. I mean, not this millennium. All right.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

So, my only question would be, maybe, Dr. Bass, so that house to the left, so that means someone's living in that house, right? That's a residential. Then you have the AU, and the other side is AU as well. But you're just asking us for seven things today. That's correct. And that's because this house was built in the 1930s. So, I get it. Okay. I have no questions. Ms. Clemons?

I could do, and it's for Paul. On the variance request of number four, what is that structure? What is the number four structure?

I would have to look at the map.

I could answer it.

But it's the very front of the home.

I think that's the detached garage that's right in line with about the front of the house. Okay. Yes.

God, all this property, and you just stuck it right in the front. That's a lot of property, yeah. It was a long time ago. I get it.

I wonder what they were thinking in 1936.

And the next question is, this is the only access to the property on this far east side. Is that correct? Or is there, because I see fencing.

So, there's the entrance that you see adjacent to the house on the east of the house. And then they also have an entrance on the west side. That could be okay. There's a fence along North Tropical Trail. Actually, there's two penetrations through the fence onto the property. Okay. To make it easier to bring in and take out trees.

I don't really have any other questions.

Okay. Dr. Bass, you have a question?

I have another one. So, variances one, two, and three are the ones that are basically adjacent to or on the property line, which is to the east.

So, none of the property, none of the variances, none of them are on the property line. They all are off the property line. They exist six or seven feet onto an easement, a 15-feet easement, I think. So, none of them are on the property line.

Dr. Bass, this is one, two, and three. I'm just asking where it is in relation to the empty land. One, two, three. Yes. Empty land on the east.

Excuse me. Just a point of clarification. Yes, sir. Well, you said 15-foot easement, but you meant setback, correct? Okay. Yes. Yeah, easement's a lot different than that, and that would have affected the other side. I understand.

This is not my business, so I'm going to misspeak. I apologize.

Any other questions? Okay. Let me see if there's anyone in the audience that'd like to oppose or speak in favor of this. Can you come forward? Seeing none, you can come back. Ms. Clements, how would you like to vote?

I don't think anybody's upset. I make a motion to approve all seven variances as requested, depicted on the survey provided by the applicant, with a revision date of 12-16-2025.

I'll second. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Clements, a second by Mr. Humberg. Now I'll read the six points. I should have had them out, sorry. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or builders, and are applicable zoning classifications. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of this applicant. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands. 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 that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the gradient of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved. We have a motion to approve. A second. We're going to do an individualized vote. Mr. Hoffman?

I vote to approve.

Dr. Bass? No. I approve. Mr. Humberg? I approve. Okay. Your variance have passed. Thank you very much. Our next variance, please, Mr. Bode.

Yes. Item H-6. Sean Matthew-Has-Hasbar requests two variances. Chapter 62, Article 6 of our county code for the lot width and lot size in a GU zoning classification located at tax account number 2402180 in District 1.

Is the applicant here? Sean Matthew. It looks like they're not here. Calling one last time for Sean Matthew-Hasbar. Okay.

Can we go on to the next variance, please? They were supposed to be represented by Ernie Hardy. Is he here?

Is Ernie Hardy here? Seeing none coming to the podium.

Would you all like to table it to the next meeting? Yeah. Do we need to table this? We could table it. We could table it to the next. I make a motion that we table this application until the next meeting, which is going to be the date of April 15th meeting. I'll second that. Tax day. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Our next order of business, please.

Application H7, Kurt and Cornelia Fallbacker. Request variance to Chapter 62, Article 6 of our county code for a pool screening closure and a PUD zoning classification. Located tax count number 2627742 in District 4.

Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Can you state your first and last name for the record, please? Timothy Sapp. How can we help you today?

I'm here today on behalf of Kurt and Corina Fallbacker. We are requesting a variance to allow a modest expansion of existing pool and screen enclosure that is partially located within the required building setback. The property contains legal established improvements, including a residence and a swimming pool, portions of which are already within the setback. These existing conditions significantly limit the remaining buildable area on the lot. The request represents the minimum relief necessary to allow the reasonable use of the existing pool area. Thank you.

Okay. I see this is in your district at the pass. Would you like to start with the question, Amy?

Yes. It looks from the picture that I have here that the pool is on the east side of the house, and that is on the waterway. Correct. So you're not impeding anybody else's home or anybody else's view or any access to the waterway with this. We are not. No. It looks pretty straightforward then, in my mind. No more questions. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Hoffman? Nope.

Ms. Clemmings?

Yeah.

I can't quite tell. Are there, is there fencing throughout the entire property? No. There's no fencing at all?

No fencing.

Okay. No more questions. Is there going to be a fence around the pool?

There's a screen. It's a screen. Okay.

Okay. All right. Mr. Humber?

Uh, no, well, hang on. No. No question.

Okay. Well, I'll see if there's anyone in the audience. You can step to the side, please. Is there anyone here speaking to oppose or in favor of this variance? Can you come up now? Seeing none, come back. Dr. Bass?

Yes, I make a motion to approve the variance depicted in the revision of January 15th, 2026. Do we have a second?

I second. Okay. We have Dr. Bass to approve, a second by Ms. Clemmings. I'll read the six steps. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, that granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in identical zoning classification, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter, and that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, and that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved. We have a motion to approve by Dr. Bass, a second by Ms. Clemmings, an individualized vote. Mr. Hoffman? I approve. I approve. I approve. I approve. I approve. Your variance have passed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good day. You're welcome. Our next variance, please.

Item H&M United Corporation request variance chapter 62, article 9, Brevard County Code for a freestanding sign in a BU-1 zoning classification located at tax count number 2413742 in District 1.

Good afternoon. Just go to the mic. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Can you state your first and last name for the record, please?

Carmine Ferraro, Crossover Commercial Group Inc. here representing the applicant T&M United Corporation.

Okay. And how can we help you this afternoon?

Yes. I am here today on behalf of T&M United to ask you to give consideration to the approval of a variance for a height restriction that is in the BU-1 zoning category of 20 feet for an existing sign that we have on the property. The reason we are standing here asking for this today is part of the process of refurbishing this existing gas station that's been on the corner of U.S. Highway 1 and High Point Drive for over 25 years is now finally ready to get a full renovation. They're going to tear down the existing gas station. They're going to build a new gas station with a restaurant. They are addressing parking issues. They're addressing all kinds of things as part of the normal site plan process. However, as key to this business has been for 25 years, as I'm going to go into a little more detail, is that this sign is primarily necessary for this business. It's an existing highway sign, which has been, as again, servicing the community for 25 years. We have been told we cannot get the site plan to the next stage of review and approval unless we receive a variance for this sign because it's non-conforming due to the reason of wanting to demolish the existing gas station. So, I'm going to go ahead and present just a small presentation. We have a picture up there for you. Is that on your screens or do you need a copy of it? Okay. So, as I said, the sign's been existing for over 25 years, servicing the community as a highly visible directionary sign to this primary refueling station. As stated, it services the traffic, transit traffic on U.S. Highway 1, as well as the transitory traffic between Orlando and Brevard County that comes along the east and west sides of the 528B Line Expressway. I would point out, it is the only primary refueling point from Orlando Airport. To Brevard County. So, people that are driving along Stair Road 528 are benefited by the visibility of this sign to determine I need to get off of 528 and get gas so I don't run into a situation. The sign does not create any safety concerns, blocking or hindering any kind of visibility to critical installations. No airspace is violated, nor are any airport zones. The sign does not impact any residential area. Fronting U.S. Highway 1 and High Point Drive, this is a commercial area. To the south, we have a hotel. To the east, we have offices all the way to the high point of High Point Drive. We have vacant commercial land to the north. And to the east, we have U.S. Highway 1 and then more transitionally, the Florida East Coast Railway. Additionally, if any of you are familiar with this area, you know that High Point is one of the higher points. I got in trouble many years ago for saying it was the highest point. But it's one of the higher points in Brevard County. We sit at the bottom of that on U.S. 1. It goes to a peak. And then it transitions down to the Indian River where all the residences are located. So there's no direct impact to any residences whatsoever. There are no adverse comments from the staff report that's been provided to you. And finally, I'd like to point out that we have a precedent to ask for you to consider in our request for approval. Your board recently approved a similar request for a company under the name of Park & Cruise back on November 19th of 2025, where we share similarity with us. The request was proved that had a highway sign visible to 528. Where we are less impactful to you in terms of supporting our request is that they received 60 feet over the height of their 20 feet. And we are only asking for 40 feet. Whereas they required a variance for, excuse me, increased in the size of the sign, our existing sign, which is 12 by 12, will remain the same. Therefore, it stays underneath the requirement of 150 square feet. We would just ask that you give these considerations as you consider this request, and we would ask for your approval today. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, that's district one. That's my area. But I'm going to start off the question with Mr. Hoffman.

