Planning and Zoning Board / Local Planning Agency on 2025-07-14 3:00 PM - Jul 14, 2025

I'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Jared, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, this is the Planning and Zoning Board and Local Planning Agency, which is an advisory board which makes the recommendations to the county commission who will have the final decision on every item here today. Item H-4 is an LPA item. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the commission, and you want to mark this down, August 7th at 5 p.m., and it'll be back in here. When the motion ends in any kind of a split vote or roll call vote may be taken to ensure the accuracy. As a reminder, each member who makes a motion or second needs to turn their microphone on or so that you can voice, so your voice will appear for the board and the record. Speakers for the public comment today, hoping there isn't any, that's a little humor, will give three minutes. With that, the approval of P and Z minutes from June the 16th, 2025. I need a motion. Motion to approve. A second. Here, yeah. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Anybody in opposition, same sign. That passed, you may not. Okay. We need the first item. First item is Forbes Remodeling and Construction, LLC, being represented by Chester Forbes. Request a zoning classification change from AU to RU-1-13 under application 25Z-00009, located in District 5. And this application was tabled at the June 16th, 2025 meeting for consideration on July 14th, 2025. Okay. Is the applicant here? Please come up, sir. State your name and address for the record. Chester Forbes, address 6-1-25, Macon Drive, Melbourne, Florida. Okay. Tell us what you got. I got a parcel down in Melbourne, 32904, that I wanted to change from, I think it is agricultural rated right now, to residential. Okay. What's, you're going to build a house or? Yeah. I'm going to put a 3-2 on there. Okay. Uh-huh. Is there anybody on the board that have any questions before I go out to the audience? Uh-huh. You have already built one house, and then you want to build another house on the- Okay. Um, what happened, the parcel that I bought, it's like two lots with a road coming right through it. So, one side already had a house I wanted to build on the other side of it. Right. Yeah. Okay, I got it. Okay. Thank you. Sit tight. Is there anybody in the audience, like, speak for or against this? Stay up here. We'll come back. It's not that easy. It's going to be easy, but not that. Okay. I see none. Bring it back to the board. I have no problem with it. Motion to approve. Motion by Erica. Second. Second by Deb. I don't, I usually know what chairman did today on my business excitement. So, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposition? That passed unanimously. Move forward. You got the date? Yes. Okay, sir. So, I come back, um, August? You, you will see us again. Okay. Would I still come back, August? Yes, sir. All right. I can leave? Come back here. I can leave? Oh, yeah, you can leave. There's a lot of people who want to leave with you, too. Okay. Next one. Next one is River Fly-In Condominiums, Incorporated, being represented by Kim Razenka. Request a change of zoning classification from IU and PUD with BDPs to all PUD and retention of BDPs under application 24 PUD 0001, located in District 2. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, Chairman Minibu, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kim Razenka with Lacey Razenka, 6013 Farsenda Place in Melbourne, Florida, here on behalf of River Flying Condominium. I handed out to you earlier the PDP to add to the existing PUD. I have a copy here, but I don't know how to use this machine. I don't know how to turn it on. Unless that's it. Oh, there we go. Okay, so this was left out of the agenda packet, although it was submitted timely with the packet. Bruce Moya is here as well. He is the engineer of record. Essentially, this is a PUD from 2006 to build condominiums. It's by the Merritt Island Airport and adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon. This is taking a 15-acre mostly wetland parcel that's zoned high-intensity industrial and moving it to the PUD to add a recreational facility to the river flying condos. It's seeking 18 slips, 17 powerboat, one sailboat, and it's just only for the residential use. It's just an amenity. It's use of a property that really has no use. It will have a walkway from the condominium, a wooden walkway elevated to the marina. In order to support some fire safety issues, they're going to have to extend that road that's front to the south there, that Wall Street. I don't know all the ins and outs of that. That's an engineering feat that I'm not aware of. But this is just a preliminary development plan. The site plan will take care of all of those details. So this is just approving the PUD with the preliminary development plan for engineering to go forward for the final development plan. The condominiums are built. They received the CO in September of 2025, and they are being sold and used, and that's where we are with that. So it's simply an addition to 15 acres to the 13-acre PUD. And I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you've read the staff report, they didn't see any problems with this. They thought it was a good use for an amenity. It's actually getting rid of a high industrial use, which really couldn't be used anyway, and making the PUD better for all the residents. Does anybody on the board like to ask? This is Mr. Rosenka. Any questions? I have a question. When you extend the road, are you extending it into the wetland area? That's, again, I just know that's what they're doing. I'm not sure of the details. Yeah, good evening. Bruce Moye with MBB Engineering, the engineer of record in Melbourne, Florida. So one of the requirements when we did the review through staff was to provide basically a fire road, because right now that road comes out and just dead ends into a kayak launching facility. There's no way for a fire truck to come in and turn around. So what we're going to do is put a code-compliant turnaround, not in the wetlands, in the uplands, and get an easement on the property to the south, which I believe is on, I forget who it's owned by, and then extend the docks so that the marina will have fire protection. But the wetland, there's no wetland impacts in regards to the road construction, and there's very minimum wetland disturbance for the pathway from the condos to the marina. So you're going to set an easement on the property to the south? Is this across the canal? So the canal ends there. I think there was a note about the – I can't read that. If you read one of the notes, there was some discussion about what we'd have to do to make sure that that turnaround can be constructed, yeah. So we'll have to actually do – extend the environmental assessment to that area to see, and the survey as well, to see what we have there and then work from that. But it's Wall Street you'll be extending beyond that turnaround? Yes. Up parallel to your docks and to the north of them? Right. Just limit it to where it stops now, construct the cul-de-sac, and then have a dock extend from the cul-de-sac to the marina for fire access. I see. Thank you. Great. We have a question. Any board members? I have a question. All right. Speaking of easements, I understand it says under environmental constraints, it said that there was site impacted under previous development orders. First, is that the conservation easement? This property is under a conservation easement? As far as I know, there's no conservation easement over it now because there's never been any development on it. There might be some under the existing BDP and PUD, but that was done already a little while ago. I pulled this. Yeah. I pulled this from St. John's. But it's way back from April 2009, and so I just was wondering, you know, is it, and it's, we were looking at it, it's in the shape of that property. It's the northern piece. It's the northern piece. The northern piece, yeah, because I don't think that he had any ownership of this parcel at that time. So he's acquired this, and then we're building the marina. So the conservation is on the northwest piece, as far as I know. Okay. All right. So the conservation easement is not being used, will not be used, or will not be touched? Whatever part, yeah. See, so a lot of this is already constructed within that conservation easement, which was permitted prior by the previous PUD. So all we're doing is extending it. Okay. Yeah, a lot of that stuff's already there, and it's been approved. So, yeah, we're just extending it on the east parcel. Okay. Any other questions before we go out to the board? Anybody out in the audience like to speak forward against this item? I've got a quick question, if you don't mind. Did you say there was a kayak launch at the end? Is that going to stay, or are you getting rid of that? Yes, we're not going to eliminate that. Okay. And then you're not pulling boats in and out of the water? Is there a boat ramp at the end of the cul-de-sac? I don't think it's, it's not a, it's a kayak. It's not like a full boat launch ramp. I believe it's just a kayak. Well, it said motorboat and sailboat, so that's why I was asking. Well, we're going to, the marina's going to have motorboat slips and a sailboat slip. Got it. But they're not going to be launching from there. Thank you. Okay. We're good here? Yes, sir. Oh, yeah. And if you're both going to speak, both give me an address, or if you live together, that's fine, too. We're Mr. Lonnie and Delinda Griffiths. We live at 785 Cone Road, Rhode Island, Florida, 32952. My husband moved there in 1983. Okay. I moved there in 1993. That's a, okay. The girls don't like it if we think it. Sorry. Can you repeat your name and address for the record since you didn't speak into the mic? Lonnie and Delinda Griffiths. We live at 785 Cone Road, Rhode Island, at the very east end of the island. My husband bought the property in 83. I married him in 92. We've been living there ever since. Since we missed the last few meetings like this, they've built around us, and we are having major issues every time there's a horrible rain or a hurricane. So we've been flooding, and we just wanted to make that known and present because now today with construction elevation requirements, it was a lot. When our house was built in 64, it wasn't the elevation requirements as it used to be. So now our 1964 house is lower than anything built around us, and the water goes somewhere. So I have pictures here I would like to show you of the last four hurricanes. We didn't even file for the last one last year because we filed four times. And just wanted to let you know, at one time my husband ran a business there up until Hurricane Irene. And every single time we have flooding that goes through there, and we're trying our best to mitigate that. We don't want to leave. We love our house. We've been there for a long time. We have a lot of memories. But if I can give you this, this shows you like... I don't know how we're going to do that because everybody... I don't know. Everybody needs to see it. Okay, so, well, there are pictures, and it just shows you, I don't, we don't want to stop development, but if there's a way that they can mitigate water from entering our house and flooding us. It's the canal, excuse me, it's the canal on the north side of Combe Road, that little canal. It overflows now. Once it's filled in the flood between us and the mall, it's been a problem. It's mostly in hurricanes, and the back side of it comes in, but that's really what it... We've had manatees in our yard. Irma was really, really bad. We've had catch fish in our driveway, in our car. I've got a lot of pictures. Can we put that overhead? Here's some of the pictures. Okay. Each one's from a different hurricane, but the last one that we had... Okay, this one. That's the doorway to one of the... That's the first storm. Off the driveway. That's downstairs. On the north side. That was almost two foot of water there from Irma. We only got three minutes. You have to hurry. That was the recording studio that we ran. I ran for 20 years before it started flooding and stuff. So, this is Cone Road, and the whole East End floods out. That's Cone Road after the hurricane for a day or two until the water recedes. That's right. Yeah, that whole East