The final speaker's form I have for this item would be Andres Verstig, who is speaking for the Shoal River Timberlands. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Yes, I'm CEO of High Sealed Timber. And High Sealed Timber is a family company owned by the Verstig family, which is my kin and I. And we've owned property in Ocaloosa County for about 40 years now. I have represented the company part-time for the past 30 years and been CEO of the company for the past 20, 25 years. And over that period, a lot of time has been dedicated to figuring out what are the best uses for the land moving forward. The land has been managed as timberlands throughout our ownership. But with the rapid development of North Ocaloosa County, that is a business that has become increasingly difficult in view of development. And therefore, we concentrate a lot of our efforts now to figuring out what portions of land are best suited for conservation and what portions of land are best suited for development. And some of you will know that this land is – this area of North Ocaloosa County is experiencing rapid development. The two parcels that you see there on the screen in green that makes up this proposal of a total of 1,300 acres lies approximately two miles to the north of the Shoal River Industrial Park. That is slated to be, I think, with the Williams International development there and other occupiers, the biggest industrial development in northern Florida. So, in addition, to the south of the westernmost parcel, about three quarters of a mile, there is a subdivision going in on about 1,300 units. And further to the east and to the south, there are additional residential projects, all totaling about 4,000 units. So, as you can appreciate, this means that there's a lot of pressure on development in the area. At the same time, it's been the – Organic 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. Okay, thank you. I'd like to ask Commissioner Delaney to lead us in prayer. Thank you. Dear Lord, thank you for this beautiful day that you've given us and for bringing us together for this important meeting. And I just pray that you're with us and you give us clear minds and open hearts to do what's right for our community. In the name of Jesus, I pray. Amen. Amen. Okay, thank you. I'd like to lead you in the prayer, in the pledge. Okay, we do. Do you have any minutes? I don't see any on the agenda. I think we're fine there. Resolutions, awards, and presentation. We do not have any. Consent agenda. Do we have any items removed from consent or on the consent? Yeah, no consent. Public comments. Individuals may speak under both the first and second public comment sections. We have one now. We limit the number of cards so we don't delay the start of the meeting. Then we'll have one at the end of the meeting. We do not have any. We have no cards for public comment. Okay, great. So we have cards on every item but one. So I thought we'd pick up that one now so that they don't have to wait through a long meeting. So H5, which is Alex, Paul, and Rosemary Estevez Dehus, request a zoning classification change from BU1 to Binding Development Plan to BU1 with removal of the Binding Development Plan. Are they here? Are they here? Dehus? Dehus? Dehus? Are they here? Dehus? Hmm. Okay. We'll just go ahead and start at the beginning of the agenda. Okay. First one is H1, City Point, Landfall, LLC. David Bashford, request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from Res 1 to Res 2, Res 4, and NC to CC and Res 4. Okay. Representative for H1. Mr. Chair, if I may, there are companion applications, H2, H1 and H2, and we generally read them into the record together, but you have to make a separate decision on them. Okay. Well, let me read H2, that's City Point, Landfall, LLC as well, request a change in zoning classification from EU and RP with an existing Binding Development Plan to PUD with removal of the existing Binding Development Plan. Items in District 1. Mr. Chair? Before we get started, let's have staff give us a summary. I was going to read the applications into the record application numbers. Okay. Okay. So, for H1, the small-scale amendment, the application number is 24-SS-00009, located in District 1. And for item H2, City Point, Landfall, under application number 24-PUD-00003, also located in District 1. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman Altman, members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Razenka, law firm of Lacey Razenka, here on behalf of City Point Landfall, the owner and developer of the project. Also with me is David Basford with MBV Engineering, the engineer of record, if you have any questions. I feel like I've given this presentation four times, but because of the last comments that we heard, we did work with staff. So, with the future land use, we have changed the Res. 4 to a Res. 2. And the reason we hadn't done that before was because we didn't think we could, because part of the land was in the coastal high hazard area, and because of the spreading of the density, we weren't sure we were able to do that with the size of the houses clustered the way they were. But working with Mr. Prasad and Ms. Gilliam, they determined and opined that we could change it to Res. 2. And with the density bonus provided in your comp plan, policy 1.8, we could ask for the density bonus of 2.5 to keep the 23 units we're requesting. So, with that, we have changed that. What I've provided to you is exactly what's in the staff report. It was provided on January 24th or 26th, not January, November 24th or 26th. It's in Legistar. It's nothing new. It's what's already there. I just thought it might be easier to see up close in this document. So, the page 2, that is the PDP that we're requesting to be approved with the PUD zoning. It shows the zoning currently is EU. Page 3, it shows the existing future lane use of Res. 1 and the Res. 4 to the east and a little bit of Res. 2. That will all now be Res. 2 if you approve it. So, the Res. 2 will be exactly the same as what's to the north, the Park Chester subdivision. And the houses are compatible in sizes. That's what the engineer was able to do. It takes the wetlands of Res. 4 and makes them to Res. 2. It hopefully helps some of the neighbors with the idea that we're really trying to do 48 units when all we want to do is 23 units. So, if the PDP is never built, it's Res. 2. And it's Res. 2 all the way to the river. So, it does protect the wetlands to some extent. There was a request that we put that in private conservation. It wasn't large enough to put in private conservation, so we could not do that. But it will definitely be in a conservation tract, the wetlands to the east. The next page is just showing the wetlands area and the temporary impacts. There's going to be a bike path, an elevated bike path through the wetlands as an amenity for the residents. Then the last page is just the overlay to show the houses next to the houses and where the stormwater ponds are, then the wetlands to be protected. As you may recall, the residents have been very engaged, very vocal. They asked us not to have townhomes. We took the townhomes off. They asked that no access on Park Chester. We took that access off. The only access now is from US 1. They did not want any access on any River Drive. At one point, we had a little parking area as an amenity. We've taken that off the PDP. And so the remaining issue, which we could address, was the Res 2, which we have addressed. They have had concerns about flooding and stormwater. That's been discussed several times by the engineer of record, Bruce Moya, for MBV. And again, that's something that has to be engineered. This is just zoning, so any flooding issues would be addressed during the site plan stage, plat stage, actually. So with that, we would ask that you approve our alternate request of Res 2 and then the small parcel of CC, the 1.94 acres of CC on the west against the US 1, and then the remaining 10.94 would be Res 2. Then with that, we would ask that you approve the PDP and the PUD request with the waivers. The last page you have has a waiver request, and that's dealing with the perimeter of the subdivision. One, because we have to deal with some canals and some drainage, that we've asked that that waiver be accepted with the PDP, although there still will be a buffer, and they'll still commit to whatever type of buffer is necessary to make it compatible. We have indeed put on the PDP towards the east side the requirement of an opaque buffer that was requested by Mr. and Mrs. Howells. And so you'll see on the PDP, page 2, it says 225 feet of an opaque buffer, and that's to buffer the home so it would be adjacent to their home. So that is on here and would be a requirement of any PLAC going forward. So with that, we're here to answer any questions. We'd ask that you approve the Residential 2, find that it is compatible, because it is next to Res 2, so that we could use the density bonuses to achieve the 23 units in the PDP. With that, we're here to answer any questions, and I would ask for the opportunity to respond to any comments. Okay, do we have any questions? I do. Commissioner Atkinson? This is kind of the same question I've asked before. The buffer that's going to be sort of to the northwest side between the houses, what is that going to look like? Yeah, it's going to be an opaque buffer. We don't know exactly. It's going to be either a fence or foliage that you can't see through. So it's going to be opaque all the way across the whole back? It will be. We've only committed to the fence towards the area against the house's property. If you want to make that a condition of an opaque fence or an opaque buffer the entire way, we certainly accept that. Well, I was just thinking about, are we leaving the native trees that are already there? We talked about... Right. Unfortunately, because of the elevation difference and there is a ditch through between the properties, those trees will likely have to come out. They intend to save them, but they don't know because all the engineering hasn't been done. There have been some elevations done. But if that... I mean, and by the way, they all have fences there already. But if you want a condition that we have an opaque buffer, the entire against Parkchester, we can do that. See, for me, the opaque thing is not as much... It's not as important as the actual, like, trees and stuff that we're going to lose. Right. So would they consider possibly if they have to take out a big deciduous tree, putting a decent size one back in there? Of course. If you want to make a condition that, like, trees go back in, we can do that. That could be a condition of the PDP. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other questions, I will get the cards. First cards, David Basford. This says, David. Do you have a question? Answer questions if needed. Okay. James Suderman. My name is James Suderman. I live at 3469 Indian River Drive, which is just south of this project. We were happy to see all the new addendum number two from staff. And there were several pieces of that that we would like to comment on. So in light of the new alternative proposal submitted by City Point Landfall on December 25th and the new staff comments, addendum number two, we would like to voice the following. While we recognize that the latest proposal from City Point Landfall does not preserve the original existing binding development plan that we have, we keep asking for, it does address to a greater or lesser extent most of our remaining ongoing concerns with density growth potential, stormwater and groundwater discharge issues, wetland preservation, and roadway flooding. If the commissioners were to adopt all of the conditions, staff comments, and applicant offers outlined in addendum number two, and in the City Point New PDP, their 2025-1126 applicant alternative proposal that I think she just handed out, Beverly and I would be willing to accept them as something we could live with. Be assured, though, that we only represent ourselves in this and cannot speak for the rest of our neighbors who have fought with us so long and hard to get this commission and this developer to listen and respond to all of our comments. Specifically, to grant our support, we would like to see, number one, application of the RES-2 future land use map designation on the entire 10.9 four-acre residential portion of the property. And we'd like to make sure that a ban is imposed on all residential land use on the wetlands. The staff comments also mention that a public works engineering evaluation of the outfall pipes across the Indian River Roadway and of possibly raising the road should be performed. We'd like to see that memorialized here. As suggested by staff, they talk about creating a new binding development plan, which incorporates at least the following provisions. Any future change to the PDP will be considered a substantial change and require board approval for the change. Overall reduction of the rate of stormwater discharge from the subject property and overall reduction of the volume of stormwater discharge from the subject property. The new BDP should conduct a groundwater analysis to identify any groundwater concerns and address them accordingly. And dedication of up to 50 feet of right-of-way for Brevard County maintenance and roadway projects along the North Indian River Drive. And finally, a provision that says the future land use designation to revert if the final development plan were never filed. And with that, we'd like to say again, if all the provisions and comments from this new addendum, staff addendum, are included, we could live with it. We could support it. I have a question. Okay. All right. I noticed, and it may have been just an oversight, but you left out one portion in your comments. So I was following along with you. And it's the one that says preferably without the 25% density bonus based on FL1 policy 1.8. Yeah. If I went into 21 units. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. I did skip that. Yeah. That's true. If we, we definitely appreciate the res too. If we had our preference, we would like to see it be without the 25% density bonus, which gets them up to a potential of 25. Although, you know, with the PUD being approved, that would just limit it to 23. And I did make a comment here. And it says, if limited to 21 units, the developer could incrementally increase the lot size of the small southern lots, which are pretty small, and or could donate a portion of the south side property as an access path to the 1800s Pioneer Cemetery, which has been landlocked now for decades. And that would be a nice gesture. Okay. Okay. All right. Our next card is Greg Burroughs. Can I get that right? Good evening. Thank you for your time. Just kind of reiterate what my previous speaker just said. And really the main thing we're looking at is wetlands, how that's going to affect any runoff that goes down into the river, anything from the soil and obviously from the grasses and fertilizers, things like that, that could end up in that river going straight down. We do appreciate the two units per acre. I'm not sure how that's going to affect with having the RV storage in the front. I wouldn't mind seeing a turning lane dedicated into that neighborhood so that the three lanes, which have been reduced to two right in front of that property, don't cause any bottlenecks or any more accidents. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Diane Burroughs? Good evening. I'm Diane Burroughs, 381 Chester Drive. I live in Park Chester. Again, wanted to reiterate, along with Mr. Sutterman, thank you very much for the consideration of reducing it from a Res. S4 to a Res. 2, continuing to keep in mind the conservation area and the flooding and those very serious issues that are currently happening in that area and how this is going to impact. Thank you. Thank you. Sandra Kennedy? Sandra Kennedy, 3711 Warwick Drive in Coco. I'm about half a mile north of this project. So no matter how many public hearings and how many residents complain about this project, the criteria are set in the rules and regulations that are applicable to this board, and they are binding. And the applicant has not met the requirements for a variance. Um, City Point Land Falls application does not meet the criteria for a zoning variance even limited, and the county commissioners must reject the application in its entirety. Not once have they addressed the community, the neighborhood. Their title is City Point. Well, City Point is a community that stretches from a little bit north of 528 around City Point Road. All the way to at least Blacks Road and really beyond, and it's along the Indian River Drive, which is basically at sea level in this area. Um, this is not your Indian River Drive portion that's on bluffs in Coco. This is sea level, and we have a flooding problem that already needs to be addressed. One of your criteria that absolutely must be met before any variance can be given is that they must not, uh, increase or cause flooding to the community. They fail that one right away. Their recent change, which I received late last night while I was preparing for this hearing, um, was that they're giving you another paragraph on what their flood control plan is. And basically, they had nothing to say but what they had said before, that they plan a series of ponds that they are going to allow to overflow. That's their, that is their strategy. Ponds that overflow, they're going to go down to the wetlands, and those wetlands are not sponges. They're not dry. They don't need to be appropriately wetted. They are soaking wet, folks. There are ditches that run along Indian River Drive, and they are constantly full. Our capacity for more water does not exist. They are going to cause flooding. Not only that, but their project, um, they do not abut the full wetland. They only abut a portion, less than half of the wetland. And the other portion of the land that is, it is a lower elevation to them, and it's going to get flooded out, is residential property. And there's no ditches in front of those people's house because it's not an appropriate location like it is in front of that wetland. So they don't have a flood control plan. They say they're going to use off-site flooding systems, and that just means a ditch. Fancy way to say a ditch. Um, we are between U.S. 1, City Point Road, basically, and Blacks Road, or farther north, and the Indian River Lagoon. This is our whole community. The whole thing is large homes on large lots. All recent developments since the 60s has been single homes on an acre or two homes per acre. So they are blowing that out of the water. They're trying to say, well, Park Chester is to the north. That is not the community. Why have they titled their company name City Point? Park Chester is a remnant from the past. It's what the planning and zoning rules and regulations we're trying to get away from, which is strip all the trees down and put a whole bunch of homes, cram them in. You know, that's not bad if you're on flat land, but you can't do it in environmentally sensitive lands where you've got live oak hammocks, you're on a slope. U.S. 1 is like some 75 feet or so, and it's like a giant water slide that goes down to Indian River Drive. And the open spaces are needed to absorb the water. The community, they go around saying, oh, Park Chester and all these small communities, and they talk about, oh, this little property here is 0.2 of an acre. And they talk about the industrial area way across. Well, that's a different zone, and that is not the neighborhood. So they don't match the neighborhood. They don't meet your own criteria to receive this, and they are not even a PUD. They are not entitled to exceed, to get that bonus, that two. They are now, with that bonus, they'd be getting more than they've ever sought before. They are not a planned community that is fully encompassing everything that the community would need. This is a very small strip of land. It's not a PUD, and they're not entitled to a bonus. They need to stick to the regular zoning like the rest of us. Follow the law, please. Okay, thank you. I do, I have a question of staff. She used the term variance. Is this a variance or a zoning change? No, sir, this is a zoning change in a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. So we don't use the variance? Criteria. The criteria are for rezoning. If I should, I don't know the difference between rezoning and variance. I'm a construction lawyer, not a land development lawyer, but your own criteria, say for rezoning, you have to meet these criteria. Yeah, so it's flooding that has to be met before, and compatibility matched the entire community. And the other thing, their PUD, they have to hide that extra density within the community so that it can't be seen from the rest of the community. That's the only thing that would allow you to do it. And this is such a small strip of land. There's no hiding anything. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. I understand your point now. Okay, I think that's all our cards. We'll bring it to the board. Are there any discussion, questions, motion? Question. Question. Commissioner Goodson. And it might be, Mark, your question. In their proposal for dry retention ponds on the hill that eventually get to the wetlands, they're required to store 100% of their water for 24 hours? Is that correct? On their land? And while he's walking up, before we take a motion or vote, Kim Rezanka, we'll give you an opportunity to close. You might want to hear this first anyway. Okay. Commissioner, I'm going to let Darcy answer this. So they're not going to be required to hold 100% of their water on site based on state stormwater standards. They have to meet certain criteria to hold, I believe it's a 25-year storm, and then that gets held to treat for water quality, and then there'll be eventual discharge that'll go through the system that they show on the BDP, or excuse me, the PDP that goes down through the pond, down to the wetlands, and then out to the river. So that doesn't account for the volume, just the rate, and then the water quality treatment. Who would, as far as staff, how much water do you think is going to occur that goes through the wetlands to the river? There's no way I could answer something like that. No way you know, okay, it's been in the rainfall. Right. Yeah, but I think in the package, Billy, Katrina, if this is correct, there was a, that the engineer had previously talked about maintaining the volume and the rate of flow, that that was something that he could engineer. Right. Yeah, that's correct. Mr. Moy had previously advised that they agreed to engineering's concerns about ensuring post-development stormwater discharge rate and volume for the site, but because we, you know, this is just at the zoning stage, we have not seen anything and can't confirm that it meets it, but that's what he has agreed to. And of course, we'll all agree that the City Point Road intersecting Indy River Road has always been low. Always been low, correct? Yes. Okay. Now, Billy, may I, Chair, ask another question? Absolutely. Billy, would you tell me, then number two, could you read off the concessions that you think are fair or that you're willing to accept? Sure. If I may, I'll start with one that somebody had mentioned today and Ms. Rezank had brought up last time that we don't think is appropriate, and that would be the automatic reversion of the land use if the PDP was not recorded. Staff does not think that there's any legal mechanism to implement that, and that's why we've left it off of the agenda report for board consideration. I just wanted to explain why the public wouldn't hear me say that. So for the conditions that the applicant has agreed to, I'll add one that they mentioned today, which is like for like trees as part of the waiver request for disturbing the buffer. Then beyond that, an overall reduction of the rate of stormwater discharge from the subject property, an overall reduction of the volume of stormwater discharge from the subject property, conducting a groundwater analysis to identify any groundwater concerns and address them accordingly. And they have volunteered to offer to dedicate up to 50 feet of right-of-way for Brevard County maintenance and roadway projects along North Indian River Drive. And staff would suggest that if the board is looking to implement those conditions, that it do so and ask that they be implemented through a BDP. Question, Chair? One more? Yes. My question would be, if this gets approval and if this is built, then how are you going to govern the discharge of water? How would that occur? That would be done through the site plan process. And then, you know, they would have to demonstrate that they're meeting all these conditions through various analysis. Do you also, would they be liable down the road six months after the project's done to make sure they don't put too much water in the Indian River Lagoon? Well, I will say this. So the BDP will carry with the land. Now, I will also say, though, under our code that the maintenance of discharges is typically on the private entities. But, I mean, so I wouldn't say it's, it could be enforced in the future. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, I have one other condition. Yes. That condition is to memorialize in the BDP that any future changes to the PDP be considered a substantial change and be brought back before the board. Chair, if I could also add one more. I don't know that this was agreed to during the last meeting, but we had asked for the 50 feet of total right-of-way that is proposed to be dedicated that they also agree to mitigate those wetlands in the granted right-of-way. Otherwise, that would become a future county cost. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Delaney. Thank you. I also did want to disclose that I had a meeting with the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association and I did drive by the neighborhood by the location to see, you know, the conditions and whatnot just on, what day was that? Last night. And I guess there have been a lot of concessions made with this project and I really do appreciate that. I feel like the developer has tried to work with the community and if this was in a different area, it would be harder for me to say no, but this area is so unique and there's just a constant of running water throughout this area. Even the drainage pipes, I mean, you go next to them and it sounds like a shower all the time. and that's just the groundwater. It's not because, you know, they even have any rain. So I just, I'm extremely concerned about the density of this project for this location because it's, because it's just so fragile. And then on top of that, we have the issue of the low-lying Indian River Drive I mean, people's vehicles are getting ruined. People are being trapped in their, on their streets. I had one resident tell me that they had to rent a car because they don't want to damage their vehicle. You know, and District 1, we're experiencing a lot of flooding and a lot of property damage. my concern is that this, we're going to hit a boiling point at some point to where this is going to be a county-wide problem because we're going to have to start buying houses from people if we're not careful. Volusia, they have had to deal with this and I don't want to see that have to happen in Brevard County and I'm, I'm just very concerned that if we don't keep this binding development plan and keep the density low in this area that we are going to have huge problems. Just in general, I believe that, you know, a person should do their due diligence when they buy a piece of property and so it sounds like they knew that what they were buying, they knew it had a binding development plan on there and, you know, it's, it's not right for the whole neighborhood to have to be affected by this when the property owner knew what they were purchasing. It's not like somebody pulled the wool over their eyes. So that's kind of... Okay, and you'll have probably closing or in debate. So we do, we do have another card that somehow got mixed up with the other cards. Bill Gower. No, that's all right. That's okay. Take your time. Don't go too far. Hey, my name's Bill Gower. I live at 385 Chester Drive, Cocoa, Florida, 32926 and in a part Chester estates. First of all, it keeps coming back. The original owners or the people that bought this property knew that there was a binding contract on it. So, what I've seen is basically they threw everything against the wall, see what would stick, make the people happy what they could get away with. Okay? After a meeting, they would say, oh, there's no reason for you to go to the next meeting. So there was a ton of those that started that. Then he said, well, 10 only showed up. Well, you don't need to go to the next meeting because we're just going to postpone it. So that's why we've dwindled down in size that way. I've lived there since 89. That property was a waterfield that I was taking care of for the owner. I know how big wide it is. It's not very wide. By the time we put a road through the middle for two lanes and then houses and then for the driveways, that's a lot of water that's being added to that property. Okay? No place to go. And when I talked to the guys that did the survey, my property sits slower than anybody else to that property in regards to it. And I do get flooded out when it rains. And I'm up on the upper side, not even down to the lower side with these other people. So basically, they threw everything against the wall and let's see what sticks. Now, what happens is if you prove something today, what makes this guy not go sell it to somebody else? And this guy said, well, they got away with that. Let's go back and ask for more. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Oh, the other thing I wanted to say, I noticed they keep pasting paperwork up there. I didn't see none of it from the developers. Okay. Thank you. I think this is the same as what's in the packet, what the applicant gave us online. It's online. Okay. That's all the cards. Kim Rosenko. Thank you, Chairman Altman. Just briefly, I want to thank Mr. Suderman for his comments. We have tried to work with the residents. Mr. Burroughs asked about a turn lane. If FDOT says it's necessary, certainly that would be put in. I do need to make the point that right now, water is just sleeting off this property. There's no treatment. There's no nothing. This will retain the water. It will treat it. It will be better than it currently is after this has developed. And the county has ensured this, Mr. Bernath, by asking for these conditions to which the developer has agreed. Reduce the volume of stormwater to better control runoff. Reduce the rate of stormwater discharge. So this will improve what's going on with the water sleeting to Indian River Drive. Again, we did agree to like trees for like trees. This is not a BDP. These are all conditions of the PDP. We don't do a BDP usually. We're willing to do it, but usually we don't do a BDP with a PDP for a PUD. And any changes to the PDP, that's part of your code if it increases density. But any changes could be a change to the road, so I would not ask that be conditional. I ask you just follow your code. If the PDP is changed in a substantial way as determined by Mr. Prasad, then we would have to come back. So I do not want that to be part of it. I mean, if you put it in there, then that will agree to it, but it's already in your code. I don't think it's necessary. And all these flooding issues, those are engineering issues. Mr. Bernath, Ms. McGee, they'll be reviewing all of this, Ms. Jarena. So those are all plat issues, site plan issues. We can't prove a negative at this point, but based upon what your staff has required, it's going to be a better condition for flooding and stormwater than it is currently. And so with that, we would ask that you approve the alternate request to Res 2. We ask that you find that that is compatible because we're doing like size houses Res 2 to Res 2 to allow the density bonuses to 23 units. 23 is demanded by the PDP, which governs it. And if not, then it's just a Res 2 all the way to the river and takes in the wetlands that now have Res 4. So we'd ask that you approve the Res 2 and that you approve the PDP with the waiver. You may have addressed some of this toward the end of your conversation, just a presentation, but I do have a question. Maybe you can elaborate further. One of the big questions that has been brought up to us is that there was an agreement. There was an agreement for a bonding and development plan and now that's being changed so people feel like that sort of a bait and switch or they're going against the commitment of the land loader. I don't think it was you at the time. What's your response? What are the reasons for going with the change? Well, as I mentioned at the October meeting, this has really been a troubled piece of property. It's been in and out of foreclosure. It's been back and forth between owners. It's not been developed. There are challenges to the land with the wetlands, with the sloping, with access. This is a challenged piece of property, really a troubled piece of property. And a BDP was agreed to in 2008. And in 2008 was kind of the crash of the market at the beginning of it. So I believe they just took whatever they could get. Regardless, it hasn't been developed. It's only the seven center, seven acres in the center. So there's other developable land that's res four that in theory could put another 12 units on it as is. So we could have the 12 and the seven. That's 19 as it is. So it's just, it's like a change of zoning. It couldn't be built that way. It's not feasible to be built that way when you had to have in all the stormwater when you have to add in all of the other requirements of subdivisions that weren't the same in 2008. Costs of construction have doubled in the last five years. So it just, it just, it wasn't feasible for the owner in 2008. My client bought it in 2021. It wasn't feasible for him. So it's basically he's asked for a rezoning. Removing the BDP is really just a rezoning action. And we've, we've said the reasons why we want to do it basically is the, the conditions of the property. Refresh my memory. I know I looked at the BDP's, the binding, original binding development plan on the, in the packet. But the original binding development plan, did it preserve the wetlands along the river? All it did was the seven acres were limited to seven units. Okay. And did it limit, they limit access to the river road? I don't recall that, sir. That I don't recall. But we're not going to Indian River Road. Right, right. We're definitely not. So I was just, there were some advantages. There was a limit. We couldn't access Park Chester. And it didn't really define what that meant. Park Chester has a road that goes directly into the property, our property and dead ends. So that was my interpretation of what can't access Park Chester. The neighbors thought it meant you can't use our road, which is really a public road. But that was the access. It wasn't Indian River Drive. You can't access Park Chester, which we have taken off access to Park Chester. Any other questions? Yes. Commissioner Delaney. Do you think that it, it's maybe, don't you think that it would be extremely expensive to mitigate this property to the point where you could build to that capacity if, say, you built the 12 houses on the Res. 4 portion and, is that really realistic? Well, what you're missing is there's three acres that is not wetlands that's still Res. 4. Right. That's between the wetlands and the Res. 1. You would still have to account for the stormwater and all of that kind of stuff. So, it's just, I'm just saying the allowable density now, in my opinion, is 19 plus the commercial and we're asking for 23 and that doesn't include the wetlands. Staff report says something else. I disagree with staff report. Commissioner Feltner. This is just out of curiosity, really. You're going to have to do a lot of work to this property. There's, there's, there's no doubt. There's, there's expense in getting this, this ready. So, ideal market conditions, how much are you asking for each one of these homes? I, and I ask that because I think nearby neighbors sometimes feel like, well, I don't, I don't want these cookie cutter houses that, based upon my other developers, it's 450 to 600. I, I don't know about this, but from what I know from other developers, they're developing similar products. The sale price would be between 450,000 to 600. Chair. Yes. Would you be agreeable to everything Billy quoted that would be attached to this permit? Yes, sir. Is that, is that okay with you, Billy? If I might just ask for one clarification from the board, Ms. Rezenka, I believe, just said that she preferred not to have the condition that any change to the PDP come back to the board. And so that's completely up to board discretion, whether they would prefer just to keep the typical, which is any substantial change would come back to the board, or if they want any change to come back to the board. How would you agree with that? I think you ought to stick by your code, and that was Ms. Gilliam that stated that, it wasn't Mr. Prasad. Okay. I would prefer it not be if you add it in there, we'll accept it, but to me, I think you have a code because any change, as I said, could change the location of the road. That, to me, shouldn't have to come back to you all. I think within reason, we're not talking of those changes. At least, are you, Billy? You said any change. Well, the way it's written, and this was mentioned at the last board meeting, that's why we put it in there. It does say any change, so I would say, you know, if there's some middle ground the board wants to consider, you can do that as well. And there may be a change that is better for the land and the neighborhood. We could take out two units, we'd have to come back. Right. They would not want to come back, do that, because they would have to do this, so I'm fine with having some flexibility there. Yeah. I am too. Thank you, sirs. May I? Sure. Billy, it's staff's preference to have these conditions memorialized in a BDP as opposed to as conditions for the preliminary development plan, right? Well, we could prefer to be both, so the conditions of the PUD memorialized in a BDP, and we ask for that so it's both easy to track internally and transparent for the public, because when they look up the map, they'll see the PUD with the PDP, and they can easily see those conditions. I apologize. I missed that. I'm not used to that for a PDP. That's fine, certainly. Okay. Commissioner Delaney? I just want to bring up, you know, what one of the residents said that, you know, the reason why there's not a lot of people here tonight is because they've come out over and over and over and over and over again, and the neighborhood still hasn't changed. The couple of people that have come up and said they could live with this, it's not because they're happy about it. Like, I think one, we still have hundreds of people that are not living in their homes right now because of the flooding that we've incurred this year, and it just is, it's frustrating to me that all of this is being overlooked, in my opinion, what I see happening right now, and, you know, this is, this is my district, and I know what my constituents want and need, and nobody is guaranteed a rezone. That is not a property right, and this is going to dramatically change this community, and regardless of what they're going to say about controlling the stormwater, it's going to, I have not seen one neighborhood in District 1 where a new neighborhood goes next to an old neighborhood and flooding didn't happen. Not one. So, it's just, if y'all want this in your neighborhoods, then that's fine, but D1 elected me to speak for them and we don't want this. And I know that you guys are, I don't, and I'm sorry, I understand y'all may not like me, you may not like my style, but this has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with them. So, I'm pleased asking you to do what we have historically done in this county and listen to the district commissioner where the people elected me to speak for them. And with that, I would like to make a motion to deny this request. There's a motion for denial. Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of a second. I have a question. Yes. If I could, please ask Ms. Rzenka to come back up here, if that's okay. Would the developer be willing to do any kind of shoreline shoring up in this area? I don't know what that means. I'm sure we can put that we will work with the staff to do what we can to help in that area because we do own property so we can put that as a binding condition that we work with county to work on shoring up the shoreline on the riverside. Some of the areas, obviously not right on their property but around it, some of the owners have put more, I don't know if it's fill or whatnot. I've driven down there. I've seen it. Yeah, the coquina rocks and stuff and that seems to help in those areas and I don't know if they're willing to do that. No, we are. The developer would be doing it because we did talk about that but the staff needs to come up with a conference solution that everyone can help and do the same thing and we're certainly willing to help with that. Okay. And so if I could, I'd like to make another motion. Could I ask a technical question? Sure. I don't mean to interrupt Mr. Chair. Sure. Is that something that you have to go to DEP for when you're on the edge of the river? Yeah, you'd have to get a permit from the state and you'd have to get a permit from natural resources as well. We don't allow seawalls but they can do coquina, slope revetments and native vegetation, living shoreline so there's other strategies they could use. Okay, so they're not going to run into an issue with the county. I mean, I'm not asking for a commitment. Yes, but they should be able to get a permit from us. There are, how about if I ask it this way, there are other property parcels along there that have these treatments that they could potentially duplicate? Is that? And they could probably do better. Sometimes we see when people just do their own thing, maybe it's not quite as fortified as it could be if it's properly engineered and has filter cloth and mangroves, say, that sort of thing. But yes, we do encourage that. Okay, and some of those other things, also DEP has signed off on maybe even in the last few years. Yes. I just don't want there to be false hope that they're going to do something and then they run into a problem with DEP. Yes. Okay, thank you. I have a question about it. That's a good point. So this property, when it makes the transition, the lots of sold or it reaches a certain threshold, we go into a homeowner's association, I assume, and the St. John's, I think now, requires that. So they're responsible to maintain the stormwater. They also own the, and that's probably part of the amenity to the project. They have pedestrian access. They can literally walk to the river. So that's their property on the river. If the shoreline starts to fail and even jeopardizes the road, they probably would have a duty to maintain. Would they not or is that, who does that responsibility fall on? I know they may have a desire, but I'm just, never thought of that, but you own property on the river and if it's eroded and the road's threatened, who's responsible for going on that property to protect the road? So I would say that it depends on, you know, who actually owns and then the maintenance, any maintenance conditions. I may be missing something, but I was not aware that this goes all the way to the river, in which case they may provide the recommendations that Commissioner Delaney had just suggested, but ultimately, if it's impacting the road, then it would be a public cost. I'd also just add while I have the floor for a second that we need to be very careful. A revendment system could actually wind up trapping the water, making it worse. We're in the process right now of doing a major study for that road and there's not an easy solution. I said this before, but the actual solution is about a billion dollars. There's also lots of private properties that we'd have to figure out even how to overcome that. So the big issue is how do you keep the water out? It's not necessarily the stormwater that's going down the hill as much as it is the waves overtopping. The road is very low, as was mentioned earlier, and now if you raise it up, whether it's some sort of revendment system or you build a great big wall, you have to raise the road. You raise the road, you move all the utilities and you move all the connections to all the houses to the road system and that's where the billion dollars comes in. And when you say billion, you mean the entire river road? Our study focused on 9,000 linear feet, which I would suggest that the juice is probably not worth the squeeze at that point. Morris, were you reaching for your mic? I think Mark does pretty well. That's an issue, I'm sure, that will deal with St. John's permitting and the homeowners would probably want to keep that as nice as they possibly can. Okay, any other questions? Commissioner Delaney? So there's, there's a lot in this motion, obviously, so if staff can help me, but what I'm, what I'm looking for and Ms. Rizinka, if you wouldn't mind, is, would they be amenable to not doing the bonus density, doing 21? Yes. If we could do, if we could move to approve this with all of the things that staff has said, plus working with staff to sure up the shoreline there? First, you have to make a motion on H1 for the small scale amendment. Okay. Then the other one, H2, when you make that motion, you can... Add all that stuff? Yes. Okay. But if I may, Commissioner, so when you make the motion, if what I'm hearing is that the motion is to CC and res to without the finding required for the density bonus, so... Right. Yes. I move to approve that. Is there a second? I'll second that. Second. By Commissioner Feltener. Any discussion? All those favor second by saying yay? Yay? Aye. Aye. Carries unanimously. No. Damn, we voted. Did you say? I'm going to be a no. I'm sorry. There's a no. A no by, a no by the maker of the motion. Okay. All right. I don't know if I've ever seen that before. I have seen it in the legislature. People vote against their own bill. I've seen it. Haven't you? Yeah. So it's not unprecedented. We've seen it at this level. So we're going to H2 then. Yes. Yeah, H2. Okay. Okay. So we're now on H2. Billy, could you help me with that motion? Do I need to read it into the record again or we've already done that? No, I think if you just say, you know, all the conditions as outlined in the agenda report with the addition of some of the ones we heard from today, which is as part of the waiver requests that would have to be approved as part of this application, like for like trees, and then I also heard to mitigate any wetlands within the 50-foot right-of-way. Should they have to be dedicated? We didn't agree to that. We can't agree to that because that impacts our ability to mitigate. We did not agree to that one. Okay. Which one was that? I'm sorry, so we know. The trees. No. No. Let's have you come up and clarify that. It was asked that the 50-foot right-of-way that's being dedicated, that we take on the responsibility for mitigating the wetlands. We can't do that because that impacts the wetlands. We can mitigate it on our site because it would all be done at the same time because we only get 1.8% to impact. So we can't agree to that. So you're going to give up the land but we're not agreeing to mitigate somebody else's land. We may agree later on but right now we can't because we have to mitigate our own. So that was not something that was listed that we agreed to. Okay. Mr. Chair, if staff may make a comment, please. So I just wanted to add that when we were talking about the dedication of the 50-foot right-of-way, we had talked about that not counting against their 1.8% because that would be to the benefit of the county for that 50 feet. So that wouldn't count against your other wetland impacts for the 1.8%. But again, the mitigation being part of your... Is that right? Yeah. And again, I would just add that if they don't do it, now that's county right-of-way and the taxpayers are going to be doing it if we ever decide to widen that road. I have a question of that. But if we own it, wouldn't it be our responsibility to mitigate for widening the road? That's the public benefit to widen the road and if they've given up that right-of-way, it would be the public's responsibility to mitigate for the public good of building the road. I mean, I can understand their point. They're giving up the land and now they have to mitigate. I don't know. It's just, I agree with the applicant on that. I don't think that should be a requirement. Commissioner, how about, I don't know if they would agree to it, but buy credits for the mitigation. I don't have the authority to do that. I don't have the authority to spend my client's money who's not here to agree when he's already told me not to agree to that. So I can't agree to that at this point. You're basically giving land. We are giving land that would have to take a minute domain at a valuable price. Right, right, and a lot of legal costs. So we appreciate you doing that. Thank you. Okay, so with that said, then the conditions would be as outlined in the