Can I say something really quick? Yes. Is he authorized? Is he the, because I didn't, his name didn't match.

Yes, he got authorized a couple of days ago or so. Last week, I think it was. Okay. Mr. Hoffman?

So there was some controversy over that previous approval. We were admonished after the fact by the Merritt Island community, whatever. Are you within any of those overlays of other authorities? I do not believe we are, no. Okay. I don't want another repeat of that. That's all I have. Okay.

Dr. Bass? I have no questions. I'm just going to say, I do remember this very well, and I definitely approve the other one. And let me just say this. I'm a New Yorker, right? And I believe in these signs because when you come into an area and you don't know the area, you need to see signs. You can't see late at night. It's dark out here. You know, you need to look up and see a sign. So I definitely, yeah.

It's going to be much prettier, too, if you see it. Really. It needs a facelift.

Yeah. Yeah. Ms. Humbert?

No questions.

No questions.

Ms. Clemons? I seek confirmation. The height currently is at 62 feet, and the variance request is for 40 feet over?

The current height is at 60 feet, and the variance request would be 40 feet over 60. It says 42 feet. Oh, 42. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the actual rendering. So if it says 42, that is correct because they measured it.

So it is currently at 62 feet?

Yes. Yes.

No questions. Any other questions? Is there anyone here that would like to oppose or speak in favor or against this variance in the audience? Seeing none, come back, please. Okay. Who would like to make a motion?

Mr. Hoffman? Yeah. I'm going to have to get my glasses out to get surveys and stuff. I make a motion that we approve this height variance for the sign in this application in accordance with the survey dated. I may still need help, even with my glasses. Six-five. Is it? Six-five. Twenty-twenty-five. Oh, there it is. Okay. Six-five. Twenty-twenty-five.

So we have a second. I'll second it. Thank you, Dr. Bass. So we have a motion approved by Mr. Hoffman, a second by Dr. Bass, and I'll read the six hardships. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance request would not confer in the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement on the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classifications. And we have that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have a motion to approve by Mr. Hoffman, a second by Dr. Bass. Individualized vote. Mr. Hoffman? I approve. Dr. Bass? I approve. I approve. Opposed. Opposed. Okay. Well, this variance have passed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Board. You're welcome. Can we have the next variance, please?

Yes. Item H-9, Sheptoeing LLC requests two variances, Chapter 62, Article 6, Bevard County Code for offense in a BU-2 zoning classification. Located tax count number 2718894 in District 4.

Okay. Good afternoon.

Hey, how you doing?

Good. Can I swear you in? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Yes. And can I have your first and last name for the record? First name Gregory, last name Shepard. Okay. How can we help you this afternoon?

Yeah, so I'm here today asking for approval on the variance that I have, an impound yard here located on Aurora Road, where you'll see there's other tow yards there. Right now, I'm out of compliance because my fence that I need to put up needs to be at least six foot tall. And it's, and the approved, can I, can I bring this up real quick? Yes. Okay. I just want to bring up a couple things.

Thank you.

So what you see in the blue is the one that's actually approved. The one in the red is the variance that I'm asking for. And you can clearly see that I need that space. If I don't have that space, I'm going to lose out on about 30, about 36 cars. And the approval part, I can only possibly get 10 in there. But my truck, you can see how big my trucks are. When we bring them accidents, when we bring them in, because we're approved with Palm Bay, Melbourne, Western Melbourne, and the Atlantic police rotations. So we can't even get the truck in there to even back the unit up if we go with the blue. So that's why we're asking for the variance that you see in the red and the height, so we can meet, so we can be in compliance with the police department.

