Sir, if you could state your name and address and spell your last name, please, for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Monroe. I'm the president of Monroe Engineering. My last name is spelled M-O-N-R-O-E, and my address is 3080 Brandywine Lane, Melbourne, Florida. I'm here to represent the housing authority. I'm the engineer of record for this project. So this project is located at the northwest corner of Aurora Road and Marywood Road. It's about a quarter of a mile to the east of where John Rhodes ties in. The site is owned by the housing authority. It's been home to about 50 units since 1966. That's about 59 years they've had this property that's been there. The housing authority is in need of a maintenance building to help maintain this 12-acre site. They're proposing about a 4,000-square-foot building with three offices and no more than about eight employees. The site will provide on-site parking, stormwater and a perimeter, six-foot security fence. Landscape will be per the current code. Water and sewer utilities will be provided by the city of Melbourne. It's my understanding from the staff report that approval of this application for conditional use will help take care of two items. One of them is between the zoning and RU-230 and the future land use is a Res. 4. And also it will allow our project to move forward. So with that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Sir, while you're right there, if you could stay put, is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this item? Okay, not seeing anyone, then I'm going to close that for public comment. Thank you, sir. We'll bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for the applicant? I have two. Mr. John. I noticed in your site plan you're putting in a new driveway also to the north? That's correct. Okay. We're going to tie in to the existing community center there. Sir, could you get a little bit closer to the mic? Yeah, it's a little bit better. Yeah, thanks. So we utilize one existing driveway that's for the community center, and we'll provide a new driveway. So basically it would be like a circle drive to come in and out. Okay. How many trees are you going to cut down? Right now, approximately four. Two of them we could probably work around to save, so possibly two. Okay. And they're in the building footprint. There's a third one there just north of the building. I'm sorry, to the east of the building. It might be questionable just because of storm hazard conditions. That one may not be able to keep that one either. Okay. It depends on how rough the contractors are. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. But we will provide a landscape plan according to the current code. We'll provide the required amount of trees as well as the type B buffer along Marywood Road as well. Do you know what Mike's going to store in there? He's going to use it as a maintenance facility. Typically anything that's used. I mean, these units are 66 years old, so they're constantly needing repair. They're also lawn maintenance equipment, that sort of thing as well. So it's going to be used as a standard maintenance building. Okay. He's not going to put his big tractors in there and stuff? Not that I'm aware of, no. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to approve unless you want more discussion. No. I'm sorry, ma'am. I've already closed this for public comment. We asked earlier if anyone wanted to speak for or against it. But, okay, well, we've got a motion by John for item H1. We've got a second by Melissa. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Item H2. Lawrence Crumley requests a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-13 under application 25Z-00023, located in District 2. I guess the applicant's here. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the P&Z, Bruce Moya, MOIA, President of MBB Engineering, representing the applicant. What we're proposing today is to do a one-time lot split of the main parcel on South Tropical Trail, create a buildable single-family residential lot, rezone it to RU-113, which is compatible to a couple lots that are to the east and to the south, so that he can build a house. The plan is that the neighbor to the north wants to buy it and build a house for his son so he can take care of him in his older years. So I think it should be pretty straightforward. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Mr. Moya, while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Okay. Seeing that, I'm going to close the audience in for public comment, bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? John, you can let me off easy. No. Staff, I think. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Ruth. It says this is for 0.51 acres of a 3.03-acre lot, so we're sectioning off the 0.5 acres from the whole three acres to build a second home? Yes. Questions for the applicant? Access on golden, what's a golden rod? That would be their legal access, yes. Okay. Is that paved? It is. It's actually an existing driveway entrance for the main lot, so they're going to share the entrance. Oh, okay, because I couldn't tell on the map. The name was covering over it, and I couldn't tell if it was all the way through. That's it. I just was curious about that. Until approved. I'll second. Got a motion by Jared, a second by Henry on item H2. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Ruth, you opposed? Okay. That passed. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you. Item H3, please. Richard Brandon requests to change the zoning classification from GU to AU under application 25Z00030, located in District 1. All right. Mr. Brandon, if you'd state your name and address, and if you could spell your last name for the record. Richard Brandon, 5460 Florida Palm Avenue, Cocoa, Florida, B-R-A-N-D-O-N. All right, and a little bit about what you're wanting to do. Well, I'm trying to put in a swimming pool, and then I ran into all these issues. Never a problem, only a challenge. That's right. All right. While you're right there, sir, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Okay, I'm going to close that for public comment. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? I have a question maybe for staff. I was reading through this one earlier, and I was just curious how come this was the path that this gentleman was sent down as opposed to like a variance. So he did a variance, well, an administrative waiver, as you can see in the staff report, to the lot size, the setbacks, and things like that. But my understanding is, and you can confirm this with the applicant, that he would like to keep the AU, the agricultural uses, on the property. So that is why he's doing a rezoning. Okay. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'm also a commercial beekeeper, so it makes sense to have an AU. Understood. Can I make a motion to approve? I second. Okay, we got a motion by Ruth, a second by Jared on item H3. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Okay. Good luck with the county commissioners. I have one question. Yes, sir. What's the meeting about on November 6th? Well, we're just an advisory board. Okay. The county commissioners make the final decision. Okay. So they'll be like this, another, in this location? Yes, right here. Okay. Cool practice. All right. Thanks. Item H4. John McLeod requests a change of zoning classification from GU. To SR, under application 25Z00031, located in District 5. I just now recognized you, Mr. McLeod. Oh, now you're in trouble. My name is John McLeod. That's M-C, capital L-E-O-D, 3575 Carriage Gate Drive, Melbourne. All right. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do, Mr. McLeod. I'm going to let my daughter do this. Okay. She's my mouthpiece. My name's Stacy Rossborough. I'm his daughter. So, like the last gentleman, this all started with wanting to replace a shed that was existing on the property. And we found out that we are zoned incorrectly for the past 50-something years. And so, he has less than an acre. I think it's .97, something like that. 9.4, four-tenths of an acre. So, they suggested we rezone, and there's an existing shed on the property that would then be within the limits. I guess it's not, which is all news we're finding out with just a replacement. I'm sure she's only been there 50 years. 53 years. I was going to say. 73. Built a house. Yeah. We didn't want to give away ages or anything. All right. While you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Okay. I'm going to close it for public comment. And seeing that, I'm going to bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Yeah. I could. And it's probably going to be the same answer, except for the bees. So, is there a reason a variance couldn't have covered this one? Did you look down that path? So, GU requires five acres. At the time that the lot was established, it did not meet the GU requirements. GU at that time required one acre. This property is .94 acres. So, it is a substandard lot, not a non-conforming lot of record. Thank you. 53 years. 53 years, yes, sir. I've driven past there a number of times, going to that cell tower in the back. Yep. Got lost in the woods back there a couple times trying to find it. Well, if nobody has anything else, I'll do the motion to approve. Second. Got a motion by Jared, a second by John. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Good seeing you, Mr. McLeod. All right. Thank you. Item H-5. Item H-5 requests a recommendation regarding amendments to Chapter 62, Article 9, in order to allow community development districts to have specific signage for parks within certain zoning classifications. Yes, the applicant isn't here. That was a little sarcastic. That went through the review of the construction board? Yes, sir, it did. And they wanted, was it 4x4 or 4x8? They recommended approval. Yeah. They didn't have any changes to it. I'd like to think they know what to... Chairman, I have a question. Yes, sir. Mr. Rahn. What's driving the 75 square feet size? You know, that's like 5 feet by 15 feet, which is pretty good size. And so they also asked that same question, and again, because these are going to be done by community development districts, they felt that more than likely a sign of that size would not be produced, basically, for a site, especially since it's coming from CDDs or, you know, HOA funds. We just wanted to give kind of the maximum of what they would be allowed. And again, it's the maximum. It's not the minimum. So with that, they can have up to 150 square feet of signage, but no one sign can exceed the 75 square feet. Okay. And another question. What size are county parks limited to? County parks don't have signage code. They don't have size limitations. GML, they follow? Yeah. So they would be based on the GML zoning, based on the size of the building. So that's what they would follow. Are you supposed to signage? Yeah, two linear square feet per total signage based on the building. Okay. I was just curious if we were giving them something, you know, much more than what the county has or much less than what the county has. Well, most parks don't have, most parks in the CDDs don't have a building. So that's part of the problem is we can't give them signage because there's nothing to base it on. And so that's why this was written. I understand that problem. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Chair. Yes, sir. So these are for freestanding signs? These would be for freestanding and wall signage. But if you don't have a building, there's no wall? Most CDD parks don't have a building, but if they do have a building, it would allow the wall signage. Okay. And what kind of information is going to be placed on these signs? Whatever activities that they might want to advertise for their park. So, for instance, I think Woodside Park or Pylok Park, I think sometimes they have food truck events, so they might post something like that, something they're inviting the public to. So, I mean, that's a pretty big sign, 130, 135 or 150 square feet. It's a maximum. No, I understand. But not one. I understand. I'm just trying to envision what they're going to put up there. Are they going to paste up these like a billboard type of advertising on there? It could be. Or is it going to be an electric board? It could be. Okay. Mm-hmm. That's a big electric board. I mean, almost it becomes like a billboard then. No, no, it cannot be 150 square feet. The maximum is 75. Okay. So, but if they have multiple signage, multiple signage cannot exceed 150 square feet. But not one sign can exceed 75 square feet. So, they could have many signs that are smaller. Correct. To get to the 150 that they would be allowed. Yes. I believe the thing you guys sent us today for the other meeting didn't say that they were only allowed two signs. Can you get a little closer to your microphone, please, sir? I believe I read in the meeting that you guys sent us today that they're only allowed two signs up to 150 square feet. They could do more than two as long as they don't exceed 150 square feet. Do you have any design standards for them? We do not. So, they could do whatever they want, essentially, as long as they meet the square footage criteria? As long as they meet the square footage and they're not exceeding, like, it can't change. There's a certain change rate. It cannot exceed that in the brightness, things like that. So, if it is an electronic sign, you're saying? George, you want to get to the microphone? Our sign guru. I know. Thank you, George. Good afternoon. The code already exists for everybody else. We're in Section 62-3316, Section A. So, the way the current code is written is commercial signage in several different zoning classifications. GML, commercial zoning, BU1, BU2, industrial zoning can have commercial signage. We also allow GML zoning, which was most of our parks. But here we have a park that has PUD zoning, so they want to sign. There is no current allowance for a public or private park in a PUD zoning to have its own signage under the PUD zoning, except for commercial signs, not recreation. So, we're writing this ordinance to include the CDD to have its sign. So, this is a way to allow them to have something to offer the residents driving past the location. Now, this particular park in question has two street frontages. So, that's why they wanted to have multiple signage. They also have a degree of linear frontage along Morrell Road. So, the current code provision for everybody says if you've got 200 feet or more of frontage on the same street, you can get a second sign. If you have frontage on a second street, you can get a sign for that as well. So, there's already criteria in that provision that talks about how big a sign can be and how many signs you can have, how tall it can be, and the square footage of the sign face. We're just adding an allotment for area for somebody who may not have a building on the property that wants to advertise it for community events or the park itself. Where is this one? You said on Morrell Road? Correct. It's on the west side of Morrell Road, north of Wickham Road. It's Pylok Park, and it would something is the name of that park. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up, George. Okay. I'll move to approve. Second. Okay. We've got a motion by John, a second by Ruth on item H5. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Chair, before we go our separate ways, can I have a second? Yes. Okay. We'd like to move that the chair draft and send a letter to the Brevard County Board of County Commission's recommending that they either join the lawsuit challenging SB 180 or draft and send their own letter requesting the SB 180 be repealed or amended. This recommendation is based on the state's rejection of our recent comprehensive plan amendment, which, despite reducing previous restrictions, was still deemed too burdensome to development. This action demonstrates how SB 180 effectively strips away our constitutionally protected home rule authority and significantly impairs the ability of this board to carry out its responsibilities as intended by the Brevard County residents. Do we have any comment from the board on that? I second the motion. She's right in what she's saying as far as the stripping home rule. But are we, I mean, we can make a recommendation to the county commission, correct? And they can hassle with it. I mean, our comp plan came back to us with, gosh, I couldn't tell you how many red marks and incomplete rejection. And while I wasn't in complete agreement with the whole entire comp plan, I'm sure not everybody was here, was in agreement, like loved everything about the comp plan. But that was our decision to make and recommend to the board of county commissioners and their decision to make based on how this is set up by our residents and our charter. And by the state's SB 180 taking that away from us and effectively saying what we did isn't allowed, it impairs our ability as a board to function. And I think that the board of county commissioners should get something from us recommending that we want to maintain home rule and we want to maintain the abilities of our board. Chairman, I certainly support that. We've, as a county and cities both, have been under attack by the state to eliminate home rule. You know, this is, I won't say it's the final straw, but it's not something new, but it seems to me like sometime we need to take some kind of action. Do we have an example or something, Ruth, that you're referencing that's happened recently? I think Mr. Persad's going to step up. I saw you stand, so I just, I took a guess on that. So tomorrow the board of county commissioners will be considering some things regarding this issue. But the Florida Commerce, the board, the board of county commissioners had adopted our comprehensive plan amendments, our year-based comprehensive plan amendments, as well as elements implementing the Brevard Barrier Island Protection Act, the Brevard Barrier Island element to our comprehensive plan. If you recall, we first transmitted this, the board did, in November of 2024. And so based on that, we've got our objections, recommendations, and comments letters. The recommendations and comments were exactly what you would normally expect in a situation like this. In fact, they were pretty minimal, one of the, I would say, but some of the recommendations were actually even to be more restrictive. For example, they recommended us to change some shoulds to shalls, or at least examine changing shoulds to shalls in the Brevard Barrier Island element. So we went through that analysis, and we're limited during that period of not making additional substantive changes. But meanwhile, in May of 2025, an amendment was added to SB 180, and specifically that added Section 28 to that bill. That bill says that you can't do a more restrictive or burdensome land development regulation, even a proposal, and that includes things like comp plan amendments. So in the state's view, even though the law didn't exist when we transmitted that comprehensive plan back in November of 2024, I mean, it literally didn't exist. There's no way for us to know about it. It wasn't even envisioned in somebody's head yet. That proposal, because it's retroactive, SB 180 is retroactive to August 1st, 2024, because that proposal was made after that retroactive date. It's all null and void. So currently, Brevard County is not in compliance with our requirements for year-based amendments. So that's the situation the county is currently dealing with. Like I said, the board will be considering options tomorrow at its 5 p.m. meeting on at least beginning to tackle on a path forward. There are a couple ways to approach this. Obviously, we are hoping for a legislative fix. Brevard County is not alone in this. I think there are, we've identified at least, I shouldn't say at least, I think there are about nine other jurisdictions that have received similar null and void letters across the strait. But that's just people that happen to be in the same cycle we are. There are at least, I would say, I've seen over 20 cities and counties that have passed regulations since August 24 that they're having to roll back based on the impact of SB 180. But assuming there is a low legislative fix, Section 28 will apply until October 1, 2027. So we would not be able to propose or adopt any more restrictive land development regulations until October 1, 2027. That date itself can effectively be extended under Section 18. I know it kind of gets complex, but if we're within 100 miles of a hurricane at that point, then those similar restrictions reapply for a certain period of time going forward. So that's, I believe that's the situation that Ms. Amato is speaking to. And that's Brevard County's current predicament right now. So if we vote to approve this motion, can you get it to the county commission before tomorrow's meeting? I'll certainly inform the board that you've made that recommendation. Really, let me ask, this is maybe beyond this, but we haven't advertised anything and all of a sudden now we're going to go at it? Is that a, I'm looking at logistics, not content. Right, and I think the fact that it's a recommendation, I think, you know, I don't see it. We have to as a return, right? So is everybody, I mean, does that make sense? Yeah, I think based on the circumstances. We drastically emphasize, you know. Yeah, generally we like to advertise things. But in this particular case, there's a fluid motion going on. So, a fluid situation, rather. So there is a motion and a second. The board's aware of the situation. So, yeah, I think this is within your purview to make a recommendation to the board if you so desire. On the other hand of this, being a contractor and going through the gymnastics that you have to go through to do anything, the state having to step in and stop municipalities from making all of these rules where it is nearly impossible to get anything done. As you saw, everything that happened today for people coming in that have things wrong with their zoning, things wrong with their, with their, with the flute things that they have to deal with, they're like, I want to put a pool in my yard. No, you can't. So, being in the building industry and spending 30 to 40 percent of my efforts to get through the maze of paperwork that you have to get through, the state has taken a couple of steps over the past couple of years that have helped a lot. Whether this is one of them, whether our, whether our comprehensive plan needs work or not, I don't know. And personally, stopping people from building on the beach, I'm, I'm about that. I'm tired of hearing people complain when their houses fall in the, in the ocean after they built it right next to the ocean. So, um, there's two sides to this. The, uh, the comprehensive plan needs to be streamlined and needs to be fair. And the flu needs to be streamlined and fair. And zoning needs to be, needs to work all together. And, um, someone telling, telling me that it needs to be less restrictive, I'm, I, I like that. I don't think this has to do, um, my motion isn't really about restrictive or less restrictive. It's a, it's about our ability to function as a board. And we make recommendations to our board of county commissioners and the state just threw them in the garbage and said, we know better. And I don't think that is, um, constitutionally correct or right. Um, home rule applies. And that for the Vard County put this board into effect, planning and zoning and local planning agency to be able to make those recommendations to the board of county commissioners. And if we don't have the ability to do that because nothing we say matters, um, then why are we here? And that's where I am with that. That is why I'm making the rec. That is the intent behind the recommendation. Okay, I guess I'm, Jared, you seconded it? Yes, sir. For that reason. Exactly, actually. We need to have Ruth clarify her motion or do you have it? So, Mr. Chair, my understanding is that Ms. Amato's motion was to direct you on behalf of the PNZ LPA to submit a letter, to issue a letter to the board of county commissioners outlining those two options, I believe it was. Or at least one to join the lawsuit. To either join the lawsuit challenging SB 180 or draft their own letter requesting that SB 180 be repealed or amended. And so that letter is to be sent to who? The legislature or? The county, yes. If we would recommend that the county commission send that letter to the legislature or join the lawsuit, yes. Okay, thank you. So you want me to write a letter? I don't know the most effective way to do this, okay? Okay, and I have zero guidance, so this is just what I came up with? Yeah, the county attorney's office and planning and zoning or planning and development department, we will work with you to get that drafted and you can sign off on it. To get for having the chair. No, I'm not worried about that. I'm just going to step back to what you were saying, too. We haven't had time to really review what's going to get drafted, even as a board, that's going to be presented tomorrow, correct? Yes, I believe this item in general is going to be brought to the board tomorrow. So if it's as simple as recommending that, you know, county personnel notify the board of county commissioners that this is being discussed at PNZ LPA, that is also an option without it being as formal as a letter at this stage. Are you okay with that? I would be amendable to that, yes. Okay, so we've got a motion by Ruth, a second by Jared. All those in favor for this motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Are we good there, counsel? All right, if there's no further, then we'll say meeting adjourned. Look at the time. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any...