End floods, and it's all from the canal. And the elevation of the land around us. If someone could be mitigated to stop the berms or pumps or whatever, there's already a system there that I'm not sure what all is capable of, but there's a water treatment system there. So, just to take that, to stop that from happening, because I've been there like 43 years, and I'd like to stay there a little longer, but it's really tough to deal with the flooding. That's the front of our house. Pardon? The county did a lot of work on the piping on Cone Road. Mm-hmm. That was the last person. Have you seen anything, any occurrences after that? Of wind? The pipes? Pipes. You mean they made a major modification to you there? Okay, so that was October of last year, right there. Oh, okay. That's our driveway. That's my mailbox. We've had a loss of good flood insurance because we've had several claims because of these. And this one was an earlier one. Now, this was the last one. That was this past October. We just got a photo order. We no longer run a business there anymore because of the, you know, it's a lot of equipment to do that. But, I mean. That's my truck. That was October. I wanted that to be known and considered. I don't want to stop anybody's projects or, you know. We just don't want to flood no more. And it's a lot of development that, I'm going to answer real quick. What these people are doing is going to be all on pilings. So, hopefully. What's that? On what? They're going to be on pilings and piers. So, yeah. To go out. So, there's not going to be any more elevation. Elevation of the land. They're not going to bring in dirt. That's one of my main concerns because, I mean, we're pretty much over the land of any time. Okay. You know, I don't think, if anything, I hope they can improve. I mean, they'll help you. Okay. Yeah. And Waseem's been a good guy. I mean, I'm not after anything like that. I just, we just want to protect ourselves to some degree. I mean, it's been there. So, I never had a problem for almost 20 years. It never overflows. Change information. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Mrs. Griffiths. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak forward against this? All right. I'll bring it back, Kim. Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? Don't everybody jump at once. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. I have a question. Okay. Okay. So, my question is that since they're noticing increased flooding due to the construction, after the construction is over with and we have just the marinas in place, like, can we expect that to go down? I just would like to, I'd feel better if I heard that we can expect that to be dissipated. Respond to that question. Yeah. So, we haven't finished the engineering yet, but the intent is not to put any fill on the property. So, I can't promise we're going to make it better, but we're not going to make it any worse. Anything that's going to be constructed will be built at the boardwalk, elevated boardwalk, so the water will pass through. It won't block the water. But we're not proposing to bring any fill to make it worse. But she said since you've been doing the construction, is that just due to, like, the land coming out? I think there's a lot of construction that's gone on Cone Road in the last few years, so I don't know how much, but all the condo is already in, built, proved, occupied. This is, you know, has really... You don't think it's due to this construction? Yeah. I see. And Cone Road basically runs from river to river. And if it's coming up from the river, it's hard to... It comes to the river, it goes to the creek. And the irony is, is everything to the north is the stormwater system put in by the county, so why that hasn't accommodated this is confusing to me. All that up there was put in by the county, the Veterans Park, so that should have been helping them. There might be a blockage somewhere along the way. I'm not an engineer, but that was supposed to stop the flooding. That was supposed to take everybody's water for miles, as Mr. Menovey knows. Yes. So, perfect. Thank you. Okay, is there a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Anybody in opposition? That passed unanimously. Okay. Next item is NDW consultants, LLC, are requesting a change of zoning classification from AU to RR-1 under application 25Z-00008, located in District 1. Okay, is the applicant here? I'm Scott Yedick. I'm partners with NDW consultants. I want to thank you all for being here today. Name and address. Joseph Minnick, 1968 Turbentine Road. Okay. We agree with the staff report, for the most part, on the zoning request. There's a few things that we did want to clear up. We do align with all the future land use with our property and all the properties around us. The future land use is Res 1. This parcel was not a part of the MIMS 2007 small area study. One of the things we don't agree with was the road access, was paving the road access. We're not trying to do a subdivision. The property we have was pre-platted in 1925, and it falls under a non-conforming lots of record, which is Section 621188, but we had a meeting and all that with the county, and so in good faith we agreed to rezone to make everything match the future land use, and that's pretty much it. Any staff, have any questions for this gentleman? Mr. Chairman. Please. I have a question for staff. On page 101 on the septic overlay, can you explain what that means? I don't have the document in front of me, but you're asking what does it mean if they are in within the septic overlay? Well, you've got two shaded areas on the documents, and I just need an explanation as to what that's showing and how that affects the site. Where's the site? Are they allowed to put septic in there or not? They would need the advanced nitrogen-removing septic systems if they are proposing it within those shaded areas. Okay. What about the area between them? I don't believe that they would be required. So there's no restrictions on septic? Because there's no sewer there, I understand. It's all septic in that area? That's my understanding. It only pertains to the shaded areas. Okay. Anything else? No, that's it. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go to the audience. I'm going to assume a lot of the people here today are going to speak for or against this. This is a pretty talented group we've got up here. So you don't have to repeat yourself about X, Y, and Z. If you can minimize, if it's a traffic issue, you don't have to tell this board ten times that it's a traffic issue. They pick up real quick. We always try to encourage one or two that would come up here and fulfill your requirements. But anybody that wants to speak, you're going to be entitled. We're just going to try to get out of here before 9 o'clock tonight. That's all. And so each speaker will be given three minutes. You can sit down. You're going to be here a while. So we're going to give each speaker three minutes. I'll try to stay on top of that. And with that, if you've got four or five that says we know the system, we're going to try to ask as many questions as possible. So, Henry? Sure. Ruth was trying to get your attention. She has a question for staff. No, I have a question for the – or staff for the applicant, whoever can answer the question. It says, as of June 26, 2025, there was an open code violation on the property, digging and hauling dirt off the property without a permit. Has that been cleared up? Yes. We just got the survey back showing the areas on the pond and stuff to make sure it hit all the setbacks, but it should be cleared up. So there's no longer an open code violation on the property? I don't believe so. If we're talking about 25 CE 00248, that was closed on July the 2nd. Thank you very much. I've got one question. Yes, sir. Because are you only one – you've only got 17 lots. Is that – do I understand that from what I've read? It's 17 acres, and we'd be willing to do less than 17 total lots. But right this second, you've got 17 lots on whatever. Is that correct? The zoning to require it to RR1, that's what it would allow us to do, but we don't plan on doing 17. Because I don't know if you've told these people – I'm sure these people are going to ask – how many we're going to – you've planned on doing. So that may help a little bit. Okay. Okay. Do a map up there. No. You got one, Mike? No, no, no. Let's – we're not going to get into debate here. We're not – this ain't the place we're going to do that. So just go ahead and sit down, and whoever would like to speak first, just come forward. You've got three minutes. Please come forward. I guess I'll get started. And I'll have you on a timer. I know you will hear me. I've been in front of you before. Good to see you again. My name is David Laney. I live at 3800 Sam's Lane in North Brevard in Scottsmoor. And I'm here, obviously, addressing this issue. First of all, I do take issue with his assertion of nonconformity on the planning of the property. We'll be addressing that later at length with the county. But to get into my three minutes, you've already started. Okay. Regarding his reference to the future land use map, local government has a discretion to deny a request to rezone land to allow the maximum use of densities or intensities potentially authorized by the comprehensive plan. That's established by a range of allowance. That comes to Section 16331776A of the Florida State Statutes. Additionally, Florida courts have explained that this means that plans set a maximum limit of ceiling for development. Future land use map designations are not a right. One of the reasons I'm addressing this right now is because in your last meeting, someone asked a question of a staff member, I think, and they said that, yes, future land use designations are a right. They are not. In fact, in Bavard County v. Snyder, Florida, in 1963, the Florida Supreme Court rule that a landowner has no property right to be granted to rezoning to the maximum use, density, or intensity potentially allowed by a comprehensive plan and that the property right is simple to some use, even the least intensive lucrative allowed by the planning at the intensity allowed at the time of the purchase. There is no right associated, property right associated with future land use map designations. Additionally, a comprehensive plan establishes a long-term maximum limit on the possible density of land use. The plan does not simultaneously establish an immediate minimum limit on the possible intensity. Present use of the land by zoning ordinance continue to be more limited than the future land use contemplated by the comprehensive plan. Additionally, there is no constitutional under the Harris Act, in case this comes up, regarding property right to increased planning. Under the Florida State law, the purchase of the land is generally subject to the existing zoning or environmental restrictions, and there is no property right to change them. That is in Friedman v. Hollywood, Florida 3rd District Circuit Court, and Evan v. Miami, Florida 3rd District Court. The Harris Act did not create a property right to increase planning or zoning allowances, even when an increase would be within the maximum uses and densities allowed by the government, unless there is a reasonable or unfair right to do so. Additionally, regarding this, and it is classified as the subdivision. By definition, go under your county ordinances. It is a subdivision. The property is being subdivided. Associated with that, the state of Jacksonville v. Caulfield, Florida 1st District Court. The court rejected a Harris Act claim because the owner's intended subdivision development was never an actual, present, or vested use of activity on the property at the time of purpose. Okay, now we're going to shift subjects here, and we're going to go to water, potable water. Some of you in this remember six and a half years ago when we went through this, we had a study that was done by Florida University. That study is being redone. I'm going to reference you to the VAR statutes. St. John River Central Springs, the East Coast, does foresee water quality issues an impact from traditional water region wide primarily due to saltwater intrusion, especially along the Indian River Lagoon. We like to do lateral intrusion as well as vertical intrusion. I'll let you know that the professor, Arnaldo Fellows-Levinson, is conducting an additional updated study, and you're going to find that the threat is even greater than it was six years ago. Thank you for your attention. Any questions? What was that statute that you were speaking at a very rapid pace for me to collect? I know. I've been cut off before. Which statute? I'll provide a copy of this. That's the one regarding the water. Oh, okay. That is in the Brevard County Ordinances. And this comes directly from Chapter 6 of the potable water associated with long-range comprehensive plan, Brevard County Ordinances. That is Chapter 6, specifically in there. It goes on to say that Brevard County is concerned not just for residential wells in the Incorporated, but also Brevard County well fields. And that is both vertical and lateral saltwater intrusion, which is what's currently occurring. And we'll have additional experts who tested that before the county commission. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, gentlemen? Thank you. No. Okay. Thank you. Next. Please come up. If we get into sequence, start moving up to the front here. That'll expedite it a little bit longer, a little quicker. Good afternoon. My name's Roger Sanders. I live at 6201 Mangrove Street, Scottsmore. If I can, I'll go from my notes. In 1978, I purchased two and a half acres off of Roy Roberts Sr. to build a home there. I occupied that home May 1st, 1979, and have lived there continuously and paid taxes there continuously since that date. When I constructed my home, it was located in the BJR Acres Platt. I, as well as others who have followed me building there, have been required to have two and a half acres in order to construct a home. My opposition to this is based on the fact that the zoning for BJR Acres has been the standard since, best I can determine, the 1920s. I see no reason to change that just so a developer can profit. That's not serving the best interest of the current residents nor the taxpayers and voters. Of course, the biggest concern I have, instead of having the potential of two and a half, they could put, what, seven in there? Instead of seven septic tanks and seven private wells, you would have 17. And I don't have to tell you about the leaching and the concern that's going on. We are very, very close to the north end of the Indian River Lagoon, and the federal authorities are involved and everyone else, and I won't bore you with that, but there is the potential of doing further harm. I also, beside living there, let me just close with this. Beside living at that address since 79, my parents moved to the community in 1956. Then when I did my military service, I came back, I went to work, I bought the land there with always the thought that I have this land and the people around me. Scottsmore, if you're not familiar with it, I know Jared is, it's kind of a two-fold. Everything south of Sunset, smaller lots. Everything north is acreage. Everything back toward the river is multi-acreage. We see no reason to change that. And I will tell you, having lived there since 1956, I've seen no other one issue that's fired up that little old community more than this. Not that saying that is an intimidation, I just want you to know how the community feels. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, who's next? Laura Lee, state your name for the record. All right. Laura Lee Thompson, please state your name for the record. Laura Lee Thompson, 3550 Irwin Avenue, Mims, Florida. After enduring eight years of lifeless conditions, last summer, fishermen were overjoyed to see seagrass explode along the western shore of the northern Indian River. Drought conditions led to high salinity and low water levels, perfect conditions for seagrass seeds buried in the sediments to blossom. The seagrass looks as good now as it did in 2009. Nearly 20 years ago, to protect the Indian River, land use and zoning transitions were established through the Mims small area study. Small lots were allowed along US-1, with increasingly larger lots introduced moving eastward towards the river. If this rezoning occurs, a precedent for future development in northern Brevard using smaller lots will be set. You won't be able to stop the train once you let the horse out of the barn, and that will be really bad for the Indian River there, because the residency time for water up in the north end of the lagoon is more than one and a half years. This rezoning will enable houses on one-acre lots to be built in between areas that are zoned AU. That is not a graduated transition. The pattern it sets will increase impermeable surfaces, resulting in more stormwater going into the lagoon. It will escalate the number of septic tanks, leaching sewage into groundwater that flows to the lagoon. Brevard County taxpayers have invested millions of dollars through the county's Save Our Indian River Lagoon program to add biofiltration to ditches in northern Brevard to remove nitrogen and phosphorus before stormwater enters the lagoon. But even if every trace of pollutants is removed from the stormwater, freshwater itself is poison to a healthy estuary. Too much freshwater is disastrous for seagrasses and animals. It will kill clams and oysters. Excessive freshwater triggers egg-hatching failure for important fish like sea trout and redfish, and it slows or may even stop seagrass growth. Reducing the amount of nutrients in ditches is wonderful, but it does nothing to address septic tank sewage. It does nothing to reduce deadly freshwater from entering the lagoon. Overdevelopment killed the Indian River in central Brevard County. North Brevard citizens are the stewards of a critical part of the Indian River that produces fish, shrimp, and crabs for the middle part of the lagoon, where too much density has destroyed the river's functionality. Tremendous amounts of seagrass have returned to this section of the Indian River. It's a recharge area for the rest of the lagoon, where seagrass has shown no signs of recovery, even though core samples have revealed that plenty of seagrass seeds lie within sediments all up and down the lagoon. There's no good reason to approve this rezoning request. By denying it, you will instead set a precedent for protecting the improving conditions in the northern Indian River Lagoon. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Lord Lee? Thank you for coming. My name is Tommy Armitage. I live at 3200 Coral Avenue, over way down on the east end of it. I'm a machine gunner and a... Just hold on here. It's in the control. Me. Hold on. Okay, good. I'm an ex-machine gunner. I'm a disabled veteran. You know, I was in demolition. I mean, it was crazy. Anyhow, my whole reason for moving out there, I bought that property, I don't know, give or take 20 years ago. And the whole reason of it was so that we could be in the country, get away from the city. And it's secluded. You know, everybody out there has, you know, gardens. You know, my neighbor says, come on over, get your tomatoes, get your green beans, get your, you know, whatever. We buy local beef. We buy everything local. And you guys are going to be the beginning of the change. If you agree to this, it's going to take off. It's just a matter of time before it goes somewhere else. And it goes somewhere else. It just keeps going. It's like termites. You know, them termites get in over there, they spread. And if you guys agree to this, what you're going to do is you're just going to start a domino effect. And it's going to keep going. There's so much other places to build. To come over here and our little neck of the woods, and it is, it's our little neck of the woods. And to approve this, that's going to be, it's just going to be damaging. It's going to be like cancer. It's not going to stop. It's going to keep going. The reason that we live where we live is because of, you know, the nature of how we live. You know, we can go down the street and we don't have to be addicted to a grocery store. We can go to our neighbors and get what we need. We can go around the corner and get what we need. We don't have to go over there and say, hey, Mr. Grocery Store, you big old multi-million dollar company, sell us, you know, this tainted food from another country. No, we get it locally. We get it locally. I even have my own garden. I ain't very good at it, but I'm growing it, you know, and I'm a plumber. I'm a plumbing and gas contractor. I've been doing it 47 years. And you know what? I still like the secludedness to be able to come, you know, kick back and say, man, this is home. This is home. You know, I mean, I've only got five acres. There's a lot of fellas out here that's got a lot more than what I have. I had a realtor come by and say, Tom, you just finished building that house that you're building. And I could sell that thing for 1.2 million. I said, well, I'm glad you could, but I don't want to leave it. I don't want to leave it. Look at what we have. We have solitude. This is where we are. This is a dream. It's taken me two and a half years to get to where I'm at right now, and I'm still as happy as could be. You know, I'm just as happy as could be and just content. It's just me and my wife, and we got chickens and ducks and geese and emu and donkeys and, you know, well, if that cancer comes in there, it's going to take it all away. It's going to take it all away. Look at all the people who want to come over there and do the same thing and live the dream that we're living. So it starts right here. You guys are the responsibility of, you know, our future. You guys hold that key to our future and how it's going to progress, how we're going to go further from here. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board. I'm Cheryl Ann Barnes, and I reside at 3800 Sam Lane, Scottsmore. Administrative Policy 3 from the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Part C states the proposed use must be compatible and consistent with an emerging or existing pattern of surrounding development as determined through an analysis of, one, historical land use patterns, two, actual development over the immediately preceding three years, and three, development approved within the past three years but not yet constructed. The southern boundary of this proposed subdivision is Sunset Avenue. South of Sunset is the town of Old Scottsmoor. Scottsmoor was established as a municipality in 1926 at the height of the Florida land boom. A random sampling of the homes revealed the majority of them were built between the 60s and 80s on a variety of lot sizes and zonings. Historical land use patterns in this area can only be described as haphazard, containing zoning ranging from R-1-7 to AU-2-1.5. In an effort to help you better understand the historical development patterns, I reviewed the properties north of Sunset, east of US-1, and north to the county line. My goal was to locate all properties within these boundaries which contained the proposed subdivision that had homes built on less than the two and a half acres as presently required by AU-2.5 zoning and determine the nature of development over the preceding three years as required by Administrative Policy 3. I could only locate seven homes that were built on less than two and a half acres in this area, which encompasses approximately 1,600 acres. Five of the seven properties are located across from the parcels of land described by this rezoning request. Four of those homes are zoned AU and are only slightly under two and a half acres. They were built prior to 1980. The remaining home is zoned R-R-1 and was built in 1958. The only other homes I could locate were on the extreme northwest of the county. Two properties, one of them was built in 1964, the other 1967. The rest of this 1,600-acre area is comprised of houses built on the minimum of two and a half acres and zoned AU. So historical land use patterns for the past 45 years are parcels built on agriculturally zoned land, two and a half acres and larger. There are no subdivisions or approved subdivisions similar to this application in Scottsmoor in the past three years that I am aware of. I am asking you to consider the impact this development would have on the residents of the area, most of whom moved to Scottsmoor because of its rural environment and quality of life. If approved, a subdivision would constitute a negative impact to that rural environment that cannot be reversed. Please deny this request for rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Pat Raymer. I live at 6105 Mangrove Street in Scottsmoor. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. My husband and I live on Mangrove Street, which is directly across from the acreage bought by NDW consultants. We moved to Scottsmoor from Palm Bay a little over four years ago. The reason we moved was the increased population density in Palm Bay. It was apparent to us that Palm Bay's population was going to continue to explode, and with that explosion, there would be increases in traffic, crime, and general human conflict. We selected Scottsmoor very purposely, and our specific home, because the area was a quiet country area, zoned for one house per 2.5 acres. We were realistic enough to know that the orange groves across the street from our home would probably have houses built there someday. We didn't think it would be this soon, but someday. But we were not concerned because of the minimum 2.5 lot size, acre lot size. With that zoning, there would only be 12 homes, 12, built on the total acreage across the street from us. Currently, there are six homes on Mangrove Street. The developer is requesting to change the zoning on 17 acres to allow one house per acre. So instead of 12 houses in total, there will be 22 houses, the 17 houses that they are proposing, and the five homes, and the houses that are currently on Mangrove, and the five houses that would be on two-and-a-half acre lots, which is the rest of the acreage that they bought. So instead of 12, we're talking 22 new homes. If the developer applies to change the zoning on the remaining 12-and-a-half acres, which, let's face it, it's a very real possibility, there could be as many as 30 houses on that land instead of 12, 30. A density increase of that magnitude will change the character of the area from a sleepy country location to a suburban neighborhood. That's the exact thing we moved away from in Palm Bay, and we all know the problems that Palm Bay is currently having. With the character change, there will be increased traffic, crime, and human conflict. I implore you to consider how this zoning variance will change the character of the Scottsmoor area now and in the future. Please, please reject the zoning variance. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Who's next? You want to turn the... My name is Sunny Applegate, and I own Sunny Nights Kayak Tours. I guide small, low-impact eco-tours out of Scottsmoor Landing. Several years ago, Laura Lee Thompson took my hand in hers after a tour and told me that I was one of the best interpreters that she had been on the water with. I've carried that with me for years, not just because of the compliment, but because it meant that someone that knows this place deeply believed in the way that I told its story. So I want to try and tell you the story of this shoreline the way that I see it. One night on the water, I had a nine-year-old birthday boy who was on summer vacation, and all he wanted to do was go kayaking. His mom was in a tandem with his sister, and I told him behind me after he paddled left to go left too many times. When I turned around to check on him, he was just floating in his kayak with his arms crossed, staring at the sky, and you could see the Milky Way that night. I remember it, too, because it was amazing. When he noticed that I was looking over my shoulder, he said quietly that he was going to remember this for the next 91 years. That's what this place offers. It's a memory, a moment of awe, and a feeling of stillness and connection that we can have inside for a lifetime. Scottsmoor has some of the healthiest seagrass beds that I've seen in half a decade of tours across Brevard County. They were vibrant like they were in 2009. I've seen what I believe to be two young goliath grouper near the launch site, and that's a rare sighting of a protected species that is legally recognized. And this horseshoe crab, which might very well be record-setting for the state of Florida. They usually only get to be about 16 inches, and that one tops out at 22 inches. So it's a very important ecosystem that I didn't know was all but dead in 2016 until Laura Lee sent me the photo. I always wondered why I was the only one guiding tours there, because it was lifeless before I showed up. But now it's back, and we have the chance to protect it while it still recovers and not wait until it's gone again. Changing these zoning laws might look small on paper, but to the lagoon, it's an open wound. More light, more runoff, more sewage. Please don't let this comeback turn into an obituary. If a nine-year-old kid can visit this place one time and plan to revere it for the rest of his life, then those of us that have the privilege to know it intimately owe it a lot more. Protect the zoning and the place where people remember the stars for 91 years. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Hello, my name is Victor Kirschbaum. I live at 3595 Huntington Avenue in Scottsmore. I am a licensed water well driller and a licensed water treatment plant operator. I stand here before you to talk about our water resources. On my plan here, those yellow dots are public supply wells. The northwest of our corner, our county there, is the city of Titusville's wellfield. That lies due west of our properties. They draw thousands of gallons a minute, 24 hours a day. Our groundwater flows west to east. Look what's due east of that wellfield. This proposed development and my property. My well is 120 foot deep. When I moved in four years ago, my water was drinkable straight out of the ground. Now, over time, my water is becoming salty. I'm closer to US 1 and I have 30 foot of sea level, 30 foot of elevation above the sea level. I should not be getting salt water that fast. So I stand here before you just to tell you that if you allow these developments to come in, that puts, in their eyes, a minimum of 12 wells, a maximum of 30 plus wells in that area. Most of the well drillers in our area drill two inch wells. You cannot set a submersible pump in a two inch well. 30 foot above sea level means the water tables will drop below 26 feet, which means your surface pumps will not pump water anymore. So all of us residents will have to drill new wells and spend thousands of dollars to treat the salt water that's coming up into the ground. I don't believe there's city water close to us. I know there's some in Volusia County to the north, but that doesn't come to us. Mims's water system is way south, 11, 12 miles. The millions of dollars it's going to take them to run us drinking water is going to be on us or the county to pay. And I don't see the county running new water pipes that distance anytime soon. So that's my goal to stand here. Does anyone have questions? I have a question for you, Henry. Are we allowed to ask a person like this a question that's related to what they spoke about later on? Yeah. Okay. Question. Have you already had to drop new wells? So my property, yes. I have a lack of water. My well, when I started, when I built my, or when I moved into my house, my well produced 27 gallons a minute. It only produces seven gallons a minute now. So I had to install a shallow well, which is very, very, very poor water quality. Very high in iron, very high in minerals. You cannot drink it out of the water. It needs very expensive water treatment to make it to where my kids can shower in it. So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Normally do it, but that was good. Those are good questions. Yes, sir. Evening. My name is Jeff Worry. I reside at 375 Coral Avenue, Mims, Florida. I actually own one of their homes, Dwayne. They may build a really good home, but I'm also just under five acres land, just right off US 1. There's a lot of stuff here that got said, so I'm not going to repeat it that I agree with. But one of the things I'm concerned about is if we allow this precedent on the 17 acres, that doesn't seem like a lot to a lot of people right now, but right across the street, the rest of those orange groves, there's five parcels that total 212 acres, and it's just going to continue. I just wanted to put that stat out there so you guys understand, to go also support what he was talking about with the water. I guess Farmington up the road is also having an impact on our water as well and the sanitary, so we're being challenged with the water up there. So I'd like you guys to reconsider this. Thank you. Who's next? Good afternoon, board. I'd like to present a letter for Darren Mecham. I am Frederick Wilson. I live at 3451 Sunset Avenue in Scottsmore. Dear board members, please consider this response to the variants requested by NDW consultants. I am writing to formally oppose the proposed zoning variants for the reference parcel which seeks to rezone from agricultural to RR1 residential. That property is immediately adjacent to my property, 3625 Coral Avenue. The main issue I have is the requested variants would permit the owner to divide the property into lots as small as one acre in size. As a resident whose property directly borders this parcel, I have significant concerns about the potential impacts this variance on our community, particularly regarding water quality, environmental integrity, and the character of our neighborhood. The majority of homes in our area, including my own, are situated on lots of approximately two and a half acres or larger. This lot size has helped maintain a rural character and supports the functionality of individual septic systems and wells, which are critical in the absence of public water and sewer infrastructure. Approving a variance to allow one dwelling per acre would significantly increase the density of development, placing additional strain on our already challenged groundwater resources. Our community has experienced ongoing issues with deteriorating water quality, a concern that has been raised by multiple residents. The increased density proposed by this variance would exacerbate these problems as each new dwelling would require its own well and septic system. Higher density increases the risk of groundwater contamination, particularly given the lack of centralized utilities to manage waste and water supply effectively. I have observed large-scale digging and excavation at the subject property over the last several months. I'm also troubled by reports of unpermitted excavation activities on another large owned parcel by the same developer down our street. I have heard many in this neighborhood complain that the extensive digging of ponds and hauling off has occurred without proper permits. Such activity has been raised serious concerns about compliance with our environmental regulations and their potential contribution to the degradation of our water quality. These actions warrant thorough investigation before any zoning changes are considered and they may already be impacting the local ecosystem. The proposed rezoning to allow one acre lots does not align with the established character of our neighborhood, where larger lot sizes have preserved open space and supported sustainable land use. Approving this variance could set precedent for further fragmentation of agricultural land undermining the rural quality that defines our community. I respectfully urge the Board to maintain the current agricultural zoning, where at a minimum require lot sizes of at least two and a half acres to ensure consistency with the surrounding areas and to mitigate environmental impacts. I request the Board thoroughly review the developer's compliance with existing regulations, particularly regarding to unpermitted excavation, and consider the long-term implications of increased residential density on our water resources and community character. Thank you for your consideration of my position and for your commitment to service the interests of our community. I am happy to provide additional information or participate in any future public hearings related to this. Sincerely, Darren Mecham, Florida Bar No. 772461. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? How you doing? My name is Jeff Thorne. My name is Jeff Thorne. I live at 3755 Sunset Avenue, one house away from U.S. 1. My drainage from my water from the road goes through my yard into the ditch. Putting all these houses down in one area is going to block. It's already clogged up now. Today I was over there. There's no water going down to the river. Putting more houses down there is going to do the same. Our other neighbors that live right next to the orange groves have water in their yard. So putting more houses for them is going to hurt their area too. So I agree with everybody else what they were saying about the water and the river, the Indian lagoon, how we paid those taxes to get all that straightened out. That's a wonderful start, and I think if you do this, you're just going to be hurting all that that you've already started. I used to grow oysters for the river for two years, and once they put them in, I know they've got oyster beds out there, and that was supposed to help to clean the lagoon, but once we put them in along the shore, they just got wrecked by the hurricanes, and people weren't going in there picking oysters up. But I really would like to see something happen because I've lived here twice, and I finally moved out with my family, and me and my son used to go fishing and swimping on the old bridge up in Titusville, and I wouldn't need anything out of the river anymore, to tell you the truth. But I would like to see it come back for my grandkids, and the water was pristine down here. I went to high school in Clay High up in, I'm trying to remember the name of it, Green Coast Prince, and Jacksonville. The water was perfect. It was beautiful. But I would like to see that come back. My son lives down in Fort Lucie, and you go down there, and the water's unbelievable. But I know that's got ocean coming into it, and everything like that, but it makes me jealous. But I would like to see this all. I agree with everybody with what they said here about fixing the lagoon. And it should be. It is a beautiful place. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, is there anybody else? I just wanted to turn it on. I've got a map here, and I can pass it out. You name and address. My name is Dwayne White, president of NDW Consultants. I understand everybody's concern, and everybody, and especially the ones that live on larger lots and all of that. And I do understand the one gentleman said that future use does not override just because it's there, the current. These properties were all pre-platted, and I have laws right here that show that they are, and I can give you the laws. Everybody can read them. That's why they're allowing seven houses down the street on one-acre lot right now. They also just built three down the street on a half-acre lot, the same exact size as my little tiny lots, and there's seven of them ever 1.05 acres. I'm not trying to do that. Even the assistant county manager himself, Tad Cocken, said if 40, 50 people bought these lots, they could all build on quarter-acre lots. We're not trying to do that. We would be as happy with this lowest 12 lots. We have a lot of people, if I'd known this, people were going to show up. I would have brought my customers here that can't afford a $5,600,000 house, but they can afford a $400,000 house. So we're trying to do 12. We would be happy with 12. We'd like to do maybe 14 or 15, but we'd be happy with 12. But the law, I'm going to read the law so people here can kind of understand it. You're on the timer, so. I'm going to make it quick. Yeah. Single-family use may be established on such lots, provided they're 50 feet wide, 75, not less than 5,000 square feet. That's an agricultural lot. A lot or parcel of land, track of land, AU, agriculture use, is less than two and a half acres, may also be determined to be non-conformity lot if the parcel to track land was recorded in survey prior to March 6, 1975. These were platted back in 25 for grove workers, citrus, the cattle, for people that afford small row housing. That's what they were designed for. We have since vacated the roads, and we obviously can't get a hundred and something houses in there and wouldn't want to. But a lot of people can't afford, you know, on the whole front is two and a half acres. We left them all that. Seven-acre lot, $600,000, $700,000 houses. But this is the backside. And the lady, the man that was talking about in front of her house, those are all two and a half acres lot. They're already in permitting. They're already in permitting and everything. And also, a pond is not against the rule of Bavard County. There's no permit required to dig a three-quarter acre pond in Bavard County. There's rules you're not allowed to take the dirt off. They've got to be certain slopes. There's definitely rules, but there's no permit required in Bavard County to dig a pond. So, anyways, that's one of the, I can, if anybody would like to have this rule saying right here that the lots are legal. I'm just getting them rezoned because I want to get along with the county. We've got attorneys here, so they'll handle that. They won't answer. They won't answer my email. I have a question, Mr. White. So, are you saying that no dirt left that property? I told them, no. This is a personal, I took some topsoil off of that dirt. There's all the dirt's been left on that original parcel. So, how many trucks left that property with dirt? I don't know. I mean, I don't know what that. Because I live in the neighborhood. I know you don't. We saw hundreds. That's not, it's a lie. That's not a lie. Yes, it is. I'll tell you one thing that is. Sorry, am I allowed with these follow-ups? No, let's still get in a debate about it. You can talk to me. I'm a grown man. You know what's right. Yeah. Just leave it at that. You can speak all your name. That's fine. I'll wait until the end to say what I'm going to say. I really do when I'm up here. Okay. I can defend myself. So, the fact that you don't have to have a permit to dig the pond, is the pond agriculturally exempt, the property that you dug the pond on? How many ponds, I'm sorry, are on the two parcels you bought? One. One. One pond on the two parcels. Yes, sir. Okay. The neighbor who bought, the guy that bought a lot for me is digging a pond on his to build his house to get dirt, which is 100% legal. With an ag exemption. No, absolutely not. He has a building permit. He has a building permit. Okay. When did that building permit, when was it issued? A couple weeks ago. Okay. So, is that why he dug the pond in February? No, that pond. The first pond is the one he's in trouble. That's one of them. The second pond has a building permit for it, and it's sold to somebody else, and he got a building permit before he served it. Right. The one pond that we dug prior to our code violation, and they thought it was too big. All right. So, let me just ask you this, and you tell me if I'm correct or incorrect. You put in an unpermitted illegal driveway. You dug a pond next to it. You used that driveway to haul a number of truckloads of dirt off of the property, and then once the code enforcement officer showed up, you stopped using that driveway, used a different entrance from a different pond that was dug on a separate parcel of land. There's not another pond here. There's one pond. Okay. There's only one pond. You're welcome. I'll give you permission to ride on my property. I got a drone. No need to. Are you telling me there's two ponds on my property? There were, I would say. No. There never was. Okay. I mean, we can all go. That's fine. I asked for you to correct me if I'm wrong, and you did. It's easy to make mistakes. I ain't holding it against you. Thank you. Let's let us let us. I know this is personal to you, and I understand. I respect everybody. And you're through as well. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else I'd like to speak for against this? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is William Goff. I live at 3320 Huntington Avenue, Scottsmoor. There's a myriad of reasons to deny this, chiefly among them environmental impact. Scottsmoor, when they put those wells in about 10 years ago, the water table below our house was 120 feet down. That's where the salt line hit. The last time Titusville came up and tested the well, I walked over, and I asked the guy at what point did his meter spike as he was dropping the line down the test well number five, right at the corner of Huntington and Dixie. The continuity spiked at 90 feet. It used to be 120. Every place, every well that goes in, every water user that takes water stops some of that flow from reaching the Indian River Lagoon and allows saltwater intrusion. Some of us are going to have wells failing. By the bottom of my wells is 60 feet. I doubt that I'll live long enough to suffer with the saltwater. But some of you who buys my house may well do so. There's a myriad of reasons to deny this one, but the environmental issues are chief among them. So, please, think about it carefully. Thank you. Okay, is there anybody else? Hi, my name is Brad Flood. I live at 6225 Mangrove Street, directly east of the property that these guys have already been digging on. There's an adding to what they've added with the water quality and all that. There's a ditch directly to the north of the property and one directly to the south that is a straight shot to the lagoon. Any potential runoff would affect that, like, almost instantly. I moved here from Kentucky in 2008-09. I went to school down here. I lived in the great city of Yara, which rapidly increased in this population. So, we decided to move to Scottsmore on two-and-a-half-acre properties just to get away from the density and got my nine-year-old son, you know, to get away from a lot of the people and stuff like that. And it's just, you know, people that are already kind of pushing the limits of what they're allowed to do or not caring what they're allowed to do. If you green light them to do one acre per property per house, they're going to push that all the way to the limit, whether, you know, they say they're going to or not. And it's a very rural place. You know, we ride our horses and kids play on the dirt roads and stuff like that. So, I just would like to keep it that way. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next. My name is Frank Blalock. I live at 3660 Todd Lane. I'm not particularly affected by this other than water usage and density, but I have been affected by their buildings to the west of me where I live. When they pulled the permits to build the two buildings on six acres, they had surveys of two-and-a-half-plus acres. About a week ago, I happened to look in county records, and that's been rezoned to RR. So, they sold the property with one acre each, but the permit request was on two-and-a-half acres plus. I've had many issues with them in the building situation with those two houses that they built. Moved gopher turtles and were allowed to move them to the back part of the property, which was not cleared. Four acres in the back of it was not cleared. They're in the process of clearing that right now, and they haven't mitigated those turtles either. They're still there. No, excuse me. They're not there. I haven't seen a gopher turtle on my property in months since they moved those turtles. They are in the process of digging a hole in the ground. I won't call it a pond because it's not large enough to be considered a pond yet, but they are digging what they claim is going to be a pond on the back four acres. That property originally was six acres, and it fronted on Todd Lane, and it went back to Wheeler Road, which is not an improved road, and L-shaped to US-1. As it stands now, there are two houses on Todd Lane on one acre each. The four acres to the back fronts on US-1, and again, it was rezoned to RR without any neighbor being notified of it, which is, in my opinion, illegal. I can't give you the specifics on the date that it was reviewed by you, our county commission, but I just happened to look in county records the other day and found that it had sold as one-acre parcels. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Yes, sir. My name's Donald Raymer. I live at 6105 Mangrove Street, and the only thing I really have to say is there's been multiple truckloads of dirt hauled from the property. They were hauled out by a company called Ramage and Thorn Land Development. I have photos and videos to the effect. So there are more than just a couple of truckloads of dirt hauled from that property, as the previous gentleman said. Thank you. Okay, is there anybody else? Hi, my name is Kelly Niemeyer, and my significant other, we live on the property adjacent at 3760 Sunset. Give us an address. 3760 Sunset in Mims. So the property line that we have is right next to the tree line of this Orange Grove. So we have personally seen a lot of digging going on, a lot with everybody else, like going out with a lot of the blows of dirt, which also is very frustrating because we moved out there for the farm life, the peace, the quiet. It's nice seeing the kids going up and down the streets. Your neighbors know everybody. And by inviting this company to come in and develop this property, put more houses, like one of the other people have said in the community, there's other acreages around, large, so they can come in and just like a bee's on a bunny hive, oh, we're going to add more. We can add more. We don't want that there. We want the peace. We want the quiet. We enjoy our neighbors. And one neighbor, Mr. Jeff Gordon, who lives across the street, we've seen the issues he is having with his new septic system being put in. So everybody that has to put all these new septic systems in, who's to say the properties that are over there are going to have to have issues? We currently have water that comes in off of coral that goes in to feed our pond. We also have lots of water standing in our yard. So if this gentleman builds and has to elevate, where's that water going to go to? So we have all these road ditches that go down during hurricanes, rainstorms, they get full. All that goes down the road, down to Dixie, which then foregoes out to the lagoon. So we're all getting more environmentally, I want to say ideally nowadays, because we want to save our environment. By adding these companies to come in and add more homes, it puts more of our neighborhoods, I want to say, it's going to be affected with our water table, our sewage, et cetera, along with the environment. So please oppose this. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else? No, nope. Nope. You get one shot at me. Everybody's done a good job. I don't know if you've left anything out. Right, sir. My name is Kevin Percy. I live at 3495 Sunset in Scottsmoor. My wife and I lived in New Smyrna Beach for about 30 years until we were flooded four times. After Hurricane Ian, my wife said to me with three feet of water in the first floor of our home, Kevin, we're moving. I said, okay, honey, we'll move. Less than a month later, a little more, Hurricane Nicole put 10 inches of water in our home. We were trapped on the third floor of that home for three days. We moved to Scottsmoor, looking for a place where we would not flood. I'm sorry. Further development. I fear that our home will flood again and that our neighborhood will be like what's happened in Volusia County, in Edgewater, in Venetian Bay, where all the development, the zero lot lines, the one acre lots, the neighborhoods. I am opposed to this strongly and I am for keeping Scottsmoor rural. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Anybody else? Okay. We're going to close for the public comment. Come up and I'm sure there'll be some questions. Mr. Chairman. Before Mr. Minnick speaks, we don't have an authorization to act for you for this application. Okay. So you'll need to state on record that you have authorization to speak on behalf of the owner. You've heard some of the comments. Yes, exactly. I totally understand. Again, there's big, giant ditches and the drainage is incredible in this property and it does hit the major ditches. I don't believe there'll be a concern. Plus, they build an apartment nowadays is very strict and continuous about containing your own water. It's very sandy. There's no water that ever stands on the property. So most of it will hit the aquifer. Plus, all the septic tanks are going to be the new aerobic, not nitrogen ones, which are the good ones anyways. And also, I'm not trying to say this in an arrogant way, but two-thirds of every house in Scottsmoor, probably within a mile of this property, is sitting on a half acre or less. So they act like I'm doing this commit and send. And then the property in the front, all those are seven. We kept them all two and a half acres. So it's only, we'd be happy, like I said, with 12 on 17 acres. That's an average of 1.4 acres per lot. It's not like we're doing this giant subdivision. And I feel in my heart, which I can show the rules, I'd be glad to give you all the rules where it shows that every one of those lots are buildable. And they're grandfathered in because they were planted before May of 1975. And I'll be, Jared, I'd love to show it to you afterwards if you want to speak to me. I've seen it. Okay. Thank you, though. Okay. And it's a rule. That's why they're letting seven houses on an acre be built within a half a mile of this property. And he went through the county and they said it's okay. Seven houses on one acre. I mean, these same size little lots that I have, a hundred and something lots, not willing to do that, don't want to do that. So that's not the, and that property also, I'll comment on that property on Todd Lane. That property's been sold to the person that lives in the house. It's his actual neighbor on a contract for deed. So it's not even, and that's not even, that's not even the same. That's my partner that I've worked with for years that's retired. So he has nothing to do with this. Plus all the code violations are not on this lot that I'm getting rezoned. That's the lots in the front that are building permits are already in. They're all being taken care of. This 17 acres is, this parcel and this little small half acre parcel have nothing to do with none of that stuff with the dirt, the pond, nothing like that. So, I mean, I've been very forthcoming to the people at natural resources. I've told them everything. I've talked to them. They, you know, there's no, no lying to them. They know what's going on. You know, it's their job to find me and do whatever's appropriate, you know, and we'll work the pond he thought was bigger because there was dirt spread out. Several hundred loads of dirt were left on that one parcel. You don't even, you have to leave it on the parcel. You can't even take it to the different parcel, even if you own it right beside each other. But at that time, it was one big parcel. But anyways, I just, you know, I'm trying to say, it's not like, I've got three people. I didn't know this people. I would like, I would have had them come and say, you know, he's selling me a new house for 400 something grand. I can afford this. You know, they can't, they make a hundred grand a year, $120,000 a year. They can't afford 600 grand husband, wife teams. You know, they can't afford that, you know. So, I mean, and obviously, you know, it makes it better for us. I don't want to sound like it's all for me, you know, because, you know, we can build more lots, more houses, and we can make more money. So, I'm not saying that it don't benefit us. Obviously, it does. But we're not trying to do this big subdivision. It's nothing like that. I mean, we're talking 12 houses on 17 acres, an average of 1.4. And remember, two-thirds of every house in Scottsmoor is sitting on a half acre, most of them on quarter acres. So, I mean, it ain't like, and it absolutely will not create no flooding problem. I can promise you there's ditches on all four sides, and one even in the middle of half the property that the county made me do a drainage to record a drainage ditch that comes to the, that drains the property. And there's culverts that go under the road even. I mean, this is not, this property don't retain no water whatsoever, you know. I mean, so, I mean, as far as concern of water, I mean, and the one gentleman I was talking about as well is it had to have been replaced over and over. I mean, there ain't been 10, 15 houses built in Scottsmoor probably in the last five years. I mean, new ones I know of, probably maybe 15 at the most. I mean, that's like the most undeveloped part of the whole entire county. So, I mean, people, I mean, I mean, a lot of, in Scottsmoor. Haven't you built more houses than that in Scottsmoor? I haven't. I mean, in Scottsmoor, I didn't say Mims. I built a lot more Mims, but I'm talking in Scottsmoor. I consider that Scottsmoor. Mims, I consider, but the town from Huntington area, that area is Scottsmoor. I don't, I mean, there ain't been 15 houses built the last seven, eight years. I have a couple more questions and I'll be nice. May I? We're going to get the questions from the board here for you. Go ahead, Jim. So, you said there's ditches. You said you're going to put in a ditch to drain the runoff. And you also said the property is going to retain its own water. So, which is it? I didn't say, so there's ditches all the way around. There's a drainage going through the main property that goes under the road. Yes, sir. Coral. The individual lots, like the acre lots, they'll probably make us put a berm. Whatever the building department requires, we do it. They do it all the time. They make us put like a one to three foot slope burner around the whole entire property. Sometimes they don't require it. Sometimes they do, but there's ditches all the way around three sides of the property. Also, a drainage ditch right through the center and it swells down five or six foot. It don't even hold water to the ground so high. You know, now some people that may say that this is flooding, they may already have a low lot. I mean, the water's going to hit ditches before it hits anybody's property. There's not a piece of property that joins me that the water don't hit a ditch or a swell. Right. That I understand. And he's correct there. We do have, in Scottsmoor, a massive network of drainage ditches that do go right into the lagoon. And when it backs up, I'm at the end of one of those ditches. I'm the recipient of all the water that the neighborhood runs off. So currently my yard is underwater. Currently there's probably 300 feet of road flooded on the way to my house. It has gotten worse with more recent developments. Obviously, you know, nobody wants water standing on their property so they build the houses up high, they build the yards up high, bring in lots of dirt from whatever source, and they run all that water into those ditches. So I think Laura Lee brought up a point about running all that fresh water into the lagoon. And there is a filter at the end of sunset that is supposed to take out nitrates and whatnot, but when the water flow exceeds what the filter can handle, it runs right over the top. Whatever silt and grass clippings and whatnot are in there. Staff comments had a wetlands delineation must be completed prior to clearing or any land modification. That was as of June 26th. So has that been done? That's a lot. I've got a girl come done. Yes, I've already had that done. Okay. Was that done prior to any clearing or land modification? You don't have to have no kind of permit to clear the citrus. I already got permission from natural resources. Okay. What about land modification? You can do ponds with no permit whatsoever. Even before the wetlands delineation? I don't know what to comment on that. It didn't have no wetlands. Okay. It's that one pertain. All right. A couple more. I'm almost done here. Also, one issue is with all of the runoff from the higher elevation lots, you don't have surficial aquifer recharge for wells, and I think that's a big problem. I know I have a massive water system in my shed that costs tens of thousands of dollars. I know many people in this room have the same thing. They're concerned about additional draw on that surficial aquifer without additional recharge because any runoff, instead of perking down into the surficial aquifer, is just going to run out into the river, and we're going to continue pulling salt. That's why I wanted to reserve the opportunity to ask the well driller a couple more questions just to make sure that I'm not completely off base there. And personally, with the, you know, with the tax, the extra tax money that we're putting toward the lagoon and trying to clean that up, I think it's counterproductive, too. Well, this creates a lot of tax revenue. The growth is $300 or $400 a year. Right, but it kind of also violates the spirit of the sales tax half cent, which is specifically to go to the lagoon. I don't know how much of the property taxes go toward that project, but I know that the half cent sales tax does, so we'd be kind of moving backwards if we increase density in an area that's in such close proximity to that. And again, these are all nitrogen reduction systems. And the gentleman across the street just spoke, he's