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 planning and zoning meeting for the board of county commissioners. We're going to start this evening with a moment of silence. Thank you for that. We have a quorum. I'll call the meeting to order. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, commissioners, we do not have minutes to approve tonight. We don't have any resolutions, and I don't think we have a consent agenda. I don't think we have any G portion of the cards, right? So we're going to go right ahead. We're going to go to H4. I think we've got several items that we don't have cards for, so we can go through pretty quick, and then we'll come back to the main events. So on H4. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. H4 is for the housing authority of Brevard County, represented by Michael Bean, requesting a CUP for mitigating a non-conforming use in RU2-30 zoning classification under application 25Z-00022, located in District 5. Okay, commissioners, I do have the engineer of record if we have questions. So first, are there any questions? Questions on the item? We don't have any cards beyond the engineer in discussion. Any discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item? So moved, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Altman. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. We'll show that passes 4-0. Thank you for that, commissioners. We'll go to H5. Under H5, Lawrence Crumley is requesting a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-13 under application 25Z-00023, located in District 2. Okay, commissioners, are there questions? I do have the applicant here. Are there questions for the applicant? No. I only have the card for the applicant in discussion. Is there any discussion on the item? Is there a motion on the item on H5? Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Atkinson. I have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. We'll show that one. Passes 4-0. Thank you. Commissioners, we'll go on to H6. Under H6, Richard Brandon is requesting a change of zoning classification from GU to AU under application 25Z-00030, located in District 1. Okay. Questions? Are there questions? No. We don't have any cards on this one. We're in discussion. Is there any discussion on the item? I love making more ag land, and I'd like to make a motion to approve. Hold on one second. That's not an H6 card, is it? It is not. Okay. All right. Have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. Is there a second on H6? Second. We have a second by Commissioner Altman. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. We'll show that one. Passes 4-0. Thank you, Commissioners. on H7. John McLeod requests a change of zoning classification from GU to SR under application 25Z-00031, located in District 5. We do have the applicant here if we need. Commissioners, are there questions? Are there questions? Okay. I only have a card for the applicant. Is there any discussion on the item? Is there a motion? I move approval. Second. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Altman. Have a second by Commissioner Delaney. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. We'll show that one. Passes 4-0. Thank you for that, Commissioners. Do we want to do the signed ordinance, or I guess we can come back to that. So, Kim, I told you I'd split it with you. So let's do that. We'll go back to H1, then. Under H1, it's a request for the adoption of a petition to establish the Sontero Lakes Community Development District. Developer is Gen 4-48 LLC, located in District 5. All right. Are there questions? Sorry, Commissioners, are there questions? Kim, are you on this one? Tell us your name. I'm sorry. I have a few cards that I think are associated with it. Yes, sir. My name is Tucker Mackey. I'm with QTAC Rock and representative. I wouldn't guess you were a Tucker. Oh, well, I get that a lot. Very good. Okay. Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. I don't know if this is the appropriate place for this question, but when I was going over this with staff, I'm learning, obviously, and we're talking about spine roads. Yes, ma'am. And I know that's not exactly what we're talking about here in this, but the spine roads, is that something that the county may be asked at some point to take care of, to be our responsibility in future? Great question. So, to the extent familiarizing with the commissioners with community development districts, what we're here asking the commission for today is the establishment of a community development district for the provision of public infrastructure, including roadways within the district boundaries that would include both the internal roadways and the spine roadways themselves. This is not a zoning approval, and it's not a land use approval. I think there was a binding development plan that provided for the county to own, operate, and maintain those spine roads once they were developed, and the district may be the financing tool that delivers that infrastructure. However, if that's a continuing conversation between the petitioner and the county, that's something that the district as a local government could own, operate, and maintain as well. So, we will be talking about that later. I think it could be talked about further. Other representatives of the petitioner are here today, but this does not bind the county to any one determination here today by approval of the district. Absolutely. Any other questions for the applicant? Let me ask a question. Is that something we want stipulated tonight for us going forward? It is certainly something the board can consider making clear as part of its motion that the, as you said, that the exhibits indicating that the county does have responsibility to maintain those spine roads are not binding going forward and are subject to future discussions and negotiations. And the petitioner is fine with that. Absolutely. I think, I'm thinking I would feel more comfortable with that myself. Okay. I didn't have any other cards except for the folks working on the project. Any other questions for our applicant? Okay. Is there any discussion on the item? Commissioner Altman. Sorry. Yeah. I've met with the staff, and I have no problem with the CDD to help provide the infrastructure. But we would like to put some language in the CDD that would just make things more clear. I'd love to have the staff kind of read that into the record and fold that into my motion. It does not address the spine road, but if you felt that the spine road should be included in that, we could probably move that in. And if I could read it, I do think that the potential language would include discussion on the spine road. You think it would? Yep. Okay. So a potential motion would be to find that the petition meets all statutory requirements for the establishment of a CDD and to adopt the ordinance establishing the Sontero Lake CDD with the specific understanding that any language contained in the petition which designates ownership or maintenance responsibilities are non-binding and shall not be used as a basis to argue that the board has consented to any obligations to construct or maintain any infrastructure identified in the petition including, but not limited to, roadways. So that would include the spine. Absolutely. Okay. Well, I'll make that a motion and then we approve the request. All of that? Mm-hmm. Have a motion by Commissioner Altman with the language that Billy read for us. Have a second by Commissioner Atkinson. We'll call the roll on H1. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltner? Yes. We'll show that. Pass us 4-0. Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. All right. We'll go on to H2. Mr. Chairman, H2 and H3 are companion applications. I'll read them together. They will require separate motions. H2, City Point Landfall, LLC, represented by David Basford and Kim Rizanka, requests a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under application 24-S.11, to change the future land designation from Res. 1, Res. 2, Res. 4, and NC to CC and Res. 4, under application 24-S.S.0009 in District 1. And H3 is City Point Landfall, LLC, represented by Ms. Rizanka, 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. So, Kim, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Kim Rizanka, Lacey Rizanka, here on behalf of City Point Landing, who is the owner of the property. Just for clarification, is Mr. Goodson? You might have to pull the mic closer to you, Kim. I'm sorry. Is Mr. Goodson here online, or is he not? He's not here. He's not here. Okay. We have been here before. We went to planning and zoning twice. You're all very familiar with this area, I believe, and you've had many, many emails and probably meetings with members of the community. This is a slight change in density to an area that was, Binding Development Plan was put on it in 2008, and this is an increase in future land use, but it's really only a tiny increase in density from 19 units to 13 units. So, while the flu is changing to a different density, the map I gave you in the first document shows you that Res. 1 doesn't really make sense where it is, and I suggest to you that that was done back in 2008 because of the economy at the time. That was a difficult time, the bankruptcy of Learman Brothers, the crash of 2008. It happened in September of 2008, and I suspect the developer took whatever. Whatever it could get back then, because they were trying for more, and they took less. This is a troubled property. It's been through foreclosure a couple times. Certificate of titles were issued, and it hasn't been developed because the zoning for it is not consistent with what's in the area or what's needed to develop. This is an interesting piece of property. It goes from a higher elevation to a lower elevation, and the neighbors have concerns about that because Indian River Drive has flooded. I drove it this weekend. There was still some flooding last weekend from the weekend before the rain, but, again, that road is a maintenance road by the county. It's not maintained by the developers, the owners, or anything else. If there are improvements or right-of-way dedication that has to be done, that will be done during the flooding time period. But this is a troubled property. It's 17 years of non-development. I do want to address the Sudermans. They have been the most vocal. They do live nearby. And when I say that we thought we'd address everyone's concerns, we meant about the zoning, the PDP. We know they've had concerns about the flu, but what they don't recognize is that flu is limited by the PDP. The PDP is finding both the narrative and the document before you. And when I say that we have tried to meet all of their requirements at both community meetings, the first community meeting, they were dead set against townhomes. The first large page I gave you, that was the first PDP. That's the single one. That had the townhomes. It had two buildings of RV storage. We have come way down from that development proposal. And I say by way down, we have no townhomes. We have no access on Park Chester. We have no access on Indian River Drive. We have a walkway for the community to go to the dock, which is able to be built on the other side of Indian River Drive. All of that was changed based upon community input. So that's what I mean when we thought we had satisfied the neighbors. Everything I've read is they're concerned about the future land use. The future land use is already four units to the acre on four acres of the property on Indian River Drive, where it doesn't belong. We could move that to Res 2, but it takes a legal description. This was the most convenient way to do it, also to transfer the density that we should be able to have on the wetlands to the center area. And what we're putting in that center area, and with the four acres of Res 4 already there, is two units to the acre, which is what the Park Chester to the north already has. So this is consistent. It's made consistent by the PDP, the PUD zoning. Also, I do want to put into the record, Res 4 is not high density. It's never been considered high density by anyone in this county or anyone in land development. In fact, if you look at your future land use code, you start with Res 30, and then you go all the way down to, you know, Res 10, which is a transition. Res 6, again, transition between higher and lower intensity uses. Res 4, an additional step down in density from the more urbanized. So it's not a high density. It's a misconception. I do also want to explain that the PUD can't just be changed willy-nilly. I know there's been some comments that a BDP can be changed. The PUD zoning starts with a PDP, and you get a tentative zoning. If a final development plan is not approved in three years, the zoning reverts back. And that is in the land development code starting at Section 621448. So if there's no final development plan, the PUD zoning is terminated. And, yes, that does raise the issue with the Res 4, but the Res 4 of the wetlands is never going to be able to be developed. And they will have to come back to do anything else for zoning. As mentioned, with the PDP, there's a preliminary development plan. There's this 10-page document. That's binding on this property. That tells you exactly what they're going to do and when they're going to do it. The large set of documents I provided to you, that is the entire PUD drawing. That explains what the zoning is going to be. The one waiver request, which is on the tracks and open space exhibit, there is a waiver information. A waiver from the undisturbed 15-foot buffer shall apply to the project. And backbells should be landscaped to provide a vegetative buffer and shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width. That's because of this change in elevation from U.S. 1 to New River Drive. So that's why that waiver is being requested. There will still be a 15-foot vegetative buffer. It just may not be in its natural state because of what they're going to have to do to the property to account for stormwater, to account for the building pads, and to maintain that wetland. So this does show you the changes that were made. You can see on that tracked and open space exhibit, they've cut the commercial use in half. So there's now only one RV storage. They've gotten rid of the townhomes. They have made the amenities through some of these stormwater tracks and some of that open space. The staff report still says we're asking for a waiver from open space. We're not. The boardwalk is going to be able to be the bike path as part of the open space where there is no stormwater ponds. So we do not need that. So what we're seeking is 23 homes on 10.94 acres. Currently, there's a Res. 1 of 6.44 acres. There's a Res. 2 of 0.47 acres and a Res. 4 of 4.2 acres. So to make that consistent, we went to Res. 4. Again, the intent is not to put 54 units on here. The intent is to do exactly what the PDP says. Currently, the EU zoning is inconsistent with the Res. 1 and the Res. Well, I guess it can be in Res. 4. The administrative policies and the staff report says that this is consistent with the character of the area. What is proposed, the size of the lots next to Park Chester, are nearly identical. And the staff report does indeed say it is consistent. The PUD is to encourage planned residential range, a range of residential types, as well as industrial, commercial, institutional uses. So this is a commercial on U.S. 1 transitioning to single-family homes. There are no concurrency issues in traffic or schools. With the PDP, the lot sizes are compatible. The proposed uses are compatible. The proposed common open space is compatible. And the staff report does indeed support both the future land use and the change in zoning to PUD. Again, to repeat, that BDP is only for the 7 acres in the middle of the property. It's not over the entire property, as many people seem to believe. Bruce Moya, the engineer of record, has spoken to Public Works, and there are some concessions that have been made regarding dedication of right-of-way and other conditions that Public Works has asked. And Bruce will discuss that. In conclusion, we request that you change the future land use as requested and approve the PDP with the one waiver. However, this is not a dramatic increase, it's going from 19 potential units to 23 units, and we've reduced the commercial, so that's also reducing the intensity of the development. Currently in the residential floor, but for the wetlands, we could have 16 homes there. So, again, this is not an increase, a dramatic increase. This does provide consistency with the PDP. You all know exactly what is planned. And also, if there's other conditions, that's the time to do it right now is at the PDP stage. So, with that, I would ask Mr. Moya to come up. Mr. Moya with MBB Engineering, the engineer of record for the project. We did have a conversation with Public Works. We've had several conversations with staff, mostly because of drainage. We understand drainage is a huge concern in this area. So, we would like to offer kind of a way to maybe make a difference, make it better, because if we don't do anything, then nothing really changes. And if you're familiar with that roadway, it's low. You only have rights to maintain it based on a maintenance map that I don't think has been recorded yet. So, we would like to go ahead and provide property to allow you guys to maintain it and do any future road projects that you might have in the works, which I think might be happening, since I understand there's a survey that's been done of that roadway from 528 all the way up to where it turns into US-1. So, one thing we can do, that we will do, is we will not only just meet the, reduce the discharge rate of the storm, of the design storm, we'll also reduce the volume that's discharged off the property into the outfall. So, that would be beyond your code, as well as the St. John's Water Management District code, to ensure that no more water goes to that roadway than goes there now. We would reduce that, and we'll reduce it as much as we possibly can. Another thing we will do, I know that it's concerned about groundwater, we will do a groundwater modeling analysis to make sure that we address any groundwater issues that might be contributing to that runoff. If we can dedicate up to 50 foot of right-of-way to the county to give you a lot of room to do any kind of drainage improvements that might need to happen in the future. So, I think between all that, we can definitely make a difference and make it better than it is now, so have an improvement of what we are seeing now. Even though, you know, we will be developing it, but the way it drains now, it's a really high gradient from US 1 down to Indian River Drive. It's uncontrolled right now, the runoff just goes straight through there, flushes through that wetland, and goes right over the road. We can control that, we can slow down the rate, we can reduce the volume, and make the drainage in that area better than it is now. Okay, yep, and well, one other thing we did do, because we were very intentional when we did this PUD design, is the lots that abut Parkchester to the north are all the same size lots as their lots, and the smaller lots are on the other side of the road. So, I just did want to add that in. Thank you. Okay, let's go to questions first. We do have some cards, but we're going to do questions. Commissioner Delaney. I just wanted to clarify, for the new plan that you guys have, is it, are there going to be swales behind the houses to the north, or were you guys filling that in? Because I feel like when we met, you guys had talked about possibly swales, but... Yes, ma'am. So, that was one of the reasons we're asking for the waiver of the 15-foot buffer, because the way the code's written, you're not supposed to touch it. But those houses, because they were built so long ago, the houses are built high in the middle, and they just drain away from it, so there's actually runoff coming onto our property. So, we don't want to block them. We want to make sure we convey that water down to the... To the stormwater plots. To the river, like it ends up now, but instead of going into our system, it'll just bypass. Okay, thank you. Do you have other questions for the applicant? Ready to go to the cards? I have a question. Okay. So, I have questions about the buffer, the 15-foot buffer. I am not a fan of pulling out stuff that's been there forever, right? So, are we talking about pulling out, you know, invasive species? Are you talking about ripping out everything? And if you are, what are you going to put back? That's a good question. It really is going to depend on what we need to do to make the drainage work, because the last thing we want to do is block the neighbor's drainage. So, even though it is coming on our property, we want to build a system that will handle it and not back it up. So, if we have to clear it and replant it, we can definitely do that. If we can limitly, you know, clear it just very limited, then that's what we'll do. But we have to, because, you know, obviously we have to fill our lots. So, we're going to fill our lots. They got their lots filled. There's going to be a little spot in the middle, and we've got to make sure that water flows, because, I mean, there's a lot of subdivisions where you have subdivisions butting at the subdivisions, and if you don't get the water out from in between the two subdivisions, then you get a lot of complaints. So, we want to make sure that we handle that, and the only way we can is to allow us to be able to disturb that buffer. We'll only disturb as much as we have to. If we can keep the trees or if we can replant it, we'd be happy to do that. But we have to do landscaping anyway, so we could definitely reestablish any vegetation that's there. Follow up. Please. So, I guess what I'm saying, and maybe I'm asking Billy as well, I know that I'd like to know for sure that we're going to put back, if we're taking out big, huge, deciduous trees or something, that we're going to put back something similar. And I appreciate your intention to want to put it back close. But intentions sometimes, you know, they're changeable. And I think somewhere in here, if I'm correct, it said similar. Am I remembering that correctly, Billy? Yeah, the language included in the PDB says that in lieu of the undisturbed buffer, they would include something similar to a type B buffer. Is there a way for us to tighten that language up so that I feel more comfortable that we're not just going to throw in a couple of palm trees and be done? Well, if you want to explain what a type B buffer is, but it's a combination of trees and shrubs every so often. Right. So, you can't, and the trees have to meet minimum tree size criteria. You can't just throw in palm trees. Right. You have to throw in canopy trees. So, similar means something. Right. If there were canopy trees out there now, we'd put canopy trees back. Well, I guess, can I clarify, would you be committing to meeting all of the type B buffer requirements? Because it's similar to type B buffer requirements. So, you're committing to meeting all of those requirements? Sure. I would be happier with that. Thank you. Anything that doesn't interfere with the drainage, as long as it doesn't interfere with the drainage. Do you have any follow-up question down there? Okay. Want to go to the cards? All right. Sandra Kennedy. That's five. That's five. Good evening. My name is Sandra Kennedy. I'm an attorney with 30 years experience. I'm a construction lawyer. Litigating what happens to projects like this after they go south is what has kept me making a living for 30 years. I reside in this area. I'm opposed to the change in zoning. This zoning was not set because of the economy. It was set because of the many efforts of my neighbors to protect their area from flooding. We are being flooded out. And I think that you all are not familiar with what we are going through. It's been in the news lately. It's been on TV in Florida today. I didn't even have the benefit of seeing it, although I heard about it. So, you may have missed it, too. We had no wake zones on our road. The road has not been repaired or anything in the seven years that I've lived there. It floods over from the Indian River Lagoon, and it floods down from U.S. 1. We are being flooded out by FDOT. The ponds at 528. People don't understand this. In Florida, the elevation goes from south to north. So, what is south of us comes north, and it gets into that ridge, that Coquina Ridge, and it fills up, and then it just charges, and it just pours down the ridge, which is at least 75 feet, if not more. And every pond that you put at a high elevation, daylights at the low elevation. It's not like it goes into some magic hole to the core of the earth. It daylights on Indian River Drive. These problems need to be solved before you even consider another development in our area. Building a single house has not as much impact as talking about increasing the density to park Chester. That's a 1960s subdivision, and that's part of what's causing our problem. That coupled with FDOT recently saying that they're trying to restore the historical flow of the water from the west side of U.S. 1 down to the lagoon. To me, that sounds like it's a violation of federal law, but it's also flooding out people with existing property rights. You want people to sue? We are the ones who will sue, and there's a lot more of us than there are of them. There's only one of them. And I really dispute what they're saying because I attended those public meetings, and it was either Bruce Moya or someone with gray-er hair acting like him who said, I asked him, I thought I threw him a softball, all we really want is to be assured that you're not going to increase the flooding in our area. He said, I can't do that. It would be $100,000 for us to do that engineering, and we're not going to do that engineering to find out about the flooding until we get approval to go forward. So this is what they're telling us. And then they come in here and they say something different. And I'm sorry, but I'm going to call out people who've come before the zoning board, attorneys, and said, oh, this project doesn't abut any residential land. This was a different project, same law firm, and it abuts my property. They came and they raised every single thing, and by that I mean flattened everything. And now I have absolutely no buffer from the commercial zone at all. It's all gone because of the misrepresentations of this law firm. So that's the law firm and the engineer making misrepresentations. Mr. Vic Watson, the attorney, another attorney in this firm, also acted like a member of the public, spoke before the public hearing on zoning, and said, oh, I have basically no problem with this. Well, sure you don't because your law firm is the one representing the developer trying to get this done. Okay. So they've also said that they have no responsibility for addressing hurricane conditions. So I gather that they're going to say anytime there is a flood on US-1, it was just caused by a hurricane. King tide happens twice a year, and it doesn't go away. There's not one day where it's king tide. It's still king tide out there. I have seen weeks with the hills flowing with water. Something needs to be done about it before we start thinking about it, and why change the future land use map that was designed to prevent against this? What's the reason for expanding it right when we're at the worst of a crisis on Indian River Drive? We have City Point Road to get out, or we have to go all the way north to Blacks Road, and that area is usually flooded. I could go on and on. I wish I would get more time. There's a lot of reasons for you to deny this, and I'm begging you, deny them. Please. May I cross the band? Yes, you are. Witness yourself. Okay. Hold on one second. Mr. Chair, if I may. So in a quasi-judicial hearing, and we're hearing right now items two and three, item three is quasi-judicial, the applicant does have a right of cross-examination, should be reasonable and within the boundaries of what she testified to as to factual testimony. Do you live in Park Chester? No, I live down off of Indian River Drive. Do you live about a half a mile from here? Half a mile from here? From the project. I don't know exactly, but my only way of egress and ingress is City Point Road. I live down the road north, and this whole land use that you're talking about changing is the same, consistent for my whole area. So I'm in Brook Hill subdivision, and this whole thing, once you get a toehold and you start chipping away at this future land use, then everybody's going to be like, oh, well, that project warrants another one. And then pretty soon we're going to be flooded all over the place. And you don't have to live with the ramifications, but we do. One more question. Aren't you adjacent to an FDOT easement that was between you and the property that was in RV storage? That's my land. Guess what? Guess what? There's nothing that says that that's actually, if you look at our plat, it's not identified as FDOT. It's not even identified as an easement, but notwithstanding that, that whole thing is my property on the plat. I paid for it, and I don't appreciate attorneys coming along and misrepresenting that that's not my land. The property appraisal's website does show it as FDOT land, right? You, being an attorney, you know well enough that the property appraiser's office, it says right there, disclaimer, do not trust what we say because it may not be correct. And when I call the county and talk about what's going on around me, I say, don't look at the property appraiser's office, and they say, don't worry, we don't. We look at your plat. I own what the plat is defined as a lot, and you can't say, oh, well, we think that you don't own this or that. And by the way, your partner, Vic Watson, dared to say that he represented me, and he actually did represent me and take my money and tell me things that your firm had asserted. I've never been a partner with Vic Watson ever in my life. To the contrary. Well, I apologize then, but he has been involved in this. Thank you. There's nothing. That is definitely my lot, and you can look at it. You being a lawyer, you know that, especially a real estate lawyer. I've pulled up. It's an FDOT easement. I've pulled it up. There is a strip of land that goes right through the middle of my property, and it's an easement, and it goes right through the middle of my backyard, but that doesn't mean I don't own the land. Ms. Kennedy, part of our dilemma here is we don't pick up things in the microphone. I'm sorry. She's talking about a ditch. I had a drainage ditch through my backyard. It's not marked on my plat as belonging to FDOT, and in fact, the actual FDOT easement was north of the plat, and they put the pipe through my backyard, but that does not mean I don't own the backyard, and she actually did misrepresent that that project didn't abut a residential property. When I got up and said it did, and I accepted it. I believe what she said. She gaslighted me. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I just, just for the record, to be clear, I'm sure there's a misunderstanding for whatever reason. Vic Watson is not affiliated with Ms. Rosanka's firm. He is, however, his law firm is located in the office that is just to the north of the commercial portion of the subject property. I apologize. I thought they were in the same law firm. Okay. I'm glad we clarified that. Okay. Okay. Mary Jane Duncan, ma'am. Mary Jane Duncan. I live at 304 North Roundtree Drive. That's in Parkchester. And this is definitely such a heated issue. And I think one of the things that we all need to just be mindful of is what's the big goal that we're looking for here? You know, what are we trying to achieve in our community for the best of our environmental issues as well as our population growth? And there's no simple answers, but it takes all of you really doing your due diligence and considering all of the different options and possibilities from both sides to find the happy compromise that will meet everybody's needs in these situations. And if this one sets a precedent for moving forward without all of the due diligence being done, then it does open up the can of worms that other things could happen as well. So my request is just that everybody do your due diligence, really dig deep, and please consider all the big options that are being looked at here. It's not just the importance of allowing another development to happen. And we do appreciate all that has been done by the developers. However, it's a little like negotiations. They aim high and then they make it look like they've sacrificed a lot, when really they were just taking away what we already had already established. So thank you. Thank you, ma'am. My name's Bill Garr. I live at 385 Chester Drive in the Park Chester Estates. I've been there since 1989. Her property backs up to that property. I've known the people that have owned it for years, back to the Selvins, when it was Selvins Groves. And by the way, when you're talking about trees, excuse me, right down in the center of that property is what their tree line used to be and still is. So you're talking about rows of trees, when you're talking about how many trees you're going to have to take out from over there. That property was owned by Selvins Groves back way before me. And okay, he lost the property due to property taxes, which his friend took over the property, which died. That's part of the reason why that property has changed in so many times. Okay. The other thing is, why do we have a binding agreement if it's not going to be held to? Okay. The gentleman said the first meeting was like 100 residents. The second one, maybe 20. And even tonight, we're a little thin because people can't just keep taking off to come here from work. They don't get paid to come here. But we do, a lot of us do come in for our reasons. And my property happens to be, according to surveyors, the lowest part of the part Chester States to that property behind me. And I do get flooded out at times quite a bit. Again, but this individual bought this property knowing very well what the original plan was. So why do we make them think that they can go ahead and have it changed? And this is ridiculous. How many times this is, how many meetings has there been already over this? Okay. It don't seem like anything has changed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Sierra Collector. No, the next, the next young lady. Hi. Sierra Collector, 383 Chester Drive. Um, I, I object to this proposal. Um, I don't think that changing the zoning classification, um, and removing the BPD is a good idea, mostly because of the flooding. Um, I don't know what Mr. Moyer thinks he can do to stop the flooding, but any development on that land is going to make it worse because it's wetlands. It soaks up water like a sponge. More development, more flooding. Um, at the very least, uh, the, um, the wetland that they, um, propose could be, uh, zoned as a private conservation, I think. Um, I don't, I don't want to see more flooding, so I oppose. That's all. Thank you very much. Benjamin Downey, the dowry? Downey. Downey, okay. Benjamin Downey, um, 383 Chester Drive, um, our property, um, butts up against the, um, proposed, um, land. I, I, I don't agree with the proposal, um, the main part of the proposal that I don't agree with is the fact that they're changing the binding development agreement, um, or binding development plan. Um, it was put into, um, place for a reason, and it, it, I don't, I don't think it should be changed, um, they, um, they were talking about, um, it's a difference of 23 homes and 19, um, homes. That's only four homes different that they're really talking about. Why should we change the, what, what's already in place to, yes, they're doing more than, um, just that, but why, I'm sorry, I'm, I'm, I'm bad with, um, speaking in front of people. You're doing fine. You're doing just fine. Um, long story, sir, I, I, I don't think it should be changed. A, it's already in place, and I, I don't care to see that being changed, so. Okay, sir. Thanks. Thank you. Make sure I use my glasses more. Tom Kennelly. Good evening, Commissioner. Sir. Um, before I get started, since it's a quasi-judicial, and I actually listened to the promo at the beginning, I am not an expert witness. Can I actually talk? You, you can talk, you can talk about things that you know, facts that you know, your familiarity with the neighborhood, you just can't render something that would require an expert opinion, like an engineering opinion, or an appraisal opinion, or something like that. Could I suggest that maybe in that intro you change it to say if you're a public speaker, a commenter, you're not happy with that. If you're on the clock, you probably want to. I got time. Um, the other thing I'd like to mention is I saw you got copies of the plan, right? I didn't get one. So I'd like to object right away and say we got to stop now. Because there's a new plan out there. We need to look at it. All right. So let me go forward. I got my two objections out there. I was really puzzled. I had other notes, but they want to move this to a res four, but they're building in res one, res two. There's something I don't get here. Oh, let's make it all res four. Why? Okay. Maybe an expert understands it. I don't. All right. So, um, another thing I heard up here was, you know, Parkchester drains onto that property. That property is probably just like it is up in Brook Hill, full of coquina. The coquina takes the water and filters it before it gets to Indian River Drive. As opposed to, let's put a culvert down and run it right down the Indian River Lagoon and take everything with it. I think we need to be very careful about how the water is taken off of that property. In general, in terms of just general Brevard development, you know, we talk about how bad our road is on Indian River Drive. It's a third world road right now. Public Works is good to come out and patch it. So let's not blame Public Works. I think they have a funding issue. They've got one asphalt truck for the whole county. They're going to take their asphalt truck when it dries out in Indian River Drive and spend three days on our road. North Brevard probably needs it as well. So I think Public Works actually needs some funding. We're not a county that can grow when we don't fund Public Works. And no, I wasn't paid, given a sponsorship by Public Works. And finally, I'd like to say, you know, what happens to a deal is a deal. They bought the property with a certain zoning. Now, what can happen with developers, and I'm not going to say that this is going to happen, and this is wild speculation, I get a great new zoning. Now that property is worth more money. I can go sell it to somebody else. Guess what? We go through all this one more time. Is there a commitment that when these people get a new zoning that they're actually going to be the developers? So I go back to, a deal's a deal. Let's not change anything. Therefore, it's obvious that I disagree with any change that might occur. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Diane Burroughs. We'll make it easy for you. Greg Burroughs afterward, okay? Hi, my name is Diane Burroughs. I live at 381 Chester Drive in Park Chester. So City Point Landfall is asking for the removal of our existing binding development plan. That, among other things, limits the number of houses on the western half of the property to seven units total. It's key to remember that designating that 10.96, as the gentleman just mentioned, as Res. 4, results in a potential of many more units on that entire property. In their proposed PUD, City Point Landfall is self-declaring, at least at one of the last means we had, to utilize that 2.44 acres as wetland conservation area. We do acknowledge and appreciate the fact that the developer made some concessions to address our concerns and redesign the project. However, our primary concern is that there is fundamental mismatch between the underlying basic future land use map designation of Res. 4 and the proposed use map. So the 2.44 acre wetland track as wetland conservation stormwater drainage repository, as well as the fact that the existing binding development agreement for this land has not been honored by the Planning Board and Zoning Board. We totally agree that this wetland, this is a wetland in its low and swampy and readily floods as we have seen many times over, especially after these horrific rains these last couple of weeks. As such, its current designation of Res. 4 is totally inappropriate. It should have a future land use map, if nothing else, of private conservation. But it's also, most importantly, to remember that we maintain this wetland as wetland, no matter what transpires in the future. We are extremely worried about the absolute fact that a much higher housing development could go into this property, such as utilizing that entire 10.96 acres, and is resulting from any change. And just as our perceived certainty of the permanence of the existing binding development plan has turned out to be an illusion, we need the commission to review the existing binding development plan and keep it the way it is. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Burrow. Yes. Hey, my name is Greg Burrows, and thank you all for your time here tonight. It means a lot to us as residents that you do this, and we appreciate you. A couple of things that were mentioned earlier on that I would just like to basically touch on. You've heard all about the flooding. I know you guys are probably over it with that. Um, but, uh, when you put in roads, instead of having, uh, grass and sand to percolate water, that now becomes a water slide. So all that water is just going to shoot straight down the Indian river road would not be a terrible thing if they could control it, but what you're going to have in that water that you don't have now is all the pesticides, all the fertilizers, everything else that's going to go in with all that grass, all that landscaping for all the houses that is going to go right down that hill into Indian river drive, and they're asking you now to foot the bill to dig out a bunch of trees and grass and native plants and put stuff in that also has to be fertilized and pest controls that is not being done. Now, all that's going to go straight into the Indian river. We've only been residents here just under six years. Um, we've done a couple of the river cleanups, and that's the biggest thing I hear from everybody is all the runoff that comes into it. And a lot of the complaints are from the fertilizers and the pest controls, that kind of thing, um, all I see is that just being, again, a water slide straight into the Indian river with you guys footing the bill to figure out a way to move that water off that road and not have it go straight in. The other thing was, uh, we used to have, when we moved into that neighborhood in Park Chester, we used to have a turn lane so we could get into our neighborhood. Now