The Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi-judicial body when it hears requests for rezoning and conditional use permits. Applicants must provide competent, substantial evidence establishing facts or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the zoning code and comprehensive plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts or provide expert testimony whether they like or dislike a request is not competent evidence. The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and the existing rules in the zoning ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area. The Board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands. If a Commissioner has had communications regarding a rezoning or conditional use permit request before the Board, the Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place before the Board takes action on the request. Likewise, if a Commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the Commissioner must disclose that fact before the Board takes action on the request. Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless time is extended by majority vote of the Board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak. Good evening, and welcome to the October 2nd Planning and Zoning Meeting for the Board of County Commissioners. We have a quorum. We'll call the meeting to order. We have an invocation tonight by Pastor Sean Ferguson with Faith Temple Christian Center. Sir, you're recognized, and thanks for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioners, for all that you do. I stand before you honored to be here also representing the city of Rockledge, where I serve, have served for the past nine years as a city councilman. So it's an honor to be here to pray to do invocation. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we pause at the opening of this meeting to acknowledge your presence and to seek your wisdom. We thank you for the season of reflection and renewal and for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Brevard County. Your word declares in Psalm 127, verse 1, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain to build it. Except the Lord keeps the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Lord, we recognize that apart from you, our efforts cannot stand. Tonight, grant these fine commissioners the wisdom, the clear minds, the discerning spirits and hearts. May they work together continually in unity, guided by justice, compassion, and integrity, for the good of all who call this county home. Lord, bless Brevard County with peace, protection, and prosperity. And may you continue to bless the United States of America. In Jesus' name, amen. Thank you. Well done, sir. Thank you very much. If you'll join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, commissioners, we do not have minutes tonight to approve. We don't have any resolutions. And so we're going to move into the consent. So here's what we're going to do. We're on consent. We're going to have F1 and F3. And we're going to vote for those. And we're going to have a separate vote on F2. And Morris will explain that in a minute. So on F1 and F3 for consent. I have a motion to approve on F1 and F3. Is there a second? I have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. I have a second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney. Yes. Vice Chair Goodson. Yes. Commissioner Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Feltner. Yes. We'll show that passes 4-0. Thank you, commissioners. Morris, go ahead, sir, on F2. Yes, sir. On item F2, Commissioner Goodson is the manager of the limited liability company T.G. Reynolds of Brevard LLC that is the subject of the binding development plan. This zoning item was previously approved by the board on August 7 with Commissioner Goodson abstaining. And Commissioner Goodson needs to abstain tonight. And he will be filing a conflict form with the clerk to the board. Okay, having explained that, I have a motion by Commissioner Atkinson on F2. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney. Yes. Vice Chair Goodson. He's abstained. Thank you. Commissioner Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Feltner. Yes. We'll show that passes 3-0. Okay. Thank you for that, commissioners. Very good. And I don't think we have a G-card, right? No. Okay. Very good. All right. We're going to go on to H1 and 2. Trina. H1 and H2 are companion applications. I will read them into the record together, how they'll need a separate decision. City Point Landfall LLC, being represented by Kimberly Rezenka, requests a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under 24S.11 to change the future land use designation from Res 1, Res 2, Res 4, and NC to CC in Res 4 under application 24SS-00009, located in District 1. H2, City Point Landfall LLC, being represented by Kim Rezenka, requests a change in zoning classification from EU and RP, with an existing BDP to PUD, with the removal of existing BDP under application 24, PUD-00003, located in District 1. Kim Rezenka, on behalf of City Point Landfall, the owner of the property, I, for H182, we're going to request a continuous. There's several reasons. One, we believe we've nearly got everything settled with the neighbors. We think they're mostly happy with the revised plan. There was an email that came in yesterday that asked us to do something we were agreeable to do, but we can't do it, so we want to work to make sure that the PDP does have a conservation shown on it, which will essentially do the same thing. Also, there's been some more comments we haven't seen yet. And also, two, third thing is we realize that the PDP that's in the package is not the right one. It's inconsistent where the walkway is. So we would ask continue H-1 and H-2 to the November 6th agenda. I have a question about that. Okay. Commissioner Delaney. Billy, with the rules, as far as continuations go, can you explain that a little bit? In this situation, it would be within the board's discretion to continue. Okay. And as far as a conservation element, what is allowable right now without them having to start from scratch? When you say start, I think what Ms. Rezenka is saying is they would note it as conservation in the PDP. That could be done. I think it would change things if you were actually asking for a different land use. I think that's been suggested. That would require, I believe, a new advertisement and things of that nature. And would it being in the BDP, would that be permanent? The PDP, the preliminary development plan, which is approved alongside a PUD, substantial changes would require, come back to the board, minor changes can be administrative depending on what they are. To be clear, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. But things like if you're adding units on that east side of the track here, that would certainly be considered a substantial change that would come back to the board. And we could actually put the conservation in a document and record it in the public record over those 2.36 acres. And so for a conservation, you mean a conservation easement? Yes, ma'am. And is that a permanent thing? I'm going to defer to Morris on the mechanics of a conservation easement and its permanency. It's depending on how it's done, but I'd have to look at it and discuss what you have in mind. Okay. I've done it with other developments where you put it in the public record, and it's very hard to change. It's in the public record, sub-record. But yes, I can work with Mr. Richardson on that as well. But that way, everyone would be sure that those wetlands would stay wetlands. Just a quick question. I know when I was talking to staff, we talked about an easement in perpetuity. Is that the same thing that we're talking about here, or is it different? I think that's similar to what she's proposing, that we could do it in a way that it could only be released in the future by the board, for example. I know that there's one family who has put forward an idea that I think is what Ms. Frazinka is talking about, but I've gotten a lot of other emails from people saying that they're still uncomfortable with the density increase. And it looks like there's a bunch of people here from the neighborhood tonight. And so it's just, it's hard for me to continue this on when people have been waiting and preparing for this. Okay. Morris, what's, Kim has said she wants to continue. What do we need to do here? Well, it really is within the discretion of the board at this point, because of the timing of the request. So, because I think they have already moved it once as a matter of rights. So if you could entertain a motion, if there is a motion, that would take precedence over other motions. But it's up to the board. Can I make a motion to hear this item tonight? That wouldn't really be a motion. You would just hear the motion, or you would hear the item if there's no motion to the table or continue. That's what I meant. No need for a motion to do that. You would need a motion to continue. Okay. Okay. So to go forward tonight or to continue, what is continuing for the board and for you? What does that allow us all to do if we continue this? Allow us to have the proper PDP in your package, which it's not. Staff did not get the right PDP, and they're not saying it's their fault. I don't know if it's my engineer's fault, but it's not in your package, the proper one. Two, it's going to allow us to do a PDP that shows a conservation easement on it. So that's what you're approving. And three, to actually do a conservation record in the public record for the benefit of the public. So those are three. And also, it would allow me to see whatever these other comments are that Ms. Delaney has that I have not seen, so we can possibly meet with them as well. I think we need to make a decision here. I'd like to make a motion to continue. Second. Commissioner Delaney, you were going to say something. What are the legal ramifications if we don't continue it, Morris? What does that mean for us? What I say up here, you know, she's raised some considerations that could go towards due process concerns. Certainly, the applicant has a right to, you know, know the comments and see the comments that have been made. But generally, I think, based on the record here, I don't see a problem with the board deciding to proceed and hear the item. Of course, any time you have an item that might be controversial and you only have four members present, there's always the chance you have a split vote, in which case we may have to entertain multiple motions. And sometimes the board in the past, when there's been an inability to come to a resolution with four, it ends up then getting continued anyway to a future meeting when all five are present. So those are some of the considerations. But there's nothing to prevent the board from hearing tonight. It's been properly noticed. There are some clarifications that could be made on the record regarding things like the location of the boardwalk. So all that could be cleaned up tonight. But it's really, the board has absolute discretion, since it's the applicant's request. You know, they can't say that you didn't comply with any applicable timelines to consider it. So it's really up to the board. What's your pleasure? As, just real quick, but with regards to conservation easement and being recorded, if we proceeded tonight, how does, how would that work? That happens after the fact? I mean... Yeah, that could be part of the direction, that that's a requirement of the approval. The approval's conditioned on that, and then it would follow, and, you know, it would be in a form subject to the approval of the county attorney. Okay. But it would be better, you know, obviously, if we could see that in advance and consider it and discuss it. Okay. I think we had a motion, okay, to continue and a second, okay? So we're going to do that, okay? So a clerk will call the roll on the motion. Commissioner Delaney? No. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. And we'll see you November 6th? Yes. Thank you. That's right. Okay. Continue to the November 6th board meeting at this location at 5 p.m. Now, commissioners, just real quick, because I want to take care of a housekeeping issue. On H-10, because we don't have the benefit of having Commissioner Altman here tonight, we think the better thing to do is to hear that at the county commission meeting on the 14th. And I think that's, I mean, he was part of the original legislation, so I think that would make a lot of sense. We need a motion for that, right? Yes. Okay. All right. Move to continue that item. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. I have a second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the roll. I'm moving H-10 to the, continuing it to the regular commission meeting on the 14th. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. I'm sure that passes. Thank you, commissioners. Sorry about that. All right. Trina, let's go into H-3. Item H-3 and H-4 will read into the record together. They're companion applications. However, they're going to need a separate decision. Michael S. Paolo, being represented by Landon Shear, request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under 25S.13 to change the future land use designation from CC and Res. 15 to all CC under application 25SS00007, located in District 4. Michael S. Paolo, being represented by Landon Shear, request a zoning classification change from BU-1 and RU-17 to BU-2 with a BDP under application 25Z-00029, located in District 4. Sir? Landon Shear, Shear Engineering, 1361 Highway 818, Satellite Beach. Just a little back history on the property. The family's owned this property for quite some time, and they actually developed the mobile home complex to the west in the 70s and the 80s. And at that time, they carved out this parcel that we're talking about tonight for future development with the intent always to develop it. However, FDOT had other plans when they took over half of the property with eminent domain for the drainage pond just north of this property, which left them with an awkwardly shaped property that had a split zoning, making it difficult to develop. So our main request tonight is to unify the zoning across the property for one commercial zoning and land use. The request is BU-2 with a BDP to restrict all uses to be all BU-1 uses with the addition of contractor office and storage and BU-2, that being the only use in BU-2. The property owner currently owns a HVAC and plumbing contracting company up in Rockledge, and they are outgrowing their operation now and are looking to relocate to this property to accommodate their future growth. And the request for the contractor outdoor storage really comes at the owner has the ability to get late evening and late afternoon deliveries for materials. And we're trying to be proactive against potential code violations for outdoor storage of materials. They deliver materials in box trucks, and they drop them off outside the door. And if there's no guys around to bring them inside, then they would be left outside overnight until someone can get them in the morning and bring them inside. So this is being proactive against code violations, it not being in allowable use in the BU-1 zoning. And so we're trying to, like I said, be proactive. This area is a true, I would think a true mixed-use area with, there's curb pro, paver pro, a dentist office, marine and boat repair, a hair salon, the car spot, VFW, daycare, commercial, vacant commercial, office space, gas station, office complex, doctor's office, and an aquatic center that's been approved but hasn't been under construction, along with a little bit of residential in the area. US-1 is a major six-lane highway that provides sufficient capacity for this development, so there's no concerns for traffic there. The property has been evaluated by the environmentalists for wetlands, and there was no wetlands that were found on the site. There is a drainage ditch in the back, or back, the western portion of the site, and we have been in discussions with St. John's. We do have the ability to relocate it, obviously with appropriate permitting and calculations. There's a flood zone on the west side of the site, which is why we have situated the building where we have, away from the flood zone. We put the drainage area on the western side of the site strategically to mitigate any flood zone concerns. The deliveries and everything is going to be brought up to roll-up doors, which will be shielded from the right-of-way on the sides of the building, so there's no concerns for big, huge metal roll-up doors facing the right-of-way. Like I said, the deliveries for materials are from box trucks, so it's not big semi-tractor trailers coming in through this area all the time. And the nature of their business is plumbing and HVAC contractors, so it's in their best interest to keep all the materials inside. So 99% of the time, materials are going to be inside the building for weather protection and theft protection. So in summary, our request is BU-2 with a BDP that allows all BU-1 uses, and the only BU-2 use we're asking for is contractor office and storage, outdoor storage. Okay, sir. This is my district, and I have to tell you, the one thing, I'm very empathetic towards neighbors. Sure. Especially on noise and at night. Sure. And you are right up against, I mean, there's nowhere for them to go. So how can we split this late-night delivery noise situation with trucks and such? And I say late-night. I'm not talking about, like, midnight deliveries, but I'm talking 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock. Guys are trying to leave, go home to their families. A box truck comes in because they're making their last deliveries of the day. I'll split it with you. So what if in a BDP we agree that it's not going to be deliveries after 9 p.m.? Can you take that? Yeah. Okay. I think the owner will be okay with that. Good. We're good enough there, okay? Okay. We need separate motions on these. So the BDP is going to be on H-4. We're going to agree to deliveries not after 9 p.m., okay? All right. On H-3, again, this is my district. So I have a motion by Commissioner Atkinson. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll on H-3. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Gibson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Faulkner? Yes. And on H-4, we're going to agree to the BDP with the uses stipulated in the addition of, we're not going to, sir, dad. Yeah. I just would ask the board for a clarification. You gave us a time that you don't want deliveries after, but are you considering a time that you don't want them to start? Okay. Because I think the concern is late night delivery. So I would probably recommend that you say something like, you don't have any deliveries before 7 p.m. I was thinking that, too. If the applicant would agree to that. Can we agree to that? 7 a.m. I mean, plumbing and HVAC contractors, they get up early and they try to beat the heat. So they're likely going to be, I mean, I can't speak for them, but I would imagine some are going to be in the office by 6 a.m. So I don't know if my client. Well, I think we were talking about deliveries. We're talking about the trucks arriving and such. So the trucks can't come before 7 a.m. is what you're saying? Would you agree to that? Delivery trucks. Delivery trucks. I mean, grass cutters start at 7 a.m. Is that what we, can we do 6? Let's do 7. Again, I don't mean to be difficult, but I have to think of all the folks that live next to you, too. Sure. And I think we're splitting it here in a pretty reasonable way. So can we say that not before 7, not after 9 p.m.? Okay. Okay. That's the BDP we're going to agree to. So moved. We're clear on that? Everybody? Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. If I may, just for clarification, it would also include the BDP to say they have all BU1 uses and the single BU2 use of contractors' offices, plants, and storage yards. Just for clarification. Yes. That was all clarified. Yes. Okay. All right. We're all clear on that. Yeah. Sir? Good job. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you for that, Commissioners. We're going to go to H5. Trina? The next item is H5, Boniface & Company Incorporated, being represented by Kimberly Rizinka. Request a zoning classification change from BU1 with a BSP to BU1 with removal of a BSP under application 25Z-00020, located in District 5. Okay. Kim, you're recognized. Good evening, Chairman and members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Rizinka with Lacey Rizinka in Melbourne, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Boniface & Company, Inc. With me is Neil Huta, who is the Chief Operating Officer of Boniface & Company. This is the Kia dealership on 192. This stems from a 1988 rezoning. This is the old Hauser Zoo. It was 46 acres at the time. It was rezoned to allow a BU1 use on the front. And with that came the binding site plan that had a hatch line that showed where a wall was supposed to be. In 2019, when they came forward with a site plan to put in the Kia dealership, they built it. They got their CO. They put a wall on the north side. West side, they no longer owned it. It's only 12 acres. And then on the east side, there was no wall required. We don't know why, but a CO was issued. Now they've gone to expand to add service base on the existing footprint, on the existing area that's paved. And it's sort of on the east side. And so it was noted that they don't have a wall on the east side. Now there is a right-of-way and drainage easement on the east side. They've been there for five years. They've had no complaints. They want to move forward with their expansion without having to build a wall all along the east side of their property. So, again, this is just to allow them to add a service building on an existing parking lot. It's going to be inside, air-conditioned, all enclosed. They are not abutting any residential property to the east. They are abutting property to the north. But there's a six-foot masonry wall. I provided a package to PNZ. It's in your packaging starting there at page 769. I have extra copies if anyone wants them, but I know you all have lots of paper and you have books and all that. So that was just to show you the location. But it does show on page 778 and 779 the pictures of the concrete six-foot wall. There's also, in your packet at page 780, this was the as-built from 2020 that shows the six-foot concrete wall all the way to the east side of the property line. And then on page 781, you have the proposed site plan that's under review by your staff. And it shows the location of the enclosed one-story building. None of the trees are going to be removed. Nothing's going to be changed because they are building on existing asphalt. So the 200-plus area of foliage is going to stay. The trees have been there forever. They're not going to remove them. And so we're asking for the removal of the binding site plan so they do not have to build the wall on the east side. I overcomplicated it for PNC, so I've kind of shortened it. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Mr. Huda is here to answer any questions. But they've never had any complaints. The neighbors to the north don't have any problems. And there's actually another 40-foot drainage easement to the north as well. So they just are trying to expand for phase two. Okay, very good. Are there questions for the applicant? Do you have any cards? Any other? Commissioner Atkinson. Ms. Razanka, you mentioned that they're not going to take the trees down on the east side. Correct. Right? That they're going to expand on their current footprint. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. That's okay. Have it. That's okay. Do we have any way of determining for sure that those trees will not ever go? And if we don't, could we? The way it would do would be to install another BDP, which is not really what the client wants because of the requirements for your BDP to get the lender. Got it. Right. What if we just had Mr. Huta come up here and say on the record that he promises? Is that something? I mean, I know, do you hate it? Good evening. I am Neil Huta, operating officer of Boniface and Company. And we have not touched that woods area for five years. We have no plans on doing it. I sure hate to say we never do anything because you just don't know what's going to happen in life. But we are very, very, we're trying to be very good neighbors. We're very cognizant of our neighborhood to the north. And we have absolutely no plans to develop that at this point. And we really believe in sticking to our expertise, which is automobile sales and service. I understand the difficulty in you guys getting a BDP and all of that. So, this is going to be good enough for me. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff. Commissioner Delaney for staff and then Commissioner Goodson after. Okay. Commissioner Delaney, go ahead. Removing this finding site plan, what would that mean for the future of this property? Say, in 100 years when you guys say, enough with this business, we're moving on, what does that mean for this property? The north side wall still has to remain. It's required by our code to separate the residential from the commercial, as well as landscape buffer or vegetative buffer. On the east side, they're also required to have a type B roadway buffer. So, that means 15-foot minimum width of vegetation. And so, with this site plan in place, even if it were to sell to a new owner, it would stay with it? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Goodson, sir, you had a question? Yeah. If you're building on asphalt with a building, I would assume you have the correct amount of storage for water that you would have for the asphalt, the same as for the building. Is that a correct statement? Yes, sir. Commissioner Atkinson moves to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. I have a second by Commissioner Goodson. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. Thank you. I'll show that passes. Okay, Commissioners, to H6, I don't think you have a card. H6 is 5125 South LLC. Request a CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption accessory to a bar and game hall in Suite 3 in B1 zoning classification under application 25Z00021 located in District 2. Okay, we don't have the applicant here. Commissioner Goodson, your district, sir, what? I'll make a motion for approval. Okay. I have a motion to approve. By the way, any other questions? You have a question? I'm sorry. So, I don't know if, staff, do you have any updates for us about this business, this property, the situation? No. During our briefing, you guys had mentioned there's some uncertainty going on with this. So, the applicant failed to appear at P&Z twice. That was why P&Z recommended denial of this application. It's in the board's discretion to approve it, deny it. If the applicant was here, another option might be to send it back to P&Z, but with the applicant, it would appear that the applicant is no longer interested in this application. But in any case, they're not here. Chair, if that's the case, I'll pull my motion, okay? Okay. So, you're not interested in a motion to approve? Nope. Okay. All right. Are there any other questions on this? I don't have any cards. Is there any discussion on this beyond that? Okay. All right. Is there a motion to deny it? So moved. Second. All right. I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Goodson. I have a second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. I'll show that one tonight. Okay. H7, Trina. Vincent and Sherry Gugula, being represented by Thomas Nider, request a CUP for an accessory structure under application 25Z00026, located in District 3. Chief, you're recognized. Hi, Tom Nider, 1860's Administrator, Northwest Bombay. I'm requesting a CUP change to put some electricity on a vacant piece of property. All right. So, Chief, having explained the issue, are there any questions? I have a question by Commissioner Atkinson. So, this doc was approved by DEP? Yes. We did get an approved permit. Right. And so, you're complying with all the DEP requirements? Yes. Yes. That's my question. Okay. Very good. Any other questions? Nope. Don't have any other cards? Any discussion? Is there a motion on the item? May I just ask that a motion include the waiver to the 1,000 feet requirement for the CUP? Billy, can you explain that for me, please? Yes, ma'am. The code for a doc such as this, the doc as an accessory to a principal structure that's in a neighborhood, typically requires 1,000 feet. However, the board has the ability to waive that requirement. If the doc was established prior to 2008, we did our research here and found that the doc was established prior to that date, so it was within the board's discretion to waive that particular requirement. And in here, the principal structure is located about 1,800 feet away, so it would require that waiver. I make a motion to approve with everything that Billy just said. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Atkinson, including the waiver. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. Congratulations, Jay. Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. All right. Okay. Commissioner, so we'll go on to H8. The VAR company, being represented by Jose Pazmino, requests a CUP for on-premises alcoholic beverage consumption under application 25Z00032, located in District 4. Sir? Good evening, Commissioners. Good evening. My name is Jose Pazmino, 500 West Monroe, Chicago, Illinois. All right. I'm here with Arca Murray on behalf of Topgolf to ask for a CUP for on-beverage consumption of alcoholic beverages. I said beverages. Okay. I think when we approved Topgolf before, it was here for all of about 35 seconds. So I wasn't thinking this was going to be a hard one either. This is my district, Commissioners. Is there a motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. I'll let you guys split it. Okay. I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Atkinson, second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney. Yes. Vice Chair Goodson. Yes. Commissioner Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Feltner. Yes. And we wish you luck. Thank you very much. All right. Do you guys have an opening date yet? We're getting close to permit approval. Okay. We'll get there. Hopefully before summer. Thank you. Take care. All right. On H9. H9, sir, is Hope Episcopal Church, Inc. CUP request for wireless telecommunication facilities and broadcast towers and a PUD zoning classification. I'm reading this one instead of Billy because this is one that the board has heard previously. The board heard this request, denied the CUP. The board decision was challenged by the applicant under the Federal Telecommunications Act, and we have had the Federal District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals tell us that under the Telecom Act that the board needs to issue the permit, and we in fact have a mandate that the CUP should be issued, and I'm going to ask the board for a motion to issue the CUP but subject to the conditions recommended by the county's consultant Cityscape in its telecommunications site review dated August 18 of 2023. This is a mandate of the court. It's not a board decision that this is a good fit for the tower, but based on the record, before the court, the court has directed the board that that's the required action. So moved. I have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second? Second. I have a second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Vice Chair Goodson? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Chairman Feltner? No. And we'll show that passes. Thank you. Okay. H10 we already took care of. I think I've got one card for public comment. Trevor Tezel. Did I say that right or Tezel? Tezel. Tezel. Right. Put an accent mark over that part. You recognize, sir? Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Trevor Tezel. I live in Suntry. I'm a lifelong Brevard County resident. Since the county recently passed its budget, I see no better time to begin advocating the commission to provide funding in the fiscal year 2026-2027 budget for universal body-worn cameras for deputies of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. Let me start by saying that I am a strong supporter of our law enforcement officers, and I believe that anyone who holds themselves out to be a strong supporter of law enforcement would see the imperative of a policy providing for universal body-worn cameras for Brevard County sheriff's deputies and municipal police officers. For how else can an officer establish a defense for himself or herself without that crucial evidence? Now, it's true, under current legal standards, there are significant protections for law enforcement officers whose actions evidence an objective belief that the use of force is reasonably necessary to protect against imminent risk of harm. But are we kidding ourselves that our officers are not at risk of one day being railroaded by a justice system that sometimes shows it's susceptible to manipulation by the prevailing political winds of the time? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Look, I realize that this year's budget process is complete. I've also been following the development and passage of that budget, and I appreciate the extremely hard choices that you all have had to make. Over the coming meetings, over the coming months, I hope to make the case to this body for why this funding for BCSO has to be prioritized, even if it requires resorting to extraordinary measures to raise the money to do so. I know money is tight, but this should not be a barrier to ensuring that our law enforcement officers are appropriately outfitted to serve and protect. Let's not wait to take action until some incident inevitably arises where someone gets unfairly maligned and potentially unjustifiably prosecuted, whether it be an officer or a citizen. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, sir. Okay, commissioners, we'll move into board reports, TAD and board report, sir. No report, Mr. Chair. Mr. County Attorney. No report, sir. Okay, Commissioner Delaney. Board report. No report. Okay, Commissioner Goodson. No. Sir? Commissioner Atkinson. No report. And I don't have anything. We'll see you on the 14th at the commission meeting, right? Okay, very good. Thank you, everyone. We'll see you next time.