Okay. I see this is District 4. Dr. Bash, you want to start with the questioner?

So this is, your property is actually on Aurora Road and Croton Road, right on the corner? We're not Croton.

Hibiscus. Hibiscus.

Oh, okay. All right. All right. And this is a business, correct? That is correct. No, I don't have any other questions at this moment. Okay. Mr. Hoffman?

No questions. Okay. My questioner would be, I just need to make sure I get an understanding. Sure. This is a toll service business, and why we need this fence, a six-foot-tall fence, is because it's going to help you get more cars within your area and to block it off, correct? Is that what you're saying?

Okay. I didn't explain myself accurately. So the requirement, the police department, they require six-foot. Correct. Okay. So you're bringing a lot of damaged vehicles in there. You don't want no kid trying to camo the fence. Right. Because you've got a lot of broken glass, metal, and stuff like that. So it's to prevent people from coming in and also protect the valuables of that customer, cars that we picked up.

What's presently up right now?

Nothing right now. Oh, it's just empty? Yeah. Oh, okay. So you don't even have a fence up. No, it was a fence there, but it was a four-foot fence. Okay. So I already talked to the police department. They okayed it. I told them that I got a variance coming today. So here I am today.

Okay. So you really need a variance to protect the public, to protect the safety, and to protect your business as well. Okay. No more questions.

Mr. Humbert? You're not a certified impound lot for the police. You're just trying to make yours more secure, correct?

No, no, no.

No?

I got a contract with Palm Bay. Oh, you do? Yes. Palm Bay, West Melbourne, Melbourne. There should be a copy there.

This is something new, right, for you? No? No, I had a lot before in a number of locations. No, no, no. I mean in this location. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

So this is a new location for you?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Clemmings? No questions. Okay. Let me see if there's anyone in the audience. Just step to the side. Is anyone in the audience opposing or in favor of this variance would like to speak? Seeing none, come back.

Dr. Bass? I'll make the motion. Yes. I make a motion to approve the two variances as depicted in the survey, 11-11-25. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay.

Dr. Bass, approve. We have a second by Mr. Humbert. And I'll read the sixth. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested would not conferring the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures, or structures, or structures, or structures in the identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by the properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved, or otherwise detrimental, to the public welfare. We have a motion by Dr. Bass to approve. A second by Mr. Humbert. And we're going to do an individualized vote. Mr. Hoffman.

I approve.

Dr. Bass? I approve. Sonia, I approve. Aye. I approve. Your variance have passed. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay, Mr. Bowden, can we have our next one, please?

Yes, item H10, Elevation Renovation, LLC. Request two variance of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code, for a principal structure in an RU-1-11 zoning classification. Located tax count number 2431983 in District 2.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, honorable board members. My name is Cliff Reperger. My business address is 2101 Waverly Place, Melbourne, Florida. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Whitebird, and we represent the applicant Elevation Renovation, LLC. We do have some, I don't know if, can I access the electronic copy of the survey in the aerial from here? I don't know if I could do that right. I could just pass out the hard copies if that makes it easier for everybody.

You could put it, yeah. You could put it under the lamp there. You could use that, right?

Let me, can I approach to pass these out? Yes.

Yeah. Can I interrupt for just a second? Sure. This question's for you, attorney. I receive notifications for my proximity for both H-10 and H-11. Is there anything I need to do? I live in proximity of this property, and then I own a property in proximity of H-11.

Yeah, that might be a conflict. You might want to recuse yourself from the considerations on these. Okay. Do I still ask questions or no? You can. Okay. But you won't be able to vote.

Okay.

Not to counter your board's attorney's opinion. I don't think you have a conflict because I don't think you have any financial interest in the property, but certainly if you see fit to declare a conflict, that's fine. We have no problem with you participating in the discussion if you want to file the disclosures afterwards. As Mr. Bodie indicated, the—

Wait, I'm sorry. So what do we—what's the result? Are you going to participate or you're not—are you going to excuse yourself?

For H-10, I have no problem participating.

Okay. She can ask questions or participate in discussion, but she's going to recuse herself from the vote. Okay. Thank you for the record. Go ahead. You can go.

Thank you. So, as Mr. Bodie indicated, there are two variances that we are seeking today. One of them is a rear setback, and they're both for a residential structure. The residential structure is located in the Riviera Isles Platted Subdivision. It's 1775 East Riviera Drive. The first variance that we're seeking is 11 feet from the required 20-foot setback—rear setback for the subject structure. And the second variance is a 0.3-foot setback from the required 7.5-feet side setback to the north for the residential structure. If you look at the survey that I've passed out, you can see that the areas in which the property, the existing structure, is currently encroaching into the required setback are indicated on the survey in red circles. And also, you can see on the side setback on the north side corner is where the existing structure is in violation of the side setback. The existing structure has been in its current location for over 50 years. The property was built in 1973. Our clients acquired the property in October of 2025. After acquiring the property, they applied for a building permit to do renovations to the subject existing structure. The renovations are not planned to alter the footprint, the existing footprint, in any way. They're solely internal—primarily internal renovations as far as—but the footprint will not be altered. There may be some external painting or modification in that way, but not going to impact the existing footprint of the structure. And, again, the property has been in that location or been in that configuration since 1973, I believe. If you look at the aerial of the subject property, you can see that's the existing structure as it is today. And, again, we're not seeking to change that. We're just seeking to seek approval for the deviation to the variances that currently exist so that we can proceed with the renovations to the existing structure. It's worth noting that the property is at the end of the cul-de-sac, and so it is a pie-shaped lot that is more narrow to the front or to the east—I'm sorry, the west side of the property. And so it more narrow—it has more narrow frontage on its west side. Behind the property is the banana river, so there are no other neighbors or adjacent property owners that would be affected by the rear variance that is being requested to that setback. As far as the side setback on the north side, it's a very minor variance that we're seeking. There's also a letter of support in the package from the neighbor to the north, which we appreciate it, that they don't have any problem with the existing—or with the request as to the encroachment to the north that is currently existing. The—we've identified in the staff report—I know that you go through the criteria, so I won't go through them all—but we've identified the justification for the variance. Obviously, the property's been in that configuration for quite some time, and this will allow us to proceed with the renovations that we've applied for. We're not seeking any additional—any approvals that go beyond what would be allowable in that zoning classification for other residential properties. And we don't believe that it's—we believe that it's in harmony and that it doesn't have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. And so we would respectfully request that you grant the requested variances so we can move forward with our renovation.

Thank you. Ms. Clemens? Oh, this is the one you're excusing. That's the one you're excusing yourself from, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

I will comment that it will be a welcomed renovation. Okay.

Duly noted. Mr. Hoffman? Just a clarification. There's a five-foot PUD easement that circles the entire plot—parcel, and none of these variances creates an impingement on that drainage easement. Um, so I just don't see any problem with it.

Okay. Dr. Bez? I don't see any problem with it either. Um, just in general, looking to the cul-de-sac to the north, which is a house in the same location, uh, it looks like it may even be slightly bigger than this one. Uh, so things were built differently in the 1970s, weren't they?

Yeah. 1973. I have no questions. I have one. Okay.

Why even bother with the variance if you're only doing work inside? The staff requires the variances in order to proceed with the building permit. Okay.

I'm sorry. Say that again? We have to have the variance because of what?

Because the structure is in violation of those setbacks, technically there's a violation such that staff cannot approve the building permit. Okay.

Have you had to have any Army Corps of Engineer approvals?

Uh, I have our, uh, I have a, uh, our principal with us, uh, Jamie DeRosa. Do we know if we have, uh, Army Corps permits or are we required to get? I don't, I don't believe we would be required to get any of those for internal renovations, but.

No. Uh, just for the records, do you still tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am.

And can you state your name for the record, please? Jamie DeRosa. Okay. And what would you like to say? Uh, to my knowledge, no. Um, we've only been requested to come to the variance for the internal renovations, all interior, but the paint, like you mentioned. Um, we applied for the survey, we applied for the permit, and here we are. So that's, that's all we've been required to do so far because everything is interior. Um, it's on the water. It's, the structure's been there since I was born in 73. I grew up on some point place. Uh, those houses were built by pen and papers, you know. So, um, for, for our knowledge, it's just interior and residential.

Okay. Good. Thank you. Now, I'm just going to ask the audience, is there anyone here that would like to speak to oppose or in favor of this variance? Would you like to come to the podium? Seeing none, come back. I saw the letter, right, of approval. I'm sorry? I saw the letter of approval from the neighbor. Yes. And we have the letter of approval from the neighbor. Anyone would like to make a motion?

Oh, you're going to make me read the, yes. I make a motion that we approve both, uh, variances requested as shown on the survey dated. 10, 17. 10, 17. 25. 25.

Okay. A second? I'll second. Okay. We have a motion to approve by Mr. Hoffman. A second by Dr. Bass. Now I'll read the sixth. If special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings and applicable zoning classification, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, that granting the variance request would not confer with the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in identical zoning classification, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, and that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved. We have a motion to approve by Mr. Hoffman, a second by Dr. Bass. Individualized votes. Mr. Hoffman.

I vote to approve.

Dr. Bass. Approved. I approve. I approve. Your variance have approved. Passed. Thank you. Our next variance, please, Mr. Bodie.

You're welcome. Yes, item H11, J. Scrimble, LLC, request variance to Chapter 62, Article 6 of our county code for the lot with and an RU-2-30 zoning classification located at tax count number 246-536 in District 2. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And can you state your first and last name for us?

I'm Bruce Moya, representing the property owner. Okay. I believe I'm the last one on the list, right? You're the last one on the list. So, yeah, it's good to be in front of you guys today. I have a request for a variance for a piece of property that we're going to redevelop in Merritt Island. It is within the Myra District. We did meet with the Myra board and they approved the variance 7-0 to recommend approval by this board. The current property is a old, we could say hotel, I think it's more like a motel, built in the 70s, again, another old 70s building. Not really been kept in the best of repair and they're very much looking forward to redeveloping this property into a multifamily development, upscale with a lot of amenities. Myra's approved this property in the redevelopment form for the site plan that's proposed. And what we did not know is the zoning that it has, it doesn't have the required frontage. It's short by 10 feet. The property's been in existence for a very long time. It has, it's kind of a unique piece of property. It's basically a big triangle with like a flag stem that comes out to 520, which is the entrance not only to this property, but also to the alleyway that serves about five or six commercial properties along 520. So it comes out to the light, so it's a skinny frontage, but a very wide lot, but the frontage is taken at the right of way and it's supposed to be 100 feet and it's only 90. So we're asking for this variance of only 10 feet so that we can do the much needed redevelopment of this property and much to the desire of Myra as well and the property owner and the developer. So I'm here to answer any questions that you have.

Okay, well I see this is in District 2. Ms. Clemens?

May I ask questions, yes? Can you expand on what the proposed project is? I know you said...

Yeah, so the proposed project is to, and the developer has done this in Central Florida and it's a really kind of a cool product where they take these old hotels and they, one they're going to do, they're going to put a third floor on the two-story structure. They're going to build a new three-bedroom component to it. So they'll have one bedrooms, I'm sorry, three, did I say three? Yeah, three bedrooms and then some townhomes as well. So it'll be kind of a mixed residential use. They'll have all kinds of amenities. They're going to fix up the pool. They're going to put in all kinds of... So the motel stays. The motels, the building, the two buildings are going to stay, we're going to completely renovate them, add a third floor, totally renovate the clubhouse, or what is now the office will become a clubhouse for the residents, and then we're going to add a building, two buildings for additional units and a series of 10 townhomes as well. So we're... Where are the townhomes located? On the... It's kind of a funky property because it doesn't face north or west, or it goes to the diagonal, so it would be at the west end of the property.

On the west side of the property is where the townhomes?

