And a Pledge of Allegiance, please. 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. This is the Planning and Zoning Board slash local planning agency. It's an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners who will make the final decision on these items. Item H1 is an LPA item. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on October 2nd, 2025, at 5 p.m. When a motion ends and any kind of a split vote, a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy. As a reminder, each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on the record. Speakers for public comment on agenda items will be given three minutes. Please spell your last name for the record. At this time, if any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application, please disclose so now. All right. Seeing that, I ask for a motion for approval for the P&Z minutes from August 18, 2025. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion by Deb, a second by Ruth. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Mr. Billy, are you going to take us through the septic tank and drain field real quick? Yeah, I do, Mr. Chairman. So just also just so you know, Ms. Gilliam has had a medical issue today, so I'll be filling in for her. Sorry about that. But, yeah, so in May of this year, the United States District Court issued an order in the case of Bear Warriors United versus Alexis Lambert, and it effectively created a septic moratorium, not just Brevard County, but including areas of Brevard County, particularly along the Indian River Lagoon corridors. It had to do with the protection of manatees in the Indian River Lagoon. So, obviously, the county itself doesn't issue septic permits. That would be environmental health. Ms. McNamara from Environmental Health is here today. But we do, it obviously does touch our processes from building to zoning and so forth. So, for example, in the area of building permits, we've taken a very proactive approach, led by some of our staff members here today, to try to identify permits early on where that might be affected so that those permits don't get issued and actions not taken based on a permit because, ultimately, they won't be able to complete that permit out if they can't get a septic permit. Now, early on, those projects that had already begun and for permits that were already issued, environmental health acted very quickly and proactively to do what they could to ensure that as less harm as possible was done to those existing projects. But now we're at the stage where, you know, it's going to start impacting or has impacted projects that people have in the pipeline. So, Mr. Minamboo contacted me last week and he was asking me some questions about, you know, zoning. So, we've been proactive in the building permit stage, but we haven't necessarily, other than when it comes up at an obvious level, we haven't really worked to identify specifically those rezonings that are within the septic moratorium area. So, going forward, we will be starting to do that. And so, we've mapped internally in our mappers. We have that area mapped. So, all the new applications coming in, we're going to cross-check that with the area. And just for informational purposes, somebody can still go forward with the rezoning if they choose to because there may be good reasons why they still may want to rezone. But we will be including that in our staff comments that they appear to be within the septic moratorium area and that to advise them to reach out to environmental health for more information about that. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Billy. Welcome, sir. Okay. Item H1. Item H1 and H2 are companion applications. Michael S. Al Paolo requests a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, 25S.13, to change future land use designation from CC and Res. 15 to all CC. Application is 25SS00007. And located at tax account numbers 2611657 and 2611658 in District 4. And also, application H2, which is companion Michael S. Paolo requests zoning classification change from BU1 and RU17 to BU2 with a BDP. And this is application 25Z00029, located, again, at tax account numbers 2611657 and 2611658 in District 4. These will require separate approvals or denials. Okay. Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could come up to the podium and get as close as you could to that microphone and state your name and address, and if you could spell your last name also. Yeah. Landon Shear, S-T-H-E-E-R, address 1361, Highway A-W-N-A, Satellite Beach. A little bit about what you're wanting to do here. Yeah. So, a little bit of history about the property. The property's been owned by the family for quite some time. They actually owned it when they developed the mobile home park to the west. They carved this parcel out when they developed the mobile home park. They no longer own the mobile home park, but they had the intent of developing this parcel for a long time. And then FDOT came in and decided they wanted some of it, and so there is an FDOT pond that they took and developed with eminent domain, which left them with an awkwardly shaped parcel that has a split zoning and land use, which makes it difficult to develop. So, our request is to rezone the property and change the land use to unify the zoning into one commercial zoning and land use. We are requesting to rezone to BU2 with a BDP that restricts the allowable uses to all BU1 uses with the additional use of contractor storage, contractor office and storage. The property owner, he has a business, HVAC and plumbing contractor business up in Rockledge, and they've outgrown their current operation, and they're looking to relocate here. And the nature of the use is HVAC and plumbing contractors, so the materials. Obviously, they want to keep them shielded from weather protection, so almost 99% of the time they're going to be indoors. They have roll-up doors that they're going to bring deliveries inside. The request for the outdoor storage comes if they have an after-hours delivery. They come in box trucks and drop the materials off outside the roll-up doors, and then the guys come and take them inside. They're trying to be proactive about not getting a code violation for the materials that are left outside overnight if the guys can't get them right away. So, I mean, this is, I would say, a pretty mixed-use corridor. There is some residential in the area, but there's also quite a bit of commercial in the area. I mean, within this corridor, there's curb-pro, paver-pro, dentist's office, marine and boat repair, restaurant, hair salon, car spot, VFW, daycare, vacant commercial, office space, gas station, office complex, doctor's office. And then there's an aquatic center that's been permitted, but it hasn't been under construction yet or hasn't started construction yet. The property is off of US-1, which is a major highway, six-lane, the highway that has plenty of capacity for the proposed use. Again, the intent is to have the roll-up doors not face the right-of-way or the residential property. So they're situated right now on a concept plan that I believe we sent over. And if you want to cast it on the screen, if that's possible. This? Yes. Yep, that's it. Shielded, I mean, they're facing the north, which is the DOT pond, not the residence's property. So we're doing all that we can. And then we push the building as far, as close to DOT as we could to keep it away from the residential properties as well. There is no wetlands on the property. I know that came up in natural resources review. We did have a wetland or an environmental assessment done. There's a ditch on the west side of the property, but we've already spoken with St. John's, and that can be relocated as necessary to accommodate our development. There's also a bit of a floodplain on our site, but it's also on the west side where the wet pond or the dry pond is. So we strategically placed the stormwater and the building to be out of the floodplain, and the stormwater's in the floodplain to provide compensatory storage and required stormwater. So that's really the nature of the request. Landscape buffers, we're going to be required by county code, regardless if it was BU1 or BU2, to provide a 20-foot landscape buffer from any residential property. That's just the code along with the screening wall. So we're going to make sure that we provide adequate screening from all residential properties. And, again, the request is BU2, but only one use within BU2, and then all of BU1. Okay. While you're right there, and before I open, questions from the board. Does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? All right. Seeing that, I'll bring it back to the board. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Ron John was ahead of you. One second, please. Yes, Mr. John. I just have a question for staff. Can you define plants? Well, in the context of the contractor's offices, plants, and storage yards, if that's what you're – that's actually a specific – I don't think it's defined in our code, but that as a group has a specific use in our zoning code. So what is that use? The use is contractor's offices, plants, and storage yards. Again, what's plants? You can't have the word in the definition if you're not defining it. I think you would just use the common definition of plants. I mean, it's not specifically defined in our code. I mean, could a plant could be a factory? I think, you know, in the context of this, you know, contractors, offices, plants, and storage yards, I mean, it's in that kind of grouping together. You're not answering my question. I mean, ultimately, it's an evaluation that had to be done if a use – if a complaint had come in that it was outside of something that looks to be that. But that's after the fact. If you're giving an opportunity to have a plant, what's your definition of a plant? Well, as I said, it's not defined in our code, so it would have to be – it would be an as-applied determination. Not a good answer. That's all. Okay, Mr. Rahn. You mentioned that you had the ditch. Is – you got permission to relocate the ditch? We don't – I wouldn't say we have permission yet. We'd still have to permit it, but we've spoken with St. John's, and it would have to be appropriately mitigated and relocated with calculations and appropriate plans. But, you know, I was concerned, are you going to be interfering with the flow of water through that ditch in any – either way? Oh, we would have to maintain capacity, and when we redirect it, we'd have to show modeling and calculations that we don't hinder the capacity of that ditch. Okay. And the other question I had was, when I looked at the property appraisers' website in your plan, I noticed that off US-1, there's an entrance that looks like it's an entrance to the property that is south of you, but it's on your property. You've given them an easement of some kind, or have they just taken it over? I believe my client is still working through that because there's no legal easement for that driveway, but it is there. So that's something that we're going to have to work through with the property to the south of us because right now they don't have legal access through there. But they must have just built it there at one point. And on the other end of the property, on the west end, the trailer park looks like there are some parking places that are on your property for the trailer park. I saw that, and it's not very well defined in the property appraisers' property line. That aerial can be off a couple feet. We're still getting our final survey, topo survey, that would really show where those parking spaces are, but I believe we're outside of it. Obviously, if they were in our property, we would have to deal with it at that point. But I believe it was just a matter of it because I did see that too. I think it was a matter of the aerial scaling with the property appraisers' website. I was curious about both of those. I didn't see it as a problem, but I was curious about how you're going to handle that. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Eric. Mr. Chairman, Eric, could you get a microphone closer to you, please, sir? Adjacent to the property, there are manufactured homes, correct? Correct. And that's the south side? I believe immediately south is just a single-family home, and then two properties south is manufactured home. Okay, and what's on the opposite side? On the west side? Uh-huh. There's a mobile home park. On both sides of this property? The west and then two properties south. And then north is the FDOT park. And you say the owner owns one of those mobile home parks? They did in the past, way back in the 80s. This property owner developed the mobile home park and then sold it off, and they kept this parcel with the intent to develop it. And they were going to develop it quite some time ago, but FDOT took the pond and left them with an awkward-shaped piece of property that, like I said, has a split zoning. And they've just, I've been too busy to deal with it. And so now they're deciding to front it head-on. And I just want to clarify again, the use, the contractor office is, I mean, it is the use, and that is an allowable use in BU1. But we're just, we're asking for the storage aspect of it in the event that they get a late delivery that they can't deal with right away and move it inside. And you're asking also for the plant use of it? I mean, like, that's what I'm questioning. Yeah, so in the county's code under BU2, the way that the use is read is contractor office, plant, and storage yards. It's all in one line. So would you be using anything as a plant, I guess is my question. So you're just looking to have the contractors and storage? Mm-hmm. Okay. And that will be in the BDP? Yeah. Yeah, that's how it is in the BDP. BDP. I mean, I'm sure the client would be okay with crossing out plants, but the way it's written in the BDP on number three is directly from the code. Thank you. Any other questions from the board for the applicant? I've got a quick question. So back to that access easement, that location there, you're showing a retaining wall. How do you plan on providing the appropriate buffer and so on? Are you providing access? I know you said you were working through it, but I feel like you kind of have to know that to go along with this plan. I don't know the answer to that. I believe my client is working legally to get them to move their driveway off of our property. So I guess my question then would be to staff, because depending on how this lays out, there is no buffer if there's the easement there. How are you guys going to apply that requirement? How would you look at that? Well, obviously, this is just a concept plan, but he'll have to either come up with a buffer or seek a waiver to it. One option I understand that he would be amenable to is to include some language in the BDP to require the buffer if you're particularly concerned about it so that it can't be waived later date. Any other questions from the board? Don't everybody speak at once now. I'm going to need a motion then. Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of this land use change. Okay, for item H1. Yes. I'll second. We've got a motion by Ron. I second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item H1 passed unanimously. Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of item H2 with the BDP, and I would like, when they write the BDP, if they could actually strike the word plant. Okay, we've got a motion by Ron, a second by Neal. All those in favor, say aye. For item H3. Aye. Aye. That's two. H2. I am sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me re-clarify. Motion by Ron, a second by Mr. Johnson. For item H2, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that passed unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, item H3. H3, NEW Consultants, LLC, are requesting a change of zoning classification from AU to R1, application number 25Z-00008 in District 1. The applicant has since sent an email withdrawing that application, so no action is required by the board. All right. Mr. Chairman, I have a question about that when we get to the end, if it's okay. I don't want to hold up everybody's time now, but. All right. Item H4. Item H4, Boniface and Company, Inc. Request zoning classification change from BU-1 to a, with a BDP to BU-1 with removal of a BDP. Application is 25Z-00020, located at tax count number 2800682 in District 5. Okay, is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kim Rozenka with the law firm of Lacey Rozenka, here on behalf of Boniface and Company, Inc. With me is Neil Huta, who is the Chief Operating Officer of Boniface and Company, as well as Landon Scheer, the engineer of record. We are here before you to ask for the removal of a binding site plan, used to be called binding, now it's binding development plan, from 1988. This property was zoned back in 1988. It was a 26-acre parcel since then carved up to the north. There's a subdivision called Meadow Lake, and then there's some commercial to the, both to the east and the west. This Kia dealership was built in 2020. That binding site plan condition was a requirement. Somehow it wasn't required. Part of it, because the wall on the west was no longer in the property at issue, the 12-plus acres, and then the property to, the wall to the east just wasn't required. To the east, there's a small little parcel that was an antique dealership. It's still multi-commercial, but we don't know if it's used single-family. There's no business task receipt. And then there's a 58-foot drainage canal to the east with an overlay of a 40-foot right-of-way. And then there is some commercial property and some trust property to the north of that. What I've provided to you is just the aerial from your package showing where the Herndon Trust property is, partially four-acre, single-family home. Well, that has two very large garages. And if you look on the Internet, it might have been used for a business at one point, but no business tax receipt was found. The property in the corner there is owned by Ms. Baldo. Again, it was an antique store at one time. I'm not sure what it is now, but it's definitely mixed use. And then on the other side of that right-of-way is the old Babcock Furniture Store, which is still vacant at this time. I've provided for you the property detail sheet on page 2 and 3 of Bonapace and Company, just to show you that it was indeed built in 2020 and has 12.81 acres. On page 4 is the Kimberly-Baldo property, showing that it is commercial property, mixed use. Page 5 is the Herndon Trust property, again, 3.93 acres, and it is a single-family residence. I provided a couple pages from the 33-page zoning file. You had two in your package. I gave you a couple more. This was the zoning resolution from 1988, which added the binding site plan. Oh, it was 46 acres, not 26 acres. That's page 7. On page 8 is the actual document that was in your package. And it does show the subject property, which is now two parcels. The TR3 property is the subdivision called Meadow Lake to the north. Page 9, this was created by Mr. Shearer. It just shows the overlay. This was the old zoo. I think it was the old Hauser Zoo back in the day on 192. And it shows the antique store, the furniture store, and the single-family residence. Page 10 and 11 are pictures of the six-foot masonry wall, which is required by the county code anyhow when you have commercial to residential. So that wall will never be removed. They've had good relations with their neighbors. They've had no complaints from anyone in the five years they've been there. And that wall is substantial and will not be moved. Page 12 is the as-built plan from 2020 that shows the six-foot concrete wall all along the northern portion of the property. And then page 13 is the concept plan created by Mr. Shearer. And it shows the service bays that are going to be built there. It's one story, all air-conditioned, all inside. And it's actually on the existing footprint of the parking lot. So it's not getting any closer to any property. It's not getting any closer to the property to the east. And it will have regular operating hours of 730 to 530. None of the trees are going to be taken down. All the trees to the east will stay. All that buffer will be there, which has been there for a very long time. And Mr. Huda is here to answer any questions. Mr. Shearer can answer any engineering questions, or I can answer any zoning questions. If there are nothing, then we would ask that you approve the removal of this condition of the binding site plan. Ms. Prozinka, he's standing right there. Let me see. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you could come up and state your name and address and spell your last name for the record, please. My name is William Drake. It's D-R-A-K-E. And my address is 1759 Vista Lake Circle within the Middle Lake community. I'm not here to oppose or agree to it. I'm here for clarification if that's okay. I need an understanding of what the removal of the BDP would do to my community, if at all, if it would make any changes to my community, if at all. That's what I need to know about. All right. Well, what we can do is, if that's all you've got, sir, I'll ask her to touch on that whenever you're there. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? All right. I'm going to close it for public comment and bring it back, Mr. Rizinka. To answer that gentleman's question, and I could actually give this to you, this is the concept plan that shows what's going to be built. Nothing else is going to change. This is going to be built, a one-story building on the parking lot now. The wall will stay the same. All the trees will stay the same. Okay, so it's not going to impact my community at all? I would not imagine it would, sir. Okay. But you may have that if you have any questions. Please, I appreciate that. Thank you very much, ma'am. You're welcome. I appreciate it. Thank you. And thank you again very much, folks. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Jock. This one was a head-scratcher for me. I couldn't figure out what you wanted. What are you going to do? Are you going to take a wall down somewhere? No. We're asking that we don't have to build the wall on the east side. Okay. We're not taking a wall down. That wall will always stay there. It has to stay there by code. It's a permanent structure. All right. All right. Where does it say that you have to build a wall? Okay. If you look. Well, again, 1988 was a different time. Things were different. So if you look at the pages that I gave you, it's actually in your package as well. But if you look at page eight, page nine. Page nine, all that heavy wall, all the heavy slashes on the west side, north side, east side, and around the antique shop, that's the wall that was supposed to be built. It wasn't? Only the north one was. The one on the west isn't on my client's property, so they couldn't build it. Okay. And this wasn't done until 2020. The wall on the east side was never built. Somehow they got certificate of occupancy and have been operating for five years. They went to add the addition, and somehow it was during COVID. Who knows what happened? But so 2020, they built it without that east wall, perhaps because they were going to have to take down trees. Somebody decided it didn't have to be done. I don't know. But now as they want to expand to phase two, Ms. Craven said, no, you've got to put that wall up or you have to get the wall waved. And since it's been there for five years without anyone complaining, it didn't seem to be necessary. Also, you'd have to take down those trees to do it. Okay. That explains it. Thank you. That was a better explanation than in all the documents that I got on this. So this was not really a BDP. It was some sort of a binding drawing. Yes, sir. And it was just a sketch. It wasn't even a formal drawing. So you want to get rid of it. Yes, sir. So it's not an obligation. So they can get their building permit and be able to build this additional air-conditioned service bay, which I'm sure your employees would enjoy. As you probably know, I do not like BDPs. I think they're useless. There are other ways to enforce regulations rather than force someone to oblige a whim. One, my partner over there, Mr. Ron, loves to add BDPs on a BU-2 designation. You know what we could do? We could do a BU-2A, so you don't have to do that anymore. I would like to make a motion to do away with BDPs. I think that there are other ways to restrict development on a site. I don't know what it costs to apply for a BDP and what it's going to cost the applicant to remove a BDP. Originally, I was told by Mr. Ball that only a zoning change could remove a BDP, but that's not true. There's a, in 62-11-57-2, it says that you can remove a BDP on its own merits. So I would make a motion to do away with this BDP for you. Thank you. And that's what we're doing right here is getting rid of a binding development plan. That's not necessary. So that's my motion, if you're accepting motions. I'll second it. Okay, item- What are you seconding? Do away with the BDP. We got a motion by John, a second by Erica on item H-4. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Is that Ron? I don't want to do away with BDPs. No, no, no. I just, this was just for this one. Just this one. Yeah, I'm going to- That's not what I heard. Can you please clarify? Yeah, the BDP removal is for this. I said I would like to make a motion to remove BDPs from everything. But, you know, I don't think you guys are going to go along with it. No, we probably not. I would not have seconded that. This is just item H-4. Just H-4, Ron. All right. Okay. Are you still- I don't have a problem with it, then. Okay, so you're a yay. All right, item H-4 passed unanimously. Thank you. All right, thank you. Item H-5. Yes, item H-5, 5125 South, LLC. Request a CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption. Accessory to a bar in a game hall in suite number 3 in a B-1 zoning classification. Application is 25Z-00021, located at tax account number 2512007 in District 2. And this application was continued at the August 18th P&Z meeting. Okay, is the applicant here? Here we go again. There you go. So, Mr. Chair, at this point, under our code, the P&Z board cannot continue it again. So, at this point, the P&Z board, we recommend you do take some action. If you feel like the applicant's non-presence would cause- You know, if you have questions and their non-presence is affecting your decision, you may consider recommending denial of the application, or else the board may see fit. Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend denial. I second. If he's not going to show up after all these times, he doesn't really care about it. Okay, I'm sorry. Who was the second? Okay, we got a motion by Ron, a second by Eric on item H-5 for denial. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion was denied. Item H-6. The motion was approved. Yeah, the motion was approved for denial. Can I say it wrong? No, that's right. You got it right now. You're good now. It's okay. Okay. Item H-6. Vincent Contino, Gaglia, and Cheryl Ann Gaglia request CUP for an accessory structure 25Z-00026 located on tax count number 3008337 and 008071 in District 3. Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record and spell your last name. Good afternoon, board. My name is Tom Neidert, N-E-I-D-E-R-T. I live at 1860 Ziminer Street in Palm Bay. This is a very close family friend of mine, and he's elderly and doesn't know how to take care of this sort of business, so that's why I'm in front of the board. A little bit about what you're wanting to do. So he bought a piece of property and has a nice dock on it for a boat, but because it's a, it doesn't meet the zoning, we can't have power for a boat lift, lighting, or a well pump to wash a boat. So we're trying to get power to the dock. That's what we're asking. All right. While you're right there, sir, let me jump out to the audience. Does anyone want to speak for or against this item? All right. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? Yes, I do. Yes, John. Is the dock still in operation? Yes. Okay, because the graphics that I was provided with show it missing, and it was, I was looking on the, on the website. So there was, in 2004, the hurricanes took it out. It was rebuilt after hurricanes without a permit. Recently, we got it repermitted and rebuilt in the last two years. So right now, the picture you have isn't the actual way of what that map is now. So right now, there's a brand new dock on the property. Okay. So that clears that up. Yeah. The other thing from the aerial that I noticed was that on the owner's property to the northeast, right? Correct. There's some boats stored on it, and also on this property, there's some boats. Okay. Okay. The boats now on this property are not stored on the property. They're actually in the water at the dock. I don't know about the... The aerial just showed me that they were sitting on land, not in the water. Yeah. That was prior to. So all the... There's two boats in the water right now. Okay. Because there was like five boats. There was three, I think, on the... I don't know what picture that is. It's the one from the appraisal district. Yeah. Do you know what that is? I don't... I believe he's just talking about the aerial that happens to be on the Brevard County Properties of the website currently. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So the property to the south has a boat on a dock, and the property to the west has property on a dock. Now, on the west of the property across Holly Street, the guy has two boats. Okay. And that's on the ground. No, I'm talking about the owner, your owner's property. His main property on Main Street? Yes. Yeah, he has five acres. Yeah. Yeah, and he's got boats sitting on there, too. There's a couple of, like, he's got an old military boat that he's restoring, but that's inoperable, and he's restoring that boat. Is that legal on that property? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's personal property residence. I mean, it's his boat. I just wanted to be clear. I didn't want to know that he has a business there that's restoring boats. Yeah, it's not a boat restoring. It's not storing boats. All right. And so you're just trying to get an electric permit so you can put some davits in a lift? Yes. And lighting in a well. And a what? We already have a working well there. I just need power for the pump. For a well, for fresh water, to wash the boat down. Oh, okay. And these are all power boats? Yes. 20-foot center console, very small boat, nothing crazy. All right. Thank you for clearing that up. No problem. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Chairman, I move we make a amend approval of this change. We've got a motion for approval by Ron, a second by, was it Eric? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you for your time, Board. Thank you. If I may, Mr. Chair, can I just clarify that that motion included the waiver to subsection one of 62-1943.3 because the dock preexisted November 17, 2008. I just want to clarify that for the record. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Item H-7. Item H-7. The air company requests CUP for on-premise alcoholic beverage consumption. The application is 25Z-00032, and its tax count, part of 2631510 in District 4. Okay. Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could come up and state your name and address for the record and spell your last name. Of course. Good afternoon, Board. My name is Jose Pazmino, 500 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois. And last name is P-A-Z-M-I-N-O. All right. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do, Mr. Jose. Of course. So we submitted a CUP for on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is associated with a CUP we pursued around this time last year for an amusement entertainment use. It's the Topgolf in Vieira. That will be sandwiched between west of the avenues and east of I-95. The other way. Yes. East of the avenues, west of I-95. You're correct. All right. While you're right there, Mr. Jose, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? So seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? Let me ask you a question. Sure. Do you, on these CUPs, because everybody in Vieira has a CUP, everybody, I think, do you get approval from the doodoo? Do they have to sort of bless what you're doing? I'm just curious on the concept of it. The property owner is a VR company, so to submit any zoning application, you need either a government approval form or approval from them to submit the applications. Will they ever, because there's so many of them, being a little humorous, I hope, being there's so many, will they finally just say, hey, there's 25 of these in here. I don't know if we need many more. I wonder. That's a great question. Unfortunately, I don't represent the company. I represent the tenant. We, this board passed, most of them don't know this, but we thought we passed one time the CUP for a mom and pop operation, and it was total wine. So we thought it was just two older people wanting a CUP, but it's that big organization, so everybody now has one, and I just had, I was curious how to operate. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a quick question? This is typical of the Topgolf places around the country that they have the alcohol permit. Is that correct? Yeah, this is something actually unique to Florida, and just adjacent to the use, for you to be able to serve alcohol is, we coordinated this with the county, it was required because of the use. But to answer your question, the 11 existing venues in Florida do have this. We get free membership. Oh, I'll jump in on that one, too. I've been to the one in Pompano and the one in Orlando. They're a nice facility. Oh, yeah. I grew up in Brevard County, and I wish this would have happened 10 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Okay. On item H-7, a motion by John to approve, a second by Deb. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. See you, Amanda. Jared. My turn. Okay. I have a couple of questions about the 25Z-00008. So, I live in that town. A lot of questions during the commission zoning board meeting in here a couple weeks ago. I guess it turns out that somehow that application became approved prior to it being withdrawn. Is that correct? No, sir. What had happened was, and there's actually an item on tomorrow's board agenda, BOCC agenda, on their consent agenda to rectify this. But it was not approved. We don't consider it approved. We never have considered it approved. Unfortunately, the wrong language was transposed on a resolution. It was Forbes Remodeling, LLC, which the board did approve. And so, the language got copied and pasted into a resolution wrong, and we have done some internal controls to ensure that doesn't happen again. But no, the simple answer to your question is no. It might appear that that's the case, but we do not consider that application approved. And that issue we expect to be rectified tomorrow at the board's meeting. But for a period of time, it was approved? No, sir. Not at all? We do not have considered that approved. That was a Scrivener's error. But the correct, if you read the application number that was on the top of that resolution, was for Forbes Remodeling, LLC. We do not consider that language to be effectively approving that. And I can tell you that nothing has come through our agency that any approvals were made because of that incorrect language in the resolution. So, the resolution that you said is coming up tomorrow night? Or? I think it's tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning. Okay. So, that is the path forward, sort of? Is that what you're saying to? Yes. The language basically corrects the Scrivener's error and basically replaces the incorrect language with the correct language and clarifies for the record what was approved. Okay. Is that the first time that's ever happened? We, there was one other recent time that I know of where it wasn't the same issue, but a similar issue, you could say, happened. And that's why, it was pretty recent, actually. So, that's why we're instituting some controls into that process so that it's looked at, basically, error checked before it's given to the chair to sign, effectively. Okay. I have a curiosity, was it the same person responsible for both? I actually don't know the answer to that question. I mean, the bigger issue is, I mean, the fact of the matter is errors, they happen, we're all human. We just need a net to make sure that those errors are caught before, you know, in the review process. Okay. Okay. I think that answers all the questions I had. Thank you. Anything else from the board? Meeting adjourned. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida.