Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on 2026-10-01 5:00 PM - Zoning - Oct 01, 2026

Educational television and video. Be septic smart. Inspect it. Every septic system needs regular inspections to make sure all components are in working order. Catch a small problem before it gets big. Let's be clear. Protect your investment and save our lagoon. Learn more at lagoonloyal.org. 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. I'd like to recognize Robbie Adago, Teen Missions International. Let's pray. Lord, we come with thanksgiving tonight. We thank you, Lord, that we live in the great state of Florida and, Lord, that we reside in Brevard County, Lord. And we ask that Brevard County would be a leader in a state that's already a leader in the nation, Lord. We pray, Lord, that you would help us to steward our natural resources, the economic growth that we see, Lord, the population growth that we see, Lord. We ask, Lord, that the elected officials here tonight, Lord, would not weary in well-doing, Lord, but that you would give them an anointing, give them strength, Lord, that you would give them clarity to move forward on the data and facts that is presented, Lord. And we pray, Lord, that clarity would give courage, Lord, courage to take steps, Lord, that would move this county forward in the way that you would have it to. Lord, we thank you, Lord, that we are blessed people, Lord, that we have a place to sleep and food on the table. We give you glory and honor that we have law and order still in this society, and we thank you for the police officers that are represented here tonight. We give you the glory and honor, Lord, in the mighty name of Jesus. Amen. Amen. Thank you so much. I'd like a motion to recognize, to approve Commissioner Goodson's ability. I'll make the motion, sir. Okay. I'll second. It's a motion and second to allow Commissioner Goodson to appear telephonically at the meeting. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Carries unanimous. Thank you so much. Okay. Commissioner Richard will lead us in the pledge. The flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Commissioner Pitchard. And we will move to item H1. Good evening. Item H1 is being continued until the date of November 5th. Do we need a motion? We don't need a motion. Okay, good. So H1 will be continued to what date? November 5th. November 6th. Okay. Next item, H2. Item H2 is Cyrus Properties LLC being represented by David Basford. Request a change from BU2. with a BDP to BU2 with an amendment to an existing BDP under application 26Z-00011 located in District 4. And staff and the applicant is requesting at this time that this item be tabled until December 10th. Okay. Motion will be in order to table until December 10th. I'll make a motion to table it to the December 10th meeting. I'll second. Motion and second. Those in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Codes unanimously. Thank you. H3. And just for the record, that's December 10th at 5 o'clock in this room. Okay. Okay, H3. Item H3 is Christopher and Jennifer Profeta of the Profeta Family Trust requests a CUP for a private boat dock adjacent to a single-family residence under application 25Z-00052 located in District 3. This request also comes with a waiver to Section 62-1943.3, which states that the boat dock must be within the same platted subdivision or within 1,000 feet of the dock parcel. He is technically in the next subdivision, and so he is requesting a waiver to that. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I'll second. Motion and second. Again, all in favor say yay. Yay. Codes unanimously. Thank you. H4. Item H4 is Cyrus MHP LLC. This item is being represented by Kim Rizinka. Request a zoning classification change from TR1 and TR3 to all TR3 under application 25Z-00025 located in District 1. Okay. Do we have any cards? Kim? This is for H4-2. Mr. Chair, if I may? Yes. I would just like to say for the record that I did meet with Ms. Rizinka today for about 40 minutes on items H4 through H7. Okay. So the record, we have to, just for those who are here, we're required to publicly acknowledge when we meet with anyone related to a zoning prior to the zoning. Good evening, Chairman, Members of County Commission. My name is Kim Rizinka with Lacey Rizinka here on behalf of Cypress Strand Mobile Home Park. I'm with me, Cypress Mobile Home Park LLC. With me is Sam Smith, the owner representative of the mobile home park, and Landon Scheer, the professional engineer and engineer of record. What I have on the screen is in your packet. That shows the existing mobile home park, and to the north is the five and a half acres that technically is being rezoned from TR1 to TR3. That's the request. The existing mobile home park is TR3. Hasn't been in existence since 1965. It was a non-conforming mobile home park. Through the Board of Adjustments, we obtained 11 variances to make it a conforming mobile home park to allow us to come forward with this rezoning. The intent is to create more affordable housing opportunities. This is a combination of people that own their own homes and rent a lot or people that rent the homes and the lot. The rental of the lot is about $600 a month, so it is affordable. The goal is to add 33 new homes to the north. This is accessed off of Frankie Lane, which is a 1964 easement. It looks like a public road. It's 50 foot in width. It's got a green sign. It makes it look like it is indeed a public road. The current density of the nine-acre park is 97 units, about 10.77 units to acre. The TR3 allows for 4,000 square foot home sites. The additional 33 sites on 5.5 acres will be an addition of six units to the acre. The operating hours are those of single-family homes. There's nothing adjacent to the east or the north. Per the staff report, the traffic impacts will increase by 1.48%, but the corridor of Friday Road is anticipated to operate at 9.98%, so there are no traffic impacts. The staff report also advises there's no material violations of any relevant policies of the comprehensive plan. The current zoning of TR1 allows for 7,500 square foot lots. Again, the goal is to add this to make it one large site. In your packet, you have the diagram that's been used for the variants and for this rezoning. It's on page 127 of your packet. It shows the existing mobile home park. The red squares were encroaching lots. Those have been removed, and so the entire nine-acre site is indeed conforming. The addition is in the colored section. The green is the existing. The green square in the existing site is all of the rec that they have, the recreational area. So the addition of this 5.5 acres will increase the recreational area, will increase the stormwater capacity, and will preserve a wetland. So it will add 33 new home sites. Some will be single-wide. Some will be double-wide. All will be three-bedroom, two-bath. Again, giving more opportunities for affordable home. The mobile home park management held a barbecue picnic on September 3rd for all the residents to see what they thought about this expansion. No one had any real concerns. In fact, they were excited about the roads being improved, which they will be, the possibility of a dog park, possibility of a more recreational area. The mobile home park, if this is approved, we still have to go through site plan to make sure that complies with all the site plan code. Also, Department of Health regulates all manufactured homes, so they also will have a process that has to be approved to expand this mobile home park. We are requesting the rezoning, technically, of 5.5 acres to TR3. Staff has written it as we're requesting it all for the 14.5 acres to TR3 from TR1. And with that, we are here to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Do we have any questions? There's no other cards, correct, sir? Just the applicant for that request. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to approve, and if you would help me, you want this with the requested action of the board's recommendations, correct? Yes, Commissioner. So the requested action would include setting a residential density equivalent to rez 15. Okay. That is my motion. I'll second. Sorry. Okay, motion. Motion, second. Any discussion, debate? All in favor, say yay. Yay. Opposed. Opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Move on to H6. Item H5 and H6 are companion applications. Mr. and Mrs. Togala, being represented by Kim Rizinka, are requesting a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under 26S.08 to change the future land use designation from Res. 4 to CC under application 26SS00008 located in District 1. And item H6 is Mr. and Mrs. Togala, being represented by Kim Rizinka, are requesting a zoning classification change from GU to BU2 under application 26Z-00032 located in District 1. Thank you. Good evening again. Chairman Altman, members of the County Commission, my name is Kim Rizinka with Lacey Rizinka in Melbourne, Florida. I'm here on behalf of the Trogolas to request a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning amendment. The comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment is for 2.3 acres. Currently, it has a residential for future land use and it has a holding zone category of GU for zoning. That is the location map. Here's the closer vision. It's two parcels. Looks like it's in the middle of nowhere, but it's really next to property that's being site planned for sunbelt rentals, outside equipment rentals for personal and for businesses. The comprehensive plan amendment is asking to take the res 4 to community commercial. So where the red is, it would extend it to the two blocks to the right there and that would, again, be community commercial. It is next to that hatched mark which has been annexed and future land use for industrial in the city of Coco. Should you approve this, the community commercial would look like that. It would abut up to industrial in the county, in the city, excuse me. The rezoning is to take the general use zoning to the BU1, correct? Yes. BU2. BU2, sorry. To BU2 would be consistent with what is to the west and it would be adjacent to M2 zoning in the city for manufacturing and light industrial. The rezoning ordinance from the city of Coco is in your packet. This is also in your packet at page 169. This is the site plan that's under review. Currently, site plan 25SP00041 for Sunbelt Rentals. And Sunbelt Rentals provides tools and equipment for construction sites, government maintenance of healthcare facilities, services, and backyard projects. So I think most people are familiar with Sunbelt Rentals or similar. This does not show that it looks like there's a gap between this site plan and the property that we're considering. That is still part of the Sunbelt Rentals site. It's actually going to be some stormwater. Once this is purchased, all of these parcels will be joined together into one unity of title. So these two parcels will have access from Grissom. Also, too, there are indeed easements on the north side of this property that could be used as necessary, but the intent is to combine it to Sunbelt Rentals for future expansion. The staff did not seem to have any problems with this. Again, no relevant policies of the comp plan are impacted. It is consistent with the surrounding area and I would ask for the approval of the amendment of the comprehensive plan to CC and the rezoning to BU2. No cars. I'd like to make a motion to approve item H5, changing the future land from Res. 4 to community commercial. I'll second. Motion of 5 on H5. Do we need a separate motion on H6? That would be separate. Okay. All in favor of the motion say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Sir, I'd like to make a motion on item H6, changing from GU to BU2. All second. Motion and second on H6. All in favor say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We will move to H7. Item H7 is Defender Homes Airway Heights, LLC, being represented by Kim Wazenka. Request a zoning classification change from RR1 to RU111 with a BDP under application 26Z-00034 located in District 5. Did you fill out a card? I'm going to hand them out for you. I'd be glad to. Okay. Good evening again, Chairman Altman, members of County Commission, Kim Wazenka here on behalf of Defender Homes Airway Heights, LLC, located on Turtle Mound Road. It is a 14.37-acre parcel that we are seeking to rezone from RR1 to RU111 to allow clustering of 7,500-square-foot homes or larger. Before you is the aerial that's from your package. Also from your package, it shows the wetlands that we are trying to work around not to impact it. We're not allowed to impact it more than 1.8 percent by Brevard County standards and St. John's is not fond of the impacts either. So this has come before you previously. Sorry to interrupt, but I thought you can freeze it. Did you say 75-square-foot homes? I'm sorry. I might have said that. 75-square-foot lots. Okay. Home lots. I thought, wow. Dwelling homes. Sorry. You're right. Huge. Huge. So, yeah. I apologize. Thank you. Got a lot on my mind, Chairman. So, yes. Lots for 7,500-square-foot lots for single-family dwelling units. When we started this process in February of 2026, we applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to Res. 6 and a rezoning to RU2-6. Not recognizing the community nature of this area, we quickly found out that townhomes were not going to be acceptable to the neighbors, which was the intent. We presumed that mobile home TR3, 4,000-square-foot lots, to EU2, Fox Bay. 9,000-square-foot lots would make a good transition. Neighbors didn't want it. We pulled the comprehensive plan amendment at the June 15th, 26 PNZ, and agreed just to do single-family homes. We asked at that time for RU111, again, 75,000-square-foot home lots. Again, a transition from Village Glen to Fox Bay, a little larger in theory than Fox Bay home sites, but that, again, met with concerns of the neighbors. So we started at 86 units. When we went down to just the Res. 4 with RU111, it was 57 units. Again, neighbors did not like that, so we're now before you with RU111 and 14 units total, 14-unit lots for single-family homes with a binding development plan. We were sent back to PNZ from this board on July 9th, and we are back again with the BDP. The reason for this is to avoid the wetland, and we've agreed to two conditions that staff has discussed, one of which is the rate and volume, and one of which I will discuss later. So there will be conditions added to the BDP if it's approved that we will not impact more than 1.8% of the wetland or bisect the wetland in any way, and that we also put it into a conservation easement, which we're more than willing to do. There's also a condition that meets your code that says the rate and the flow post-development or pre-development will be the same, and that's in your staff report, and we're very comfortable with that because we have to by Brevard code in St. Johns River Water Management District. So this will allow flexibility, will allow clustering, and it will preserve the wetland, and it will preserve the historic water flow of this area. There have been a number of concerns raised by the neighbors. Find their list. The extensive petitions that are in your package. Incompatibility with the established rural residential character. Again, we refute this is not rural. It may be rural to the north and directly to the east, but to the east, I mean, excuse me, to the south. To the west is Village Glen Mobile Home Park. To the east is Fox Bay, EU2, 9,000 square foot homes, although as you've seen, this is in your packet at page 597. There are homes immediately adjacent to Turtle Mound Road that are smaller than 9,000 square feet. In fact, one is 65, 34 square feet. So 7,500 square feet to 7,500, 7,800 seems extremely compatible. Yes, it is rural to the north, but even your staff report at page 5 and page 6 acknowledges that there are multiple zonings in this area. Page 5 and page 6. Predominantly area of single-family dwellings with a mixture of single-family mobile homes. Multiple zoning classifications within a half-mile radius. They include BU2, BU1, TR3, industrial, TR1, RU113, SR, TR1A, RR1, EU, RU17, and it goes on and on. So this is a mixed zoning area. And as you can see from this, there's TR3, there's TR1A to south, which is 5,000 square feet. You've got RU17, which is 5,000 square feet home sites. So this is a mixed area. There's also a concern of increased burden on Turtle Mound Road. The staff report on Traffic, page 8 and 9, says this will operate at 28.66% of daily capacity, will not create a deficiency in level of service. I'm sorry, but let's respect the applicant's time, and I expect the applicant to respect yours. We have to stop the clock anytime somebody's interrupted, so I just respectfully ask that we common sense indicates that right now with RR1, 14 units can be built on that site. We're only asking for 14. Traffic is not going to increase by this zoning. Nothing is going to increase by this zoning because the zoning impact is negligible. It's actually zero. It's 14 units to 14 units. The third concern is adverse impacts to drainage and stormwater. The county code and St. John's River Water Management won't allow it. Simply won't. And we can talk about the LIDAR maps. We can talk about the 25-year and 100-year flood. Essentially, if water is flowing onto this property, we have to maintain that water, and we have to do something with it. We can't let it flow off the site. So we have to maintain that water. Fourth concern is inconsistency with density and use patterns of adjoining RR1. Again, that's not really my belief an issue because of the multiple zonings in the area. This is provided in your packet. It's on page 612. I provided you all a copy, too, because it is small to read. But this shows the variety of density. Again, Fox Bay to the east, its density is about 2.6 units to the acre. So it's an increased density than what we would have. Village Glen, the mobile home park to the west, it's got a density of 5 point something. So there is density in the area. This is not an increase in a density pattern. There's also concerns that this will start a precedent. There's nothing in this area that's left to be built on. This is an infill project. This is infill development. So this is not starting a precedent, especially when there's zoning just like it in the area, and this is transitional zoning. There's also been a lot of concern about whether or not the city of Melbourne can have sewer or septic, has sewer or septic. There's a, what I handed to you, and what's also, the letter's already in the packet. The mayor sent a letter on June 12th of 2006, and in that letter he said the current zoning will not support multifamily residential. This is not multifamily residential. This is when it was 87 units. This letter was for that. Since that time, the county has reached out, and I have reached out to the city, because when the mayor came to PNZ, he was adamant that there was no water capacity or sewer capacity. And again, we don't know if we want sewer. We don't have to have sewer. We can have septic tanks or other unsight disposal systems. So I reached out to the city manager of Melbourne, Jenny Lamb, and the attorney at the city and said, what's going on here? Do you have water? Because other people say you have water. And so Jenny Lamb, it's in your package at page three that I handed out. It says, your staff, county staff, reached out and asked for a utility letter, which is page six, which says, potable water capacity is available to that parcel. And then Jenny Lamb goes on in her letter to say, without performing a system-wide study for each project proposed, there is no way to determine the availability of sewer. Again, the determination of sewer and water is at the development stage or the site plan stage. We're not there. We're at the zoning stage. So I've provided you that packet. Again, even Jennifer Spagnola says there is water capacity available. We are able to have septic systems here. There's been a comment that we are in the septic overlay. There's a slice of the property, that little purple section that is in the septic overlay, not the whole property. Also, this is not covered by the FTP injunction, so we could put sewer in there tomorrow if we were able to get permits that quickly. So I want to talk a little bit about your comprehensive plan and your code. So what's not been cited is future land use element policy 14.2, creative utilization of land. This says that zoning regulations should continue to provide for flexibility regarding development patterns and land use mix. It also says, subsection E, creative clustering of residential lots and streets which preserve undisturbed vegetative corridors and consolidate cleared land. Innovative techniques may include reduced lot size, shared driveways, and other design features. There was a concern about, in fact, the PNZ motion made was about section 62-1151C3, which is the impact of the proposed zoning classification on traffic, water, sewer, other public facilities. Again, that was the motion. But we're going from 14 units to 14 units. There is zero impact of this zoning on public facilities at this point. Also, too, I'd like to cite again to the drainage and stormwater codes of 62-3723 that talks about all of these development orders are reviewed by natural resources. This is not a development order to build something. And then the 62-372-4-1, there shall be no net change in the rate and volume of floodwater discharged from pre-development or mean annual riverine floodplain. So, again, these are all criteria we agreed to that we will comply with at the preliminary plat. And, again, this is just to preserve the wetland and to use clustering for this infill development. And I'd reserve the rest of my time, Chairman. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yes. So, all that to say is what you're asking for is the same amount of houses that's already zoned for or residential, but you're trying to cluster them into a smaller area. Yes, ma'am. So, that's all you're really asking. That's all I'm asking. Okay. And agreeing to conditions for stormwater and floodwater. Because as of right now you could build 14 units on this property. That's what it's zoned for. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? We will go to our cards. We have 24 cards. Each speaker will be given five minutes apiece. Terry Dexter is our first speaker. Hey, everybody. I'm Terry. Hi. Thank you for letting me talk. I grew up on this road. First of all, my name's Terry Dexter, 4400 Crenard Road, Melbourne, Florida. Born and raised here in Melbourne, all galley. I grew up on White Road. This is the only area, Kim just said, it's the only area here where water can go. Okay. Thad, you've been here most of your life. I think you came here at two, three years old, correct? One year old. Okay. You've seen that underwater. You know that property. I just made a comment to someone here. We used to wait until it dried up so we could go out there and go fishing. That's how wet that is. The county commissioners in 1974, 75, Val Steele, Gene Roberts, Val Steele, Joe Wickham, Lee Winter, they did not have flood control back then when this trailer park went in. Flood control was no problem there. St. John's Water Management was nothing there. The county commissioners allowed the water from Village Glen to go to this property because in 1950s when they put this piece of land, it was used for towers. It had no other reason for that land. They could put the radio towers there and that's what a lot of you guys may not know. This was a radio station. Okay? It was towers. This water is going on this land. Where is it going to go? It's like putting bricks inside of a bathtub. That water's got to go somewhere. It's going to go on that trailer park. It's going to go on these people in Carolwood. It's going to be a nightmare. It really is. And I know that they're allowing 14 homes, but guys, you can't do that. It's not going to work. Every news team is going to come here when we have that hurricane and see that big flooded homes and that trailer park there. And I've got a concern about it. A real concern. Hopefully we don't let this go through. Thank you for letting me talk. Thank you. Renee Kowalski. Hi, my name is Renee Kowalski and I reside at 3955 White Road. Our property is 35 feet across the street from this proposed development site. I go out my front door and I see this site. We have one and a half acres and my next door neighbor has two and a half acres. My husband's family has been residents of Melbourne for over 106 years. My family has lived here for 66 years. When I was growing up, it was my dream to move to the country and be surrounded in local wildlife and the horses of the Turtle Mound area. 28 years ago, we purchased our dream property on Turtle Mound and White Road and built our home. And we absolutely love this area. Ask any native O'Galley, Melbourne resident where the country is and they all will tell you the same. Turtle Mound and Lake Washington. Our yard is a certified wildlife habitat recognized by the National Wildlife Federation as well as the Monarch Way Station. We have seen several gopher turtles on the proposed property as well as bobcats, coyotes, red-tailed hawks, great horned and barred owls, giant otters, pileated woodpeckers, swallowtail kites, nests there every year as well as eagles. And I've seen an occasional alligator. I have seen the endangered Florida scrub jays on the property that used to be the old radio station that Defender Homes is trying to destroy by changing our zoning. Florida scrub jays are classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It is the only bird species found exclusively in Florida and has already suffered a devastating 90% decline due to habitat loss. We enjoy watching our friends and neighbors ride their horses down White and Turtle Mound Road. Yes, people on White do own horses. We have spent our entire lives working in the defense sector on the Space Coast. We simply wish to enjoy our retirement in the peaceful community that we have spent decades building. Please help us preserve the beautiful, irreplaceable character of Turtle Mound in Lake Washington. Thank you for your time. Phyllis Curry. Ms. Phyllis Curry here. Oh, here she comes. Good evening. I wasn't expecting to speak this quickly. My name is Phyllis Curry. I live at 3704 Trout Island Place. My parents moved me to O'Galley, Florida in June of 1956. I lived in Leawood Forest, Leawood Boulevard for 11 years of my life before I went off to college. And then we moved back here and I lived in Cherrywood by the new Dr. W.J. Creole Elementary School, which I attended in first grade, the old one, for 18 years. And then we moved to Fox Bay 32 years ago. Yes, there are lower density pieces of property out from me. However, as I explained at another meeting, when people come into town, we don't have them come that way. We have them come down O'Galley Boulevard, Wickham Road, to Aurora Road. We just don't pass that way anymore. We realize it's there, but we kind of don't see it. I also have a question for you. I understand from other meetings that we've had, two other people came up, two other gentlemen came up to say that they had owned the properties and they were denied developing it any further than what it was. This person has come and he bought the property knowing it was an R1 and now he wants to change it. If you didn't allow the other two gentlemen to change it and one of those people happened to have graduated from O'Galley High School, why are you allowing this change? Why can't it just stay with the way the RR1 ruling and not go into an RU-111? Thank you. Thank you. Lisa Longacre? Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? My name is Lisa Longacre and my address is 4185 Eldorado Way, two miles from the 1800 Turtle Mound Road property. The residents of Lake Washington area are a diverse group of people who have come together for a common good. We believe that what is good for one neighborhood in our community benefits all of us, both the current and future residents and the trees and wildlife that thrive here. We respect what was here before us, the mobile home communities, the mature tree canopies, and our native plants and wildlife. We drive carefully to avoid people riding horses, bicycles, and walking along the roads. For the most part, our roads have no sidewalks. Lake Washington is where I learned how much I love Florida. The wet piney woods, the plants and animals that were here before me, and hopefully will continue to have a place here after I am gone. Our current RR1 zoning ensures that this special place, home to eagles, bobcats, and gopher tortoises, will remain protected. We don't want our zoning changed. The lake itself, about three miles from the 1800 Turtle Mound Road property, is the current source of 75% of Melbourne's drinking water. Lake Washington is also part of the Florida Wildlife Corridor, both protected and unprotected, and all of us west of Turtle Mound Road, including the property in question, are in the contiguous watershed for the St. John's River. Overbuilding on this property will create flooding in the surrounding neighborhoods, and more stormwater runoff flowing into the lake. Some of our natural treasures here are already gone. When I built my home close to 40 years ago, my kids and I loved seeing fireflies in our yard on summer nights. I haven't seen a firefly in my yard for 30 years. I could continue to give examples of what we have lost, but I prefer to focus on what we can save. Please deny this request to rezone and help us protect what remains. Thank you. Ann Pierce. Thank you. My name is Ann Pierce. I live at 4040 Kerrywood Drive, which is in Carrollwood Estates. This is less than half a mile north of the property in question. We built our house here 24 years ago because of the quiet, rural setting of our subdivision and the area as a whole. I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of the Turtle Mound Road property for all the reasons that we are hearing so eloquently stated here this evening. While reading the minutes of the planning and zoning meeting on September 14th, one additional item struck me. The attorney for the developer feels that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding properties. She stated, and this is quoted directly from the minutes, this is compatible zoning. We didn't go to RU17 for 5,000 square feet. It was between those two Fox Lake, which I think is supposed to be Fox Bay properties, larger than the 4,000 size mobile home lots to the west. This is compatible. The BDP makes it compatible and it was compatible without it. But to assuage the concerns of how many units, how many dwellings, it would be 14 max. That's the end of the quote. I find it interesting that there was no mention of the RR1 zoned properties located immediately south and north of the property in question. The proposed zoning change is absolutely not compatible with these RR1 properties. The building of 14 homes in the roughly three plus supposedly dry acres on the north side of the property is certainly not the same as building one home on an acre of land where RR1 requires. In addition, wording in the proposed BDP plan states that the BDP would become null and void should the property be annexed into a municipality and rezoned. So, would the development stay at 14 homes max? I doubt that it would. In conclusion, I respectfully ask that the county commission listen to the planning and zoning advisory board recommendation, their county staff, the mayor of Melbourne, and the local residents who have all expressed their concerns about this rezoning and deny the request to rezone this property at RR111. Thanks for your consideration. Louisa Killian. Killian, did I get that right? Hi, I'm Louisa Killian and I live at 3790 Harlock Road. I'm probably three minutes away. Three miles away, sorry. I started riding my horse there in 1967. We bought in 86. One of the reasons we bought out there is because of the horse area. It is a beautiful area. And I don't want to see changes to it. That really concerns me. One of the things that concerns me is that that acreage, three acres, I mean, building all that on three acres, the water, is that actually going to hold the water that you're talking about? The septic, if they decide to use septic, how can you use septic in a wetland area? That concerns me. Traffic, even though it's 14 units, that's still a lot more traffic on a road that's pretty dangerous. If you look at the right-of-way on the sides, it can be as small as two feet on each side. The more traffic we put down Turtle Mound, the more dangerous it is. A lot of people might want to go down Turtle Mound all the way to post to get out that way further west rather than have to go on Wickham. That's another concern. I have seen a lot of accidents at the corner of Lake Washington and that area. I can't think of the other. Aurora. Yes. A lot of accidents right there even 30 years ago when I boarded my horse right on Turtle Mound. I am concerned about the lack of wildlife that this would, this was, obviously a wildlife area and it won't be. If you decide to do something like this, I have three acres, how many houses can I put on my place? Exactly. Good point. Very concerned about that. I could put quite a number on my place and everybody else might decide to do that too. The character of Lake Washington is a rural horse area. I can't ride my horse on Turtle Mound. I used to. No way. It's dangerous. In fact, I almost, I got somebody beeped at me when I was on Country which is a road very close to that area and I was about five feet off the road but I was going to ride in a canal area and somebody beeped. I'm 70 years old. I have osteoporosis and of course my horse got scared. It's dangerous almost to ride in that area already and that's not even Turtle Mound. So all these things concern me. I think I covered them all. But, sorry, I'm sort of wandering. But this is the area that I have lived in for 40 years now that I have ridden in since 1967. I just don't want it to become another thoroughfare. Thank you. Thank you. Diane Cox-Duran. Hi, good evening. My name is Diane Cox-Duran. I live at 5180 Sand Lake Drive. I've been a resident of Brevard County since 1958 and since our zoning especially in the Sand Lake areas since our zoning is one home per acre. We have large trees and foliage surrounding between our homes and looking at at the buffer here is on a 15-foot perimeter buffer. This will also be used as a perimeter buffer for what they're talking about. Acreage here is acreage here is a parcel. Section 62 2883 specifically states such buffers shall remain undisturbed and shall be plotted as a common track. Separate from individual lots it goes to say the buffer requirements described herein shall not apply to minor subdivisions. Since we have no idea exactly what they have in mind here how do we know what is a minor subdivision? what would the true buffer requirements be? Even with the tiny buffer the storm water has been held here since 1970 or the 70s and when the trailer park was built there was a drainage for village Glen trailer park based on the staff comments say that the development of this parcel has the potential to impact flood plain storage and runoffs and rates exaggerate exaggerating flooding and levels of issues of properties and infrastructure in the vicinity of this project. You know I've been here a long time. My brother lives on Turtle Mound Road. He's been there for over 40 years. My niece lives on White Road and she's been there for 10 years. You know as residents we ask you to please deny 26Z 0034. It just would be awful for us to have to put up with what they want to do. Sorry. Thank you. Nancy Taylor. Good evening everybody. Thank you for your time being here. I do have a stack of signed petitions I'd like to pass on to you. We have we had 1,582 signatures. We are now up to 1,615. So may I pass those along? Thank you. So my name is Nancy Taylor. I live at 5425 Sand Lake Drive. My husband and I built our house 40 years ago. We moved there with a 2-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter. The nature of our community has changed drastically. As the children who live there have grown up, there are new families moving in, our streets are littered with young people who will be learning how to drive. And we start adding all these extra people on the roads. And you've got that intersection at Turtle Mound and Aurora is already horrible to get through with a four-way stop. So I'm concerned for the younger generation of the children who are learning how to drive. I remember trying to go through that with my own children. So with this petition, the statement is that we the undersigned hereby oppose any rezoning of the parcel located at 1800 Turtle Mound Road, Brevard County, Florida. The parcel is from its current RR1, which is rural residential one dwelling per unit, a classification to any other residential zoning classification that would be permitting something less than one unit per acre. And again, all it does is clogs our roads. It creates a hazard for our youth. They are having hard enough time getting out on the main roads, but our rural community is a safe place for them to learn how to drive and have their little vehicles that they're using and their bicycles and such. The majority of the homes that are out there, Carrollwood Drive, there's two to five acres single family homes. Carrollwood Estates is another community which is zoned RR1 and consists of single family detached homes that are one plus acre sites. The single family homes on the south side which is White Road, again, zoned RR1. The single family homes on Tranquility still are RR1 zoning. Most single family homes in Lake Washington are RR1 if not an AU zoning. The Fox Bay community is zoned in EU-2 and consists of single family homes. Detached, not attached. On that 14.38 acre parcel that we're discussing, if the zoning gets changed, I know they're saying they only want to build 14 units. However, it also allows them up to 83 units if they so desire. What does that do to the other communities around us? We have typical RU111 plan can have as many as 50 to 70 units that are built, which is out of character with the nature of the rural area that we live in. Our community has been known for its quiet rural estates. Along Turtle Mound Road, you'll find numerous private driveways with serene names such as Lightning Bug Lane, Equine Lane, Hideaway Lane, etc. So the county has required these to be named roads because of the size of the lengths of the driveways. You'll find cows, horses, alpacas, chickens, many other farm animals, many growing gardens, owning tractors. For many years, they had a rural route of numbers to get to their mailbox. So you'll find Cox Farm on Carrollwood Drive, Button and Bonita Ranch, and numerous equestrian stables such as Relentless on Lake Washington. So what I'm saying is the community's character is at stake. This is against the existing character of our area, and once that character is lost, it cannot be restored. And I thank you for your time. I had a question just to be sure. I know in her comments, and I appreciate what you said, but I wanted to be sure. You said that this would allow up to 83 units if so desired. Is that true? Is there any scenario which they could get more than 12 units or 14 units? With the stormwater, when you take all of that into account and the infrastructure that they'll need, which is probably about 20-30%, there would be no scenario where they could get for a single family more than 20-something units. But I mean, if the zoning request of the binding concept plan right now is limiting the 14 units per acre, is there any provision which that could be exceeded under this request? The BDP would limit it to 14 dwelling units on the entire subject property. Would there be any way that could be exceeded? Only if they come back to the board. Okay. Let's only be sure. I don't want anyone to... And, Mr. Elkman, my biggest concern is this is just one piece in Lake Washington. Right. We have Cox Farm. We have all these other parcels that will... And behind me, I've got thousands of acres that go all the way out to where the Humane Society is. And what if they want to put condominiums and townhouses behind me? It would flood out my neighbors. I built my house in 1986. And I put... I call it Taylor Mountain because we put in a lot of extra dirt so we can not be flooded. But I have a lot of neighbors who were built in the 70s. And their backyards will be underwater because the requirement for new zoning to build... To be at a level above the middle of the road or to do the drainage, if they don't do it properly, my neighbors will be underwater. Okay. Yes. And... Okay, thank you. And that's my concern. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify and want to be sure, but thank you for that. Noah Wright? Good evening, commissioners. I'm Noah Wright. I live at 2525 Pimlico, which is west of 95 off Lake Washington. My wife and I both grew up in the area, both O'Galley alumni. After living elsewhere, we deliberately chose to return and build our home here 10 years ago. We wanted the spacious lots, the quiet neighborhoods, and the character that makes this community special. We travel Turtle Mound Road daily. My in-laws live on Benelli Court, which is a stone's throw away from the subject property. Even sitting in their backyard during family gatherings, the traffic noise can be overwhelming. During rush hour, I've personally witnessed the backups at the closely spaced four-way stops and countless near-misses as frustrated drivers become impatient. My concerns go well beyond traffic congestion than about safety. A neighbor was struck by a car at that intersection, Turtle Mound and Aurora, and tragically, her beloved dog was killed. For those of us who know are the dangers at this intersection are not hypothetical. They've had real consequences. So even 14 homes will bring two or more additional drivers added to that already backed up traffic along Turtle Mound. Before changing the zoning, shouldn't we understand whether the infrastructure can adequately support the proposed development? I respect the property owner's right to develop their land, but requesting a change to establish zoning is a different matter. This property sits at a pivotal location in Lake Washington. What happens here affects far more than the homes immediately surrounding it. My family has called this community home for generations. We've watched it grow, and we understand that growth is inevitable, but growth should be measured not simply by how many homes we can build, but by whether our community can safely accommodate them. Thanks. Thank you. Erica Allen? Can you turn that on for me? Good evening. My name is Erica Allen. I've lived on Turtle Mound Road my entire life, so I've been there since 1971. I do want to note this was denied by the planning and zoning on September 14th, by the way. So that's obviously, there's a reason for that. So I want to take a look at this map, though, because the attorney's map is a little skewed, to say the least. So as you see on this map, I want to point out the incompatibility of the proposal with the surrounding community and the negative impacts on its character with this map here. The red shaded area is everything that is one house per acre or even larger acreages. The blue outlined area is the same as the red, but I put it in blue so you would know what the subject property was. The yellow areas that do not have the same zoning, one is the mobile home park and the other is Fox Bay. As you can see, the vast majority of our community is zoned for large pieces of property per single family homes. There's no mistaking what the predominant zoning is in this area. The entire Turtle Mountain Road corridor to the north and all the way out west to the lake is the same large estate property zoning. The way the community is set up, the red area is the impacted area of this proposed zoning change, not the map the attorney presents that is offset and shows south of Aurora. She doesn't know her community's character and keeps making statements like this is not a rural community, quote, this is not a RR1 community, quote, Carolwood Drive is not the predominant zoning in this area. Carolwood Drive is the predominant zoning in this area and is part of this huge area that is predominantly one zoning in red on this map. The same zoning as the subject property. Ninety-nine percent of the people behind me in this audience opposed to this are from this area in red. These people right here. This red area that is RR1. The red area is rural in character. This is why everyone is in such an uproar over this. They want this community to stay rural estate properties that have been there since the early 1900s, allowing this developer to change the zoning from how they purchased it to rezone so that they can clump houses against properties that are only one house per acre will set a precedent for this entire community. There are tons of properties, not just this one, all over the area that people will be able to rezone to this and clump houses up against their neighbors, taking away from the entire character of this community. This is about the incompatibility of what they're trying to do. The community's character is at stake here. Please deny this rezoning and tell them to build it with the current zoning at one house per acre that is compatible with the rest of the community. I have a few other comments I want to make. According to the staff comments, the applicant's request could be considered an introduction of a new zoning classification to the surrounding area. There is no other RU111 communities anywhere nearby. That's your staff comments, by the way. A couple of other comments I want to make. Keep in mind that map, folks. That map is the predominant zoning. So this is a copy from the Nextdoor app. So despite a thief stealing all the signs from our community in the middle of the night on the 4th of July and continually over the last few months, we're still opposed to this. And then also, somebody's posting on the Nextdoor app, threats to this community that if this is not passed, a gentleman named Perry Hively, that if this is not passed, he is going to go for 185 apartment homes. Thank you. Amanda Toner-Sibel. Amanda. Hello. My name is Amanda Tanner-Sibel, and I have lived in Melbourne since the 70s. My family has lived in Florida since the early 1800s. We moved to Melbourne in the 70s because my father felt Orlando was getting too crowded. So we ended up in Melbourne, out in the Lake Washington area. My parents were custom home builders, and they built most of the homes they built out in the Lake Washington area. As a young person, as a child, I remember many days sitting in Joe Wickham's office, Connor's office. I know for a fact that Lake Washington was developed to be one acre or more. I live on almost two acres out in Lake Washington. I grew up out there. I had to move away for a few years, doing my husband's job. When we came back, I knew that's where I wanted to be, and I've been out back out there for about 12 years. Two acres. I live on two acres. The minimum should be one acre. The gentleman knew what he was purchasing. He knew what the zoning was. It was explained to him explicitly by the previous owners the challenges that that property had, and he chose to buy it anyway. I believe the previous owner even said that the new buyer kind of misled him and said that that was all okay. He was just interested in this little part that he was going to build on, and nothing about rezoning. And I think the zoning on that had already been, rezoning on that property had already been denied twice, at least twice. They had tried to go down to half-acre home sites. She talks about they can put septic in. To my knowledge, you can't put septic in on less than a half acre. So I don't know how she thinks she's going to put septic in there on three acres with 14 homes. I mean, at another meeting, she talked about putting in some kind of future that Melbourne was going to look at, future wastewater, on-site wastewater system. Well, that will smell lovely. That will smell lovely there. But this area was always meant to be rural. It's what we all bought for. It's what we all wanted to stay at. Thank you. Waldron, Lon, I'm having trouble. Lon, Lon Grintz? Wallard Lawrence. Wallard Lawrence. I know I butchered that name. I'm sorry. My poor reading. Right. I did. Good evening. Thanks for your time. My name is Walter Lawrence. I live at 4065 Janewood Lane. That's a one-acre home site in Carrollwood Estates, where all the home sites are at least one acre, and there's a couple of two-acre home sites there. My property is probably a quarter of a mile from the property in question, the one we're discussing tonight. But I have some concerns about what was presented, and some of them have already been raised, but I want to go on record as raising them as well. One is the 14-acre property where we're going to put 14 homes on three acres, and there's several people that have said how, you know, it seems to me like we're trying to take a piece of property and split it into two separate pieces, zone one piece, one density, and zone the rest of it something else. But I don't believe that anything that's been proposed, especially the wastewater mitigation and the sewage, could be done properly for 14 homes on three acres. So that's one concern I have. And that's, I think, kind of the main concern. But I built out there. My wife is a third-generation Floridian. Her family came from Vero. And we looked at properties around there for years before we bought that property that we have now. We built it 33 years ago. And it is a rural area. I live in that red zone that you were shown. And I'm one of those signatures on that petition. And just keep in mind that there's over 1,500 other signatures on that position. Good people that are concerned about the community and don't want to see this happen. And one final concern that I have, too, which has also been raised, is this idea of somehow taking sections of an area and allowing people to buy the property. If we take, like I said, what's to stop somebody from buying five one-acre lots on Carolwood and building, instead of five homes on it, 20 homes on it? So the concern, that concern, is really setting a precedent. If we, you know, the saying, slippery slope, and I'm not saying that's going to happen, but this is an opportunity for it to happen. So just keep that in mind when you think about your vote on the proposal. Thanks very much for your time. Thank you. Richard Nink. Nink? Nink. Nink. Good evening. It's good to see everyone again. And thank you for allowing the residents to have a full five minutes. They need to be heard on this. And thank you again for taking that time. Richard Nink, 3035 General Breeze's Court in Melbourne. I'm close to the Turtle Mound Parkway intersection there. I'm against the rezoning, and I ask you to deny the rezoning. The rezoning is just not compatible, and I'm going to go through a few of those reasons. First of all, the Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed this, and they voted unanimously. It wasn't a split decision. It didn't go to the refs. It didn't go to overtime. Unanimous. 9-0. They thought about it. That's their recommendation to you, and we're asking you to seriously consider that. Mr. Rezenka keeps saying this is a transition zone, this property. What is a transition zone? It's not a transition zone. It is zoned exactly the same way as the entire Turtle Mound Corridor. Turtle Mound Corridor. Not Aurora Road Corridor. Turtle Mound Corridor that runs all the way up to the Linear Trail. Beautiful, large lots, estate properties, most of them with driveway access to Turtle Mound, one-plus acres. This property, driveway access to Turtle Mound, is going to be significantly smaller per house acreage, where they're looking at putting 14 houses on three acres. That is not compatible. We have to remember that. It's not compatible. That's one of the things that you're looking at. Is it compatible with the surrounding community? The Turtle Mound Corridor, not the Aurora Corridor. This is not a transition zone. Okay, so we reject this rezoning change. The developer can build. The developer can build his one house per acre. We're not stopping that. We're not against that. Keep it at one house per acre. We are not looking for a compromise. We didn't come here for a compromise. We want it left as is. No rezoning. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Heidi Welch. Hi. My name's Heidi Welch, W-E-L-C-H. I live on the dead end of Marywood, just about two large blocks from this area, and I have five acres, and it's zoned ag, and the people on my road, Marywood, have all ag land. I love the wildlife. I moved out there in 1999. I built the horse barn. I have horses on the property, my borders, and I love riding down the road, and I love the wildlife, the coyotes and everything that go through my pastures. I did build my house up, but my five acres, I have not touched. Yes, this time of the year, it is wetland, and that's normal. It's Florida. Also, I want to mention that yesterday evening, a young lady named Iris lost her horse, Fergie, on Lake Washington Road from a drunk driver that went down Washington Road, and it is so sad. It is so sad. A drunk driver went and ran over her horse on Lake Washington, last night at 10 o'clock on Lake Washington Road, a drunk driver, and I just want to leave this neighborhood as quiet as possible. Yeah. Raku Browning. How are you today? Good. Rico Browning, 4080, Kerrywood Drive, and I've lived here probably, I guess, since 1997, third generation Floridian, and, you know, we really love the area. I hate to see anything do major changes to it. I was going to get deep into the flooding and stuff. I do have some pictures here, but I think that's kind of been covered. But that's Carolwood Estates after a big storm, and this is Carolwood Estates after a hurricane. That's the lake that ran all the way up over the road. Now, my big concern with what's going on here, and I don't want to say that the developer might be trying to be a little deceptive, but with a BDP, it restricts to the 14 houses. But I believe it's incorrect thinking that they can't change it. If you change to R111, if they annex or get another change to the zoning, that automatically voids your BDP. And at that point, they can carry on as many houses as the zoning allows. So that's my major concern with what's going on here. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Julie Kennedy. Hello. Thank you all for being here, and thank you for allowing me to be here. I am Julie Kennedy. I'm the vice mayor for the city of Melbourne, and I am here in representation of my entire council. We have all come to the conclusion that we would like you to deny this rezoning request. We acknowledge that the proposed changes throughout this process has reduced the amount of single-family homes they want to put on this property to 14. However, the infrastructure problem with the city of Melbourne has not gone away. So I want to just give you a little bit of the facts as to what our issue is. Ms. Rozenka was correct in saying that there is potable water capacity with the city of Melbourne for this property. However, sewer is not available within the existing infrastructure. And that was written on July 23rd. The Melbourne's assistant city engineer advised Brevard County in writing that this property is in the Melbourne's utility area. And the letter stated that fact that there is potable water but not sewer. On September 16th, Ms. Rozenka requested information about the potable water, sewer capacity, and the possibility of septic. Typically, this is done in a request letter to this city that comes at a cost, but that process did not happen. However, on September 23rd, our city manager responded to the email request with what was previously told to the project engineer, Jake Wise. And that was done in March. There is no gravity sewer close to the property, only in a force main that currently appears to be at capacity. She explained that existing pump stations and force mains are not or at or near capacity. Her conclusion concerning this revised proposal was straightforward. The city cannot commit sewer capacity even for a single additional residential unit. And just as a side note, the city doesn't permit septic systems, so that's why I'm not addressing that in here. Just as a foreshadowing to what we do have on the books, the city is planning improvements. There is a $200,000 budgeted in the fiscal year 2027 for design and $2 million in fiscal year 2029 to replace approximately 9,000 feet of 6-inch cast iron force main from lift station 29 at Merriwood to Wickham Road. However, that's just replacing, that's not upsizing anything, so that's not going to change the fact that we still won't have the capacity. So, with all of that information, we respectfully request that you deny this rezoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Wendy Browning. Hi there. Wendy Browning. I live at 4080 Carywood Drive in Carrollwood Estates. My husband stole part of my speech. But I want to start by saying the way it is zoned now, RR1, picture this as one house on over 43,000 square foot. What they're proposing now is 7,500 square foot. So, basically, you're putting the houses that are on Carrollwood Drive that have 100-foot setbacks up against houses that are 7,500 square foot lots that have 20-foot setbacks and 7 1⁄2 feet in between. So, it's not the same, it's not the same 14 houses. You know, even though it is 14 houses, it's not the same 14 houses. The other thing is, what's to stop them from buying up those houses on Carrollwood that are all one to two acres, when they don't want those little houses behind them, and coming before you and asking for that zoning there? And what's to stop it from moving down Carrollwood and onto Turtle Mountain and so on and so forth? So, I do say that what this board decides here today could set a damaging precedent for the future of all of Lake Washington. And I also am opposed to the fact that building around restricted wetlands also is a bad idea. Once we—my dad had five acres on Parkway. He could only put one house there, and it had to be in the middle. So, this would mean that somebody could take his RR1 property with that one house, and instead, because he couldn't build in the back, that was full of wetlands, this means that people could start, instead of putting one house in the middle, people could take their additional acreage, sell it off in the Lake Washington area, and clump houses on the buildable parts. Right. So, I mean, I do believe it is setting a damaging precedent. And also, the BDP, it states that it's binding unless or until the property is annexed and rezoned. Then it becomes null and void. Why would the commission sign a document knowing that eventually it could become null and void, and then our 14-house minimum is gone, and we're left with our 111 zoning, you know, and whatever they could fit on there? Um, what are the guardrails in place to stop the builder from clumping the original 14 into the corner, and then adding additional zoning, you know, additional to the property later on? And I just think to approve this request would mean that Brevard County is putting the profits of an out-of-state developer over the citizens that's lived here for years, who pay their taxes, who vote, and who want to keep our area as it is and how it always has been. Chairman, commissioners, good evening. The definition, character, refers to many things. Lake Washington is a distinctive physical quality that makes it a different place than others. Lake Washington is our unique place where historic character of the community is valued. It is the preservation of the character of the land that we seek, as it has spanned centuries, covering environmentalism, indigenous stewardship, regional identity, and country urban design. Conservation and preservation is a natural duty and moral. Theodore Roosevelt himself shifted the public view from treating land as an inexhaustible commodity. Without morality to our decisions, we skin and exhaust the land, and it ruins character for our future generations. Unchecked urbanization threatens the natural beauty of the countryside scenery and the character we are trying to preserve. Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. We must preserve the green infrastructure and its character. This zoning proposal throws warning signs, such as aggravations of surrounding drainage, flooding, sketchy BDP procedures, displacing floodplain storage, increased traffic crime, etc., and we've heard it all today. And more so, it sets a very dangerous precedent as to what people can do with their property in the future. If this is allowed to pass, our rural paradise will become a part of the city urban sprawl, and the over and our value of the character will be gone. Lake Washington has many distinct combinations of qualities and character that makes it unique, as well as the people who live there. We are our own community within the community. We implore your ethical morals to see this character distinction and keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Penny? Michelle. Michelle Penny. I'm sorry. Michelle. Michelle. Sorry, Michelle. No, that's fine. Good evening, commissioners. I know somebody named Michael Penny. Oh, do you? No relation. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Michelle Penny. I live in the Twin Lakes community in Lake Washington, less than a mile west of the proposed development. It's actually 0.7 miles. I'm right on the other side of Village Glen. That borders the project. I'm here tonight to ask you to vote no on this project due to severe existing infrastructure and flooding failures that cannot handle further strain. Right now, standard rainfall routinely floods our community roads and yards. I mow my own yard, and the space between our homes stays perpetually wet. Worse, surrounding arteries like Marywood, White, and Aurora roads flood aggressively. While our neighborhood sits just outside the official flood zone, we are right on the border. Adding acres of concrete and displacing natural drainage will inevitably push that flood zone directly into our 69 homes. Next, our local traffic infrastructure is equally compromised. The four-way stop, as you've heard numerous times tonight at Aurora and Turtle Mound, is a disaster waiting to happen. Actually, disasters have already happened there. During rush hour, and I've sat there in rush hour, residents can sit for upwards of 10 minutes just trying to clear this intersection. Aurora Road has deteriorated drastically in just the three years that I've lived out in this neighborhood. I've been in Melbourne for 12 years, and my husband and I just recently purchased out here three years ago. This area was never built for the volume, and it cannot take any more. We must fix our existing infrastructure before we build, not decades after it's too late. Lastly, we pay our taxes and our mortgages here. This is our home. The out-of-state developers pushing this project, they don't live here, and they will not have to live with the flooding, the gridlock, or the displacement of local wildlife. You all were elected to represent the citizens that call this community home, not the bottom line of an outside developer. Please protect our neighborhood and vote no. Thank you for your time. Suzy Ballou? Suzy. Balloua? Bella? Bella. Bella. Suzy Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. Bella. I want this denied, first of all, to the fact that Mayor Paul Alfre came and stated, no sewer main available. Currently, this parcel is a floodplain aquifer recharge direct to the St. John's River. Without the sewer available, this attorney has stated they will use an on-site, which is S-Y-T-E, system. Here is the information from the on-site brochure. Once the water is treated, the water from the distributed wastewater technology unit is typically directed to an existing drain field. Right now, we all know the problems with septic tanks, this being a wetland area. I live at Sand Lake Drive, which my backyard is pretty much underwater all the time. The problem with the septic tanks that I want to speak about is the Indian River Lagoon and the fact that we now have an additional tax that we're paying. And now we want to put more septic into a sensitive recharge area, which would be just like dumping it right into the Indian River Lagoon, which we're taxing ourselves to clean it. I also went online and I saw a nice post that Commissioner Altman just had that just states that he wanted to share some pictures from the county's O'Galley Northeast muck removal project. There is a huge dredge located on the north side of the O'Galley Causeway. It sucks up muck from the floor of the Indian River Lagoon and pumps it through a six-and-a-half-mile-long pipeline to a dredge material management area near Robert Conlin Boulevard. This project is designed to improve water quality by removing accumulated organic sediment, which would be exactly what would be added into this ground if they do the on-site system. So the project is funded by the Save Our Indian River Lagoon Sales Tax, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and this project is going to go on through 2027. So it's a long time to clean the mess that has been created by septic tanks. We feel we want you all to deny this because if there's no sewer available, there should be no development on this sensitive lands. So we ask that you please deny it. A representative from Dangler Law is here, the lawyer for the Homeowners Association. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Scott Dangler of Dangler Law. I represent various homeowners in the Fox Bay community to the east. I just want to go ahead and raise some more legal issues rather than talk about the character of the community. On August 31st, I submitted a letter that went ahead as a detailed explanation of a lot of various legal defects in this application. One of them I want to talk about now is this BDP. So under Code Section 62-1157-1F, it requires when a BDP is being presented that, quote, approval of zoning is contingent upon presentation of a final and complete BDP. We don't have that here. We have a blank BDP that says we'll build 14 houses on 14 acres. Nothing else. Council earlier today said, quote, conditions will be added if approved. It's backwards. You can't approve it until you actually have a final BDP for you. Also, under Subsection 1-H, it provides that when there's a mortgagee, which there is in this particular case, consent is needed before the county commission can approve it. And they submitted with the application the jointer and binding development plan by their mortgagee. It's not signed, which means now you can approve it under the code. Two, I want to talk about the staff report. The city engineer actually says and admits that this is going to flood the neighboring area. So staff report's already showing you that this is not going to work. Three, I want to talk about septic since I was just raised here. Now, council and the applicant likes to always say, we'll deal with that later. Problem is, under the code 62-1153-E3, sewer impact is something you must decide today before you can approve the rezoning. So let's talk about septic, because this is the first time septic has been raised. Under the staff report, the eastern portion of this property is under a nitrogen reduction overlay. So under the nitrogen reduction overlay, Chapter 46, the code, it forecloses septic. It can't be allowed. What has to happen is there has to be public sewer or a 65% nitrogen reduction system. So as the mayor and the vice mayor have said, public sewer is not an option. Applicants only talk about septic, which isn't even allowed, and no reference has been made to a nitrogen reduction system. I also want to talk about conservation element policy 4.1. In the staff report, half of the discussion talks about this floodplain as being a riverine floodplain. Other parts talk about being an estuary or an isolated floodplain. Staff report doesn't give you any guidance or any evidence of what type of floodplain we have here, and why is that important? It's because you cannot approve any development in putting homes if it's a riverine floodplain absent special needs. And because staff report doesn't address that, and the applicant is relying solely upon the staff report for the evidence presented before you, that means you don't have confident evidence to go ahead and make a determination because you don't know what floodplain it is. None of us do. I've done Freedom of Information Hour requests to the Army Corps of Engineers, to the St. John Waters Management District, and everyone said the same. It's never been asked. It's never been determined. So right now it's an open question. Lastly, I just want to talk about who is this applicant and why are we here? We're talking about a foreign limited liability company that's not registered to do any business in the state. Now, Florida law does provide that a foreign company can own land and be a passive owner. That's okay. This is not a passive owner. We're now the fourth time between you and the Planning and Zoning Board, various contracts, varying efforts made to rezone this property. So they're not registered to do business. How are we entering as a county a binding development plan with an entity that can't do business in the state anyway? The other thing I want to ask, and, you know, this is a notice to applicants for change of land use. And this has been raised at all four hearings now, both Planning and Zoning and now both of these. And at the bottom it says the applicant's required when you have a controversial dispute, a matter, they're required to meet with these people. I've been on the record since June of this year. I have never received any inquiry from applicant or applicant's counsel about meeting with us to go ahead and talk about the concerns. Planning and Zoning Board has ignored this twice and allowed a vote to go ahead and go forward. And now this is the second time, again, they're asking you to go ahead and make a determination without once reaching out to the people who are here. And that's the whole reason why they signed this form. Otherwise, why do we sign this form? Why do we require our applicants to go ahead and do so if we're not going to enforce it? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Prasad, I've been kind of out of this for a couple years, but would you clarify the BDP process? I'm happy to, Commissioner. So the BDP process would be, in this case, if the board were to approve the rezoning with a BDP, it's really approving the rezoning contingent on that process that was discussed, Code Section 62-1157 being completed. So the way that would work is the board would approve the rezoning contingent on the BDP, and it would say what conditions the board would like in that BDP. And then after that, staff and the applicant would get together and ensure that the BDP, the final BDP that's crafted, includes those terms. That includes the county attorney's office reviewing that BDP, and then it's brought back to the board for a final vote. Go ahead. If the board ultimately, for some reason, doesn't approve that, or if it doesn't get finalized, the rezoning never actually happens. It basically reverts. So the board would have to see that final BDP and vote on it again. Okay, well, not saying that that's where we'll go or where we won't go. Sir, I have no more questions for you. I have no more questions. No, sir. So legally, just for what we do, if I don't know where we're going to vote, but if we did that and we put a BDP on it, it is legal and binding, or we won't approve it without that binding development. But again, I don't know where we're going, but that's just for you guys to have comfort that if it gets to where something is added to it, please don't laugh. I'm not lying. That this is where it will end up at that time. But that will depend on the board, but what we do will be legal and binding. But if it gets annexed into the city, it can go away. Okay. Thank you. Michelle? Michelle. My brother's not here. He was my twin. My name's Michelle Ritchie. I live at 105 Evelyn Drive in Melbourne. I actually live at the Village Glen Mobile Home Park. I've been there 10 years. And I came here to this specific area after many years of living in Brevard County. I wanted to live out here. I'm from Tampa. And Tampa, when I lived there, was a town. Of course, it's huge now. But I left because it was getting too big. And I came here, and I've lived out here in the wetlands ever since. I'm from Florida, basically. And I understand what the environment is like in the wetlands. I understand that it's all natural, and I want it that way. I'm here to speak on behalf of the community I'm from, too, in the Lake Washington area. And I just am very, very sad to hear what all is being talked about tonight. It's unfortunate that people from out of state want to come here and build and change. What Florida represents, it's the most beautiful tropical place I've ever lived at. And I've lived out west a lot. But Florida is just so beautiful and so quiet. And so the wildlife is so gorgeous. It's just always been that way growing up here. I so enjoyed it. And my family. They've all passed on. But I'm still here. And I feel the same way these people do. Exactly the same way. I can hear the owls at night when I'm in bed. And I can go outside and actually locate them. I'm so tuned in to the wildlife. And I just hope that you will not pass this. It is so important to us to get to live the way we live. It will alter everything. The wildlife will be gone. And I know that from living in Tampa. And I think Brevard County is absolutely gorgeous, what's left of it. But the building is coming on so fast right now because of the space program. Nothing personal. But it's unfortunate. It's going to be taken up. The man that I help out, he told me that they're planning, maybe not in our lifetime, but they're planning to build from Tampa all the way here to Brevard County. It's all going to be one area code, 321. And that's in the – I'm pretty sure that's correct. But he's 88 years old, too. Anyway, thank you for your time. And good luck with this decision. Thank you. Thank you. Allison Scherazza, help me. My name is Allison Scherazza. Scherazza. Or Scherazza. Okay. Good evening. My name is Allison Scherazza. I live at 3765 Harlock Road. For the past 25 years, I live on a two-acre horse property. I'm here tonight to urge you to deny the rezoning request submitted. As you know, the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board has already unanimously recommended denial after extensive public input, multiple revisions, and well-documented concerns. More than 3,100 residents, including the mayor of Melbourne, have voiced strong opposition. The concerns are clear. Infrastructure limitations, wastewater constraints, increased traffic, FEMA-identified flood risks, and incompatibility with our rural RR1 community. But beyond these concerns are serious compliance issues that must not be overlooked. First, the Defender Homes Airway Heights LLC is not registered to do business in the state of Florida. I think the lawyer mentioned that already. Secondly, the property at 1,800 Trail Mount has not paid taxes since 2023. More than $21,000 is owed, and tax certificates have been sold two years in a row. This issue has been raised many times and still remains unresolved. Across multiple parcels, the same developer is delinquent on three more Brevard County properties, bringing the total unpaid taxes to over $80,000 as of July 2026. And it doesn't end there. A related entity, Turtle Mount LLC, has multiple outstanding code violations, including construction without permits, fire marshal violations, operating a golf cart rental and repair business without prior approval at 1275 South Patrick Drive in Satellite Beach. Only after enforcement did the owner seek a conditional use permit. This is a clear pattern. Action first, compliance later. Only after complaints or enforcement. It's deeply concerning that this commission is asked to approve a rezoning for an applicant who has not made basic legal, financial, and regulatory obligations across multiple properties. Approving this request would set a troubling precedent and undermine public confidence in our processes. The advisory board recommended denial. The community is overwhelmingly opposed. And the factual record shows consistent noncompliance. I respectfully urge you to deny this zoning reapplication. Thank you. Tamsyn Wright. Hi, my name is Tamsyn Wright, and I live at 2525 Penlico Lane in Lake Washington, Florida. I've lived in Lake Washington for 40 years. Saying that makes me feel really old. I grew up on two and a half acres on Turtle Man Road with my parents, who are here tonight. And I have since built two homes here on one-plus acre lots myself. The first was in the reserve at Lake Washington. And we sold that property, and we moved because of massive flooding issues there along the rear of the property. They were caused by poor planning between the engineer of record, the city of Melbourne, and the developers. We have seen firsthand what happens when sloppy developers push their agendas, come in from out of state, and develop this area poorly. The residents are left to pay the price. I found it interesting that the man who sold this land to the new developer, Defender Homes Airway Heights LLC, he spoke at our last meeting, and he attested to the fact that he told whoever that gentleman is that this land was not in a good state for development because it was so low. But this gentleman came in, and he bought it anyway. And the first time he showed up here, he had a plan to cram apartments onto it. That says everything that we need to know about the integrity of his business practices, the developer, and the project, and why all of us are concerned. Developing wetlands causes a loss of water absorption to the tune of 1.5 million, million gallons per acre, okay? The majority of this parcel is designated as an active floodplain, and it contains wetland that is clearly visible on satellite maps. And lots of people have printed those out and shown you, but from above, when you look at an acre of land out here, many of us have seen this, what we've been trying to buy land. You look and you go, oh no, that big brown spot in the middle, that's not good. He knew that when he bought this. Even low-density housing would alter how water comes in and impacts the surrounding properties. That's all of us. Developing any of this land displaces water to other neighbors at lower elevations. Unfortunately, that's how gravity works. You need only to drive down Lake Washington Road after one week of rain, like the rain that we're scheduled to have this upcoming week, to see that our infrastructure is already so deeply strained. The water has nowhere to go. We need the wetlands to absorb it. Any concrete, any asphalt, anything put into low-lying areas does not make water disappear. It displaces water to the rest of us. Please consider the severity of the water issues that we have been dealing with for years and years, decades and decades, many of us, as you determine how much of this land should be developed and how to do it without further screwing the rest of us, because we are drowning out here. Thank you. Our next speaker is Scarlett Wright. Hello. My name is Scarlett Wright, and I am 12 years old, and I live at 2525 Pimlico Lane. I've lived in Lake Washington for nearly a decade. What I love about Lake Washington is all our beautiful wildlife. I love seeing the sandhill cranes, deer, and tortoises, and just listening to the birds chirping in the morning. I also love going on peaceful walks in our area. Lake Washington is such a beautiful place, and I would hate to see it become a busy street where there's lots of traffic and noise. I want Lake Washington to be a place where I can raise my future kids and have it be a peaceful area for them to grow up. Unlike lots of other neighborhoods, our area has lots of beautiful trees full of birds chirping and crickets buzzing. Our area is so lovely, and I don't think it would be able to thrive like it does today if we added this neighborhood into our area. Building these projects would cause traffic and deconstruction of animals' homes. Please help us preserve Lake Washington for the future generations. This is why we should say no. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Scarlett. Al Flungus Ferguson? Al. Is Al here? Anybody with a name Al? Okay, good. Good evening, commissioners. Nice to see you. Thank you for giving me the moment to speak. Hello, neighbors. Unfortunately, I am a little further west of you. I am beyond I-95. I grew up there since 1968. I raised my children there. The flooding, how many of you see the flooding on Harlock? It's absolutely disastrous. And put in another development. I already had to deal with, excuse me, I live on Ranchland Road, 5065. And Tropical Storm Fade, does anybody remember that? Lake Washington was on my street. There is no drainage. And what they're proposing is going, I know I'm further west. And our lots have to be two and a half acres minimum. What happens if you approve this and they encroach on our area? So what's going to happen then, if you let this pass, is it's going to affect our life. I sat on the SAT committee for Sable Johnson, pulled the band trailer for O'Galley for six years. I went to Sable Johnson O'Galley. So did my children. We grew up in that neighborhood. We rode horses out there. And as the young lady spoke earlier, one was just killed the other night. We can't ride our horses out there anymore because of the traffic. And if we might readdress that intersection at Turtle Mound and Aurora, why is there no stop sign, a head sign posted heading north on Turtle Mound approaching Aurora Road? And why is there moss over the stop sign? And they wonder why there are so many accidents there. There is no warning sign that there's a stop sign. And they want to add more congestion with this proposed property to our area. And I know I'm not as eloquent as most of these people that have spoke are, but I am very passionate about my thoughts. And I'm a simple farmer, but I've lived there since 1968. And this is – they want to develop 192. There's so many dilapidated buildings in Melbourne. Let them develop those. Stay out of our neighborhood. Keep Lake Washington the way it is, the way we grew up. Thank you so very much for your time. Thank you, Al. Well, I think there's been numerous requests for a break before we enter into any sort of deliberation. So it's 6.58. Let's break until 7.10. Okay. I'd like to ask everyone to be seated. We'll give the applicant their opportunity to respond. And in the fairness of good American dialogue, I request everyone to be as respectful as possible to the applicant and allow them to give their presentation. And we'll bring it to the board for deliberation. Thank you, Chairman. Members of the County Commission. Again, cameras, thank you. And speak directly into your mic. It's a little hard to hear. Oh, thank you. On behalf of Defender Home Airway Heights LLC, an entity unrelated to any other entities that is standing here on its own, not doing business, but here trying to get a rezoning. This private property owner has rights, just like everyone that spoke here tonight. They have rights to use their property. They say they don't want the rezoning, but they really don't want anything on this property. They want their wildlife. They want to ride the horses. They want to listen to the owls and the birds. But really, they don't want it developed. And that's clear, and I get that. It's been a sanctuary for them for a long time. But a private owner is entitled to have his property properly zoned based on proper zoning concepts without regard to the one particular use the owner might intend to make of the various uses permitted. A zoning authority's insistence on considering the owner's specific use of a parcel of land constitutes not zoning, but direct government control of the actual use of each parcel of the land, which is inconsistent with constitutionally guaranteed private property rights. This is Purpose Point Partnership versus St. John's County, 5th District Court of Appeal from 1985, which is still good law today. This is the 5th District Court of Appeal. I give this to you because it always has been my contention that site planning and development planning and topo and stormwater design is not necessary at this point. In fact, I would point you to your future land use element, which I've now misplaced, that talks about development, public facilities and service requirements, Policy 1.2.C. In the residential for land use designation, which we are, centralized potable water and wastewater treatment shall be available concurrent with the impact of development. The impact of development is at building and at design, at subdivision design. We're not there yet. There are 9.29 acres of uplands. Whether we use sewer or septic is still not clear because it hasn't been designed. I would also point to, in your packet, page 383, an email from Julie Kennedy, who spoke to you tonight. And she says, in response to some dombert, without performing a system-wide study for each project proposed, there is no way to determine the availability of sewer. So while she said something different here tonight, on July 27th, she said that the city doesn't really know if it has capacity for sewer. So the prior owner never attempted to rezone. In fact, one of the three private owners previously, Mr. Young, is the mortgage holder on this property. I also want to say about the map you showed in the red. It didn't show anything to the east or anything to the south. It just showed this. When you pull this up, you have all kinds of things, including Kings Mill, which has a six unit to the acre. Yeah, hers was in red. Mine's in different color. To the south is different zoning. This is a transitional zoning area, with Fox Bay being the primary one. The two conditions for the BDP, one is in your package, which is the stormwater system will be engineered to, at a minimum, maintain precondition rates and volumes. And the other one I can read or your staff can read as they wrote it, and we've agreed to it. But with that, we would ask that you approve the rezoning with the BDP, with the conditions requested by staff regarding stormwater. Because right now, the water running off this property is not treated, and there's no stormwater in this property whatsoever. Thank you for your time. Okay, thank you. And I appreciate the audience's diligence and courtesy. I'd like to say a few things, a lot to say, but I'm not going to talk too long. The gentleman who got up and spoke about going to Sable, Johnson, O'Galley, and riding horses out there. I appreciate that. But I went to Sable, I went to Johnson, I went to O'Galley, and I used to ride horses out there. So I can identify with that. You know, been a part of O'Galley since 1957 for quite a long time. It's very important. When I ran for the county commission, and I was blessed, God blessed me, an opportunity to win in 84, one of the main issues back in 1984 was the rezoning of the Lake Washington area to densities greater than one unit per acre. That's one of the things that motivated. And ironically, the problem then was being created by the city of Melbourne. Melbourne was using water as a tool to annex property, and so the county would keep – and I wish we had the council then that we have now, because I'm glad to see a change. So the legislative delegation created a water authority and actually put in legislation that – and I wish we had this in law – that literally when cities annexed property and increased densities, they had to get the approval of the county. So there was a – so this has been an issue that's been going on for quite some time. I've listened to both sides, and I think both sides have a strong argument, really, really do. But I am going to – what my position, what I recommend, and I'm only one of five, that when you look at consistency and when you look at compatibility, you first look at what density is out there. And obviously, I have felt very strong for a long period of time that one unit per acre should have been, if not larger, should have been the standard. And all of Lake Washington – I'm talking literally west of Wickham. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and we've lost a lot of that rural nature. But when you look at compatibility, I think you need to first look at what are the zonings and the densities of the peoples who live there that their properties abut this particular property. And they're basically five people, five units that live there, and the densities are 1.6 acres, one acre, one acre, one acre, and 2.07 acres. An average density of 1.35 acres, greater than one unit per acre. So I'm going to recommend that we deny this request because of the compatibility. And I'll make that a motion. All right. I'll second, sir. Okay. Is there any discussion? Yeah. Just a quick one. And, sir, that was the only thing I found that you could probably have denial on. I don't live in the area you know it, and so you're going to know what's going to fit in it. But just – I'm going to vote with your commissioner. But something to think about is they can still build 14 units there. The houses probably will be bigger. There is going to be probably less woods rather than more woods because it would have been compacted together. But just something to think about because it's the truth. It really is the truth. I'm not going to discuss. It's my turn to talk. I let you talk, and I didn't even interrupt. And I'm going to ask the people, don't second-guess her. You may get your way, or you may not. If you start arguing with the commissioner and may agree with you, you're sort of defeating your own purpose. So please be polite. So, again, he knows – I'm from that community, and I like to think that we're polite in our neighborhood, good people. So he knows your area, but just from looking at it and studying the items that come up, just something that you're aware of, they can still build the 14 houses they get to. They have property rights like you guys know. But it'll be more spread out. It'll probably be bigger houses. Probably more trees will come down when they build it. And I agree with the commissioner. The city of Melbourne is going to have to deal with the sewer septic later. That's not something that they're allowed to deny based on that. A lot of that would go to engineering. But, Commissioner, I'm going to vote with you because it's your recommendation, sir. But I just wanted to state that from listening, because everybody's arguing about no building. They get to build. They have property rights. Just the way you do on your property as well, and people should be able to enjoy their property. Do you have something? I do. So, I'm going to vote with your commissioner as well. But I do, I'm second-guessing myself because I know that we are supposed to only consider competent and substantial evidence. So, I would like our attorney to please read what the definition of that is. Sure, Commissioner. So, competent and substantial evidence is there is some real, material, pertinent, and relevant evidence that tends to prove the matter at issue where a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion. So, that is the definition, Commissioner. Thank you. I do want to say a couple things. One is, and I think I disclosed this, but I want, and being cautious, to err on the side of caution, that I have met with homeowners that live in the area, and I've also met with the attorney that is representing the applicant. I might add some of the evidence. I mentioned the compatibility to the houses that physically abut this property. Also, and I agree, the larger lots may create larger homes. But that's consistent with what's in the neighborhood, and that's part of my consistent argument. The one-acre lots being larger would continue to reflect the nature of the Lake Washington area, which is one of the few remaining areas of that rural residential and the larger housing and being able to do things in a rural residential area. I think the wetlands would be protected anyway because we have laws and regulations that it's illegal to impact these wetlands. So, is there any other question? If not, I'd like to call the question. All in favor, signify by saying yay. Yay? Yay. Opposed? Motions carried. If I may clarify, Commissioner, does that include? We'll let everybody clear out, and then we'll. Go ahead. We still have some comments with staff, and we can't hear up here. Mr. Chair, I believe the staff is wondering if you would want findings of facts with that denial. Yes. Yes, like for the staff to prepare finding a fact. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. Absolutely. So, we have to make these decisions, and the staff will come back with a finding of fact to verify and justify our decision or help us. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will now, good, good. This is not over. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. What's this? What do we have? It's in that case. We've got more business. Okay. We do have more business, so. Okay. I don't have an agenda. I don't buy your agenda. I never got one. So, we do have one card for public appearances. Enrique Pacheco? Did I get that? You need to talk about business. All right. God bless him. No, that's great. Got the, got the. We need to talk about it. I was hoping, I was hoping everybody left. God bless you. Okay. Yeah. So. We do have, but I'm going to go ahead and get you first. Enrique, you've been here for a long time. Oh, since the beginning. Can you give me three minutes and a half, at least? Absolutely. Yeah? Okay. Perfect. Well, good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your time tonight. My name is Enrique Pacheco, and I'm a local pastor in Vieira. I'm standing before you today during public comment to bring an urgent community infrastructure crisis in District No. 4 to your attention. For the past five years, our congregation, LNDC, has proudly served Vieira. We hold a critical role as the only fully Spanish-speaking church in the entire Vieira master plan community, supplying the spiritual and community needs of our Hispanic families. When people think of our Hispanic community, they might not realize who make up our pews. Among our 90 members, we have local medical professionals, IRO space engineers, teachers, business owners, attorney, construction worker, military, active, and veterans. We are your neighbors, your professionals, and a vital thread in the fabric of Brevard County. Right now, our community is facing an imminent relocation crisis. We have faithfully rented our facility for five years, but our lease contract is not being renewed. We are losing our home in two months. For years, I have actively reached out to Vieira's master developers to purchase a permanent site or find a location to build. However, we have been told repeatedly that no institutional land is available to accommodate our church. In a master plan community of this scale, it is a glaring omission that there is not one single designated space for a Hispanic house of worship. I am not here today to ask that the county interfere with private developers. I am here because when a community grows as fast as Vieira, we must ensure there is space for the soul of the community, not just the rooftops. We need zoning paths, underutilized commercial space flexibility, or local leadership to help keep this vital community intact. In fact, Commissioner Feltner, we intend to reach out to your office this week to request respectfully a brief meeting. We are seeking your leadership, your guidance, to look at alternative property options in District 4. Thank you for your time and for listening to the voice of our congregation. Thank you. I'll say real quick, sir, happy to meet with you and members of your congregation. I mean, there's many churches in Vieira, but it is land even for local government here in this immediate area is very tough. There's a lot of demand for right here. I'll just say quickly, because I'm sure we're all trying to wrap up tonight, but many groups, nonprofit-related, have come to me with a whole host of things, and they're all great groups. And I say to them, let's look in other areas of the county, because it's really hard right here. It's, you know, just the demand for, you know, Little League in this area is just stunning to me. You go over to Vieira Regional Park, and it's just incredibly busy. So I understand what you're going through. I'm happy to meet with you, and we'll take a look at it together. I appreciate it. I'm happy to make a phone call on your behalf, too. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. There's a whole segment of, you know, of the population of Vieira. I've even said to St. John's in the past, just so that you know, and I go there from time to time, and I've told them, I said, if your future plans include a school, I've said this to them probably two years ago, just now's the time to be thinking about that, because there's such demand in the area. Right. Right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. God bless. Thank you for what you do, and thank you for being here. Your community is so important to us, so I appreciate that. Okay. Now, let me get back. I think we're done. We're in four reports. Okay. County manager? No report, Chair. County attorney? No report, Mr. Chair. District 1? No report. District 2? I don't think we have a report on District 2. District 3? No report. District 4? No, sir. Wow. We ran the whole team. I have no report either, so thank the commissioner for their diligence, and very good meeting. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.