The board 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, next on the agenda is our invocation, which will be given by Pastor, I hope I get this right, Pastor Lucian Gandolfo, Beacon Baptist Church. Yes, I'm Lucian Gandolfo at the Beacon Baptist Church, and if anyone is interested in checking us out, you can do so at beaconbaptistfamily.com. But before I offer a prayer, I'd just like to just say a couple of words and read a little passage of Scripture. And I just want to take note that in these days, our culture and our nation has kind of revised our history and our values. And at times it's not compatible to the traditions that we've founded our republic in with the word of God. And so some of our values have been turned upside down. And so I just want to read a passage that deals with that. And so I'm very grateful and I'm honored to be here, and I'm representing the county, many in the county, I'm sure, that are very appreciative that you guys take the time to take a moment to just ask God for help in making the decisions of this county. So I really appreciate that, and thank you for that. And with that, let's offer a prayer. Heavenly Father, we thank you, Lord, for the privilege that we have to come before this body. Lord, we thank you for them. We pray for every level of our government, from the federal government to the state, county, and cities. But we pray this evening for this body, this body of commissioners. Lord, for the county manager and for the county attorney and for the professional staff that assist them. Father, we ask that you give them clarity and wisdom and that, Lord, you illuminate and inform every decision by the truths of your word. And, Father, we pray that you help them, Lord, to make sound decisions that are pleasing first in your eyes. And then, Lord, we'll be beneficial for the residents and for the people of this county. We give you praise and thanksgiving for your goodness to us. And, Lord, we ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, I am Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Feltner. Please join me in the pledge. Of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Okay. Next item is Resolution Awards and Presentations, E1. Resolution Celebrating the Life of Sandra Collins. Representative Feltner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a resolution honoring and celebrating the life of and service of Sandra Collins. And we have the family here tonight. If you'd like to come up to the podium and then I'll read the resolution. You're very welcome. Thank you for being here tonight. Whereas Sandra Collins, a planner and the employee of Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, passed away on December 18, 2025. And whereas the Board of County Commissioners extends its deepest condolences to the family of Ms. Collins. And whereas the Planning and Development Department, in particular, mourns the loss of its esteemed colleague, Sandra Collins, who faithfully served the residents of Brevard County with dedication, professionalism, and integrity. And whereas Sandra began her service with Brevard County Planning and Development on November 11, 2023, and throughout her tenure, demonstrated exceptional commitment to public service, earning the respect and admiration and friendship of coworkers and the community. And whereas her colleagues will especially remember her beautiful, outgoing, and uplifting personality and the joy she brought to the workplace and those around her. And whereas the passing of Sandra is a profound loss to her family, friends, colleagues, and the community she serves so faithfully. And whereas the Board of County Commissioners celebrates the life and legacy of Sandra Collins, recognizes her dedicated service, and will remember her fondly always. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard hereby honors the life, service, and legacy of Sandra Collins and extends its deepest condolences to her family and loved ones. Don't order and adopted this fifth day of February, 2026. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion. I second. There's a motion in a second. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Would you like to say anything on behalf of Sandra? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think we're going to get a picture. Okay. We're now going to move to the rest of our agenda. I don't know how we're doing with the crowd out there. If we can proceed. Those who may not have heard that we're not in the room, we had such a large group waiting outside to get in. It had some delays in the security processing. So we did not want to begin the actual zoning hearing until everyone who was waiting in line to get here for the zoning, some of them which could even be applicants. We wanted to be sure they were in the room. So we began with some of the non-zoning items on the agenda. While we're waiting, is there any items on the consent agenda that anyone's requesting to remove? I don't think we have any items on the consent. Okay. We have about 30 folks probably still in line trying to get in out there. Maybe a public comment part of the non-zoning. Do we have any cards on public comment? We don't have any public comment. We don't have any public comments. Okay, we'll wait an initial five or ten minutes. I think that's probably prudent. I'm sure there's some items on here that probably aren't controversial and wouldn't have anyone speak, but we just don't know until the folks get in. The best I could do is try to make announcements in the hallway, but it's pretty loud out there. Okay. Chair? Yes? There's one item, H-15, that the local planning and zoning requested a continuance because the applicant wasn't there. Is that one that we would feel comfortable possibly voting for continuance? The board could proceed with that, absolutely. They're not here today, let me know. Oh, they want at the planning and zoning board. You want to send that back to the planning and zoning board meeting, and staff can give you the dates to announce. Yeah, so the staff is requesting that the board continue that item until March 5th, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners meeting. The P&Z board already continued it to their own meeting, so we're just looking. Okay. We don't have any cards on the team. No cards, so the motion would be in order. So I'd like to make a motion to continue to the local planning and zoning, and that would be March 5th, 2026. I'll second. A motion by Commissioner Delaney, seconded by Commissioner Feltner, to table to March 25th. March 5th, 2026. March 5th, 2026. If I may clarify, you'd be tabling it to the March 5th BOCC meeting, your own zoning meeting. P&Z's already tabled it to their own P&Z meeting. Oh, okay. This is, because it was already advertised for this meeting, we're just looking for you to continue this one on the record, so we don't have to re-advertise. For our meeting. Thank you for that. March 5th, yep. So moved with that amendment. Motion with amendment, seconded with amendment. All in favor, seconded by the amendment, say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimous. So let's go ahead and take another five-minute break, and hopefully it'll be cleared. We'll have everyone here. Gerard, Gerard, Gerard Klaassen, Klaassen, it's not your handwriting, it's clear as a bell. It's my reading. That's all the meeting back to order. Good evening. I'm yet to die to get my answer. Last time you said you'll tell me in the next meeting why my taxes went up by 7% in my house and 8% in my commercial property. You're not going to answer me? Commissioners, I know that the county manager looked into this, and he sent an email. I'm not sure if that just went to the board, or I don't know if he had contact information for Mr. It's on my card. But in any case, I'm not yet to fight. But I didn't really expect you to give me an answer today, to be honest. The answer is because your budget went up by over 8% in one year. And the reason your budget went up by over 8% is because of the county sheriff. That's why. Why you penalize my commercial property against my private property, I also know. Because I vote, but my business doesn't. So they cannot, it's nothing they can do about it. My house is valued at 25% less than my commercial property. My commercial property is taxed three times, three times as much as my house. But the reason it is, is because of the Bavar County budget, the sheriff budget specifically. The reason the budget went up is because the sheriff's don't get paid enough, basically. We can talk here and there, but that's the reason it really went up. I found out that the sheriff's got a $5,000 increase in 2024. At the time, that's about a 15% increase. Four years later, we have to do it again. Now, I still make the same money I did four years ago, because I work for myself. I don't see even a small amount of financial discipline among the people who are supposed to represent my interest. Nothing. Not one little bit. We spent a quarter of a billion dollars on the county sheriff. He's responsible for 112,000 people. That's $1,600 per person per year in a place with virtually no crime. The amount of money we spend on cameras is, it's insane. We just fitted every bus with a camera. Why do we have cameras everywhere in this county that leads back to the sheriff's office? What's the point? I don't expect an answer. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your input. Okay, we'll move next to H1. I'll have staff introduce. Item H1 is Jay Steinke and Grant Steinke request a zoning classification change from GU to AU under application 25Z00038 located in District 2. First speaker. Jay? Yes, sir. Yes. Oh, you have the floor. Oh, yes. We have a 21.48 acre property just off South Barton on the very far west side of Fisk. And it's currently zoned general use, and we want to rezone it agricultural use. I bought the property for my son Grant. He's a zookeeper at the Brevard Zoo. And the intent was for him to eventually put a residential home out there. He's also an environmentalist. So, we're looking at wanting to put some blueberries out there and some honeybees out there. And then down the road, if he has a family, then they can have a little produce farm. I want to put in some elevated produce beds in there and possibly raise some peppers and tomatoes and those kind of items. And then if he decides he wants to sell them down the road, they can. I know his girlfriend likes chickens, and she would like to put a few chickens out there. So, we want to just rezone it, put a couple of beef cattle out there, and that's what we're looking for. Okay. Do we have any other cards? I don't think that is the only card. Okay. What's the desire of the board? It's our approval. Second. It's a motion. Commissioner Goodson by Commissioner Axis and second for approval. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Good luck. Sounds like a good use. That's fine. Next item, H2. H2 and H3, I'm going to read into the record together. They need a separate motion. Laughing Clown LLC requests a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 25S.15 to change the future land use designation from Res. 2 to CC under application 25SS0009 located in District 5. Item H3 is Laughing Clown LLC requests a zoning classification change from RP. To BU-1-A under application 25Z00028 located in District 5. Okay. We do have a card from Clayton Bennett, the applicant. My name is Clayton Bennett. I'm the applicant for this project. And we do have two requests, and the one is the comp plan amendment to go from Res. 2 to CC and the rezoning from RP to BU-1. This is to allow for general retail at a previous dentist office. The site is located off of Minton Road, which is an arterial roadway, so there is the commercial access project. It was, or the applications were heard at the planning and zoning in January. There were no one to show up to object to it. We did have one written objection, which the concerns were traffic in the neighborhood. Again, the site is going to be accessed off of Minton Road, which is the arterial roadway. Also, concerns of sound and lighting. We're not asking for any deviation from the county's ordinance regarding sound and lighting. The development plans to comply with those requirements. And planning and zoning did unanimously recommend it for approval. If there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer those. Okay. Any questions? I have none. And we'll need two separate motions, right? So we first need a motion for approval for H-2. Is there a motion? That moved. Motion by Commissioner Delaney. All second. Second by Commissioner Feltner. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Carriers unanimous. Now H-3. Motion to approve. There's a motion and a second to approve H-3. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Okay. I think we have everything here, everybody here. We can move on. What I'd like to do is, since the large number of people, the vast majority of people are here for H-11, and I'd like to move that item up and yield the floor to Commissioner Goodson. First, the staff to explain the item. Item H-11, Merit Bitco, SPV, LLC, being represented by Kim Razenka, request a zoning classification change from AU with a BSP to RU-2-15 and RU-2-30 with removal of BSP under application 25Z-00054, located in District 2. And if I may, Commissioner, staff is requesting that this item be continued. We received information from the applicant, a significant amount of new evidence, and under the Brevard County Code of Ordinances, Section 62-184, that any new evidence must be submitted at least two weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioner's meeting, and failure to do so may result in the continuation of the public hearing. The staff is requesting that we have time to do a preliminary review of the TIA and other evidence that the applicant has provided, and therefore is requesting a continuance. Okay. Any discussion on behalf of the Board? Commissioner Goodson? Well, with that being said, what Billy said, because the applicant submitted new evidence, I move this item goes back to planning and zoning for their March 16th meeting, and giving staff time to review the new evidence for PNZ to consider and provide us with recommendations for April 2nd zoning meeting. And what they got was a 400-page study of traffic, and staff did not have the time to review it. So that's my motion. A second. Okay. Second by Commissioner Goodson, second by Commissioner Atkinson, any discussion on the item? So under the Policies and Procedures Parliamentary, the motion to continue the item or second, there'd be no discussion. So anyone can submit written information, and what was the date again, so we know the date, so everyone's heard that. So my understanding of the motion is that it would be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Board at its March 16th meeting, and then to the Board of County Commissioners at its April 2nd zoning meeting. So just so the public knows, this is something provided for in our code when information is asked that staff does not have time to review, it requires that our staff have the ability to respond so this issue can be in the best posture as possible for whatever action we take. So all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Anyone here for H11? Anybody here for H11? I have a few. They can go. They can go. You have, yeah. So I appreciate you taking the time to come out and give your voice, but we've continued it and encourage you to come back, yes. We'll let the crowd clear out, and then we'll proceed with H4. You've got H4, you've got applicant here, Kim Rizanka, and lots of cards. Okay, we will move on to H4. Okay, we'll have staff introduce the item. H4? Item H4, Strata Development LLC, being represented by Kim Rizanka, request a zoning classification change from AU and RR-1 to SR with a BDP under application 25Z-00039, located in District 2. We have a card for Eric. Is he speaking as well? He is. Okay, good. My presentation will be myself, Eric, and Hassan Kamal during the 15 minutes. Okay, good. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman, members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Rizanka with Lacey Rizanka here on behalf of Strata Development and the purchaser, Miranda Holmes. With me is Eric Sergi from Miranda Holmes, the regional vice president, and Hassan Kamal, a professional engineer of 36 years' experience with BSE. The story of this land. The story of this land. It's 142 acres. It was a citrus grove forever, according to Mr. Christofoli. And then the freeze of 1989 wiped out the trees, so it became cattle grazing. The owner sold it, and then Strata, which is basically a land bank, purchased it for Miranda Holmes. This is a request for a change of zoning to SR, suburban residential, to allow one-half-acre lots or larger with the clustering of homes to protect the wetlands and to develop a comprehensive subdivision with proper stormwater, drainage, things like that. This is a common-sense and logical approach to development. It's a far cry from the proposal which Island Forest Preserve started a couple years ago to do over 100 lots using the open space subdivision that it did with Island Forest Preserve, which is to the east of the project. Unlike Island Forest Preserve, this housing will commit to the one-half acres and will commit to 61 lots. All the homes will be in the middle to avoid the wetlands. The density will be 2.3 units to the acre. As you know, AU allows 2.5 units to the acre. The current zoning allows 70 units. It's on page 1 of your staff report. 70 units. We're asking for 61. We'll commit to 61. And if this is approved, the BDP will be changed to put 61. So using that 70 units and what I could guess from the property appraisers' mapping tools, 23 acres of that property is currently R1, which is one unit to the acre. And 119 acres are AU. Preserve Point will not utilize the open space subdivision if there's zoning, it goes forward. And we will commit to that in the BDP as well. Miranda is being transparent about its plan. It wants you to know what it's doing. It's not doing a PUD because that takes engineering. It takes 60% engineering. But it will have to abide by all your codes, including the increased compensatory storage in North Merritt Island. I'd like Mr. Sergi to talk a little bit about Miranda and its plans. Thank you. We took a look at the site with Miranda Homes. I've been with them for over seven years now. We've been good partners in Merritt Island and in Central Florida. We want to continue to do that. We looked at the site. We didn't want to oversaturate it with homes. We want to make sure that we are being good neighbors to the abutters. And this is a good plan, which will help alleviate a lot of the concerns that are out there that our engineer will speak to the board. I came here today to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. Kamal will come up. And this is the plan that I've handed out to you that's been shown at every meeting that we've had. We've had a community meeting. We've had a North Merritt Island meeting. We've had a planning and zoning meeting. And this is the plan that's been shown throughout. Somehow it didn't make it into your packet. Unknown why, because it was submitted to the county. So with that, Hassan will talk about the plan. Good evening. My name is Hassan Kamal. I'm with BSE Consultants. Address is 312 South Harbor City Boulevard with the civil engineers for the project. I just want to give you a project overview from an engineering and development standpoint. As Kim mentioned, it's 142 acres. It's located on the north side of Crisofoli Road. Of the 142 acres, we're proposing to develop 61 lots. The actual development footprint that you can see with the lots and roadways is approximately 50 to 55 acres, meaning that about 85 to 90 acres of the overall property is going to be preserved. The dark green is the preliminary wetland delineation. We haven't gone through a full jurisdictional review yet, but that's based upon the preliminary mapping. The lighter green is preserved upland areas that will serve as buffers, both for the wetlands and for the project area. As Kim mentioned, the project is centralized within the property to maximize the perimeter buffers. On the east side, we've got buffers that exceed 600 feet to the nearest property line. On the west side, it's over 300 feet. On the north side, it's about 25 feet. And on the south side, if I remember my numbers correctly, we're almost 300 feet, about 280 feet. So the plan is really focused on bringing a subdivision in and maximizing the preservation and buffers to the adjacent properties. The lots will be served by the City of Cocoa water system, and we'll have an on-site lift station to provide gravity to ride sanitary sewer service. So there will be no on-site septic tanks. Drains will be provided by a series of stormwater ponds and inlets. They'll be designed to comply with the North Merritt Island stormwater requirements, as well as the more recent, more stringent state criteria for water quality. And that will be sized so that there's no adverse impacts to the surrounding drainage systems. Even based upon the preliminary wetland mapping, we designed the site to minimize wetland impacts and comply with the county requirements to make sure that wetland impacts are less than 1.8%. So we're less than between two to two and a half acres of total wetland impacts based upon the project. From a traffic perspective, with 61 homes, we anticipate maximum trips per day of about 580, which means on the peak hour, we're looking at about 58 trips, which is less than what's currently allowed in the zoning, because under the current zoning, with 70 units, we'd be about 668 trips. So with the development plan we're proposing, it's about 13% less trips than what would occur under the current zoning. Also from a concurrency standpoint, the school board has completed their concurrency evaluation and confirmed that Lewis Carroll, Thomas Jefferson, and Merritt Island High School all have adequate capacity to meet potential demand from the project area. There was a traffic study done by the county a couple of years ago to support the speed bumps that are constructed further west. That traffic study indicated traffic volumes in crucifilly between 1,100 and 900 vehicles per day, all of which are significantly less than the level of service C for a two-lane roadway. So even with these additional trips, we'd still be functioning at less than 20% of the traffic volume for the acceptable level of traffic volume for this roadway. And as we go forward, hopefully after we're successful with a rezoning application, we have multiple steps to go through with both Brevard County and state staff to make sure that the project complies with land development and comprehensive plan criteria. We'll have to submit subdivision plans to Brevard County, where staff will ensure that the comp plan elements that have been discussed during the zoning application and any binding development plan criteria will be adhered to. And then we also have to go through the water management district. They will analyze the project for wetland impacts as well as stormwater and drainage impacts. So we've got a long way to go, but we're committed to making sure that this project has no adverse impacts. And I'm confident that county staff has enough regulations and very difficult regulations that will help ensure that at the end of the day, the project meets all the criteria and doesn't have any adverse impacts. I'll be available to answer any questions as we go forward. Any questions so far? Thank you. I just want to talk a little bit about the staff report and the staff addendum. This addendum is something I've never seen before, and it actually flies in the face of what the staff report says. It's contrary to what it says in the staff report, and I'll detail that in a moment. The administrative policies are guidelines. The guidelines are then enforced by your land development code. The future land use map is a guideline. That future land use map is currently residential one, which should, in theory, allow 142 units. We're asking for 61, so we're not messing up the future land use element. The policies do not state that the applicant must provide a traffic study or a pavement and subgrade structural evaluation and review of subsurface voids. That's one of the opponents. I'm not even sure what subsurface voids are. The proof that the policies are met are when the developer complies with the land development code, with all the codes when a plat or construction plans are submitted. None of these can be processed. The staff can't look at any engineering per se until zoning is complete. Staff could allow us to go forward as a matter of right with the Open Space Subdivision, which we choose not to do. Miranda wants to be transparent, which I provided to you a little bit of the Open Space Subdivision. And again, it's of right. Only staff reviews the plat. That allows a 25% density bonus and smaller lots. With the RR1 lots, they could be half acre. At 23 acres of RR1, it could be 46 homes. With 119 of AU, they could be one acre lots. That actually turns out to be 119. So in theory, Open Space Subdivision allows 165 lots. We can make the old-fashioned subdivision without centralized stormwater, without centralized sewer, and put in more lots, at least 70 currently. And that's not what Miranda wants to do. It wants to do the subdivision that makes sense, that is good growth management policies. The county code, Section 62-1511C, has five factors. The staff addendum talks about things you can consider under that, such as environmental constraints, drainage, flood hazards, and transportation impacts. Those are nowhere in your land development code for zoning. Those are not part of the five factors at all. Those are illusory. Even if they were in the code, there's no engineering evidence before you to show any of those are a problem at this stage. You only have a professional engineer who's told you he can make this work and he'll follow the codes. The staff addendum claims the rezoning is an increase in density, but it's not. Right now, we're asking for 61 when the staff report says 70 is permissible. The staff report analysis before the addendum says policy number three, the request will not significantly diminish the enjoyment or safety of quality of life. Number four, the proposed use will not materially and adversely impact the established residential neighborhood. Actually, this is not even an established residential neighborhood. It's a residential area. The staff report did not comment on policy seven and indicated general information on policy seven. However, if you look at the administrative policies six and seven, they talk about the use of the land, not a rezoning request. So the administrative policies are guidelines to be enforced by your land development code. The staff goes on to suggest that a PUD would be appropriate, but a PUD does require an engineered plan. Again, engineering costs for this project will be over a quarter of a million dollars. Not even know if you like the plan to go to a PUD, all that engineering could be done just to be turned down at this level. With that, there's nothing in the comp plan that requires full engineering or plat design. The analysis for this zoning is whether the use is compatible in meet your land development code. And the five factors in the zoning code, which we do. This is a residential area with large lots. This will be better for the neighborhood because it will hold the water. It will treat the water under the new state requirements. And with that, I'd like to reserve my two minutes and 30 seconds for rebuttal. Okay, so your time reserved. Thank you. Chairman? Yes. Oh, yeah. Sorry. That's all right. I'll round up the three minutes. Okay. I'd like to ask Billy some questions. Okay. Billy, can you tell me about this site in the coastal high hazard area? Yes, Commissioner. The vast majority of this site is within the coastal high hazard area. The coastal high hazard area is defined by state statute, and it's required to be incorporated into all counties' comprehensive plans, and that's why we have it in our plan, too. Specifically, we're required to show how we mitigate issues of development within the area. So, objective seven of our coastal management element of the comp plan states that we should limit densities within the coastal high hazard area and direct development outside of it. So, meanwhile, administrative policy six states that the board should consider whether rezoning applications are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, putting those together, if the board were to find that this application is not consistent with the coastal management element, it could deny the application on that basis. So, has that been done yet, or is that coming? So, it is in the coastal high hazard area. So, it's really a question for the board on whether this application meets that objective of limiting density within the coastal high hazard area, considering that they would be going to SR zoning, which allows for half-acre lots. Okay. Can you tell me how this site could affect drainage? So, there are known and pervasive drainage issues in the area, which the county is devoting significant resources towards improving. We have some experts here from county staff and from natural resources, if the board is interested in learning more detail. But the issues are probably not surprising, considering that the areas within the coastal high hazard area, as I mentioned, and the FEMA flood zone, as shown on the attached maps to your agenda. And again, in connection with that, Administrative Policy 7 states that, quote, proposed uses shall not cause or substantially aggravate a substantial drainage problem on surrounding properties, or significant adverse and unmitigable impact on significant natural wetlands, water bodies, or habitat for listed species. So, given that, if the board were to find, again, that it would be detrimental to the public interest to approve this rezoning and the BDP associated with it at this time because of its impacts on wetlands or drainage problems, it may deny the application. Can you explain to me why a PUD would be more beneficial in this case than a BDP? Well, you could argue it is because this application uses a BDP. It's a little bit unique of a BDP compared to the ones that the board normally sees. In this case, it's being used to establish consistency between the future land use density of Res 1 and SR zoning, which allows half acre a lot. So, you have a Res 1, one acre, and SR half acre. In other words, it is allowing clustering through a BDP beyond what normally is allowed under the comprehensive plan. This has caused problems in the past in administering the land use regulations, and in any case, at least in staff's view, there is probably a superior mechanism available that allows flexibility for all parties, including clustering. As always, entering into a BDP is voluntary on the board's part, just like it is on an applicant's part. As such, the board may choose to decline to enter the BDP, in which case the board should consider denying the rezoning application because the requested zoning class would be inconsistent with the future land use. So, would you say that right now this needs a lot more studying, a lot more discussion before we agree to something we might not know is good? If the board has looked at the application and is not convinced that it has met the comprehensive plan policies, it might consider denying the application. And like I said, through a PED and the engineering that Ms. Rozenka talked about, they would be able to demonstrate and the board would be able to condition until it gets satisfied that all those policies are met. Okay. Chair, for the reasons discussed, I'd like to make a motion. Okay. Proceed. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. We have a lot of cards to hear from first. Okay. So, we will go to the comment cards then. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I do have a question, though, of the applicant, and I guess this would be the time to ask. Okay. So, have you, the applicant, broken down the site in terms of the percentage of pervious surface paving building footprint versus what you're leaving open? Have you all done an assessment on that? Well, we haven't done a full analysis because we haven't done engineering plans yet. But as I mentioned earlier, just the development footprint itself, the back a lot to back a lot is only about 50 acres, 50 to 55 acres. The preserved area is about 85 to 90 acres. So, 60% of the property is going to be natural. And then the balance, that 50 to 55 acres, is going to have a combination of, you know, the roads, the house pads, and so on. Generally, single-family development of this size lot is probably about 35, typically about 35% impervious. So, at the end of the day, if you take those weighted numbers, you're probably looking that, this is an approximation, probably 70% of the property is going to be pervious and only about 30% may be impervious, consisting of roads and driveways and buildings. Okay. That's a ballpark number. And so, all this open space will be surrounding the development to buffer? Correct. You can see on the site plan we showed earlier, it's all perimeter, the development is interior to that. The area that you're preserving, that you're keeping Greenbelt, do you have any sort of management plan for that? Will there be restoration? How will it be managed? Will there be any mitigation or environmental planning? Do you all have any thought of what you may be doing there? There will be a management plan. That generally happens during the permitting process. There will be an evaluation. There will probably be some exotic removal. It's a mix of, most of it's forested. I think there's some herbaceous wetlands. But there will be a management plan and it will be required to be put to a conservation easement. And there will be some permit requirements for exotic removal and things of that nature. And that happens during the permitting process with the Water Management District. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions? Thank you. I don't know if that counted in your two and a half minute. It did not. Okay, it did not. Thank you. It used to everybody. Sarah Hodge is our first speaker. It's a lot better speakers than me. So I'm just going to take a couple of comments. I've sent you comments last night, so I don't know if you've seen them or not. But my husband and I are strongly opposed to this stoning because of what happened to the neighbors with the other subdivision next door. They didn't take precautions to keep their runoff on their property. Some of these houses next to them were three feet underwater, and they may never be able to go to their homes again. No one seems to care. The regulations, the Burt Harris Act, it says you must retain your runoff on your property. They didn't. And we've got a big, huge impact with another one that's going to make it even worse, and more people will be flooded. This is unconscionable, and I don't know why you would ever think to do this, but I'm sorry. Read the comments I sent you. That's the main thing because there's more important people that have better information. Our next speaker, John Noonan. Good evening. I'm John Noonan, Merritt Island. My wife and I own a couple acres on the south end of Broadacre Street. I'm deeply opposed to any zoning changes, and the facts are it's because of the impacts that Island Forest Preserve has created to our community. I've been to several meetings. I've voiced my opinion and my knowledge of the area, and it falls on deaf ears. We have a very serious problem. We have flowing water through the neighborhood. It's not just standing water, nuisance water like it was 30 years ago. Now it's flowing. It's moving things. It's moving soil. It's moving concrete. We've got damages. We've got a lot of problems from Island Forest Preserve from these developers. These developers are going beyond the scope. The density is not compliant or compatible to our area. These developers are violating our policies. We have these special district policies, these admin policies, and they're not being followed up on. These developers should be fined. They should be penalized, and they should be banned from building beyond the scope. And the data that they're using, these flood plans, the Island Forest Preserve flood plan, there's no facts in there. There's a lot of bad information. We work with John Denninghoff, and John Denninghoff gave us nothing but disinformation about the water flow. My concern is that a lot of the water now that's in some of this property during the rain season is there. They've got flooding. They're already, that land is underwater. The lowlands is wetlands. If we, our properties is the highlands. We live on a sand ridge, and now that's being impacted. I've sent pictures beyond a bunch of information to congressmen, to Commissioner Goodson's office, and I presented facts. I've showed videos of flowing water. We've got a telephone pole that's in the path of this flowing water. I've tried to get support from our county. We get no support. It's falling on deaf ears, and I want to know why. Why, when you all are in charge of our safety and our well-being, and you deny it because these corporations somehow are able to sway you in developing this property beyond what it's capable of. You've impacted us beyond imagination by voting and allowing these developers to just develop every lowland, fill-in ditches, fill-in ditches, the Island Forest Preserve had a relic ditch that held a lot of water, and that, I think, was the fork in our butts, so to say, that when that was filled in, that took a lot of the water coming from the Cape, from the surrounding agricultural property, and that's caused our property down the south end to flood. So, I've got a lot of problems with the county right now, and we're not getting the support. I've voiced my opinion to Mr. Goodson, or Commissioner Goodson, and this is his comment, is buy more fill dirt. I'm sorry, I'm all out, I'm done moving dirt, but we really need to get some intelligence, some competent and serious leaders about fixing this problem and ending these zoning issues that are beyond my community's ability to survive. Thank you. John Calhoun. Hi, John Calhoun. I live at 900 East Christofoli Road. I also own property directly across from there, the new development's exit. So, I'm going to just read to you. I want to speak to three things, the flooding, the traffic, and the safety. So, just to clarify, the Sykes Creek and Judson Canal are the same thing. It's our drainage. That's the only drainage we have. Okay, so the flooding. In 1952-53, Brevard County dug the canal on Judson Road to increase the flow of water from our area to the Judson Canal, south to Barge Canal, and north to Pine Island. And everything worked well. Everything was great. In 1995, St. John's Water Management came in and plugged up both ends of Judson. They put the Judson Canal. They put pumps on Pine Island. They were supposed to pump into the north pond. I'm sorry. I'm having trouble. So, when St. John's came in 30 years ago and they plugged up the Judson Road Canal, they put pumps to go to Pine Island, and they put pumps later on at Hall Road to go into the Barge Canal, up lower Sykes Creek in the Barge Canal. Well, the county doesn't turn the pumps on until after a rain event comes, and we're flooded. So, when they turn the pumps on, if they turn them on at all, it's after the flood. And then we have pumps on Ransom Road, which is a 42-inch pump from NASA. When they pump, they pump everything south from NASA Causeway through Blue Origin back into Judson Road. All the exits, all the water exits are plugged up by St. John's. They have culverts in there with 2x6 weirs that they stack up so water can't go anywhere. So, with all the flooding, and then you have traffic. So, you have a road that's underwater. You have traffic from the new neighborhood. And the speed limit is 30 miles an hour, which is totally ignored. They get by my house at 60 and 70, and that's the God's honest truth. So, why can't Miranda buy a piece of land through Island Forest Preserve and run the traffic out to State Road 3, out to, they're all going to NASA anyway. 90% of them work at NASA. Get the traffic out that way, because we have horses, we have bicycles, we have golf carts. And at 30 miles an hour, it's not bad, but at 70 miles an hour, it's crazy. Somebody's going to get killed. And so, when somebody gets hurt out there, if we have a flood, and you guys, somebody gets hurt, there's a flood, there's a car in a ditch because they can't see the road, and then an emergency vehicle can't get in there to get them because there's only one way in and one way out, then somebody dies. And then whose fault is that? It's certainly not ours. So, if you guys vote, if you guys vote to have this, you're just adding to it. Until the county takes the pumps out of Judson Road, the pumps are dams. They're just holding water on us. We're a retaining pond. And so, if you add more development, it just makes the problem worse. It's not going to get any better until somebody does something. We need to exit out of there besides Chris Holy Road, and we need the flood control done. Put it back to 1995. Get the pumps and the weirs out, and we'll all be happy, except for traffic. All right. Thank you. Rose Plummer. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rose Plummer, and I'm here representing the North Merritt Island Area Association. Our organization serves nearly 5,000 households and approximately 10,000 residents on North Merritt Island, with around 500 active members and business partners spanning from the Space Center property to the Barge Canal Bridge. On behalf of these residents and businesses, we respectfully recommend that the application submitted, including the associated binding development plan, be denied. Our recommendation is based on several significant concerns, including noncompliance with administrative policies. The application does not align with the future land use element, specifically 3A, compatibility, which addresses traffic impacts. Section 4A, criteria, also related to traffic. Section 5A through G, road infrastructure, which is directly affected by increased traffic. Section 7, environmental impacts, particularly regarding drainage, flooding, and wetlands. It is important to note, to our knowledge, no comprehensive traffic study has been conducted for East Cricifilly Road in relation to this project. The only available study dates back to 2023, prior to the original Miranda development that was 105 homes, and that included a 24-hour speed survey. The study recorded 1189 vehicles in a single day, with 45% of the 969 vehicles passing Judson and Cricifilly exceeding the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Using Ms. Rizanka's numbers, if I use that to add the cars from the 105 homes and then the 61 homes, we're looking at 2,715 vehicles a day in a 24-hour period passing that area. Some of these vehicles go as fast as 70-plus miles per hour. There were 11 in front of Cricifilly and Judson in that 24-hour period. East Cricifilly Road was not designed to accommodate this volume or speed of traffic, and it is ill-equipped to handle the additional load. There are numerous reasons for this board to deny the petition. The points outlined above are among the most pressing. Repeated approvals of incompatible projects have already had detrimental effects on our community character and well-being. In conclusion, we urge the Commission to consider the long-term impacts on North Merritt Island and to deny this petition in the best interest of our residents and environment. Thank you for your attention. Chris Cook. Good evening. My name is Chris Cook. I've been a resident up in North Merritt Island for over 35 years. I'm just going to kind of simplify this issue. I was at the P&Z meeting, and if you read the minutes, there was a little bit of confusion about what was really going on there. But to simplify it, they got mostly AU and there's some RR1, and about half of the property is wetlands. So with that taken out, the way it is right now, using the calculations, I think they can get about 30 half-acre loss net without doing anything. What they want to do is change the zoning to all SR with a BDP for 61 half-acre units. We don't like BDPs in general because they're only binding until they aren't. It's much better to change the zoning, and it's harder to change the zoning than the BDP. You're going to hear a lot of stories about existing flooding and the road conditions, so I won't harp on that. But I just wanted to note that all these recent developments, they all come in and say, we're going to put a new development in, and it's going to help you. And you know what? It hasn't. It gets worse. I'm sure this guy's a great engineer, but we've heard that story before. One thing that we would like to see on these new developments is if the board could require a performance bond to repair the road after they bring in thousands of cubic yards of fill and destroy the road that's already in bad shape and make it back to fix it up a little bit. But I think the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive coastal management plan, Objective 7, says move development away from these areas. It's also in the FEMA special flood hazard area. So why are we increasing density there? It makes no sense. The other part is the rural character. No one's talked about that. To be rural in character, it is a rural character area. You have to have at least one-acre lots to pursue rural activities. So we like to see one-acre lots. And also the North Merlin Homeowners Association, the North Merlin Special Advisory Board, and your own P&Z board all voted to deny this. And I haven't heard one person except for people on the applicant's staff speak for it. So we think you'd like to do the right thing and deny this application. Thank you. Hassan Kimmel. Did I say that right? H-A-S-S-E-N-K-E-M-E-L. Oh, that's the applicant. Sorry, I missed that. Okay. William Bell. Good evening. My name is William Bell. I live on East Crisofoli Road. And I'm here to also against the new development. Miranda Homes recently built a community at the end of the road. And after the storm of October, there was a river coming out of there and was contributing to most of the flooding on Crisofoli. The flooding has deteriorated the road. The road is in dire need of repair. It's full of potholes that were repaired. The eastbound lane headed up due to the heavy traffic and the trucks going back and forth. The road is down like 12 inches. It's just sinking away to nothing. And now, after all that, they want to take and put in 65 more homes surrounded by wetlands and raise the elevation 4 to 5 feet, get an additional 150 cars and another several years of construction vehicles causing more damage. I find it hard to believe that they won't further impact our community. And if I may, I just have some pictures here. Absolutely. When were those pictures taken? Pardon? When were those pictures taken? The day after the storm. October of this year? Yeah. Or last year. Great. Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. No, I said it. Thank you. We're not October. No. Thank you. Emily Robinson. Hello. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to give my comment. I just want to say that I do recommend that you guys vote no currently on the zoning. To give a little bit of a different perspective, I actually live in Island Forest, so I do greatly sympathize with all of the neighbors on East Christophilly because during the big storm of October, my backyard actually experienced six inches of flash flooding in the matter of just an hour. So the next morning to emerge and see all of their homes completely underwater really was awful. So for me to see that, it makes me wonder where was the original engineering and planning then. So my other reasons for to strongly advise against no on the zoning is the lack of infrastructure improvements on East Christophilly. The electricity power lines have not been improved in a long time from what I understand. And then lastly, to not be a broken record up here, really the road improvement in terms of having another access road, I would strongly urge that there be no more development until we have another road, strictly from a safety perspective. During, after the storm, had my family not had an SUV, you honestly probably couldn't have passed through safely down the road. It was that deep. And I know several other people that could not leave the neighborhood because they did not have an adequate vehicle. Now, I know that that is their responsibility to take care of themselves, but we should all be good neighbors and not approve things just because we can, just because they did follow all the regulations. I think this plan needs a little bit more time to cook. And so I really strongly urge you guys to reconsider and have them do more engineering and follow more guidelines. So thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Mary Watkins. Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I am Mary Watkins, and I own two pieces of property in the Broad Acres subdivision, which was actually platted in the 1950s on Sand Ridge at the east end of Crucifilly Road. When you're driving out Crucifilly Road, you are going uphill to that Sand Ridge. Island Preserve is very close to that Sand Ridge, but at the time of the development, the highest elevation was 2.56 feet, whereas my low lot, the elevation is 5.97 feet. So you can imagine the amount of fill that has already come in. This other development that Miranda is talking about building is downhill from Island Preserve, down a natural hill. So to bring in a lot of fill dirt, that water's got to go somewhere. With all due respect to engineers, I can go back to a civil engineer that told my father to dig the channel deeper under the Pineda Causeway so that the water level would go down so he could get his sailboat under the bridge. I had a commissioner's representative come out and look at my house at one point. While the house was not flooded, the property was, and I had to walk through flood water to get to my house. His answer was, build a deck around your house. Really, guys? Come on. Also, something that has not been brought up about the traffic. I was working for the county and had an opportunity to do some overtime on a Saturday. Unfortunately, the Friday night, two young individuals new to the neighborhood had killed themselves in an auto accident on East Christophilly Road. The coroner was taking his sweet time getting there, so I had to use a private access to get off of the property and to get off of Christophilly Road. There are several hundred people that do not have access to that private property in order to get off. What's going to happen when something like that occurs again? And it will, with the speeds and the curves in that road. Thirdly, when it comes to flooding, when you break through a hard pan, a geological term, water is not going to go down unless you pump it down. It's naturally going to come up. So I don't care how deep they dig the holes as retention ponds, the water will not go anywhere except the path of least resistance, which is downhill. Well, please be considerate of that, and please turn this down. Thank you. Thank you, Terry White. Didn't give you time to sit down. I know. I was trying to catch you before. Thanks for letting us speak this evening. So my name is Terry White. I live at 5595 Joseph Court, resident of Maradon since 1965. There's a couple of things that's been stated here already that I would like to talk to a little bit. But I just wonder how many sitting up here in front of me have been out to East Christophilly Road since October 1? No, I've been there. Okay. All right. And seeing the condition of that road, it was stated earlier that it's a typical two-lane road. Nothing's typical about it. If you look at Hall Road, Chase Hammock, Pine Island, and North Tropical Trail, they are far better roads than East Christophilly is. Okay? The current road cannot handle the traffic. It cannot handle the increase in the traffic. And the survey that they mentioned about the speed hump area, that didn't take into consideration people like me and a lot of other people sitting back here that don't drive East Christophilly all the way out. We go north or south along Judson to get out of our neighborhood. It's a dirt road. My truck's dirty all the time. But that doesn't even consider the additional traffic right there. Now, another thing they talked about is this is a wetlands. But 40 years ago, it was an orange grove. Just like part of my property, I used to own the oldest orange grove on North Merritt Island. And the citrus died off in that. But old-time citrus growers did not plant in wetlands. Period. Yeah. So something has changed over the last 40 years that turned those high pieces of ground that raised citrus into wetlands. In my case, where my property is, there's two developments that have been put in south of me and one that's been put in east of me. And ever since they went in, I flood. The county tells me it's because I live in a bowl where the bowl didn't always exist there. Like I said, mine used to be citrus. So all those other ones. And just like Mary mentioned is, once they raise that water table and they put in these ponds and that, that water table's up. So now when it rains, my south pasture floods and it doesn't go away right away. It takes days and days and days before that water finally goes away. And this new development says that they will not put any more water off of their property than there was in the past. We didn't see a lot of water flowing off of that property in the past. But they did say that once they develop it and it raises above the water level in their ponds, it will discharge onto east Crisofoli. So they're not going to retain all of their water, which is sad. And there are many unanswered questions to their plans. In the previous meetings we've gone to about it, they said, well, they don't have all the site development. They don't have the engineering for this and that. My recommendation is until they come up with a clear set of plans of exactly what they're going to do, that you should disapprove this zoning change. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen Muir. Good evening, folks. Thanks for your time today. I do have a photo that shows some of the flooding that we dealt with last October that I was going to share with y'all. So I think many of these fine folks have pretty much talked about what is troubling most of us. The flooding has been really bad. It's continued to get worse over time. In addition, as the canals have effectively saturated, the swales that most of us have, you know, from our individual properties to the canal have flooded out every single time. Um, and I think more and more of us are seeing areas that are continually saturated with water that didn't used to be. Um, I think when, when, when that event happened, I was almost living on an island at that point, uh, which was shocking. And, and my home on East Christophilly is actually just east of where this, uh, this proposed development is, is going to be. And we were in about half a foot of water. Um, everybody's also talked about the, the road condition and, you know, I, I think we can talk about fixing the road condition eventually and making it better. But the, the concern that, that I see when I look at, at this is the property at the very end of the neighborhood added about a hundred homes. And I think East Christophilly has maybe 150, 160 homes in total before this happened. And this new proposed development is looking to add another 60. So I think what we're looking at over the course of a couple of years is, is Miranda is effectively doubling the house, the homes that are in this neighborhood. And, you know, this, this road is not made for that. Um, the, the, as we've talked about the, the water, it can just has nowhere to go. And even if we go fix some of those things, even if their engineering is a hundred percent correct, it's just not going to change the fact that we are just shoving tons and tons and tons of people into this area that is just not meant from an infrastructure standpoint to be able to handle as many people. So I think everybody that lives in this area can attest to that. Thanks for your time. Sir, sir. I'm sorry. Is, is that our copy for the, for the clerk? Okay. We're going to give that to the clerk. Okay. Yep. Chris, uh, Christopher Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish, Weish. Close. Hello board. My name is Christopher Weishmeyer. I live at 730 East Christophilly. Um, it's right before on the way in the S bend. Uh, so I'm a few houses down from the proposed neighborhood. Uh, I would recommend you guys deny rezoning. Uh, now I could talk about how the flooding has impacted me and my property was underwater house, but that has been said before by many other speakers. Um, also somebody noted that the traffic study that they did was before many of the people moved, uh, you know, their family members, their grandmas, everybody else in on the other Miranda homes that they have built down the street. Uh, but besides that, with the traffic in Kim Rizinka's own words, East Christophilly is a windy, curvy, squirrely road. Um, it's not a straight road like hall. Um, my three little girls, uh, traffic stop for, for school is right at that S bend. When people try to make up speed because of the speed humps put in, they usually do it throughout the rest of the road. It's already a sketchy kind of deal right now. Adding more cars into the already sketchy deal, it doesn't look good for the future. Um, now there was also talk of, uh, you know, an exotic removal, something with the wildlife on there. Uh, I, I was kind of confused if that was towards plants or also, you know, the blue florist scrub jay, the gopher tortoise, the osprey nest that might be out there since we are right next to a wildlife refuge. Um, the overall synopsis of the area from everybody in here is nobody wants it. I don't want it. And I know most of my neighbors, I'd say a good 99% of the people sitting here do not want it. If Kim Rizinka wants the neighborhood built because that's her job, she's good at it. I wonder how she would feel if it was right down the street from her house. Um, I just wanted to come up here because I showed up to the meeting and I wanted to, you know, be a speaker. I, I, I'm asking you guys to do what everybody here already wants you to do. That's it. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Hilberg. Good evening, Kim Hilberg. I live in North Merritt Island and, uh, I'm also on the North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board and we had a meeting, um, on this topic. And, um, as you can imagine, it was hours and, uh, a lot of, um, passionate, um, um, explanations as, as it is tonight. And, uh, I would ask that, um, uh, Commissioner Goodson's, um, um, uh, notice of the, note of the, um, coastal high hazard area and the fact that it's a floodplain as well should, um, should, uh, help, uh, convince you that this is not a good idea for our area. Thank you. Thank you. Kim Tampa. Hello. Thanks for having me speak. I just want to say that, um, just like everyone else has before me, the flooding is horrendous and my house was flooded for five days and, um, the infrastructure needs to be done. People with the speed bumps, they light it up. As soon as they hit the last one, they're speeding and someone's going to get hurt. Um, the roads definitely need to be addressed and, um, that's, that's about it. Everyone else has said anything else that I need. Thank you. I asked just real quick, ma'am, the pictures you gave us, is that for the clerk? Is that part of the record? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Denise Christopher. I'm Denise Christopher and I live off the North Tropical Trail, Merritt Island. And, um, um, I've just been, um, on North Merritt Island since 1977 and I'm opposed to any changes to the current zoning of any property on North Merritt Island until something is done to improve the flooding and the traffic. One suggestion to, um, improve some of the flooding would be to grandfather in the existing vacant properties so that the building code regulations wouldn't apply as far as raising the road and filling all the property with dirt. Most of the complaints are about the truckloads of dirt that are required to raise the land. Therefore, the existing, um, adjacent properties end up being flooded on either side. The other issue is the traffic when the addition of the cruise parking lots and the space center traffic, the drawbridge, the traffic lights, and 528, there are times that the residents on North Merritt Island can't even get out on the road on State Road 3. Recently, I, uh, witnessed an ambulance that was trying to get through the traffic going south and the cars were at a standstill and it was near the barge canal and there was no way that the ambulance could get past at that point. And what if it was a member of your family getting, um, you know, to have to get to the hospital was a matter of life and death. And, um, it seems like we have a lot of other issues and, um, the other part would be to maybe consider, um, and this is kind of due to the launches, the fact that our houses shake and we have cracks in our walls and stuff like that, that the housing, um, should be changed, the, uh, regulations to build the houses to adjust to what's happening with the rest of the property out there. And, uh, I appreciate your time. Plus, I just wanted to put a little plug in for Pioneer Day that's coming up on Saturday on North Merritt Island, so I'll give you a little handout and also about the mob, which I don't know if y'all are familiar with the mob, but it's got to do with the museums of Bavard, so thank you. Great, thank you. Robert Blevins. Good evening, commissioners. Um, thank you for your time today. Um, I reside, I'm Robert Blevins and, uh, I reside at 825 Wood Sage Lane. Um, I got a little over five acres, um, my lot's a flag lot, it's right in the deep curve, right where they plan on, it's right after, they plan on doing this entrance, a little bit after, about a few hundred yards after my, uh, entrance to my driveway. Um, I can tell you just from, I've only lived there for about four years. Um, I, I, most of my community has already voiced their opinion about it. The flooding is really ridiculous. I mean, we had 18 and a half inches on, in about six hours and, uh, that, that area just couldn't handle it. And, uh, I, my work at the space center, I understand the growth that's going on out there. I got friends that are looking for homes and, um, are envious of me and my 12 minute drive to work. I get it. It's, it's lovely. Um, but at the same point, it doesn't help the area. The flooding is out of control. Um, I, I can tell you my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my property has two exits. I can get off of Joseph court or have to go off of Christopher Foley. And I couldn't do it off of Joseph court because of, Hey, there's a culvert broken right there that goes to my property. And I'm kind of glad it's broken because all that water off of Joseph court would come onto my property. Cause I'm a, I'm a real low, low level property. Um, I, I, there's not much I can do. I had 18 and a half inches in my garage, lost nearly everything in there. Um, you know, nobody sees my house. I'm back in the woods. I'm behind 70 foot pines and it's gorgeous. Uh, we, my, we just had a newborn son. My family's growing out there. There's a family that just built a home behind us. Same thing, growing families. We don't want to be pushed away from our homes. I mean, I'd have to bring in sub pumps just to pump out underneath my house. Cause the groundwater rises that quick. Like it's, it's serious out there and put an additional 61 homes on top of it is, as, is not as uncalled for. That's, that's putting the dangers of everybody else in our community. And, um, that, you know, I just want to voice my opinion as concerned neighbor and, uh, taxpayer for this county and state. And, um, you know, hopefully you guys make the right decisions. Thank you for your time. Susan Rogers. Good evening. And thank you for your, for your time. Uh, I'm, I'm not going to echo, but we've all heard about the flooding. Uh, I live off Chase Hammock Road, which is to the south of the East Crisofoli Road. But as they say, we're all connected and we all live downstream. Nature's a complex interconnected system. So we need to be mindful of, of this. It's just, it's just not sustainable, all this additional development. You know, I, I heard the lawyer, Mr. Senka say, this is a common sense solution. Well, it's not a common sense solution for the people who live there. And all the, the, the traffic issues have been discussed. And, and, you know, family members who ride their bicycles, they say it's gotten terrible. It's dangerous. They don't go down that road anymore. So, like everyone here, I say no to the rezoning. This, we, it's not sustainable. This, our North Merritt Island, enough is enough. And, and we just need to do the right thing. Thank you. Uh, Diana Scarincio, did I say? Oh, thank you. Hi. I'm the last person that would normally get up and speak in front of people. So you'll have to excuse me. Um, I am going to kind of reiterate what everyone said. The flooding is terrible. Um, my husband and I own a farm. We're probably the only agriculture people that I've heard talk tonight. That's what we're here for. Um, the flooding event in October, um, we're just south of the estern. Uh, our pastures were underwater. Uh, we had to borrow a canoe from Terry so I could, um, bring hay out to our sheep that were stuck on a small patch of, uh, land that was above water. But what I'm getting at is, it's, to add in any more houses and to raise any land out there, water goes to the lowest point. Period. It's not going to go anywhere else other than onto all the neighbors. You know how hard it is to see baby goats and baby sheep that can't get to dry land to have to, and there's no place to bury them because it's all underwater. I mean, chickens that drown, and I'm sorry if there's kids in here and I'm not trying to be too graphic, but it's, it's awful for those of us who are actually still trying to use the land for agricultural purposes. And to take a, a large agricultural plat and turn that into anything other than agricultural land, you're never going to get that back. That land is meant to be green space. It's not meant for anything other than that. And also, I'd like to note, everyone's complaining about the road. I'm going to add a different spin on that because if you have ever tried to haul a livestock trailer down that road and you happen to pass one of those 18 wheelers that's bringing construction material down to the subdivision, you can't get through the road. It's not wide enough for two large vehicles. It's just not. So, I mean, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people have made comments about the actual criteria that these people don't meet, but obviously we're opposed to this rezoning and hopefully you guys will do the right thing for the residents of Brevard County. I've lived here my whole life. So, thank you. Thank you. You said you'd be the last speaker and you actually are the last speaker. Okay. We'll bring this back to the board. Mr. Chair. Yes. If I may, I wanted to add something that should have been included in the addendum, which the addendum is to clarify and correct things that were noted in the staff report. And so, in the staff report, it's noted that they can get 70 units. They can actually get 34, not 70. I do have a breakdown of that calculation. If you'd like me to explain how we got to 34. Yes, that'd be good. Thank you. So, this is out of order, out of line to bring it up. Can you come to the mic? This is unconscionable. This information should have been provided before now. And the fact that it hasn't has hindered us. So, I haven't talked to my client, but we need to be able to analyze this because this is the first time I've ever heard this. Sorry, I was trying to drink some water before I got up here. So, I object to this. If it's going to be heard, we need time to continue and to hear it. If I may, Mr. Chair, I can try to provide a little clarification. So, the staff comments that Ms. Rezenka earlier referred to, she stated 70 units. You'll notice there's an asterisk next to the word potential. It says zoning potential for concurrency analysis purposes only, subject to applicable land development regulations. So, that zoning potential that we put in every staff analysis is a simple formula. The zoning minimum lot size multiplied by the acreage. In cases like this, however, the reason why that asterisk is there, it doesn't take into account the applicability of our land use regulations, land development regulations, sorry. So, in this case, the numbers that Trina's come up with, they're estimates. That's all they are, and that's what we're asked to provide at P&Z. And the reason they're estimates is because of the type of rezoning application there is. There's not engineering to know how much is going to be used for stormwater ponds, roads, and we also don't have the exact delineation of wetlands. So, Trina's come up with some estimates so the board can get an idea of how many units could be put on that parcel today. But I will notice that that's all they are, is estimates, because that's all the information we have at this time. Okay. I want to hear from staff. Morris, did you have any comments? You'll have an opportunity to rebut with staff. Staff can testify. Yes, but we need to have time to expert testimony. We just got continued on another matter because of new evidence. That's what needs to be done now. Why don't you hear the testimony, and you'll have an opportunity to rebut it? No, we're not. You'll have an opportunity to respond to the testimony. The chair has asked to hear the testimony, and he may hear the staff testimony. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. In the AU area, there's approximately 118.5 acres. There's approximately 80.5 acres of wetlands. So, when we break that down, counting for 25% of infrastructure, in the 38 acres of the uplands, they would be able to get 11 units. That's accounting for 9.5 acres of infrastructure. On the 80 acres of the wetlands, they would only be today be able to develop it at one unit per five acres. Also, taking into account the infrastructure, we would minus out about 20 acres of that. That leaves them with 12 units. That's a total of 23. That is on the AU portion, what they could do today. Again, an estimate. In the RR1 zoning, it's approximately 23 acres. It's approximately 8.7 acres of wetlands. 14.6 acres of uplands. Again, 8.7 of wetlands. In the wetlands, they can develop one unit per five acres. Taking out 25% for infrastructure, we would be minusing out about 3.65 acres. That leaves them with enough to do 10 units for a grand total of the 34. Excuse me, 11 units. And then take into account the wetlands would give them one unit in the RR1 portion. So, it's 11 units. Give them a total of 34. Okay, thank you. Any questions on that and comments? Okay. Now, you have the ability to cross-examine her, and you have the ability to rebut her. No, I need to ask for a continuous because she's not an engineer, and she doesn't design subdivisions. Subdivisions can accommodate wetlands and individual lots, can accommodate infrastructure and individual lots. This is a down-and-dirty calculation that is not accurate. It's not how any engineer would design it. So, at this point, I'm asking for a continuous. She may request a continuous. The board doesn't need to grant the continuous. No, but we have new evidence. The board policy requires a continuous when new evidence is put forward. We just heard that earlier. I have a question from a planning perspective, and this is what we're doing here. This type of information is helpful in terms of planning policy and procedure and how we evaluate our comp plan. And that's why I wanted to hear it. I'm just curious of what development potential in the larger, broader scheme of planning, not necessarily from a specific engineering point of view. And from what the staff is telling us, this is, under our planning documents, under their interpretation, what the land could be used for today. I just thought that would be helpful. It may be helpful, but it is in controvert to what they've already provided to us, and it's new evidence. I don't know if it's accurate or not. This is the first I've heard of it. You would have thought we'd have been given it before now because I'm pretty sure they knew it was going to be presented tonight. So, asking for an opportunity to review it. A question I have for you, under your interpretation, and I'm sure you've evaluated the land, you've looked at it, you've purchased it. Under the rules as they exist today, what do you feel you could develop the land for? What density do you feel like you could obtain without changing zoning? Well, without changing zoning, based upon the staff report, based upon the zoning that's available now, it's 70 units. If we were to go, as of right, open space subdivision, and again, working around the wetlands, putting wetlands in lots, using whatever means method, like broad acres, go back to the 1950s style of Platt, road straight down the middle, and put lots on each side. So, this is, I didn't say this was a common sense solution. I said it was common sense development, and it allows things to be clustered as your code requests. So, I still believe it's 70 under the zoning. Okay, I understand that. Site planning hasn't been done, engineering hasn't been done, and it's not usually required at the zoning station. Okay, that's a good point. Thank you. I understand. Yes, sir. I would like to make a motion that for these reasons just discussed, we make a motion to decline to enter into a BVP, and therefore deny the application for rezoning, and it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And I'd like to direct the county attorney to draft findings of facts for the board consideration of a future meeting. Second. I haven't finished my rebuttal yet. I'd ask for a continuous. You have two and a half minutes. Let's go ahead and finish the rebuttal. Okay. Again, I would begin by asking the board to completely discount Ms. Gilliam, who I do respect as a planner, but she's not an engineer. I respect, fully request that you grant this rezoning because of the use of the land is no longer available. What you have heard is that people don't want change. It's been stated time and time again. They don't want change. They also have a speeding problem. Please allow her to give her time. They have a speeding problem. They have a flooding problem. No one designs the 500-year flood that happened in October. That's in no one's code. Raising the property don't help. What about 2022? Okay. I'm going to add three minutes to her time because she's being interrupted. You need to give her an opportunity to present her client, the applicant's case, but go ahead. Thank you. So there are issues, but no one has proven that there is evidence to support we don't meet the criteria. They cite administrative policies. They don't cite facts to go with them. They speculate on what might happen. They don't understand engineering principles. There's not a single engineer who has testified. There has been statements from Mr. Prasad about the coastal hazard. Well, the coastal hazard is said to limit density. We're not asking for more density than current zoning allows. Current zoning allows 70. If we can make it under land development regulations is another question, but this is zoning, not engineering, not site planning, not plaiting. Second, to find it would be detrimental, there's no facts. You cannot say with any facts that this is going to make the area worse. Your land development code prevents that. St. John's prevents that. Florida law prevents that. If they're having problems from Island Forest Preserve that Miranda did not build the infrastructure, they've done take down lots and build homes, then that's an Island Forest Preserve issue that should be taken into account by the county and something should be done about it. Code enforcement or a lawsuit. I don't know, but it's not proof that this subdivision is going to do the same thing. This area is in the new code that requires development north of Merritt Island from Hall Road north to State Road 405, comply with the new modeling that was developed and adopted by this board in 2022. That did an entire basin study. That knows everything about where the water flows and any stormwater calculations have to go through that process. And that is new. Only one subdivision has gone through it before. Island Forest Preserve did not. The staff report, again, when I looked at the addendum, it was clear that it was to refute everything that was said on the applicant's behalf. However, we are not increasing density. We are directing development to the uplands, which is what your code requests. A BDP is a zoning action. So, yes, zoning can be changed as do BDPs can be changed. That road, there is not – it is an unusual road, but there are many of them. Tropical Trail, South Tropical Trail, South Bonana River Drive. And these are roads that have been there. Land has the ability to be developed. There are private property rights that apply to this land. If this land does have 70 units now, then it should be entitled to try to do those 70 units. We are trying to be transparent and let you know exactly what is going to be built here. No zoning code has required full engineering, and it's not in your code now. Your staff report initially said that this would have no adverse impacts, that this isn't a neighborhood. It's a neighborhood area, and that it is compatible. Your staff report says that. Even the addendum doesn't say that. There have been statements that once this is developed, it will discharge. It cannot discharge more than it has discharged in the past. That's your law, and that's how they design. That's how Mr. Hassan Kamal would design it. As with the city point that came before you not that long ago, we are willing to put into the BDP that the developer will reduce the volume of stormwater discharge on the property to better control the runoff and allow no more water than currently comes from the property. This shall exceed the requirements of Ward County Code and St. Johns River Water Management District, and this shall be addressed at the site plan stage. That's what we did with City Point in District 1 just in December of this year to require, and that was a PUD, but this still applies. The exotics are exotic plants that are removed when you work with wetlands. They're not removing any animals. Again, I point back to the administrative policies, and administrative policies require facts, but they're guidelines, so land development codes comply. This is a logical development. It's predictable because you know what's going to be built. This is how the land development code usually works. We have asked for a binding development plan to limit the density, which is appropriate under 621255, and, again, we would agree to a performance bond and to the enhanced stormwater criteria that we've done for City Point in District 1. Thank you. Thank you. And, again, I'd still ask for the continuance. Okay. If you're relying upon that evidence. Make that a note. We note that there's been a request for a continuance. BCC 97 allows an applicant to cross-examine a witness when evidence is presented or to request a tabling for seven days to submit a rebuttal to the evidence presented. It's limited just to rebutting that issue. It's not reopening the public hearing or anything like that. Both of those are within the board's discretion. Cross-examination must be allowed if it's requested. The tabling for additional rebuttal does not. Cross-examination is required to be allowed. Well, if requested. If requested. Would that be at this particular meeting? Yes. So, if you would like to cross-examine, you're entitled to do that. So, if I can be given her numbers and 10 minutes for the engineer to look at it, sure, we would do that. We're due for a break. Okay. So, let's have a 10-minute break. So, I need the number she read from. Okay. Thank you. We will take a 10-minute break. No. Go ahead. We'll get your time. Here from Morris Richardson, first our legal counsel, and then proceed in the order that he recommends. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the applicant has asked to offer rebuttal testimony. The testimony presented by planning staff regarding an estimate of the potential number of units that could be realized under the current zoning, and I believe Mr. Kamal, the engineer for the project, is ready to speak on that subject. Okay. Thank you. Again, Hassan Kamal with BSC Consultants. I'd like to start out by noting that the information that Ms. Gilliam provided came from a memo or an e-mail that was dated January 14th. Today's February 5th. There was an addendum to the staff report that was issued, I think, earlier this week. So, it's a little bit disappointing and frustrating on our end that we see this information for the first time today at the public hearing, where if it was provided to us and discussed with the applicant earlier, we could have had a much better chance to understand where they got their numbers from and discuss it and maybe reach some consensus on what those numbers really mean. So, it puts us in a little more of a difficult position. But, again, we just had a few minutes to take a look at this, and my concern would be I don't know where the wetland numbers come from. I don't think the county staff has, and I'm an engineer, not an attorney, so I'm going to pose these questions in the format that I normally would. I don't know where these numbers came from. I don't think county staff has been on site or if they just used a database inventory to generate those. The assumption for 25% infrastructure seems high based upon my experience. I've been doing subdivision land development design for over 30 years. That number seems high, and I don't know if it's specific to this for this kind of development. The assumption that when you go through the units that all the 2 1⁄2 Baker, all the residential development, all has to be in upland, I don't think is accurate. We've done lots of subdivisions where you can plait into the wetlands, place them in a conservation easement, and provide enough upland development footprint to construct your house, pad, yard, and footprint. At the end of the day, even with those numbers that were presented by staff, there's 46 units that, in theory, they could develop. We don't agree with those numbers, but that doesn't – I'm sorry, 34, and that's assuming with all their worst-case scenarios. That doesn't really change the calculus. We still have the most stringent stormwater criteria in Brevard County that we've got to go through, and I think the board has to trust their staff to enforce that criteria to make sure that this project, whether it's 61 units, 40 units, or whatever the number is, doesn't adversely affect either upstream or downstream facilities, and you have those regulations already in place. We've documented with traffic counts that Brevard County provided that this roadway has an acceptable level of service, and its current rate, and even with the addition of the project traffic, it's well below the acceptable level of service. So I think as far as these numbers, we obviously got them 10 minutes ago. I don't agree with the basis for these calculations, but it doesn't change the request. Next, we meet the criteria. We are less than what's allowed under the current zoning when you take a look at the raw numbers. We meet concurrency, the school concurrency and roadway concurrency. So I, again, disappointed that we just got this today, but that's our response to these values. Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions? I don't think we have any questions. Okay, let's bring it back to the board. Any discussion? No questions? Any discussion? Any motions? My motion. Okay. Okay. For the reasons just discussed and discussed throughout this whole meeting, I make a motion to find to enter into a BDP and therefore deny the application for rezoning, and it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And I would like to direct the county attorney to draft findings of fact for the board's consideration at a future meeting on this matter. Thank you. That is my motion. Okay, the motion is seconded by Commissioner Delaney. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. The motion carries. Applicants, he doesn't have to speak. Okay. Thank you. So we'll have one staff. Okay. Pardon me? Denial. Yes, it was a denial. Okay, our next item, we have a... You're welcome. Thank you for your input. Thank you for your input. Okay, H5, Stephen Douglas. Go ahead. Item H5 is C, Stephen Douglas, request a zoning classification change from TR-2 with a BDP to AGR with removal of existing BDP under application 25Z-00047 located in District 3. Okay, C, Stephen Douglas, yeah, I'm trying to get the zoning reclassified from a TR-2, which has a binding development plan to an AGR, mainly because I have property to the south, a farming operation, and this would just extend it to a certain point. Anyone want to put up a building to put the hay and machinery in and stuff? Okay. I think you're in good shape here. Let me... I'd like to make a motion to approve. The motion to approve. I'll second. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have one card. Okay. H6, Kimberly Smith. Item H6 is Clinton Smith and Kimberly Smith request a zoning classification change from RU-1-7 to SR under application 25Z-00048 located in District 3. Okay. Good evening. My name is Kimberly Smith. We own our property at 9080 Central Avenue in Micco Road. I mean, in Micco. Sorry. We are here to request a rezoning from RU-1-7 with an existing FLU of Residential 2 to a zoning of SR. The property we've owned since 2016, it's vacant land. It's 2.26 acres, and we're looking to build a single home on it. Right now, we have a permit that's trying to go through the process. Okay. Any questions? Any discussions? Any motion? Second. Motion, second, and approve. All in favor say aye. Aye. Carries. Thank you. Okay. We now have H7. Item H7 is Lazy River Investments, LLC. Request a zoning classification change from RU-1-13 to AUL under application 25Z-00049 located in District 3. I'm David Bustarkey. I'm partner of Lazy River Investments, LLC. And we're requesting a zoning from the RU-1-13, which is 13 units per acre, total of 264 units on the 20.39 acres, to AU light, which would be eight units. Our proposed plat would be seven units, a reduction of 257 units. This AU light will be consistent with the flum, established in 1988, Res 1, 2.5. Okay. And you're David? Yes, I'm David. Okay. I have your card. And I have Lorraine. Are you representing both? Pardon me? We have Lorraine. Lorraine, yes. She's going to speak, I guess. Okay. All right. Good. Now, this is another David. Oh, is there another? I only have one David. Do we have two? Are we missing a card? David, I guess you're... Is it David? What's your last name, David? Connor. Oh, David. Okay. I missed that. Yeah, sorry. Too many Davids around, I guess. My name is David Connor. I live in Meco off of Mockingbird Road, which is just to the west of the property that David is trying to develop. And my wife and I are totally for the development of it as per what he's going to do with it. And it's going to enhance the neighborhood, which is what I like about it, because he's taking a 22-acre property and dividing it into seven buildable acres, which gives it two and a half acres and bigger, which is nice. So the density is going to be pretty low for that area, which also won't increase the traffic by that much. So we're pretty happy about it. And he has a good reputation about doing with building and stuff. So he does a nice job. So we just moved up here from Jupiter. So we're kind of in the know on some good builders and stuff like that. So he fits the criteria, and we're for it. So that's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Now, Lorraine. Good evening, Commissioners. Lorraine DeMotney. I am a 24-year resident of Meco, resident of Brevard County since 1977. I've been before this board several times to speak on matters of zoning. I've also been through the process myself years ago. And I am a strong advocate for private property rights. So I followed this request that he's made. He's been before this board several times with regards to this particular parcel. His change is going to actually lower the density, which is a good thing for our neighborhood. I'd hate for it to have 100-plus homes go there or something else. So the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval several times, including this time. I don't feel like the previous District 3 commissioner treated the applicant fairly. So I'm looking to Commissioner Atkinson to support him on this application and along with the other members. And I feel like the building department, when it comes to development, they are the ones who govern what happens. And there are already procedures and policies in place to enforce what can be done. So I think this is a great thing for our community, and I'm here in support of it. And I thank you for your time. Okay. I think that's – nope. That's all our cards. And you already had your time? Did you have anything else you'd like to say? I don't need any more time. Okay. All right. Good. Okay. Do we have any questions? Any comments? Yes, I do. So I was wondering, Billy and Trina, if you guys could speak to the development and where we are with how many, at this point, how many units could go on that site as it stands right now? As it stands right now, two. Two. Okay. So two units at this point. If we grant this, how many units can go on that site? Eight units. Okay. Can you also let me know from the tentative plan that I know is not binding that was submitted, we have two or three of the units that he is considering building in the coastal high hazard area. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Three. Three. Do we have septic or sewer available in that area? What would he have to do? Sewer is not available in that area. He would need a septic system. Okay. And in order to build these properties, do we have to bring in fill? Yes, ma'am. Can you give me any idea what that fill could possibly do to the neighbors who are new to the area? So some of his elevations are very low in those areas. So staff estimates that he would need to bring in about three to four feet of fill. He needs to be at a base flood elevation of at least 6.3. And so, again, with some of his elevations being about two and a half, bringing in that fill, what that will do is when the storm surge comes up, that will distribute that water outward. To the sides. And that may impact the neighbors. Right. Those are my only questions. Okay. If you want to open it up to comments and conversation. Are there any other questions? I do have a question. The Planning and Zoning Board approved this. What was the vote? Do you recall? Unanimous. It was unanimous. I believe it was 7. It wasn't 7 to 7? No. Oh, this one was unanimous. Sorry. Excuse me. Now, has this request been heard before by the commission? Yes, sir. It has. I believe two or three times. And the previous time, Planning and Zoning Board also approved it unanimously. How about the commission, though, on the commission level? The commission vote denied it. And then a finding of facts was done. And the resolution was recorded. So what was that finding of fact and denial? Do you recall? Well, in 2021, I don't recall the vote count, but it was based on the reasons that were just stated. The evidence presented was that because the properties were in a coastal high hazard area and Objective 7 requires us to direct density outside of the coastal high hazard area, direct development outside of the coastal high hazard area. The thought was that there was an increase in the number of units that was buildable within the coastal high hazard area, and at the time, Mr. Denninghoff, the former assistant county manager, opined that there was a risk without modeling that it could have a detrimental impact on the neighbors. If this is approved, would it establish a negative precedent or a dangerous precedent? This question. Or Morris or Billy. You know, the application of the policy to direct development out of the coastal high hazard area, generally that's interpreted to apply to comp plan changes that increase the future land use map density. In this case, you have an application that, at least based on the non-binding plan presented, would allow for three units in the coastal high hazard area, where right now the maximum you could achieve or two, so it's clearly increasing actual units within the coastal high hazard area, but I don't know that I would consider that to be precedential or binding on the board in a future similar circumstance. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Yes. So I actually spoke to one of my representatives on PNZ, and it was very interesting to me that, for whatever reason, he did not understand that very simple fact that currently two units would be allowed, and that if this is approved, eight would be allowed. My representative did not understand that on PNZ, and I don't know why, because generally we want our future land use to match up with zoning. That's what we want to do. But in this case, and I think that this property can be developed, so we're not worried about, you know, stomping on rights of people who want to build on their property, because I believe that's really important. But I think it's also our responsibility to protect our water. And so if we can build outside of the coastal high hazard, especially since we're talking about septic tanks at this point, then I could support this. But I can't support this application as it is today. So therefore, I'd like to make a motion to deny. Second. There's a motion to deny and a second. All right, Delaney, any discussion? All in favor, second and follow by saying. Normally, no, but we'll let you, I'll let you come and say a few words. I mean, I don't. Because I think you had plenty of time left in what we allotted, you spoke with in your time. I've done some research, and I've seen numerous houses have been built in the coastal high hazard area recently. In fact, there's two that have been on the Sebastian River recently that are in the coastal high hazard area. There's 10 on Brevard County's side, where I'm proposing to build the houses. And there's only going to be three on my development plan. It's not binding at this time. Two of them are on the highest area, which is three and a half feet elevation. And one is 400 feet back, because there's wetlands in front of that area. And I don't know where she's coming up. I'm a builder of 41 years experience. I've lived here for 69 years. I don't know where she's coming up with this enormous amount of fill. At three and a half feet, I have to go up to six and a half feet to get out of the flood. The finished floor elevation has to be. If I put those houses on stem wall, all I have to do is slope from three and a half feet. I have to get a six-inch slope and 10 feet. So I don't know where she's coming up with this enormous amount of fill that I'm going to be bringing in. It's going to be very minimal. And the one house, do you have the plan that I presented? The one house that is closest to the neighbor is going to be about 400 feet back, because there's wetlands in that area that's going to force the houses to stay back unless I, for some reason, want to pay to mitigate those wetlands out. But I have the two houses that have recently been built there that are in the coastal high hazard area, if you'd like to see those. I also have all the neighbors I talked to that 90% approved of what I was doing. I also have all the houses. This is Lazy River. This is Mockingbird Lane, which is RU 1-13 half acre lots. All the houses, these were all 10 acre parcels at one time. All these houses have been rezoned to AU. All these lots to the west of my property. If you'd like to see that, I can bring that up. Also, the septic tanks. Rivard County now requires all septic tanks to be nitrogen reducing, which will reduce total nitrogen 79% with a 15% for the soil reduction. It gives a 6% nitrogen output. Seven houses at 6% is 42% of what one house would have been. This is nowhere near. It would not even be equal to one house, what was before when I proposed this back in 2021. If you'd like to see this information, I can give it. I don't know where the septic tank problem is coming up, but with the new, every lot now in Palm Bay, everywhere in Brevard County is now required to have nitrogen reducing septic tanks put in. These are reducing it to 6% nitrogen output. So we're coming up with less than one house of output of what I would have had in 2021. Also, everybody keeps saying direct out of the statute says limit densities. There's 5.1 acres of coastal high hazard area. That's 222,156 square feet. My three house pads, if they were 7,000 square foot pads, would equal 21,000 square feet, which is a less than 10% impact on that coastal high hazard area. In fact, the house to the east is partway into what is not coastal high hazard area, where I show it planned. So I don't know where all these calculations are coming from. I would like to see the calculations of actually how much I'm going to impact the river, because I don't believe I'm going to raise the river one hundredth of an inch by these pads that are coming up. And in fact, if they want to know what happens, I live right next door. What floods our property when hurricanes come, they release C-54 Canal Dam, and they let millions of gallons of water come down that river, and the opposing forces flood our properties. And I've been there 22 years, and it's never come up above my dock, and that's at about three feet above. So I don't know how we're coming up with this impact that they're saying I'm going to have, but I would like to see the calculations is what I'd like to see. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Thank you. I have a question of staff. We're not saying you can't build in the coastal high area. You're saying we're just, we have a policy to not increase densities. And my concern about precedent, and I appreciate the comment, but maybe my point is that I think we need to be consistent. We kind of get on a slippery slope when we start allowing exceptions. That's a pretty important policy that we have. He could, as a matter of right-build two units within the coastal high hazard area right now. There's nothing that prevents that. What he's requesting would allow a third as planned on his non-binding drawing, but up to eight units, you know, and how that is configured ultimately would be up to him in meeting the applicable land development regulations, but certainly at least one more than what would be allowed now. All right. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion on the floor? In a second. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll move on to, I'll let you have it. Yeah. That's okay. Applet A8. Welcome A. H8 is 100 Flug Avenue, LLC, represented by Bruce Moya, requests a zoning classification change from BU1 to RU215 under application 25Z-00050 located in District 5. I don't think we have any cards opposed, and I'm for it, so I motion to approve in order. Second. Motion second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. I think the clerk was unclear, so let's say he made the motion and I second it. Okay. Okay. Oh, I made the motion. Oh, did you make the motion? I think. I think you said a motion was in order. In order. Okay. You did. I think you said it would be in order. And you made the motion. Or did you? Commissioner Goodson. Goodson made the motion. I second. Okay. All right. Just for a second. Okay. Yeah. Okay. For the sake of the clerk. All right. Sorry. Thanks. Okay. Item H9, Landon Sheets. Item H9 is Eric D. and Pamela S. Martin Truss being represented. By Landon Sheer. Request a zoning classification change from BU-1 to BU-1 and BU-2 under application 25Z-00051, located in District 2. Second. Motion second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion. Brilliant presentation. Thanks, guys. H10, Blair Forster. Item H10 is Blair Foster, Foster Family Living Trust. Request a zoning classification change from GU to SR under application 25Z-00053, located in District 5. Good evening. Yes. I am trying to rezone this general use at the moment, and it came to our attention that that's five acres, and for me to do anything on that property, SR is what everybody has around me, and I just want to be consistent so I can move forward with anything we'd like to do in the future. I think a motion to approve would be in order. I'll make the motion, sir. Motion is second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion goes to them. Say thank you. Thank you. Item H12. Item H12 is Beverly Jean Richardson, being represented by Angel Myers. Request a zoning classification change from RU-1-9 to RU-2-4 under application 25Z-00055, located in District 1. I would like to make a motion to approve. I'll second. As the motion is second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Well, good evening. Thank you. Well done. Thank you. Motion carries. Okay. Item H13 and H14. We have quite a few cards here. Okay. We have staff. Yeah, we'll have staff present it. No way. Item H13 is Jacob Fawn. Request a small-scale, request a small-scale comprehensive plan application under 25S.14 to change the future land use designation from Res 1 to Res 2. Application is 25 SS-0008. This is located in District 1. I'm also going to read into the record H14. This is a companion application. Jacob Fawn requests a zoning classification change from SR with a BDP to SR with removal of the existing BDP and addition of a new BDP under application 25Z-00037, located in District 1, and we'll need separate motions. If I may, Mr. Chair, the board last heard this at its last zoning meeting. The board had voted to continue it, to have Mr. Fawn research with his title company. He did provide a letter. I just wanted to make you aware of that, since I know there was a lot of changes to the agenda in the last few days, a lot of extra documents being added. So, Mr. Fawn did provide a letter, as requested. It states that the situation is excluded from his title policy. All right. So, I've gone to the title company, like you said. I've sent you all their response. They're not responsible for my certain issue. And I've also contacted legal help, which was asked in the last meeting. They're aware of my issue, and they feel it is not necessary to get them involved just yet, being that the title company was able to write me that letter. I would also like to remind everyone that I have done everything by the book. I got my survey. I've turned in my permit. Got that accepted. I've also had my pre-plumbing, concrete, and time beam inspection all passed. I was then stopped in the middle of a block, but I asked if I could finish the block, being that I can pay the block guy and also get that filled. I was allowed to do that after being stopped, and I was allowed to get that done after being stopped because this was supposed to be sorted out in a couple days. Months later, I have since paid $2,400 for the rezoning fee, and it's been nearly eight months since I have started, since it's been shut down. I'd also like to state that in the staff report that I'm going to have no impact on any flooding whatsoever. Like I said, I've done everything by the book, and it's that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We have more cards, and if we have any questions, we're going to ask after we're here. Eric, and you're going to have to pronounce, like, Paglialona, Lugna, Eric, P-H-E. Okay. Okay. Eric waves his time. Ed Ostropovich. How are you guys this evening? A few things for you. So evidently, I didn't make enough copy, so. We can share. We can. We can share. So good evening. Appreciate you guys allowing us to speak tonight. And hopefully we can get this ironed out so everyone's happy, including the property owner. Turn this on here. Does that do it? Oh, no. That did. Okay. So Ed Ostropovich, 5175 International Avenue. And I got it upside down. There we are. It's all right, guys. I'm still wrong. There we go. Good Lord. So, on behalf of the neighbors and the community, we have gathered to contest over this mistake and error for the zoning of this parcel, starting out as a BDP and continuing with the building. The size of the parcel in relation to the square footage of the foundation creates an excessive amount of runoff for the required road grade elevation. It is pretty high. I've got a picture in here for us to look at. And not to mention, this parcel is a .45 acre and under the required half acre variations. And based on that first picture, you guys saw the plot map. There shows a road right away or more or less an agreement for a driveway for the guy in the back. Based on this zoning piece here, this is another little tangent to basically the attention that was given to this parcel before building. Off today's printer, as stated, you can see here, your picture probably does you more justice there. But the guy's gated road is right in line with the property coming out to the roadway, and they're going to share this apron and driveway. So, nothing has been identified as far as any legal matters that would protect the gentleman in the back. So, now, getting into the runoff based on the elevation, there is nowhere for the property to perk. So, because of the drastic runoff to the ditches and the low-lying areas, this parcel will not accept any perk. The absorption to this property is all but new. And you can see here the runoff and the washout has been filled in probably five or six good times. We'll go with the conservative side, say, at least four. But I'm not there every day to verify, but I did take these pictures after a pretty drastic rainstorm we had. So, there's the backside of the property. You can see the road degrade itself. There is no retention. There is nothing. So, this is the neighbors, the gentleman in the back. It's his driveway that this is three weeks after the latest major rain we had. I think it was a six or eight-inch accumulation total. This gentleman, because of all the rain from the summer, was flooded out so badly he was using a UTV, which is a lot taller than an ATV, to get to his own property. He's parking on the road. So, this piece of property didn't perk anymore. So, now it's actually flooding out the whole, and didn't used to do that until this showed up. So, pressing forward, the layout of the parcel foundation is not in character of the surrounding homes that have followed the zoning guidelines for this area, which is one and a half to two and a half acres, depending on the previous zoning, not the .45 that we're looking at right now. Now, the parcel zone identified required, and that is being required, the violation, that violated the binding development plan per the county zoning department before any future structures could be built. So, the identified areas become an impact to every homeowner dealing with flooding because of properties like this, adding to the ditches and canals, versus having enough property to allow good filtration and adequate soil absorption. This perk is what gives us clean, natural water. I mean, that's what we all thrive on. We actually, literally, we'll use an RO system. It's not bad water, a little bit of iron, but for the most part, it's drinkable, very potable right out of the well. So, with that being said, the perk is what gives us clean, natural, filtered water and waste heavy to keep river and salt intrusion away from the well caverns. Previous zoning and engineering knew how critical this land was, and I'm going back to probably the 60s. So, I appreciate your time, but didn't I get 10 minutes on this? Only five? Okay. Well, I appreciate your time, but for the most part, you can kind of see where we're at here, and my time got absorbed by passing out. Is she ready? There's more. She did stuff. That's fine. I appreciate it. Good question. Okay. I was wondering the discrepancy between the property appraiser's form of .45 and the staff report that says .54. That was pulled from today, just to verify nothing had changed. So, Commissioner, we don't use the property appraiser for the acreage. We go by the survey, and he did include a certified survey done by Holley & Associates that certifies the property as .54 acres. Do we know how large the original parcel was? 1.34, I believe. Stating back to 2022 when it was picked up by, and I don't mean to interrupt, but picked up by Minick. It was a large parcel that was broke up and basically hoodwinked the system, moving land around, and this was the resulting end piece of property from that parcel being cut up. And so, I'm wondering what the other property is claiming to be. I think it's currently .84, but if you give me a moment, I'll verify that. And that adds to the, basically, the shenanigans that this contractor, the Minick and White, have done to the northern part of the community for the last 20 years. Never had any issues with flooding until the last five years, but that's fine. We've got a lot more people with a lot better information. I think we've got more cards here. Clifford McKnight. So, Commissioner, I'm going to state this, but with caution. What we have noted as the original parcel being 1.34 acres. However, we don't have a certified survey to, you know, really back that up. So, again, 1.34 is what we think it is, and his parcel, certified survey, .54 acres. All right. My name is Cliff McKnight. First, a little back story. Golden Shores is less than a mile long from end to end. This is primarily a horse country community. We have the North Brevard Horseman's Club at the end of the road, and we have horse trails to the north. All the homes along this road are an acre or more of land, zoned R1 or AU, with the exception of the houses right at US-1. Now, my son, my brother-in-law, my in-laws, my wife, and I all live on this road, and I have spoke with over 50% of the people on this road. There's nobody that I've talked to that is for this. Primary argument has been focused on flooding, and we do have a flooding issue, and the house will create new challenges for the area, and they should be addressed. The bigger picture here is this house is being built illegally. All parties involved need to be held accountable. What we do not need is to change the new BDP, and the last one didn't prevent this from happening. Why should we believe a new BDP will help? Just because it's on fresh ink on a new piece of paper, and when it dries and it gets filed, it'll be forgotten. The precedent will be set, and we'll find ourselves going through this process again. The house is also being built on a lot that is illegally split. It's too small for its current land use of Res. 1, wants to change to Res. 2. Regarding accountability, Scott Minnick, who is a licensed realtor, sold this property. As you can see from the construction plans provided, Scott is also the contractor heavily involved in this build. He's listed as a contractor on the trust layout, trust engineering plans, soil density test, and the energy efficiency code for the building construction. Now, Jacob Fahn, who is listed as the owner-builder, is someone we're supposed to take pity on because he's a victim. And yes, he is a victim, but he is also a pawn in this fiasco. As an owner-builder, one would expect him to answer simple questions about the build. However, at the local planning zoning meeting on November 17th, when asked if he went through a realtor, he said no. The guy that sold it is a realtor. When asked who conducted the survey, I don't know. When asked if Minnick helped him in any way, we will see. I hope so. So it's clear that Minnick is practically building this house for him. In the meeting on December 11th, when asked who stamped the plans, again, he don't know. When asked how many square feet the house is, he states 1,600. It's actually 2,240. It's a significant difference when the discussion revolves around flooding. I would provide the actual meeting minutes, but they have not been published yet. As an owner-builder, especially since he claims to be spending his life savings on this, one would think he would know these answers. As to where his money is going, he is writing the checks, so to speak. That being said, I find it hard to be empathetic in this situation when all parties involved have been misleading and shady in their practices. The county, possibly included, might need an audit to clarify this. As property owners, the county holds us accountable with building codes and regulations. When we violate these codes, there is no forgiveness. The county looks out for the masses, not the individual. They levy fines, place liens on the property until the violations are remedied, including if we build illegally, we tear it down. Now that the county has made another mistake, the answer should not be to cover it up with a variance or make another exception. It should be accountable. These mistakes add up. All these little problems accumulate to create big issues that we, the constituents, must deal with. I urge that you do the right thing, hold all parties accountable, and deny the zoning and future land use for the people you're elected to represent. The county did not let Jacob down. The county let us down. Please do not detract from our community. I have a minute, so a couple things on 0.45 acres. It started off 0.45 acres. The landscape requirement, all that was applied, 0.45 acres. The landscape land clearing, 0.54 acres. The State Department site evaluation system started off 0.45 acres, now 0.55 acres. We got three. We can't even come up to a conclusion on how many acres this is. That is my time. Thank you. May I ask a question? Sure. What were those things that you were holding up? Do we have copies of those? You can have all the copies of it. Here is the landscape cleaning affidavit. And so what you're saying is that there's three different numbers on here. Yeah. You have three numbers on three different. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Mike Bigler. That's a wife. For a minute, he's a realtor and a contractor. And the address is what I'm pointing out. That's where he lives. He's a homeowner builder. My name is Mike Bigler. Thank you for letting me speak. He does a lot of homeowner builder throughout our neighborhood. And he gets things changed. He built a house just down the road for a lovely person that's here tonight. And I just don't know about his homeowner builder stuff and how he gets things passed. Okay. He built the house down the road for me. And he supposedly built it for himself. Well, if you're building a homeowner builder, you have to live there for a year before you can sell it. Well, he wasn't planning on living there, okay, because nobody in their right mind fills up the septic tank with so much grease that the new homeowner has to have it pumped out so they can move in and it ain't even a year old. So there's also other things. This new homeowner, which he refuses to get to it with, this is the shower. How do you work this thing, y'all? This is the shower. It's taped up. That's one shower. Here's another shower. Look at that. You see that where it's circled there? That's where the shelf is for the stone. They caulked it in. And I'm pointing this out for Mr. Fawn, too, because I got some pictures here, because I wouldn't want a house that he builds. That's supposed to be grouted. He caulked it. So there's two brand-new showers that aren't even a year old that they can't even use. Another thing the builder does, this right here is your hood vent. He vented right in the attic, not through the roof. You're supposed to vent that through the roof, some kind of a builder. Then the lovely homeowners take me right up the stairs. I couldn't get up there. It was kind of tough. But I insisted on going in. First thing I see is the nailing. They're not even in. The very first thing I see, this is over on the other side. This is right over on the other side over here. That's just right in that little area. I wonder who that inspector was. So anyways, then for Mr. Fawn, because I know everybody is feeling bad for the kid, but I don't understand is why he don't feel bad for himself. I would be upraged if this was me. He's not showing any emotions because he is a pawn. So here, here are the trusses that he's talking about. Why the heck would you want those trusses, those bananas on your brand new house? They're bananas now. They're shaped in a banana. And like my other partner says, the drainage, okay, the drainage coming out of here, I guarantee you that floor is going to crack. So I don't know what kind of floor system you're going to put in. But it's all undermined. Guess what? You better cover your tracks. That's filled in the dirt after the drainage. Oh, we better get back there and cover that up. So the thing about it is, is everything's wrong about this situation. The permit was wrong. Everything has been wrong. And also, that's the only house on our street that's in front of another house. Every house on our street has the view of the street except for that. Thank you guys very much. And I'm against this, and I hope you all are too. And it has nothing to do with Jacob Fong. Sean Bohannon. Hello. Good evening. Sean Bohannon. I live on 3600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Mims, 32754. I'm going to read you something from someone who wasn't able to be here tonight, who's a resident on Golden Shores, as well as I'm going to give you my own, hopefully, 45-second opinion. Okay? The bottom line is, this should never have been issued. That's just the rules. Okay? Without getting an exception in the first place. Okay? We need to know who or how or what or why that occurred. So that needs to be an audit. It needs to be done by the county because, obviously, the county is the one that issued the permit that is inappropriate. Okay? So that's number one. I am very empathetic for Mr. Fong. If there are any monies, because it's the county's mistake, sure, we can pay them back. But I want a full fiduciary forensic accounting and audit of all these transactions, from who and where and what and how and why. There's just too many things overlapping here, which we have seen on all the records that are available and some that are not available on the property appraiser site and in the state records. Something is wrong. But, finally, so this is from my friend, Stephanie Knight. In regards to the property located at 4060 Golden Shores Boulevard, it is my request that you deny the approval of the rezoning due to the illegal split of the property on a previously issued BDP. There appears to be either a systemic loophole that requires immediate review or correction or significant oversight within the relevant departments, specifically permitting and property appraisal related to property splits, adverse possession claims, and the issuance of permits for properties that should not have been approved. By the way, Seminole County previously issued a permit for a swimming pool constructed in a front yard in direct violation of their requirements. The error resulted in a conflict, and within the past month, a $40,000 settlement has been funded by the taxpayers due to the mistakes within the permitting department. The settlement was issued to avoid potential litigation from the error, an outcome that could occur in this situation. This matter reflects a departmental error that should be acknowledged, corrected, and addressed in the appropriate manner with accountability. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the formal audit be conducted to both the property appraisals office and the permitting department to prevent these issues because it's becoming a habitual occurrence in our area. It is both time-consuming and deeply frustrating to repeatedly raise these concerns at public meetings after the fact, particularly when the preventable errors continue to be approved and overlooked by the departments responsible. These practices must be corrected to restore public confidence and ensure compliance moving forward. Furthermore, I respectfully ask that the consideration be given to supporting Commissioner Katie's votes within her district. She has demonstrated a genuine effort to listen to and advocate for the residents who elected her. It is disheartening to see when voices of other districts are consistently ordered by commissioners that do not represent the other districts, thereby diminishing the will in the constituents and the ones she serves. When an issue does not pertain to her assigned district, she generally votes in alignment with the other commissioners. It would be reasonable to expect the same consideration for District 1. Thank you, Stephanie Knight. Thank you. Thank you. David Lennick. Len, just bear with me. Lennie. Lennie. Lennie? Lennie. Lennie. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, you did. Okay. There you go. Okay. And I am signed up for BoJ 13 and H14, however that works here tonight. Okay. Good evening. My name is David Lennie, and I don't have to talk as fast now since I think I have 10 minutes. My name is David Lennie. i live at 3800 sam's lane in scottsmore florida i've been following the issue regarding the building permit request and then issued at 4060 golden shores and subsequent discovery that the county had erroneously issued a building permit and the owners jacob phone i apologize if i mispronounce your name i'm trying here jacob phones request a rezoning res wonder as to an removal of bdp on the problem now mr phone asserts that he had no knowledge at the time he bought the property from mr minick that there was a binding that there was a bdp on the property it's appropriate to note that mr minick cannot claim ignorance of the bdp since he's the one who agreed to and willingly encumbered the property with the bdp to start with so some predicates to this argument first by the time i get finished i believe we will agree to accept mr fonds assertion that at no time prior to him submitted the invalid building permit for 4060 golden shores was he aware that the property had been and still is encumbered by a legal bdp secondly we'll agree that joseph s minick was fully aware of the bdp on 4060 golden shores boulevard since he was the one who placed it on the property so he was fully aware at the time of sale and has already been noted he has real estate we'll get back to that at the time mr minick sold the property mr jacob phone mr minick failed to disclose this encumbrance in the form of legally binding bdp on the property mr phone being aware i mean unaware of the bdp at the time of his purchase as he asserts then submitted a building permit not knowing it would constitute an invalid application we agree a bdp on the property does constitute an encumberance on the property and the reason that is so as we go for the definition of encumberance and this is from the bar county clerk any lien or liability attached to real property held by someone other than the owner that restricts its use or diminishes its value there is a lien that is attached to this as such in form of bdp and is held by someone other than the owner of the property it's held by brevard county brevard county has the bdp that is registered okay failure to disclosure let's talk about that a bit uh johnson versus davis and this kind of gets back to a commissioner altman's comment to katie i think in the last meeting that caveat emptor no longer applies well to a certain degree it does not and that's because of johnson versus davis 1985 florida supreme court the seller must have knowledge of the encumberance and still fail to reveal it mr minick absolutely had full knowledge on the encumberance again he's the one to place the bdp on the property and he failed to reveal it at the time of sale so mr minick had full knowledge his property was encumbered since he was the one that placed it that constitutes fraudulent conceivance and actually is a civil violation and a misdemeanor and that's just to get started so mr phoned in discussion with you at the last meeting mr phoned replied he had no real estate agent because he bought the property directly from the owner real estate agent i believe was in fact mr minick either he or his son through land shark realtors or it may have been just directly that he purchased it from the owner himself however mr moan did say he has title insurance now i heard the letter i didn't exactly get the content of it but i think it said that this property was not covered uh something to that content by the letter i suspect the reason it is that was what would have been stated is there wasn't a real actual title insurance i'm absolutely confident the fidelity national would have discovered a binding bdp if they'd done a full title search they're an international company uh very well renowned but i think tell you maybe maybe why he didn't get title insurance uh okay just a moment here i said i suggest that was perhaps he did not he was told he did not need it and shouldn't spend money on the title insurance the reason for that is what i just handed out to you if you take a look at the warranty deed of title which i provided you the highlighted areas instrument 10079 slash 2366 as recorded by brevard property appraiser site and as is tested to by joseph s minnick and jelsea chelsea a minnick of 1968 turpentine road if you look at the highlighted paragraphs what you find you find that mr minnick and his wife attested that as the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee and that this said property is free of all encumbrances except taxes occurring subsequent he was fully aware of his encumbered it had bdp he is the one to place it on the property now here becomes another thing from mr phone and really where we're going to get to next uh under florida state statutes 831.02 uttering a false or forged deed with intent to defraud that's punished by christened time fines and restitution i'm going to get to the answer your question sir in the last meeting when you asked how is mr phone to be made whole on this property i too i feel very very badly for him because i too believe he is a victim i believe he is a total innocent innocent victim because i'm going to continue to believe his assertion that he had no knowledge of the bdp at the time he bought the property or at the time that he submitted that building permit so uh yeah so that's kind of going to be in response to your question where did he get his justice but he gets his justice not by the county becoming party to a fraudulent activity by setting aside the existing bdp on the property and allowing mr minnick to complete his fraud in fact mr phone's restitution lies in him seeking for restitution for damages from mr scott minnick who fraudulently represented the property and sold it to him at 4060 golden fours it is not the county's responsibility now we have to go a little bit here on determining who is at fault if it's not the county well first of all five requisites to conduct of fraud first a false statement mr minnick issued a false statement in the form of false warranty deed mr phone arguably would never have purchased the property if you'd known there's a binding bdp on the property second didn't just many kept knowledge that was issuing the false absolutely he was issuing this false property deed no question about that was the intent i think mr minnick intended to do trick or deceive the victim in order to gain advantage and get him to buy the property additionally reliance was a reliance established was the victim mr phone justifiably relied on the false statement and assertions made by mr minnick was there injury absolutely the victim suffered actual damage and the loss point being here part of those five criteria those are the five criteria for fraud those are the five criteria which are fully satisfied to demonstrate an intent of fraud on the part of mr minnick now additional things to discuss and why i say this is not the county's responsibility yes there was a building permit that was issued erroneously but it was not the county's fault the county is not at fault in this in that and we'll go a little you're quasi uh judicial so we'll get a little quasi legal here regarding who is at fault and responsible if not for mr minnick's failure to disclose an encumbrance on the property mr foam would not have purchased the property if not for mr minnick issuing a false warranty deed mr foam would not have submitted a fraudulent building permit if not for mr minnick issuing a false warranty deed the individual building permit application would not have been approved by the county erroneously if not for mr scott minnick's actions we would not be here tonight discussing this if not for minnick scott's for uh mr minnick's actions and mr phone would not be before this commission asking for legally binding bdp just be set aside and asking the property to be rezoned to accommodate mr scott minnick's plan to build on a non-buildable lot and even then the property didn't meet the zoning to flow requirements however the new owner did submit the invalid permit i believe mr minnick this and this is his personal opinion and this is somewhat informed by past involvements with these folks uh i suspect that and again personal opinion mr minnick fully realized it would be a false building permit but he also realized that if it came before the county the county would have sympathy for mr phone as do i however it's not the county's fault that they erroneously issued this permit and it's not the county's responsibility to try to make mr phone full of whole on this his avenue to make him whole lives in back with the lawyer as i believe it was commissioner feltner who asked him did he have a legal representation and if not he should probably consider it okay so none of this would have happened except for mr scott minnick's action to conceal the binding bdp on the property of the indian m2 and mr scott minnick is culpable and responsible for every adverse consequence that mr phone has and his wife has experienced in the efforts to build a home at 4060 golden shores a couple of quick answers the reason they come up with different calculations on the property size is because if you do the calculation based on the warranty deed that is filed with the property appraiser's office you come up with the 0.5 and that's setting aside 25 feet north south east westerly for 145 feet and 195 feet reserved for the observed right of ways that are covering that property so that's where you get that i think what the county is going with is gross not net square footage uh on the plat let's see i'll probably stop there that's good enough so anyway i think the uh the obvious thing that you guys should be doing is now making a motion to deny this this is not the county's fault it's an error that was made because of a gap that exists in the administrative process and procedures of bavari county but it would never have happened if there had not been an erroneous false building permit issued and by the way the warranty deed i think if you look at legal aspects of it you will find that because it is inaccurate and false statements in it that is going to be rendered null and void and it's possible in fact that legally mr phone has never owned the property just a thought but anyway i have to speak to the county attorney about that uh thank you for your time any questions thank you you have any questions okay very thorough appreciate your presentation thank you okay yes just real quick i mean there were doc stamps that's okay that's not a question there were there were doc stamps collected on it so there's been a conveyance on the warranty deed yeah i'm not saying that there's not a convention when it goes to legal consideration if there was a false statement asserting contained within the legally deed that will invalidate the legality of the deed itself i believe but all to be found out not by me but by mr phone's lawyer thank you we have one more card jared atkins jared atkins i think it's cruel to ask me to follow that so i'm going to waive that okay thank you thank you that's all our cards so uh we'll bring it back to the board for discussion yes so um i i looked on and i know that you said that we don't go by the property appraiser but from the number that you had said earlier the 1.34 the property that's um the long piece of property that got that this property got split off from is 0.98 or i'm sorry 0.89 and if you subtract that it's 0.45 again the survey that he submitted which was done by holly and associates states on there that it's 0.54 and that's what we go by are surveys ever wrong it's a certified survey the certifier the surveyor is certifying that the information is correct so um mr laney was talking about uh the driveway and gross versus i forget what the other word was um the way net um so what's the difference there in calculating and do we have policy to determine how that's um i'm going to ask if you don't mind if to answer that question we happen to have some expert on staff in the back there i'm going to ask you to come up if you don't mind paul do you want to come up hello i'm paul bode planner what was your questions though mr delaney would you mind repeating that sure so um when the last speaker was up he was talking about there's two different ways to calculate the size of the lot net or gross and so i'm guessing it has to do with the right of way and the driveway that's going to the flag lot versus um you know i would have to look at the legal description and go through it and calculate it by the legal description and i'm sure that that's what mr holly did so this right here would you mind taking a look at that i think that's the survey looks like he's got it calculated taken out the right of way here and it's calculated by how the corners are set he says it's vacant 0.545 acres so he has the uh right of way taken out on his calculation did we vacate a right away there is a i believe there's a right of way in between right away is but he's taking it out so yeah the right of way is taken out and it shows it's 50 foot right away so in other words commissioner that was not included in the 0.54 calculation no he doesn't include it in here by his survey okay the square looks like it goes around the right of way the dark line on the survey and then there's points right in each corner yeah he he's calculating it by uh the uh by the dotted line no but by the uh lines that are shown where the property corners are set right so but that includes the right of way no it doesn't i'd like to have it on record but there's the dark line do you see where it says 190 and then if you look over to your left there's dashes from that dark line to the dashes is where that paper roadway would be so it's not included in that boundary i've seen the property appraiser be wrong on how much square footage is in a lot i had mine calculated wrong before i had them corrected on mine and it was a platted lot they were saying it was 45 feet wide and it's 65 feet um thank you so much i appreciate that generally whenever you turn in something like that the property appraiser correct uh corrects it by the surveyor yeah only a judge though can tell you where your property is and how big it is okay yeah i i'm i'm surprised i i i have not seen a lot of properties get um their acreage wrong um that's thank you for that input appreciate it and so what i did want to want to also mention is that this uh while the circumstances surrounding this are horrible um you know of course it's this is a horrible situation um but if we allow this new future land use into the area even if we put a bdp on it that says no one else is you know allowed to do this what happens 30 years from now when none of us are sitting here and this happens again the only way to ensure that this doesn't happen is if we deny this request and just like you know we've been doing all night we have to look out for the greater good here of the whole community it's not just you know um one horrible situation this is introducing something that could change the complete outlook of this whole community um flooding is also a major concern uh as we saw in those pictures you know there's there's nowhere for the water to go and um right and well excuse us all that yeah let's so we've had our public input so the if you want to speak fill out a card have you filled out a card he did he waved oh you've already are you waved okay go ahead you can speak um i've been in brevard county my whole life i'm a state certified contractor since 1996 please state your name please i'm a state certified contractor since 1996 what was your name i'm sorry eric paglia longa okay yeah um i've been doing a construction for 40 plus years in brevard county i have owned property in golden shores when my when my son he's my son came to me i told him the first thing you need to do is make sure before he purchased this property make sure that you have approval from the county that you can get a building we've talked about he didn't have a realtor uh he didn't have title insurance he's got title insurance we've got proof of it right here and you've got proof of it now um and it's a true we we talked to title insurance for two weeks on this um so we've talked about how scott minnick is crooked this that has nothing to do with what we're here for we are here to figure out are we going to prove jacob to keep this or not that's what we're here for we're not here to talk about scott minnick whatever happened prior to jacob getting this that's that's some a whole nother ballpark um lord county gave jacob this permit i won't when i when i said when i was in construction the first thing i would do is i wouldn't trust the realtor because the realtor is not responsible if they tell you you can build on it i don't trust anybody else i told jacob i said go to the county make sure that you can build on this property he did that the county said yes you can build it then he actually purchased the property that's not what he said he said he didn't see a realtor i was a realtor my advice to him was make sure the county says yes when the county says yes then you can go get go buy the property because you can legally get a permit and that is exactly what jacob did now jacob is the best kid i've ever seen he's put his life savings into this house he's upstanding i said jacob let's get an attorney jacob said no he said i didn't do anything wrong he said i did everything that i was supposed to do let's go through the process i don't need an attorney okay that's the first thing i said was get an attorney and he said no um and when he did talk to the attorney the attorney says this should be straightened you shouldn't even need me because everything i've seen it should be straightened out they've watched the video they've he called her he watched the video and they said you really don't need me right now and we can use the example that the gentleman brought up about cinnamon county we don't he does not want to go to attorney he doesn't want to get an attorney because who loses when you get attorney everybody the county will lose he will lose because everybody's paying someone's going to be at fault we don't want to do that this is it's it's sad that this has happened but he did everything he could to get this done um let's see another thing is is it's not it's the county's responsibility for this not to happen it's not it's not anybody else's to come up it's not a title company to make this not happen the title company sells property they don't care who's going to build up they don't care what you're going to do with it they're just telling you that it's free and clear and that you have a piece of property and it's yours that's the only thing a title company does and tell you that hey if it's if there's something against it then don't buy it because there's something against it you have a policy and later on if someone comes against it that policy says protects you because there's something against it but that's not what title insurance does title insurance says you own the property free and clear that's it um some of the comments made um a little disheartening because um most of them are not based on fact they're based on feelings um the reason that was filled in because he's trying to protect the house until he figures out what can be done because until you finish a house it's going to erode all over the place everybody knows that unless you have your sod you have your stuff it's going to erode and he was trying to protect the pad from washing out from underneath it and not have further complications with the property um scott is not is not his contractor he he knows scott from the business but he has no relationship with scott doesn't talk to scott is not scott's friend he knows him from construction period so any kind anything that's been said is a lie okay he said 1600 living he said 1600 he meant living he was not lying he was telling you that he said 1600 in the house of 1600 living can i say two more things yes go ahead um so he has no ties to mark no relationship um and he has full title policy so we're here to determine whether we're gonna let jacob proceed or not that's why we're here we're not here to discuss anything else that's it and i thank you for my consideration thank you any questions did you speak are you waved as well i remember you waving anybody else waves your time just okay jared atkins 3000 sunset in scottsmore um i kind of just filled out a card in case uh i came up with something intelligent to say and i hadn't but until the last speaker so um i try to be quick try to be respectful of your time i don't think that uh folks involved with this transaction have been respectful of your time i think that they think you are all a joke i think that they think that you're going to fall for this um the fact that there's no relationship with minic or minic construction to this project uh i would argue that's incorrect um i've got a series of permits in my hand for this address they were pulled by minic construction they were handed to you by two people and and the mortgage on the property is being held by the same individual so that might be something to take into consideration when you're looking at the validity of that argument thank you thank you okay i think that's all our cards um i'll bring it to the board i know there are probably a lot of questions here um i know i have some did you have anything you'd like to say before because are we going to go around again do you want to let everybody have a chance and then do a second round well i haven't even said anything yet okay we haven't even had a question no questions no comments can i ask a technical question just yes are there houses up there in the immediate area that sit on half acre lots i think yes commissioner there are some in the area on the same road over two roads i mean is it within the eyesight of the property i couldn't tell you for sure on eyesight give me a minute i'll pull up the map but um there are multiple parcels in the area of of half around a half an acre okay thank you one of the speakers tonight has point four four um that's going west but most of the smaller lots tend to on golden shores are clustered towards us one there are a number there that are in the half acre range but there is one you know rocks throw distance from this property basically that's uh that's under half an acre okay fair enough how are those how are those um approved it's hard to say um without you know researching it but they could be non-conforming lots of record and i also i see some um a variety of zoning in the area including ru19 um in other words it's not all rr1 it's uh it's a mix of there's a lot of different zoning classifications in the area there's a large mix of different things in the area right but the it's they're non-conforming because the future land use is res one i would expect that to be the case yes i have questions of the applicant if i could ask him to come up just because there was some conflicting information i just want to clear so i can understand now you're built you're the owner builder correct this this is your you're the owner builder correct you purchased it as your dad said you went to the county to ensure that was a buildable lot and they affirmed that you had plans drawn that are required to be drawn under code standard building code those plans were submitted to the county where they did extensive review and they approved those plans right you took those plans you did work and then you called the county and you got the required inspections correct and you passed those inspections correct you did more work you got inspections and you passed the inspections you did everything by the book right and the way you're supposed to do things commend you for that i think we should allow you to to build your dream home and i i've been in construction for nearly well i've been a contractor for nearly 50 years haven't practiced the whole time but and i've been in public office for for 31 years we're taught as contractors to follow the law and to act in reliance and respect the local government that permitting agency and for us to penalize him for doing what was right at great economic expense to him is so fundamentally wrong i think this is one of the biggest wrongs i've ever seen and i i feel like we need to get relief we need to fix this problem now and what will happen a house on a half acre lot that is not going to be detrimental to this community it's not going to be it's not like a a sewer treatment plan or a nuclear power i mean this is just a small i think an honest mistake that the county made and this corrects the mistake but i don't think we should anyway shape or form punished um this individual for following the rules by the way i think we would be violating the law because if he acted in reliance on the county and he has economic damages he he has a right we should correct those damages for our mistake now i think we have an easy fix here that doesn't really harm anyone i i don't think we should shut this off to a courtroom and clog our courts and our laws and calls an incredible expense we should fix it we should move on i appreciate what the people are saying and i do appreciate them wanting to protect protect their their community about seeing pictures you've done a really nice job on that house it's well done no i don't think so i don't think anyone gets penalized i don't think this house hurts anyone and i i just that's my opinion my belief and i so i support granting this request and allowing him to move on i really really do i think it's the right thing to do yes i was wondering if i could just ask morris um from your experience um how at risk is the county for this mistake that we made should we deny this request not not okay thank you what what do you mean by not we're i have no concern about liability related to the issue into the building permit the law is pretty clear that estoppel doesn't apply um he clearly didn't know and understand but you know legally should have been on notice of things like the binding development plan of record that's referenced in the exclusions to his title policy and things like that so i'm not concerned about monetary or fiscal liability i don't think that should drive the board's decision but i think you know all the other points made were well received but i wouldn't say that the county has financial liability legally i will have to say that um you know the one of the last speakers said our decision tonight is whether or not we let the applicant continue on or not and i disagree i think that what our decision tonight is to change the face of this neighborhood or not and that that is what we have to protect and it's you know the the people who made this mistake are no longer working in the county and um our staff has made massive changes in regards to training and whatnot and i i'm pretty confident that this mistake will never happen again because of the changes that have been made um and uh i feel like it is completely unfair for the whole neighborhood and with all due respect commissioner altman the water situation in mims and in this area is just as critical as north merritt island and one house does make a difference so if nobody else has anything to say um i'd like to make a motion to deny i'll second okay there's a motion to deny the request in a second uh any debate i know i've already spoke but i'll debate again i i think the other factor to consider here not only the fact this applicant did everything wrong right and relied on county county's jurisdiction acted in reliance had he been on a one acre lot and built a 4500 square foot home it would be the same impact that's allowed you could build a 6 000 square foot you could have more impervious space on a lot that's one acre in size from a ratio point of view than he has here so we allow we allowed our code the amount of construction to take place it's a relatively modest home and that's why i feel it does not create it does not create some sort of damage to the area i'm going to vote against the motion i um i encourage the board to to show some compassion gracious alive a little bit of compassion you know uh there were county staff that was criticized we had a hurricane coming and they had a house built and he wanted to pour to protect his property they made an executive decision i commend them it shows me that they have a heart big bureaucracy they didn't know they thought it was the right thing have a heart this this is terrible for this couple and family with all due respect the the the idea that this house is owner builder it's just it's unlikely i won't say it's untrue but it's unlikely with the amount of um how much scott minnock's name is all throughout all of this stuff it's unlikely that this is truly owner builder and frankly i think that not only should you go after him for that piece but his his his uh license should be taken away from him from doing this type of fraudulent activity and i think that you should sue him and get every penny back because i think that you would have excuse me i think that you would have a heck of a case and um you know it's not that i don't have compassion it's just that there has been so much damage to north brevard and we can't continue and i'm sorry that this is that you're caught up in all this debate not uh call the question all in favor say aye aye opposed nay nay it fails for three by three two vote okay if i may for debate denial um has has been voted down i think would the next step be to vote to approve you need a competing motion yeah okay sir there is one request i have a question um what what exactly can we do here to ensure that morris to ensure that this can never happen again and i i'm just i'm so disgusted right now with this and i really appreciate you commissioner atkinson um this is i think planning has implemented some measures administratively but significantly i'm pursuing code enforcement actions against minick for the behaviors with the lot splitting now that it's it's come to my attention so we have two cases um that are scheduled for the code enforcement board hearing this month or we're seeking uh pretty substantial damages in code for violations causing irreparable harm which should be enough of a disincentive for the illegal lot splits to continue and then in the future if we're ever out from under the shadow of sb 180 the board could certainly consider adopting a lot split ordinance which would put more scrutiny on the single lot splits you know taking a piece down at a time to try to avoid the subdivision code requirements so i think those are the those are the answers and the way to address the problems and go after the bad actors okay say something in this regard respectfully disagree however understand the problem um and and so um we did morris and i spoke about um statute regarding recording deeds and so how how to stop this um upstream before it gets to the county so i think that's something to look at but that's something that the that would have to be done um with the state now with regards to licensure dbpr right is where where this gentleman has licensure so i mean a complaint can be filed there so i don't know if that's the county or somebody else but there's there's a remedy there i have a question um would would there be any appetite um to try to purchase this and use it as um stormwater retention uh the foundation the trusses i mean this house is is going to be pretty damaged at this point and so i don't know i mean putting up banana trusses and um you know having a foundation i don't i don't think that that is a compassionate thing to set a young family up into either i asked sir is that even something that you would entertain just for the purpose of that question okay it's been this has been eight months since i've been stopped and then now i just restart everything and purchase land then you can't even get a septic permit so now what yeah i'd like to pass the gavel to make a motion is there a motion yes i move that we accept this request is there a second i'm gonna second all in favor all opposed nay if i may motion passes i apologize madam chair um i that motion just to clarify was on h13 that would be the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment if you recall there's also a rezoning um to two items in chronological that was for h3 the comprehensive plan i'd like to make an additional motion to approve the zoning request with the bdp with the binding development plan do i have a second what would the binding development plan say um the the two conditions that were suggested and previously agreed to by mr fawn was one the appellate agrees that this rezoning request companion future land use amendment application was a result of an unlawful split by the predecessor and interest and will stipulate to that fact in any future proceeding regarding that action 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 the 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 what about um wasn't there something about how these two properties we were going to be asking the the owners to participate in however we go forward with minic well as far as this particular application that's what the first condition is have mr fawn should should the county attorney's office believe that it would be of assistance that he would agree to participate and uh you know stipulate to the facts and that's that's all part of this okay yes ma'am do i have a second i'll second that one uh all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed nay motion carries okay uh we've approved your item thank you thank you great okay we think we have one more item did i see that we did that we that's right we did the end okay that that is our agenda we'll go to report mr chair before we start reports may i i apologize but we denied an item earlier the lazy river item i probably should have asked the board in that item if they'd like me to bring back a findings of fact yes i apologize i should have made that in my motion i should have caught it i apologize i'm sorry do we need a motion or a second please i'd like to make a motion for finding a fact thank you okay there's much in favor oh you're streaming go ahead no no okay go ahead i'm sorry all those in favor aye aye all those opposed motion carries okay okay no that's fine um okay we have uh unfinished business none i think we have new business none none uh we have um public comments do we have any public no public comments board reports uh county administrator no yes no report no report uh county attorney no report mr district district district one yes um i i just want to say that i am i'm really uh at a loss with i support you all all the time in your zoning um i i go along with 99 of what goes on in this board even things that i deeply disagree with like the parking garage and this affects none of you it affects none of you but it affects the people that i represent the the 40 000 people that voted for me have been disenfranchised tonight and i i've never seen anything like it on this board ever and i hope that that changes i hope that that you all can understand while you may not like what i have to say or or or what i bring to the table but d1 does and that's why they elected me and that's why i'm sitting here and i'm here to represent them and their voices should be respected in addition to that i just wanted to bring forward that i'm going to be uh bringing forward a uh another agenda item for our board meeting next week um to discuss uh some of the different things that were going on that were brought to us at the budget workshop um having to do with the different funding sources and the um stormwater fee and and uh possibly the connection fee so i just wanted to let you guys know that okay uh district two none uh district three none district four feldner district five okay i'll short a couple of comments um one i will not ask any commissioner to vote in my favor if they feel it violates their principles i respect each and every commissioner and i respect you to stand by your principles first of all make that clear i appreciate any deference that you may give and consideration but i'm not asking for your um unconditional support no ex post facto what that secondly we are one county commission that's why we're called bevard county commissioners very very honored to have such a job we represent the entire county we do not represent enclaves or districts fiefdoms whatever we are one single commission and we can only act in conjunction and i trust the wisdom of the five members so um i just just been wanting to say that and i feel very strongly about it um i'm glad you said that i'm voting against you as long as you think it's the right thing to do i respect that thank you if you're standing by your principles thank you for saying it welcome and thank you for the board and uh tough meeting but a good meeting and um meetings adjourned the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of brevard county florida space coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of county commissioners of brevard county florida space coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period cruz for florida league of cities is an opponent wishes to speak you're recognized thank you mr chairman and good morning committee members david cruz of the florida league of cities i want to preface my comments by thanking the sponsor and the stakeholders for the ongoing dialogue and for the willingness to engage with us as we try to work through concerns on this bill for the benefit of the committee i just want to highlight two of the main concerns that we are hopeful we can work out with everybody on this bill as it moves through the process our first concern relates to the fact that under current law pre-application reviews are optional