Board of Adjustment on 2026-08-19 1:30 PM - Aug 19, 2026

...flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Do I just... Call to order. Are there any staff announcements? Of this meeting? No. Of such and such a date? Call to order the Board of Adjustments meeting for August... 19th. 19th? 2026. Any staff announcements? No. Okay. I will start with the function of the board. You want me to read in the... Yeah. Okay. 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 Bovard 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 separately agree by any decision of the Board of Adjustment may, within 30 days after the date the order is signed, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. Mr. Chairman, you have 13 items on your agenda today. Thank you. Bill Huffman is going to read the definition of 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 a specific legal definition in this context and essentially means that without the requested variance, the applicant will have no reasonable use of the subject property under existing development regulations. Personal medical reasons will not be considered as grounds for establishing an undue hardship, sufficient to qualify an applicant for a variance. Economic reasons may be considered only in instances where the landowner cannot yield a reasonable use and or a reasonable return under the existing land development regulations. The applicant must answer in 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 the audience for a moment. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board with members appointed to the Brevard County Board of Commissioners. We'll utilize Robert's rule of conduct in our meetings. The chair is asking all board members not to ask questions while applicants are making their presentation. Once the applicants have completed their presentation, we will begin board questioning with the board member who represents applicants district. We will, when concluded, the questioning is open to the full board. I am asking that the chair recognize each board member. Once all board members have completed their questioning, we will then open 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 the public comment, the applicant will be given an additional time for rebuttal as well as to present their final comments. Once completed, no further comment will be heard from the applicant or the public. We will not use a timer for this meeting. Instead, we are asking each speaker to be concise in what they have to say. It is important that you stay on the subject and avoid information that is not relevant. All persons speaking must provide their name and address for the public record. Those wishing not to verbally state their address may ask the clerk at the podium for an address card. Please fill it out and return it to the clerk. Are there any questions from the board members about the chair procedures? Are there any questions from the applicants about the chair's procedures? Are there any questions from the audience about the chair procedures? Seeing none, the first order of business is to approve minutes from the previous meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? We do. I just wasn't here, so I can't approve the meeting. I can't. I wasn't here either. I wasn't here. Make a motion to approve the minutes. I will second. You were here. Okay. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Meeting minutes approved. Okay. We have our first agenda on the meeting. I don't have the new one. Sorry. Yes, item H1, Resolution 26V00034-R, rescinding a prior action of the Board of Adjustment. Honorable members of the Board of Adjustment, I'm County Attorney Morris Richardson. I'll introduce this item. I'll be replaced shortly for the remainder of your items by Assistant County Attorney Becky Bale. You were previously represented by Assistant County Attorney Greg Hughes. Greg has left our service. He's moved on and is going to be with Pasco County going forward. Becky represented this Board prior to Greg joining us, and I think some of you worked with her before, so she will serve you well, and I thank you for your service. The purpose of this item today is at your meeting on June 17 of 2026, the Board considered a variance request by applicants Michael A. and Heather M. Shannon regarding an accessory structure located on their property on South Pacer Lane in Cocoa. The Board heard all the evidence, and at the end of the hearing, denied the variance request. In reviewing what happened during that hearing subsequent to the meeting, I observed that there were certain procedural errors that occurred. Primarily, this Board meets in the sunshine. Florida's government in the sunshine law requires that all discussions and deliberations prior to an action taken by this Board happen in the sunshine at a publicly noticed meeting. An important part of that is that the public must be able to hear and observe all of the discussions and deliberations between Board members. In that particular hearing, at the close of the evidence, the Board went into deliberation on the subject, sort of off-microphone. The deliberations weren't audible within the chambers, and the Board announced its decision at the end of those deliberations. For those reasons, we're requesting that the Board adopt a resolution rescinding the Board's prior action on that application. It'll be as if no action occurred. The applicant may or may not submit a new variance application. This just merely rescinds the prior Board action. It doesn't grant the variance. It just puts them back in a position as if their variance application had never been heard by this Board. And if you have any questions, I'm glad to answer them. No questions? I'll make a motion that we accept the resolution rescinding prior action of the Board on July 17th? June. June 17th, the resolution for 26V00034-R. I'll second that. Any discussion? Okay. Okay, I call to vote the approval of the rescission of the prior denial. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any opposed? None. Resolution passes. Resolution passes for each one. Thank you very much. Next applicant, Mr. Bode. Yes. Item H2, NH Terra revocable trust request variance of Chapter 62, Article 6 of our County Code for a proposed waterway encroachment in an RU-1-13 zoning classification. Application is 25V00090, and this is located in District 2. This application is continued from the June 17th, 2026 BOA meeting. Okay. Applicant's name? Charles Starr. I live at 1680 Bayshore Drive in Cocoa Beach. Okay. What else is it? Scott Herbert, contractor. Sean Huff. Can we speak into the microphone for us? Sean Huff with Daryl's Docks. Okay. An address, please. 342 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. May I have your address, sir? Sure. 351 South Lakeside Drive, Satellite Beach. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? You swear to trial the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Amen. Yes, sir. Okay, we ready? Whoever's ready. Yeah, go ahead. All right, so we are asking for an extension to put in a boat lift, and we need four more feet. Now, the dock itself, hopefully this will work. I don't know if it does. So the dock itself was constructed as close as possible. Light, shade, it'll work. So the dock itself was constructed as close as possible to the land. This outer pole right there is where there's a drop-off, all right? So anything closer, it's shallow water. So they moved it as close as possible originally, and that is 12 feet. From the mean high or ordinary high water line. What they want to do is put in a boat lift. Okay? So now they're allowed 16 feet out, but they chose not to go 16 feet. They pulled it in. And again, to the area where the drop-off is, otherwise you can't even get a boat in close, if that makes sense. So the idea is to put in a boat lift. But the boat lift that we're putting in is going to be not what you normally see, where everybody has them on pilings. And this is going to be what's called, they refer to it like an elevator lift. So it's... Move it out. Okay, you got to ride it out. There we go. They got it. So it's an elevator lift. And that's not... Normally when you see boat lifts, they're going to be on the pilings, and it's a cradle system, and they come up. This is actually an elevator lift. So what it does is it reduces the footprint in the water, and it's two beams that come out. Now, the four feet is for the length of the beams, but that is in the deployed position where it's on the bottom. The actual deployment that you'll see of the beams coming out is going to be when it comes back, as you see as it angles backwards. It actually pulls the boat back up and over the dock, and it'll only be an additional two feet. And to give you an idea, if you're trying to figure out what two feet is, two feet is two pieces of paper. And that's really for the beam. Now, you can't cut those beams. I mean, it causes the structural integrity an issue. So the reality is it's actually pulling the boat out, and then I did see some concerns about environmental issues with that. The DEP actually prefers the boats to be on boat lifts because when you put them on boat lifts, the boats can stay in the water. But if you put them on boat lifts, you get rid of all the shading. So it's actually environmentally sound to pull your boat out of the water and not leave it in. And that's really what we need the little bit of extra feet for. Okay. Anyone else? Questions for you? This happens to be in my district. I want to clarify what you just said, that you said the DEP prefers the boats to be out because of shading. Okay, yeah. So I've been doing permitting for 25 years, specifically environmental resource permitting for DEP and Army Corps for people. And what happens is that when you put a boat in the water, right, and it just sits there, what does it do? It creates shade, correct? And what does seagrass need? Light. So that when you leave a boat sitting in the water, it actually causes shading purposes. When you pull the boat out of the water, it allows the sunlight to penetrate underneath and allows for seagrass and other aquatic vegetation to persist. And additionally, if you have a little bit of additional add-on there that has really nothing to do with the boat lifts. But this is why, if you looked at the recent permitting, that the DEP always requires that the majority of the dock be at least five feet above mean high water. And that is actually not just for hurricane impact issues, but to allow light penetration. That's also why you have that quarter-inch gap, or half-inch gap, excuse me, between the boards. It's all about light penetration. So pulling the boat out is actually considered more environmentally sound. Okay. I think my main question is, there were issues with the permit to begin with, or you guys? No, it's permitted. The size that originally was presented to the county is not the same size that is in place? No, it's the same. It's already been inspected. You finaled out the dock. Can you speak into the microphone, if you're going to, so we can pick it up on our recording? The dock permit has already been finaled out, so the dock was built, and then we made application to do the variance for the lift. So you're saying that the permit requested is the exact same size as the permit that's closed? Correct. The scale drawing? Correct. Okay. I don't have any other questions right now. Can I just say one thing? Sure. Do you have something else to say? Well, if he doesn't get the variance approved, then he would go ahead and just park his boat on the outside of the dock where it is now. Also, to try to get further depth, then he could extend the dock so it goes out the full 16 feet and then park his boat on the outside of that, which he could have done that to begin with to get the full use of what the setback is or the projection is. But he wanted to try to think and be conscientious of his neighbors so as to take up as little space as possible. But ultimately, he wants to be able to use his boat and have it not sitting in the water all the time, so you have to pull it out and get a bottom job done, which would be more costly to them. So that's all they want, just like everybody else wants, to be able to lift their boat up and protect it and use it. And that's really the advantage of this type of lift. It pulls it, again, instead of straight up, it pulls it back and over and gets it further out of the water and out of the channel. Okay. How long have you on? Go ahead. One thing I want to be clear. Step forward to the microphone for me, please. I just want to make a comment about one of the concerns in the people who are writing letters. I have no intention of selling my house anytime soon. For some reason, somebody started a rumor to that effect, but that hasn't been the case. How long have you owned the property? About four or five years. Okay. Madam Chair? May I? Some of the concerns from people that sent in letters was related to navigability, ability to turn around and maneuver. However, but from what you just said, the boat would, if it was constructed left as is, it would. Yeah, you do the math. So the math right now, I'm sorry. I'll do the math real quick for you. Right now, the dock is sitting at 12 feet. And if we add the additional boat lift beyond the allowable 16 feet with the extension of the additional four feet in the deployed position, it's 20 feet underwater. But above the water, it would be 18. Now, if he puts his boat out, and you keep that number in your head. If he puts his dock out to the 16 feet, which he's allowed, then puts his boat in, which is additional 9 to 10 feet wide, you're at 25 to 26 feet. Doing it this way actually, and that's all within his legal rights, but doing it this way actually saved navigational area. Any other questions? No, I don't have any. In fact, that was my question about how close you are to the other neighbors. But it sounds like you have a reasonable solution here. Correct. Thank you. Okay. If you guys will step aside, I will see if there's any questions from the audience. Are there any, is anyone in the audience here to speak for or against? Okay. Please come forward. Thank you, Chairman. I saw several other hands go up. Are you all as one group? Yes. Now, where are individuals? Did you want us to come up as a group? No. I just was going to ask that not all four people speak. If you're a part of a group, you have a spokesman. But no issue. Okay. If you'll state your name and address, please. Hi. My name is David Bond. I am at 1640 Bayshore Drive. I am directly next to this property. Okay. Raise your right hand. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Please proceed. So the boat lift that they're discussing, which we've seen on their property before, had nine-inch arms, or foot arms. Sorry. Even if it goes over this dock, it's still going to protrude out six foot, even if they pull it three foot over. Okay. Six foot does not pull it in far enough. They're two and a half foot off of the shoreline. They have about six different drawings that they put in. All of them put it over the shoreline. None of them put it out. The final one that they finally put in came two and a half feet off of that shoreline. Okay. So at that piling, it's at 14 foot, or sorry, 16 foot off of the shore at this time. So that end piling, I went out. So not the 14. Correct. Off the shoreline, it's 16 foot. This is what we've drawn up as our plans for our boat dock, which would be essentially pulling our boat directly into the line, and it would instruct or impede us actually having our boat docked correctly. Okay. So I'm assuming the picture you just showed us was a picture of your dock. It was from my dock directly looking at their dock. That's my dock looking at their dock. Okay. So in this picture, you are... This one would be a future dock in order to hold a boat. Right now, my dock won't be able to hold a boat. If I was to pull a boat in, it would be butt up against, which then again, navigation, I wouldn't be able to pull it. Okay. So central question before the board is simple. Would the variance be necessary if the dock had been built in accordance with the plans that were approved, which was an eight foot by 12 foot dock? That was the original one that then had the lift, which is the regular lift that everybody has. The approved plans provided for dock configurations that either remained partially overland or allowed a lift arrangement that stayed within the permitted reach. Into the canal. Instead, the dock that was actually constructed differs materially from those approved plans and was built further into the canal. As a result, the dock already occupies the maximum allowable reach. The Apopan is now requesting additional relief to accommodate a larger elevator style lift and vessel arrangement that was originally approved. That is important because Florida law is clear that a variance cannot be granted based upon self-created hardship. The property itself has no unique physical limitation. It has a canal access, an existing dock, adequate water depth, and reasonable waterfront use. The need for this variance arises from design choices, construction choices, and departures from approved plans, not from the land itself. The board should also consider the impact on neighboring riparian rights. In Hayes v. Bowman, the Florida Supreme Court held the riparian rights are valuable property rights that include reasonable access to navigable waters. In Josephson v. Autry, the court further recognized that those rights must be exercised in a manner that does not materially impair the rights of neighboring waterfront owners. Opposed dock lift and vessel would extend into the shared canal and turning basin used by multiple property owners. Based on the submitted dimensions, the structure and vessel would occupy approximately 40% of the canal width. This is not a minimal encroachment. It directly reduces navigable water, restricts maneuverability, and impacts the ability of neighboring owners to reasonably access the use of the canal. Madam Chair, may I? Yes. Sir? Sir? Oh, sorry. So, with what they were saying of him just parking, docking, whatever, the boat without a lift, that does not or also impedes? That would still impede. Okay. The way they built this dock. Now, I work for MARTAC, which is an unmanned vessel manufacturer, right? So, I understand waterways. I understand all this also. So, it would impede. They built it wrong. They have more than two and a half feet depth at that middle piling. So, they have more than enough room to put a boat in there. Okay. Any questions? No. How are you? Good afternoon. Your name and address, please? Tammy J. Bond, 1640 Bayshore Drive, Cocoa Beach. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for hearing us today. What I'd like to speak to is really related to the harmony aspect, but also our rights as homeowners. My husband and I, who just spoke, we are the adjacent property. We were there during the entire construction of the current, what has become known in the cove as dance floor, because it's 13 feet by 30 feet. It's very large. And we had to be out managing the dock builder over the whole entire process, because unfortunately, the homeowners only live in the house for four and a half months out of the year. So, they're not full-time residents. They live in one of the Carolinas. Unfortunately, what we experienced, and we have a very active waterway with manatees that are mating in that area. There was nothing taken into consideration for the environmental impact during the construction. There was reference to, in their paperwork, which you have, like we all do, lots of it, the obstruction from the mangroves. Well, they took out mangroves during the building of this thing. I went to the county three times to bring to the attention, because I'm very passionate about our Indian River Lagoon project. I'm very passionate about our community, and we love being on the water. We moved in just a month before the construction of this dock began. We moved into this home, and what I can show you that's very perplexing, and I'll put this here for you to see if I may know if that will change. There we go. Get it going the right direction. I'm not very good at that. Let's try that. How about flip it one more time? This is not my... There we go. If what they're constructing, what they're asking for is a boat lift, and you can see the six-foot and nine-foot markers from that end of that piling again. The boat dock already from the end of that piling to shore is 16 feet out, so they're already at their allowable variance. Had they gone to the middle piling, which one of the plans that you have in your packet is that eight-foot mark, they would have been able to put that boat lift on that middle piling and would have had plenty of navigable room for people to get up and on and off the boat. The pilings can... If you look at that, thanks to ChatGPT and all truth and transparency, even having a boat lift that angles up, how are you supposed to get it up and over those... And the gentleman that spoke before said, you cannot change the size of the pilings because of the stability of the dock. Well, he's saying it's going to go up and over, that obstructs our view from our dock. I'm standing at the corner of our dock taking a picture of their dock. Did not enlarge it, that's just the natural distance from us. The dock builder, I think, is where the problem really lies, not the homeowner, if I'm being completely transparent with you. Because of the size that it was built, they had to take it down and restart multiple times. It's supposed to have been built, some of your plans show it, over land by about four feet, I believe. If they didn't do that, they brought it off land by two and a half, almost three feet. If you think about what he said, which is, that's going to lift it up and it's not going to change the navigable space. Well, you can see by this, it's not... You can't lift it up and over. It's going to block more of the view of the waterway for us. We can't see down it. And to turn a boat, bring a boat in and turn it around in there, we have an active waterway that people come through and enjoy, and we will have people not be able to come and enjoy our waterway. That will obstruct it. I did notice that in some of the paperwork, and I don't remember which of the six points, that they state that other neighbors within... They want the same rights that other neighbors already have. There's no one that's asking to take up what will essentially be 16 plus 9 feet of space because that arm goes out 9 feet on the boat lift. Unless they've changed the boat lift and they're going with a different design, still, you're going to obstruct all of our view and our accessibility. I also want to point out that when this boat, and again, this is part of why I'm pointing to... I'm concerned for, when you talk about harmony, let's talk about how our neighbors, who are not there about four and a half months out of the year and they were not there during the construction, I think that they kind of had a boat builder, or excuse me, a dock builder that wasn't paying attention and they were building it how they wanted to build it. And they weren't notified of the changes that were happening or the fact that they were, I think, being treated unfairly because they have a monstrosity. That now they want to use, understandably, but it's going to impact the rest of us being able to enjoy and use our waterway. I'd like to show you one more picture. That is the top picture there, is where our present dock sits. The one on the bottom is what our proposed dock is, all of which is inside of our, the variants that we've already been granted. We're not asking, we're never going to, but if you're going to approve this, you're setting precedents, which I believe one of the letters that came from one of the neighbors across the street from the 1680 property said, this has happened before in our neighborhood. There's been a precedence that's been set that's in harmony that's been impacted negatively with an overstretch or overreach from people trying to build things and then not having the proper plans, which I would draw your attention to your packet as well. There are multiple plans that are written with marks that were, and some were approved and some weren't, and you can see the variation of the size of the boat dock and then what they ultimately built. They actually got that approved after it was built, as far as from everything that we've learned from the county when we've gone into research for this. So they built something and went and asked for forgiveness later. Again, that's not the homeowner's fault. Well, I guess it is because they weren't there for it, but the dock builder did not do service well to these people. Again, take it back to the middle piling. We don't have an issue. That's plenty of room for their boat lift, whatever size of boat lift, but in the issue of the size of the boat that they have, which was the previous picture that I showed you, the size of the boat that they have, it will obstruct, but if, in fact, or when, in fact, the house changes hands to a different owner, whatever said time that is, they can put a larger boat on there, and we have a bigger issue, so we're always going to be battling that. So the hardship has been placed on us to accommodate what is an error on their side. Any questions? Questions? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. You're welcome. Okay. Name and address, please. I'm Greg Shepard, 1610 Bay Shore Drive, Cocoa Beach, Florida. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Of course. Good afternoon. I'm here to urge you to deny this variance. Variance requires true property hardship, must represent the minimum relief necessary, and cannot create a public hazard. This application fails on all counts. Granting this variance introduces an immediate severe hazard to our share watered way. See if I can do the top to bottom, how it goes. Nope. There we go. Okay. So, 1680 is the property that we're talking about, which is here, and this is the water that we're talking about. Can you speak in the mic so that we can pick that up? Yes, sir. Sorry about that. This is the property we're talking about, and these are the mangroves that were removed. So, county records list the Grand Canal, the West Point extension to Snug Harbor as an 80-foot wide canal. In reality, it narrows to under 65 feet in places. This mensuration is done by Google. It's a tool that you can use to measure things. Placing the boat lift outside, the standard setback encroaches into the public navigation easement and further restricts an already narrow channel. Even at this section of the canal, we're accepted as 80 feet wide, allowing each property, this is not a one-side-of-the-canal issue. Both sides get to come 16 feet in. So, if both sides of the canal come 16 feet into the canal, that removes 32 feet of the 80 feet of navigable space, leaving only 48 foot for boat traffic. Building into that remaining space affects everyone who uses the canal. I operate a 47-foot Carver Voyager 450 pilothouse. Per county rules, I legally bring this vessel to my dock for short-term stocking and upkeep. Approving the encroachment makes it physically impossible for me to turn my boat and will block my ability to safely steer, turn, approach, or depart my own dock. This impediment not only impacts me, but the many boaters that must turn around when they find themselves at the end of the canal, which they do all the time. If this instruction is approved, I will be forced to back my 47-foot boat down the canal from the nearest wide outcropping, which is over 510 feet, to my dock. Forcing a 47-foot vessel to perform evasive maneuvers in a choke canal creates a continuous risk of property damage and collision. Code does not allow obstructions that destroy the safe flow of vessel traffic, and this variance creates a continuous and unacceptable risk. And my boat, as big as it is, has a three-and-a-half-foot draft, and it has no problem operating in these waters right up to darn near the shoreline. The applicant can fully exercise their water rights without a variance. The applicant's shoreline is smooth, long, and unencumbered with perfectly adequate water depth. There is no unique natural feature of the land or water requiring an extension. The applicant has had his boat in the water, attached to the previous original dock that was built there that extended only a few feet into the water, not the 16 feet it does now. The applicant previously planned a standard 80-by-30 dock starting on shore. That original design accommodates a boat lift, is completely functional, is 100% code compliant. The applicant is trying to build piecemeal what never would have been approved as a standalone request. The hardship here is purely financial and self-inflicted. Granting this variance allows the applicant to transfer their financial preferences onto the neighborhood as a permanent physical hazard. The minimum relief necessary is a smaller, code-compliant dock requiring zero variance. I ask the board to uphold our safety setbacks, protect our shared navigation rights, and deny this request. Thank you. I have a question. Yes, sir. Sir, back earlier in your statement, you said that, I think you said the shores narrow to 64 feet, something like that? The canal itself. The canal itself. It's not 85, it's not 80 foot wide in its entirety. There are points at which it varies, but in the picture that I showed, it was under 65 feet. The 16 feet? Yes, sir. Is from the property line, not from the shoreline. It works in your favor, but I just wanted to correct that. You can't take the shoreline and say it's 16 feet. Actually, this... Is I wrong? Go ahead. I'd like to address the board. This plat, when it was platted, it has a note that says that the property line, the rear property line extends, the side property lines extend to the waterway. So it doesn't have a set rear property line. It is based on what the water is. It could go in and out, depending on even if they put a seawall on it. So it's based on what the surveyor located the water line at the day the survey is, the property line. The property line could change, though, along the canal. The canal was on the plat at 80 feet wide, but if you go down and measure it, if this gentleman is correct, it varies in width. Here at the turning basin, we measured it, and it's approximately 80 feet wide where we measured it for this. And he's projecting per the survey, and the survey has it on it, that the elevator lift will be 22 feet at its further extension off of where the water line is. So he's looking, they're looking at a variance of six feet. One of the things about the dock code, your projection into the waterway includes any vessel moored at it. Thank you. I think that's a unique situation, the way it was platted then. Yes, there's very few plaits that are like that in Brevard, but there are a few. Stand correct. Can I ask a question to Bodie? So, from what we're seeing, for what dock is existing, is that from prior to the water line? The surveyor has the dock and the proposed elevator lift at 22 feet off of the property line. And do we know the exact distance of the dock? So, they're looking for a variance going into projection of allowing 16 feet. They're going six feet over that. And that's the 38% variance request. Questions? Do you have any other questions? No. I thought I should clear up that. Because this is a unique plait, the way it is platted. Yeah. It goes this way, if you want to use it. If you can state your name and address, please. Hi there. My name is Jay Marie Shepard. I'm at 1610 Bay Shore. Cocoa Beach. And I'm just a couple of houses away. Can you raise your right hand, please? Oh, gosh. I'm sorry. And you're in Cocoa Beach, correct? Yes, ma'am. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Proceed. So, good afternoon, and thank you for your time and for allowing me to speak and be heard. I'm here today to speak regarding the requested variance to build into the county canal system beyond the legally established buffer limits. Our county ordinance set clear objective boundaries for canal encroachments. These rules exist for the reasons we've already addressed. And I'm here to request that you deny this waiver because of the critical need for regulatory consistency. The primary issue before us today is not just environmental or logistical. It's also a matter of fairness and legal vulnerability. County commission must operate under the principle of equal application of the law. In March of 2023, a nearly identical waiver request was brought to code for my property, 23CE00113. We sought an exception to encroach past the allowed canal limit in order to be able to keep our boat at the dock. Unlike this situation, because we are at the end of the cul-de-sac, yeah, so we would have been, where's my finger? We would have been here. You need to make sure you're talking into the microphone so we can pick you up. Sorry. So we would have been, our boat would have been, this is our property, here. And we would have been sticking out into the canal just a little bit this way. We would have been backed in and coming out into the canal. So unlike this situation, because we are at the end of the cul-de-sac, we did not impair anyone's riparian rights, nor did we block navigational access to any of the homes. However, one of the five homeowners in the canal sold their home, and the new owner objected to us keeping our boat at our home. Code enforcement notified us that we must relocate our boat to protect the integrity of our waterways and the right of our neighboring homeowners. Understanding that there was really no alternative, we moved the boat to a marina not only at a logistical disadvantage, but at great unexpected expense, an ongoing expense we still carry today. At the time, we were told that financial hardship was not a sufficient cause nor reason for an exception or variance. Granting a waiver today for this property after we were explicitly denied our matching request previously creates an untenable double standard. We cannot legally and ethically tell one property no and then tell another property owner yes under the exact same regulatory framework. Doing so sends a message that our county codes are arbitrary rather than absolute. And I believe the statement was just made that if he doesn't get the lift, he's just going to park his boat outside the dock. Well, that's what we were doing. And we were removed. So that would not be viable for anybody either. My final and overall concern is this, that non-compliant decisions were made and executed by the homeowners and the dock builder throughout this process. And again, we feel that the burden was more on the dock builder because they're the expert in the field and they should have advised the homeowners. For example, in all the documents and interactions between the building department, the homeowners, and the dock builders, there were multiple comments regarding the required use of turbidity barriers. Those were never used. And I have videos to show that there were, I can show, actually, I hope this, I don't know how you can see it. Do you mind if we take your statement at face value? Pardon me? Do you mind if we take your statement at face value? Yeah, you don't want to see my pictures? I mean, I didn't bring, I know popcorn and all, but, you know, I thought it might be helpful to see what we're talking about. There we go. More time. And there is the actual dock as it is now. So the turbidity barriers were never used. In addition, there was the instruction multiple times throughout the documentation that native vegetation within 25 feet of the shoreline is protected and shall not be removed. The applicant's statement says there is extensive mangrove and vegetation growth at the property and adjoining properties, which require the mooring to be extended into the canal. That they put in their variance hardship statement, I believe. But the vegetation and the mangrove tree that was growing there where the dock is now built, it was removed quite a while ago. It's gone. So that vegetation that they were referring to, sorry, in the variance hardship worksheet was removed by the builders. And I have videos and pictures to show that also. And finally, you know, in addition, the permit which issued, 25 B.C. 06008, supported by plot plans and surveys, it clearly stated that this dock would be 8 feet by 30 feet with a 4 foot by 20 foot access walkway and a cradle lift. That was not what was built. What was built was an approximate 12 feet by 30 foot dock. And that's why we're here today. And it didn't start over land as originally projected that was supposed to be done, but it started out in the water, which brings it out even more feet. It was, they did not comply with the instructions issued by the building department. And that's the primary reason we're here now. Had they followed the original plans that they themselves submitted that were approved by the building department, we wouldn't be here. But they didn't. So should this variance be granted based upon prior decisions executed, we have no guarantee based on prior decisions that they have made and in the manner that they have built this dock, we have no guarantee that any decision issued by you today or subsequently followed up by the building department is going to be followed any more than it has been to date. And that's a concern. In fact, their lack of compliance demonstrated to date indicates just the opposite. I believe if this variance is granted, they'll do as they please with the boat lift. And we, their neighbors, will simply have to endure, which would not only be grossly unfair to all of us, but it would be a permanent impact to our riparian rights, our navigation rights, and subsequently to our value of our homes themselves. So to protect the county's legal standing, to maintain the physical integrity of our canal infrastructure, and to ensure absolute fairness to all of us property owners, like myself, did when I was told, when we were told to remove our boat, because we were impacting one out of seven homes, we did it because we followed the rules. That's what you do. One property cannot be granted a waiver after another was denied the same request. One property cannot disregard the rules, the procedures, instructions they receive from the building department, then request a variance at the expense of their neighbors. And this would be at our expense. We'll be looking at a giant boat hanging in our view. We'll be unable to navigate our own boats through. And it impacts the natural environment, because we have so much going on back there. Manatees, dolphins. I've lived there for 20 years, and we are on our 12th manatee baby, born under our dock. So it's important. I strongly urge you, and I respectfully request, that you deny this request. Thank you, and I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Any questions that you showed up on the slide for the records? The video? No, the ones that you have in your hand. Oh, the ones in my hand. Yeah, this one I didn't show. This one actually, I'll show it to you. Am I still on? This one actually is taken off of the video. This is Daryl's Docks employees in the water. Here's one. Here's the other operating equipment. We need you to speak into the microphone. I'm sorry. Those are the two. I'm sorry. I'm a retired high school teacher. I just yell and everybody listens. I'm just saying. So this is Daryl's Docks employees. There's one here and one on the dock operating equipment. This is taken off of a freeze frame off of a video I have. And as you can see, they're putting in the beginning of the dock. There's no turbidity. And as you can also see, the vegetation and the mangrove is behind him. It's still in place. And then I have more pictures on my camera that I was going to show that I can print and provide that show that the vegetation has all been removed. So it's not in play anymore with this variance request on their behalf. At least I don't know how it would be because it's gone. It's been gone. It was just taken out by their employees. Okay. Okay. You can provide those too. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Would the applicant like to create a summary or rebuttal? Yeah. So some of the things that had come up was that they were talking about that the dock was not constructed according to code, but there's the approval. But Brevard County, what's sitting there right now, was approved. That's the structure that's there currently. Now, to go upon that they were talking about, that the shoreline issue, and it's going with Mr. Brody here, is that it doesn't... My name's Boudy. Boudy, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Paul. And so the problem is this, is that, again, it's what the surveyor says. It doesn't matter. Your shoreline's going to erode. It's going to accrete. It's going to erode. It's where the surveyor says it is. And that's where the structure was started from, based on what the survey said. All right? And you can go measure it right now. I'm sure there's erosion. People's shorelines erode all the time. Now, for uniqueness, again, it doesn't matter what other people's boats are and when they make their turnaround or what have you. Again, where I showed you guys before, the end of that structure is where the drop-off is. It's shallow until it reaches that point, and that's why that's where it started. And, again, like you've heard that the dock is large. It's in code. That's the thing. It's been approved. It's in the code. As for other issues during construction, I can't attest to any of that. Let me see what else we have here. Also, the structure that they were showing you as the boat lift is not the structure that we're proposing to put in. I showed you the image of that. Now, as for getting them over the top of the pilings, you cut the pilings. The piling, if it's too high, you cut it down the deck, and you go right over the top of it. So that shouldn't even be an issue. Also, too, one of the individuals had stated that they were okay if the lift was in the middle, and that's what our proposed drawing shows, is that the lift is not to one side or the other. It's going to be put smack in the middle. I think that they were referring to the 12 feet, in the middle of the 12 feet. They mentioned piling, so I mentioned the middle piling. If it was built at the middle piling, it would be okay. That's what I heard, middle piling. That was my understanding. So if it's built at the middle piling, that would be fine, and that's what we're actually proposing right in the middle. All right. It was for blocking view. If he puts his boat in the water, the same thing is going to happen. The other thing, too, is that there was something that was stated. Paul, what did you say before about protrusion of vessels in the water? To appear together with the pilings, moored vessel or watercraft in any waterway encroachment shall project into a man-made waterway more than 20% of the width of the waterway. All right. So that vessel that's 47 feet is projecting in the middle of the waterway, isn't it? So if you're tying the boat up to it, any of the pilings, anything, can project more than 20% of the width. All right. So that boat's already projected out there. So, you know, you can't help with it. So the dock would meet the setback and the projections, but if you tied the boat up to it. If you tied the boat up to it, right? It would be into the 20%. Okay. I got you. So I'm not sure about the issue in about navigating it or turning around and all that. So, again, anyways, so the question comes down to it is, you know, for the homeowner to put the lift in. And it's, again, we're looking at two feet, I believe, with the beams. That's the extension. It would be in any up position. So, but many of these other issues. Also, too, by the way, riparian rights are not limited, are not for the entire waterway. It's limited to where your property is. So when people are claiming riparian rights to the waterway, no. It's only limited to a small area and a certain distance depending on where your property is located. So it's based on your property boundaries. But that all being said, again, the whole purpose of this variance is to put a boat lift in so that way they can pull it back. Not the pictures that were shown to you. I showed you the ones that we intend to put in. I tend to put it in the middle and have to cut the pilings to get it in position. And that's all we're asking for. Can I ask a question? You may have the answer. Is there a world where you reduce the size of the deck? I'm sorry, what? Is there a world where you reduce the size of the deck? I don't understand what you're asking. I'm sorry. Would you be willing to reduce the size of the deck to accommodate it? And I understand the depth of the water. Well, then we're talking about we're having, in order to do that, you'd have to end up dredging out the canal and that whole section out there. It doesn't seem like anybody else has any issue getting in and out. No, I get, no. It's okay. Again, let me restate that. The dock comes out to here and then it's the drop off. It's shallow until you get to that point. If you reduce it and pull it back, you're now in shallow water. You can't get in. Now, I understand other people don't have a problem on their property or the middle part of the channel. That's irrelevant because that's their navigation. That's their property. But in this particular location, because what has happened is that there's been erosion and it's shallow, and that's why right at the edge of that dock is where the drop off occurs. So it's shallow until it gets to that point. I mean, could you move it back? Sure, but then you don't have enough water depth. At that particular location. I feel like if the elevator lift is coming out an additional four feet, like you said. That's the beams. The actual lift itself. There's two heavy beams that will sit on the edge of the dock and they come in. And that's right there at the edge where it sits. It's where the edge is right now. And those beams, those big beams that hold it in, if I remember correctly, Sean, they're only like eight inches, right? The lift beams. The actual beams themselves are only eight inches. That's not the question. It's where are they projecting into the water to allow you to mount your boat in order to lift it. Yeah. They'd be projecting right at the edge of where the dock is itself. So you're talking about pulling the boat right up to the edge of the dock. Which is what you're doing now. Yeah. Right. Correct. The edge of the dock. That's where it is. Right. So what I'm saying, that's the edge where the drop-off is. We can't pull the dock back, otherwise we get into shallow water and we can't get in. That's the situation. I mean, otherwise. I feel like there's still other resolution. The other ways, I mean, economically. Well, that's neither here nor there. Economically. I'm getting at it. Nobody wants to build more than they need to because it's expensive to put docks in. So most, it is. I understand that it's expensive, but more than you need to, a 12 by 30 seems a little excessive. I understand, but to pull it back, if you're talking about pulling it back, yeah, then there would be less stock you'd be building out into the waterway if it was possible. So if you could put the dock right at the edge of the shoreline, that's a lot less structure you'd put in to make the distance, which, you know, closes the cost. And it makes more sense. You can pull it in. You can put bigger boats in, et cetera, like that. But that's the issue is why it's where it is. It is where it is because of the fact of the depth situation. That's why it's there. Otherwise, yeah, put it right up on the shoreline, which makes sense because it's less structure. You have to pay for it, bring it in. It's easier to work with. That's why. Okay. Make sense? Okay. I understand. Are we done? Am I allowed to make a motion if it's my district? Okay. All right. Would someone like to make a motion to approve or deny? I make a motion that we deny this application based on disharmony with the neighborhood. I second. I second. I second. Sorry. Any discussion? Okay. I am a civil engineer, a licensed engineer and contractor, and I am confused by this application. And I also believe that there was testimony to the fact that it may have been outside the bounds of the permit that was approved, and then it was kind of approved after the fact. I'd like to disapprove this and kick it back for code enforcement. I have a doctorate in engineering, and I agree with your assessment, sir. Uh, I find that it's rather confusing, and it looks like mistakes have been made. I'm not sure, but, um, that's it. Should I read the undue hardship? Yes. Mm-hmm. Six questions. Is this right? Oh. Oh, yeah. This. A variance may be granted when it's not contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will resort in unnecessary and undue hardship. I'm reading the wrong thing. Sorry. I'm reading the wrong thing. 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. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land, building, or structure. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved and otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. I call a vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. In denial. Aye. In denial. Aye. In denial. The variance has not passed. Mr. Bode. Yes, item H3, Wade L. Ulrich, request a variance of chapter 62, article 6 of our county code for an accessory structure in a GU zoning classification. Application is 26V00031 and located in district 1. Good morning. Can you please state your name and address? Yes. My name is Wade, and I reside at 4250 Hartville Avenue, Cocoa, Florida, 32926. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Let's see if we can keep it under an hour. Yeah, I'll try. I was like, I don't think mine would be like that. My neighbors aren't here, and I've been great neighbors with them for 23 years, so there's no problems with them. So I'm requesting a five-foot setback variance for my accessory structure that I'm putting in. I'm putting it in a 28-by-30-foot steel building for a detached garage, and I'm putting it on the north side of my property. The south side of my property contains my septic tank. The back of my property, west of my property, has my pool behind it, and obviously I can't put the garage in front of my house. So that's really the only place on the property that makes sense that I put this, and without the setback, we're looking at a six-foot-five inches from my house, the side of the building would be, so I can almost touch the two buildings together, and when you open the two doors that will be facing each other, you're going to have about six inches to a foot in between those two doors. And so what I'm asking is to move it over to the north five-foot so I can give myself a little breathing room in between this accessory structure and my actual house itself. My neighbors to the north of me, Pam and Chris, we've been neighbors for 23 years. Their son came over and swam in my pool. His granddaughter, Mia, comes over and swims with me, so they have no problem. He's more excited about the garage than I am. So there's no issues with me moving that garage in that direction. I do have area to the west of my property and to the south of my property that I could put it out there, but when hurricanes come through, it's not if they come through, it's when they come through. That area floods because I have the canal out back, and I've got to give the county credit. They keep that canal up when, this is an extreme case, but Hurricane Wilma came through. That property flooded all to the south and the west. So I could cast a fishing pole back there, and I thought that water would be there for days, and it was gone within 24 hours with the exception of standing like swale areas and stuff like that. So it doesn't make any sense for me to put the structure any further away from my house out there because it's going to flood in those areas, and it wouldn't make much sense for me to build that area up out there, which is just going to displace that water when it comes in, and I don't want it coming closer to anybody's home. So the actual area that I'm putting it in was the only area besides the east, which is my front yard, and to the north, which is the side yard. Those areas actually don't flood, and I'm not asking to build the structure up. It's just going to be level with my garage as it is now. I just want to move it over five feet so I have a little bit of room and I don't walk out, and it's right there in my face. That's all I'm asking for. Okay. This is District 1. Sonia. Yeah. Sonia's not here today. Does anybody want to step in for Sonia? Yeah, I'll step in. I'll step in. You say the distance, if this is approved, there's two issues. Number one is you said you talked to the neighbor to the north. Usually we like to see something in writing, but that's okay. You said you'd tell the truth, and you talked to them, and they're okay with it. That's fine. I understand. The second thing is, what's the distance between the house and the building? You said six foot? Six foot five inches. With the variance? No. Without the variance? Yeah. Without the variance, I can touch the two buildings almost with my hands. So even further. So I was just trying to get some breathing room so I can move garbage cans around and my air conditioner sets in between that area as well. So it's just a very tight, cramped area, and it's the only place on the property that makes sense for me to put it here. Like I said, if I could put it on the south side of the building, I would. I'm sorry. Yeah, the south side of my building, but there's a septic tank sitting over there. Okay. I'm always concerned about the access to the rear for emergency services or whatever. Yeah. You're extending it far beyond six foot now. Yes, I'm making it 11 foot five inches. Okay. And actually, that was part of it because behind that is actually a buried propane tank further back that services my hot tub and stuff in the pool, and I would want them to have access to go back there and fill that and stuff like that. And so, to me, six foot five inches from my house is just right up on top. It makes the area almost unusable. Okay. Good. Thank you. And the other thing I wanted to mention was the property lines actually angle to the north, so by the time you get to the back part of the building, it's not even five foot. It's only like four foot five inches towards the neighbor's house because of the angle of the property lines. Madam Chair, so I just want to say my concern, and as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but there was an administrative approval related to this where you submitted some surveys, and the staff specifically said in their response that you're still, even with the administrative approval, you're still going to be required to meet setbacks, and so you get an administrative approval, and then now you come in and say, well, actually, I can't meet those setbacks? I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. So you got an administrative approval to allow you because you're a non-conforming lot of record, not having the minimum? No. The administrative approval was to have an accessory structure up to 1,000 square feet, so it was over the 50% of the living area. Right. So he got that up to, I think it was about 990 square feet, and that's what the administrative approval was for. It wasn't for setbacks. He still needs to meet the setback requirements. Exactly. And it said that in the administrative approval as he was beginning the process of interacting with the county about getting it approved. So that's the part where I have some issue with it is just because they said, hey, we're going to give you this. You're going to get to go bigger than you normally would. You still have to do this thing. And then all of a sudden now it's, well, I can't do that thing either. So I need more space, I need more square footage, and then I also need a reduction in setbacks. Yeah, I think the square footage, wasn't it like five square feet or something like that? I'd have to pull that up. Yeah, it wasn't very much. It was only a couple feet difference. It wasn't like I was trying to double the size of the structure or anything like that. It was a very small. I was almost there with it, and all I wanted to do was make sure I could put my two cars in there. That's all I was trying to do. Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay, if you'll step aside for a second. Is anyone here to speak for or against? Seeing none. Okay. Any questions for the board? No. Anybody want a motion? I don't want a motion. I'll make the motion. I make a motion to approve the variance depicted in the survey dated, give me the date. 8-29-2026. Anyone second? I second the approval discussion. We'll read the six hardships. Let's see. Oh, I think we've just got to. Am I? Okay. Oh, I'm done? Okay, thank you. Just for now. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures, buildings, and the applicable zoning classification. That 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 of this chapter will 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. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Do I have all in favor say aye? Aye. Aye. Aye. Your request for variance has been approved. So I just, I, nay, you didn't call the post. I just want to make sure it's on there. Ready. Your request for variance has been approved. Thank you. Mr. Bode. Item number H4, Sunny Travels LLC. Request five variances, chapter six, article six of our county code for principal structure and accessory structure in a swimming pool, and an RU-2-15 zoning classification, application 26B-00017, located in District 2. Say your name and add. Good afternoon. Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chairman and members of the Board of Adjustments. My name is Bruce Moya. I'm the president of MBV Engineering. And for those that recognize me from before, I've been before this board before, and from the staff that probably sees me more than they ever want to, wondering why I'm up here looking in the condition I am, I just had hip surgery, so I am recovering, and that's why I'm wearing all this gear. Can you state your address, please? My address is 1250 West O'Galley Boulevard in Melbourne, Florida. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Okay. Okay, so what we're here today for is we're requesting a variance for a piece of property in the Cocoa Beach area of the county. It's a 0.33-acre property. It was built in 1953. And the desire, the reason that we have to have the variance is because the purpose is to build a ADA-compliant bedroom and bathroom in the house. Some history on the property, and I'll show you some pictures here in a little bit. I'm not so great at using this overhead, but see if I can get it the first time. So the current owner, the applicant, purchased this property a couple years ago, and you can see the condition that the property was pretty much in disrepair from the previous owner. So he bought this property. You can see the green, pretty green pool. And he bought this with the, his desire was to do an Airbnb. So he is, at great expense, brought this property and made it extremely beautiful. I don't know if you've been on the property, but it is very, very nice. Upgraded the entire property, made nice outdoor living area, a little tiki hut, cleaned up the backyard, and even the pool area is nice. So in order to do a, this ADA-bedroom-bathroom, the only place really to put it is in the rear of the building. So the structure is not, is not conforming to today's standards. I'm sure it was conforming when it was built in 1953, but now it is, the existing building is within the rear setback. So in order to put the addition, it would also be in the rear setback. The, the owner has gone to the neighbors behind them, and they have, there are letters in your packet of support, of non-objection. So they would be the most effective neighbors, and they have no problem with this request. So we made the submittal, because this was built in 1953, there are some other non-conforming issues on the property. We only thought we were requesting the variance to build the addition, but once we submitted the survey to staff, staff went through and said, well, you've got some other non-complying issues that have been probably, since 1953, have probably been in existence. So the recommendation was to apply for five variances instead of the one that we thought that was all that we needed. So if you look at your, it's your packet, there was the other, there was the setback of the Tiki Hut, which was built by a Native American, which requires they don't need a permit. It's by law. So it was installed by a Native American. He made it two feet too close to the building, so we need the variance from the existing Tiki bar to the main structure. The detached garage is built in front of the house, and that's not allowed by current code. And then the pool structure is also in front of the house, and that's not allowed by current code. So that makes it not conforming. And I think there was a fifth one. Was there a fifth one? That was four. Tiki Hut, pool. There's five variances total. First one was to allow the rear setback for the principal structure, including the addition. Second one was for the spacing for the Tiki Hut. It's supposed to be five feet. It's 2.6. Third one is to allow accessory building to be located forward of the front building line of the principal building. That's the garage with the covered areas attached to it. The fourth variance was to allow swimming pool 3.6 feet into the five-foot setback to the rear of the front building line of the principal building. The fifth one was to allow accessory structure of 266 feet over the 50% of the living area of the principal structure. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, and out of those five variances, four are already existing on the property. The one that we want is to build the addition and then go ahead and get, you might as well get all the variances to make the property comply to the current code. So, that's our request. You can see the vast improvement that has been made to the property. And so, with that, answer any questions that you have, but respectfully request that you approve our five variance requests today. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Madam Chair, I just want to, you said it was, the Tiki Hut was built by a Native American, but at the behest of the applicant, as the owner, they hired the? Yes. Okay. That's your only question. Guys, any questions? I just want to commend you on, I always bring this up, that you have written support from the affected neighbors. Yes, sir. That's a good thing. Thank you. No, I have no questions. Thank you. Okay. No questions for me? I'll have you step aside for a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none. Okay. I can make a motion to approve her tonight. I make a motion that we approve all five variance requests in this packet based on the survey dated 4-8-26. I second that. Sorry, I'm pointing for your discussion. I'm just going to say, the property is spectacular. You guys did a fantastic job making it beautiful, especially in the upgrades from what it was before. I do want to say, I think when you capitalize on an opportunity to not have to get a permit when you construct something, you do incur some risk, that it's not going to meet setbacks and various other requirements. So, that was just a concern that I had reviewing this item. The rest of the board, I think, made a decision, which was fantastic, but I just wanted to put that out there. That was the concern that I had going into this item. Thank you. Approve or deny? Do you have any? You have a clear? Oh, okay. Six questions first. Okay. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That 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 all other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of common 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. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of 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 will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise immediate area. I call for a vote, Board. All in favor of the approval of the variance request. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Your variance request has passed us. Mr. Bode. Yes. Item H5. William T. and Joanna B. Cannon. Request variance. Chapter 62. Article 6. Brevard County Code. For a covered boat dock in an RU-1-13 zoning classification. Application is 26B-00032. Located at District 3. Hello. How are you? How are you? Can you state your name and address, please? My name is Jason Wall. 1047 Garfield Street, Melbourne, Florida. Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. I am with Sunset Docks and Decks. I'm a marine contractor in the county. I, in January, constructed a boat dock for Mr. Cannon at 352 Arrowhead Drive. He had a little bit of a special circumstance that we have previously, I've been doing this for 19 years as of this week, so I've been through a lot of different jurisdictions and permits and setbacks, and we kind of pride ourselves in not making mistakes and more so making sure the neighborhood, the neighbors, the community isn't affected by anything we do negatively, because that's the most important part, I think. We came across this as obviously not the only job we have. We have multiple jobs going, and when we permitted this, we made sure that we were going to be in compliance with what we thought we were building. The previous seawall that he did not have constructed, he just recently acquired the property, and I'm not sure who or if the permit was pulled for the seawall, but it was grossly overdone. It was three feet past the property line as it stands today, which obviously I don't think could be permitted, and they wouldn't approve it, you know, in today's nature anyways. That being said, we took what we thought extreme care to make sure that what we were building was going to be inside of the setbacks. We were allowed 16 feet past the property line, and we thought that when we pulled our property line, what we do is we measure off the setback pens, we pull lines across, we try to stay inside that at all times. We constructed the project, um, got all proper, um, permits, and obviously inspections thereof, and upon the final of the survey, it showed that we were out of compliance on just one end on the west end of the dock by 13 inches. The rest of the dock is in compliance. Um, so if I could show this, this is really all I don't know if this is, this is just the as built survey. I'm going to turn it this way, and it does show on the east side, which would be the right side of the drawing, um, we're completely in compliance, and which it's only 14 feet at that end, so we're, we're, we're grossly inside of where we're allowed to be, and on the west end, it shows that it's 17.1, where 16 foot would be the allowable space that we have. Um, the, the dock that we built was the reason we built it this small, which is not actually usable for what he needed, but we had to build it this small to try to stay inside of what we're allowed to do. Um, normally this boat lift would be about 14 feet wide. We reduced it down to 12 feet, which is not real conducive to his boat, but we knew that we were trying to shrink it down as much as possible, and so we, we, and we only put a two-foot walkway on the outside, which we usually like a three-foot walkway. It's, it's a little bit more usable, um, and when we got the final, it said that we were 13 inches out, so obviously it was a mistake made. Um, it's a very, very unique situation, the seawall being three feet out on one end. He did not do that, you know, we didn't build the, the, the seawall, and he actually got the property like that. Um, we're not, if, if, if it wasn't done, we wouldn't even ask to do this. We would find another way, but the dock is already complete. This has a, this has a roof on it. The roof's complete. The electricity's done. The entire dock is there. So we're asking for a variance of, uh, 13 inches just on the one end, and like I said, I want to state that it's not the entire structure. It is only the west end, and it slivers down to about, I'd say, 18 feet, and in my estimation, it goes from zero to 13 inches. Um, this is an 80-foot wide canal. Um, I do have one more picture I'd like to show that shows the aerial view of the property. I just want to, so we are the red, and, um, I just wanted to show that by, uh, by allowing out 13 inches, we're in no way encroaching to where the neighbors couldn't turn their boat around, normally use the dock. He has no intentions of ever storing a boat outside there. Um, that's the reason for the, he has two boat slips already, one for under the boathouse, and one for a smaller, uh, accessories boat. So there will be nothing outside of that, and, uh, we believe that the 13 inches is pretty inconsequential to the overall navigable waterway. Um, and I believe that we've had, um, I, I kind of, when I, like I said, when I, when I go to jobs, I always approach the neighbors and say, hey, is there anything we want to make sure that the, you know, what we're doing is not affecting them in any way, and if there is, we'd like to help them out. So I don't think that anything that we did will affect a navigable, you know, waterway as it sits. Okay. So we ask that you approve our variance for this and save us a lot of headache. Any questions from the board? It's district three. Yes. Yeah, I, I don't have any questions and I'd be ready to make a motion if there's no discussion. Good presentation. Thank you. You said that I, I'm looking at the picture and whatnot. Was it one extension of the seawall? They're allowed 18 inches, but it was apparently angled out to three. And so I'm asking, is it, was it a second seawall rebuild or was it just the 18 that was set at an angle? The first one? I believe it's the, I'm not sure if it was done afterwards, but I'd like to show this back so you can kind of get an idea. Um, you could see that on the bottom of the drawing, the seawall is actually built inside of the property line. And on the top of the drawing, it's three feet out. So I don't, in my opinion, I don't believe this was permitted. I I'm not sure. I couldn't see that somebody would approve that. And, and I don't know how a builder could go that far of a mistake in there. I've already been slapped down once for, uh, misinterpreting stuff, but usually do they need a permit for the 18 inch extension? Natural resources is one that, uh, reviews the seawalls, the zoning department doesn't review seawalls. I think that they allow for a seawall to go 18 inches further than the one that they're doing another one because they don't want the land to collapse into the canal or anything like that. 18 inches face to face. Curious point. Doesn't really make a lot of difference. Can I even step aside for a second? Sure. Is there anyone in the audience speaking for or against? Seeing none. Okay. Motion to approve or deny. Uh, move to approve the variance, uh, limited to the depictions on the survey with a revision date of 3-13-2026. I'll second the motion. Allow me to read you the six hardships. No further discussion? That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That 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, building, structures, and the identical zoning classification. The 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 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 land, building, or structure. That granting the variance, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use of variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Call for a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Your variance has passed. Thank you. Thank you guys for your time. Welcome. Mr. Bodie. Item 8-6, Profeta Family Trust request variance to Chapter 62, Article 6 of Brevard County Code for a Boat Dock in an RU-1-13 Zoning Classification. Applications 26V00037 located in District 3. Can you state your name and address please? Hello, my name is Chris Profeta. And I reside at 235 Atlantic Drive in Melbourne Beach. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Go for it. Okay. So a few years ago, I believe it was 2023, I had purchased a boat dock in my neighborhood. And subsequently after that, I purchased the boat. That particular slip that we have on that is a little bit tight for the boat. It works. So I figured I have a double-wide lot. I wanted to look into getting some plans, you know, drawing. I'm an architect, so I can do it myself. But draw a set of plans for it and put another lift right, you know, next to it and put a cover on it. And in doing so, I found out that back in 95, whoever the owner was of this particular, you know, piece of property had got a variance, okay, for a finger slip and to build a finger slip. And I can pull all this up for you. And they were granted a variance to build that finger slip. But that's not what they built. Let me just get to that. So, okay. So this is a survey from back in 95, I believe. And that right here is that finger slip. And that, I guess, is a schematic on what it was that they got a variance for that they were looking to build. Fortunately, that's not what was built, okay. What was built is what I currently have, which is, which is, where am I going? Right in here. So it's basically, you know, about nine feet wide or so. And the issue is, is that it's very close to the property line on the west side, okay. I know that there is a setback requirement of about seven and a half feet. And the survey shows that it's approximately 0.7 feet away from that property line, okay. Now, the interesting thing about this is, is that this was constructed a long while ago, in excess of 20 years. I do have Google imagery, okay. It goes back as far as 2004 is the earliest image I can get. Whether it goes, you know, beyond that, I don't know. I have two photographs here that will show and illustrate that. This one is 2004. It's really kind of blurry, but I just wanted to show it. And I can give these up, you know, for you to see. Can you point to which one you're talking about? Yeah. That's parcel four? That's a parcel, yeah. Okay. And when you look at this one, this is from 2006. And then you can see there that that's what that is over there. I know it's a little bit hard to see, but up at the top of this, you can see the dates of 2004, 2006. And I can give these to you. Now, I also have a survey that was given to me when I purchased the property, and you guys have this as well, that will illustrate that, you know, this was built, you know, prior to that cutoff date. So here we are. So I know that you guys have this. If you want, you can pull up the date. But this, the date on this was November, I think, 15, was it? November 13th, 2008. So it's prior to the cutoff date that's written in the code. So I'm asking for, you know, relief for that setback on the west side. It doesn't impact anyone at all. The neighbor who is adjacent to that boat dock has just recently redone his, and he has two lifts on it. So what you would see in the current survey that I had given you from Smith's surveying will show what's happening on my property. What's showing on his isn't exactly what's going on because he wasn't surveying their property. He took whatever was what they had from whenever date and just kind of imported that into his CAD drawing and printed that file. Well, he actually has two lifts currently, and I can show you that as well. I'll have it on the phone. Okay. Okay. So what you can see here is that's my lot. That's where my boat is. This little thing right here in the center is what they're showing on a survey as a jet ski platform. It's not. It's like a floating. I don't want to say a floating dock because it's not really a dock. It's something that's just sitting there and floats, and he puts like a kayak on it or, you know, buckets with ropes in it. It's really just more so he can have additional storage without leaving it in the grass. And then he has two lifts. One is covered and one is not. So this is the roof of the covered one, and that is an open one right next to it. And that's what he had recently done within the past year of the year. So what I'm looking to do, like I said, is just basically keep what I have. It doesn't impact him whatsoever. It doesn't impact any of the navigable water. It's a pretty large body of water. I mean, you can see I'm not even close. So this is more than enough room to navigate in and out of this, and what I'm asking here is going to impact nobody. It's been there 20-plus years. Nobody has a problem with it. I have a quick question. Yep. What's the current code enforcement in place? Meaning? What is? The current setback? No. There's a code enforcement for vegetation planted and post-installed in county right-of-way? I haven't planted any vegetation. There's one palm tree that is kind of right in front of, or let's say, the middle of the lot. I probably see that on what I just had. So you're not aware of the code enforcement? No, I'm not aware of that. So you can see right to the right side of that, that's a palm tree. Okay. But other than that, there's nothing on my property that has any vegetation. Okay. This is District 3. I apologize. Go for it. No, that's not a problem. And you clarified that you wanted to add a second slip, not replace the one that's existing. Yeah. I mean, ultimately, what we'd like to do is put a cover over it. And I don't want to put a cover over this particular one. I'm just looking to keep it because it's there. Things cost a lot of money these days. It's not going to impact anybody. It's a little sketchy as it is, but it's what I have for my boat. That's all I have for my boat. So I would like just to keep that. And then if we wind up getting a jet ski or even a kayak or whatever, I can just have it there. It's there. But I have no intentions on putting a roof covering over that. I want to put something that's going to comply with code. Right, right. But be adjacent to it, ancillary, and be able to kind of share it. That's all. Perfect. Yeah. If there's no public comment or board discussion, I'd be ready to make a motion. We need to see if there's anybody in this. No questions. Go ahead. Question? Yeah. Basically, I think in the terminology we use here, you're asking to legitimize an existing condition. Absolutely. Okay. And the neighbor to the west, the jet ski and whatever, have you spoken with them? I speak with them, yes. I don't have any documentation. I can certainly email it. You know, I've been in contact with Paul over this and George for months. I know I could probably text them now, but it's not going to work. I understand that. But he has no problems. Actually, the seawall that he just did actually encroaches on my lot a little bit. We don't care. Yeah. Okay. If you'll just step aside for a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none. Would someone like to make a motion? That's Brian's. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve, limiting the approval to the survey with a revision date of 6-8-2026. Okay. I'll second that. Any discussion? No. I will read the six questions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, buildings, or in the applicable zoning classification. That 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 of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under provisions of this chapter. And 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 land, building, or structure. 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. Call for a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Your variance has passed. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bode? Item 8-7. Alan Jackson requests variance to Chapter 62, Article 6 of the Bar County Code for the primary structure and attachments in a TRC-1 zoning classification application 26V-00043, located in District 3. Good afternoon. How are you, sir? Good. What's your name? Your name is Alan Jackson. It's 1027 Sebastian Road. Barefoot Bay. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Let's do it. Okay. I'm trying to put a screen-end porch on the side of my house, and that's when I went for a permit. And that's when they discovered that I am four inches into the 10-foot setback on the whole front of my house, which was a model, which was a model, and it's been there since 1985. So I need four inches so I can build my screen-end porch. Okay. I got 27 feet from the edge of the road up to the pin, which is a pretty good easement area, and then I ended up nine foot eight to the house. Okay. This is in District 3. I have no questions, and we'll be ready to make a motion to approve when the time is right. Any questions? No. No. Okay. We'll step aside for just a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none. Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve the variance limited to the location depicted on the survey, dated 8-4-2025. I'll second that. Okay. I will, no discussion? I will read the six questions. 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 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 provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. 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. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Your request has passed. Mr. Bode. Madam H.A. Sean B. and Sherry A. O'Brien request variance chapter 62, article 6 of our county code for an accessory structure in the TR-1 zoning classification application, 26V00045, located in District 2. Hello. Can you state your name and address, please? Sherry O'Brien, 6481 Colony Park Drive, Merritt Island. Okay. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. So I'm here today. Well, thank you for hearing me, and good afternoon, everybody. I'm here today. My husband and I wanted to put a generator, a Generac, on our home, a home generator fueled by propane. And doing that, it opened up a can of worms. So as I know you guys, I'm very well aware of the cans of worms that happen. So years and years ago, the previous owners built a structure, a garage, and so that's causing issues. So what happened was they built the structure, and it impeded on an easement. And so when the folks wanted a land survey, they realized, oh, there's an issue over, way over. I'm going to show you here. Yes. If we could. I'll bring this mic over. I'm trying to. Poppy, you can just wait. I'm sorry. You got it? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so our residence is in Block A. I'm sorry, Lot 9. Lot 10 is where the issue is over there, where there is a, there used to be two homes. So when we purchased this property, it was actually two lots, and then I went ahead and combined the lots. So for property taxes reasons and all that. But yes, so the structure, hold on, my bearings here. If you look at your phone, it'll probably be easier. Thank you. Thank you. So yeah. Yeah. Lot 10. Oh, I just don't see the garage. Oh, there it is. Okay. So in above the word Lot 10, you'll see the garage. And you see just north of that garage drawing, there's like a sliver, like a triangle. And that's where they, when they built that garage, they built it too close to my neighbor's property. I don't know if you have it with you, but I have spoken, we're friendly, good terms with that neighbor there on that property there. They actually signed and agreed for us to go ahead and do this. They had, we had their, their permission. Um, we, uh, verbally spoke and then they signed something I provided some time ago. This has been going on for 11 months. So I've kind of forgotten that that was in the early days of it. But yes, so we want to put the Generac on Lot 9. Um, so yeah, so there were no records. I do believe that, so that garage was built, uh, I do, and, um, it has a, uh, electrical meter on it. It has its own address. When we first bought the property, it was two addresses. So somewhere, someone built that garage and got it approved, but now it's my, my headache. So I'm asking if, if we could be granted the variance to go ahead and proceed, um, and Generac on the house. Okay. This is my district. Great. So my only question is, I just want clarification. Yes, ma'am. You're just legitimizing the garage that's in place so that you can do a Generac. Correct. Okay. Thank you for putting that so simply and quickly. You're all good. You're all good. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. That's the end of my questions. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. Would anyone like to make, oh, is anyone in the audience here for or against saying none? Would anyone like to make a motion? I'd make a motion to approve limited to the survey dated 9-25-2025. I'll second the motion. Okay. Let me read the hardship questions. 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 will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by 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. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land, building, or structure. That 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. I would like to call for a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The variance is granted. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Bode, would you please give us the next item on the agenda? Yes. Item H-9. Tracy Woodward requests variance to Chapter 62, Article 6, Bevard County Code for the minimum living area in a TR-2 zoning classification, Application 26V-00046, located in District 1. Good afternoon. Aye. Will you please state your name and address, please? Tracy Woodward, 1163, North Halifax, Daytona Beach, Florida, 32118. Use your right hand for me. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Uh, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration for hearing my reasons for requesting a variance. Okay. Back in October of last year, I found this piece of property that I really, um, fell in love with in MEMS. And, um, before purchasing it, I did a lot of due diligence, or I thought I did, and I had inspections done. Um, I did a wind mitigation, a four-point inspection, a termite inspection. All of them came back, said that it was a good buy, and there wasn't issues, except the termite report, raised a few concerns, um, saying that there was a little bit of activity in a door, in some door jams. After consulting several professionals, I was advised that these were treatable, and that it was based on this information, uh, I, I went ahead and, um, purchased the property. But shortly after the closing, it became clear to me that the home had more significant structural problems, and I, I, that weren't identified during the inspection, and I determined the home would need to be demolished and removed. Um, when I applied for a permit, I was informed that, that what I, I couldn't get a demolishing permit without purchasing another home to go on that property, and that it had to be smaller than what was already there, is what I was told. Um, so, um, I went out, and from that point, I was given numerous, um, things that would be required to get a demolition permit, um, and I tried to, did all those requirements in good faith. I, I revised, submitted surveys multiple times, at least four times, I had the survey, um, revised to the satisfaction of the instructions I was, I was given. Despite months of compliance, revisions, and communications, I was only informed at the final stage of the review that the replacement home that I had purchased was too small. This was especially surprising, because the dimensions of the replacement home were included in the original survey, as well as all the other applications which I had submitted. The final survey was submitted in March, and were visible throughout every revision and every submission. At no point during the many months of review was I advised that the square footage would become an issue. I would like you to please, uh, review the practical limitations. No manufactured home in this particular model exists that meets or exceeds the 600 square foot requirement for this zoning district. It's not a matter of preference or cost, it's an industry limitation. And I would like to show you, uh, some photographs of what I have purchased. It's not just a regular run-of-the-mill, um, mobile home. I purchased it from Disney. Aw. Is it one of those log cabins? It's like a log cabin. Aw. Aw. I used to stay in there when I was a kid. Yeah. Did I? Am I doing? Ah. Would you look at that? Oh my gosh. I probably vacationed inside one of those. I don't know which is better view for you. That's perfect right like that. That's- Okay. You get to your- You get to your idea. I did go ahead and when I found out that it was 25 square feet short, I went and put a 10 by 10 enclosed porch on the side. Then I was- I was told that that only- only 10 feet of that, 10% of that would count. Uh, I've minimized the- I have already maximized the allowed enclosure addition under the zoning interpretation. The deviation is minimal and does not affect safety, appearance, or neighborhood compatibility. The home meets all other, uh, zoning, building, and safety requirements. I- I thought I had done as much due diligence as I could before I came to the board. I did talk to all the neighbors and people in that community. They all love what I'm doing with the property. They all love the idea of the log cabin and think it would look really great in the- but I didn't know that I needed it in writing, so I apologize. Um, I've spent considerable time, effort, expense attempting to comply with every requirement presented to me. I've repeatedly made changes combined with, uh, discovery, a square footage issue. I've created- I've created a hardship that I cannot have anticipated or avoided. Um, if you grant this variance, allow me to move forward and replace the unsafe home, which was needed to be demolished, and replace it with the same home, I think I can bring a lot of pride to the neighborhood. For these reasons, I respectfully request approval of a permanent variance following my home to be recognized as compliant with minimal living square footage requirement. So thank you for your time and consideration. Any questions? Yes. Early in your presentation, you said that you were told you had to get a, uh, a home that was smaller than the one- I- I'm kind of turning here. Is there some clarification to that? I don't understand. That came from the building department. That's- Building department. I don't know what, uh, coach is talking about. Uh, she might have needed one for accessory structures, but I don't see any accessory structures that are going to be 600- over 600 square feet or anything like that on the survey, so I'm not real sure why somebody would tell her that. Okay. That's fine. I- just a clarification. That didn't seem right. I don't know. Okay. If you'll step aside just for a second so I can see if there's anyone in the audience. Is anyone in the audience for or against? Seeing none. Okay. Bring it back. Any other comments? I make a motion to approve the variance depicted in the survey dated 5-17-26. I'll second. Discussion? I'm going to read more. No. No discussion. You can sit if you'd like. I'm just going to read the six variance requests or variance. 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 with the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of the 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. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that 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. I'd like to call for a vote. All in favor of approving the variance request? Aye. Aye. Aye. Here. Variance is approved. Thank you very much. Mr. Bodie, will you bring us H number 9, or H number 10? Yes, H 10, Anthony Bastone and Gloria Bochiccio requests two variants of chapter 62, article 6, Beauvoir County Code for the principal structure in the TRC-1 zoning classification. Application is 26V00047, located in district 3. Will you please state your name and address? Yes, Anthony Bastone, 506 Royal Turn Drive, Barefoot Bay, 32976. Okay. Do you plan on speaking? Sure. Say hello, honey. Are you sure? All right. Well, we want to know how to say your last name first. Yeah. Bokino. Oh. Oh, sorry. Raise your right hand, please. You've got to raise your hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay. Let us know. So we are here. I want to thank everybody for seeing us and hearing us today. What we're after is we are after a variance. As you can see in the picture, if you'd like, we have a 7'3 from the side and a 7'2 from the back. Let me put the right over here, the 7'3, and toward the back right here, it says- Speaking of the- Are you talking into the microphone? Sorry. We have 7'2 in the back and 7'3 up at the front corner. And what we're trying to do here is we're getting ready to enclose this garage where it says covered carport. And we would like this line just to come out from that point at the same line. If you're out here at this corner, you can see it's 8'7. We're only off by- The setbacks are supposed to be 7'6. And this house was built in 1987. And these were the setbacks that we came into. But as we come out a little bit further, you see it gets a little bit wider. So, by bringing this wall out straight and having the vinyl siding come down the house without setting it back two inches, we would like that to be straight, to come straight out. In other words, this side of the house would just continue down this, straight down that side. So, that was one part of the variance. The next part is if we go to the back. Boy, it's crazy how it- I almost feel like I'm drunk with my finger. Anyway, back here, it says 7'2 and 7'2. And we're actually supposed to have 8 feet back here from the house to the fence. And we've never had that from day one. This is how we bought it. This is how it came. All we're trying to do is my better half wants to have me enclose this side. We're doing an addition because she needs her bathroom and closet space. So, I just wanted to bring that dotted line straight down to the corner and then come down this side so everything's in line. So, I'm not going out. Now, on this side of the house, we have 7'8 and we only needed 7'6 from the property line. Neighbors are great. We met the neighbors. Everybody's happy we're coming in there. The house needs a lot of work. Me and Gigi are actually going to be doing the construction. That's what we do now. And that's what we're looking to get, just a couple inches and being able to bring that right across on a straight line. Okay. Thank you. This is in District 3? Yeah. I have no questions and I'll make a motion to approve when the time is right. Any questions? Just step aside for a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none. Any discussion from the board? Only that those lots down there often have problems because I think they were platted undersized to current zoning rules. Okay. So, this is not an uncommon thing that we run into. Would you like to make a motion, sir? Yes, a motion to approve the variance limited to the location depicted on the survey provided by the applicant dated 6-15-2026. I'll second. Okay. I will read the six hardships. 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 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 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. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land, building, or structure. And that 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. All in favor of approving the variance, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you for your time, everybody. Your variance is passed. Thank you. Mr. Bode, will you bring us item H-11? Yes, item H-11, George and Carolyn Meyer, request two variances, chapter 62, article 6, Bavard County Code for principal structure and attachments in TRC-1, zoning classification. Application is 26V00049 and located in District 3. I feel like they ghosted us. I don't see Dwayne Dingus here, who was the applicant for the owners. So, I don't know if y'all want to table this application until the next meeting on September. Is he actually absent or just didn't appear today? September 16th is the next meeting. Table it to Ed. Will I make a motion that we table this application 26V00049 until the meeting of, what was it? September 16th. September 16th, 2026. I'll second that. No discussion. All in favor to table? Aye. Mr. Bode, will you bring us item H-12? Item H-12, Donald Mann, request three variances, a chapter 62, article 6, Bavard County Code for accessory structures and an RR-MH-1 zoning classification, applications 26V00050 and located in District 1. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Donald Mann. I live at 3515 Brockett, Brockett Road, in Mims. Can you start again just in case they didn't hear you? My name is Donald Mann. I live at 3515 Brockett Road, in Mims, Florida. Okay. Does he plan on speaking? Yes. He's my neighbor. Okay. My name is Adam Skaan. I live at 3501 Brockett Road. Okay. You guys raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. What you got? Okay. The, about a year ago, I'm from Pennsylvania. I came down here two years ago, and the, I got the, there's a property on Brockett Road that I bought, and I got a trailer with it. And I did not with it, but I bought an extra brand new trailer. The house that was there, like six foot holes in roof, in the floors, in the walls. And I was fine until a black snake beat me down the road, or down the hallway, trying to get out of the house. So, after that, I was like, no, we got to, we got to tear this thing down. So, anyway, unbeknownst to me, I didn't know that I had all these variances and articles and all that to take care of. I was putting a new trailer into, tearing one of the house down, putting a new trailer in, and that was my goal. I haven't made it there yet. But, but the, Mr. Bode helped me out, telling me, here's some of the stuff that I need to do. Some of the other gentlemen kind of helped me out. I said, his department was good. It's the other guys that were, were fairly fun to deal with. But, anyway, somehow or another, I guess the house has been there. Now, we went back. It's 2026 now. I went back in the property appraiser's file, and all the structures have been there since 2000. He's lived there longer than that. I can attest to that. Yes. My uncle bought the property that I live at in 1986 or 7, and so I've been familiar with the property and the former owners since that point. Okay. And so everything that's on that piece of property now, with the exception of one item, which was a shipping container that the, the original owner's daughter, he deeded the property to her. And because of the conditions of the property and things that she wanted to do, she bought that shipping container and put it on there so she could use it as storage. And that's the only thing that's been added to that property, like I said, since probably 86 or 87, that I've been aware of. And so. So my trailer. Yeah. Other than the new trailer that he's trying to get installed. Okay. Keep going. So the, uh, Mr. Bode informed me that the garage was originally supposed to only be 700, 800 square feet and 600. So they, they informed me that, uh, Catherine, I forget her name, their last name. She's the planning and zoning lady. She, she, she, she told me that the, that if I could prove that the structures were there longer than 10 years at the, uh, and she would, uh, try and go. And then Mr. Bode suggested that I do try and get the, uh, variances for all this, all the stuff that was wrong with the garage. Okay. And it was, it was kind of like, you know, I only bought this property a year ago. I have no idea what anybody did 25, 40 years ago. So I, I don't think I should be kind of held liable for all that. It's been, it's been, you know, dumb being stupid is, uh, an excuse at this time. But the, uh, I, I did not know that, that anybody added to this. Uh, I got it because the size of the garage, uh, I have a 69 Camaro that I'm going to be rebuilding. And I, I do a lot of hobby work with cars. So the, uh, especially antiques, sprint cars, the, uh, so I, I, I want the garage. And if, if I can't get it and, and you make me tear it down, then I don't know what I'm going to do, but it's not going to be real well. I love the honesty. And it's not going to occur. I'm the only neighbor. So I'm perfectly fine with him living next to me. We get along great. Got it. And then the, on the, I had two, sir, they, they made me get my property surveyed twice. Okay. On the first survey that I did, the one end of the shipping container was 13, eight. The other end was 13, six, two inches. And the, when another, the second guy came, he measured 13, two and 13. Um, so that's why I need from off of the property line to the side of the shipping container. Uh, it doesn't meet the distance. So it is like, well, one, I wanted 13, eight on the other 13, two. And, and, and again, I didn't put them there, so I can't help the way they are. And the, there was a raccoon house there. He, uh, I tore that down and I've got another, uh, outbuilding of there. That's my, right now, my electrical power is coming through that. Since I'm getting the trailer installed, all that is going to be switched. It's ready to go. All I got to do is get it inspected. I've been having trouble with installers, so, yeah, what a mess. But the, uh, hopefully, if you guys pass both of my variances, I can be started on this in a month. Okay. And be in and out and in my new house within two weeks, they tell me. Okay. That's as long as they got keys working. Yeah. Sounds good. I appreciate it. Any questions? This is in District 1, so who wants to step in and be District 1 today? Who's District 1 now? She's gone. She is absent today, Ms. Sonia. So I'm going to get to meet her anyway. It all seems pretty straightforward. The survey shows, you know, what the variances are required. I didn't know what the Mr. Bovey's the one that told me that I needed. We have a packet with it. Yeah, but the, I didn't know that that, I didn't know what the survey boundaries were. It's not unusual for a survey to be off a couple inches here and there. It's a balancing act. No, I don't really have any questions. Like I say, it looks pretty straightforward. Okay. I agree. I don't have any questions. Okay. If the board's ready, I'd make a motion to approve. Let's see if we can get anybody from the audience. Okay. If you'll step aside for a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none. Motion to approve. Yeah, motion to approve limited to the location depicted on the survey dated 6-22-2026. No discussion. I'll second that motion. Okay. No discussion. The special conditions and circumstances, 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 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 identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship to 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 of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use of variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. I make a call to vote in favor of passing the variance request. Aye. I'll say aye. Aye. Aye. Your variance is passed. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Oh, thank you, sir. Why is your name bigger? Mine. Your letters are bigger than mine. Oh, okay. Larger than mine. Shorter. Kind of like Romo. I do have one question. Sure. Now, the last guy, he was from Mims, too, right? The lady, yeah. The lady. But his side clearance was only eight feet. That's a bowdy question. I don't know. Those are technical issues. At least that's what he said. I'm like, oh, I was told I was stiff. No, he was Barefoot Bay. Oh, that was a doubt. He was Barefoot Bay. Sorry. Yeah. The lady was from Mims, and he was Barefoot Bay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a super day. Good luck. Mr. Bowdy, will you give us the last item on the, you enjoyed us today, haven't you? Yes. Item 13, H13, Cypress MHP LLC requests 11 variances of Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for a mobile home park in a TR-1 and TR-3 zoning classification application is 26V00041, and this is located in District 1. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the Board of Adjustment. I am Kim Rozenka with Lacey Rozenka from Melbourne here on behalf of Cypress MHP LLC. With me is Sam Smith, the representative of the owner, and Landon Scheer, the engineer of record. We all may be testifying if you want to swear all three of us in. Let's do that. And then your address when you can. You guys will step up. Landon Scheer, address 1361 Highway 818 Satellite Beach. Okay. Sam Smith, address 3305 Frankie Lane, Cocoa, Florida 32926. Okay. Kim Rozenka, 6013 Persenda Place, Melbourne, Florida. If you can come back up, please. Thank you. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? I do. Yes. Thank you. And again, I don't, you may have questions for them, so I just assumed it would be best to do it all at once. We are here requesting 11 variances on a non-conforming mobile home park of nine acres that's been in existence since 1965, and five acres of vacant property, five and a half, that are attached to it to the north, south of Friday Road, between 520 and State Road 520, State Road 524. The current owner, Cypress Mobile Home Park LLC, purchased both of these properties at the same time in 2021 with the intent to expand the mobile home park. The problem is, is the existing park is non-conforming due to its age and also has access by an easement, so the 5.5 acres has no legal access unless you go through this mobile home park to get to it. The goal was always to expand this mobile home park and to promote additional affordable housing in the area. It currently is served by county sewer and city water, and the new portion would also do that. We started this process with a rezoning application for the 5 acres to the north to TR1, from TR1 to TR3, and we got pushed into this process, which is normal, I guess, I've not done a mobile home park before, so we can make the existing 9 acres conforming. It's non-conforming because you have to have at least 10 acres, and we don't have that for the existing mobile home park. But it's so old, the roads aren't correct, the patios aren't correct, there's no parking spaces that are paved. So it's an existing park, it's got 98 units, it's been there for a long time, and we need to try to conform that to the current code by variance. And then we've had a few variances for the new park to maximize that, because there's an almost one-acre wetland, which makes it difficult. We have the access road, we have rec space areas that we need to include, so that's why we've asked for the additional variance to the lot sizes for the 5 1⁄2 acres to the north. There are two sets of variances. One is to make the existing park conforming, and then there's existional variances for the vacant parcel to the north, should we get the rezoning. Many of these variance requests apply to both. As I said, we went first for the rezoning, came back for the variance. If we get the variances and we get the rezoning, we still have to apply to the Department of Health, they actually have primary control over mobile home parks, and we also have to do building permit site plans. And there's the access issue that we have to validate as well. So this is a long process with a lot of eyes that will be looking at it to make sure it's safe, that it meets county regulations, state regulations, everything that needs to be done for a mobile home park. We have been in contact with the Department of Health. They said the existing site meets its codes, its regulations, which that was good to know. When we started this process, the surveyor went out. There's a surveyor's affidavit in your file. And the good news was, is all the existing lots were 40 feet in width, which was a code requirement. There were many others that were not in compliance, which generated the variance requests. The reasons, as I've mentioned, they're in the staff report, that this is a non-conforming mobile home park that the client purchased. It, it came with challenges of the non-conformities, and then the existing vacant parcel has wetlands and access only by easement. The real purpose of this is for affordable housing. I've stated the comprehensive plan policies, um, and also that a county may adopt and maintain any law, ordinance, rule, or other measure that is adopted for purpose of increasing the supply of mobile home park. This, uh, use for the property as a mobile home park is the best and highest use for the property based upon the area. There's other manufacturers slash mobile homes in the community, uh, and this would allow the applicant to fully use its properties and create additional rec areas for the existing mobile home community. There are, uh, as to factor six, these variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare as they will allow development of a vacant parcel with environmental and accessibility challenges and with the county and state goals of more affordable housing. As I mentioned, it will be reviewed by the state, Department of Health, also by Brevard County. So, um, as to the sites, if you know me, you know I always have a packet. This is all things in the record. It's just easier to go through it if I, most of the things are in the record. Well, all things submitted, not all given to you. Again, um, the first page is just an introductory page. Uh, this is the Cypress Strand Mobile Home Park, formerly known as Apollo Village Mobile Home Park. Um, MHBO is an independent affordable housing marketplace for manufactured homes for sale. Didn't know what it was, but it had a nice picture of the community. Uh, also shows that the lot rent range is very affordable, $350 to $650. Um, according to Mr. Smith, it is on the higher end, uh, $550 to $650, but that these are indeed affordable projects. The next is the, uh, property appraisals website, and I gave that to you for two purposes. One, it does show the 98 units, as well as the community center slash office and the laundry unit, and it does also show that it's been in existence since 1965. I provided for you for reference in cases we're going through the variants who want to know what we're getting a variance from. Um, I included the Mobile Home Park TR3 zoning ordinance of 62-1404, and then also for ease of reference, there's the letter, um, that once we submitted for our seven variances, Mr. Ritchie came back and said, no, you need more, which is great because we want to be conforming. So that's why we're now from 7 to 11. That's why you have two different, um, zoning exhibits, uh, variance exhibits in your package. Um, in your packet, next is the long packet, the long sheet, colored sheet. That's the one that was in the initial package on legislator and what was provided to you. This is what we submitted initially with the variances from which George reviewed and said we needed more. So regarding the variances on this sheet, if you look under variances requested, uh, the first variance is the, the mobile home size of two, four, four, four. Uh, those are for the new lots, the existing lots, the smallest size is 2,675 square feet. So we're only asking for 150 more, 230 feet more, um, to allow to have both single wide and double wides and to maximize the, the northern site. So that first variance to the home site is two, four, four, four, uh, which is a variance. Well, uh, one, five, five, six square foot variance. And that's a number three on Mr. Richie's list. So the additional ones, if you choose not to grant that variance, the, we still need the variance for the existing site, um, as two, six, seven, five. The next variance is the minimum street setback. Currently we only have 3.3 feet. So that's a variance for the existing site. That actually isn't for the new site. That's just for the existing site. Then the non-paid parking spaces. That is for both sites. Although the new site will have, uh, gravel parking spaces at the size of code. Uh, the existing site does not have concrete patios. We're asking the waiver to that, to that condition for the existing site and the proposed new site. The total rec. Currently the site does not have enough recreation, um, required by the code. We're adding some with the new sites. And when we combine the two, we'll have 10%. We still need a variance. Uh, we'd need to even greater variance for the existing site because there's only a very small area there in the existing rec area. Uh, as to that document, you'll see that there is a wetland. On the northern site to the west, then there's going to be a large retention pond. Then there's several different areas of rec space in that area in the northern new section. And also, too, um, we're asking for a variance to allow the pond to be utilized for the recreational space. Current code does not allow for that. I've also provided you, excuse me, um, the staff report. Provided there was a, there was a survey date that you should, if you choose to allow these variances, that you should reference. The one that I saw in Legislate, Legistar did not have the right date. So what I provided to you in the last document in your package says exhibit B. It looks very much like what was in your packet, but the Allen Morgan digitally signed date, this one is 7-1-2026, which was referenced in the staff report, that if you grant these variances, it should be tied to this document. It may also be tied to the other document that staff provided to you, um, which is the Landon Shear updated rezoning and variance exhibit. And if you look real close, right here, it has a date of August 12th, 2026. So if you choose to reference this as well, uh, I don't know if that was the intent of the staff report or not. This actually added all of the variances requested. The new variances, uh, that are now on this sheet that I haven't just gone over from the first zoning, or, excuse me, rezoning a variance exhibit, is, um, an exhibit is a request to 15 feet from the 15 feet perimeter setback required. And that's for both sites. That's number four on Mr. Ritchie's July 21st letter. Number six, 5.9 feet from the 10-foot separation distance between structures. That's for the existing site. These are not habitable structures. These are like overhangs, uh, because the fire code prevents habitable structures from being closer than 10 feet. So that is just for the existing site, number six on Mr. Ritchie's list. And then number 11 on Mr. Ritchie's list is the 7.5-foot distance from the structure's space envelope. I've never, I didn't know what this was. I had to look it up. Uh, the best we can understand, and I hope I'm correct, is when you look at the most recent document provided, the Landon Shear, August 12th, 2026 document. There is a, next to the existing rec area, the first building to the left is 3311, and it has a structure that appears to be closer than 7.5 feet. Also, the new area, when you look at units 17, 16, and 33, these three are closer than 7.5 feet to the rec area, slash open space. I know this is confusing. I know you've had a long day, and I appreciate your patience. I've tried to go through them. The overarching theme is we're trying to make a nine-acre non-conforming lot, conforming, the mobile home part, and then we're trying to add to it. And that existing parcel of 5.5 can't really be used for anything else because it doesn't have legal access. So we're trying to make an existing site conforming and then create additional opportunity for affordable housing. And with that, we can answer any questions you have. I have a really quick question. Can you run 1 through 11 and tell us what's existing and then new? 1 through 11. Like on? Which are for the existing site? On George's sheet, which is existing and what's new request? Okay. From a non-conforming. Well, yeah. Okay. So you want to know what's for the existing site versus what's for the new site? Correct. Okay. So number 1 is for the existing site. Number 3 is for the existing site. Number 4 is for the existing site. Number 5 is for the existing site. Number 6 is for the existing site. Number 7 is for the existing site. Number 8 is for the existing site. Number 9 is for the existing site. Number 11 is for the existing site. You may have to call your engineer up. I just had a question about the roadway and cart width on the existing, the old section. Mm-hmm. I see on the new section you designed it with 24 feet, which is two 12-foot lanes. What exists in the other one? It varies in width. It doesn't meet the standard width for a two-way drive aisle, but I believe the code does allow one-way drive aisles for mobile and parks. I think it varies in width between 15 to 20 feet in width as far as the drive aisle is concerned. And it is a one-way drive aisle signed currently? It is signed for one-way because without the front concrete pads, then I guess you'll have room to go off onto the lawn if people do decide to go two-way. All right. Any other questions? Well, that was my question, too, about this access road. Now, there are people that are already living in the existing site, correct? Yes. There are 98 homes there, and they've been living there since 65. Okay. So where this access road is attaching to, that's going between existing homes. Well, the access road is— The new road. The new road is right here. Correct. And right here. And over there. Yes. And that is going to be attached through the property of two homeowners? No, ma'am. If you look at the aerial map in your package, you can see where there's like a stub out that goes straight to the north. I'm looking at this one, and it looks like there's homes on either side of the road, and I'm just wondering if the people that live there, or maybe they don't, are aware of this and are in agreement to have the road coming through there. The road is, well, technically it's already there, but it looks like they're parking on it. Correct. But there's no access to it either from the back side. Correct. But that road is exactly the same as it would, if you look at it, it's— I know, but I'm interested in the traffic now that's going to be caused by these 30-some-odd additional residences that are being accessed by these two roads into an existing community. I don't know. But they are renters, and I do not believe they would have gotten notice of this hearing. But that, again, is truly a site plan, a design issue. And also, we'll have to go through the rezoning, and they will have notice of that. We'll make sure they have notice of that. Right. You'll have to go to the planning and zoning. Right, because we can't do anything with that five-and-a-half acre. They won't even let us go to rezoning unless we get these variances. I thought you had to go to planning and zoning first. I'm sorry. Yes, we tried to rezone the five-and-a-half acre parcel to TR3 to do it all consistently, but they said we couldn't do that until we made the existing site conforming. Because it's one acre short of 10. Okay. Right. So, you've got—the existing site has to be conformed, but we're also approving the new part. That's what we're asking, yes. But we don't even have—we'd have to go to zoning, and we're going to have these same questions about the planning and zoning board. Right. And we certainly will have those unit owners. But, again, they're renters. The unit owners will change. They don't own them. So—but, again, the roadway through there, there's actually a vacant lot by each of those properties now. And, yes, it would be a road. But that—we can't even get to building—we can't get to site design until we get it rezoned. And we can't even go to rezoning unless we get your variances, so— Let me turn. Okay. Yeah, just really quick. So, where we're showing the road connect back into the mobile home park, there's already a roadway stubbed up in that location. So, there is no—we're not displacing any residents with the roadway. Right. Right. I see the existing road. I'm just wondering if now you have an access of another 33 homes. It's Commissioner Bass, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. My first time doing this— Dr. Bass. So, my formalities is not the best here. But I think your point is addressing the residents' concerns about traffic coming through in the future. I have not had that conversation, but it will be had, and we'll make sure we do a community meeting prior to our zoning and meeting—zoning and planning, is that planning? Correct? Meeting, so we can make sure it's addressed and it's included in the packet. Is that right? Right. Okay. No, that's okay. So, I just wanted to clarify that. So, they're renting these lots, basically, or renting the trailers. So, if they have an objection to the traffic on that road, there's a limit to their lease. You know, and they can always, like, okay, I don't like it, I'll go somewhere else. Right? Yes. Because the LLC owns the land, owns the properties. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. All right. So, they're not—we're not impinging on permanent owner residences. But we will certainly let them know that this is coming up and zoning is coming up. And LLC owns that, owns all of these other properties—all of these—this other land. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Madam Chair, so I don't see any issue—obviously, the Board will discuss it. I don't see any issue with making the existing lot legitimizing and making it so we don't have to—you guys don't have to kick a bunch of people out of their homes. I think that makes sense. But from your perspective, at least, we—you also have to get the variances on the new parcel that you want to bring in before you can go to rezoning. Is there another avenue that you—well, because— Well, we have to make the existing one conforming. Right, yeah. Right. That we have to do before we do. No concern there. We do not have to have the variances for the new site at this time, although, you know, we can come back after zoning, after site plan, after Department of Health. But the idea is that that is the way to make the house—the house is more—that property most effective for affordable housing. And this is certainly an affordable housing project. So that's why it was designed in this manner. This is Mr. Smith's business. This is what they've done in other places. As you've noticed, the bottom lines are one—are single-wide. The top lines are double-wide. They're all going to be brand new. They're all three-bedroom, two-bath, provided for a recreation area. And so, yeah, we do not have to have the variances for the northern section, but since we were coming before you and some of them apply to both, it made sense to us. We did have conversations. I don't know that that's the way that zoning would have preferred us to do it, but it made sense since some apply to both. To us, it made sense. No, we do not have to have them to go to zoning. Again, for efficiency's sake on your guys' part, I get why you'd ask for them all now. I feel a little hesitant to give variances for something that you can't even do at the moment. I understand. That is my perspective, obviously. I don't know how the rest of the board feels. If I can jump in. We asked the question of which ones were for the existing and which ones were for the new, and only number two and number ten were for the new sections. Everything else was legitimizing. The other nine were legitimizing the existing condition on the old park. Did I get one wrong? Except for maybe number nine. That was one of my questions. You have a 50% variance for the total recreation area required, but I'm assuming that's for both partals. It is for both because, actually, we're adding rec space with the new one. But you're deleting rec space with the original. We're not deleting any. That's staying. So what's the red lines through? What's that mean? They never had enough to begin with. The red line is just the fenced area, I believe. The red lines are, that is the summation of the recreation area that would be provided. So that is included with, this is the red lines. The only existing recreation area is the building at the front of the existing mobile home park. It's bottom right. Yeah. And then I'm assuming. So the 10% is adding the total area of the existing rec area plus our proposed rec area in considering the whole 14 1⁄2 acres. It's not 14. Or 15 acres. Nine acres. Nine plus the 5.5. Okay. The 14.5 acres. So the whole 14 1⁄2 acres. That's what the 10% is considering. So even with the proposed additional recreation area, you're still short for the ultimate requirement. Yeah. On the north side, considering the total recreation we're providing for the new development, if you were just going to consider the 5 1⁄2 acres, we would meet the code required 20%. But since we're considering this site as a whole, we only meet 10% of this site as a whole. Is that including the water, or is that including variance 10, or not including variance? That does include variance 10. And just to clarify, everyone in the existing space will be able to enjoy the other space, the new space. One community. Yes, one community. Are any of these recreation spaces large enough for a soccer or baseball field in and of themselves? The recreation space that is west of 17 and 1 could be large enough to set up a goal or two. But I haven't actually gone in dimension of them. Curiosity. Yeah. Like setting up rec areas, you'd assume that's going to be where kids can go burn off energy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. At west of 17 and 1, I mean, it's large enough that if the owners wanted to, they could set up a small playground or something. If there's anybody in objection. Are you good? Any other? I'm just here to answer questions. Okay. I think we're good on questions. Is anyone here to speak for or against? I'm here to speak against. My name is Suzanne Schrak. I live at 5010 Baggett Place, Coco. Maybe you can raise your right hand for me. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Speak back on the phone with Michael. Sure. I'll step forward. I didn't fully understand the scope of what was going on, you know, from the notice that I received. So I'm glad that it sounds like an improvement for the people that live there. I live on the next street over, and my backyard meets up. I can see the trailer park from there. Or, um, I've been in my, where on this box? I don't, I don't have that picture. I have it. Oh. I see it. I apologize. I see the map now. They're on the front side. I'll go for mine, and she can mark it. It's right here. I found it. I'm sorry. So we all know. Do you have another packet? I would so love a packet. I, I didn't even know which parcel it was today. I, um, for you, you've lived for the record since you showed it to him. Great. Thank you. Yep. Um, and there's an open lot behind me, so I didn't know if they were talking about that lot, like right outside, you know, meeting my, so my concern when I saw the variances of making it smaller and putting, I, I, I interpreted that, that it might be a whole bunch of them just being crammed together to, you know, try to fit in a bunch of people, which I understand affordable housing, and I, um, it, the existing trailer park has, it's, it's pretty rough. It has been. Now, I haven't driven back there in the last several years, but kids used to come to my house and play and play with my kids, and, you know, and I would take them home after church and different things, so I, um, been in there, um, but in the last couple years, there was a guy who jumped my neighbor's fence into her backyard and then came through a yard and then jumped her front fence and came up onto her, um, porch and looked in her window. He was barefoot, left prints on her, on her, on her concrete porch, and she had him on camera. She called the police and everything. They never caught him. Big guy. And, um, so since then, you know, we've, um, I sleep with a gun beside my bed, and so does my daughter, and so does my neighbor, you know? It's scary. So, it's kind of, yeah, it's a little rough neighborhood back there. So, I envisioned that maybe they were going to put a whole bunch really close together, which it does not sound like that. It's, these variants are for the existing trailers. I, this, I don't, this is the first time I've ever done anything like this. I'm sorry. You're fine. Take your time. I don't remember what I've said. I had a, I had a script, but I've been here, I lived in the house for 35 years. Um, I think it sounds good that they're making, uh, an extra, um, area for them. There was one time I drove back there, and there were plants growing out of the pool. That was few, that's been maybe 15 years ago. But, I mean, it was not good. So, I'm sure it's different now. Um, again, I just want, I asked, I went over to zoning, asked for what the rules were, you said, or what you can't and can't do, because when you've said it multiple times here, but I just can't, and I wasn't able to get a copy of it, so I'm sorry if I'm not being precise enough. But I know what it's like to be poor, I remember buying a half a dozen eggs at a grocery store that they saw it in half, you know, because, and that was because that was all I could afford when I was young, you know, so I, I get it, and I don't, I'm glad, it sounds like what they're doing is going to be good. So, I guess my main concern, is this going to set a precedence, um, with the different zoning of making smaller lots closer together, and the number, is it 10 that makes it a smaller lot, um, I would ask that the, that the existing zoning laws, or whatever you call them, would hold for any new building, so that, um, and I understand that the, um, that the variances are being asked for the, the 65-year-old, or the since 1965, whatever, um, so that they don't just come in and put them, my concern is that, who's, if it's really, pack them in, and, and what kind of, um, tenants are going to be attracted there, and, and is my neighborhood going to be less safe, um, because... It doesn't look as if they're changing any of the footprint of the existing mobile park. Yes. They're looking to add to... Correct. ...with the space... Correct, and so the variance, when they were talking about making things closer together, that was just for the existing, and, so that they could, they could kind of... That's a little complicated to say yes to. Yeah. It's, they're taking, instead of this, this individual property that's already there, they're adding to it... Yep. ...and then trying to make it make more sense, because they're adding additional lots, or additional homes to it. They're not making any changes to what's currently there, correct, as far as for lots? Correct. So they're not going to be shrinking any of them and adding more homes in. They're going to take the parcel that's to the north that's not developed... Yep. ...and adding more to it, and then, in the hopes, spicing up and sprucing up what's existing by adding more rec space, um, because of the addition of other properties. So would the variant, and again, I'm sorry if I don't have variances, um, would they affect future, um, let's say someone wanted to put trailers, because it is zoned trailer park in this open lot right behind my house. Could they put them, however, really close together, like using that as a precedent? I mean, yes, yeah. Or, does that make sense? Yes, I understand what you're asking. Thank you. Um, we use a terminology, uh, legitimizing an existing condition. Okay. The old trailer park is an existing condition. Yeah. Um, most of these variances are, are just to legitimize it to the existing code. I understand. Okay. Any new construction would have to meet the... Okay. There wouldn't be a precedent of this changing the overall zoning code. Great. I think that's what you were concerned about. That is, yeah. It would become a slippery slope. Correct. No. It will not change what's already there. It just makes it legal to what's there. Yeah, and I understand. That's fair. That's good. And the new areas, they're asking for a little relief to make it pretty much in, in, in the same style as the existing ones. So the new ones will be in the same sizes and styles. It's actually better roads and better recreation. And I'd love to hear that they're saying they're bringing in new ones. You know, we just didn't know, you know. And, um, again, I, I... But this will not set a precedent to, without a hearing, but it won't. Any new construction in the area would have to meet the existing code, not this... That is my question. Not, not a, uh, squeeze of the old code. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming in. Yeah. Thank you. Is there anything you guys want to say to close? Uh, again, um, regarding the variances for the new site, and there, there, we are looking for narrow lots, but they are going to be longer, and they're going to have, um, gravel parking, which the existing ones don't do. It does have better roads. It does have wreck. It does have, um, storm water, and it is protecting a wetland buffer. So, as you've seen from the most recent land and shear document, the waivers requested to the widths is the one that appears to be at issue with you all. The northern ones, the double wide lots, are 36 feet from 4 feet, and the bottom ones are 26 feet, so it would be a 14-foot variance. So, uh, if you're not comfortable with one of those, if you could maybe modify the variance to a 4-foot variance to the 40-foot. Um, but this design is somewhat reliant on these variances as a whole to do the wreck space and the, uh, wet pond. So, uh, that's, that's my only suggestion. I apologize if I, I overspoke to my client. Um, but I didn't want you to just disregard number two, because these lots are better lots, better conformity. I mean, if you've seen these lots, they've had to kind of gerrymander some of these lots to get the 40-foot width and to get the 10-foot separation and things like that. Um, things were done differently back in 65. So, I would request that you grant all 11 variances, but if you're having heartburn with two, if you would at least grant us a partial variance to that 40-foot width. Okay. I don't even know what to do next. All right. Any boards? Sorry, I want to talk a lot. Would anyone like to make a motion? I was, yeah, I was in for discussion if you... Well, after the motion, then we have discussion. Okay. Um, I'd like to make a motion that we, um, accept all 11 variances as depicted on whichever is the most current survey. What date are we using? 8-1, I think. The survey is July 1, 2026. The, uh, variance exhibit is August 12, 2026. I would reference both if I were making a motion just for simplicity. Okay. So, it was July 1st? July 1st survey. Okay. So, I make a motion that we accept all 11 variances in accordance with the survey of July 11th. One. One. I'm sorry. July 1, 2026. Um, and the associated, uh, engineering document by Shear Engineering dated August 12th, 2026. I think that does it. I'll second that. Uh, yeah, some discussion. Now we have discussion. Perfect. Okay. Um, and I think, uh, mainly some, some staff questions might help me out a little bit. Um, variances go with the parcel. So, let's, so if the variances are all approved, they go to zoning and for whatever reason the zoning is denied. Does that, obviously they can't move forward with their project, but are the variances still on that parcel for some future application? The variances for the, um, parcel to the north would not work because it is zoned today TR-1, and these are for variances to the TR-3 code. Mm-hmm. So those ones wouldn't be, uh, permitted. Okay. The other ones would be. Okay. Um. On the existing part. They denied the rezoning. Mm-hmm. So if, if this, if this current board, if whatever PNZ meeting they go to, the current board does not approve, and then 10 years down the road, different owner, whatever the case may be, goes before a different board and requests the zoning change, are those variances still in effect, or would they need new variances to get this same sort of configuration? Let me ask the county attorney here. Let me look up one thing, and then I'll get back with you. Okay. Um. Stop. Okay. And then the, the one other question, if the, and I don't, I guess depending on the answer to that question, can the approval of the variances on the north parcel, can we say conditioned upon approval of the zoning, or is it a, you either approve or deny there is no qualifying? I think it has to be approved on, uh, not on a condition. Okay. Um, I, just to the board, um, while we wait on that, that answer, I, I don't think, I, I don't think I inherently oppose the concept, the idea, or anything that they're, that they're asking for. I just, I feel a bit weird about the timing of it, um, just because it's, it's a, it's a blank slate right now. Uh, I understand the, the recreation variance plays into the existing parcel and legitimizing the existing property, I think makes total sense. Um, but I think it's difficult to say, hey, we need these changes, we need these, these variances when you don't, they're not a hundred percent committed officially to that layout. They can make adjustments. It might not make sense from an economy perspective, but I think, um. So you want to deny two nine and ten? I, I, yes, I think. Could, could you ask the attorney, I think the, those exhibits that you've referenced in the survey tie us to that site plan. They are, they're, they're not just a conceptual, they're a binding. Correct, I mean, that's, I, I believe when you do it that way, we're going to be tied to it. Okay. I would ask the county attorney. It's been a while since I've done this. I apologize. Come on. How have you not memorized this number? Greg left without much, I mean, with, never mind. We miss him very much. All right, so let me make sure I understand your question. Your question is, if the board approves a variance and then it goes before P and Z and they do not rezone, does the variance that you approved today stay attached to the land even though it's not rezoned? Correct. Okay. Um, not automatically, um, because the, the variance and the relief that they're requesting, um, is, would be, um, specific, yes, uh, applicable to the current zoning classification. So, if it doesn't, if, if, if time passes after this application is, um, completed, then the process would have to start again. Right. So, I, I would have to do some more legal research on it to give a, a specific, um, citations and all of that. But, if the zoning classification doesn't, if, if the zoning classification doesn't change within this application period, then the variance would not stay attached because the, um, because they would have to start all over again. Okay. Perfect. Basically. I don't know, we kind of snuck another question in there while you were doing the research. I don't know if you heard it. My thoughts are, is these are all to the TR3 zoning. Right. And they're cited to that zoning section. So, they're specifically to that zoning, not the TR1. Correct. Right. But if it changes, but if, if they change at a later date, so the question is, they, today, they don't change from TR1 to TR3, but in five years, they change from TR1 to TR3. Does what they vote on today affect the zoning in five years? And, and my answer to that at this moment would be, it would not stay attached. Okay. Okay. Because the zoning wouldn't be changed. Right. And then that other question that we, we sort of snuck in there, Mr. Zinka said she, her understanding at least is that, um, if these variances as presented are approved, it essentially ties the applicant to, um, the plan that they laid out. Is that accurate as far as you're aware? Uh, so, if, if they're, if they, if you, if you grant the variance and then they come back and try to change their site plan, is that what your question is? Yeah, the maps, the, the illustrations that they provided, they're, they're agreeing to these. Because it's contingent upon the application that they've submitted today. Okay. Perfect. I did not appreciate that. Um, I, knowing that now, I think I'm, I'm generally more comfortable, comfortable with the request. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second? We have a motion and a second. Thank you. Um, six questions. Let me read the thing I read one more time today. You need to record it and just play your record. I know. But I'm so good at it. That'd be too quick. Okay. Here's one. 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 in the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested will not confer on, 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 the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and 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 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. Do I have a approval, all an approval of passing all 11 variances as depicted on the survey 7-1, and on the share site plan of 8-12, all an approval, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Kim, you still have 25 minutes left. I know, right? Adjourn the meeting. Oh, this meeting is adjourned. Praise God. Thank you. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not