we don't. The city has engineered it, so now that it's a merge lane from three lanes down into two with a stoplight right there. If you pulled our neighborhood, you'd probably find that almost everybody in that residence has almost been rear-ended from a high-speed driver coming off of that stoplight by 520 and trying to beat the traffic to cut in into the other two lanes. If you're pulling campers and RVs in and out of that area, what's going to happen then? What happens when a camper and RV pulls out in front of three cars flying to beat the light, and now you've got a fatality right there on that road? It happens. We've got a new stoplight just past or just north of our subdivision. But unless they put a stoplight right at that entrance, what's going to stop that from being a fatality? Thank you for your time and your service. Thank you, sir. Beverly Suderman, and then James, after you. My name is Beverly Suderman. I live at 3469 Indian River Drive. I'm a resident right next to this property. Our neighborhood objects to changing the future land use map. Our neighborhood includes homeowners next to City Point Land Falls property, residents on Indian River Drive, residents on City Point Road, and the following subdivisions, High Point, Point Place, Park Chester, Twin Lakes, Brook Hill, and Briarwood Manor. Their letters and petitions have been sent to all the commissioners objecting to this project. A wonderful former commissioner, Truman Scarborough, once told me, your community is the only community that has been able to stand as one to protect yourselves from overdevelopment. All others have failed. It is up to all of us to continue to protect our way of life in our small but beautiful community. I am asking you to please stand strong, strong, protect our way of life, beautiful. However, our historic gym and our, however, development is inevitable. However, our area is a historic gym and a concrete jungle. The historic scenic drive lined with historic spacious homes and natural and nature all around. Visiting, visitors to our area enjoy the leisurely drive and the slower pace. People enjoy biking, running, walking events throughout the year. It is not a cookie-cutter neighborhood. There are no condos. Townhomes is a unit. Those of us who live here wish to protect and out-of-state visitors love to enjoy. Commissioners, before you have worked hard to put in place a plan to protect our area. Is it perfect? Is it perfect? No. We were grandfathered in and right-sized from the commissioners before you created a plan that worked for everyone. They spent years working on our community to achieve an agreeable plan that worked and continues to work for our historic area. Development plan, if it is not binding, why make it binding if it has no meaning? We just ask that you continue to protect our unique and historic community now and in the future. Thank you for your time and your support. I respectfully request that you deny City Point Landfalls. Request to change the future land use map. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Suderman. My name is James Suderman, and I also live at 3469 Indian River Drive, right to the south of this proposed development. We've lived there for 30 years. We continue to object to City Point Landfalls' request to amend the underlying future land use map to Res. 4 over this entire 10.96 acres. Your own county staff comments state, and I quote, the Res. 4 designation would allow up to 43 residential units. Additionally, the requested companion PUD zoning could also result in a density bonus that would allow 54 residential units with a density of 5 units an acre on the 10.96 acres. Time and time again, Ms. Rizinka has gotten up before you and said, we believe we have addressed all of the community's concerns. This is categorically not true. Since the very first presentation at the first planning and zoning board meeting in March, all through every subsequent presentation before the commissioners, our community has been consistently opposing City Point Landfalls' proposed flume amendment on the basis of inappropriately high density. There have been a total of 211 pages of community opposition recorded under the various public comment files that's on your county website. All of the spoken comments have included concerns arising basically from high housing density. Everything from flooding to everything else that people have concerns about have as a basis just this idea of a lot more houses on this one piece of property. And we feel that this very significant display of community opposition has been pretty consistently ignored. All through this process, City Point Landfall has been resolute in their demand for Res. 4 on the entire non-commercial property. We have become increasingly disturbed by this insistence and have begun to suspect that there's more to it than just building the proposed PUD. What bothers us most is that if City Point Landfall is allowed to walk away from this meeting with a new flume designation of Res. 4 on the entire 10.96 acres, they or any future unit or any future owner will have the possibility of constructing up to 54 housing units on it. City Point Landfall could simply sell the property to a new owner who could start the PUD rezoning process all over again, this time with a starting flume of Res. 4 on the property. Once the flume is changed, once they get through this meeting, City Point themselves could come back at a later date due to economics or business decisions or whatever that they could come back at a later date and restart with a new or amended development plan. 54 housing units is way too many. Res. 4 is way too much to ask for. Please reject City Point Landfall's request for this flume change. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioners, that's the last of the cards. Do we have follow-up questions? Thank you. I apologize for my outburst earlier. I did not mean to offend you or Ms. Kennedy. I do disagree with her interpretation of her land and what that is. It is a drainage track on her plat. She lives 3,100 miles to the north of here. And there is indeed a right-of-way owned by someone. I thought it was FDOT in a triangle piece to the north of her. So there's more to what she says than it's on her property. Regardless, I ask you to go back to this future lane use map. I want to address the Sudermans again. The Sudermans are right here next to the little Res. 2. They are currently Res. 4. They could put four units to the acre there. They have one home. They don't intend to do that. But they have Res. 4. To the north is the property issue. It's already Res. 4. We're only asking for seven acres of future lane use change. Part of it's that little Res. 2. And the reason we have to do that, and I'm sorry they're disturbed by it, but that's what your comprehensive plan requires. We don't have a choice. Because this Res. 1 only allows one unit to the acre no matter what the zoning is. So in order to spread our density to get 23 units instead of the 19 we could now, we have to change that Res. 1. So in theory, yeah, we could change that to Res. 4 and change the Res. 4 to Res. 2, and we can agree to do that. We can't put it in public conservation easement because it's not large enough. Your staff has looked at that. We've discussed it. So we can't. We have agreed to put it in a conservation track. That's what's on the PDP, and we're bound to that PDP unless we come back to you. So there's no subterfuge here. It's the law. We have to do it. We've talked with Mr. Prasad many times about how we might be able to do it, but we can't put more density on the future lane use than the future lane use allows. So that Res. 1, you can only have one unit to the acre, even if it's EU zoning, which it currently is. Also, too, if you look, this is all Res. 1. This is community commercial. This is Res. 4. This is all Res. 4. This is more commercial. So there is a very big mix here. We're not next to other Res. 1 to much extent except just to the south of us. So, again, to be clear, the Res. 4 is limited by the PDP and the PUD zoning. We would be willing, if we can work this out with Mr. Richardson, a way to do an agreement that should this PDP zoning never be approved as presented to you now, that we would agree to administrative go back to Res. 1. We would do that in a binding agreement of some sort that recorded. So they could be sure that there was no subterfuge here. And I just came up with this because this is what they intend to do. They're not intending to put 54 homes there. You couldn't put 54 homes there. So if there's a way to make you all sure that we're going to do this PDP by an agreement, we're willing to do that. Again, the homes on the PDP to the north are the same size as the Park Chester homes. All this slide-off water has to be treated. It's not treated now. It will be treated once we go through this engineering process. Your engineering staff will review everything. The engineering staff will review the tree removal plan and the landscape plan. Everything will go through your staff. Regarding the new plan, that plan has been in the agenda record for a long time. I apologize. It's on Legistar. But that plan has been in the city records or the county records. And there's nothing new that I presented to you that's not already in the county records and in Legistar. Regarding the camper and RV turn-in concerns, that, again, is a site plan issue. If safety warrants it, it will be required by your engineering staff or FDOT most likely. Again, 4.2 acres of this 10.94 acres is already Res. 4. Regarding the permanency of a BDP, a BDP is a zoning. We're asking for it to be removed. So we're asking for a new zoning to go with the PDP and the PUD. We've explained our reasons for the change. There's been no competent, substantial evidence to explain why those reasons aren't good. I mean, the reasons are is because what they have now doesn't work. It doesn't allow for the stormwater treatment. It doesn't allow for everything. It has to be to development standards today, which are even increasing in January through the state. The regulations for stormwater treatment are even greater. Why are we changing this plan? One, because to protect the wetlands, they don't want to build in the wetlands. They're not supposed to build in the wetlands. So in order to protect the wetlands, they have to have greater density towards U.S. 1. To repeat, there's no access from this project in the River Drive. So, and with that, again, if you have questions, happy to answer them. If you have any questions, engineering questions, the only engineer that's testified is Mr. Moya, and he has testified that it will meet stormwater requirements. And we have follow-up questions for the applicant. Commissioner Altman, sir. I notice on the map of this area, there's a title, City Point Cemetery. I know we haven't talked about the cemetery. I'd like to hear about that. And I notice on your site plan, you show it. It's not on our property. We don't know anything about it. We don't know how they access it. I believe it's accessed by the property in our tour south, who spoke at one of these meetings. We don't know anything about it. But I presume we're going to have to do a special survey to make sure there aren't any bodies on our property. I apologize. That was rude. But that's what we've had to do on other near cemeteries. I wasn't finished with my question. I want to. Sorry. That's okay. So, I noticed you have a City Point Cemetery point, and it looks like it's a little bit south of you. But I noticed on your site plan, you have a little square area that's basically called a landscape. Landscape. Title it. Track C. Landscape track. It looks like it's real close proximity to the cemetery. I wonder if that's what it's there for. That's a required subdivision buffer of 15 feet around the entire subdivision. That's what that's for. No, it's just a square area right near the cul-de-sac. That's titled. I think that's where the lift station's going. Oh, that's where the lift station. Yeah. Okay. Or it would go if it's approved. Okay. I was just curious if it was related to the cemetery. It did look to me like the cemetery was off your property. It is, sir. Another question I have, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I know there's been a lot of talk about the RU 2-4. You're basically a little bit over 14 acres, but you're talking about 23 units. So what would be the effective density of your project? Two units per acre. Two units per acre. Okay. Other questions for the applicant? Follow-up questions? Thank you very much. Can I cross-examine? I can't cross-examine counsel, but if they put on a witness, an entrusted party could. But no, not Ms. Rozenka. I can't. Ms. Rozenka. No, you may not. Can I ask you? No. Sorry. No, you got to speak. Okay. Commissioners, we're in discussion. Discussion on the audit. Commissioner Delaney. Thank you. So I really appreciate Mr. Moya going through and listening to the residents and, you know, having two meetings and making some changes. But the thing I keep coming back to is the person who purchased this piece of land, they bought it knowing that there was restrictions on this land. And the research that I've done regarding how that came about, basically, the commissioner before, not directly before me, but who was sitting in my seat back then, they worked extremely hard with our staff, with the property owner, with the community at the time. And this was a compromise. This was a strong compromise that everybody agreed to at that point. And I don't think it's right or fair to our residents to go back on our word, especially when there's severe issues going on in the community. This community has come out over and over and over again, 211 pages of emails, 54 emails in total, countless public comments. So many people showed up to the first community meeting, the second community meeting. Even though there was less people, it was still the same sentiments. It was kind of heated while people were, you know, glad that some changes were made. They still were extremely uncomfortable with the whole situation. Our staff talked about in the staff report that there are a lot of environmental constraints, wetlands, aquifer, recharge soils. The high coastal hazard area is, you know, on this property. Floodplain protection, Indian River Lagoon, nitrogen reduction, septic overlay was a portion of the property. Surface waters of the state protected in specimen trees and protected species. And in addition to that, there was Florida state statute talks about the coastal high hazard area and how we should not be increasing density. And while I understand it's only, you know, a small portion of the property that's actually in the coastal high hazard area, it's still the same, you know, it's very close to it. And it says the parcel may be susceptible to nuisance flooding. When I had my briefing, our natural resources staff was talking to us about the seepage that comes from the property. And it's what some of the residents were talking about as far as the way that the water drains off of us when it goes through the property and ends up on the other side towards the lagoon. I think that it's a fair statement to say that if somebody wanted to develop a piece of property and they knew what they were buying, why should everybody else suffer when this person made a conscious decision? Nobody pulled the wool over their eyes. They knew what they were buying. They knew the restraints of the property. You know, they could build seven, you know, big, beautiful homes on this property and make it make sense for them. Which I'm sure the neighbors would love because all their property values would go up. But this is, I'm hoping, especially after everything my district, and I know there were some other districts that dealt with flooding last week, but I spend a lot of time with my constituents. I spend a lot of time researching. I don't have another job. This is everything I do. And I take this really seriously. And I know my constituency. I know my community. And I'm hoping that, just like I respect you guys and your knowledge on your communities, I'm hoping that I can get that same respect. I cannot support this today, and I'm hoping to get support on that. Other discussion on the item? I forgot to ask Commissioner Altman. I know there's been discussion of the prior binding development plan. I didn't see that in our packet, and I didn't ask for it earlier. Do we have a copy of that to see what it looks like? Sir, attached to the zoning H3, and I'm looking at it now, there's attachment 6 as existing BDP, but I can certainly get you a copy of that as well, but it is attached to the item. Next item? Is it in the public web? Item number 6. Yes, sir. Okay. I wasn't sure. It's attachment 6 to H3. Oh, okay. That's good. Thank you. I want to take a three-minute break so you can review that. Yeah. I want to take a five-minute break. Can we do that? Everybody? Let's take five minutes. Let's be back at 625. All right. We're still in discussion. Commissioner Altman, you had some time, sir, to look at the prior BDP. Do you have further questions on that? I do not. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else in discussion? I have a procedural question. Okay. Sir? I know we're quasi-judicial, just so I know we cross that bridge when it comes, but if there's a tie vote, since we're 4-4, does that mean failure? Does it mean a continuous? Do we know? Well, there are a few things. First of all, you are quasi-judicial and you're not. So for the future land use map request, you're really legislative. That's a legislative action. For the second item, the zoning item, you're quasi-judicial, first of all. But in these circumstances, because either way, you're talking about an application for a development permit, and statutes require the county to act on applications for a development permit. So I've always been concerned that if you just have a deadlock, you know, Robert's Rule says if you're required to make an affirmative vote on something, and if it doesn't pass affirmatively, it fails. To me, in a land use or zoning request, I think you need, you know, a majority denial to move forward. You either need to approve it or deny it. So if there is a deadlock, my suggestion would be to continue it until you have a full board. Okay. But only if you get to a deadlock that you can't break. Okay. Thank you. I think I remember that the prior board, there was a motion on an item, and we didn't have the fifth commissioner at that point. And I think the applicant was starting to walk out thinking that we had passed the item. But since it was 2-2, the item did not pass, is my recollection. But I think that's because they made a motion to approve, to your point, right? Right. That motion failed. Yeah. And then what we would need is a motion to deny. So if there was a motion to deny tonight, and that was 2-2. Then that motion would fail, and you'd have to entertain another motion. And eventually either approve it or deny it or continue it until you have a full board. Okay. With that, what's the pleasure of the board? I would like to make a motion to deny the future land use change. I second. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Delaney. We have a second by Commissioner Altman. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? No. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltoner? No. And we'll show that tied. Now what do we need to do, Morris? I need to entertain an alternate motion. I would like to make a motion to continue. Second. Okay. I think that, just in discussion on the motion, probably, given where we are, that's probably the pragmatic thing to do. And I know you, I'm sorry, I know you haven't voted yet, but the motion needs to include a date certain that it would be continued to, so our next zoning meeting? December 11th. December 11th at 5 o'clock here. Commissioner Delaney? Is that, is that your motion? Yes. Okay. Okay. December 11th, right, we said? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Delaney to continue to December 11th. We have a second by Commissioner Altman. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltoner? Yes. All right, we'll see you back here on December 11th. Commissioners, now, I'm sorry, on H3, now is that, since they're companions, do we need a motion on that? Just a motion to continue it to the same date. Sorry. I'll make a motion to continue item H3 to December 11th at 5 o'clock. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Delaney, second by Commissioner Atkinson. Clerk will call the roll on H3 to continue to December 11th. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Feltoner? Yes. Okay. Now we'll see you on December 11th. Thank you. Mr. Chair, may I say something to the residents who spoke tonight? Yes. So if you came out and spoke tonight, your comments and your input are going to be part of the record on this item for future hearing. Obviously, you're welcome to come out to the future hearing. But if you're unable to, I don't want you to be concerned that it doesn't count that you came out tonight. That will be part of the record. It will be made available to the commissioner who couldn't be here tonight as well. All right. Thank you for making that clarification for us there, Morris. Commissioners, we'll go on to H8. H8 is the first of two public hearings regarding the adoption of amendments to Chapter 62, Article 9, Section 62, 3316, entitled On-Premises Signs, and Chapter 62, Article 4, Table 1, entitled Signs by Type and Zoning Classification. This is done in order to allow community development districts to have specified signage for parks within certain zoning classifications. Legislative intent and permission to advertise for this ordinance was issued by the board on May 20th. ECAC heard this on October 8th and unanimously recommended approval. PNZ heard this on October 13th and also unanimously recommended approval. Commissioners, questions on this item? Any questions on this item? I don't have any cards on this. We'll go into discussion. Is there any discussion on the item? Okay. Motion on this? Second. Oh, whoever. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Atkinson on H8. I have a second by Commissioner Altman. Clerk will call the roll. Commissioner Delaney? Yes. Commissioner Atkinson? Yes. Commissioner Altman? Yes. Chairman Spelner? Yes. And we'll show that one. Pass us four zero. Thank you, Commissioners. And I don't think we had any K cards, right, for public comment. Okay. We will go on to board report. Tad, sir? In board report, do you have anything? no report mr. chair morris no report no board report no report sir okay uh commissioner delaney um i'm not sure if i'm if if we're allowed to talk about this or not but i just um am wondering what what concerns there are that commissioner feltner and commissioner atkinson that you guys have um in regard to that item um yeah i wouldn't discuss that after the public hearing's been closed okay well i guess i'll just share my thoughts because i'm and not even regarding that just in general i'm i'm wondering about all of us are elected to represent our constituency and our communities um i spend a lot of time in my community and talking to residents i apologize i'm just going to advise against this you can do what you're going to do but i wouldn't want you to do something that unintentionally and inadvertently might create an issue if there's ever a challenge to an action or anything like that because you're not speaking to the other commissioners that we're outside of the public hearing the parties have left the room they can't respond um i'm not talking about this property in particular would that matter i'm speaking in general about how we represent our districts that's a valid conversation but maybe we should talk about that on another meeting not just right after this zoning because the proximity yeah it might it just might be it might hurt your case it might be construed because of the proximity of time i would agree with the council on that i think he's trying to protect you and us thank you okay commissioner delaney you have other items um i guess all i'll say is uh to my d1 uh constituents out there i you know am will do my best to always represent your thoughts and your desires for your community and um you know that's what you elected me to do and that's what i'm gonna do um and i did want to give a shout out to um our our road and bridge team in the north end um they have been working like you would not believe and i just cannot thank you all enough um for all the work that you are putting in to um clean up our community after those horrible floods um to all the constituents out there who are still dealing with issues um you know feel free to reach out to my office uh reach out to the county um there are i believe that it uh the portal closed yesterday for requesting assistance but um if you still need cleanup assistance in your homes uh help removing carpets drywall um you know mopping anything um please continue to reach out to me because i can try to help connect you with resources um and again thank you so much to um our public works that has been working really really hard so thank you so much okay thank you commissioner atkinson and board report commissioner altman sir and board report i want to say something i could say it off camera but um i sent somebody to you the other day for astronaut uh hall of fame uh advice okay okay good if they say commissioner feltner sent some all right i'll look for them okay all right uh i think they're looking special attention they're looking to bring a group up there okay a big group everybody's very excited about artemis and and all those things so okay all right um all right commissioners everybody thank you all very much have a safe trip home thank you the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of brevard county florida