agenda report. If you'd like, I can restate them. I stated them before, so it would be like for like, in addition to what's in the agenda report, it would be like for like trees and work with the county to add potential treatments to shore up the shoreline along the Indian River Lagoon. I have a question on that. On the issue of clearing, because I'm for not clearing land as much as possible, but I've seen a lot of projects where, some of which I voted on to preserve the native buffer. You go back and the buffer's dead because when you do the improvements of the property, you affect the draining, you affect just a little bit of soil and some of those trees kill it. So I agree with not having to be able to go, and it would have been a healthier, more attractive buffer if it was replanted. So I support that. I do have a question though. When you say like for like, are you talking species or size? Because if there's some very large trees there, I think we're looking for a similar type and size of tree, but I will defer to Darcy whose department implements that code. Like for like can work depending on how big their lots are, what that buffer is. I mean, they may not be able to put back the same number of like oak trees that may crowd out or may interfere with the buildings, the structures. I worry about their ability to do size too. Yeah, I mean, and that's kind of a tough one to apply at permitting because, you know, if you take out a 20-inch oak, you're not going to put back a 20-inch oak. You're going to have smaller ones. I haven't. I've been by the site many times. I don't think a tree survey has been done. So I just, I'm just concerned if we say life or life, the size shouldn't be a requirement. Perhaps similar within reason. Okay. We like to make it specific. It helps staff apply it when we get to permitting. So I don't know if there's, Billy, can you put in language in there to negotiate with natural resources for appropriate buffering vegetation that will thrive and mature into a good buffer? Would that be acceptable? Is that what we're looking for? Okay. And I could just, if I may add one more thing, you know, we're talking about PDD condition and we just ask that the motion include to memorialize that in a BDP. Okay. So, go ahead. So the, the motion would be to change the zoning from EU and RP with an existing BDP to a PD, PD, PUD with the removal of the existing BDP, but to add another BDP, including the things that we had spoken about. Do I need to read out all of these? Okay. And then, what do I need to say with the PDP? So as part of the zoning approval, you'd be approving the PUD with the condition specified to be memorialized in a BDP. So moved. Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Second by Commissioner Atkinson. Okay. Any discussion? Any debate? Any questions on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Nay. With Commissioner Delaney voting against the motion. Passes 4-1. Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. We've really, I think, come up with a good product here. We want to thank the applicant and thank the residents who have been a part of this process. You've made an impact. Okay. We'll move to the next agenda item. And I think what we'll do was H-5, you said we, we were going to move H-5 so they wouldn't have to wait through that. That should, no. H-5, we already, we already started the process. We decided. We started, he wasn't here, but I think they're here now. Are there any additional cards? Put it in the list. I don't mind moving them up because, we'll just, we'll just go down the list the way it is. We'll stay. We'll go to H-3. Jacob Found, request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 22, 255.14 to change the future land use designation from Res 1 to Res 2, paragraph 25, 25 SS 00008, tax account number 200804, District 1. Mr. Chair? Yes? These are companion applications, so you have to read in H-4 as well. I thought I was doing so good. Or I can read it in for you. Yeah, go ahead and read it for me. I should have let you read it for me. It's okay. Jacob Found, request a zoning classification change from SR with a BDP to SR with removal of the existing BDP and an addition of a new BDP under application number 25Z 00037 located in District 1. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm going to let you read it next time. You do better than I do. Okay, you're recognized. I'm Jacob. I bought this land, submitted permits, got everything accepted and started building. I've already got concrete and block done. All my inspections have passed. I've had my trusses sitting for nearly six months. My wife and I have spent our life savings on this and just want to continue. I relied on the county and did everything as I should. I also want to clear one thing up from the last meeting. I am an employee for a very reputable AC company. I do not work for Minnick. I do new construction HVAC for many small builders in Brevard County including Minnick. Okay. If there are no questions, we'll go to the next speaker card. Thank you. Pat Raymer. Pat Raymer. I live at 6105 Mangrove Street, Scottsboro, Mims, Florida. What I want to address has been already spoken about many times here and that's the density. Increasing density in this area which is already prone to flooding is only going to make the problem worse. And every time we approve a variance or a zoning change to increase the density, we're increasing the chances of flooding in that area. People are suffering right now. During the last 2025 calendar year, we've had six flooding events in that particular area. I understand that the house has already started to be built. It is significantly higher than the property behind it and it is going to cause flooding to that other property and I ask you all to consider that as you look at this request. Okay, thank you. Bigler? Michael Bigler? My name is Michael Bigler. I live at Golden Shores 41-25 for 22 years. I've been living in Bevard County for 61 years and doing construction for 40 years and work for many contractors throughout the state of Florida. Some very big ones. I have never heard nothing like I'm hearing that I'm going to talk about in my entire life of my career. Gotti Menick is a contractor who sold 0.454 acres to Jacob Fawn. Alterations were done to the lot which violates the condition of the BDP, the section 62-2102 Bevard County code ordinance which states that no person shall separate the lot in which a manner that violates the law. But the land was unlawfully split and an unlawful permit was given anyways. Now we all would have been at the public hearing along with Clifford McKnight of 3900 Golden Shores November 17th if we were notified but the notification only went out to a few people that lived within 500 feet but the letter was deceiving. Wow. To the elderly to most of the elderly that got the letter. It states that the land change was for 6.24 acres not for 0.54 acres and that ain't right because for many years we have been paying taxes and living on Golden Shores and a lot longer than Scotty Minick and the applicant Jacob Fahn who is trying to unlawfully split land and build a house with an unlawful permit on 4060 Golden Shores Boulevard which is going to be the launching site for McKnight whatever construction it is and other builders so they can break up properties into smaller sections to build more houses and make more money. Now there was a situation that took place right beside me on 3.10 acres the code enforcement was called they stopped it because the law was being broke and sad to be said the guy that owned the land died and my heart sunk for him I cried for him okay because it was just a small little thing that he had to take care of but he had over 3 acres okay we're not talking about 3 acres here or 2 acres or even 6.24 acres we're talking under acreage which we don't want up there so that just doesn't make sense to any of us that are here today excuse me I have to get to my notes because I was just notified about this just a little while this week we are law abiding citizens that have been living in Mims and Scottsmore area for many years who voted for you county officials to represent us and uphold the law we hope you do your job and vote no for a law that has been broken that's all I gotta say Stephanie Knight Stephanie Knight I live at 3995 Golden Shores Boulevard the proposed change alters the established character of our neighborhood where every residential lot is an acre or more I initially chose to build there in low density area relying on the zoning regulations that were put in place to preserve this area for my kids and I those standards should uphold by the board and all employees of Brevard County zoning Brevard County property appraisers and Brevard County permitting allowing permits for sub standard lot sizes is only inconsistent with our zoning requirements but raises serious concerns about accountability with the permitting process when unlawful or improper permits are approved especially using our taxpayers resources it enables reinforces the very practices that created the issue each time commissioners vote in favor of these applicants it further empowers that department to continue using permits that do not comply with the law this request is incompatible with our current development plan and it undermines the long-standing character of our community approving it would set a troubling precedent opening the door to further expectations that could gradually transform our area into a disorganized higher density landscape precisely what many residents sought to avoid in that area zoning regulations should not be modified to accommodate negligence or oversight on people who work for the county instead enforce and accountability must be prioritized granting variances under these circumstances only complicates matters and signals to other builders and property owners that non-compliance will be excused this seems to be a problem within departments that they need to be addressed and corrected so this doesn't keep happening it can it can excuse me I'm confident that if the department was audited you would find multiple unlawful permits such as two properties on Todd Lane this one on Golden Shores there was problems with two properties on a rancho where squatters decided to try to take over property and it was approved at the appraiser's office approved until the owner of that property got wind of it and had to fight to get their property back and the property appraiser's office should know that in order to take over property you have to be there for seven years they were there for two months so things are being overlooked from Mr. McKnight he did want me to read because he couldn't be here tonight it says dear commissioner dear commissioners I am writing on behalf of numerous residents of Golden Shores Boulevard and Mims the removal of the existing BDP along with the new land use request is inconsistent with the current development plan and undermines the character of our community this change sets a concerning precedent that could transform our area into disorganized urban landscape something many of us sought to avoid when we chose to live here even with the proposed half acre variance this rezoning should not proceed the Brevard County property website lists that parcel as 0.45 acres contrary to the 0.51 acres indicated by the new survey additionally the house is directly behind the parcel located at 4070 Golden Shores Boulevard is has a driveway running right through the proposed property not on an easement this situation raises significant concerns about access that impacts the actual usable acreage of the lot we emphasize the current zoning regulations should not be adjusted to accommodate the negligence and oversight of your department and this discussion is occurring after construction had progressed to a quarter completion due to the breakdown in the planning process it is critical that accountability is enforced rather than granting variances that would complicate situations and set again a precedent for other properties and builders notably the contractor responsible for the construction is also the seller of the property who is a realtor he should have known better and given his experience building homes in the area he should have been fully aware of the zoning regulations and BDP furthermore it is important to note that alongside this property well that was already addressed I'm not going to go over that again our community cannot support such extensive changes and strongly implores that the current BDP remain intact thank you for your attention in this manner and we hope that you will consider our concerns and seriously prioritize the integrity of our community and I do feel for the person who bought the property but Mr. Minnick knew he was the one who did the BDP he should have known not to sold it to that gentleman and it shouldn't be our taxpayers that have to suffer for your mistake that the employees made in the permitting office so that's it okay we have more cars on the side but we've been up almost an hour and a half so numerous requests for a 10 minute break we'll come back at 635 okay Sean Bohannon Shane Sean I've been here now for decades born in South Florida by our general baby parents have been here for over 70 years they're in their 80s we moved up here specifically because we wanted to leave South Florida in that urban environment and go to a rural environment and that's why and the reason that this makes a lot of it really hurts me it's because okay so I live in the home that Frances Threckel and her husband who donated the property that under which Titusville City Hall sits today I live in that home and she built on Golden Shores the Horseman's Association and here we are where I had to spend over two years coming in front of the board dealing with everybody involved all the unelected public officials and that just to be able to build a house for my aunt who's 82 years old who it's on six acres and everything was perfectly done it had to be redone multiple times this is and I have nothing against this person I don't know him or anything but it just gets down to the point of where if I wanted to live in a high density area that's where I would have moved and that's where I would have spent the money but no we have spent tons tons of money and I'm not going to go into numbers because it doesn't really matter we've done that whether it's trimming hundred year old oak trees preserving things setting up roads paving things we've done everything every single thing by the book and then this just pops up is done illegally against code against enforcement and asking for can I have an exception I mean quite frankly whoever sold it to him they're the ones who should be responsible okay that certainly shouldn't be those because here's the thing my road is like a washboard okay half of the weeks they don't even come out and grade it I'm out there with my tractor my box blade great in the damn thing okay sorry pardon my French but it's just because oh it rained or no it hasn't rained enough or whatever okay but they're not going to pave it they're not bringing in septic they're not bringing in water they're not bringing in natural gas okay that's fine I knew that I accepted that so I have my own standalone propane I have my own four wells all of which permitted licensed everything documented and this is just beyond the pale I mean this is it it absolutely is so I'm sorry I don't mean to get on a high horse or be loud or obnoxious I know I can do that but I'm trying to be very restrained so thank you very much for your time and I hope you take into consideration the reason that people who have come up here and spent millions of dollars only to see this nomination which was illegally done and we should honestly yes there should be auditing and the audits need to go back to all of these things all of these exceptions and the people who did that who are not elected officials need to be held accountable and if the elected officials won't do it well then you know the next election's coming have a good night thank you Beth Britsky I didn't see the eye I didn't see the eye Britsky my name is Beth Britsky I live at 4055 April Lane it's one street over from Golden Shores my family and I moved here to Brevard County to Mims specifically because that community is a rural community and we absolutely love it and we've only been here a couple of months but we really love the community we've been really involved since we got here and really all I came up to say is that that's