Commissioners acts as a quasi-judicial body when it hears requests for rezoning and conditional use permits. Applicants must provide competent, substantial evidence establishing facts or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the zoning code and comprehensive plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts or provide expert testimony whether they like or dislike a request is not competent evidence. The board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and the existing rules in the zoning ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area. The board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands. If a commissioner has had communications regarding a rezoning or conditional use permit request before the board, the commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place before the board takes action on the request. Likewise, if a commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the commissioner must disclose that fact before the board takes action on the request. Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless time is extended by majority vote of the board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak. Okay, thank you. We'll start with a prayer. Like, I will give the prayer so we don't have a minister here today. So, um, Heavenly Father, we first thank you for giving us the wonderful honor and privilege to live in such a wonderful community, to live in such a wonderful state and country. We ask for your guidance so that we can make the decisions that meet your will and glory to preserve this wonderful, wonderful creation that you have. We thank you for our constituents and those who have engaged in this process and our staff that works so diligently for the good of Brevard County. We pray this in your name. Amen. Okay, uh, Commissioner Feltner will lead us in the pledge. Please join me in the pledge. Okay, I'd like to efficiently call the meeting to order and, uh, Representative Feltner has a motion. Uh, sir, I'll make a motion for Commissioner Goodson to participate by phone. Motion. I'll second that. Motion and second for Representative Goodson to participate by phone. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay, uh, first item on the agenda is F, consent agenda. Um, this entire consent agenda will be passed by one motion to include everything under Section F. And there's one thing under Section F, F1, a resolution setting forth the findings and conclusion of the Bovardi County Commission. Um, I know the staff will have a comment on this. We do have one card for input. Uh, this is a findings of fact for, um, for the denial of a request for a change of zoning classification from AU with a BSP to RU 215 and RU 230 with removal of BSP on property owned by Merit Bitco SPV LLC. Okay. Is there, um, any discussion on this item? A motion? Did you have a card? I thought you said a card. Oh, yes, we do. We do have a card. Thank you. Um, uh, Richard Heffelfinger. Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. Um, I thought there would be cake. Anybody else think there would be cake? Um, what I wanted to say is I hope you all, consent means you already said you're going to go, right? Nobody pulled the card. So you're going to agree to this finding a fact, right? So this means that that thing that we're going to do on Merritt Island is tape. Well, it's not tabled. It's you've denied their, their zoning. So it's not going to happen that that's true, right? Am I looking at the wrong one? I don't know. Well, we're not in the question and answer. We want to hear your answer. Okay. I mean, I, I'm here on Merritt Island. You guys did a finding a fact. And I think Morris is the one who did that. And you said, Hey, I think one of the big reasons you're going to say no is that they were going to flood SR3, which is a state road, but still the comp plan or whatever says you can consider that. And the finding of fact says that was true. And I think the reason that it's a consent agenda and the finding of fact founded is because of these people back here, y'all did good. And I think it sets a great precedent that when people have these, if they don't speak up, they could have gotten railroaded, whoever it was. I mean, there was a couple of people that were the lead on that. And I wanted to just go on the record saying, we need to do this more. If you, if you want to try to control your neighborhoods. So I wanted to thank everybody. I think a lot of them are sitting back here and just go on record to say that. And that's all, I'm not going to waste any more of your time except to thank the, and everybody needs to get involved. Thank you. No waste of time. Thank you. Okay. Let's now bring this item toward the board. I'll make a motion to approve the consent. I'll second. Okay. So motion and second on the resolution setting forth the findings and conclusions on the consent item. I just want to thank staff. They did a very thorough job and presented a very complete and conclusive set of findings in our packet they delivered to us. And any other discussion? Yes, sir. Okay. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Okay. Uh, there's a, a four, uh, three, one vote with commissioner Goodson voting against. I believe he said yay. Did you say yay or nay? I'm sorry. Yeah. Commissioner Goodson, what did you say? Yay. Yay. Okay. Yay. So, um, 4-0 unanimous in support of the findings effect by the staff. Okay. We do have our, at the beginning of every, um, meeting, how many? Just one. Okay. At the beginning of every meeting, we do have a period of time we allow for public comment. And we have one public comment card. Chasey, Chelsea, Chelsea, true. Did I get that right? No. Well, correct me. Your first name is Chelsea. Okay. Yeah. I thought the L was an I. That's why I said Chasey. That's fair. Because then I realized it's an L, Chelsea. True. I got that part right. All right. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chelsea true and I'm a Merritt Island resident. I'm here tonight regarding agenda item 26 Z zero zero zero two nine, the appeal of the planning and zoning managers, April 22nd interpretation regarding Merritt Bidco's live local act proposal scheduled to be before the board on July 21st. I want my position to be part of the public record. I respectfully ask the board to uphold the planning and zoning official interpretation after reviewing both the appeal and staff report. I believe this case comes down to one simple question. What is the property zoned today? The county code answers that question. Section 62-1334 states that AU zoning classification is intended for agricultural pursuits and spacious single family residential development. It is not designated as a commercial or mixed use zoning district. The applicant asks the board to look beyond the zoning classification itself and instead focus on individual conditional or commercial type uses that may have existed within the district. But if the existence of a few conditional uses were enough to redefine an entire zoning district, then many agricultural and residential districts across Brevard County could potentially be treated as commercial. I do not believe that is what the legislature has intended. A conditional use permit allows a specific use under certain circumstances. It does not rezone a property or transform agricultural residential zoning into commercial zoning. For this specific property, the historical cup for a clinic and hospital should not be used to redefine the current zoning classification of the property. The question before the board is not whether the past use was once approved, but whether this property is currently located in an area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use under the requirements of the Live Local Act. The legislature created specific eligibility requirements for Live Local projects. Supporting affordable housing does not require expanding those requirements beyond what was written. The county can support affordable housing while also maintaining the integrity of its adopted zoning framework. It's recently amended the Live Local Act to clarify that farms and farm operations are not commercial uses for proposal of the act, which further supports staff's interpretation. The staff report states zoning classifications are defined by their overall purpose and character rather than by the existence of individual uses within the classification. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the board to uphold staff's interpretation and apply both the county code and the Live Local Act according to their plain language. So that was the first path. But I also have a question, if I may. The question is for the county attorney's office. Several weeks ago, I requested clarification regarding the lobbying provisions in the county's contract with Mr. Steve Christofoli and how those provisions are interpreted and enforced and have yet to receive a response. Does the county interpret the contract as prohibiting lobbying activities on behalf of private clients before Brevard County during the term of the agreement? And if so, who is in charge of determining compliance? Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your question. I would like for you to give us both in writing, especially the question, so the county attorney can evaluate that in detail. Okay. And if there's any additional information that he or we need for a response, that gives us time to do so. We've responded to any records request and we'll continue to do so. With regard to the comments made about an item that's going to be on your next agenda, I have to advise the board, not to consider those. Ms. True, you're going to have to submit those in writing before. That's going to be noticed. It's a quasi-judicial item. You have to make those comments. If you're going to make them verbally, you have to do it at the proper meeting or you have to submit them in writing so they're part of the record. What you said tonight is not and cannot be made part of the record for that. The other party isn't here. They don't have a fair opportunity to address them. This is sort of argument by ambush, just so you understand that this isn't the appropriate forum for that. I understand that it's not on the agenda. The only reason I did bring it up is I just got a notice today and I won't be in town, so I figured if I do an email as well. Submit them in writing and it'll be part of the record. Okay, great. Good. Okay, thank you. Both of those in writing would be helpful. Okay, thank you. What I'd like to do is bring a couple items up because there's a lot of people here, I know, for H5 and H6. And due to something that's taken place, we're not allowed to hear those or we would not be able to hear and deliberate and vote on these items. So, to respect of those who have been here, who are here now, so they're not seeing through a long meeting, I'd like the staff to kind of fill them in what's happened and what posture we now are in. So, Mr. Chair, and for folks in the audience, if you're here for item H5, which was Defender Homes Airway Heights LLC requesting a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from Res 4 to Res 6, and the companion item, Defender Homes requesting a zoning classification change from RR1 to RU26, that was what was applied for. That was what was advertised. As of yesterday, those requests have been formally supplanted by a request for a rezoning only to zoning RU111. That application is going to have to be reviewed by staff. Staff will do an analysis of it and prepare written comments. That will come back to the Planning and Zoning Board at the August 17th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, and to the Board of County Commissioner's meeting on September 3. But because the request tonight is not one that was properly advertised and isn't before the Board, there's no action the Board can take on those items tonight. So, thank you for coming out. Sorry that it's short notice, but again, the formal application was just received yesterday supplanting what was submitted previously. So, those dates, August 17th, PNZ, and September 3, Board of County Commissioners, that September 3 will be at the same time and place. So, it would put us in a bad posture if we heard an item that really wasn't properly reviewed. We're not allowed to do that. I want to thank everyone for being here. And I know we're not taking action on this tonight, but I do want to disclose I met with a group of homeowners from the Turtle Mountain Lake Washington area, as well as I met with the representative for the applicant as well just today. So, we will not be hearing either one of these, but looking forward to seeing you at the hearing, the next hearings that we do. August 17th, Planning and Zoning in this room at 3 p.m. on August 17th. It's still at 3 p.m. Sorry, it's been a while since I got into PNZ. Couldn't remember if it was 2 or 3. And then September 3 at 5 p.m. right here. I'm glad you asked that question. We have an issue with the September 3 meeting. We may not have a quorum. And I know that we've talked to the county administrator about that. All right. So, we will keep you informed of dates, certainly by the Planning and Zoning meeting on August 17th. We'll know more information about when the board will hear it. But I'm understanding now that there may not be a September 3 board meeting, which would push this to the board meeting in October. But we'll have more information for you as that approaches. So, just stay tuned. I apologize, but I'm in mediation all day on August 17th. I won't be able to attend on August 17th. So, you're going to request a different Planning and Zoning meeting date, September Planning and Zoning. All right. Well, forget what I said about the dates. It looks like we'll probably be on a September Planning and Zoning and October Board of County Commissioners meeting schedule. But, folks, if I may, those will be advertised. There will be courtesy notices like the ones prior to this meeting. The site will have a sign on it. And I'm sure through your neighborhood you'll stay informed. But it sounds like we're much more likely to be September Planning and Zoning and October Board of County Commissioners meeting for the new application. We have a problem on the September 3rd meeting anyway. I just want to say we have a very strict set of guidelines and rules that are set forth in state law as well as in case law. So, we want to make sure that when we make a decision, it meets all those criteria that's in the best interest of the public and the applicant. So, those items. Do we need a formal action at the table or withdrawal? There's no board action required tonight because you could not take action on the application that was advertised and is on your agenda. So, no action of the board required this evening. Thank you for your diligence and understanding. Everyone, time to exit before we proceed. I just freed up some room for you. Thank you, guys. Have a nice day. Tonight's my follow-up birthday. The other item is item H3, Sunshine State Wildlife Conservation. I'd request that we continue that particular hearing. It's a project zoning in the south part of the county. It's a relatively intense use. It's in a very, very rural area. It's something I would like to have a little more time to review and meet with the applicant and some of the effective parties. I don't know if we have a card or not. Cards on H3. Is the applicant here for H3? Yeah, Ralph Brown, Lincoln. What I'm asking is that we table this or continue this to the next meeting. And that date would be August 6th. No, that's P-10. And we're not sure. August 6th. September 3rd or September 10th? Yeah, Thursday, August 6th would be the next Board of County Commissioner zoning meeting if you want to table it to the Thursday, August 6th. You've got to continue. It's not. Well, maybe we should follow the agenda. You're number three anyway. So let's. H1, Turtle Mountain Ventures. Okay, I'm going to read H1 and H2 in together as their companions. H1, Turtle Mountain Ventures, LLC, Kim Rezenka representing are requesting small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 26-S01 to change the future land use designation from public. Res 1 and Res 2 directive to community commercial with 26-SS-00001 in District 2 and Turtle Mountain Ventures, LLC requesting a zoning change from GML Institutional to TR1 and TR1 to RV Park 26-Z-00007. Good evening, Chairman, members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Rezenka with Lacey Rezenka here on behalf of Turtle Mountain, LLC, Turtle Mountain Ventures, LLC, regarding the change of future land use and to rezoning. You all have in your packet an overall map of the area. I just have a larger version for you that might be useful as we go through this. This is property that was owned by the school board, and it has now been sold to my client quite a bit ago. It's got future land use and zoning that really is not appropriate for anything that a private party would do. You could have a waste facility there, but again, it has to be a government entity or a related entity. This is on State Road 3. It's approximately five miles north of State Road 528, and we are seeking community commercial and a rezoning to recreational vehicle park. As you can see, this is at the end of the commercial corridor. If you go further north, you do have a church right next door, but then you do have the borrow pit, spacewalk groves, and then you have Blue Origin going further south. Going south, that vacant lot that's been cleared, that was to be a Dollar General store. So this is part of the commercial corridor or part of the commercial corridor study of Merritt Island back from 2006. What I provided to the PNZ board, it's in your packet. I think it's—the packet was so large, I apologize. And so it was hard to find exactly. And page 1317, that is the future land use map. I did provide that at PNZ just to show you the commercial corridor, the future land use, the NCNCC, leading all the way up to this public future land use map. Should you agree to change this community commercial, it has to be changed to something. My client can't use it for anything. There's a change of circumstances here because it was surplused by the school board, and it can't be used for anything. So if it were to be changed, the commercial corridor would continue to the north on the west side of State Road 3. On the back side of what I submitted to PNZ was the zoning map. It's just a larger version of what is in your packet, and it does show the BU1 and BU2 leading up to this property. So this is a continuation of the commercial corridor on State Road 3. The change to community commercial future land use is required to allow the development of the RV park that's sought by my client. My client has developed one of these RV parks in the state of Washington. There's photographs in your packet of what that RV park looks like. This is intended to be a luxury RV park to support the tourist industry. It would be a tourist-driven type amenity in the area. It would also be subject to tourist tax of 5%, which could also be useful to the area. This is required to change the future land use to do an RV park. It could be a residential designation. He would like to do up to 10 units to the acre. However, we do not believe that, and we're willing to cap that at 7 units to the acre or 6 if you think that's more appropriate. And so that's what they think. They can get about 180 units on this site with the appropriate buffers. So I'm looking at my map that I have. I have this big yellow thing, but on yours, it looks different. It's just because I couldn't – I didn't do the map properly. If you do – what they have in your packet is correct. Okay. All right. So it is. It's 28 acres. It's just when I printed it on the map from the property prison website, it did not show at all. Okay. It just looked like the red box was different. It is. It's too small. Got it. Okay. That's from your packet. That's the zoning map that exists. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. The RV park is a commercial use. It's not a residential use. It allows recreational vehicles, tents, park trailers, and cabin use. There's no intent to do tents or cabin use. The maximum intensity of the park is 10 sites per acre. Minimum site size is 2,000 square feet. The code also requires 10% to be used for common use area for recreational activities. He intends to have a park and a clubhouse. He'll have a small general store and a washer and dryer area for the park. The accessory uses allowed are laundry, playgrounds, picnic areas, swimming pools, ball and game courts, and the manager's residence. He will also have a tennis court or pickleball court. It will be a high-end luxury RV. It will have a clubhouse, as I said, play courts and laundry facilities. At least 2.85 acres will be dedicated to recreational area. My client has said this will be like a Hilton. It will be a higher-end. It will cost more. And you'll have, you know, half a million to a million dollar RVs that will come to that site. This will have sewer at this site as well. The county code limits the length of occupancy to no more than 180 consecutive days. RV parks are not considered a permanent residence. The comprehensive plan definition of recreational vehicle park activities intended to serve the needs of tourists and seasonal residents and provide lodging for visitors with recreational vehicles, travel trailers, and camping equipment as well as supportive activities such as laundries, bathing facility, and recreational areas. Activities located in community commercial land use designations. As I said, this will be used by visitors to the Space Coast, launches space tourism. Per the county staff report, this property is in a transitional area. It's not residential. You mostly have old trailer park mobile home manufactured homes to the north of this area. There are no identified concurrency issues. North Courtney Parkway will operate at 47.67% of the maximum average vehicle daily utilization. It will not generate school children as the park is a commercial use. The staff report, as I said, states it's traditional, and there's commercial activity in this area. The coastal high hazard, floodplain, and stormwater will be addressed at site plan stage. This is merely zoning. Also, two, I wanted to reference the comp plan policy 2.8 that does say recreational vehicles shall be located in areas which serve the needs of tourists and seasonal visitors to provide county. The location of RV parks shall have access to interstate exchanges via arterial and principal collector transportation corridors. The property shall be located on a major multi-county transportation corridor. So, we do meet that criteria as to where we are located. With that, the need for the change is because nothing can be done with this property, and my client has a use for it that fits in with the needs of the community with space tourism. If there's conditions such as buffering, access, there are two median cuts already on North Courtney. There's no intent to come off North Tropical Trail. So, if there are conditions to impose, that would be reasonable. But we would ask that you approve the future land use to community commercial and that the RV park be approved specifically up to a number of units. Ten is what has been requested, but we would go to seven or six. But that needs to be part of the order. The order of the motion, if you do agree, to approve a recreational vehicle park, it has to state up to a number according to the addendum to the staff report. So, with that, I also have Jake Wise with CEG, the engineer of record. He can answer any questions. There's been no topo. There's been no elevations. This is just a rezoning and comp plan change to allow use that would be very, very well utilized in this area. Any questions? Do you have any more? Yes. I do have another question. How long will each RV be able to stay? They can stay up to 180 days, but that's not the intent. These are going to be high ends. They're going to come for a week or two. They're going to go watch a launch. They're going to go to different areas. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think I also need to announce that I did meet with the applicants representative prior to the meeting. Commissioner Goodson? Yeah. I need to discuss what I had at the session this morning with Kim Rezanker regarding this item. Okay. Okay. Good. I just have the same. Thank you. We do have cards. I give them to you. This is each one and two. Which one? We're looking for the cards. They're there. Oh, they're there. Mixed in the paperwork. Okay. First item card is Mr. Blesser. Bless B-R-H-N. Busson. Pardon me? Busson. Oh, that's Busson. Oh, I know that name. Brian. Hi, Brian. Members of the board, apologize for my writing. That's okay. My name is Brian. Apologize for my reading. My name is Brian Busson. I am here as a representative of the Dominic Trust, which is 165 acres, about 300 feet away from this property. The trust would like to say that they do not like this zoning. The family just spent four years working very diligently with the county, getting a set of plans approved for 164 lots on 165 acres. Those lots, half acre minimum, but as you can see from the numbers, only one unit per acre was allowed. This property is immediately to the west on North Tropical Trail, and it just doesn't seem that this is compatible zoning in this area. Okay. Any questions? Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Jake Wise? Questions. I'm here for questions, if you have any questions. Okay. Jack Kirshenbaum. Good evening. My name is Jack Kirshenbaum. When Ron DeMena passed away, this property went from his ownership into a family trust. My brother Malcolm and I and Ron's widow are the trustees of the trust. As Mr. Buston said, the family and I have been working for almost five years on developing the 160 acres that Mr. Buston mentioned, just 300 feet to the west of this property. We have planned, we've designed, we've permitted, we've met with staff, we've met with staff. We've, this is a terribly, terribly difficult area to plan and design for. We all know what the flooding is like up there. Our project is designed to assist and change the demographics and the hydrology of that area. It is a difficult area to plan. There's an old song you might remember, must have been the right place, must have been the wrong time. This is the wrong place and the wrong time for this type of project. It could be a great project, but this isn't the place for it. It's just not compatible. There's no binding development plan. There's no binding site plan. It seems a little, it could be 10 acres, but we might agree to six. This is the type of project that needs a little bit more discipline to it, a little bit more planning to it. And as I said, it could be the right project, just not this time at this particular place. And we're very happy to answer any questions that you might have. But we literally have been working with staff for five years on transportation, on traffic, on utilities, on drainage. And we have a pretty good sense of what this property, this whole area needs. And we would strongly object to this rezoning and this plan. Happy to answer any questions if you have them. Okay. Do we have any questions? Oh, I do have one question. What did the Planning and Zoning Board recommend with regards to this plan? I think they recommended denial. And I'd like someone to say that. But thank you. Mr. Chair, the Planning and Zoning Board heard the request and voted 10 to 1 to recommend denial on April 20th. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Rose, I'll let you do the last name here. Plummer. Plummer. Plummer. Hello again. My name is Rose Plummer. I am here representing the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, PO Box 54-2372, Merritt Island. Based on our review and even our previous objection that has not changed, that we would speak in opposition to the requested small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. I'm going to basically repeat what I said before. I believe the Planning and Zoning recommended denial. The North Merritt Island Special District recommended denial. And so, we're hoping that we will stand in agreement on that once again. There are already numerous RV parks in Bavard County. This North Courtney Parkway, I believe, it is not designated as a major multi-county transportation corridor. I don't believe the applicant has submitted enough information to justify changing the land use designation. And approving this amendment would open up the door for further land use changes down the road that are not in this community's long-term interest. And any amendment must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And for these reasons, we respectfully recommend you deny this request. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, those are all our cards. The applicant, have any questions or comments that we have? Thank you. Again, Kim Rzenka on behalf of the applicant. I do have one question after you complete. Okay. First, I would like to state that North Merritt Island Homeowners Association does have a policy that they will not support anything more than one unit to the acre. And most of their members are also on the North River Arts Dependent Special District Board, so they would never support it either. I do want to again point out, only Ms. Plummer, I believe, objected to the change of the comp plan. And I did not hear Mr. Buston or Mr. Kirshenbaum object to the comp plan. We have a public comp plan we can't do anything with. This is not in the small area study of North Merritt Island. It was never a residential one, at least not to my knowledge. And it was intended to be a school. So it is continuing the commercial quarter, so we would indeed request that this be amended to community commercial. It is on a state road, a four-lane highway. It is certainly a major highway. Regarding zoning, property discussed by Mr. Buston and Mr. Kirshenbaum is zoned EU2. It's this big property. I always do this backwards. It's this big property right here. It's zoned EU2. And further, our measurement shows 600 feet. But regardless, it's separated by Magruder Road. And we have no intention to put any access onto Magruder Road, so all commercial activities would be on the commercial corridor. Regarding the, and I will submit this to the record, and it's in the public records of Brevard County, the subdivision discussed is called Outback Reserve Subdivision. This subdivision construction plans were approved on February 9th of 2024. It expired December of 2026. To my knowledge, I have not moved forward with this development for whatever reason. Sewer might have been one of them. But I do want to show this to you because it does access, they're worried about what it looks like. That's what's been expressed in the past. They're worried about what an RVP park will look like to the people buying here. And so they are coming in, there's a road next to this development, and next to that is all trailer parks. In fact, this is what you see when you first come in there. I'm sorry, manufactured homes. So this is the first house you see coming into the subdivision from the east. Coming down further, there's that. Coming down a little further, Mr. Clay's property with a value of $31,000. So the view doesn't matter when this is what they're seeing. Their people will be coming off North Tropical Trail. The RV park will be coming off Courtney. There's been no evidence other than we don't like it, we don't want it, we don't think it's correct. In fact, this property has been vacant for a very long time. Before it was owned by the school board, it was owned by Frank Sullivan, Mr. Altman's father-in-law. It's been vacant a long time. It can't be used with the zoning and future land use it has. There's no site plan required. There's no engineering studies required. This is merely zoning. If you want to put conditions of no access on Magruder, we've already agreed to that. We don't intend to do that. We won't do that. Trailers aren't big enough. The RVs would be too big to get on the road. It's a very small road. So what we are agreeing to is to limit the number of units per acre to six or seven. We'd prefer seven just for flexibility. But again, we believe only 180 units can go on there. So we would ask that the future land use be amended, community commercial, and that the community, this character of this area is indeed a commercial corridor. This is a good use for this property. It's a commercial use, and it'll support space tourism. So with that, we can answer any questions. Katie, I do have a question. This RV park, are you limiting the type of vehicles, RV parks, campers that would be parked in this? They're going to be fifth wheels and buses. So trailers and then what is called traditional? I call them buses, RVs. RVs or motorhomes. Motorhomes. I call them motorhomes. So you will have fifth wheels and motorhomes. Yes, sir. It's intended to be a true RV park. People come for a week or two. You might have a few seasonal, but it's intended to be a high-end luxury. It's not going to be down the road at KSC for $40 or Moose Lodge for $40 a night. So your total number of RV spots, you anticipate to be what? 180, which is about 5.7 per acre. 5.7 per acre. So if the rezoning is approved, there needs to be a number in there according to the addendum to the staff report, and I confirmed that with Mr. Prasad today. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Okay, those are our cards, all of our questions. Morris, did you have something you wanted to add? I would say, and Attorney Rezanka noted the staff addendum. I do want to note that pursuant to our code, and particularly Section 62-1255, Establishment of Zoning Classifications in Consistency with Comprehensive Plan, we've heard characterization of the RVP zoning classification as commercial. That's a characterization. What our code actually says is that residential uses include single-family, detached, single-family, attached, multiple-family, recreational vehicle park, and mobile home developments. Now, recreational vehicle park, along with certain other residential uses, are permitted in community commercial, but they are subject to Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.10, as noted in the addendum. In this property, it's significant because you have a substantial portion of this property that's located in the coastal high hazard area. And pursuant to policy 2.10, residential development, which would include RVP in community commercial, is strictly limited to the density of the closest residentially designated area on the future land use map on the same side of the street. So in this case, if you consider approving the request to both the future land use amendment and the zoning amendment, you will need to make a statement that, first of all, in the coastal high hazard area, the portion of the property there, it's going to be limited to one unit per acre because it's not eligible for a density increase. The upland portion generally can be considered under Policy 2.10 as consistent with Res. 2, which is two units per acre based on the applicable bonus. It is eligible for an additional increase in density if the board so decides. It could reach a maximum potential density in that upland portion of 10 RV spaces per acre. But the board is going to, as Ms. Rozenka stated, the board would have to make a decision to that. So it's not just granting the land use and the zoning. You would also have to say to what extent you're going to grant a bonus, if any, on the upland portion. And I respectfully would assert that we don't know for sure the coastal high hazard area or the flood zone because those are old maps, and that is a site plan issue. We don't want to be limited. If you want to limit it to uplands, that's fine. Those uplands have not yet been determined. But, again, limiting it to 5.7 units per acre, 6 units per acre, the staff is going to do their job and not let us build in the coastal high hazard area. So I'd ask that not be done at the zoning stage. Well, we will just say to what extent it's determined to be in the coastal high hazard area. The density cannot exceed one unit per acre. And that's obviously acceptable. That makes sense. Okay. All right. Those are all our cards. Any questions, comments, or actions on behalf of the board? All right. Chair? Yes? I'd like to make a motion to deny and direct staff to do a timing of fact. Okay. There's a motion for denial and directing staff to prepare a finding of fact. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. There's a motion and a second for denial. Can I clarify what's that for? Is that the comp plan? Good question. Which one would that be for? Let me see. We typically take up the comprehensive plan amendment first, and that's first in order on the agenda. So, Commissioner Goodson, I assume that motion is applicable to the request for a future land use map amendment. All right. Fine. I'll second that. Okay. It's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay. Yay. Opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Item is complete. Now we have H2. H2. Do you need a separate motion? We'll need a separate motion on H2. A separate motion, but I would advise the board that you can't consider approving it given that it would be inconsistent with the future land use maps if you didn't approve that such amendment. Also, as a point of order, is there a finding of facts necessary for a comp plan amendment? Will you be doing that? Typically, no. It's only for the rezoning. Okay. But without the land use map amendment. Okay. So H2 is moot. Well, I think the board should still make a motion, but I'd admonish the board that the motion should be consistent with your prior action. Commissioner Goodson, sir? If I'd like a motion, no. I don't think we got that. Can you say it one more time, sir? Yes, I'd like to make a motion, sir. I can direct staff to do it. I'll leave it up. Okay. I will second a motion to deny on H2. It's a motion to deny, but I'm consistent with the motion and action on H1. And there's a second. Any debate? Discussion? All in favor, say yay. Yay. Nay. Nay. Carriers and animals. Okay. That moves us to H3. Item H3, Sunshine State Wildlife Conservation LLC and Bernard Egan and Company. Ralph Brown representing. Request a conditional use permit for land alteration in AU zone and GU zone. 25 zoning action 25Z00061 in District 5. Okay. We have two cards. Ralph Brown is our first card. The applicant. Yes, my name is Ralph Brown. I work for Blue Goose Survey and Design, and we are the applicant for the Sunshine State Mine. I wanted to clarify that this is the third phase of the mine that we're in for. So we've already permitted about 540 acres of the mine with the county and with the water management district, and the mine's been in operation for about six years. So when you look at the CUP application number, you see that the project is 723 acres. That's a combination of all three phases together. The only new thing we're in for is phase three, which is more like 187 acres. So the mine's been in operation for six years. It's located off of Babcock Street, just north of the C-54 Canal. All access is off of Babcock through the driveway that was permitted back in phase one. So there's no new connections to roads. We're utilizing the existing infrastructure that was permitted six years ago. Also, the density, I mean, we're proposing three new mining cells, which total about 78 acres, but the project acreage is 186 acres. So we're really using about 40% of the property for actual construction of mining cells, and the rest is preserved with trees or wetlands. So I just think there was an impression that this was a new mine that maybe was 723 acres. I just wanted to clarify that really it's the third phase of a mine that's been going on for six years. Okay. Our next card, Ed Lackanar. Lackanell. Ed Lackanell. Lackanell. Is he here? He is not here. Okay. All right. I do have some questions, and you had mentioned that 40% of the property will be excavated. In the third phase, yes. In the third phase. And the rest of the property will be preserved trees and preservation of wetlands. Does that mean you have no intentions of developing the rest of the property, or would it be preserved? It may be developed in the future, but we have no wetland impacts, and we have quite a few trees on the property. All the stockpile of materials can be back in the previous phases that were already constructed, but no, I'm not committing to there won't be any future development. So you're not making any representations of what density that may be. Do you have public potable water at this site? No. And no sewer. For the other, I noticed that this is in very close proximity to the Sebastian Island State Preserve and Goodwins. It's across. Yeah. On the other side of Babcock, on the east side of Babcock, is the buffer preserve property? Yes. Has there been any comments from St. John's River Water Management District or the DEP on this? Maybe that's a staff question. Have they reviewed the impacts of the mining expansion to the north? I'm going to ask staff from Natural Resources to come up. Okay. Just to clarify, we do have our permits already from the Water Management District. They've already issued the permits for Phase 3, Phase 2, and Phase 1. They've issued those? Yes. The question is, have they received their St. John's permit? The answer is yes. I mean, any review or comments on behalf? I mean, they have permits, so I guess maybe one of the questions I have, I know Goodwins Preserve as well is a waterfowl, very, very critical and strategic waterfowl area, and in the excavation and the depth, and I see you have sidewall profiles of the, has any consideration been to support those or have a waterfowl, or is it strictly a very deep hole, 40-foot depth, which would be very limited in terms of waterfowl, but any of the littoral zones, has there been any effort to support some of the needs down there? Well, we do have five-to-one slopes on the, on the mine reclamation plan, so you'll end up with vegetated slopes, some wetland vegetation on the slopes. Will you be planning wetland vegetation in those slopes? That's not a, not required at this time. We haven't proposed that. Okay. But we are preserving about 10 wetland areas, which would, you know, provide habitat. The five-to-one slopes, is that to the waterline? Is that also below the waterline? It goes below the waterline. And how far from the waterline does that go? How far does it reach into the lake? Just a second, I have that. It goes five-foot below the waterline. So you have a normal water level, and then the five-to-one slope goes five-foot vertically down from that waterline. So it's five-to-one from the waterline, so? So five-to-one from the top all the way down, five-foot below what we expect to be the water level in the lake. How far from the shore is that five-to-one slope? So that would be at a five-to-one slope that's going out, let me see what the elevations were again, hang on, one, ten, it's almost 50 foot. 50 feet from shoreline? That's good. I noticed that the depth, the water depth of these lakes is going to be 40 feet. That's incredibly deep for Florida. But I assume that was approved by the water management district. And has the county environmental, are the other lakes that deep? I mean, some areas. It's a pretty standard depth. I mean, you know, the purpose of our mine is to mine general fill that's used for house pads and then also to mine rock, which goes down to 40 feet. The rock's used for road base, for roads, also for aggregates, you know, like 57 stone and all that. There's a mine to the north of us. There's two mines to the north of us that are also 40 feet or deeper. The mines that get beach sand actually go down to 80, 90, 100 foot deep. So 40 is a pretty standard depth for mines. At that depth, is it your intention to use these for stormwater retention? Are you able to use them for stormwater retention? They could be used for stormwater retention in the future. Because I know there's been discussion about when you have a lake that deep and you use surface water to flow into the, those lakes, you have a potential of contaminating the aquifer below. And I was just curious, but of course you would have to get St. John's and I assume county permitting for that. Yeah, if we developed in the future, we would. For stormwater? Yes. It would have to go through county review. And water management district, I think. Absolutely. Yeah, the water management district recently changed their rules. So a wet stormwater pond by itself cannot be used to meet their criteria. So if you were going to permit this in the future, you'd have to have basically a treatment pond upstream that then discharged into the wet pond. And the wet pond could be used for your flood storage, but probably would not be used for the water quality part of it. Okay, that's good. Any endangered species on the site? No, we had a CARA CARA survey, and of course we had a wetland study that was done by a consultant and nothing was found. I noticed, I'm very familiar with the area. It's an amazing area. I'm familiar with also North Indian River County. Used to represent that area. I know the community. And I know 25% of your trucks go south. Have you had any complaints from Indian River County residents for the increased trucking in a relatively rural area, Felsmere? Yeah, they go through Felsmere. Yeah. A lot more traffic to the north. Right. There's a lot more developed in Brevard County than there is in Indian River County, so. But you haven't had any problems with complaints? I know I've spoken to some of the folks there about that. It's intense, but you've done a good job here in your permit application. I've reviewed quite in detail. Thank you. I'd love to have an opportunity to go out and look at it physically. I've driven by there numerous times, but I'd love to have an opportunity to see it firsthand. I know that material is very important. Okay. Any other questions? Then I'd recommend approval. I'll second that. I motion to move for approval. There's a second. Any discussion? All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries and ask me. Thank you. Thank you for your diligence. Call me if you'd like to. Okay. I will definitely do that. Okay. Okay. We will now move to H4. Item H4, Underwoods Equipment Repair, LLC. Kim Rzenka representing. Request a zoning classification change from BU2 with a BDP to BU2 with removal of the BDP. 26-Z-00006. Good evening, Chairman. Members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Rzenka. I'm here on behalf of Underwoods Equipment Rental, LLC. With me is the owner of the property, Jimmy Underwood. This is on North Merritt Island, north of East Crisofoli Road. That's from your packet, just to show the area. Also in your packet is the zoning map. This is BU2. It's a commercial area, commercial corridor, BU2 on this property nearby, and BU2 along the other side, obviously, commercial corridor. This area along North Courtney Parkway does have commercial uses. I provided a packet to you, starting at page 1605. It shows the Ramsey's Automotive, which is right here. It's a service repair. Then you have further commercial uses. You have Black Salon Spring on the other side. You have Mr. Tall that just has a lot of storage stuff in his yard. So this is a commercial area, at least on the commercial road. Underwood, and Mr. Underwood would like to move his mobile commercial repair business to this site. He's going to places and repairing them on mobile. And also, because he has extra land, he'd like to do outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles. This is, again, other than there is two residential properties to the north, but this would require buffering. There's a 50-foot buffer of two flag stems between this property and the residential property to the east. There's going to be a Class A buffer for this. There's going to be an opaque fence required by your code, and it's going to have regular hours. It's not going to be loud. It's not going to be noisy. You have performance standards that will keep all the lights coming inside so it won't bleed onto the residential property. The North Meriton Special Dependent District Board recommended approval so long as we replace it with a BDP. Planning and zoning recommended approval so long as we replace it with a BDP, limiting it to BU-1 uses plus the use of commercial and recreational storage and repair of commercial vehicles. The zoning history is somewhat unusual. This started out as light industrial in 1962. It went to BU-1 administratively in 1973. A BU-2 was granted in 1997 with a BDP limited to many warehouses and to BU-1 uses. This was removed in 2015 as to the many warehouses. This property is never developed, ever, for whatever reasons. The property is not developed. When Jimmy Underwood purchased this in 2024, this didn't even show up in his title work. And if you look at it, it's because the legal description attached to the BDP doesn't reference this property. So we're asking that this be removed. Willing to put another BDP. I've provided language to Mr. Richardson and to Mr. Prasad, basically, that the use of the property shall be limited to parking, locating, and storing of all types of vehicles. That's from your county code. That's why that language sounds stilted, including but not limited to recreational equipment, recreational vehicles, and commercial vehicles, and heavy equipment, and to commercial and heavy equipment repair services, as well as all BU-1 uses. So we would ask that you approve the removal of the BDP and the imposition of a new BDP with that limitation. Okay, great. Any questions? Okay, Rose Plummer. Hello. Rose Plummer, North Merritt Island Homeowners Association. Given the language that Ms. Rezenka has identified for a new BDP with the BU-1 uses, we would not be in objection to that. Okay, great. Thank you. James Underwood? Just here to answer questions. Just here to answer questions. That's right. You're happy to get it. Okay, those are all our cards. What's the desire of the board? We have a motion to accept the new BDP as long as they come back and it's the same and everybody agrees to them. I'll second that. There's a second. A motion to second. Any debate? All in favor of saying yay? Yay. Opposed nay? Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we withdrew H-5 and H-4. So, H-7, Gunner-Downs. Item H-7, Gunner-Downs, genitendo representing, request the zoning classification change from GU to AU with zoning action 26C-00009 in District 1. Okay. By the way, I will be acknowledging and disclosing that I did meet with Rosenko on the last zoning item, too. That would be a part of my disclosure. Okay, go ahead. Oh, yeah, Gunner-Downs doing the zoning change over there from, what is it, general use to agricultural. We have some agricultural pursuits I'm trying to go after. So, any questions you got? Okay, any questions? Do we have any more cards? Yes, we do. Richard, no questions. Richard Heffelfinger? Oh, sorry. Don't run in favor, dude. Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, since this is District 1. The PNZ Citizens Group, I guess, no, Planning and Zoning, what do we call them? Planning and Zoning Board. Yeah, Planning and Zoning Board. They approved this unanimously, so I would like to request that you do that as well. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Allison Sturrizz, help me, Allison. Sturrizzi? Good afternoon, or good evening. My name is Allison Sperrazza, but the Italian way is Sperrazza. Sperrazza? Sperrazza. But anyway, we'll go Sperrazza or Allison. Okay, not like Sperrazza. No problem. I just had a basic question, because I noticed this on several items, and this is the first one coming up. And I'm just curious why the county is committing staff resources and evaluating rezoning applications for property owners who have passed due taxes by one or two years, and is that an efficient use of our resources for people who aren't paying taxes that we're looking at rezoning? So that was just my question. It was a question I think I was going to ask on the Turbo Mountain, but I noticed there were several. This is the first one of several after this as well. So this is a question I was just curious on why we're doing it. I know there's very strict constitutional standards and state law on how we address property taxes, but that's a legal question. Perhaps I should, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to defer to our county attorney. We are limited to certain narrow considerations in determining applications for land use development permits, including rezoning requests, and the status of currency on payments of property tax is not one of those considerations. I would advise the board that as a matter of law, the board can't consider in determining whether or not to grant a rezoning request whether property taxes are paid on the property or not, although I understand why. Yeah, because we're using our, we use the taxes for the infrastructure to actually have these types of meetings, and if you're not paying the tax, then how are you taking advantage of this? I certainly understand the point, but we do have an underlawed limited number of criteria that we can consider, and that's not one of them. We're not arguing the validity of your point of view. It's why we have to follow laws, and I know standards by which the legislature and the courts have inflicted on all property taxes are very strict in keeping everyone in their silos, and that's definitely not our silo. So now you might want to talk to your state rep about that, but that would not be something we would have anything to do. I wish you'd take my calls. If I may also add that all of the applications tonight have paid application fees for, yes, sir, they pay an application fee. Like I said, with the Turtle Mountain, they're at over $15,000 past due. I know this applicant is only, it's like $700,000, I think, when I looked it up. But again, so how long can you be delinquent on property taxes? I guess they eventually just get sold off and people can buy it based on the tax record. Three years, and then there'll be a tax deed sale. So like our Turtle Mountain folks here, it can go one more year and not paying taxes. Okay. Got it. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. Kim? Billy, if this is approved, this actually fixes a non-conforming lot situation. Is that correct? That's correct. The current lot is undersized, and this would bring it into a zoning class that is consistent with the size. Okay, thank you. I'd like to make a motion to approve the change from GU to AU. There's a motion for approval. I'll second. I'll second. Any discussion, debate? Hearing none, all in favor say yay. Yay. Opposed? Opposed, nay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay, H8. I'm going to read H8 and H9 together. They're companions. Joshua Law and H8, Joshua Law and Jennifer Law request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use from agriculture to residential 1 to 2.5 with 26 SS00004. And H9 is Joshua Law and Jennifer Law request a zoning classification change from GU to AU with zoning action 26Z00013. All in district 1. Joshua and Jennifer Law, first card, and I think we have an addition there. That's Evelyn. Evelyn. Evelyn. Okay, good. Two additions. Two additions. Go ahead. I've never done this before. So, Joshua Law. Jennifer Law. We're just changing it to agricultural so we can long-term plan, build a house there, 10-year plan. But we want to be able to put our animals there, be able to fence it, get power put there. And we talked, worked with the county five years ago, and the man I talked to said, let's do this. He proposed this action so we could get power there without having a site plan and having to re-permit and get a temp pole and re-permit. And he said, you only get three years for that. So, we're moving forward with that, and we've also acquired more land around it to make it five acres. But it's not there yet. We're still about an acre short. Okay. Okay, great. Any questions? All right. We have a couple cards. We'll go to those. Actually, Richard Heffelfinger. Okay, one's on eight and one's on nine. Okay. We're hearing eight, right? Well, they're companions. We're hearing them as a companion piece. And usually, we only grant one bite at the apple for related items. So, all your comments and the time allotted, Mr. Heffelfinger. We go toward both. So, we're addressing both now? Yes. Well, they were addressed together when the planning board did it, too. Okay. My only concern is, again, I'm here about D1, Richard Heffelfinger, D1, 2000 Juniper Drive. We've got an empty seat over there, so I thought I would come up here and speak. Because one of our D1 reps, I don't believe, voted for this because she had some concerns. And since I have some time, I will just read them into the record. She stated that there were wetlands impact. And she had the report. And they said, yes, according to the code enforcement officer in this report that I have, yes, there was wetlands impact. And she said, according to the maps, all but the teeny-tiniest little corner is either considered international inventory wetlands of St. John's River. And GU is one home per five acres, if I'm correct. And that is the restriction when you're building within a wetland. So, rezoning to a 1.25 to build a home where the map shows all wetlands doesn't exactly allow to build a home either. She continued with saying her biggest concern is that she was familiar with the area. And down the road, not that far, the road and bridge routinely go out and fix where the entire road blows out due to drainage. So, if we start compromising the one per five acre in a wetland to 1.25, all those folks that live downstream, which I believe would be Administrative Policy 7 that applies to this, would be suffering due to the excess. By the time you develop all these lots out, everybody just next door is going to be underwater. And their roads aren't going to be drivable. This is my concern. She went on to say, I'm talking about the rezoning in general because it's asking to go to 1.25, and if we allow a home on half of the acres that's required, or we rezone it, giving the application the idea that he could build a home on 2.5 acres of wetland, that is not buildable because you must have five. This has nothing to do with the code case. I'm asking about policy. There was a discussion earlier about code. She continued with, I feel that might be valuable information to have because if we just unanimously vote to rezone this property, it still doesn't mean that this guy is going to get what he wants, and he pays money to come up for us. I just feel like this is valuable information so someone can plan their future. And that's up to you all to make that decision. And then another one of the board members inquired if he had put it back together, because I think he's played some zoning changes in combining acreage. I'm not sure. Then somebody stated that Roots Point, when it's that many wetland typically, the restriction is different. It's not rez. 1.25. It's one per five acres. So that is policy. My point is, this is a little confusing, and District 1 had some valid reasons for saying they don't think this is a good idea. It says precedent. And I would like to, based on what I read here, and we have a D1 representative on the board for a reason, I would like to recommend that you do not do that. But I can continue to read this in. But I think you guys all read this. You don't answer questions now. But if you read this, you know there's a D1 concern, and I don't have D1 right there. So I think D1 would vote no, and I would encourage you, since this is a D1 issue, to vote no. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Those are all our cards. Now it comes before the board. Any questions, discussions, a motion? Make a motion to approve. There's a motion to approve. A second. A second. Any debate? All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Do we need to have a second? On 9? Yes. Okay. We need a separate motion. I'll make a motion. I'm sorry. That was on H8. That was on H8. All right. I'll make a motion to approve on H9. Motion and second on H9. Any debate? All in favor, say yay. Yay. Opposed? Opposed, nay. Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay. H10. Okay. Item H10, the Prima Construction Corporation and Daniel Carson, Kim Rozenka representing, requests a zoning classification change from RU-113 and RU-210 to RU-215 with Zoning Action 26Z-00014 in District 5. Good evening, Chairman Altman, members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Rozenka. And we met earlier. I want to disclose that before. Okay. I'm here on behalf of DePrima Construction and Daniel Carson. This is a rezoning request for all RU-215 in a residential 15 zoning. The intent is to combine the two properties, tear down the house that's on the RU-111, RU-113, to tear that house down, combine the properties, build a condominium or townhome development, and sell them to single-family, a single-family fee simple. So this is all in residential 15. This is a multifamily area. There are some that are rented. There are some that are not rented. This is in your packet. This is on 1.14 acres. Again, this future land use has been there since 1998 for Res. 15. It's consistent with the uses that are around it. It's consistent with the sizes that are around it. And also with me are two representatives of DePrima Construction, Evan McLuhan and DeMar Hahn, who's the vice president of DePrima Construction, if you have any specific questions as to their intended use and intended building. Thank you. Know the area well. Been by the site. I would recommend approvals. I'll make a motion for approval. Motion and second. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Nay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now, item H-11. H-11 was tabled. Oh, that was tabled. Okay. We are done. No, we've got H-12. We got, yes. We're done with the zoning. Item H-12, approve ordinance amending Chapter 62, Brevard County Code of Ordinances, Land Development Regulations, specifically amending Section 62-1102, Definitions and Rules of Construction, and 62-305, Reasonable Accommodation Standards and Procedures, as well as creating a new section of Brevard County Code, Section 62-305.1, entitled Certified Recovery Residences. Okay. Do we have any cards? I don't, we did. We had one card, yes. Richard Heffelfinger. Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, just wanted to put it into the record that the motion to recommend denial of H-11 was made at the Planning and Zoning Committee, and it was seconded, and the motion was unanimously denied. That's all I'd like to say about that. This was H-12. Okay. All right. Any discussion? I'm going to vote against this today, and I'll tell you why. I've not had positive experience with these types of things. There's been concerns by nearby neighbors, and I've gone through quite a lot to put down those concerns or address them or have law enforcement come and speak, not just on this, but other types of situations like this. So, I won't be voting for it today. Thank you. Okay. I'll say a few things. This is the result of a state law change that we are bound to follow by state law. Ironically, under our present code, it really doesn't make a difference because we don't disallow these type of facilities anyway. These facilities would have greater oversight than a home that may have a recovering person or an addict. I should say an addict that is not seeking recovery or supervision or meeting certain criterias. So, I feel comfortable with it, and I will support it. And I'll make that motion. I'll second it. Okay. There's a motion to second. Any debate? All those in favor, signify by saying yay. Yay. Yay. No. Opposed? Opposed. Name. Passes 3-1 with Commissioner Fulton voting against. Okay. Now, I think we're done. We go to unfinished business. Okay. Unfinished business, we have none. New business, none. Public comments. We do have the public comment. Do we have any? I don't have any public comment. No public comment cards. So, we'll go to board reports. County manager. Good evening, board. Earlier this evening, you all mentioned that there may be a potential quorum issue for the September 3rd meeting. If the board so chose, we could probably move that meeting to September 10th. If you all want to give us that direction, we'll be happy to make those amendments to our schedules and get those advertisements out for those applications that would be coming for you. So, that would be the Thursday, September 10th meeting, which would be a planning and zoning meeting, much like the meeting we're having tonight. and moving that to September 10th, which would be the following Thursday. That would help me. I appreciate