On the west side of the property, yes. What's the plan for the number of units? It is, I believe it's 164, if I remember correctly, total. What's the average rent? That I do not know. I apologize, I do not know that. Are the majority of them going to be three bedrooms, or the majority... No. So the hotels are going to remain one bedrooms, and they're going to renovate the interior and the exterior, build the two- and three-bedroom units as well, and then the townhomes.

What would be the lease terms?

I'm sorry, I do not know. We did present this to the Board of County Commissioners, and we had all that information that we gave to them when we had the rezoning. We had the pamphlets with the brochures and what the units were going to look like and what all the amenities were. They approved it. I believe it was unanimous as well. Myra approved it unanimous. But as far as how they're actually going to run the business, I do not have that information.

Do you have any information on the parking?

So the parking, we are designing it. We have... We're maintaining kind of the parking. We're going to obviously fix it up because you can't even tell where the parking stripes are now, Arlie. So we'll fix all that up. We are going... We have submitted for site plan, and part of the site plan, we did submit a request for a parking reduction similar to the apartment complex off of Plamosa. So because most of it's going to be... It's being in Myra and being right there in the commercial district, there'll be a lot of walking. So we're going to make pedestrian connections to kind of encourage more of a pedestrian activity around the area as opposed to accommodating cars.

And can you recall the amenities? Are you planning on keeping the tennis courts and... No.

The tennis courts will go. Okay. Yeah.

That's all my questions right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Humber?

No. No questions.

Mr. Hoffman?

Yeah. We... In the past, and I don't remember if it was a year or two years ago, we looked at a project very similar to this down in the US 192 down in the West Melbourne area. Was it the same company?

Different company, but I was the engineer for that one as well. Now, you look familiar. That's why I was... Yeah.

It's actually done. I think it's occupied as soon. So the single bedrooms were meant for lesser social economic...

That was an affordable housing development. Yeah. And we asked for a variance for room size.

We're not asking for a room size variance today. My question is, though, the same sort of occupancy. Public transportation out on, I guess, whatever this is, 520 buses? There's a bus stop. Can you address a bus stop right there, I believe?

Yeah. There is. Yeah. We're actually going to be building... There's no sidewalk that connects the buildings to the road, so we're going to be constructing that so they can actually get to 520 without walking in the roadway.

So my question is, are you going to put up a bus stop at the entrance of your facility? He doesn't need to.

It's a walking distance.

No, no, no. It's already right there. Yeah, it probably wouldn't meet the separation criteria if it's already there. No, I'm not... I'm asking whether you're going to put up a bus shelter. A bus shelter. Yes. That hasn't come up yet.

Okay. We'll think about it. I'll make...

Myra redeveloped its bus shelter. I don't know how that...

I remember a long time ago when I worked here, somebody wanted to put up bus shelters all over the county. They were going to put them up for free and all the bus stops. And their only request was that they were allowed to advertise on them, and the county commission denied the request. So I don't know how they feel about bus shelters, because maybe it encourages advertising.

Myra did several bus shelters throughout Meridot.

Yeah.

Okay. That was kind of a side issue, but... Is that the best?

I was also on the board at the same time with this, the rehab of the old hotel on 192, and it's a great idea, I think, because buildings that are really not enhancing the area at all have become residences that people can afford. They're affordable residences. They're not big houses. So I think it's a great idea that this is being done, is being done more often. So I think it's just great that we can take an old hotel and take that property and make it into affordable housing for younger people to get their first homes and start with. So I think it's great. And the one-on-192 turned out to be quite nice. I'm really pleased. Yes. Yes. Very nice.

Any other questions for them? I guess I need the clarification. Is it considered luxury housing or affordable housing?

No.

It's market rate. It's not going to be luxury or affordable. It's going to be market rate.

And the majority of them are going to be one-bedroom?

But there will be a lot of one-bedrooms. One-bedroom. Exactly. It's affordable by nature, but we're not asking for the affordable criteria. And then one-bedroom, not studio, correct? Not studio. Correct.

Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this or oppose this? Anyone? Okay. Who would like to make a motion? Ms. Clements is not voting on this one, correct?

Okay. I'll do it. Okay. Dr. Bass? I'll make a motion to approve the variance as depicted in the drawing of September 1, 2025. Second? I'll second.