that's like the heart of our community is the these bigger lots rural area my fear is that concessions are made for existing rules as to how big lot sizes are it's I'm afraid that sets a precedent for that to continue happening in the future so that's all I wanted to say is I'm fearful of that happening and continuing and I hope that you vote now thank you Ken Harrison and the next speaker would be Susan Kuhn you might want to start walking down might save a little time for us okay my name is Ken Harrison I live on Candy Road in Mims I live in that area I've been in this county my entire life I've been in Mims 67 years 54 years on my property that's near this this came directly from the staff comments what I'm going to repeat here so what they found that was wrong in this particular case the applicant is subject to code enforcement due to the actions of a predecessor in interest who improperly split the property into a substandard lot violating section 62-2102 of our county code the original BDP stipulated the developer owner shall limit development to one single family residence and may be further restricted by any changes to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations subsequently the property was sold and split into two lots of .54 acres and .89 acres on April 27th of 2020 the .89 acre property was sold on October 22 of 2021 the .54 acre property was sold to the applicant on June 4th 2024 these actions violated the conditions of the BDP and section 62-2102 Bavard county code of ordinances alteration of lot which states that no person shall sever any lot in such a manner that a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter would be created on any new or altered lot including their uses or structures subsequent to this unlawful split a permit for a single family resident was issued in error this permit should not have been issued because the lot is a substandard lot as a result of the split upon discovering the error a stop work order was issued by the Bavard county building official administrative policy number seven proposed use shall not cause or substantially aggravate any substantial drainage problem on surrounding properties or significant adverse and unmitigatable impact on significant natural wetlands water bodies or habitat for listed species environmental constraints natural resources management department has identified that the subject property is located within a mapped FEMA special flood hazard area a zone a the board may wish to consider if the requested is consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area in addition the board should consider the request based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the actions of a predecessor in interest which resulted in the subject property being turned into a substandard lot and the last paragraph is mine furthermore the residents are concerned that an unlawful split of the property and resulting zoning change due to the unlawful split of the property could possibly leave Brevard County complicit and condoning of an unlawful zoning action and as far as these maps you will see on the first zoning map the little yellow square that's the property in question the property right next to it was SR SR those those two were two they were one lot before the illegal split if you look at this map they are the only SR in the entire area everything else is something larger and it's not that these are large lots a lot of this area has one acre minimums the people don't want it to go below one acre so the next map is the future land use you'll see that the entire map is res one the proposed land use for this one lot would be a res two totally inconsistent with the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood and the very last map is a flood zone a that runs through the center of this property the property behind it will be affected by flood waters and lastly this contractor is known to do this on purpose working through the departments through either strong arming them or whatever means to get what he wants and did the same thing on Todd Lane which is a quarter mile away where one of his electricians who does all the houses split a lot to a substandard size built a house on it and then got permission after the fact there's a pattern of this through multiple departments thank you thank you Susan Susan Kuhn and after Susan will be Jared Atkinson she's waving her you're waving your time okay Jared Atkins speaking for the Scottsmore Community Association that's correct yes Jared Atkins for the Scottsmore Community Association which is 3724 Magoon Ave in Scottsmore so several people have taken the wind from beneath my wings here so I'm going to truncate this a little bit we had a meeting with a group of concerned citizens this week regarding this particular application everybody pretty much feels that they agree with the former board that was here prior to you guys that the density needs to be limited and retained as it is in Scottsmore we did have a small area study that we were promised in 2019 and 2020 that did not happen and had it happened we might have some more data to support that but this particular lot rezoned in 2019 at that time the county zoning and this board assigned a BDP to which the owner agreed disallowing the exact thing that happened that he put in place a few words from the staff report include unlawful substandard violation those those are not good words to have in a staff report if you're going to approve an application like this and then at the zoning board meeting the applicant spoke to this stated that he bought the lot from Scott Minnick stated that he works for Scott Minnick so we know that's the builder that split the lot I would also agree with somebody that spoke earlier that I think that an audit or investigation should be conducted to see why this continues happening in our town a couple of things that you guys may also be familiar with in fact I'm sure you are but that no constitutional or Harris Act property right to increase planning allowances under Florida law purchase of land is generally subject to the existing zoning or environmental restrictions there's no property right to change them Freedland v. Hollywood Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals 1961 upheld again in Ellen v. Miami Florida 3rd District of Appeals 1959 reverse those the other one upheld the first one I know you guys have all those statutes but just wanted to give you a friendly reminder appreciate you hearing us out thank you thank you Ostapovich Ostapovich oh thank you Ed Ostapovich you said this projector works I think so so the gentleman that I wanted to have up here today could not show up for various reasons medical being the biggest one but his voice he does spend a lot of time in Brevard County it's Sandy Heinzinger he basically does a lot of construction for Brevard County and along this his whole point was just a handwritten letter on some calculations and verbiage that he uses on a daily basis we use a standard 3,000 square foot home all right when you have that you have a square footprint so to speak even with the driveways the garages carports things that nature so we're just going to use that as an example a 3,000 square foot home having one inch of rain per hour that's 6,230 gallons per inch of rain per house so with that being said we can use this I can hand this off to the board and go from there but my name Ed Ostapovich 5175 international avenue I'm here tonight because I want to oppose the building further further continuing on with this so you know in the early 90s I came to born and raised but I came back in the early 90s as a airman straight out of the air force I literally wanted to live out in the country suburbs raise my kids shoot hunt fart around four wheelers like everybody else does we enjoy the community horses things that nature what's happening today is it's not an ideal living situation because it's turned into a suburbia nightmare we're starting to see homes developed on top of each other the high density area is starting to increase traffic is increasing you guys are well aware of we don't want an HOA type scenario we're already dealing with seasonal snow burges in Titusville so MIMS has a cushion for having some elbow room with that being said when we first moved up here I purchased a one and a half acre lot and the average home to be built on was one to five acre parcels for anyone to purchase and it was all zoned and cut up that way from the civil engineers back in the 60s and there again like minded everybody wanted that expansion to have some elbow room and we don't want the high density in that scenario so now we got based on what we're dealing with today's laws and rules are being bent to accommodate so-called errors and these errors are by contractors realtors and title companies are starting to affect us big time we're starting to pay the price literally flooding issues so profuse in the last 20 years we've not we haven't seen anything like this in the last five years and Katie is well aware of what we're talking about using that number off of what Mr. Sandy had and water did not recede for almost three weeks and I'm not exaggerating to the point where wildlife was literally coming up in the dry lands areas pigs deer looking for things to eat and I'm pointing this out to the simple fact we've got hogs just tearing up property we have a really bad problem right now we're trying to mitigate that scenario but it's not going to happen until the put our eyes on them they're overgrown they're impacting the water flow to the St. John's this is going west and not to mention the flow problems we had through the east as a registered voter in district one I want these mismanaged overlook areas to be audited as well I want more of the community to feel comfortable with what you guys do as a whole we trust you we've brought you guys to bear to be our voice Katie is our voice right now but we want this whole community to you guys understand this whole community is really we're exhausted by what's happening up there through the growth and development and the continued passing or exemptions of said parcels other than that I really don't have much more to say I appreciate your time and hearing our voices thank you much yes yeah you moved to Mims but can I ask you are you aware of the farmington development that they're proposing very aware I watched it I stumbled across it when I started my own personal and private distillery I've been in front of you guys before trying to get zoning squared away so I have a functioning and legal distillery on my private property through ATB and the feds I think that's great and also I think we could open up hog hunting and it would be better with liquor with that being said we all have a good time but the farmington issue is being proposed maybe in 10 years you'll start developing that I don't know what do you think so we're opposing that as well we don't like the large and it's actually a larger scale than what's already here in Viera we've seen all the plat maps I've actually stumbled across and it made me nauseous to think we moved up here for this and it's going to be taken away from my kids are going to have to deal with it so probably not in our lifetime but our kids are going to be dealing with this type of growth and expansion which is a sensitive water area St. John's would not allow this so I'm wondering who's getting paid in that scenario now also you made a comment about the 95 culverts now you do understand that's I do understand that but do we not have a voice to get them up on a horn and say hey guys we're drowning down here if you know anything about DOT that's kind of like blowing bugle up your butt they're slower than heck and they don't it's not their problem but thank you I hear everything you're saying I do understand regulations and what you guys are up against but right now we're focused on one little thing if we can turn the tides and start going by laws and upholding that we'd be really appreciative of your efforts thank you you want this okay that's our last card so I will give the applicant an opportunity to close but is there any questions or comments on the question here's my question to staff if this gentleman bought it from a realtor who was shady or whatever and didn't know what he was buying then a permit was given by the county where where is his justice where's his justice or where's what would the title company be guilty I don't know tell me I don't even know that he obtained title insurance that would depend did you obtain title insurance I do all right and if you file a claim with your title insurer I have not no okay you probably should do that quickly if you haven't already I'm not going to give you legal advice but if you have title insurance that's but if I'm that's an issue you work for the person that sold it to you I work for the company that does work for him I do HVAC all over Brevard County and he's one of the builders that we work for right now how much money have you spent honestly not for well for the cost of the lot and then for what you've done so far be a hundred grand okay and there's probably another hundred grand to finish it I don't know you at least yeah okay have you spoke to the realtor about this I have not okay why not the realtor that I bought the property from yes I have just talked to the landowner I didn't have a realtor I got you yeah and the landowner says tough luck or I don't care I did it and it was legal and the county approved it and yada yada right pretty much so I reckon I mean I basically relied on the staff at the county to turn everything in and I got everything approved well if you know anything about life you don't rely on anybody you check and don't I'm starting to learn that okay thank you sir thank you chair yeah go ahead let you finish one of the things is that the homeowners around the area weren't notified of this meeting or anything everything has been posted in front the county has put signs out there in the middle of October they put out there the the amount of acres it's 0.54 I'm not sure why that's changed at all that's what I've been aware of the whole time for the flooding I mean I've already started building if I can continue and put my cohort in and everything to code obviously that would help and then for about the being not enough land there's two properties on golden shores that are actually less acres than what I have one's 0.51 and one's 0.54 and one's 0.44 and I'm 0.54 also said that my house is higher elevation and the neighbor behind me it's actually the same exact height and everything is to code so like I said I've done everything to code and it's all been inspected and everything is passed so okay yes if he's if he's done I have a couple questions I think mine's more of a comment on a couple things that was said earlier so I'll wait to I have to your questions commissioner are you using a builder or is this an owner builder that's another thing too it's all owner builder so who drew your plans were you using an architect an engineer I think you're required to have an engineer for the hurricane yeah I just work in construction I have friends that have helped me out so but everything's been owner builder and I've used other people's plans so you didn't use an architect to draw your plans I did not know I used a previous plan that's already been used were they stamped by an engineer or architect do you know who that was I do not know at the top of my head no when you submitted your plans to the county did you have any idea that what you were requesting was illegal no I didn't at all you basically relied upon the county correct and you what made you think that you could build on this lot I mean I seen other properties that were around the same amount of land so you just assumed it was built I mean there there been a couple new houses that have been built on that street the last year or two I put AC in them I figured there wouldn't be a problem right how many square foot is your house 1600 1600 is it a one story or two story one story one story okay okay yes I have a couple questions for you so you said that you didn't have a real estate agent that you just bought it from the owner title insurance so that's good when you presumably went to the person that you bought it from and said hey I just got told that this is an illegal lot what was the response that you got back from the previous owner nothing really I mean basically to figure out what your solution would be I was also told by the county that it would be resolved in a day or two when I initially got the phone call so I didn't really think much of it actually so the owner likely had an idea that they were doing something that wasn't okay and they just led you to believe that it was okay thank you Commissioner Feltner I'm sorry sir I don't have any questions for you just a couple of things that were mentioned here earlier first of all I have a great deal of empathy for the applicant I think that's you know I don't stand in the way of someone's American dream right to home ownership and what have you but you know you can buy a motorcycle without a motorcycle license but to ride it you need a motorcycle license and the person that sells it to you that's not their job is to figure out whether you have a motorcycle license so I don't mean to be difficult but in some of these things with the splits the prior board has been here with an issue when we took up accessory dwelling unit okay and so you could think tiny house we had a debate over kitchens you know what would be in law maybe detached thing what have you and I actually offered an amendment at that time that if you do the accessory dwelling unit okay you cannot then split that property now what's the what's the mechanical thing that's there that I don't know protects the county if you will from when you go into the clerk of the court and you record a deed I don't know that there is one and I don't know how to do that and I think that's something for this board in the future to consider how we remedy this kind of a thing with something we'll have to meet with the clerk we'll have to talk to the clerk to see how that's done maybe another municipality does this to see how that we can prevent this kind of thing the property appraiser isn't the one to prevent it either just just so we're clear they they don't do splits right so the you know you record a new deed and then the property appraiser sees that as recorded and then they they note the change to the property so just so we're we're clear on that so this this one's this one's troubling I don't I don't know that that voting for this tonight cures all of these things so look forward to seeing what the rest of the board wants to do here okay I have a few more questions so you submitted the plans to the county thinking what you did was legal it went through permit review and you got a permit how many inspections I'm sure you had a you poured your foundation yeah I did pre-plumbing concrete block and in the middle of block I was actually stopped but I said due to safety if I could finish the block and get it filled so I've had that done as well and so you had a you had a inspection of the block where they inspected your lintel your break your downpours your steel yes and they passed that inspection and allowed you to allowed you to pour the block correct yep so you have block up with poured yes block is 100% so what is that three or four times five times you acted in reliance of the county you felt what you were doing allowed and they approved it and allowed you to proceed so it was only after the block had run up somebody told you that it was illegal who told you the staff called me I believe it was Trina the county staff yes okay okay I have some I have a lot of comments too so could I ask a technical question it's Mr. Chair is it is it a board of adjustment issue versus tell me when when these those two things when it's board of adjustment versus trying to cure something that already happened versus now we're halfway through the process and we're doing a zoning change in this case because it would to allow the house to continue to be built under the current zoning that actually be a violation of the zoning it couldn't be cured through a variance the proper cure for that would be a rezoning so you know you can't yeah it's there's multiple issues with the with the current set with the land use and the zoning so that would not be able to be cured through a variance proceeding Commissioner Atkinson I'm wondering we talked a little bit about precedent how do we keep this from setting that in this neighborhood staff has suggested proposed a BDP which I understand Mr. Foon has agreed to in concept with the following conditions number one the applicant agrees that this rezoning request and companion future land use amendment application was a result of an unlawful lot split by the predecessor and interest and will stipulate to that fact and any future proceedings regarding that action that would be things like a future code enforcement proceeding should one be initiated and two this rezoning and companion future land use amendment application are not precedential but instead are being requested to resolve the substandard lot that have arisen as a result of that unlawful split and under these particular circumstances that it be recognized that these actions are being granted based on the unique conditions of the subject property so if that with that BDP that BDP would also be mapped and we have done our bet we've tried to tighten up our processes just for so the board knows that so in any future applications in the area if they were to try to point to this action if the board were to choose to approve it staff would see that put that in the report that that this that was a result of a unique circumstances and the board not intended to be presidential commissioner Delaney and then commissioner Feltner this is a horrible situation you know and it's really difficult but at the end of the day I mean we have to be responsible for what we buy and this property already had a BDP on it and this happened and I know that we're saying that you know we're going to tighten up processes and whatnot but maybe you know we'll see if that works this this prior landowner he is doing this all over North Brevard and I've got to say you working with him you're telling me that you had no idea of his of his business practices I mean he's never done me wrong with work you've never heard through the community how long have you lived in Mims I have I mean I live in Titusville I've worked for the AC contractor for six years never had an issue with them you haven't heard any any rumors of I mean there's rumors of everyone right but I mean it's it's pretty well known in North Brevard you got to admit that that there are some there are a lot of practices that go on that shouldn't be going on they've been going on for a really long time and it shouldn't be everybody else's fault and I don't mean to say this with any hate in my in my heart or anything it's it's not everybody else's fault that you didn't do your due diligence and so people shouldn't have to pay for that and that's just how I feel about it I I think you were let down pretty badly by the people who were around you who should have been looking out for you whether it's a real estate agent the title company can I ask one more technical question Mr. Chair what what is the consequence to the to the neighboring you know to the person who did the split when there was a BDP that said that they would would not do that which they recorded and agree to right that's correct there could be a consequence it is a code violation as of today we don't have a complaint but should the board wish to us to proceed on a code enforcement action we do have the ability to do that what you got out there right now because the person who did the split and is behind all this doesn't own the lot next to it that's already been sold and built and owned by another so right now you have two people in the same condition as Mr. is it Foon is that Fawn as Mr. Fawn you've got two folks with substandard lots the other one the house is already built they don't need a permit but in the future if they want to sell it or do any improvements or pull permits they're going to have an issue and they could have a code action against them traditionally code enforcement is against a property and so you get it into a position where if you're going to proceed in these cases historically it would have been against the innocent purchaser from a bad actor but I think I know a way that we can get after the violator and get a lien that would attach to their real and personal property aside from the property at issue here I would just ask for authorization from the board to be proactive in cases of this nature by policy we're reactive we respond to complaints as Mr. Prasad said we we don't have a complaint on this property and even though this condition has been known from some for some time we haven't received it a complaint that we can enforce but but if the board just don't even need a motion just if the board by consensus said staff we'd like you to look into these circumstances and in cases like this authorize you to take action going after the folks who are actually creating the problem right not the end purchasers Mr. Chair now the state allows us to be proactive and in those things versus the state does that has been a policy of the county for some time the reactive that's not a state requirement currently all right we do if we receive a complaint it can't be an anonymous complaint and I know there are things in the legislature right now that might change that but but as of right now the board could authorize us to be proactive just limited to circumstances like this one if I if I may add one thing Mr. Chair several members of the public at talked about the Todd Lane properties 38 3680 30 3690 that's actually an example of another set of properties that were unlawfully split unlike here those permits were not issued in error those permits were lawful at the time they were issued the the surveys showed a proper lot and then it was split after that so that's a similar circumstance of a Morris is talking about if the board were to give us authorization we could proceed on those cases like that I would love to see that happen it you know cast one more just legal question I'm curious how what the mechanism could be for the clerk when when a deed is recorded right or do they even does the does the clerk have the ability say sorry I can't record this deed there's there's a problem with that parcel I'd have to talk to the clerk's office about that I seem to recall because in a lot of municipalities including West Melbourne where I worked we do have a lot split ordinance that requires review and and you can't do illegal lot splits that don't meet the criteria under the code I seem to recall the clerk saying before they have a statutory duty to record deeds and they're not the gatekeeper for that but but I could be wrong on that if the county doesn't have an ordinance so I haven't addressed it recently but but if we had legislative intent to pursue one or even some direction by the board to do some initial research I'd be happy to have that conversation with the clerk's office for a follow-up mr. chair I'd be interested in seeing that in a future commission agenda myself because I mean what's happening here is is it's a very unfortunate thing it's very very unfair and I think we should take affirmative steps this is my opinion to try to put some mechanism in there to and maybe there's another another county you know the clerk is aware of that that does that and we can we can copy off of them sir and mr. chair if I may just I'll be happy to look into that I've thought for a long time we probably should have a lot split ordinance I just want to caution that I do need to give some consideration about SB 180 as we do with virtually everything right now and make sure that I think there was a bill filed today so first we're seeing it all right all time okay I think that's it for me mr. chair I have questions still I'm sorry and I know this isn't a staff report but I'm gonna ask it just to verify for his house to be legal what would the size of the lot need to be a half an acre a half an acre yes and what is the size now 0.54 you mean for us are subsequent to the rezoning right sr requires a half an acre so what would we allow but the smallest lot would be the minimum lot requirement right now it's one acre so right now that the the the zoning it meets the zoning requirements for the minimum lot size the it's res 1 however so it needs to be one unit breaker under the land use you said meets the zoning the the this suburban residential requirements is according to the survey the lot is 0.54 acres so it is above the half acre is that the is that the zoning so he's legal under the zoning except for the binding development plan and under but under the future land use map he's not okay so he's over a half an acre I mean I can understand why an applicant would be confused he meets the zoning he gets all these building permits the act and reliance of the experts the government I I want to say that the presentations by the public have been phenomenal very riveting and understandable I know I'm a builder so I can identify with the discussion but I can tell you as a builder when I submit plans I supplant submit a site plan you rely on the government and when they give you permits the reviews are quite exhaustive it's not easy and for me it's not deciding whether this person should have a right to continue it's whether if he continues will it do replicable harm to the public and he's only building a 1600 foot house on a lot that's over a half acre and I don't see if we respect this person's rights and he relied on government that it would create this it's not going to create irreparable harm or any harm it's it's almost a minute Dominicus now if it happened all over the place yes and so I I'm in I'm inclined to agree with this may not be popular but I I think as a government entity we have a responsibility to to be responsible and he did his job he acted in reliance of our government officials and I think I think the harm that's done is minimal and I think as a body for we making this decision is determined what is the level of damage and I think respecting his property rights his reliance on government the substantial amount of money that he spent and I would imagine a hundred thousand dollars is very substantial for you I mean I I think I think he could possibly have a legal rights in terms of the taking or equitable stop or or act in reliance whatever legal actions I mean he did not intend to do harm he relied on our government and and that's not why I'd support him I mean the county made a mistake it's not it's not allowing a concrete plant in a residential area that is it's a relatively small mistake and the impacts of his home I was even tempted to ask but I don't know if I'd ask if he'd be willing to put a driveway that had impervious pond concrete if he'd be willing to mitigate whatever runoff he has and he's shaking yes I think that'd be a small ask but I I'm in just so you know where I stand I'm in I'm inclined to to support the request because he he acted in reliance on the government and he did his job he submitted permit he called for inspections time and time and time and time again and the county allowed him to consider continue and then suddenly the rug was pulled out from under him after he not only acted in reliance on our our actions he acted he spent significant sums of money based on our actions so I I support him and I think the impact is is is I mean you could have a one acre lot and build a four thousand five thousand square foot house and have more of an impact than building a sixteen hundred foot house on a half acre lot so the code would allow actions that would have more of an impact on drainage than what he's doing so I I think I think given the facts of this this request I think it's it's the right thing and the fair thing to do that's my opinion I'm one of five so I wouldn't have to disagree this area is already dealing with substantial issues and the more we pack into this area the worse it's going to get as a buyer you have the responsibility to do your due diligence all of us did that all of everybody sitting in this audience did that and it's not everyone else's fault that he didn't I think he did no I mean he went to the county with a permit request they're the ones who interpret the property it's not his duty to memorize and understand and interpret our code it's our duty to do that he did his duty he drew plans he got a he relied on the government and he has a right to do that he has a right to rely on this but he as Americans you talk about property rights we as Americans have a responsibility we have self-responsibility and when we're purchasing property we have to you know look into what we're purchasing in in all aspects of what we're spending our money on it's not right that the rest of the community should have to bear the burden of this mistake you're talking about a a theory of caveat emptor buyer beware that is long gone that's our kid I encourage you to come up to my district and see the trauma and the and the struggle that's going on I encourage all of you to come to my district and you can actually drive into the streets not just through us one not just to the space center not just the main roads drive into the streets and see the people suffering and do you think denying him of his his rights his permit to build a home is going to fix that problem it will not we have to do a lot more as a matter of fact his home may add to the tax base and maybe allow us to do no way I bet the people right around here are not thinking the same I'm just I'm just giving you my the people right around here are not going to be feeling that when their homes flood isn't the harm already done for flooding no because you should have to put it back to how it was and I'm not disagreeing with you that and I do think we need to do something to fix that I agree with you 100% how many times do these people's homes have to flood before we do something well you I have a lot of ideas of what we can do I'll bring them to the board if you don't but I agree with you I've brought many things to the board so don't even go there we need to fix this but I do think if you think denying this this permit is going to in any way shape or form of this request will help in the front flooding it will not I would entertain a motion I would like to make a motion to table this until he has a chance to go through all of the through the title company through his insurance through all those different avenues before we make a decision on this do you have to ask for a date okay there's a motion to table now typically if you have questions I wouldn't second this motion and then ask the question because under roberts rules you don't want you don't debate a motion to table so is there a second just so we're clear there's no second so sir uh is there a second well just just clear on something don't we have to give a date that it comes back if we table table this so that you don't have to re-advertise it'll have to be for a date certain when the february meeting would that be fair would that give you enough time to talk to all the people that you need to talk to I mean I don't know how that works I've never been in this situation I mean how long is this going to continue it's already been six months I have trusses sitting in the dirt yeah I mean and I I want to be clear too I'm not giving him legal advice about the title insurance typically zoning matters are excluded but I would think because of the binding development plan that was recorded limiting it to one unit to this property I think that may be an issue for him but that's between you and your title insurer and in your own council now also um for the reason I didn't call the title company is I didn't have a reason of why we are stopped I was just told of a zoning issue I mean I didn't have you conferred with an attorney have you taught the legal counsel I have tried but I've I mean I've only tried to get with two and and you don't have to answer that question I'm more curious than anything but I think okay I I think I think you had a second do we get oh I didn't hear you second I'm sorry I'm sorry commissioner okay giving him time to talk to legal advice and to his title but I think we had a question about the date it's a good question Thursday February 5 at 5 p.m. in these chambers Robert rules of order says we can't debate but it doesn't say the chairman has to have good hearing so sorry so there's a motion to table to time certain and the date is Thursday February 5 at 5 p.m. in these chambers okay Thursday February 5 all those in favor of the motion say I'll say aye aye opposed motion carries unanimous yes so you can sit down this is different um I've heard repeatedly that Scott Minnick um does this repeatedly in the area do does staff can staff enlighten me because I've only been here a year is that something is he a repeat offender there appears to be a pattern of behavior associated with his activity and Dwayne White yeah continue yeah so then as we were talking about before I think we should we should be proactive we should do something about that um we have to pursue these people so they don't keep doing it how do we do that okay sorry go ahead um I think I'm going to see the clerk in the next couple of days I'm going to make a mental note to ask her about this um situation and um maybe uh maybe if I get that could say something at the meeting on Tuesday with and then I don't want to leave this to just the clerk I want to I want to give staff permission to to pursue I I'm with you I think we said it tonight that we'd like to see something on a future agenda I what I mean by that specifically is how um what's the mechanism what's the mechanical thing what's the you know hey uh uh syntax error here right you can't you can't continue on with with recording because I think that's the issue you can go into the clerk and you can record a deed Mr. Chair may I I'm sorry yes commissioners just I think we're talking about two different issues I think Commissioner Feltner is speaking to something to prevent lot splits in the future and I think Commissioner Atkinson may be speaking to enforcement of existing violations that's exactly you're right sorry I didn't say it very well no you said you both said it perfectly you were just talking about different different things so what do you need from me I think all we would need is authorization for staff to look into circumstances like this of which we're aware and uh and I will counsel staff on on what I think is a good strategy to address those uh violations that are out there without going after the in purchaser like Mr. Fawn but rather going after the bad actor who who causes the splits and um you need a motion from me on that or I I just need consensus just direction from the board that the board's comfortable with that and frankly any board members when I say we're not proactive I mean just at a staff level and code enforcement commission offices historically have reported violations to us before and we'll pursue it so if the commission office is aware of a situation like this they're absolutely welcome to bring it to our attention as well but but I think we have enough direction right now to address this issue okay thank you I'm sorry one second commission I just want to mr chair if we were to go forward with that code enforcement action you would want it before the february 5th meeting if we were to find some way to do it do you want us to go forward before then where do you want us to report back on february 5th I think it's the board I'd prefer not to go forward with it and report back but I feel like this applicant's trying to exhaust their administrative remedies and I think I think the applicant Mr. Fawn is a victim and I think if anything this discussion shows is this board cares we care about the people in the neighborhood but we care about the individual misses one individual doesn't make big campaign we get accused of things all the time but this is doesn't make big campaign contribution he's building a 1600 home and we're all torn here we're torn this we're torn we're worried about the neighborhood and their input but we're torn about the individual it shows that we really do care and that we spend this much time and the staff too I you know don't let anyone tell you that that we're not responsive and we don't care because it's just a false narrative so so we table this item I know there's we have consensus to direct the county attorney to pursue different remedies and we'll come back february 5th that is only me okay we'll move to the next oh yes good point that is a great point I'm sure the intent was to table both and just one motion to table both items will suffice okay motion to table h3 and h4 motion table 8 3 and 8 4 is there a second second all in favor signify by saying aye motion carries unanimously thank you okay um all right item item h5 is yes you read go ahead alexis raul and rosemary estevez de jesus request a zoning classification change from bu1 with a bdp to bu1 with removal of a bdp under application 25z 0003 located in district one okay we have one card ed scarossi scarossi and that we were trying to help you we brought you up ahead of everyone else but unfortunately you weren't here so sorry you had to wait through all that no worries are you the applicant no i'm the land owner adjacent landowner oh so is the applicant here mr yeah i recognize that the applicant is here i don't hmm can we hear without the applicant here you can the applicant didn't indicate that they wouldn't be here or ask us to table it or continue it so it's the board's discretion all right but absolutely you could proceed go ahead thank you mr chairman good evening commissioners my name is ed scarossi s-k-a-r-o-s-i i live at 3735 a rancher road mems florida my family and i have lived and owned the property since october of 1999 our property lies directly south and east of the applicant's property the predominant zoning classification on a rancher road east of us-1 is au with single family residents i'm here tonight to speak in strong opposition to removing the binding existing binding development plan this agreement was put in place for a reason it protects the surrounding community it protects the nearby property owners and ensures that any development occurs responsibly and safely removing it would not simply clean up old conditions it would eliminate the very safeguards that were negotiated and relied upon when the land use changes were approved the original binding development plans include several critical predict protections many of which affect my family directly as owners of the adjoining property first the limitation on the type of use originally restricted to a convenience store was included included to ensure that neighboring residential properties would not be exposed to heavy commercial or high impact act activities if that restriction is removed the property could host any type of bu1 use including including operations far more intense than what was contemplated or promised at the time second all of the properties on easter rancher contain potable wells that is extremely vulnerable to contamination several uses permitted under the bu1 involve petroleum-based products solvents and chemicals without a binding agreement requiring annual well water testing my family and neighbors could face serious health risks and expensive remediation removing the binding development plan provides no benefit to the neighboring community but creates very real risks that falls squarely on us not the applicant if the applicant wishes to expand their commercial options that discussion should include updated protections not the eliminations of the only ones currently in place excuse me i'm not here to oppose reasonable business activity i'm here to ask the county commission to honor the commitments that were made when this land was approved for commercial use and ensure that my family and neighbors health property and water supply are not placed in jeopardy at a public hearing held by the planning and zoning board on november 17th 2025 the board recommended denial of the request to remove the binding development plan by a vote of 12 to 1 for these reasons i respectfully ask the board to deny their request to remove the binding development plan thank you for your time and consideration and if you all have any questions i'd be more than happy to answer okay do you have any questions sure have a question yes uh this is directed at staff have the people that wish this rezoning have already been sanctioned for wrongdoing or something can you explain to the board what that was selling the trailers there is there's a history of code enforcement on the property for uh uses that violated the bdp such as uh tire sales car sales things of that nature running multiple businesses out of that uh property the same owner had a different zoning violation on a nearby property on us1 correct that's correct okay thank you thank you thank you sir thank you thank you okay any more questions a motion i have a motion okay if we're done with discussion yes okay i'd like to make a motion to deny this request i'll second there's a motion second by commissioner goodson atkins feltoner like i said we both said at the same time it makes no difference my wife's telling me i need hearing aids i'm like i just don't listen yeah second by commissioner felton there all right any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor say yay yay opposed carries unanimously the application is denied okay we go to the next item h6 item h6 is thomas dawn requests a zoning classification change from rr1 to au under application 25z 00024 located in district one okay you're recognized hi um i live at 3131 line l road in mims and my wife and i are wanting to open a commercial agricultural uh produce business to sell um fresh organic produce to the public um we bought an acre of land next to our current land to do that and we combined them to make the land larger um and then asking to rezone to au to do the do the business okay we have no cards in our position any questions motion to prove second okay motion uh who made a motion commissioner delaney seconded uh any discussion all those in favor say yay yay opposed motion codes unanimous thank you very much good job item h7 dick holdings llc being represented by vahee tamari request a cup conditional use permit for a private heliport in au zoning classification under application 25z 00033 located in district 2. approval chair okay the motion and second for approval all those in favor saying the father saying yay yay yay opposed nay uh motion carries unanimously okay thank you sorry i had to wait item h8 leslie bishop request a zoning classification change from ru-1-7 to sr under application 25z 00034 located in district 3. okay leslie bishop is here yes yes come on up okay oh let's see we may have the votes here is there any is there a motion on this item motion to approve motion to approve second by delaney um all in favor say yay yay opposed carries unanimous all right thank you that's good unless you want to say something no thank you so much all right you're welcome item h9 paul and cheryl pearson being represented by steve toddy requested zoning classification change from ru-1-9 to ru-2-1-9 under application 25z 00035 located in district 4. so we have steve toddy here and we also have paul paul's also here paul's right there okay good we got you in combat okay name's steve toddy 339 nautica court indian harbor so what we have here is a uh about a 0.9 acre lot and it is uh off of us1 near post road uh two lots away from marker 99 if you're familiar with that so mr pearson purchased this property eight nine months ago something like that and uh the concept is it it has a single family house on it and it also has a detached garage it's a good size detached garage we thought let's uh let's put some apartments in there so that was the idea so we went working with staff on the concept had them uh review all the requirements setbacks breezeway issues and we're past that so the next step is to come to you guys and see if that'd be okay to do that okay great appreciate that and that's all the cards that we have i have one this is my this is my district um so the the apartments in the house the the um owner of the property is going to going to live there in the in the house no i i'm building a house next door okay so you're going to be next door okay all right i don't have anything beyond that i'll make a motion to approve then second motion uh to approve in a second um any discussion seeing no discussion those in favor signify by saying yay okay opposed motion carries unanimous thank you very much appreciate very much appreciate it item h10 sandra walsh and terry canada being represented by monica pritchard request a zoning classification change from au to rr1 under application 25z 00036 located in district one okay we have one card from monica pritchard okay go ahead monica pritchard 96 willard street suite 302 poco florida 32922 i'm here on behalf of miss walsh and miss canada um they have a property in mims it's two lots side by side that are basically family property and they inherited this lot miss from her mother that passed um miss walsh and her husband live next door they would like to request a rezoning from au to rr1 in order to potentially do a flag lot so they can split the parcel so miss canada can own the front half miss walsh can own the back half miss walsh's eventual goal is that maybe her children will take care of her and they may build on the back porcel obviously there's a septic moratorium she's in no rush she doesn't care if she can never build on it and she just has to keep a horse there or something like she's in no rush to do anything but because it was inherited together they would like to separate the two give the sister the house on the front end and have miss walsh keep the back end okay any discussion any questions is there a motion i am i i guess my worry is is i i the idea of splitting lots in this area is concerning um so i i can't support this right now especially since you guys aren't intending like have a need to build at the moment no i think what they really the need is to separate the interest while they are sisters they obviously have different children different heirs different things like that so while they both inherited the property together i think they both want to keep it as family property since it's it's a unique situation and i understand your concerns and i understand this is not popular in your district right now however while you're considering the larger concerns of the community there's also the individual needs of the property owner these people the lots are conforming it's going to be over an acre on each and two she doesn't have any immediately plans for any of this it's just that legally in order to separate it make it fair for the two of them she'd like to keep the vacant land portion um which right now her horses will just graze along with you know her property that's right next door and her sister will get to keep the house so i understand that this is not a popular thing to do in your district right now i hear all the flooding concerns things like that and i completely get it but in this individual situation she's not adding to your flooding concerns she's not adding to anything like that and she has no immediate plans to build but in order for her heirs should something happen to her and her husband be able to inherit that piece of land without their cousins and complicating things further this is what would be necessary as a rezone in order to split it would you guys be willing to do a bdp and say no no building ever well i mean a binding development plan eventually could be changed with the direction of the board but so the goal would be if that her kids could eventually one day when the time is right maybe when some of these flooding issues are resolved maybe when any of those things happen the septic moratorium is lifted that they could potentially build there one day so i would have to discuss that with my client um because that was not something that she anticipated um can i ask a question yes go ahead mr chair thank you sir um is there a way to do that in a um i don't know bdp or whatever it says that that there won't be a building for three years as a means to to split it is that morris are there any other options for this family i'm hesitant to give advice that borders on legal advice i um given if the ultimate goal is to build on the property that this would seem to be the the path this is the option so i mean and that's what i'm saying is listen they are part of the mims community they have you know livestock they have all of those things you know they understand your concerns they're over here nodding with their neighbors you know doing all the things they get it but while you're considering all of that this is their individual property it's between two family parcels and the lots are appropriately sized there's a septic moratorium i don't know how long it's going to continue it sounds like it's going to be a long time based on the testimony that i've heard tonight they're not intending on doing anything anytime soon and when they do they will go through all the proper channels again retain counsel again and you will have the opportunity again to hear this because they're going to need permits and they're going to need all of those things questions um yeah are you an attorney or you're a legal rep okay all right is this part of any sort of estate planning is that what they're trying to plan for the future yes they're trying to plan for the future currently her and her sister own it they weren't sure what they wanted to do with it but in order for them to separate out her sister wants to keep the front half her sister's heirs will be able to inherit the front half she'll get to keep the back half and the and the size of the individual lots when they're they will be over an acre okay the parcel is i should have this memorized 2.94 what's the future land use for this that's one that's one just one acre to build right yeah i would just like to point out that pnz actually recommended approval of this 11 to 2 after some pretty decent discussion looks like i think that i understand exactly what your concern is but i think in this individual case due to the uniqueness of this the fact that they live next door um i would say that this ameliorates some of those concerns can i ask a technical question are they are they going to be essentially uh equal almost one and a half acre lots they're almost equal yeah i think on the application the surveys that we submitted did show like what was intended eventually is there is is uh there a way commissioner delaney you know for you to be comfortable that um they they can only have one home per the one and a half acre lots um for the two lots for the future is that is there is is there a way to get there i'm pretty sure that that's already i mean you can only have one it's it's one acre to build right yeah and then you can have maybe an accessory building which would be a barn which may be of interest to them given but i mean that's not the intention right now she also isn't sure that her children are ever going to move to take care of her so i mean i would say if you wanted to do a bdp with probably three years would that be something yeah that would be fine with them because they don't have any immediate plans for this but for estate planning purposes they'd like to make it clean so not a building permit for three years is that yeah no building permit for three years would be fine with them there's no immediate plan to build on this but there is you know they're both older they would like to they're getting their affairs in order things like that staff have something i think i saw your hand right yeah and i i'm trying to think this through because the the there's the proposed lot split is attached to the item on the agenda but that's for conceptual purposes at this point so we um i'm trying to i'm trying to think about how to map the bdp in the future the actual description of the land because we wouldn't or would it be across the whole property um no so the prop the bdp could say uh the house can be on the entire property with no more than two units across the entire parcel or sorry no more than one unit across the entire parcel for the next three years subsequent to that there can be two units on the the parent parcel all right because we are going to apply for a flag lot after this because that's the whole point is to change the zoning to apply for a flag lot so as long as this doesn't impede that then it wouldn't we we just need to record the bdp along with the zoning action because the zoning is going to paint the whole property not not just the flag lot because that lot hasn't been created yet that's going to tail so if you're going to do it before we we have to bring the bdp back under the code within 120 days 120 days so if you could apply for that right away that before then we could have that the bdp come back just applying to the southern lot yeah and just for clarification regarding a barn on the vacant property yes so some clarification two two points we can't do the flag lot application until the rezoning is approved and the flag and the properties are recorded in that configuration and number two you mentioned about having a barn on the property you can't have a barn without primary structure well they were saying that there can't be more than two structures so i understand that you can't have the barn with it's an accessory structure i understand that right okay i just wanted to clarify that no more than one primary residence on the entire property for three years and i think we're going to have to put the bdp on the entire property with that limitation because i think you're right it's sort of a standoff i was thinking that you could do the split and then we record the bdp but you're not going to be permitted to do that until the zoning is in place zoning won't go into place until the bdp is recorded so it's a circle so we can paint the bdp over the whole property it's going to allow what they already have it's not going to prevent what they already have or an accessory structure on the other lot or anything like that there's no current plans that i'm aware of to build an accessory structure on the other lot so there's no you couldn't do it on the new lot without a primary dwelling correct yeah so if you're comfortable with binding development and if you have authorization to represent the entire property but we're going to have to put the binding development plan in place over the the entire property not just the new flag lot there will be no changes for three years if i could um i just want to um explain my vote just because um i i know that you're part of the community and um i hope you hear my heart in this because this situation is really um very unique it's not a typical like i know you're not trying to flip it to sell to a random person um but for me i made a commitment to people to not um increase density in this area and um but i'm just one of five so i won't be able to vote for this today i'd like to motion to approve this with the bdp as discussed over the whole property with the no build for three years am i missing anything no i think we understand that and the bdp will come back to the board with the final terms okay i'll second motion by atkinson's second by feltner any discussion all those and say all those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay all those opposed nay um for one okay thank you commissioner don't any of those against thank you item h11 is j steinke and grant steinke request a zoning classification change from gu1 excuse me gu to au under application 25z 00038 located in district 2. we have one card john buck no this is for public public oh public comment okay we have no cards that's not here does that mean you need a motion to deny once we opened it you need to act on it you need to either approve table to a future meeting or deny it can i look at this for just one second i just want to remind myself what this is second motion to the table we need a certain february 5th february 5th motion table february 5th second i already second it second by atkinson all those in favor say yay or aye opposed carries unanimous thank you item h12 is linda munez and aaron munez jr requests a zoning classification change from gu to au under application 25z 00040 located in district one i'd like to uh make a motion to approve there's a motion to approve in second we need a card though unless she doesn't and if you don't speak we won the no if you don't speak okay so don't worry all right so all those in favor say yay opposed motion carries unanimous item passed okay i think that's it right we have one public appearance by john buck yes my name is john buck i don't want to try and beat a dead horse but uh back to hr 3 and mr minnick and um duane white i had the pleasure of them building my house 10 years ago with life threats threatening my life about 20 some acres from them uh it was an it was a nightmare so hr 3 that oh i'm sorry he honestly knew what he was getting into if you're sleeping with them you're you know what you're doing uh six years ago my father had sold a piece of property on rancher road one point it was point three acres right next to 95 bridge sold to a buddy mine out of kentucky all he wanted to do is come down put a camper on it went to the county after the deal was done county says you can't even put a fireplace on it not even third my father returned the money to him not even 30 days later beach and scott minnick are building a house on it now i want to know how this works because it seems like all these mistakes are going one direction for the last 10 years scott minnick and duane white so i think yes you you need an investigation of what's going on in this county i went to sell a piece of my property that beach already had sold went to the county and said you know you got to mitigate it i go to the county county says it was it was a buildable lot which i'm glad they told me not to because i wouldn't want nobody to move next to me i'm in district one i want to stay in district one i didn't move to the city i run a non-profit refuge rescue i'm sorry i'm nervous but i run plus i'm aggravated and scott minnick is still up to his old games and like i said something's got to happen either you're going to investigate it or i'm gonna take my own time and investigate it somebody has property appraisers is getting paid somebody's getting paid in this county by scott minnick and duane white if you look where my property is and see what it was valued at sixty two thousand dollars an acre for floodlight he didn't buy it for that but somebody at the property appraisers put it at that i'm gonna object to that yes mr chair i i that's not true okay i'm gonna i worked at the property appraiser well i'm telling you what's true right now i but nobody's being paid at the property well yeah i'm saying i i worked there six and a half years something's going on but the favoritism is always going one direction sir i never saw that in the six and a half years i worked there i just i just want you to okay yeah that's fine okay okay i'm done speaking but i i said my piece okay i'll just thank you well i will in january oh february i will have paperwork from the gentleman that had to return the property okay but since that spread across the minutes i just want that to be clear that didn't happen okay thank you okay um i think that's our agenda we have reports start with uh no report mr chair okay um yeah district one report nope district okay um well i'm just as aggravated as you are commissioner goodson let's just have a report so the thing is i'm speaking i i just have to um correct some things that were stated at the last meeting that we were at um there was a a person that came up and said a lot of things about myself my office that we didn't help them so on and so forth um and that's just not true i looked back in my records my staff actually did a um meal train for the family in that house um brought them all sorts of new stuff through my staff's church um and so i just wanted to put that on the record since we were disparaged and um you know that person doesn't even live in my district she lives in commissioner goodson's district and um so i just want to make sure that that's out there and clear um the feedback i'm getting from my constituents is people are extremely frustrated um they're frustrated that their commissioner is not allowed to represent them which you guys heard tonight many times um i'm trying to figure out how as a board we are going to continue to move forward um because i don't know how we keep doing this this has been a year of constant just we've gotten nothing done and at the the last board the last board when when they were talking about infrastructure i was in public comment speaking down there and commissioner the commissioner before me said the next board can deal with it about infrastructure and here we are a year later and it's not being dealt with and the re-zones in my community keep happening the flooding in my community keeps happening and i'm just trying to figure out what what do we have to do here to get some fair representation in district one okay that's your report okay commissioner goodson do you have a report i hope everybody sees this commissioner actions you have a report no report sir commissioner felton report i have no report but i i haven't forgotten county administrator or the county attorney is um is there a report from the county manager no report sir county attorney i have no report mr chair okay meetings adjourned thank you thank you the opinions expressed by any member of