the board considering that. That date's fine for me. It's fine for me. Do we need a motion? Yes. Yes, that would be best, sir, yeah. Because then what does the calendar change out afterwards? All right. Do you want me to make a motion that we're going to move our planning and zoning board meeting to September 10th? Yes. From the 3rd to September 10th? Yes, sir. Okay. I'll second that. To motion and second to move our planning and zoning board meeting, which was scheduled or is scheduled for September 3rd to September 10th? Otherwise, nothing further, sir. Okay. All in favor of motion, say yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Is there anything else under county manager? No, sir. Okay. Thank you. County attorney? I have no report, Mr. Chair. District 1. We have none there. I have no report. I'm sorry. I had no report. District 3. Yes. Sorry. That's okay. So the homestead property tax referendum that's going to be on the November ballot, I've been out in the community. I keep hearing people saying, what if, I wonder what, what is, what is the real deal, asking me how it's going to affect the county. And I'm just wondering how the board might feel about directing staff to, to give us some actual facts about how it's going to affect our physical goings-on for the next, you know, years. I mean, it's, I just would like to have some facts by people who know what they're doing so when I go out in the community, I can talk sensibly. I don't exactly know what it is you guys could put together, to be fair, but I need to know more than I do. I think it's an excellent idea, and I'll take it a step further. I think we should hear from our constitutional officers and maybe our city officials. I met with a former city manager just this morning, and some of the things that are going to, the cities are proposing are pretty, pretty serious. Like, some are even looking at consolidating services, and, which may not be bad. Some want to, to, they want to subcontract with the sheriff and do away with their police department. But, yeah, the impact is just immense, and I think having our constitutional officers, our sheriff, our, in our cities. That might take a little time to get together, but, but at least I think we owe it to the public. I think, I'm wondering, too, Jim, is there anything else that, because is there, you know more about the impacts this is going to have. You know more about what I need to know, so when I go out in the community, again, I can give them the facts. What we can do is put it, put together a few pages of a memo, a little bit to show, I have some numbers here, you know, the property appraiser's been really good to work with, gave us some numbers, just for example, two, when this takes effect, and if it takes effect in 2029, we would face about a $54 million reduction in our general fund at Valorum. So we can give you some numbers on how they affect the MSTUs, give you an idea of what could be a core service, what's not a core service, a couple things like that we can move around. I mean, I can't, and I've seen a presentation from Melbourne, I read a little bit last night about Palm Bay, and I can't tell you exactly what the cities are doing, but I can tell you what the effects would be on the reduced property tax revenue, we can talk a little bit about rollback, and then we can talk about what funds can fund what. I mean, you know, we won't get down to the service level, but it gives you some ideas of the fiscal impact. And I think, go ahead, this is your item, I think it's yours. I was just going to say, I was at Republican Women's Club down in Palm Bay, and they started asking me questions, and to be honest, if Dana Blickley hadn't been there, I, I mean, she was very helpful, so, yeah. And I think also, not just the dollar amounts, but actual services that would have to be cut and what choices. Yeah. For example, people have to pay a pretty hefty fee if they call an ambulance. I was just having conversations with constituent, and I, I potentially, there'll be people who make a very life-changing decision to not even call an ambulance, because those fees could go up, or I've even talked to, I mean, you know, they could affect decisions for response. I mean, this, this is pretty. Commissioners, I will tell you, it just, I mean, first of all, you know, ambulances out of general fund, the rough numbers we got from the property appraisers, the fire rescue MST would go down by about $6 million. I mean, so we, we're not at the point where we can give you service level impacts, but we can tell you what service would be impacted. Okay. They give you some ideas there. All right. And, Mr. Chair, if I can add, we're, we're probably going to add a little bit of that information into the budget message next week when you give it, the budget's going to focus on this coming year, but we'll have some information there. And, and like I gave you guys a heads up, Florida Today has asked some questions, so I'm expecting an article to come out, you know, about what some of the impacts would be, too. So, you'll be seeing that coming out. Is this conversation good enough, or do we have to do anything more formal, or? Do we need to take action? No, no, it's, I just asking, I got the direction that you would like to see a report back on what, you know, what the impacts could, financial impacts could be, and what the service impacts could be. It's a great idea, and I think one of the things we want to prevent is something like this passing, and then constituents saying, well, why didn't we know this was going to happen? We want to be sure they have as much information so they know what they're voting for. May I? Yes. Mr. Chair, I, there's, there's a point, though, that you get to where you, you can't campaign against the referendum. Exactly. And I'm always very mindful of that, and so I don't know at what point you start expending resources, and so I just caution, I've said this many times on this board, issues that have come before the voters, and so I think having facts that you have, you're talking with people out there in the community, I think that's great. I think producing something and starting to expend money on it, now you're, you're getting into something different. If you've already done it. I would just urge, I just urge that caution, that's all. We will be keenly aware of where those boundaries are. We've already had discussions about them, and there's been guidance from our office and from other sources that we're looking to, and we'll stick to the parameters of factual information, provided we're not going to be doing any electioneering or campaigning. Okay, that's good. I think, information, that's what we're looking for, information. Yeah, we're allowed to answer questions, so that's what I'm hearing from you. Maybe the questions are, what are the fiscal impacts, what could be some of the service, so that's what we'll be providing. We'll stick to the facts. Okay, and I think also would be other revenue options. I mean, I've had people say, oh, this could be really hard on the counties, cities, but they have other revenue options. Is that true or is that not true? And what would those be? Those are just simply content, not advocating for anything, but what are the facts, what are the issues, what information we can get out there? Well, can I ask a technical question from the legislature's perspective? During the special for the implementing language, can the legislature consider, at that time, other revenue possibilities for municipal governments? I think so, yeah, absolutely. I mean, they could do a lot of things. Absolutely, they have that ability. I was an intern in the legislature, and they increased the sales tax by a penny and shared, wow, are things different then. They went up a penny, and they gave half of it to the local governments. I don't know if that's going to happen again, but yes, they have that ability. And as a matter of fact, the House, when I was a member under Marco Rubio, we passed a bill getting rid of getting rid of all property taxes. And I got a little humor when they had a headline, historic, this is historic, never been done. No, it was done not long ago, completely did away with property taxes. But it was 100% replaced with another revenue source. And so they have that ability through the implementing, that's something that we could definitely include as we educate people what options are. Anyway, sorry, I didn't want to walk on your... No, absolutely. It's a discussion. Okay. Do you have anything else? No, that's it. Okay. All right. District 4. No, I don't have anything beyond that, sir. District 5. I have one thing, and maybe kind of adds on that. But I would like, I think, and if the board concurs, we should have our lobbyist, lobby firm, give a report to the board as far of our successes and failures and unmet needs as a result of the legislative session. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I apologize. I do have that, actually, we just got it yesterday or day before, so I'll get that forwarded to you guys. I haven't made it through all my emails yet. Okay. But I saw it in the email stack, yep. A report from Steve Christofoli on the state. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Well, I think we're done. Thank you for your diligence.