putting a new system in, but he didn't volunteer to put a nitrogen system in. I guarantee it, I've seen it. Any reduction is more than zero, which is what's there now. It's huge. So it's going to add, no matter what we do, it's just what. Oh, absolutely. I don't disagree. To what level will we add? I don't disagree with that. And the seven and three houses being built on those other lots, I believe those lots were already separated out, and that's why they were grandfathered in. I don't think that it's an apples-to-apples comparison on these lots. These are all planted out, too. Yeah, but this is ag. They didn't need to rezone. They didn't need to do anything special or jump through anything. I read you the rule, 1975 ag only has to be 5,000 square feet. I can show you the rule. Anybody wants to read it, I've got a whole copy. Any ag probably pre-platted before 1975. It actually says see size limit and area in this section, and it's one, two sentences up, and it tells you what it has to be. I don't want to do that. Y'all are letting other people do it. There's seven going on an acre, three going on a half acre. That never came through here. Yeah, right. They didn't have to. For our county level. Well, this one has to. Yeah. No, it didn't have to. No, it didn't have to. I volunteered this to get along with everybody and appease everybody. I don't want people talking crap about me. I didn't have to. My attorney says I don't have no worries with this. He says when you get done, you turn this down, we'll put as many as you want in there. I can promise you, because he read the laws, and I'd love to show any of you guys, I don't want to be that guy. These lots are platted no different than they just let a guy build seven on one acre. He's built two now, but he's already got approval for five more, a total of seven on 1.05 acres. Another builder just got done with three on a half acre right down the street from me with the same exact size lots, because they were pre-platted prior to 1975. Chairman, can staff maybe interject and provide a little clarification on the legality of what he's saying? Are they allowed to just go in? Because I feel like we're just going in circles. I can show you the law. I've heard you. I just would like the county attorney's opinion on it. That's all. Some of it's correct, and some of it's not. I'm just staying out of it. That's where we've got a house full of attorneys for. So he's talking about Code Section 62-1188, which is non-conforming lot of records, which does state that single-family or duplex uses, buildings, and uses may be established on such lots, provided that a lot has a width of not less than 50 feet and a depth of not less than 75 in an area not less than 5,000 square feet. So since this area was platted prior to, I think he said back in the 20s, they would have qualified for non-conforming lot of records. However, that property has now been all combined. So that's what I was referring to with the other lots is the way that they were already split up, and they didn't have to go through this process when they built those other homes, right? I'm sure. Go ahead. So what was stated a minute ago by the owner here was that he doesn't have to do this, that he can go ahead and do this without coming before us. Is there truth to that? If he was to put the lots back in how they were platted, that is true. He would qualify for non-conforming lot of records. I'm not following because I'm looking at the plat online, and it shows like they're – so was the property replatted into a single ownership and combined into one – It was not replatted. It's still under the same plat. He's just combined it all under one deed. For tax purposes. So it's still platted. It's just deed ownership. Correct. Okay, so is it the opinion of the county attorney that if he wanted to come in and pull building permits on every single one of these platted lots, he'd have the ability to do that right now today? That's something I'd have to look into further. I don't want to do that, guys. I understand that. I just think it's important to know whether you actually have the legal right to come in and do that today, or you – I love the passion. I don't want you to law out. Y'all can read it and determine for yourself your own opinion. I understood, but the county attorney's opinion that their office is the one that dictates. So, at least on our behalf. Look, disrespect. No, it's good at all. Now, when I had a meeting with him, they didn't agree on it. They did not agree on it. Him and Tad's call, which is assistant manager. What Tad said, I said, so if 30, 40 people would have bought lots of it, they could all build. He said, yeah, but you can't. I said, wait a minute, because I've got money, I can't, but someone can build individuals. So we all made an agreement to get it rezoned. This is what agreement. The gentleman right there was sitting at the table. And so we all made a mutual agreement. I didn't go get an attorney. I can go get an attorney. I can fight it. And I think I'm going to win. I don't want to do that. Let's see if we can get a little clarification from senior staff. You all have done great. Let me just see if I can condense this piece in. I hope I'm answering the question. In theory, he's got 17 lots today that forget everything we've heard. He has, through the different elements, 2007, he wasn't included, dee-da-da, dee-da-da, dee-da-da, as I understand, all the way back to the history, which is 1920s or whatever it is. Forgetting us totally, and I'm trying to keep this simple, how many houses can he put in there on agriculture? And I'm going to say he has the ability to sell the lot, and that individual can come here and ask for, just like any ag, and come here and ask for RR1. So, am I on the right road here, Billy? If I understand what your question is, yes. Okay. Keeping it simple, he can technically, without us, 27, he can sell them all individually, and they could put 17 houses. Not on all of them. Some of them are not 50 foot wide. Some of them are platted at 49. But in theory, I'm on the right road. I mean, I'm trying to, we're dealing now with some other logistical issues in there that. Yeah, I don't want to mix up different concepts. I mean, he's, you know, when we're talking about non-conforming lots, he's got to have a single non-conforming lot. Yeah, I try to get one out of that. That's right. He can't have a 25 foot wide lot that goes back 200 feet. No, I understand. Non-conforming lot, non-conforming lot. Mr. Chairman. As of today, this is not a non-conforming lot of record. It's not. Do you want to read, do you read the roll to me? It's the roll, the law, I got it right here. It's pretty simple. I mean, if you can, stay up there with us because there's going to be some better questions or you might be able to realign us here. I don't think we're out of line, but we're, had a lot of information on this parcel. Some of it's true and some of it's false, okay? That's all I want to say. Mr. Chairman. Yes. May I say something? Sure. I have a question. You owned a lot to the east, do you not? Yes, sir. What are you doing with that one? I'm building houses on it. I've already got permits turned in. Okay. But it's zoned AU, right? Yes, sir. You have any plans to change it to RR1? No, sir. I've already got five permits turned in. Four or five, at least four. So how many houses are you putting on it? Seven on two and a half acres. Two and a half acres each. Two and a half acres plus. Okay, because it's 14 acres. It's 14.16 acres, right? You just said to the east. To the east, yes. No, it's seven, 2.5, 17 and a half acres. I'm looking, I'm looking at the, you're, this is the one we're talking about today. And there's this one here. There's seven, five acre lots. There's a 30 foot east. I follow, not follow the county, but they agree. You need to get on the microphone. I went with, I talked to the county and there was a drainage easement back there that I, that I thought that I owned. They said I didn't own it, which he'll test to that. And then they all agreed that I owned it and gave me permission to build on all seven of those two and a half acre lots. I've got surveys, title, insurance, everything. Okay. So you're putting seven homes on that eastern parcel, right? All 2.5 plus. Okay. The smallest one is at least 2.5, sir. All right. Then why are you not doing that on this one? That's what I was, that's what I explained to you earlier because the cost of the land was so expensive that nowadays I'd have, I can't sell houses that are affordable to people that everybody hears how to write to buy a house. I got young, I didn't bring them that three people now that want a home that this is in their price range. You know, they can, they can afford an acre. They can afford a new home, 1,800 square feet, not a large home. And on the two and a half acres, I got quite a bit more money in them. I got 60% more money per acre in those than like an acre, an acre and a half lot. Okay. That's why. Did you buy both lots at the same time? Yes, sir. Okay. So you did the math, it cost you a million something for the, for the lots and figured out how much you could, uh, your lot or your payment per lot would be, correct? Per acre, per acre. Yes, yes, yes, yes, sir. Okay. I meant per unit. Yes, sir. Um, so with, you said seven on the other, on the Eastern portion? Yes, sir. Plus you're asking for how many on the Western one? I would be okay with 12, as little as 12. So you'll put 19 homes? On 34 acres. Okay. And all on septic? Yes, sir. All nitrogen septics. Okay. What about at the North and the Southern end where the septic overlay says you can't? Well, that, that, that's not going to be forever. You know what I'm saying? That's not, I mean, you can't build a house. What does that mean? Not going to be forever? Well, as of now, you can't build a house in Bavard County from, so back, some from 192 in Melbourne to New Somernet Airport. You can't build one house on one single lot until they get the vanities fed back up. I live on the river or not. I should say not live. I'm fixing to move on the river. I got a house and the grass. I've never seen the grass so pretty. I fish a lot. I've never seen the grass back so nice as I see it now. You know, um, so I mean, there's always going to be, you know, it's, you know, at the end of the day, if you take people's property, you make it devout, you know, if you take their lot, you can't take, that's why they make a law a certain year. You can't say today, all, you know, agricultural lots has to be 10 acres. You can say as of today, any new platted ones have to be because you don't take value from people's land. This land was pre-platted in the 20s and that's, that's what it's valued as. You can't go in there and say, well, they have to be 15 acre lots or 10 acre lots or whatever. They were, they were valued and that's, that's what it says in 1975, as long as they were pre-platted in their individual lots. It's a law. It's a simple law. You can read it. It's very, very self-explanatory. Now, some of the zoning department people don't agree with me and I've tried to get clarification, but I can't get an email just in talk. We, I can't get nothing wrote down in email. Um, but I'm, I'm convinced that when I get done with this, that I'll be able to put way more than that because you're letting people now do it. They're letting seven on one acre down the road. So I know I'm going to get the same right and you can't do three more on, on another one. I mean, they, they were zoned differently though. The ones he's talking about had a different zone. Zoning don't have nothing to do with. That's what that law says prior to 1970. That's why they didn't have to go through this exercise. It says AU, AU has to be 6,000 square or five, whatever it is there, 5,000 square feet, 50 feet long, as long as it was platted for 1975. Probably make your value go up. A lot of nice new houses. Hold a minute. I got to get control. And instead of it, it's a 17 house, 1.4 acres. It's 1.4 acres average per house. If you average the ones on two. Please stop. Let's hold down. Let's hold down. We're not, really, you're not practicing law on this side, but has legal been involved in this at all? Yes. Okay. What is their surmise of all we're hearing today? There's been a lot of hypotheticals thrown around that I'm not sure if each one has been evaluated, if this, then that, and each, and that's how it would happen. You know, when we're really talking about these technical issues, you know, we have to look at what the application is and see what would work. I mean, the current one before you is obviously R1, so I will say this has been extensively looked at by county attorney's office as well as planning and development staff. Here's my concern as chairman today. This thing's fairly complicated, and I'm not sure. There's a lot of questions in my mind, and I hope a lot of these board members, until we get them answered, this sounds crazy, but I almost want to table this thing until all those issues are addressed. Is that a motion, Mr. Chairman? The chairman can't make one, so, I mean, that's just a suggestion I made, because... Oh, you don't want me to make a motion? I mean, some are good and some are not. He's wrong in a lot of areas, and I don't want to get... I would love for him to be emotional, because I want the county attorney's office to answer an email to tell me that my laws are illegal, but I can't... I practice a lot of law without a license, so... You've watched a lot of TV. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have one more question to the gentleman. Were these orange groves, by the way? Yes, sir. And have you cleared all the trees off the land? Some of them. Some of them. Yes, sir. Do you know the price of orange juice has really gone through the roof, because you guys are cutting down orange? There'll be plenty in two months. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to table. Okay. I got a motion by John. I'll second. We got a second here? There's already... Whatever. Okay. All in favor of tabling this, signify by saying you have some discussion? I have discussion. I had questions for staff. I was waiting for all of this to finish so I could address staff. I think now would be the time to do it before we vote on this. Yes. During this discussion point, so... I wanted some clarification from Natural Resources on the Indian River Lagoon BMAP area. Is this included within, not the septic overlay, but is this included within the Indian River North Indian River Lagoon BMAP area? The actual map itself. We got that one. We don't have the BMAP map in front of us. I know it roughly goes to US-1, but that's a rough, that's rough. So I was curious because I know that there's a federal mandate, a moratorium within the Indian River, North Indian River BMAP area. So you can't even put in septics, not even nitrogen to special septics is my understanding, and I'm not expecting, from what I'm hearing, for that to end anytime soon. Is that correct? I will just say, I know that FD, Environmental, Fort Department of Health is actively looking at that and looking at procedures and how that impacts permitting here. I don't know if they've gone through every detail of how that's going to impact yet, but it does appear to impact the area. Yes. You're correct. You are correct, ma'am. Okay. And I don't know if county staff is familiar with it, but I know that the city of Titusville has water near there. The company is called TIFA, and I believe they're in the process of an investigation with St. John's River Water Management to collect well data from the residents in Scottsmoor over the lack of potable water in the area. I am not aware of that, no. It's currently undergoing, though, just FYI. The city water comes from Mims, Tottusville. They're on wells out there. I know. Good. I'm sorry. How are you? I'm good. Now, I was just going to say, between the septic and the, I mean, in 2009, when another similar property was up for rezoning, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny it based on the fact that the character of Scottsmoor is not one-acre lot. And looking back through that, between the lack of potable water, salt water intrusion, and septic issues in the area, I would tend to concur with that. That's all I had to say. We've got a motion and second. Can I comment? Yes, ma'am. If I go to the vote? I think, for me, the most important part right here is there's just so many things unanswered. I mean, I would tend to agree with exactly what Ruth just said here and would happily move forward with that. But without some of these legal questions answered, you know, if this was brought to us for a reason, but I'm not understanding if it could be overridden anyways, then why did it get brought to us in the first place? So I think that those questions need to be answered before it comes back to us again the next time. Just to be out of concern of, you know, what would be the point of it going to Brevard County Commission if that's going to happen regardless? So I think those questions, as a board, we need those answered before we can make a decision with the proper amount of knowledge. So I think if the board were to continue it, if the board were to do it, we'll put together an addendum to try to answer those questions and have it to you before you hear it again. Appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. We've got a motion and second to table. Can you get this done in a month? Yes, sir. We can. Great. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All in opposition? Aye. One. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Last question. So for the audience, what we have done is tabled this for a month to try to understand what's legal and what's not legal. But I think it's in the best of everybody's interest that we go in this direction. We've heard a lot of commotion tonight. And hopefully we can draw to a conclusion in the next 30 days. And thank you all for coming. We've got you out of here before 9 o'clock. Yes. All right. Next item. Mr. Minibu. Can we have a five-minute break? Oh, I'm sorry. Can we have five minutes? You want five minutes? I'd really love a bathroom break. You and I. T.G. Rentals of Bevard, LLC, being represented by MBV Engineering Incorporated, request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 25S.10 to change the future land use designation from Res. 15 to CC under application 25SS00005 in District 1. I'm going to read in his rezoning application, their companions, T.G. Rentals of Bevard, LLC, being represented by Bruce Moya, is requesting a change of zoning classification from RVP to BU2 under application 25Z00016, located in District 1. We'll need separate recommendations on these requests. Thank you. Right, sir. Yeah. Good evening. I'm Bruce Moya, MBV Engineering, representing the applicant, Mr. Goodson, on this property. It's a vacant piece of property, not a whole lot really to it, but they want to do a storage facility, storage in RV, so very low intensity. They were considering annexing into Brockledge, but they're hoping they could go ahead and get this done in the county. And we think it's low impact for the area. I think it's a pretty appropriate place for it. So, in order to do that, we have to get a land use change, and we have to get a rezoning. Good. Anybody have a question for Bruce before I go to the audience? Is there anybody in the audience who likes to speak for or against this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. What's the pleasure of the board? I have a question. Okay. I didn't hear your dialogue. That's okay. I knew you'd have a question anyway, so I didn't go into too much detail. Thank you. Why storage in this area? That's a question for Mr. Goodson. My personal opinion, knowing the area, I think it's fantastic. Yeah. I think, yeah. I mean, that's... I mean, that's boat storage. Yeah, I hate storage. But he's also doing... I don't think there's any of it in the area. I think it'd be a good place to start. On the way there, you've got... All you have is modular homes, RVs. Mm-hmm. Great. Okay. Well, I look at it differently. If you make this commercial, okay, under SB 102, you could put quite a number of affordable homes on that lot. Yeah. Like 300. Okay. And we have a housing crisis here, and I'm on the Affordable Housing Council, and I would think it would be a better use. You're the applicant. It's asking to do outdoor storage plus mini-storage, correct? So you're going to have some mini-storage on this? Correct. Okay. None of these developments... I'm against mini-storage in certain areas because it doesn't bring any revenue to the county. Okay? There's no employment. Okay? And no jobs provided on this. It's just a cash register for the owner. And I disagree with it. And I don't want Brevard... And I've mentioned this many times when you were on the board, that why are we becoming the storage capital of America? And I compare this with Houston, which has 6 million people, but they've only got 300 storage facilities. And we have way over that. It just... It doesn't make sense to me to keep putting storage on the land when we should be putting housing on the land. Okay? And that's why I object to this development. I don't think it's the right use. You know, I would go along with the commercial, the CC designation, but if they were to change it to housing and not for storage. I'll bring that up to the owner, but I think that he's got his heart set on storage. Yeah, because it's a cash register. No, I understand it financially. It's still... If you develop the property, it's a low impact to the infrastructure with an increased tax revenue on the property, because you're taxing it on the value of the property now. On the improvements. To post now. And you have very, very little impact. So it's... There you go. To me, it's a win. Anybody else got any questions for Mr. Boyer? I have a question. All right, so it says, in determining whether an established residential neighborhood exists, blah, blah, blah. So on to our number two, it says, the proposed use may be considered compatible within the surrounding area, yet the BU2 uses were limited to just the proposed RV storage and mini storage facilities. So that it would just be always that. So I don't know if it needs to have a BDP or not. So I just looked at it differently. Yeah, we did talk about that with staff. Would we be willing to do that if that was a request from the board? I mean, just because it only fits in, you know... And also the uses that go with the BU1 as well. I think it's why they usually phrase it as you get all your uses that you're already entitled to, but we can limit it to the storage for the BU2 use. Absolutely. What's the pleasure of the board? I'd make a motion to accept with BDP for the, you know, with the following requirements. It's just used as it is. Bruce seconds it. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Other than John, who opposed? All these people with the affordable houses need a place to put all their stuff. No, no, no, no, no. You guys don't see it. We're working on affordable housing. We've got two projects in Melbourne right now. Yeah, I know, but that's Melbourne. This is Cocoa. That's somewhere. Well, they embrace it. Yeah, Melbourne embraces affordable housing. They give you a lot of benefits. Are you going to expand in Scottsmore? In that path? That's the one. That's the, yeah. So the land use passed. We got it. H5 then. Yes, so your vote was for the small scale. Now you need to vote on the rezoning. That's where, if you would like conditions, please state those conditions of the BDP. Yep. The conditions are that it's limited to use RV storage and mini storage facility. With what he proposed initially, so I'm fine with that. Are you proposing to retain the BU-1 uses as well, or just the BU-2 use of RV and boat storage? Well, I think he didn't have BU-2, but he has to have limited, you know, proposed as an RU storage and in mini storage facilities. Mr. Chairman? Do you make a motion to that? Yes. Mr. Chairman, would you ask Ron to make an amendment to that? Ron, wake up. Ron's fine. He's done a great job. Ruth, do you want to second that again? Yes. I mean, I agree with what she's saying. We need a BDP that gives him the BU-1 uses, and the only BU-2 use is the one that he's requesting for the facility. That's good. Perfect. That's good. Thank you. And Ruth, do you second that? I didn't, but I can. What happens when meetings go past 5 o'clock around here? Yeah, I know. All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. John, you're in favor of this one? No. That's good. Thank you. And that passed. Is there anything left on the docket? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. We are done for the day. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned.