this is the planning and zoning board slash local planning agency it's an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners and the county commissioners will be making the final decision on all these items items h9 h11 h12 and h13 are lpa items items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on july 17th 2025 at 5 p.m when a motion ends in any kind of a split vote a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy as a reminder each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on record speakers for public comment and agenda items will be given three minutes at this time if any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application please disclose so now all right seeing that i bring it back to the board we need a motion for the approval of the pnz minutes from april 14th i've got a motion by debbie a second by erica all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously and we will be moving item h13 it will be following item h10 all right item h1 please item h1 is aubrey lucille williamson request a change of zoning classification from ru-1-9 to ru-2-10 under application 24z 00052 located in district 5 okay sir and are you the applicant good good good afternoon my name is nathan maloon i represent the applicant i'm an attorney all right go ahead and tell us a little bit about what you're wanting to do there please so we recently came before the board of adjustment where they approved some variances to the ru-2-10 my client as she'll explain just got married and is looking to kind of have this house as an investment property she has a current contract for somebody starting in july to be there for one year and in order to just kind of make it more conforming conformity with the area to the north there's a big block of ru-210 directly to the right or to the east is some ru-212 so in order to kind of keep the conformity with the area we're just we're seeking a zoning change to ru-2-10 it's it's compatible it's it's consistent with the area and it's in line with what else is in that area this is right outside the the shopping center with the long doggers and in the atlantic just south of where the health first is and the dunkin donuts is in in the atlantic it's kind of the weird enclave where you have the portions of the county and then in the atlantic right right over by the beach and we're asking the board to approve the zoning request to make it more compatible and consistent with what's in the area all right well sir while you're right there is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item sir if you could you and your applicant can grab a seat ma'am if you could get as close as you can to the microphone and state your name and address for the record so my name is sandra sullivan i'm from south patrick shore so i have a a friend that was on this street and um there have been two rezoning requests uh on franklin avenue uh one of them is next to uh clifflage and they had requested uh to have two duplex at the front and the back of the property 0.26 of an acre uh and it ended up by the county commissioner being a split vote and it failed they had request the bdp that was proposed was two duplexes uh front and back off of gross point because there's a lot of traffic issues there and the second uh no short-term rental was specified and no more than one story uh two you mentioned in the item that there is a property 200 feet to the east that property is under a bdp again no short-term rentals by the county this is an area of no short-term rentals so bdp that uh they could put in uh again a duplex but no short-term rentals and existing bdp on that property the this property is already so unlike those other two lots which are 0.26 of an acre they go from from franklin all the way over to gross point this property's already been split so if you were to be consistent with the surrounding area the maximum would be a to allow a a duplex on the property now i do want to point out regarding the short-term rental aspect you do realize and it's missing from the the map uh that was made by staff which is a major red flag from my perspective there's there is hoover elementary school literally a house away from this particular property now you know i don't know about you but as a parent of elementary school kids i wouldn't be happy to have a short-term rental which is inconsistent with this area and i would beg the question why did this go to the board of adjustments for a short-term rental for a zoning that they don't have yet so that's a that's a huge uh red flag as well so uh so my comment is this is inconsistent for the bdps that are in this area and um like i said the cleftledge property was denied by the county a 2-2 vote uh and the uh but that also had stipulated no short-term rentals thank you so thank you vote no is there anyone else would like to speak for or against this item all right seeing that i'm going to close it for public comment sir if you could come back up issues there that the surrounding properties are having even i've seen now on the west is that the west side of that is zoned are you 12 i'm having to make sure i'm looking at the same thing there's to the east that are you 212 to the north is are you 210 um to the south it looks like a multi-family zoning and in the atlantic and then there's some more are you 1-11 further to the south but then there's a commercial property with a strip plaza and the public's the long doggers the right kind of a multitude of stores um i also um the the former rezoning was an open lot the property is a one story there's currently a building on site um so there's not it's not where there will be a new building my client is um willing to keep this as a single family and not have it be a duplex that is not her intention um and like was stated there's a um there's a one-year lease that it's in place that begins in july um for for the property um so it's intended uses for for long-term rental use as a rental property for long-term use um it's obviously as a owner she wants to she has a vested interest in keeping the area nice and not having right bad things happen in the area okay does anybody on the board have any questions for the applicant you're going to do a bdp on that i think we're willing to we're willing to have a bdp that it'll remain a single family are you willing to do a bdp that there's no short-term rentals see i'm very familiar with that area and we keep talking about long doggers and we talk about publics but what's at the end of that street right there at that address is um hoover elementary school as was mentioned and also what is it uh busy bears daycare which is right across you know which is right there too so i i would just suggest that we say absolutely no short-term rentals i don't think it should be zoned as such so we're not willing to do that because we don't want to give away one of those bundles of sticks that my client would have as a property owner and have that go away forever who knows what the world will look like in 50 75 100 years and have that on there and potentially restrict that their school could be there the school could not be there the daycare could be there could not be there again while it's across the street it's an equal distance away from from these these commercial establishments it's five or six blocks down from some from zoned nc there's the cc and then there's the india lantic it's just as easy to get from there to the daycare or to the school as it would be from my client's property and while i realize that there's bad things that happen in the world and there's bad people in the world we can't sit here and think oh well what if somebody rents that well there's hotels and i'm sure if somebody had bad motives they could stay at one of the hotels that's a quarter mile up the street and come down and and look and do whatever they wanted to do to the school or to the daycare and god forbid that would be a horrible thing to happen but that wouldn't be a reason for taking a bundle of one of the bundles of sticks that my clients has as a property owner in the area i understand that but i do have friends that live there and they live in the condos on the south side and and they're saying right now as it exists today there's just way too much traffic that and people are speeding by and there's kids on that street and that hoover elementary school has been there for 50 years and i think it's probably going to be there another 50 years so i i really have a you know a hard time approving this especially with no bdp and it just be impossible for me to say in my good graces i mean the daycare may go out of business but as it is today i mean you know that that's that's my thoughts on it i i've stood there in front of my friend's house and almost been run over i just don't think we need to add to the problems that already exist on that street comments from the board mr john i i tend to agree without a bdp for short-term rental restriction this this won't fly i would concur with that who said that i'm sorry miss ruth okay any other comments from the board are you willing to do a bdp on that yes we're willing to do a bdp on no short-term rentals so the bdp would be on because the previous bdp that was put on for the other property said developer agrees not to use property for its worth willing purposes and therefore such use prohibited also shall limit density to two units constructed as a duplex maybe it's already constructed restricted by any changes to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations and finally the developer shall limit ingress and egress to one unit on franklin and one on gross point so i don't know if that's i think so what we'd be willing to do um and obviously we're open frame put on this but to have no resort dwellings and then to keep it with one unit on the property and you already have the one unit correct correct the one unit is already in existence there how many bedrooms is that unit it's a three two so we're not talking a whole lot anyway but no short-term rentals correct it would be no resort dwellings and keep it as the as the single family one unit so so we wouldn't be turning a story as well single single single story as well i mean keeping with the character of the street yes yeah erica i'll need a motion then okay well i will make a motion that we pass this with the following binding development plan put in place that states that it's going to have no short-term rentals single story what else did we say no resort use and single residence thank you very much i'll second that okay we've got a motion by erica a second by john all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that pass unanimously thank you okay item h2 quentin bessette jr requests a change of zoning classification from au to ru-1-11 under application 25z 0006 located in district one strina i've got an issue with this timer does anyone know how i get power to this so logan from scg tv just spoke down uh he'll he'll be down in a second it sounded like okay thank you sir are you the applicant yes sir i am if you could state your name and address for the record please coin investment 10 15 90 drive and a little bit about what you're wanting to do mr quentin i would just like a single resident home and for single zone all right while you're right there hold on one second does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that i'm going to close it to the floor for public comment do we have any questions board for mr quentin john i know you got something to say come on is there sewer on that property sanitary sewer no not that i'm aware of not that you're aware of yes sir so you're going to go on septic yes sir okay 2.8 acres right usually a third of an acre is what they use as a cutoff okay but you're close any other questions from the board for the applicant i need a motion second got a motion by deb a second by ruth all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously thank you thank you sir have a good day item h3 please item h3 is thomas doherty requests a change of zoning classification from gu to ru-1-11 under application 25z 0007 located in district 1 and chair if i may before you begin uh the staff report is um has some inaccuracies in it mr doherty actually produced a deed from 1952 that has this property in the same configuration that it is now so we'll do um an addendum for the board but um just want to clear that up all right thank you mr sir could you state your name and address for the record please thomas doherty 4970 curtis boulevard coco and a little bit about what you're wanting to do i just want to put a single family home there i know um on it's on the corner of dunbar and they just put four houses on dunbar and smaller lots than mine so i didn't think it would be an issue all right while you're right there hold on one second anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item i'm going to close it for public comment then i bring it back to the board we got any questions for the applicant mr ron you're not saying much i don't have any questions thank you i guess i have another question okay so since it fits is there any requirements of ru1-9 and ru1-11 why are you asking for ru1- i'm sorry ru1-9 ru1-7 why are you asking for ru1-11 i believe it's gu now so you would need five acres to build on it so i don't don't really have a choice if i want the setbacks it says the subject property would also meet the lot size width depth requirements of ru1-9 and ru1-7 i believe that with the 11 is you can build a larger home right right but i can always go down because i didn't go out and get building plans until you know until i get it get it approved the the only thing that i see is that this approval uh would be the introduction of a new zoning classification to this area so that that just for consistency since it would already fit on you know the other two zoning models and just and that may be a question for staff are we moving to our u1-11 or you know if it can fit on a you know lesser zoning criterion should we go with that so as you stated in the area there is ru1-9 and ru1-7 i believe already established i think there may have been some confusion that with the ru1-11 that requires 1100 square foot house that he could build smaller than that and so i explained at the north merritt island meeting that or the port st john meeting that that um that's the minimum house size so he has to build 1100 square feet but the ru19 obviously would allow for 900 square feet minimum and ru17 700 square feet minimum so it's just i think up to him about what size house he ultimately wants to build and pick the appropriate zoning to fit that but with those other ones you can go up you know if you have 700 or 900 you can still build larger than that that's just the minimum i would i would prefer 11 but i mean if i had to go smaller i would i'm just saying with in keeping with the characteristic you know in keeping with concurrency with the area it would fall into ru1-9 or ru1-7 i mean i mean i think i think you're misunderstanding you don't have to build for you that doesn't let you build a bigger house but the other ones let you build a smaller house with the ru111 the smallest house you can build is 1100 square feet with the seven it's 700 square feet with the nine it's 900 square feet you can go up as far as as long as it'll fit on your on your property with your setbacks you you can fill that up that sure yeah yeah let's do that thank you for explaining that motion to approve item h3 with an ru1-9 zoning classification second motion by erica a second by rob all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously thank you thank you sir item h4 item h4 forbes remodeling and construction llc being represented by chester forbes request a zoning classification change from au to ru-1-13 under application 25z 0009 located in district 5. is the applicant here forbes contracting or forbes remodeling and construction are you here okay we'll see in that i bring it back to the board mr chairman moved to table second okay we got a motion from john a second by ruth to table item h4 all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that item's been tabled item h5 john a and christine s connelly being represented by ken ledwa and or savannah farley requested zoning classification change from bu2 to ru-1-11 under application 25z 00010 located in district 2. okay and hello mrs farley hello my name is savannah farley i'm with bsc consultants representing the owner we're looking to rezone this project property from bu2 to ru-1-11 the owner wishes to build a single-family residence the current uh zoning of bu2 is actually not allowed under the uh existing future land use designation so by rezoning this property we'd bring it into compliance with that land use designation all right while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item this is an easy one see here you're rolling right along seeing that i bring it back to the board help her out henry unfortunately i know it too well is this the last of the jaron piece jaron that holds all the pieces down to 24 marker i don't know so i'm going to let you know that our office is obviously representing that savannah's great job by the way um i'll recuse myself from voting on this we took this project before i was um asked to be on the board but i don't believe so but it is the property it's the parking lot piece just north of market 24 okay on the east side the north side you have the east side of south banana yes sir okay it's good there's a lot of history down there you're just an attorney i guess what's to the north what's that another bu2 right to the north henry you know it's there's more houses there's residentials there's residential there's two residentials and but it's still bu2 it is bu2 and so what's happening is as folks come in for building permits they're having to go through the rezoning process to align the zoning with the underlying land use i'm sorry so there's homes along that side and what's happening is that folks come in for building permits putting on a porch remodeling that sort of thing they're having to correct their zoning to become uh to get into alignment with the underlying land use so there won't be any any more eventually there will be no more bu2 there's still a few to the north but one at a time they're they're being taken down that used to be wherever we lived in the trailer those days are gone are we good board because i got a motion by debbie i'm going to pick up on that i need a second i'll second okay item h5 i got a motion by debbie a second by rob all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously thank you good luck with the county commissioners item h6 item h6 stephen schultz jr requests a zoning classification change from au to ru-1-13 under application 25z 00011 located in district 5. sir if you could state your name and address for the record stephen schultz 275 gray road melbourne can you get a little closer to the microphone there steven schultz 275 gray road melbourne and a little bit about what you want to do mr steven um i was trying to just do an addition on my house and uh mr body told me that i need to rezone it wasn't zoned properly from the last last time they subdivided it before i own the property okay while you're right there let me see is anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item all right i'm closing it for public comment i'm bringing it back to the board do we have any questions for mr steven second i got a motion by john a second by erica on items age item h5 all those in favor say aye aye i said that wrong it's item h6 all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously great thank you very much thank you sir have a good day you too item h7 please eduardo burtott and brett burtott request a zoning classification change from bu1 and ru2 dash ru-2-10 to all ru-2-10 under application 25z 00012 located in district 1 sir could you state your name and address for the record it's brett burtto 2680 sugar pine run and a little bit about what you're wanting to do sir i'd like to add additional units to the property if i can and i was told it needed to be rezoned because it has two different zoning classifications it's my understanding that one of the zoning classifications would allow for it but the other would not so i'm looking to combine to the zoning classification that would allow me to do so all right and how many units you looking to add i was told i can go up to three and if i can great if uh if i can't minimum one maximum three so all right while you're right there if you can stand by anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item all right seeing that i bring it back to the board do we have any questions for the applicant i need a motion approve h7 i second got a motion from debbie a second by erica on item h7 all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously thank you good luck with the county commissioners item h8 miss trina item h8 emerald plaza development incorporated represented by lewis riposta request a cup conditional use permit for alcoholic beverages on premises consumption accessory to a cigar bar in unit in units one through five under application 25z 00014 located in district two okay is the applicant here if you could come up and get as close as you can to the microphone and sir if you'd state your name and address for the record riposta the address of the business 925 north courtney parkway merritt island and a little bit about what you're wanting to do well we've been in business four and a half years uh built a good quality business uh we currently have beer and wine uh in the past year year and a half there have been three other cigar bars that have opened in the county uh within 15 miles of me and basically it's eroded a little bit of my business um it was always my plan to get liquor when i could afford it um and now is the time to protect our our position in the uh in the county as the top cigar bar that people want to go to but they want that liquor so it's going to help me to uh maintain number one all right while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right closing it for public comment i'll bring it back to the board we have any questions yeah yeah applicant this gentleman's the only guy that doesn't have a cup in maradona for liquor well i'm waiting on a motion he's entitled i'm good everybody on north tropical trail or north courtney has one so this gentleman certainly deserves it so i'm gonna make a motion you're gonna make a motion to approve oh yes sir we already have a motion now in a second i just wanted how close are you to the high school um footage wise i couldn't tell you 800 feet it's down it's down the road beyond it's it's a you got to get in the car to get there okay not across the street arby's is across the street uh an abandoned car washes across the street i just got sold yeah i saw the sign actually yeah so you're you're not close to the school so the students can go no no no they even solicit us for donations and we're like why you know we do have a coffee bar with great milkshakes and stuff but that's not who we do we're cigars a question right here um how does how does it work with it being within the 300 feet of a church that's that's why i'm here um how to explain it in in a short form when i was granted the uh business license with the beer and wine for work almost five years ago the the ministry was there um they're open four hours a week on sunday from 10 in the morning to two in the afternoon um i had to pay uh the surveyor here recently fifteen hundred dollars to affirm the distance between the schools and the churches he didn't even know it was there it's so nondescript so that being said that's why we're going for i guess as the notice in my uh front yard is a variance in understanding that um applying for this application can i ask staff yes so let me add something to that so at the myra meeting uh the board of directors reviewed this proposal um they approved it seven to one their recommendation is that the cup will no longer be in effect should the space be leased to another tenant or if the use of the property is modified so myra understood the situation with the church i believe the church maybe moved in afterward i think um the way i in my research they came in in 2011 and it's changed hands once or twice since then right and it was much more active back in the day but now there's tumbleweeds in front of the door so the reason why we're submitting this application is for the the board to make a determination of whether or not it should be approved knowing that there is a church that's in the same plaza may i add something there's a marijuana dispensary next to the church with a marijuana doctor marijuana doctor marijuana dispensary you know we're all trying to get along um but that's the reality all right any more comment from the board just one more did they need a cup for the beer and wine this gentleman here no and well yeah for the well he has to have did he have to have a cup for that you do yes so this will be their second see yes all right so any other questions i was just going to say because he's expanding the use beer and wine to full alcohol that's why he has to apply for another cup yeah understood that i was just curious if if there was an original cup for the beer and wine yes was there any objection is that a four cop yes yes it's full it's quarter license i had sold my house to get the money put down on i was going to say that was that the down payment not a good amount down and yeah any other questions from board i've got a motion from henry to approve item h i'll second eight i already have a second here from debbie but all those in favor say aye any opposed opposed all we have one opposed but it did pass thank you all right thank you sir good luck with the county commissioners thank you item h9 which is an lpa item ctx equities incorporated custom built contracting request a small scale comprehensive plan amendment under 25s.09 to change the future land use designation from nc and cc to all nc under application 25 ss 0003 located in district one also i'm going to read in item h10 because they're companion applications so again ctx equities incorporated request the change of zoning classification from gu and bu2 to all bu2 under application 25z 00013 located in district one sir are you the applicant he's the applicant i'm the representative from the construction company for a project if you could state your name and address for the record um my name is james graham and the address for the business or for this address for business 350 south courtney park parkway marit island all right a little bit about what you're wanting to do we're looking to build a 12 000 square foot uh building metal building to do work on tractor trailer trailers all right while you're there is there anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item closing it for public comment seeing that i bring it back to the board we have any questions for the applicant any welding on that side so i can if you want to i just have a fresh i finally got it from the survey the wetland has been he has got welding is that what you said oh i'm sorry very they will be doing welding very little yes which is okay under bu2 right unless he puts a bdp on it yes but you're just doing the trailers not the uh not the tractors okay so you're doing any chemical washing or anything just basically body panel repairs on semi-trailers no paint no paint no basically drilling out robots and putting new panels on and re-riveting them inside and out back together again you know refreshing them oh yeah vinyl decals and stuff like that but no paint no paint all right thank you here any other questions from board i need a motion please motion to approve second got a motion by ruth a second by rob all those in favor say aye aye any opposed item h9 passed unanimously now we need a motion on item h10 make a motion to approve item h10 a motion by rob a second by debbie all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that passed unanimously thank you guys thank you all right thank you sir okay now we're going to move up item h13 h13 please recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding amendment to chapter 52 article 7 division 2 section 62-2844 entitled performance security to allow the public works director to release or reduce performance security as appropriate for the construction of improvements associated with subdivision and plats upon issuance of a certificate of completion does someone want to give us a little bit about what's happening there good afternoon uh rachel durena public works engineering uh so this was identified under can you hear me there we go okay normally i talk too loud um this was identified under an efficiency a staff efficiency review originally uh it subsequently went to the board for legislative intent but we're just looking for a recommendation right now when we have a performance security performance bond we issue a certificate of completion it goes it has to go back to the board of county commissioners before release it's really pretty administrative they never get commented on so this would be allowing the delegation of the administrative release of the bonds to be at the director of public works level is there anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item seeing that i'll close it for public comment bring it back to the board do we have any questions for staff i do miss ruth so in the current process how many times to release it does it go before the board it only goes one time but by that time the certificate of completion has already been given and so this just adds additional time before uh developers can get their performance security released and how much time does that add usually about a month a month and a half depending on when the board meets the chairman hold on one second mr we've still got the floor you are you good i'm thinking go ahead all right mr john yes sir um is this after all the punch items are done or is it just that the certificate of completion the certificate of completion is not issued until all punch list items have been addressed and as builds have been received so there are no items remaining to release the book yes sir all right so that'll just it'll save you time essentially in bureaucracy and getting that released yeah it saves staff time as well as just allowing people to get their performance bonds securities back in a more timely manner okay and sorry no that's all right hold on yes miss ruth go ahead i'm just curious um because i'm not generally in favor of taking things away from the board of county commissioners um does it not benefit them in any way to see um this coming before them i mean it's not i would say that's kind of neutral uh i guess it's an fyi if they're interested we've just never had any interest um from the board really in these items it's really just one more step in the process so did the county commission act as oversight the county commission has really never taken any action in terms of the actual certificate of completion issuances but they could if it was before them by the time these go before them the certificate of completion is already issued but the money's not released as a contractor i applaud any efforts to streamline the ponderous amount of paperwork that builders and and and contractors and people in the construction industry have to go through i i greatly applaud that any taking out any unnecessary step is a is a great thing in my in my eyes miss carina could you maybe mention about the maintenance bond component of it too that is part of the projects that come in after performance bonds do just to give that level of assurance maybe to the board yeah um so when a project has a public component that is going to be publicly maintained so if it's a public street public sidewalk anything like that before the performance bond is ever released a two-year maintenance bond is put in place and then goes back through a final inspection process at the end of two years to make sure that it's still in good condition and that there were no workmanship you know issues that weren't identified at the time of acceptance um so there's another two years on those types of things for maintenance bond purposes but i mean as far as the performance you know the code kind of i already identifies what's needed to be complete and it's a pretty extensive process in terms of the as builds that are required and the punch lists that get formulated from all the different departments at final completion and those inspections and no certificate of completion is ever issued prior to all of that being complete this is really an administrative process it going back to the board for release and so it was identified as a efficiency will be sure um in in the ordinance you're stating uh a release or a reduce reduction okay um what you've been stating is is a complete release but you're giving it to the discretion of the public's works director correct so the ordinance uh does have the ability to do a bond reduction but in the way that ordinance is written currently in the code um that requires that type item of work to be complete and acceptable at that time so um sometimes you'll have where the whole utility system is complete and acceptable but as a whole it's never a partial oh you put 10 feet of pipe in the ground we're going to release that much so that is contemplated as also being an administrative release but it would have to go through that same process so for those items that are complete they would have to be as builted they would have to be final inspected and then you could get that partial release of security for just those sections that are complete so then the project could be phased the project could be released as the phase is completed yes okay that helps thank you miss ruth any other questions from board to staff i need a motion i'd like to make a motion for approval okay we have a motion by anna a second by debbie on item h13 all those in favor say aye aye any opposed item h13 pass unanimously no i opposed mark oh i'm sorry i didn't hear you okay ruth opposed did we get that okay item h11 mr chair may i please ask for a five minute recess yes thank you i need to so myself we're going to move on with item h11 item h11 staff is seeking a recommendation for adoption of a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment under application number 24 ls 0001 regarding the brevard barrier island area bbia as a new element to the comprehensive plan under the state coordinated review process and seeing this staff somebody has been doing their homework yes very hard great job on this can we bring up the presentation please before you have discussions we just have a a small presentation for each one so we'll start with the bbia one first and i wanted to point out um as you go through these slides these pictures um that you'll see was done by a local artist um her name is la dora sims she's given us permission to use her um her her photography in our slides okay so the first one can you go back go forward they don't have the updated slides okay well there's a go go to the other one and we'll use the slide and the other one pull up the other one please sorry for the technical difficulties here is it on there the ear one yeah but it's missing this one the ear process slide logan can you pull up the ear um presentation also i'm going to use the slide slide two from there okay there we go and we can just go to slide two thank you so much nope slide two yes thank you so we're going to start out with a brief history and explanation of the comp plan and the air process so the 1988 comprehensive plan it outlines the long-range vision for growth conservation and development it serves as a guiding policy document the land development regulations are the primary implementation tools used to carry out the goals objectives and policies established in the comprehensive plan so the evaluation and appraisal which is called the ear it's a statutorily required review that bevard county must conduct at least every seven years to determine whether or not amendments to the comprehensive plan are necessary to maintain consistency with the changes in chapter 163 florida statutes so the ear process has five steps the first step is evaluation of the comprehensive plan to determine if updates are needed due to statutory changes second step is notification submitting a letter to florida department of florida commerce stating that amendments are necessary the third step is to transmittal amendments are prepared and then they're transmitted to florida commerce within one year of the notification the county's transmittal was required to be received by florida commerce by december 1st 2024 and that's pursuant to subsection 163.31912 of the florida statutes the request to transmit was approved by the board of county commissioners on november 7th 2024 so bevard county received received from florida commerce or i should say florida commerce issued a orc reports called objections recommendations and comments they issued that to us on january 21st 2025 so at that time the county continued or to collaborate with florida commerce and other state agencies and stakeholders to resolve the objections objections are things that are required to be resolved before it moves forward to adoption additionally we incorporated many of the recommendations and comments into the comprehensive plan that was also provided by florida commerce as well as some stakeholders and other state agencies so bevard county did request an extension to the adoption of the ear based on the amendments and the bbia element we wanted to ensure accuracy and continuity of the plan so this extended our response time to september 17th 2025 we requested the extension because as i stated we were collaborating with so many different state agencies and stakeholders and residents that we wanted to make sure we got it right before we presented it to you the next thing i want to point out is that in the documents that you received the blue underline are additions and the red strikethrough are deletions those represent the changes since transmittal any text that is in black underline and black strikethrough represents changes that were already transmitted and effectively accepted by florida commerce meaning we didn't have to do anything to those i also want to point out that if the board issues a directive to make any changes beyond what has effectively been accepted by florida commerce it may be considered a substantial change and if so florida commerce may determine that our comprehensive plan is out of compliance so after the adoption of the comprehensive plan the county is required to update the land development regulations within 12 months those land development regulations is what's going to implement what we put into the comprehensive plan so florida commerce also has to review those land development regulations as well we have to submit to them and so you know i want to start by saying this is not the end all this is just the beginning of a long process can you switch the slides go back to the bbia one please let me ask a question you said this is a long process how many times are we going to review this because i think this is our second look on the comprehensive plan after it's adopted then we'll be working on updating the land development regulations and that will take hopefully less than a year but it will be a long process more so for staff and other collaborating agencies and and stakeholders that's just under the bbia both under both under both yes thank you if i could just add one thing you know the bbia is a never-ending thing so when we're talking to florida commerce they're going to expect continuous changes in perpetuity so this this project doesn't ever really end but this is the starting point okay so from this slide you can see the area of critical state concern that act was enabled in 1972 there are currently six statewide six area critical state concerns and that includes the bavard barrier islands so all development that goes on in that area has to be reviewed by florida commerce so whether it's a building permit every zoning if you do anything has to go to florida commerce for a review and so the guiding principles for development provides the key statutory protections it was designated in 2023 land local the our local plan is based upon existing comprehensive plan with new and strengthened policies as you know we had a public workshop we had 254 participants attend that and 184 respondents and survey and and that began moving to adopt part 16 of the county comprehensive plan for the bbia element so back to the objections recommendations and comments so from florida to commerce we only received one objection we did receive i believe it was three comments but only one objection so again the objections are the things that the county has to resolve before it can move forward so this speaks a lot to all the work that you know was put into it prior to it being transmitted so as you can see what the objection was and what we did as a result to to satisfy that objection can go to the next slide so next slide is one of the comments that was provided by florida florida commerce and it's to review the use of should and shall and put those policies listed so as you can see our result we updated to shall in the in the sections listed below next slide so here's the definition of should and should and shall this is in our glossary so should expresses an obligation something that's a mandatory action why shall expresses the can't the command must express what is mandatory so here is another comment uh intergovernmental coordination uh and we did we coordinated with fwc to address their agency comments so as you can see that was the result of uh our collaboration next comment was bippa feedback again we collaborated with bippa and that was the result of how we work to incorporate some of their comments and concerns and their wishes into the comprehensive plan there were some non-orc amendments they were very minor and that was to change policy 2.5 or i should say update it to clarify the shoreline hardening uh prohibition prohibition a close potential loopholes and some other policies were addressed in this as well and thank you for your time i'm going to start off by saying nice job thank you i guess my microphone's going in and out but to everyone on staff nice job well i'll open it for discussion here with the board mr chairman i knew you'd have something to say john that's a couple of comments um acronyms and initialisms are rampant throughout this document is there any way to either publish a list of all the acronyms and initialisms so that someone can refer back to them and know what exactly you're talking about because there are a lot of initials in every profession and they just get blurry after a while sometimes you have the full name sometimes you just have the initials and it would be best if you either put the full name in or have a glossary there is a glossary in the comprehensive plan so that's what i want to look at to see which ones of them are actually already in there um i would i would put all of them in there make it easy for people to read this okay we can take that recommendation sure okay thank you on that um second thing the analysis of the public input um stated that the the major concern was density and then the secondary concern was sea turtle protection that's what the public came up with and i found that item 12 i believe it is which deals with density there's a contradiction because there are with the comp plan the comp plan says no density in the increase in the barrier islands period but here in the bbia they have concessions or conditions so how are you going to address that so we were asked by florida commerce um to put in a separate future land use to take our existing future land use move it into the bbia and rename it what that does is if we ever make changes to our existing future land uses those changes would not affect the land uses in the bbia okay but if the comp plan says no density increase shouldn't the bbia say the same let me clarify something policy 7.1 of the coastal management element that you are referring to still exists and will continue to exist after that as does 12.1 if you look at the new bbia let me just read it out consistent with policy coastal management 7.1 of the coastal management element brevard county shall not increase residential densities within the bbia by amending the future land use map designation for such properties so it's actually restated what's in 7.1 but now it's no longer connected to the coastal eye hazard area necessarily like the argument has been made with the coastal management element so we're removing that ambiguity and now it's just a flat statement clarifying flat out no no residential density increases and all the other policies and under objective 12 are should be should and we will continue to read in the context of that so those are additional regulations that will what i just read will always apply so just to be clear not only are we we're not taking it away it clarifies and if anything strengthens it so why do you have all these others after that because we still as trina was mentioning we still need to define the future land use of each property so what you're seeing there is so let me take for example let's say uh res 4 um they're today they're res 4 but now we're creating a new res 4 very very similar to what they have today because the law says we can't take away any zoning or use of land for the people that have their that already have a certain land use but we've made some some minor adjustments for example today and current land use you can get density bonuses for puds but we've now restricted that new puds won't get that density bonus by having these policies separated it allows us to do that otherwise any policy so in other words it allows us to fork and apply regulations to policies that make sense in the area critical state concern but may not make sense countywide okay i would think the bbia would be more restrictive exactly and it is then that was a good answer policy 2-3 which deals with lighting regulations are those regulations enforced all year or only during breeding term times darcy see back here uh certain regulations would be uh relevant during nesting season so during um march 1st to october 31st okay so it isn't all year it's just seasonal correct okay all right um on 2-4 beach uh nourishment re-nourishment who's paying for all of that because we need it uh we have a beaches boating and i'm sorry i can't see you but i'm looking at you through bonnie um we have a beaches uh re-nourishment program through natural resources and that is a variety of funding sources it's army corps fema state grants there's the county chips in some a lot of it is reimbursement after hurricanes so we have a very robust speech re-nourishment program we just finished up another phase uh right before nesting season and as soon as nesting season's over we'll be right back up doing it again putting some vegetation and putting more sand down is that re-nourishment what the core is doing currently uh yes there's a there's a cape canaveral as a project and there's a bypass project for the port where they have the inlet there where they have to pump sand from one side of the other so there's a variety of projects that go on throughout the years okay just a side question on that are there any specifications as to the type of sand that they're using for re-nourishment oh yes strict you know it's the color the grain size you have to make sure that it doesn't if it's too fine it'll cement up and be too hard to nest in the color needs to be correct because that can change the i believe it can affect the sex of the of the hatchlings making them i was more concerned about all the shells that are ground up into that uh re-nourishment i saw in cape canaveral well i mean that's what sand is so but yeah they do have to check the grain sizes they do sieve analysis and it has to be approved by all the permitting agencies which ranges from we said army corps fwc fdep okay um two seven oil and gas exploration aren't isn't the coastal region in florida banned from any oil and gas exploration and production i could not speak to that with a hundred percent certainty i think so but i don't know i thought the governor had done something to that effect to prevent it so that our beaches wouldn't be ruined like they are in louisiana and texas yeah and and that may be the case i just don't know that for sure i can find out and send you information on that if if it's not can we initiate a ban i mean it's shaking his head no no and that's that was one of the reasons why we worded it the way we did we can review and comment and obviously it's not in our jurisdiction to approve or deny so that's that's why it's worded the way it is would that have to go up to the state or up to the feds i believe it's both i'm not i'm not 100 sure alex just said both from back here so probably both probably both okay because i don't know if you all have ever gone to a beach that has an oil spill on it uh like i used to see in galveston it's horrendous you have to wash your feet with gasoline after you get off the beach so it's uh i'm hoping that they don't allow any of that to happen on our beaches let me see if i got anything else you don't have anything else i have a question sure go ahead okay all right we'll just go back and forth here all right so when we're at 6.7 and we're talking about acceptable hurricane evacuation times um i live down in the south beaches and we know that they're everybody's going to be coming from the the wabasa beach off it floods all the time so they're going to be taking a1a so when we talk here about the level of service and the information is contained in the florida regional evacuation study so i i went online and i took a look at the florida regional evacuation study and it said to evacuate was going to take us the category 5 hurricane 61 hours is that is that somewhere going to be addressed or talked about i mean that that's kind of you know so i'm going to turn that question to john scott he's our manager our director of emergency management in broad county good afternoon you guys hear me okay so the short answer in that is that 61 hours you're referring to is what's called an operational scenario if you saw on the table there's a variety how about now okay we'll try that again so there's a variety of options we follow the base scenarios the operational scenarios contain a whole lot of other variables that we use to just actually see what different modeling would be so the base scenario that we would follow for out of county is i believe 26 24 stand by 26 i also want to point out here that when we talk about evacuation clearance times operationally so where you guys are concerned about how long it takes to actually evacuate that is just one piece of the factor right we do a lot of things operationally to work within those times so it is just a piece based on some modeling there are three other three to four other factors that actually do more to drive clearance times operationally yeah and it is a concern now it's my same concern when i read through um the comprehensive plan right so that we can get to that as well i'm sure but this is just an added layer of protection for us down there but since we're since i live down there i'm telling you i'm i'm thinking to myself we'll never our category five's coming our way that's kind of scary you know so we also just does flood let me just also say we spend a lot of time planning for those kinds of things we're very aware of the challenges in the roadway network we're very aware of how we can be influenced by other regions there's again many other things we do to help mitigate those times i would also like to point out that like hurricane irma which was in 2017 is the largest evacuation in the state's history we put seven million people collectively on the road and we didn't have the kinds of backups and stuff like that folks may remember from the 04 and 05 season in large part because we understand the roadway network better and we evacuate slightly differently from how we actually implement it operationally thank you i didn't bring that up because that was in the comp plan that wasn't in the bbia well it's partially in the bbia and then it's in the compound comp plan about clearance times at the etc so i'll have the same probably more questions there too but while you were while you were having a quiet moment john i thought i'd have to drop in mr chairman i had a question uh about our process today is this mike on okay yes uh as i understand the everything that's printed in black is already been accepted that is correct does that mean that we are not reviewing any of the stuff that's in black and we're only reviewing the stuff that's in red or blue well again anything in black was already accepted by florida commerce they had no objections or comments or recommendations to that so only the things that were transmitted that only the things that were changed since transmittal is in the black excuse me in the blue and the red if we make a substantial change to some of the text that's in black then or i should say if we make a change to text that's in black underlined florida commerce may consider that as a substantial change because they've already effectively accepted that and that would then what we would have to request an extension of the process then if we did that it would possibly make our comprehensive plan out of compliance okay and i think most of the people with bbia just want to get this going and pushed through right and we know that it's going to be an ongoing process we know there's going to be a lot of iterations but so to get it approved by the state i think is you know just probably what most people want who live down there but i don't know and i want to speak for y'all okay the sooner we can get these elements adopted and the comprehensive plan the sooner we can start working on the land development regulations to implement those things which i know meant last year i would have had a lot of suggestions i had a lot of suggestions but everybody said ah don't worry about it you know it's going to come back and we'll review it a second time well well if i may just keep in mind the board may always suggest a new change and you know a separate text change you're not limited to just ear or implementation you know this is you if the if the board of county commissioners and this board or this board recommends it to make a change in addition to that i mean that's something that can be done at any time there's no limit to the amount of text change amendments that can happen now where we're at the stage we're at in the process today is kind of i would say the refinement stage you know you come up with new language to meet the year process and in this case the implementation of bbia you get that to commerce they look at it to see what may or may not need to be changed and then we focus on those things so the it should be getting more and more refined now if you see something else in there that you want to make a recommendation of course we'll make that we'll draw your recommendation to the board of county commissioners but i'm just saying you know that as far as what our risk is it's it's in making changes that weren't in that work report at this point okay i would make a recommendation that in both both this beia and the comprehensive plan that who's ever responsible for each one of the sections take a look at all of the uses of the word should and either one change it to shall or two delete the policy uh my reasoning for that is when you use the word should you're implying that there's really no commitment behind that uh and i also believe that making it should having should in there makes it difficult for the county employees to uh enforce that policy mr ron are you good uh yeah are we are we going to talk about the uh uh comprehensive plan separately or yeah okay um yes john go ahead um bbia 4.5 stipulates where illegal or accidental discharges of materials or violations you have a fine associated with that for as a penalty uh 4.5 policy number 4.5 yeah and you asked if there was a fine yeah that's going to depend on what the violation is and who handles that a lot of times that goes to dep goes to the state and we and natural resources the county we take an educational approach to you know sometimes people will discharge their pool water or they're constructing a pool or something and they'll they'll have discharges out to the lagoon um they may not know any better um you know we get someone out there to talk to the owner and let them know what are the rules and why do we have them um but no fines i don't think that the county has any fines for this type of discharge i think that's going to go to the state we don't have home rule i'll defer to bill i'm going to answer that preempted so there is yeah there's preemption okay um on 5.2 it says brevard county shall address modification of existing development that does not meet stormwater management standards within the stormwater management criteria and should use available financial mechanisms what does that mean i think when we're talking about public projects uh retrofitting a stormwater and looking for grants and funding you know other than uh normal sources i mean different projects are going to have different funding sources i mean we've got sorrel projects that are stormwater you got capital projects that are through your tax bill and then there's a lot of resilience projects that have been ongoing i shouldn't say a lot there's resilience projects where you can get special funding for that and my understanding is in the bbia once we're all adopted and cinched up here there could be additional funding mechanisms that we can tap into as an area critical state concern so that would be another um potential source of revenue for staff to look at to fund projects and what's the timing on something like that i mean if you have a failure in a development and you have to address it right away but you need to get money to pay for that well that that would be if someone's in violation of their st john's permit that would be for st john's because you have to if you're a you know have a subdivision let's say or a site plan where the stormwater system is permitted through the state and it fails then st john's would deal with that we also do have site plans that have to be approved through the county and some things are enforceable through our site plan process but that would be on a private person and they'd have to deal with their own funding darcy i know you're back there okay okay so i was just worried about existing facilities that fail for what whether it's storm damage or just bad design that we have those financial mechanisms that will handle that immediately rather than you have to go to the state and say you know we need money for this and it doesn't get repaired for months at a time years well and if it was if it's a private project that fails you know the county i don't think has any lead i mean you're you're putting someone else's the private person's funding financial liability on the county to fix it i mean and and correct me if i'm wrong alex we would go you know the property owner would be responsible for that but what about the developer that turns over the roads and the and the sewage and everything to the county once the project is complete and that so if it's a county project alex why don't you speak so it's actually kind of related to one of the items that we had earlier today that rachel brought forward dealing with maintenance bonds so obviously staff goes out there make sure that the facilities and infrastructure is in good enough shape and acceptable that's when we receive it and it becomes our responsibility and then the maintenance bond comes in i believe it's for a year or two just for the immediate aftermath of when the the project's completed and so we have that as the financial backing to ensure that the infrastructure is in good shape now with respect to what happens down the road potentially i mean that's obviously something that we would have to report to any state agency whether it be st john's or fdep and the county also has code enforcement mechanisms in place uh that would allow us to if there was an emergency um apply or um bring those fines against the property owner as part of like the remediation of the case itself so if we had to go in and do an emergency uh repair something like that that would be an avenue to recuperate those funds okay i'm not going to hit you with everything i found be here all day um are there any mining activities on the bbia because there is a there is a section here regarding it and i'm just curious and not that i'm aware of currently just but however it's one of those things that if it was already in their zoning and loose use of land you know that the the implementing brevard barrier island protection act doesn't allow us to modify you know existing zoning and uses of land so that's one of those kind of things that if they if they have the entitlement today they they continue to have are there any plans for sewage in the area bbia there are a lot of people below that that live further south than myself i live in turtle bay they don't have water so just wondering i'm sorry can you repeat the question were there any problems are there any um ideas about uh sewage on bbia in the barrier in that critical area of concern we have eddie fonton in our utilities director here um the um education of the public for by signage who provides all those signs for uh the public to see that that's a manatee area you know they have it with the you know slow speed on the boats and and other things uh who provides that signage mr hafenganer uh we're going to let uh mr fontanen uh address fontaine fontaine address miss erica's questions okay okay sure go ahead hi how's everyone um so within and i think it's going to be an item maybe for h h12 but within the amendments we made to the water sewer element we also updated the utility service boundary we did that as a means of providing a boundary so that as future cip projects are they would be contained obviously it would be i don't know um not the right way to do it to program projects outside of the boundary um so the question i think is i i'm and i don't have a map of an overlay of how that compares with the boundary itself um there is legislation with regard to indian river lagoon and obviously the b map requirement of nutrient reduction so that would also be a state component to be considered as we're talking about the expansion of a collection system in the down uh you know the the rabbit hole here because the whole idea i think is just to you know stop it just move forward but i'll let john keep going he's he's he's doing a great job for us in our critical area of concern thank you so my last question was regarding signage who provides those signs for uh education of the public is that something the county does or does it come from the state i think it depends on the the project and it depends on the funding sources for for that project so i mean the county does some signage do you have anything particular in mind that you're talking no i'm just curious just um they're saying that um the applicant would have to erect a manatee education and awareness sign so who do they make up their own or are there standards from fwc there's from the state they have um signs that they can provide to the applicants to put them up okay and then our um beaches boating and waterways section also sometimes we'll get grants to put up signage in different places and we maintain the channel markers which is not the same thing that you asked about but we do have a boating section that also can provide some resources sometimes okay i just wanted to know if you had a standard that they would be able to yeah the state does okay that's good um in um 12.3 it talks about future land use designations future land use map designations are you changing res one to residential one on your maps is that what this is trying to tell me because i don't think that's going to fit on your map we're just trying to remove uh abbreviations i believe oh good i like that americans with disabilities in particular by the way compliance i think you might have a problem though with uh with res and making it residential because i don't think it's going to fit in some of those areas when you do when you look at your maps but that's just graphics are you through uh yes i'm good i've just got one question if an area incorporates i.e maradon and villera there are no is there any obligations or mandates that that incorporation will would bring your data to that area are they obligated at all are you referring to whether or not our comp plan regulations would apply in an area that becomes incorporated when i say when villera move goes into a city potentially merritt island goes into a city they they will be under a whole new set of rules is that yes sir they would the jurisdiction would have to update their comp plan to incorporate those areas and then they would be entitled to whatever you know that was land use regulations apply to them that was my only question that's good that's it thank you so with that we're seeking a recommendation to the board of county commissioners on approval denial and it looks like some members of the public may be looking to speak is there anyone in the audience want to speak for against this are you the only one ma'am let's see there's two two ma'am if you could come up and state your name and address for the record and i'll give you three minutes yes santa sullivan south patrick shores uh just a couple things i want to talk about uh the first one is about the future land use map and the the comments made that they are entitled uh to to additional density so i want to point out that the department of commerce formerly deo in response to brevard county uh two one dash zero one esr uh made a comment uh pertaining to some property rights policy um letting them know that future land use is not a property right so i will bring that up to the chair i also um want to mention that the bbia is something to celebrate because this is the first one in 45 years because and it was essentially happened because a vote was taken under public comment to up zone south beaches and um so in consequence of that got the assistance of our state rep as a checks and balance um so um sea turtle wise we are the largest loggerhead nesting in the world were the key to their survival uh armand was destroyed they had about double of us so it's exceedingly important one thing one thing that's missing in this report it's called the cbra the coastal resource barrier island act is a federal act which prohibits federal monies within that area of the cbra there's no mention of the cbra in here there are two areas of brevard that have area designation one is in south beaches and one is up in lake polinda beach so that is missing but i think that section 12 needs to be addressed given that department of commerce saying that the future land use is not a um a property right i also want to address evacuation because i don't think it's uh it's spelled out well in here um and i understand the clearance time part is in the other section i'll talk about that but this area is what 30 miles long from the bridge way down the south that bridge floods early on so the only way out is north to 192 where everybody else is trying to get out and so this particular area as an area and brevard has unique challenges that i do not think that the um the evacuation part is adequately addressed and it should be stated in here the um the the state standard is six 16 hours all right thank you ma'am ma'am would you like to speak i'm mary spar if you could state your name and address for the record please mary spar i live in coco and i'm representing sierra club turtle coast group sierra club has reviewed the bbia amendment carefully this amendment is extremely important for adequate protection of habitat and coastal resources please recommend approval of the bbia amendment to the county commission we support approval of the amendment recognizing that there is one particular change that needs to happen in the next amendment we can't do it right now because it would be a substantial change according to staff what's needed is a policy outlawing the change of residential land use designations to commercial land use designations in other words a change of intensity of land use something mentioned multiple times during the transmittal phase we are just getting a little more specific and asking for no changes for residential to commercial to allow the building of hotels and prevent changing residential to commercial land use and zoning to to allow a large multi-family affordable housing project under the state's live local act and prevent changing residential to commercial getting pud zoning and then taking advantage of the fact that any residential component of that pud can have a density greater than the original residential designation now sierra club understands that prohibiting a change of bbi land use from residential to commercial would be a substantial change which is not allowed at this point in time but in the next comp plan update the county could transmit such a policy for the bbia and just a little while ago billy persad commented that this is an ongoing process over many years in conclusion we're asking you to recommend to the county commission that they consider a carefully worded policy prohibiting this specific intensity change in their next comp plan update and we're also recommending adoption of the bbia amendment now thank you ma'am is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak for or against this item all right seeing that i'm going to close it for public comment bring it back to the board board do we have any other questions for staff i'm only going to say one thing staff you've done a marvelous job as much time and effort has gone into this if anybody's got something critical to say uh you need to take them out but uh they uh you guys have worked there's no question uh the the amount of meetings you all have had and many of us tried to keep up with that and i think you've done a great job so i don't know if the commission will tell you but at least we did i need a motion i make a motion we uh accept is submitted a second all right we got a motion for item h 11 by henry a second by rob all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed item h11 passed unanimously we want to read in item h12 item h12 staff is seeking a recommendation for adoption of the evaluation and appraisal review here based on amendments to the comprehensive plan under application 24 ls 0002 to the state land planning agency florida commerce for review under the state coordinated review process established by section 163.3184 florida statutes is there anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item okay ma'am if you could come back up and have you already submitted this with the staff do we already have copies of this uh if this is the handout to the boards they have a copy of what i'm talking prior to they vote yeah no it's not necessary those are those are for them that that form there if you want to give that to staff that is from the um the state uh commerce that future land use is not a right property right okay santa sullivan south patrick shores um okay our plan our lives matter too um so i um have some serious issues about some of the changes that have been made um so there was um as a result of a 1999 evacuation study that found critical evacuation deficiency on the barrier island there was a merritt island and uh central barrier island study this went from merritt island all the way down to india atlantic the relevancy of that was a it was a down zoning study that reduced the density from um res 30 to res 15 now the references in the com plan reference have changed history like that didn't exist and i take objection to it i would even suggest that it's malfeasance which is a pretty serious allegation um you'll see i sent a lot of you guys this letter here on the back this shows history this is from the county itself the county has shown a commitment to cap or even reduce densities on the barrier island this process began in the south beaches area with the adoption of the 192 south beaches small area study and has continued to present day as recently as a 2000b plan amendment cycle the county adopted comprehensive plan amendments that capped the residential densities for the unincorporated areas on the northern and central barrier island at existing levels so what have we done we've taken merritt island and for the myra area we have changed the the density there to res 30 now res 30 and the comp plans and i said you got a bunch of you i don't have everybody's email address a document from the 2000b comprehensive plan that explicitly that res 30 was only for three properties only for three properties so the other thing that is a major change is that of evacuation so evacuation defined by state statute 163 how is that 3178 or 2178 it's in there and the states that the state level of service is for 16 hours for a category 5 um out of county and so what the county is doing is they are shifting to a clearance time a clearance time is whatever time it takes it is not a level of standard uh level of service standard as defined by state statute and so they ask the question of staff you know does that mean we're going to revert back as a level of service to the to the state 16 hours because we're not defining it and in the seat i would appreciate this is a huge document this should have been broken down into sections and and and have be the public able to comment three minutes on a thousand page document is absolutely ridiculous okay thank you ma'am ma'am would you like to speak also oh again mary sparr um mary i live in coco and i'm speaking for sierra club tier to coast group sierra club supports adoption of the ear based amendments though we would like to see one change made first there are a handful of inconsistencies between the coastal management element and the new bbia amendment for the south barrier island south barrier island that need fixing right now let me explain the state agency florida commerce sent separate orc reports on the ear and bbia amendments they objected to some of the bbia amendments and had negative comments on others but they overlooked the same exact problems in the coastal management element and the coastal management element included in the ear in particular the state found that policy bbia 2.6 lacked a specific timeline for a re-evaluation of the effectiveness of the county's coastal setback line or csl but they failed to mention the exact same lack of a specific time frame in the coastal management element element policy cm 4.2 and obviously it's very important to reevaluate this really old line in a timely manner also bbia policy 5.8 which encourages nature-based design and low impact development for areas vulnerable to flooding was flagged by the state for weak language specifically the use of should instead of shall the state overlooked the same weak language in coastal management policy cm 14.9 in general what the county did was change the bbia amendment to please the state but left the corresponding coastal management policies alone staff's new changes to these two bbia policies flagged by the state are really excellent at a minimum sierra club would like coastal management policies corrected for the same defects the state spotted in bbia language in conclusion please recommend to the county commission adoption of the ear amendment after correction of important inconsistencies between coastal management element policies and updated bbia policies okay thank you ma'am anybody else like to speak for against this item all right seeing that i'm going to close that for public comment i bring it back to the board we have any more questions or comments for staff i have questions for staff miss ruth yes um have clarification on what the state statute for a level of service on the barrier island getting off the barrier islands would be uh sure it looks like it's section 163.3178 and then it's subsection eight does it give an exact time so i'll have to defer to john but my understanding of the statute is that it says there's essentially three prongs to it right so a proposed comp plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high hazard provisions if the adopted level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category five storm event as measured on the sapphire simpson scale and then there's two other options so i'll defer to john as to how we calculated that yeah so our understanding and the way we read it is because we have an adopted level of service which is the out-of-county clearance time in the regional evacuation study which we're comfortable with we meet that standard and the purpose for removing the evacuation route map out of the comp plan so i'll take that one too um so evacuation route maps some of that's just cleaning up we did that in our plan as well evacuation route maps are candidly a bit antiquated most folks these days when they evacuate evacuate with a destination that's what we see over and over again most folks are using their phone at this point in time pretty much all roads our evacuation routes um so it just is it's no longer applicable to where we are in time i was curious because i went on to the emergency management website because i was curious so many new people move to florida every day they're completely unfamiliar and granted we yes we all most people have phones these days um but i couldn't find a map anywhere even ask two extra people to try and find something for me and we could come up with nothing again there you found we do not post one interesting again it all the conversations we've had and we spend a tremendous amount of time in our community doing outreach and talking to folks the actual evacuation route that comes back from a period of time in 2004 and 2005 and prior to that where you were using actual roads where people didn't evacuate with destinations that really is a big difference the majority of folks today should you evacuate are evacuating with a destination in 2004 and 2005 which i know is seared into our memory culturally you didn't have the ability to go on your phone and book a hotel you didn't have the ability to look at those kinds of things you didn't have ways you have google or apple maps which modeled dynamically which is sort of a way to tell you if you have traffic coming up take this off-road instead of that road all of those capabilities exist today so it's just it no longer makes sense to do those so there won't be any more like evacuation route signs on the road or anything so evacuation route signs are handled by dot so i would defer to them for that because those are pretty much primarily their their roads okay go ahead are you done i have more but you can skip in okay so so this is where i had my question too so um so then the level of service that's acceptable for say category five hurricane for those of us on the barrier island would be what so right now that level of service is 26 hours we're seeing 26 hours and the state would like it to be 16 right that is if you do not adopt a level of service okay so all right it's now all right and then that's in now i had the hardest time finding this for our uh county comprehensive emergency management plan online and seeing anything like anything excuse me and then when i went to the clearance times right and then it says you know the florida regional evacuation studies so actually what miss sullivan pulled up is what i was referring to previously the 61 hours so the clearance time simply is how much time it takes to get people off where wherever we are the worst case scenario the clearance time is a calculation based on a model that the state runs where it runs a variety of destinations and it literally takes it takes the amount of people that would have theoretically evacuate based on several things that includes a behavior model it then turns those folks into trips so cars and then models them they look like small little dots running around and by the time all the dots get where they're supposed to go you get a you basically get a number and then again like i mentioned earlier that number is a part of the equation when we actually look at operationalizing evacuation decision making sure those are two separate things operational clearance time or clearance times and then operational evacuation decision making clearance time is a piece of that equation perfect okay so and forgive me if i i missed it somewhere in that does it mention the level of service standard anywhere in the evacuation information in the comp plan because i feel like that would be beneficial if the level of service standard was put there so again on that one of the reasons why we made the change to the comp plans to point to one specific place is because the comp plan our our comprehensive emergency management plan and the regional evacuation study are simply on different times like when they get updated so rather than always having to chase those things which we have done for years this was a way to sort of streamline and clean those things up to just simply point at the regional evacuation study let me answer this question ahead if we ever reach to a point where we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we think the level of service the regional out of county clearance time would be a problem for us to maintain then we would act and do different things but right now we're comfortable with the number i just think it would be good for transparency understood i agree because i really did have a hard time finding the level of service um anyway and then the last one was 8.3 so brevard county shall identify roadway and operational improvements to hurricane evacuation network based upon capabilities limitation vulnerabilities and it goes down to criteria prior priorities shall be given to improvements of roadway networks serving hurricane evacuation routes with the greatest number of people well i can assure you that the the people in the south beaches we do not have the greatest number of people but it will take us a lot it's the hardest for us to get out of where we're at we cannot it is um it is 30 miles if you go to get to 192 from noabasso bridge along with other people from you know like it's it'll be hard for us so i don't i don't know if there's any priority do you know what i mean like i don't want to say oh well take us we're the best you know but i mean like so i will answer that in a couple of ways which is one so i'm born and raised here so i get to south beaches in fact i get quite a bit of this stuff and again transportation networks are holistic so improvements you make on all streams can affect things but one of the biggest things we do and it's it's why i talk about clearance times being a factor but not the driver in this conversation is the bigger piece when we talk about clearing evacuation decision making is how many folks do we put on the road at the same time because you can handle a lot and a lot of people over a long period of time or you can bottleneck a road just by putting you know a small number of people and the greatest example that i'm sure we all experience every day if you find one of our pinch points throughout the county at five o'clock or 8 30 in the morning traffic is backed up roll through there at 6 6 15 it's flowing again so we spend a lot of time on doing something we call a soft phasing of evacuation so that we're constantly putting folks on the road but we're never at one point dumping a lot of folks on the road and we've seen that continue to work in 2016 2017 as we began to implement those kinds of things we saw it in dorian it is a statewide best practice we are in line with all of those kinds of things and it it really is about throttling roadway traffic and looking at where those areas come from like what we do you know what happens on the west side of 192 and melbourne definitely impacts those kinds of things but again i'll just come back to because folks are using smart technology like cell phones and those kinds of things that are picking those things up some folks from the south beaches will cut over on riverside and get to 192 faster they may take it all the way down to galley or pine that stuff is happening naturally and that is a more holistic and accurate way to look at evacuation modeling than just a sort of a clearance time which by the way doesn't take into account time of day or any of those kinds of things when storms going to arrive i know this is a lot in deep in the woods or deep in the weeds on evacuation planning it's it's it is complicated we take it very serious and we try to make sure that all of our residents especially our barrier island residents have enough time to evacuate safely thank you yeah because for those of us down there in the south beaches yeah we can take oak we can take riverside we can do a lot of things but we have to take a1a for many miles right to get there unless we want to swim so that's sort of can we pay a lot of attention to it thank you thank you i've just got one comment when you did the evacuation calculations for merit island did you take into account the nasa route included in that when you say that so let me clear like we don't do it by area it's for the whole county it's for the whole network okay uh and yes we talked about you're talking about the nasa evacuation around the visitor center nasa from the north end of merritt island that transitions into the nasa causeway yes did you add that to the system that was part of the roadway network that was okay did you also add the other portion that goes straight up and it's what's called old a1a you're talking about the park that goes through this fill any active roadway that we can push cars onto it is modeled yeah because nasa has a tendency to change the rules when the weather gets bad we we work well with them i understand uh was there ever a determination the percentage of people specifically the merritt island that would stay so again the way it looks at it is holistically uh it is based on a behavior model that samples um so the amount of people that say versus go is is is one of the banes of our existence as far as trying to figure out what that is i will tell you that is far more storm dependent uh and trying to find good behavioral studies for that uh is a struggle merritt island people are different so i grew up on merritt island sir they'll stay before they go grew up on merritt island sir there you go that's it i have some questions about um utilities miss ruth yes before we get off the topic of ron we can't hear you sir sorry there we go uh referencing policy cm 8.4 says that essentially this board can recommend a denial of a development if it's going to create a problem with evacuations uh and my question was the only thing that we were referred to is this table that shows how you evacuate the entire county uh and that to me doesn't have enough granularity if we wanted to say do we want to evac do we want to approve a development or not in bbia uh and our concern is our question is what what about the hurricane so if we have 100 people coming in that's going to affect our evacuation times some to what so how much of a change in the evacuation time do we have to have to for this board to be able to recommend a denial and the other question is uh who calculates that i mean not i mean we i understand about traffic studies and a developer developer can provide a traffic study is a developer going to have to provide us with some data about evacuation times so as of today the our emergency management group tracks that and they keep that in their modeling through their modeling and so if and when it gets to a point where their modeling shows there's an issue they'll alert the planning department and we will take appropriate action based on that as of today that has not happened but if that did happen that's how that would work i'm talking about development that doesn't exist yet it's only in the planning stage so how you can't have a model for something that doesn't exist so we've got a development in bia that there's going to put a i don't know 100 homes 150 homes in that area and we would like to know is that going to create a problem with evacuation times well for one thing i'll just say that the bbia specific comprehensive plan and that goes back to what we were talking about before they were in the implementation phase this is the comprehensive plan element the next stage is doing the ldrs and so that may be part of that then um right now we're really talking about county why because we haven't done the ldrs for the bbia as of yet so that'll be the next phase that trina was talking about earlier that has to be done within the next 12 months last question i promise but is there anyway so i was so interested when i heard that and i'm kind of new to this um that future land use are not property rights is that true is that a truth i'm i'm confused i'll let alex talk about it but i think context matters i mean in this case the brevard barrier island protection act itself said stated that people get to continue their zoning and use of land and so i think most people would take that to mean their land use or at least to some degree so i mean it's something that's subject to interpretation but i think when the act itself specifies zoning and use of land they mean something beyond zoning so um that in itself created some property right as next but we wouldn't be able to change somebody's rights based on the act that says they get to keep it in other words that makes sense yeah so just to build on that there's certain expectations that property owners have or people that are going to buy property have so yeah that is part of their expectation what they could build up on their property thank you thank you you're welcome mr john um i he asked oh hold on john because ruth did give the florida ron there okay ruth go ahead utilities please um i have some questions about the water supply work plan page 16 and please correct me if i have calculated wrong max in mems the average is 99 gallons per capita per day and 118 is max according to the outline it says that the bebr average household size in brevard county is 2.33 so would i be wrong in multiplying 118 at max gallons times 2.33 to come up with the actual usage of an erc or a home hi i'm lucas i'm an engineer andrew for brevard county utilities so um just give me one second i'm just going to flip what i have in front of me no problem no problem thank you i'm i don't have it directly in front of me i'm just going to answer it so in in regards to the beber model that's a general population analysis that gives you general populations we're doing our own population study as well in regards to the flows and what we're using for them there's the 118 which is the maximum which was referenced and that's a planning number and then in terms of sorry actually repeat the calculation of what you're asking your overall question so the max the max i believe gpcd is per cap per capita daily um is 118 and right underneath that it states that los of brevard county comp plan adjusted with bebr average household size 2.33 so in my thought process if you took the average household size which is 2.33 people and you multiply that by the single use of 118 gallons per day is that how you would figure out how much on average with these calculations that a household or an erc would use okay i understand the question so for us when we do that analysis we're using real data so the numbers that are listed there are the planning numbers so it's the maximum flow for example your reference is 118 right when we look at what household actual consumptive use is we're referring to the actual data that we have from the plants in terms of what those flows are and what it is coming from residential density or from the residences number of connections one more time okay so you're asking about the calculation right because if you if you do that it comes up to 275 gallons per day per erc or home and the current regulations for this are set at 200 or 220 and it's going asking to be raised to 250 but if that's true i would say that that level of service standard is still below the actual use that is my question okay my apologies so let me clarify so you're focusing on the max gallons per capita value per day which is the 118 whereas the number you'd really want to refer to be the 99 i refer to the max per capita because state statute says that you have to have adequate water implying that in times of drought fire or whatever that circumstance may be that you have adequate water for all of those circumstances so i would refer to the max because that is where adequate water comes from um so so ruth a few things so when we do level of service it's always based on average even with the average based on the 2.33 number it'll still get us a number that is by usage it's it's a triangulation so the 233 number by the calculation by the beaver density and by the 100 100 gallons per day per capita which is not only um stated in the water supply plan but it's also a rule of thumb best practice usage still gets us at a number that we're having a level of service with a margin of water supply in addition we also looked at the current water usage so we take all the billing data and we associate it based on a five base meter which is uh synonymous with a single residential home and looking at that to get an equation or a calculation on a level of service based on a single family home and i believe we sent you a memorandum on three months of data but we've looked at further it gets you in a range of around 158 171 with that at a level of service at 250 we feel there's still adequate room in there in order for unaccounted for water and water supply so is the way that you formulate that somewhere in the comp plan did i miss that because i thought and please i'm not but i thought the point of this was to lay out the way that it gets figured out and if we're figuring it some other way would be my is my question so so as we sit here and focus on the water supply plan i think and billy was touching base on this that the process that we're looking at is um it doesn't stop so with that being said we're looking we originated with a um an old water supply plan and obviously a needed update to the ear so the issue is you can't make the and again i'm not the state and i don't make this process step one is you have to modify to the best of the ability within the current com plan the um the water supply plan so as we go through this we have updated that to appease the state based on best data available and based on what's currently adopted in the year so until the board approves it we're still working off of that old information and i don't mean to refer to it as old and um but it's the full intent that as um you know billy described there was other actions after the year gets approved one of the other actions is to update the water supply plan to make it current so as we use the level of service that's being proposed in the in the ear amendment we would then soon after be updating the water supply plan so that both documents were consistent with each other because it was just updated in 2024 and again now so what's on current because we needed to have an updated ear to make the amendments to the water supply plan yeah i believe under statute the water supply plan only needs to be adopted it's a snapshot in time and we've actually reached out to the st john's river water management district about that they would consider whatever is in your comprehensive plan as controlling over the water supply plan which is meant to be like i said a snapshot a planning document that has to be done within a certain period after the regional water supply plan is done so it's kind of like eddie you're saying is one thing follows another and so there from a from a state perspective there's no surprise at all that at any given time especially right after you do your ear that those two numbers would not match and billy if i may it went from 400 last year to 200 to 220 to 250 is that correct for the level of service standard i mean that's a huge drop by half the 400 you're referencing ruth is something that was adopted back in 1990s so i can't explain where 400 came from it's an extremely conservative what we have done is in order to get that level of service to a more appropriate number we and this is going back to the triangulation that we've done with billing data with data from the plant and it also coincides with what's currently in the ordinance based on the level of service as referenced in i think it's 163 billy if i'm not mistaken that reference is 250 so um having a level of service that is lower than the max level of demand is appropriate is what you're saying the level of service currently the proposed and the one that's currently the 200 and the 250 gallons per day per year c that currently exceeds our demand in both cases not according to this no and that's and this is what the people see this is when someone goes to calculate something like people read these things and they can use it to calculate documents with to clarify what are you referring to the water supply work plan page 16. okay so our level of service exceeds the current demands and this is calculated based on actual consumptive use so what we see per erc at our outwater treatment plants and specifically mems but it's same barefoot bay and that's you know the 200 exceeds it and the 250 the other thing i would suggest is um not so many years ago actually part of this was just like a year ago um it wasn't a county-wide service standard and the utilities aren't connected as my understanding so barefoot bay is not connected to mems they are they're each in individual rate payers and you don't transfer water back and forth is what my understanding is and i think it would be better if it was broke out per utility as those rate payers are in each individual area and they are not connected that would be my other recommendation um so ruth what we've done in the amendment is we've removed the level of service from the water and sewer element and moved the level of service to the capital improvement if you look in the capital improvement element of revisions that we propose we do have it for what we call north brevard barefoot bay water so it is listed under there um i must have missed it because i'm have the capital improvement in front of me and it says bc usd as a county it lists barefoot coco melbourne palm bay titusville and melbourne and then i have it in the potable water element as well i must have missed that somewhere i'm so sorry so for the benefit um the um so potable water service brevard county utility service which is bc usd the only um the only water facility that we have that falls under that is mems and actually san sebastian which is a minute area barefoot bay is would fall under the 150 so they are broken out within this except for mems shares with sebastian is that what you said we're just using the 250 um level of service for sebastian but it's it's for 75 customers right and that was kind of my point like each area as many department heads and commissioners and people on this board have mentioned it's an extremely long county and it's very diverse and one of those utilities being on one end of the county and one being on the other just my recommendation that they should be broke out into their own individual utilities since they are separate and each area has their own diverse needs that's all the other questions i had are on the conservation and give me just a minute to find my page it's never where you want it um about it talks about reducing or allowing more development and the 10 25 and 100 year floodplains um what was the logic behind that that's a good question so um we had um have filled footprint and density restrictions right now in the riverine floodplain what it's doing is it's forcing people to annex into the cities that don't have the floodplain uh ordinance uh criteria that we do we have stronger criteria so the goal is we're going performance-based for all floodplains so no matter where you are you need to demonstrate that you're not um causing any adverse impacts on surrounding air development or areas or properties and if bach were here he would tell you the technical term about a rise in the peak flood stage uh but it's it's meant to be performance-based and take away the arbitrary criteria of density and fill footprint restrictions out in the riverine floodplain um i would just mention that and it's greatly concerning to to a lot of residents in north brevard that that would be removed north brevard takes a lot of the storm water from the entire length of the county because at lake kearney at bottlenecks and cannot flow out at the rate at which it flows to north brevard um many residents in north brevard are experiencing experiencing flooding that hasn't been seen in over a hundred years and so removing and reducing those or reducing those densities and and not having them in there like the restrictions um is very much concerning to those in north brevard um could i provide you an example for densities um so for instance um and again this is a saint john's riverine floodplain not the ashtrain floodplain you could have a subdivision that has one unit to the acre and you could have them spread out we call that peanut butter style you spread it out over a bunch of area or you could have a density that goes up so your your footprint of your density can be this or it can be this so it's really not the best metric for trying to control flooding the performance measures are more they're based on the actual site conditions and the engineering and i'll also add that our stormwater section program is doing a lot of flood studies right now we have a grant to do a county-wide flood study we're going to be looking at rainfall on top of storm surge on top of future conditions so we're gathering more and more data actual site data and trying to get away on relying on for instance for saint john's river we rely on a report from saint john's from the 80s and i think honest probably had to deal with that in the past when you were doing engineering um you know to look at the current conditions as they exist today and what's actually happening with the water yeah there's there's a lot of even the fema flood zone maps aren't current enough for north brevard we there's there's property in north brevard that i believe zoned for one home per 2.5 acres that sits under 10 foot of water that was pre-en yeah we use best available data whenever we can and that would be uh you know it might be a fema map it may be a flood study that public works did it could be something that we did in natural resources um so we do look for best available data and um i'm failing to find it because you never find anything when you want it there was an exception in here and it said see a different element and it took you to where um it was contained concerning the floodplain and it talked about allowing pud on the floodplain so would that be like development of the floodplain i don't understand that i'm just allowing a pud you're referring to a particular policy or yes i'm so sorry i was talking about the floodplain and i really tried to highlight everything so i wouldn't be looking for it um and then it talked about um except if you go to this certain policy and then it started talking about um pud on the floodplain i'll just tell you from my personal experience in designing in brevard county whether it's pud r2 c2 it doesn't matter what my zoning category is i'm required to meet that compensatory storage floodplain requirement the pud might give me flexibility on where i locate houses the sizes of my houses those types of things but i still have to meet all of the flood dependent criteria no matter what it doesn't matter what my zoning category is so that was kind of like my question because if it allows that so if you go from one home per 10 acres on depending on which floodplain you're talking about and then you can turn around and cluster homes on the floodplain that's a huge difference in impact that yeah so pud if you're talking about doing kind of you know one of the other goals that we have is from our parallel flood policies we need to codify them and strategies that you can use are cluster development to reduce your infrastructure of your footprint of infrastructure so if you only have this much impervious and you need you can reduce your amount of stormwater and roads and all sorts of stuff so the pud does provide flexibility that can hopefully get us to encourage applicants to do this type of development that will be a benefit to um to the environment to the developer to the people that live there and to the surrounding area so i mean i i would see that as an important tool to provide flexibility for low impact development and green stormwater infrastructure i don't know if that answers your question and no um my thought was um and please you know like the very big and diverse county so i can't speak for for other what things i don't know but um no development i've seen come into the north area has developed on acre lots or one home for two and a half acres those lot sizes are generally from what i've seen in my experience and i'm certainly not an expert owner builders generally um and so allowing to switch that around i think just allows for more development on the floodplain and that should be considered you restate the question one more time i'm obviously not an expert on development everywhere and i don't claim to be just from where from what i've seen in my own neck of the woods i would say um most development that i've seen going to north brevard are really small lot sizes um not big lot sizes so if if you allow if you change it on the floodplain from one home per two and a half acres or one home per five acres and you allow cluster you're actually i think inviting the pud to the to the floodplain because traditionally they don't build out that way that's just something i thought should be considered and um the only other thing i really thought was um i think it's probably really important for staff to go out on site and um that was taken out of it was put to it was one of the should shalls i believe and where staff doesn't have to go do site visits they may i believe was was the term and with such a diverse county i think it's important for you to see the site that that's being developed to help your considerations that's it was there a policy i'm sorry was there a policy number for that particular i can get it to you in just okay thank you chairman uh i think i got john ahead of you ron okay uh ruth are you all right mr john okay i um i have to apologize i didn't finish the whole document was there anything in there on puds because i i've been concerned that we have a pud res in the code um and to me it's a workaround from uh zoning restrictions used to be my understanding was the pud was supposed to have all types of development uh commercial residential some industrial but that pud res that came up in one of our planning and zoning meetings it just seems to be a loophole and i was wondering i didn't see it in here and i'm just curious if it still exists i'm sorry john it's in here it is you have a page uh page 1105 see i never got that far future land use 1.1 criteria f page 1105 uh in the past we have used bdps to establish concurrency between zoning and land use and if i understand what this means is that now the applicant applicant is going to have to request a change to both zoning and land use is that correct policy 1.5 policy 1.1 criteria f page 1105 oh okay so i i think there's just a misunderstanding um so it says policies just so everybody's on the same page policies established and specialized plans including binding development plans as may be adopted by the board and accounting commissioners and then there's some new language binding development plans shall not be used to use to establish consistency between future land use map designations and zoning class specifications so i think you're talking about more of use consistency this is talking about there's actual chart in our code this is you know for example res 4 is consistent with x zoning commercial commercial yeah one of our applicants has done it at least twice that i can remember of using a bdp to say okay i'm going to it's got i'm not going to change the land use but i'm going to use the bdp to restrict the number of housings so that it meets the zoning requirement and then and then we said okay that's fine now with this we're not going to be able to do that and that person's going to have to come in and do a land use change and a zoning change right they need to establish consistency between the zoning map and the future i just wanted to clarify that should be done for present for for multiple reasons but we i wouldn't understand i you know like i understood what that meant my comment was on the pud not on the bdp yeah if i can get back to that just just so there's there's a i'm gonna say a separate separate project from this going on on the board quite a while ago um issue legislative intent permission advertised for us to to look at amending the pv code and one of the things we were we are looking at is making a uniform pd and getting we're getting perhaps removing the residential pd just making a single p uniform pd classification that would be in the cars we that would be after this project okay so but that is something we're looking at yes all all right i appreciate it my my next question is is um merit island considered a barrier island it is but i would say depending on the context 100 okay um because i'm looking at the affordable housing ordinance we have uh wanita and alan here and they've just been sitting through all this um the um no density bonuses on barrier islands which means that um the affordable housing ordinances will prohibit any density bonus on merit island is that correct being a barrier island okay um i really want to look at the context and give give me time to get get back with a specific answer okay um because it is considered a barrier island in a certain context for sure but i want to make sure it's not speaking to the barrier islands along the beach in that context so but for example in myra there's dense specific density bonuses given in the redevelopment area for example right so i just i need to i will get i can get back to you with that answer okay thank you is affordable housing allowed on any of the barrier islands well perf if you're talking about like live local for example we're preempted so um if they have commercial land use and they can meet every other all the other regulations then yes they they certainly can but that's a big if i mean they have to have to meet all the all the applicable regulations the only thing to get preempted is zoning and land use density and um certain parking requirements and height restrictions and things like that but assuming they could meet all of the criteria that could be done yes but it wouldn't be the highest and best use for the land it depends on the situation probably not okay one other question i have um if a developer has been granted variances on height on their on their construction um can that height be used within a half a mile for another developer to take it believe that was addressed in the last update to the legislation i would want to double check to make sure to give you the right answer but i believe that was made clear that that could that would not be used but i would really want to check to make sure i'm right about that but i think that was part of the glitch bill the last time around okay if you could look into that please it'd be very helpful okay can i ask one more question are you done john for now no you're not yes miss ruth what um it some of the small area studies are included into the comp plan what is the criteria that puts them in there generally speaking that's just the board direction at the time that the the small area study was um implemented and brought to the board so that's a board decision on what if any recommendations are carried over into the comprehensive plan so i was curious how come the small area study wasn't included because it was adopted by the board in 2007 and its future land use was transmitted with the comp plan so it's it was a very it's quite a complex situation so they adopted certain parts of it they adopted the future land use um certain future land use maps changes that were recommended and not others what they never did was adopt a text change to the comprehensive plan that would actually adopt certain policies into the comprehensive plan so i guess the word adopted it they adopted certain things and they didn't adopt other things well i thought they adopted the whole plan and then recommended for the future land uses to be transmitted to the state with the comp plan they'll they what they wound up actually doing is is adopting certain future land use map changes not a text change to the comprehensive plan so wouldn't those future land use map changes be in there as a part of it if it was transmitted only as to those map change only as to those maps so and that's where things get a little interesting because the text the reason for that for those future land use map changes were not applied elsewhere through the comprehensive plan now the small area study still exists and that can be used for whatever a board member wants thinks it is appropriate to use it for but it is not actually adopted as a comprehensive plan plan by uh by reference okay mr chairman mr ron uh question on policy uh future land use 1.2 criteria a and criteria c uh is the word in what how do i define the word impact for example it says that the advisory board cannot recommend approval of a project when the water sewer will not be available until uh i mean yeah well we recently approved a project where the water and sewer wouldn't be available for a year or two and i was wondering and and the reason we did that was because the applicant said they wouldn't they had all this engineering to do and so there wouldn't really be any impact uh for that time so it was all right for us to approve it uh does this criteria change that ruling or anything can you tell me the policy one more time so say 1.2 uh yes 1.2 criteria a and c it's the b that's ppi sorry 1.2 of which element criteria a and criteria c i was looking at kind of looking for a definition of when impact is is it when the development is approved by the board or is it when the first construction starts or is it when the first resident moves in well i'd have to i'd want to check first a glossary to make sure that it's not specifically defined there and if it's not generally that would be up to the board to to figure out what that you know that means at the time that they make the decision okay so we would be able to do again what we did then so that shouldn't be a problem i guess i just i'd want to if i was actually had that in front of you today i'd want to check the glossary to make sure okay and then i had a question on uh future land use 1.2 criteria e on page 1106 and the text kind of didn't make sense to me criteria e says where public water service is not available uh development proposals greater than two years shall be required to connect to a central sewer system i just don't understand the relationship between the water system not available and having to use a sewer system i think that that refers to the second part i think there are two different things within b map areas where public sewer service is not available the installation of enhanced nutrient on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems is required i was just wondering if that first sentence should have been deleted because i still don't understand why we'll look at that but i i i don't necessarily think it needs to be deleted and i something still would apply for example if you look up in criteria d right above it what was changed was public water became public sewer and i was wondering if in this case either we want to change public water to public sewer or else get rid of that sentence entirely all right you can take a look at that yeah we'll take a look at that i had another question oh just for your clarity just for uh to clean stuff up in future land use one page 1104 there's a list of criteria it goes item f is missing so i don't know if you just need to remember that did you say future land use 1.11 which policy future land use one page 1104 we'll go we'll take a look at it okay and then a future land use administrative policy two uh it gets rid of using photographs aerial photographs and it seems to me that aerial photographs help this board understand the project that's being developed and where it's being developed so i'd like to see us continue to use aerial photographs and obviously we we there's live imagery that is available today in a variety of sources and so i think that's the main reason why that was removed where was that ron administrative policy two criteria b page page 1100 yeah i have a a favorite criticism which i hear all the time people confusing number with amount and in policy cm 8.3 criteria b on page 1069 we used the term volume of people people are not measured by volume they're discrete entities so please change that to number of people noted i had one other general comment i already talked about the word use for the word shall and should and i was looking at the historic preservation element and found that there was no changes in that no changes for seven years and one of the policies that hp 2.1 says the county should facilitate adoption of a historic preservation ordinance so we haven't made me able to do that in seven years so my my what i'm telling you is that that's a perfect example of why should should not be used in ordinances in policies there's no commitment to doing anything and my suspicion is if we look at the previous seven year cycle we might even find that that's been in there for those seven years as well i'd recommend just change it take taking that policy out and deleting it we're not going to do it if i have it in there we we do have a historical preservation ordinance why do we are we saying we should have one if we if we if we if we met that why is it still in there and saying we should develop one um just as a procedural matter the ear is designed to update us and to be in compliance with state statute so there was no need to amend that section to be in compliance with state statute but nevertheless you know as trina showed up in the slide earlier should have a specific meaning does it mean the same as shall no but it does actually have a meaning particularly to staff so you know we do take it seriously that's all i've got thank you any more i'm sorry were you going to say something no no no ruth you good as good as i can be yes i'm sorry yes ron that's my fault that's all i got we missed you ron thank you appreciate that john i'm good erica i am really good you know i might suggest that we break this up into a couple of sessions next time rather than one just to just if anybody wants an opinion because it was a lot of reading right and it's a lot to retain and understand to you know so a whole lot and again throughout all the conversation i'm going to back what henry said staff excellent job excellent job i need a motion for item h12 i make a motion to accept item h12 a second item h12 got a motion by erica a second by rob all those in favor say aye aye any opposed nay was that you ruth we have one opposed that motion that passed and mr minibu i did not remember you at the beginning of the meeting but you had some things to say i'm just going to welcome uh ron back it's uh you were gone for a little while and you came back and uh we lost uh brian hodges he was a good member here but he's moved on to bigger and better things i guess you state representative now i think so anyway and we've got a couple new yeah board members back there mr ayer yeah and greg is it thank you glad to be here yes please come back to the next meeting mr chair i i wanted to also say for those members who knew jack ratterman we received word that he passed away so just wanted to acknowledge his service to the county and the time he put in um with his civic duties all right thank you miss drena all right if there's nothing else we say meeting adjourned yeah we have them didn't work huh it's in our packet the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of brevard county florida space coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of county commissioners of brevard county florida space coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period