Okay. We have an approval by Dr. Bass, a second by Mr. Humber. I'll read the six. The special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 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. That literal enforcement of the provisions in this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification. Under the provisions of this chapter will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be interest to the area involved. We have a motion to approve by Dr. Bass, a second by Mr. Humberg. We will do an individualized vote. Mr. Hoffman.

I vote to approve.

Dr. Bass. I vote to approve. I vote to approve. Approve. And just for the record noted, Ms. Clemons will not be voting on this variance. Your variance have passed. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there another one? Why are they sitting there? That's actually a part of it. That's what I was talking about. So. It's called Summer Place. Is there any other things, Mr. Bodie, or what's going on?

We can end the meeting, but we're going to have.

Okay. Oh, no, I thought those two were. Yeah.

Okay. We need to do a look at the election for the chair. Yes. I don't know.

Do we need to keep this one that was tabled? Are you guys going to wait for the next one?

No, I was. I don't know. He said he wanted to be the chair. Why is he running? Oh, this concludes our meeting. Oh, that stays still, stay on the. No, we're going to do the vote for the new. You do need to make your votes first. We're going to do the meeting votes. Okay. Elect your chair and your vice chair.

I know I like that.

Okay. So, we're doing the meeting votes for the new chair and assistant chair. Correct? So, we need a nomination. Okay. Let's do a nomination. Mr. Hoffman, you nominate.

I have no nomination.

You have no nomination.

Okay. I do. What's the nomination? Oh, sorry? I will nominate you to maintain the position that you have.

I'll second.

Don't. Don't do that. You just said you wanted to be the chair. You said you wanted to be the chair. Ms. Clemons? I have no nominations. What is going on around here? All right. Call the vote. Call the vote. Call the vote. Call the vote. Call the vote.

Call the vote. Nominations are closed.

So, what I hear, what I hear, well, let me just be honest and open. You know, y'all know what I've been dealing with and going through, so I have missed at least three to four, right? Three to four meetings, because my world was turned upside down. Y'all know that. But I'm proud to say my grandson is in remission, and he's cancer-free, so I'm grateful and thankful we had the bone marrow transplant. So, I don't think I'll be missing three to four back-to-back anymore, but that one knocked me to my knees, I have to say. I couldn't think. I couldn't breathe. I really couldn't, and I was out of work as well. I just couldn't. I stayed at the hospital day and night, so I do apologize that I wasn't here, but I couldn't be here. It was definitely family.

Yes, but considering that's in the past now, and everybody is in remission, I make the motion for you, because you are still in the position, so let's leave it at that. It's okay, but what I want to do fairly- One second. Okay. Let's just be honest with all of you.

Now, if you want to be chair, I'm okay with that. I do. You sure? Yes. But you're going to say assistant chair? Yes.

I can if you want.

Okay. Yes.

Well, we like, I vote that we keep- Well, we got to vote for you. Let's vote for you. Do one at a time. Do the chair first. Yes. Okay.

So, what I hear you saying, you guys were like Sonia Millard to say it, the chairwoman of Board of Adjustments. Let's do a vote. Yes. Mr. Hoffman?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Ms. Clemmons? Yeah. Okay. I'm staying your chair. Thank you very much for your confidence. Now, make a nomination for him. Now, make a nomination for the assistant chair. Vice chair, yeah. To stay, Mr. Humberg. I will second that. We have a second. Mr. Hoffman? Yes. Ms. Clemmons? I second. Our assistant chair is Mr. Humberg, and you did a fantastic job. Thank you so much for stepping in and rocking and rolling.

Yes. I was on trevice.

I know, I know. Where were you? I know.

Oh, I was stuck over. Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, I was overseas for that. Oh, you were overseas. You okay? You did everything. Everything's good? Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So, now that we have everybody back. So, now, for the record, we have the chair, Ms. Sonia Millard, assistant chair, Mr. Humberg, and we will continue to rock and roll with the Board of Adjustments. Thank you all so much. All right. This meeting is now concluded. Now, we have another meeting. Oh, we do? I don't know about it. Okay. Okay.