Planning and Zoning Board / Local Planning Agency on 2026-06-15 3:00 PM - Jun 15, 2026

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. It's a local planning agency. It is an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners who will make the final decision on all these items. Items H3, H6 are LPA items. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on July 9, 2026 at 5 p.m. When a motion ends in any kind of a split vote, a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy. As a reminder, each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on the record. Speakers for public comments on agenda items will be given two minutes. Please spell your last name when you come to the podium for the record. At this time, if any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application, please disclose so now. Okay, seeing that, I bring it back to the board for a motion for the approval of the P&Z Minutes from April 20, 2026. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion by Debbie, a second by Erica. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Okay, item H1. H1 Sunshine State Wildlife Conservation and Bernard Egan and Company, Ralph Brown representing. Request a CEP for land alteration in AU and GU zone 25Z00061 in District 5. Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could come up to the podium, state your name and address, and spell your last name for the record. Okay, the name is Ralph Brown, B-R-O-W-N. My address is 3231 Buckingham Lane, Cocoa, Florida. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do. Okay, I am an engineer and I'm a general manager for Blue Goose Construction. Can you get a little closer to the microphone, please? Blue Goose Construction has a mine that's at the south end of Babcock Street next to the C-54 Canal called the Sunshine State Mine. We've already completed basically two phases of that mine, and we're in for the third phase of that mine, which is about 180 acres. Access will be off of Babcock to an existing driveway that went through phase one and through phase two to the phase three, so there's no new road connections. It's basically just expanding on the mining that we've been doing for the last six years. Okay, while you're right there, sir, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? That's a very good sign. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant? I have a curious question. You said you've been completed phase one and phase two. This is phase three. How many phases are there? This is going to be the last phase. This is the last phase? Yes. Okay. I guess one more, if I can. Yes, Ruth, go ahead. In reading the report, the wetlands are going to be retained, and I believe there's a buffer area for the wetlands, but when you create the mines next to it, does that not draw the water away from the wetlands over time? I was just curious about that. It will if you don't take measures to stop it. So there's between 100 and 180-foot buffer between the wetlands and the top of the lakes, the pits, and we have recharge ditches located between the lakes and the wetlands. So the purpose of the recharge ditches is to pump your water in there, and then that goes into the groundwater table and keeps the groundwater from being lowered in the wetlands. Okay. And we have a district. We have the St. Johns River Water Management District permits, which that was one of the main things that they looked at. We've got both of their permits. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Move for approval. Second. We've got a motion by Deb, a second by Neil. All those in favor say aye. Discussion, please. We've already made the motion. Yeah, but you can have a discussion after the motion. Discussion. We can do that after the motion. You can do that after the motion without it being approved. That's what I just said. We can do that after the motion. You've already made the motion, and you have a second, right? Go ahead. Okay. My question is, who's Blue Goose? Blue Goose Construction is a construction company. The main office is based out of Fort Pierce. They're owned by the Bernard Egan Company, which is a big agricultural company. So, you know, a lot of the work is doing agriculture, but we also have a mine in Vero Beach and one in Brevard County, the Sunshine State Mine. Okay. You have in these documents that they did the wetland survey? Well, the wetland survey was done by a consultant that we hired. He flagged the wetlands, and then we surveyed it in, and it was approved by the Water Management District. Okay. I was just concerned because there might have been a conflict if you do your own survey for wetlands and pushed it through as if it was a separate entity that did it. No, we hired a consultant who is a wetland expert who actually used to work for the Water Management District. He went out and flagged the wetlands, and then the district goes out and looks at the flags and confirms that they're in the right location. Okay. Yes. Because on the documents here, it has them as the engineer. It's Blue Goose Design and – I can't even read this. I think that's a design. Survey and Design. Thank you. It's a related company to Blue Goose Construction. Related to your company? Yeah, so to do engineering or survey work, you have to be in a licensed company to do that work. That's the company. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't your company doing its own survey and having that on record without somebody as a third-party independent. That's why I'm asking the question. As far as the wetlands go, they were confirmed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. Okay. And a consultant that doesn't work for us to actually find them. That's the hardest permit to get right there, the St. Johns permit. Yes. The other thing is, do you test for toxins in the materials that you use, that you draw out of that area? Well, there's been testing done in the past. There's never been any toxins in the material that we've ever found. This is the third phase, so – Okay. I mean, because you're doing beach replenishment and stuff with the materials? We don't do any beach replenishment, so we basically sell fill material and we sell FDOT road base, you know, the material that goes under roads. Right. We do sell some rock aggregates, but we're not – we don't do beach sand. Okay. Yes. All right. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Item H1. We had a motion by Deb, a second by Neil. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Good luck at the county commissioner meeting. Okay. Item H2. Item H2, Underwoods Equipment Repair, LLC. Kim Rizanka representing. Request a zoning classification change from B2 with a binding development plan to B with remove the binding development plan 26Z0006. District 2. You know the drill, Ms. Kim. If you could state your name and address. It's in North Merritt Island. I apologize. They recommended you one with a binding development plan for the specific use. You could state your name and address, spell your last name for the record. It's up there. It's up there. There you go. Good afternoon, Chairman Wadsworth, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kim Rizanka, Melbourne, Florida, law firm of Lacey Rizanka. I'm here on behalf of Underwoods Equipment Repair, LLC. With me somewhere in here is Jimmy Underwood, in case you have any questions of what he intends to do. Essentially, Mr. Underwood bought this property that had the BDP, but it's not in his title paperwork. So he did not know there was this BDP there. So his intent was to take his mobile repair shop and put it on this property. And also, too, he'll have extra space, so he's going to do boats and RVs and things like that, so he needs BU2 zoning for that. I believe you have in front of you the packet that I gave to North Merritt Island, and the purpose of that was to show you the area. You all might not know what the area is. The first page is John Ramsey's Alignment Service. It's an automotive repair place. It's immediately to the south of this property on Courtney. Page two of the property is Mr. Ramsey's property, and it shows that it's used for a multitude of things, including boats, storage, container, all kinds of things. And that's actually in BU1. To the east of this property is Black's, property owned by Black's Lawn Spraying, which they're using for outdoor storage of their trucks. Further to the north on the east side is Midtown, used to be Galaxy, now it's a liquor store. And to the north of that is a working business called Space Shirts. Page five is actually property to the south of East Crystal Foley Road on the east side, owned by Mr. Rowe. And I'm not exactly sure what he's storing there, but it doesn't look like it's properly zoned. Page six of the packet is the zoning category, and there's quite a bit of BU2. I know it's stated in the staff report that these all have BDPs. They're not of record. We don't know their BDPs state, but this is a BU2 zoning that we have. It has a BDP with limitations. We're asking for that to be removed. There was comments about there might be more intensive BU2 uses if we remove this BDP, but there are BU2 uses all up and down this corridor. It is, in fact, a commercial corridor. There was a study done in 2005, the North Courtney Parkway Corridor Study. That's page seven, the remaining package of the packet. Eight was the area studied. Number nine talks about the majority of the frontage are either neighborhood commercial or community commercial. Intensity of the development along North Courtney are defined by the uses permitted within NCNCC. Page 10, presently the BU2 zoning classification permits the outdoor storage of retail items such as motor vehicles, utility sheds, and nursery items. So that is what he intends to do. His main intent is to move his repair business there. Right now he's a mobile repair, as I mentioned. So we'd like to have the BUDP removed, so it's just BUDP zoning. And I know we don't like BDPs. I've heard that over and over again because they get removed. Comments from me, oh, well, you know, they're not really binding. Well, zoning's not really binding if you show a need for the change in the zoning. This is vacant land. It's been vacant since forever. And so he'd like to use this property. Again, bought it without knowing the BDP was on it. We're looking into that. There may be a title claim. We don't know, but right now he's just asking. He doesn't have a real objection to a new BDP, but they really don't make sense when they're not showing up in your title search. And also the BDPs are becoming disfavored from what I hear. And also, too, it takes an extra 60 days to make the zoning final when you do a BDP. He's not in a huge hurry, but it's just another step in the process that should be unnecessary when this is a commercial corridor. Looking at the zoning history, this used to be industrial in 1962. It's had changes, administrative changes. My client, Jimmy, purchased the property in 2024. The staff report supports this removal of the BDP. This development will not cause a deficiency in the level of service for roads or solid waste. It will be required to comply with the enhanced compensatory storage requirements that we've talked about many times here. Property must comply with performance standards. It must be enclosed with a six-foot wall or fence. And the staff report says there are no material violations of relevant policies of the comprehensive plan. So we request removal of the BDP so the property will finally be developed in this commercial quarter. And, again, I can answer questions or Mr. Underwood can answer questions. While you're here, Ms. Rozinka, I'll bring it back to the board. If we have any questions or let's go ahead and address those now with her. I have a question probably for staff because it does say that most of the properties that are zoned BU2 do have BDPs on them, right? So then – and I know that they're difficult to find and whatnot, but if they do have BDPs on them, how can we find that? Because it is the most intense commercial zoning there is, and we may not want to open it up for that if every other property has a BDP on it, or most of them do. So – So in the staff report, in the background, we note that there is a BDP – BDP, excuse me, on the property, I believe it's to the north, which is also owned by the applicant. And there's a BDP across the street on three parcels, and we actually note what that BDP states for the parcels across the street. So they're limited. They exclude things like cemeteries, mausoleums, crematoriums, railroad motor trucks, water freight, testing labs, recovered materials, seafood processing, dry cleaning plants, fertilizer and storage and sales. I kind of skipped around. So that is noted in the staff report. And, again, staff also notes that effectively the corridor operates as BU1 with lower intensity uses because of that. And so I guess that would be my concern, and I don't know if that would be something that you all would be willing to – you know, it says you talked about having this new BDP put on there. It's just a concern that I have. Well, and, again, there's only two BDPs listed in here, so there are other BU2 zoning in this corridor that we don't know what they're limited to. I mean, you know what he's intending to do. If you want a BDP, he's willing to do it. It just takes an extra 60 days, and he didn't know there was one on it. So that's the issue. Mr. Neal, did you have something? Jared? Oh, I was just going to ask if equipment repair – that's like tractors and hydraulic things like that. That was my assumption, right? Yes, sir. So it seems to fit next door at the mechanic shop anyway, but I would make a motion. But we haven't heard if there's any public comment yet, so I would wait. I haven't done that yet. I was getting rid of the board. Do you have something, John? No, I'm good. All right, Kim, while you're there, hold on one second. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Yes. Okay, sir and ma'am, we'll let the ladies go first. If you want to come up, state your name and address and spell your last name for the record. And if you could, ma'am, get us close to the mic so we can hear you. Good afternoon. My name is Rose Plummer, PLUMMER. I am here representing the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association. The binding development plan governing this property was deliberately established to preserve the integrity of the corridor and to prevent the full intensity of the BU-2 designation from being exercised at this location. It represents a negotiated commitment made to the community and adopted to ensure predictable, compatible development. Despite what Ms. Rezenka says, this corridor contains a mixture of residential and commercial uses with hundreds of residential properties located along State Road 3 corridor, including properties adjacent to the subject site. Removing this BDP would have a substantial and lasting impact on the surrounding area by opening the property to the full range of uses permitted under BU-2 zoning. In doing so, it would weaken the protections that nearby residents and prior decision-making bodies relied upon when this development framework was established. More importantly, approval of this request could set an undesirable precedent by suggesting that binding development plans, which are intended to be durable, enforceable, and central to responsible land use planning, may be removed at the discretion of future applicants or commissions. Such an action would undermine public confidence in the planning process and reduce the reliability of a tool used to guide consistent, long-term development decisions. And although Mr. Underwood plans to use it for a particular purpose, if the binding development plan is removed, it will stop. Thank you, ma'am. May I ask a follow-up question to her real quick? Yes. So you're here on behalf of North Merritt Island. Do they have an opposition to the use that... Hold on one second, please, Jared. Ma'am, could you come back so we can get your voice on record? Yes, sir. Thanks, sorry. Do they have an opposition to a repair shop, or is there opposition to what else could be there in the event that the BDP was stripped off? So at the North Merritt Island District Board last Thursday, the recommendation was made that the binding development plan stay with an additional binding development plan added to have language that would say he would only use it for the RV storage or boat storage and that small shop that he wanted. But other than that, the Merritt Island Homeowners Association would recommend denial. But with an additional binding development plan that stated that, I believe that we would be in support of it. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Sir, if you could come up, and if you would, state your name and address. Spell your last name, please. Sure. My name is Duke Nguyen. My last name is N-G-U-Y-E-N. I'm owner of a Jason property address at 110 East Christophule Road. I have some grab here, Duke. Am I allowed to pass to you? Well, you need to direct that to the staff first. Okay. I want to pass that so I can have a good reference to it. So basically, my property, I bought my property over 30 years ago, and eventually I built a house on that. And basically, my property and the subject property is only 50 feet apart, more or less. Okay. And we built a house there. We built a house there. And same thing with the, well, my property on the east side of it. And same thing with my next door neighbor, which is on the north side of it, which is also adjacent to this property. She can't come today because she has babies. So she asked me to see if I can speak for her, too. So anyway, my point is, I bought the property, build a house on that, with the assurance we have some kind of restriction surrounding. And it's doing good for the last 30 years, over 30 years. And so I need to protect my property, too. So I would like to ask the board to keep the BTP as it is. Don't change anything. Because when I bought my property, I did my homework. I did the survey. I did the study and make sure it's protected to some degree. And this is county land, so not a whole lot of protection as far as restriction thing. So I need to, you know, to protect, you know, make sure whatever they do on their property don't devalue my property. And also my opinion is people come and go. You know, the land can be sold, too. So if you drop this BDP, I don't know what the next owner will come in, what they're going to do with it. So, okay. That's all with it. Thank you very much. One question for him, too, if I might. Did you hear the question that I asked her before? About? About if a BDP were in place on that property that allows everything as it is currently, with the addition of his shop and storage, would you be opposed to that? I don't know all the details, but I guess I, you know, with the current BDP, we have to abide to it. Okay. So I'm still not clear what exactly what he's going to do. And my property and that property right now look right through it, 50 feet away. Just divide by a little small pond and the driveway. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Sir? Sir, one second. Do you have the lot there with the mango trees on? Yes. That's my property. I'm just verifying where you were. Yes. On the east side of this property. I know it well. That's all the question. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Ma'am, if you could come up here again. If you could state your name and address and spell your last name for the record. I'll try. My name is Hilberg, last name is H-I-L-L-B-E-R-G, 3780 Sierra Drive in Merritt Island. I'm on the North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board for zoning. This item came up, and we discussed it at length and agree with the staff's recommendations as well that the current limitations on the BD-2 uses be left there, and Apple could be allowed to have his storage for RV and for equipment there, and then he'd be allowed to also have his shop for repairs. So we're trying to be compatible with everybody, but we want to keep protecting our other residents as well. Yes, ma'am. Any questions? Board, do we have any questions for her? Well, she already answered the one I would ask, so that's... Thank you. All right, thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you could state your name and address and spell your last name for the record. My name is Jimmy Underwood at 1850 Harley Place. I am the owner of this property. Wife and I bought it to expand my business. I'm fully mobile right now. I want to put a small shop on there to help offset some costs and have the room. I was wanting to do RV boats. With the way that things are building, because growth is inevitable, it's coming. You know, there's going to be houses. HOAs don't allow your boat or your RV to be in the driveway. So I'm trying to utilize my land also to help them, also to help me. I'm not looking... I grew up in North Merritt Island. I don't want to make anybody, any of my neighbors mad. That's why I'm trying to go through this all the right way. Everything I'm doing, there's nothing... I originally wanted the BDP gone, totally. As we discussed in our other hearing, adding the addition to the BDP to allow for the outside storage, you know, plus my small work area, you know, I'm not opposed to that. You know, I don't... It's just... Growth's going to happen. I'm not doing anything to hurt anybody around me. Right. So that's... All right. While you're there, board, we got any questions for him. Mr. Neal? Yeah, just a clarification. So the BDP, as it sits, would allow you to have the shop but not the storage? Yes, sir. Okay, so all you're asking is to be allowed to have the storage as well? To my knowledge, because I think that's the only thing I've seen difference between BU1 and BU2, other than some other, as they said, the seafood processing plants, the crematory, all that. But right now, as a BU1, if they're really worried about it, I could go and put as many, many storage units on there because it's allowed. Yeah, I was just trying to clarify between what you have now and what you're trying to get and maybe Ms. Rizanka can clarify that for us. So it's not RV storage and body disposal? No. No. I'm sorry, sir. It's his first day. It's okay. I actually enjoyed that. Thank you. We need to lighten this room up some, trust me. Ms. Rizanka, could we clarify a little, please, ma'am? I believe the repair would be heavy industrial, would be a BU2, not heavy industrial, would be heavy vehicle repair, which would be a BU2U. So it would need to be in the BDP as well. The BDP currently covers two properties. He only owns one of them. And it has a provision that you can only have one access, which is problematic when you have two separate owners at this point. That's another reason we need this removed. If you want a completely new BDP, that's fine. You can specify the criteria. I would suggest, though, that this is a heavy commercial area. I mean, you can see it by the character of what the pictures I've shown you. There are no, in this area, shown by the report that the staff chose for you, there's nothing but BU1 and BU2 uses. There's no agricultural adjacent to State Road 3. Again, this property hasn't been developed. That means the restrictions on it haven't allowed it to develop. The gentleman who lives to the east, he's got two 25-foot flag stems between him and the property. There's a 20-foot setback with an opaque buffer that will be on this side on Mr. Underwood's property. So there is some distance between them. I mean, he bought the property next to BU2 that was supposed to have mini-storage. But, again, this, you've seen by the pictures, this appears to be outdoor storage heaven and may not be zoned properly, as it was mentioned at North Merritt Island. Perhaps code enforcement should come out there. But this is the existing character of the area. So, and, again, the change of conditions, BU2, whatever goes there, they still have to have performance standards. They can't violate noise, odor, vibrations, lighting. So BU2 is BU2. I can't imagine a crematorium going here. I don't think it's big enough for a seafood place. I do like the body disposal. I thought that was very clever. But if you do want a new BDP, again, I would submit one's not necessary. He wants to be a good neighbor. He said that to you. But please specify the conditions. Remove this one and add new conditions because the new one is a mess. I mean, the old one is a mess. I've got a question for you while you're there. I don't know. I'm not an attorney. I mean, you are. Staff, I don't know. Can we do the BU2 but limit without a BDP? No. You have to limit by it. Well, other jurisdictions do conditional zoning ordinances and resolutions. This one does not. So you would need a BDP. But I know Mr. Prasad wants to get rid of BDPs, so. Can I ask a question, fellow? We can, in one motion, though, remove a current BDP and add a new one, correct? In one motion. The question was, can we remove a BDP and add a new one in one motion, or does it take two motions? You can do it in one motion. Okay, thank you. Okay. I'm waiting. All right, I'll do it. Thank you. Okay. Motion to recommend approval with a removal of the BDP and the addition of a BDP that has language that allows the current uses, but also allows RV and boat storage and equipment repair. Second. Can you turn your microphone on, please, sir? Can you turn your microphone on, please, sir? Should the BDP also allow for two entrances? I thought I understood that the current BDP only allowed one entrance. If you remove the existing BDP, that condition will go away. I see. Thank you, sir. Okay, I had a motion by Jared, a second by who? I didn't. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Can Mr. Jared restate his motion to state specifically to allow BU-1 uses and retain BU-2 use of outdoor storage and equipment repair in the entrance? Oh, my. You'll say it's what you said. I can do that? What you said. Yes. Yes. The BDP to allow BU-1 uses and RV and boat storage and heavy equipment repair. A second out entrance. And. Why do we need a second entrance? And. No, they were trying to help you out. Yeah. Don't do that. And remove the requirement for the second entrance. Oh, my. Is this? Okay. I'll just let Ron do the BDP ones for now on. I thought the removal of the second entrance went away with the removal of the first BDP. Good question. Good question. This is. Trina. This is currently a BU-2. You're changing it to BU-1 now. No, we're leaving it BU-2. Well, his motion said. And which you restated. It is a BDP to retain all BU-1 uses and retain the BU-2 use of outdoor storage and heavy equipment repair. Isn't that kind of backward? Wouldn't it be easier just to make it BU-2 with a binding development agreement to minimize it to the mini storage and the repair? I know. That's what I'm saying. She's treating it as a BU-1. No, no, no. With BU-1 rules. That's why I wanted to correct that. No. So the BDP being proposed is to include all BU-1 uses plus those BU-2 specified uses that. Understood. But under the BU-2 rules, it has nothing to do with a BU-1. BU-2 has its own separate list. Until you put a BDP on it, taking all that away. That's what I'm saying. Hang on, Jared. That's what the motion is. I understand that, but is that correct in doing it that way? Sure. Or should it just be a change or a restriction on the BU-2 rules rather than stating that they have all the BU-1 rules, which has nothing to do with the BU-2? You understand what I'm getting at here? I understand what you're saying. We just want to make sure we're retaining BU-1 uses, and we're retaining the BU-2 use of the outdoor storage and equipment repair. Okay. It just doesn't seem right. Like what you're saying, you have to go and list everything you're taking away. All we're doing is list everything you're taking away. Are we clear, staff? You're taking it. Okay. We had a motion by Jared, a second by Neal. And I'll clarify that my second was as his motion was just stated. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. I'm almost afraid to say this. Item H3. Item H3 and H4, I'm going to read into the record together. There are companion applications, however, you're going to need a separate motion. Item H3, Defender Homes, Airway, Heights, LLC, being represented by Kim Rizinka. Request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under 26S.02 to change the future land use designation from Res. 4 to Res. 6 under application 26SS00002, located in District 5. H4, Defender Homes, Airway, Heights, LLC, being represented by Kim Rizinka. Request a zoning classification change from RR-1 to RU-2 under application 26Z00008, located in District 5. Good evening, Chairman. Members of Planning and Zoning Commission, LPA. My name is Kim Rizinka, here on behalf of Defender Homes, Airway, Heights, LLC. With me today is Jake Wise, the engineer of record. I wanted to let you know that we have heard the neighbors, we have read all the comments, and we are withdrawing H3. We're no longer seeking a change of the future land use. Can I go on record saying that's never happened before? People cheering for me? Yeah. Okay, so if we can move to H4. So, Kim, correct me, we only got a zoning issue now. Yes, sir. And that's going to get better, too. This is so much easier now. Well, I hope so. So, we have, again, listened to the neighbors for the rezoning, 26Z0008, and we are amending the application from RU-2-6 to RU-1-11. So, that will allow 7,500 square foot lots or larger. This is a constrained site, so we're not sure how many exactly we can get on there. So, that will change it to purely single-family residential subdivision. Perfect. So, again. Please, everyone, if we could. It's hard enough to hear. Again, we have with us Jake Wise, who is going to address the utilities, the flood zone, and other site plan and plat issues that really aren't before you, but they've been raised numerous times. So, he has a few things that he will discuss. Thank you very much. That's all that's required for this application, and that's what's been submitted. What you are to consider, also in 62-1151C, is the character of the use, the character of the land use of the property surrounding the property, which is single-family residential or mobile home park. The change in conditions of the land of the property to be considered and the surrounding property since the establishment of the current zoning classification. This zoning classification is RR1. It was used, apparently, for a radio station, which has been defunct for many, many years. So, it's now a non-used property with RR1. It also has wetlands on it, which will have some issues, but that's a site plan issue with the wetlands determination. Criteria three, the impact of the proposed zoning on available and projected traffic patterns, water and sewer systems, other public facilities and utilities, and the established character of the surrounding property. Staff report says the surrounding property is mostly single-family residential, but if you look at that last page that I gave you that shows the full area, page seven, there are four mobile home parks near this property. There's one immediately to the east, there's one further east of that, there's two or three to the south, I think there's three, and then you do have single-family to the north of larger size, to the south, even further south across Aurora, you have RU17, which is 5,000 square foot lots, and then you have Fox Bay to the east, yes, yes, to the east. I know that was brought up to the west of the mobile home parks. And so this is a single-family residential area with mobile home parks surrounding to the south and west. The compatibility of the presented zoning classification on the conditional use or conditional use with existing land use plans for the affected area. This is residential floor. Maximum use can be four units to the acre. That is what we're proposing, so we can have some flexibility with the size of the lots at 7,500. Some will likely be larger, but they cannot be any smaller than 7,500. The homes to the east in Fox Bay, according to SAF report, range anywhere from 0.15 acres to 0.33 acres, so they're of similar size. The appropriateness of the proposed zoning classification based upon a consideration of the conditions contained in this article and other laws, la, la, la, la, health, public health, safety, and welfare. So, again, all we're here is for rezoning. We're not here for site plan. We're not here for platting. Everything that has to be done will be done by the staff. Also, look at the comprehensive plan and its policies, which your staff report has done and has said there's no material violation of relevant policies that have been identified. I want to talk about the complaints by the neighbors. Most of them are the same. Most of the letters are identical if you've read them. The zoning we're requesting is single-family. It was single-family before, but now it's single-family, detached, subdivision, 7,500-square-foot lots. It's similar in size of the subdivision to the east. They are larger lots in the TR3 mobile home park to the west to the TR1A mobile home park to the south or the RU17 south across Aurora Road. Regarding traffic and safety, the staff report has stated that previously for the possible 86 units, now the maximum units would be 57. But even for the 86 units, the staff report says that the corridor is anticipated to operate within maximum acceptable volume, still only at 28.66% of capacity, and that specific concurrency issues will be addressed at the time of the site plan review. Also at the time of site plan review, the county may require dedication of right-of-way, may require turn lanes, may require analysis of the intersections, whether the stop signs that people complain about are acceptable. So those are all things that will be done at the site plan stage, actually, platting stage. The other concern is drainage, wetlands, and flooding. Staff identified the wetlands, which will be addressed during planning of the site, and will likely reduce the units. All stormwater and drainage issues will also be addressed at site plan and platting. All water that currently drains to the site has to be maintained on the site. As you know, post-development runoff cannot exceed pre-development runoff, and that's something staff is very good about. Several neighbors cited 62-3724, which are development regulations for floodplain. I have put that in your packet, page 5 and page 6. Page 6 is the first page of 62-3724. It goes into Esherine and Riverine and all those things that make your eyes roll back in your head. But no one's addressed that in any of these comments. They've just cited to this and said, we have to meet with them. We have to meet these. We do. At platting stage. Not now at zoning. But if you look to page 5, which is what starts this whole section, Article 5, Division 5, Article 10, Division 5, Floodplain Protection. Section 62-3723, General Provisions, Site Plans, Subdivisions, Building Permits, and Other Active Development Orders. This is not a development order. It's not an active development order. This is a rezoning. School capacity. According to the April 21, 2026 School District Capacity Determination, CD2026-06, the 86 units previously sought, now down to 57, that there were sufficient capacity in the elementary, middle school, and high school for this area. So school capacity is a non-issue. Property values was also a concern raise. There is a speculative statement in all of these emails that the proposed rezoning and resulting development will negatively impact the property value of surrounding residential. The form letters claim that the individuals made investments based upon the established rural residential character. This is not an established rural residential character. When you have five mobile home parks in a subdivision to the east from 0.15 to 0.33 acres, that is not rural residential. In fact, the criteria for RU-111 on page 3 says this is single-family zoning classifications devoted to single-family residential development of spacious character. That's the same language used in RR1 zoning as well. Again, the compatibility for RU-111 is apparent just looking at the map. The Fox Bay subdivision to the east is on 17.754 acres with 46 lots ranging in size from 0.15 acres to 0.33. The Village Glen mobile home park to the west is 27.2 acres with 143 units, average over 5 units to the acre. The TR3 zoning only requires mobile home sites of 4,000 square feet. There's also, I don't know if you've received it, but we found on Facebook that the City of Melbourne is objecting to this based upon utilities. And Ms. Sanders is here to talk about it, as Jake will talk about it here shortly. We received it from Facebook. I don't know if you all have it or not. But this is not a zoning issue, but a plaiting issue. We have not asked for utilities yet. We know it's available. But we could do quarter-acre lots, and we could do septic tanks once the moratorium is removed. So that is a plaiting issue. It is not a zoning issue. You're to look at the compatibility and whether this makes sense in this location. The fact that it's a vacant site, I don't know what's on it, but it's probably a derelict site. And we would ask that you consider the rezoning. Everybody, please. Okay. Thank you. To RU-111. Also, we are not within the City of Melbourne. We are not contiguous to the City of Melbourne. We cannot annex into the City of Melbourne at this time. With that, I would bring up Jake Wise and ask him to discuss the stormwater and the special flood zone. Jake, you know the drill. I do. Thank you. Jake Wise, civil engineer for the project. Last name is WISE. Business address is 2651 West O'Galley Boulevard. Just like Mr. Rezanka said, we don't normally dive this deep at just a rezoning. But just to reiterate, we're not asking for any change in the density. No land use change at all. Just bringing the zoning change. The property on Turtle Mountain Road, I used to live on Turtle Mountain Road. I used to drive past here multiple times a day. We definitely understand and know the character of this area. It is in flood zone A. Flood zone A just means that there's been no base flood established yet. That is something that we work with staff on during site plan development. I have a project that's under construction on Vieira Boulevard right now that we did exactly that. It had flood zone A. We work with staff, establish the flood zone, and move forward with our site plan. This site also has a nitrogen reduction overlay. That means that there has to be some type of reduced type of septic treatment, whether that is connecting to a municipal system or one of the more higher efficiency nitrogen type removal systems. Again, at site plan is when we dive into water and sewer connections, stormwater, power, all those types of things that are related to a specific development, which at this time we don't have. We did reach out to the city ourselves, and we did find out that they had water adjacent to the site, but that their nearest force main, which is where wastewater could connect to, was at capacity. So there's different ways to work around that. Their plant has plenty of capacity, but the closest force main just doesn't. So that is just a factor in the site plan when we move forward with that in the future. For stormwater, we get this all the time, we cannot exceed. In fact, on most projects, we decrease the amount of runoff. If there's any runoff coming into the site, and we don't even have a full survey yet, we're just asking for zoning, we would analyze that at that time. If there's runoff coming into our site, we have to accommodate that runoff. We can't block it. We can't reroute it. We can't push it back onto somebody else. That's not allowed for a county or state regulations at all. In addition, just late last year, the Water Management District has changed the way they review stormwater treatment, and they also have a significant increase in nitrogen and phosphorus removal, so that's even further helping to establish that. We do know there are wetlands on the site. We do know with Brevard County rules that there are limitations to impacting wetlands. We have to work with the state as well, and if they are determined to be federal wetlands, we would work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well. Again, we're not there yet. We don't have a specific site plan. We try to always do as much preservation and avoidance and minimization as we can. For residential projects, preservation of wetlands can be a huge benefit, and so that's something that we always work towards first and then look at the rest of the site plan second. As you heard earlier, schools do have capacity in this area, and as we go through a site plan, once we get to that point, we look at utility concurrency, we'll look at school capacity again, and we'll look at traffic concurrency as well. So with that being said, I'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have, and I'd appreciate a chance to respond to any public comments. Jake, I've got a question. When you, on our early submittal, how many units was that, the very first threshold before I spoke to people and got input from people? What was the total number? The original request was go to four to six units an acre, and that's what was withdrawn for the item three tonight. And you're going to get to 50-some now? I mean, it's going to happen around 50? We probably won't get that high because of the limitations of the site, the character of that zoning we're requesting, and the size of the lots. So it could be 40s? It could be. Who knows? Yeah, it'd probably be a lot less. So you did a liminary environmental assessment. I mean, just a broad brush. Just to know that there's wetlands on the site. We haven't done a full survey. We still do a tree survey, elevations, topographic survey. None of that has been done yet. We're just trying to establish a zoning. To make Kim happy, I hope we never have to require that before it comes here. Thank you. That was boring. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Neal. So at the zoning of RR1-11, how many units per acre would that work out to be approximately? The land use was still four units per acre, but RR1 has different zoning requirements on it. And as I'm sure you're aware, it used to have a radio tower on it at the site. Any other questions from the board for the engineer? I have one just for the purposes of calculating. Do you have any idea how much wetlands were on that property, acreage? I don't know what the total acreage is. I do not. Does anyone on the applicant's team have a ballpark on that? No? Okay. If Jack don't have it, they don't know either. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So I know pretty much everyone in here is wanting to speak about, could I see a show of hands or who wants to speak about this? Now we can be here until 10 o'clock at night. Or I'm more than happy, if everyone would listen, please. Here we go. We had like 25, 30 people raise their hands. So I'm more than happy to pick one or two people to go speak for this item and give you 15, 20 minutes each. Because we don't need to hear it's going to lower our property value, the traffic's going to be a problem, how many wetlands is on. We're not here for that. We're here for zoning. So does anyone want to do that or does everyone want to speak? Sir, what did you say? Speak to the zoning. Because all the rest of it, we already know all of these concerns. Previous landowner before this person bought it. And I'd like to submit a petition for the record. Yes. You'll have to see staff over here. And that's what everyone's going to be saying. Ma'am, I haven't opened it up for public comment yet. Sorry about that. I thought that was that. Nice try. Well, I'm going to open it up for public comment, but you're going to get two minutes and that's it. And please, if someone has said what you're wanting to say, we don't make any money up here doing this. We're just an advisory board for the county commissioners. They're going to make the final decision. And there's so many things here, like Mr. Jake said, Ms. Kim said, they don't even know how many units they can put on this property yet. So, hold on a second. They don't have a clue. So, anyhow, I know there's the previous owner sitting back there. He doesn't know neither because it's never been permitted. Never been permitted. This is a bigger deal. Bigger deal. So, anyhow, everyone's got an opinion, ma'am. I appreciate that. But we're going to, I'm going to open it up to the public. We're going to get two minutes. And when the bell goes off, and if everyone could just funnel down towards this end that wants to speak, and we will go from there. And if everyone, please, everybody, if we could be respectful. Okay, ma'am. Ma'am, you can speak when it's your turn. If you want to come get in line here. And, yes, we can do that because we're not going to get into shouting across the audience and everything else. All right, ma'am, if you'd say your name and address for the record and spell your last name. My name is Diane Baumert-Moyek, that's B-A-U-M-E-R-T-hyphen-M-O-Y-I-K. I live at 2445 Turtle Mound Road, Melbourne, Florida, 32934. Good afternoon, Chairman Wadsworth and Planning Board members. I am here to open our neighborhood's formal testimony requesting a recommendation of denial for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 26SS-00002 and Rezoning Request 26Z-00008. I submitted a petition just a few moments ago of over 2,300 signatures, and we have another 500 from our residents. Under Brevard County Code Section 62-1151C, your primary legislative duty is to evaluate whether a proposed zoning change is structurally compatible with the established character of the surrounding land. The properties immediately to the north, south, and west are large acreage-style single-family homes. And I know there's been some changes here at the meeting today, but we ask that the county only maintain the RR1 zoning. No compromise. The applicant has completely failed to meet their burden of providing harmony with our existing neighborhood, and we urge you to recommend denial. Thank you for all that you do to help our county grow properly, and at the same time protect our quality of life. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before we go to the next speaker, Mr. Chairman, we had a member of the audience, I believe a member of the press with a camera, walk up here behind us. I would remind you that is not allowed, sir, and do not do it again. You are not allowed back here. Members of the board, my name is Scott Schiffer, S-C-H-I-F-F-E-R. I reside at 1891 Fox Bay Drive in Melbourne. Before this board proceeds further, I need to raise a procedural issue that I believe requires this item to be tabled. Brevard County's notice to applicants for change of land use regarding applications generating public opposition is clear. When an application generates opposition through letters, petitions, phone calls, or testimony, the applicant must meet the concerned parties prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. And critically, the policy goes further. If this board finds that the application is controversial and the applicant has not met, the affected property owners met with, sorry, the item not may but shall be tabled to the next agenda to allow the meeting to take place. This application is controversial. There are 159 pages of public comments in the agenda packet and numerous petitions of concerned neighbors. I personally submitted an 18-page detailed opposition to the request of changes to the board on June 8th. And the applicant has not reached out to us. Not one member of the opposition has been contacted for a meeting, a discussion, or even an acknowledgement of our concerns. I anticipate the applicant may respond by saying they intend to meet with us before the Board of County Commission hearing. I want to address that directly. That does not satisfy the requirement. The policy requires a meeting to occur before the Board acts on a request. A future promise to meet before the BCC is a different stage of the process entirely, and it does nothing to inform this Board's deliberation today. If anything, offering to meet only before the BCC while skipping this stage underscores that the applicant has not complied with the policy as written. The policy is not discretionary, given this application is controversial, and no meeting has occurred, the applicants must be tabled. We respectfully request the Board tables item, now four, to the next agenda, consistent with that requirement, and direct the applicant to meet with the opposition before this matter returns to the Board. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Glenn Juber, J-U-B-E-R, 2320 Hamlet Drive in Melbourne, about half a mile from the proposed site. We all know what the environmental concerns are. We're in the Indian River Lagoon drainage basin. But what we can address today is the applicants come up and say, we're just here for a zoning change. Don't look at all the rest of this over here. That doesn't really matter, which is absolutely nonsense because the zoning regulations existed and were built to provide a plan for stable development. Now, unless there's been a change in the underlying conditions, better water, better roads, better sewer, something, there's no reason to grant a change for higher density because those conditions that came out with the RR1 still exist. Now, it's a little bit disingenuous for the engineer to say, oh, we haven't looked at the drainage, we don't know about the wetlands, when it's nonsense. The U.S. Geological Survey publishes a map available to anyone that lists the site elevation. If we could hold our applause, please, publicly. Half of this property fully is wetlands. The engineer knows that. And he's here before the board saying, I don't know, we're just here for a zoning change. Don't look at the other stuff right now. We'll see if we can slide this by while the developer from Washington State comes in, drops $800,000 in his property in 2021, and now is looking to maximize his return, but will not suffer any of the consequences. Not the traffic, not the displacement of the turtles. There are turtles on Turtle Mountain Road. I know I live there. We have all kinds of wildlife that are all at risk. I personally have to put in a new septic system to meet the 2030 regulations, which are driving this entire area to either sewer or a new septic to preserve the Indian River Lagoon. We don't want another 200 dead manatees, nor do we want traffic concerns, but we want honesty from these people, and we're not getting it. I just have one very quick comment. My name is Cynthia Sautchen, S-A-W-C-Z-Y-N. I live at 4155 Carolwood Drive in Melbourne. I would ask the board to consider the references to the different trailer parks are absolutely irrelevant. They have been there for 50 years. They were there when we built our house 38 years ago. To use them as an example, to have a multiple residential area intruding now simply does not hold water. And that's all I, that's my request, is that you realize that those multiple areas are decades old. And don't, don't do anything to warrant the change in zoning. Okay. My name is Richard Nink, N-I-N-K. My address is 3035 Gentle Breezes Court in Melbourne. I'm just off a parkway. My land is, my property is affected by what happens and your actions today. This is a planning issue. This is a rezoning issue. That's why all these people are here, for you to consider concerns. Keep it R-R-1. There is no need to rezone to R-U-1. The applicant is making an argument that they don't want to increase the density. They are not clear why the need to the rezone to R-U-1. They're not clear. Why not just keep it R-R-1? They said it's the same amount of density. They need to be clear. And we need to understand that and not make rash decisions. They say they heard the neighbors, but yet they're still trying to rezone. And it's not clear why are they trying to rezone. Keep it R-R-1. Now, the applicant will explain that to you. And she's very good at quickly explaining it and dismissing the concerns. We request an opportunity to respond to her dismissing our concerns today. Ask one of us to come up. I will gladly do that to ask follow-up questions because she will quickly dismiss our concerns to why it needs to be rezoned. And we'd like to have an opportunity to follow up on that quick dismissal. That's what we're asking. So, we'd like you to ask her those questions. Why the need to rezone if you're going to keep the same density? And, okay, we heard your explanation. Now, let's give the residents an opportunity to follow up to your statements. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Hello. I'm John McKinley, M-C-K-I-N-L-E-Y. And I'm at 1697 PGA Boulevard in Melbourne, Florida. I am the previous owner of the property. We bought the property about nine years ago from the radio station. It's MYBD Properties. I'm the M. So, I can tell you a little bit about this property is we initially put in, knowing that it's RR1 zoning, knowing that we had the trailer parking and the other restrictions, we put in a zoning department of Bard County that we get two per acre. It was immediately denied, and we were written that it will never be anything but RR1 ever. We came back. We had a plan. We figured that was probably going to fail. We had an RR1 plan that was very good. We thought it would be a very nice neighborhood. I had put in, previously, we had put in Fawn Cove neighborhood, and we had put in Atlanta Lane off Lake Washington Road, both of those neighborhoods. All of those were one-acre lots. So, we came back with a good plan, and it was, again, denied by the zoning department. And the reason is, is they would not let us access that road from Turtle Mound. They said, if we wanted to do it, we had to go off White Road. Now, these folks, they're putting in this application. They are going to go off Turtle Mound Road. I guarantee you. Okay? I'm just saying is, why were we denied when they're going to put in, they're going, by the way, they're going for six per acre. If you do the math, it's pretty simple. It's about six per acre. The environmental regulations on Atlanta are not that strict. I did a survey myself. We had one done. So, they will get at least five per acre when I couldn't get two and I couldn't get one. When you went to one off of White Road, it was economically unfeasible. The lots did not work. So, basically, the zoning department said the land that I valued and had was worthless. All we could do at that point was to sell the property, and we're here today. So, of course, I'm perturbed by the zoning department. Thank you for your time. Hope everybody has a good afternoon. What year are you saying that all occurred? About 10 years, 9, 10 years ago. Huh? About 9 or 10 years ago. About 13 now. Only 9 or 10? About 13 now. About 13 now? 13. Yeah. Just before I got sick. So, that's probably the only thing. Well, I was originally on the radio station. Hmm? I was telling them when it was bought. Okay. That was 2021, right? Yeah. So, we had the property for a long time. It was 7. We had the property for a long time before we did move the property, and it was mainly because we couldn't get the zone. So, the county would not allow us to use R01 coming off of Turtle Mound. Basically, you had the property for us. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Hello. I'm Kelly Rich. Last name is Rich, R-I-C-H. I live at 4095 Carolwood Drive, my wife and I, which puts us within 500 feet of the property in question. And since the development team has already said they're going to throw out the six per acre, that kind of changes the agenda and the tone of this meeting. And that's really what I wanted to point out. I'll be very brief. I only have two points now. And the one point is the agenda items have changed. So, I think the public does deserve a chance to come back again if the board feels they really need to vote on this today. The other item I would ask is that the public understand that wetlands will not stop development. I want everybody to realize that. There's wetland mitigation. It's possible. So, even if there's two acres of wetlands there, that doesn't mean it won't be developed. I just want to make sure the public knows that. And, again, these are things that have come up now with them throwing out the idea of going six per acre. So, it's kind of changed the agenda items on the meeting. And I think the public deserves a chance to ask the board maybe not to even vote on this today. They've already thrown out their six per acre. Don't vote on the four per day until you hear more from the public. Because the public wasn't prepared to talk about four per acre. We were prepared to talk about 85 low-income proposed housing. That's what we were prepared to talk about. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hello, members of the board and county staff and all the citizens that are here today. Just for the record, my name is Julie Kennedy, not Julie Sanders. I had a name change a few years ago. And I am the vice mayor of the city of Melbourne. And I do recognize that this property is not within the city of Melbourne. It is within county. However, a lot of the adjacent properties are within my district, District 6, within the city. And at last Tuesday's meeting, I brought up this project. And every single member of the city council for the city of Melbourne opposes this particular property being developed and the zoning changes. I appreciate us not going for a comprehensive plan change. But in hopes to not reiterate what I know everybody else is going to say here, because I know what that's like, being up there. I do want to, I do have a copy of the mayor's letter that he did post on social media. I have about eight copies. If you all want to share and see, you're more than welcome to. But just to sum it all up, while the city of Melbourne recognizes the importance of providing additional housing opportunities within our community, it's imperative that growth occur in a manner that is supported by adequate public infrastructure. At this time, the city's existing sewer force main infrastructure serving this area does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater demand that would result from the proposed multifamily development. I realize that now it's going to be smaller because of what they're proposing. But as others had said, it would be nice to be able to go back to take a look at this to see if we now can or cannot. And where we stand as a city, knowing that now it's going to be decreased. I can't speak to the lower amount. But our wastewater, our roads, our infrastructure is just not equipped within the city to handle this type of development that was being proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am, ma'am, it's a little, isn't it a little strange for the city to get involved in a county thing? Does the county go over to the city too? Sometimes, yes. Sometimes West Melbourne comes to us at meetings. Sometimes we go to West Melbourne meetings. Absolutely, because we are so close together. Really? Our infrastructure is intertwined. Yeah, I thought it was a little strange that I've been around a long time. Well, our infrastructure is intertwined. I mean, not that you're entitled to it, but you know you've got some problems. Our infrastructure is intertwined. Yeah, thank you. And our roads are intertwined. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Suzanne Bella. I live at 5225 Sand Lake Drive. I do not know if you all have this flood map, which is page 243 in your packet, but I just wanted to draw your attention to how large the flood wetlands are on this piece of property. It almost takes up the whole piece of property. And to cram all of these units into this little tiny space, it's going to be very, very hard. I don't think that the massive, permanently altering dirt ridge that they would put up around this property also, if they tried to develop it, would be a good thing for the surrounding properties. Water seeks the path of least resistance. The ridge will place stormwater, push severe runoff directly into the backyards of the longstanding single-family neighbors. On Windmill Drive, Teresa Drive, and White Road, Carolwood, those little old trailer homes that have been there since the 1950s and 60s are going to be floating away. The other issue I just want to mention is if there is a traffic study done, somebody should take the time to do it when there is an accident on 985, and everybody heads down O'Galley and goes down Turtle Mound Road, because at that point in time, there is no way to get in and out of your neighborhoods. So, concerned residents, we don't want it. We want you to deny it. Thank you. Hello, thank you. My name is Amanda Seibel. I live at 4399 Lake Glenn Drive. I've been a resident of Lake Washington area for most of my life. I think that they're being very disingenuous in how they approach tonight's meeting. If they want to change it, then we should be able to address the changes, not come and surprise us. Also, I'd like to know, their company, their out-of-state company, they do rentals. Is it still going to be rentals? Is it going to be rental units? Or are these houses going to be for sale? That's important. That has an effect on my property value. I want to know. We don't want this. It's not the character of, we bought out there because we wanted a rural way of life. We don't want zero lot-line homes crammed on a wetland built lot. It's just, it's not feasible. The traffic's already bad out there. If you do, if you try to go on turtle bound during rush hours, you're backed up 10, 12 cars. It's not built for it. It's not built for it. We don't want it. But please, I urge you, just say no to more development. All right. Thank you. On the screen. IT, can you turn on the projector? Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Dangler, D-A-N-G-L-E-R. Address is 5085 Pino Street here in Rockledge, Florida. As I'm sure you can understand, the residents here are very happy to go ahead and hear about the withdrawal of the future land use map change. But I think, quite honestly, it's fundamentally unfair now to go ahead and address a zoning change that has not been presented to the residents. Staff has not had an opportunity to go ahead and do a report. And quite honestly, I think if you polled the people here in the audience, no one knows what an RU111 is. Like, they were here prepared to go ahead and talk about RR1, RA26. So I think, first, it would just be, it's premature to go ahead and have a zoning decision made today by this board that should be heard by staff, have a full report, full notice to the community, so then a properly noticed and informed decision could be made. The other thing I would say is, you know, council had raised the issue of, you know, four acres, four lots per acre is kind of what they're anticipating with their zoning change. But it's still incompatible and inconsistent with what's actually built there in the community. Now, this table was done to go ahead and address whether an RES-4 should be changed to a 6. If you look at all the communities that are nearby, what you'll notice when you look at the units per acre, Fox Bay is 2.6 units per acre. Oakwood Trails, 2.3 units per acre. Hammond Estates, 2.4. Oaks of O'Galley are 2.2. Creekwood, 1.1. Anson's less than 3. Aurora Woods is 1.2. And Aurora Oaks is the only one that's 4. And that's all the way at John Rhodes. That is so far away from the rest of the community. So if you look at what's compatible with what's actually built in the neighborhood of this particular piece of land, even 4 is incompatible. That's why it's RR1. And the last point I'd make, if you look at the corridor on the west side of Turtle Mound, every single lot is RR1. This is a consistent neighborhood. There are no greater densities other than RR1 as you move up that corridor. Thank you. My name is Cassandra Rainier for purposes. This is Chloe Rainier, my youngest child. I live at 4576 Mustang Road. And I have had the privilege, I'm 34 years old, I've had the privilege of living in this area for 30 years. Not only did I get to be raised out here, I get to raise my children here. But the reason why we are fighting so hard against this zoning is because this is one of the few places in Brevard County left where you can go and drive down the road and see a cowgirl on her horse walking down the road. You can see donkeys, you can see cows, people free-ranging their chickens in their little gardens that they've made. This is magical. It's what you see in storybooks. And that's the way that we want it to be preserved. We don't want more houses that are cookie-cutter. If we wanted that, anybody could do that in Vieira. We have it now all down the St. John's, you know, passageway. We have it, you know, huge ones going in now in West Melbourne. That is not, she wanted to, Ms. Rizinko wanted to talk about the trailer home. She really wanted to focus on that. Go north. You have horses ranging in front yards. You have children running around in their sprinklers in these huge, beautiful plots of lands with these beautiful trees that are strung with mossy oak that, you know, with the Spanish moss. And that is what we want to preserve. It's one of the few areas we have like this left in Brevard County, not just Melbourne. And to come and be like, oh, it's not that bad. This area and the reason why we are all fighting so hard, this area is magical. Not just for us, but for our children. So please, do not take this away from us. Okay. If you could turn it on, please. It should be on. Okay. Perfect. Good afternoon, Victor Page. P-E-J-I-C, 3205 Aurora Road. Bottom line with this, we've gone through this for years, the seat is the common term right here. The reason the seat, 7,500 square feet, that seems like a large lot. That's 0.15 acres roughly. We can only build, what is it, 30, 40, 50 homes. That is just a vehicle to get in. There is nothing, there's no money to be made once you develop that land if you build a small amount of homes. The rest of the homes are generally 0.75 acre on a small side, but usually a couple acres there. So it would completely be different even if it's four acres, I mean four homes per acre. Also, out of the 14 acres, there was a five acres annexed about five years ago from Melbourne, so there's not 14 acres. Now, there's a couple more lands that are about three acres aside that probably will be purchased, and next thing you know, oh, we want another zoning change, because now instead of being 14, now we are 17 or 18 acres, and now we want even more denser. So the reason I wanted the overhead turned on, this is how it looks like, let's see, let me see, how can I make it bigger? This is, there we go, now I got it. This is how it looks like after a rain, okay? That's how it looks like, and that wasn't even a big rain. So let me go a few more pictures. This is how it looks like in front of my house after a rain, okay? This is how Northwest Plaza looks like after a rain, all right? So you don't have to be a rocket scientist, geological engineer to figure out that water don't run uphill. You bring these houses there, you got to bring field to be, what, about 30 inches above the crown of the road? You bring that much dirt in, everybody else will flood. Thank you. Hello, my name is Sean Strelow. I grew up in Carolwood Estates. I think the average lot size there is acre plus. I just want to remind the board, currently there is, there are no homes on the property. It's a derelict radio station. Sorry, I'm getting a little emotional. So I spent my whole life in Carolwood Estates growing up. That area is, sorry, very special to me and everyone here, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't show up. The current owner of the property bought the property knowing what it was zoned as. Even if they developed it under the RR1, that would be 14 new homes. That would be a big change to everyone here at just what it's currently zoned for. If they were to change it to five homes per acre or 7,500 square foot lots, that's 5.8 homes per acre. That is drastic. That's 50 times more than what is currently there, which is nothing. So to allow an out-of-state developer to come in and build 50 more potential homes is a drastic change to our current way of life and what we're all used to there. Even the 14 potential one home per acre under the RR1 would be a pretty significant change. Nobody wants this at all, and that's not to mention all the stormwater people have talked about before, traffic issues, and things of that nature. I don't get how a developer can come in and knowing what the zoning currently is and then piss off the entire community to change it. It just makes no sense. You knew what it was coming in. It's not upon us to come up here, take time off out of work and out of our day to fight for our livelihood. They should be able to just step in and take over our way of life. So that's a little bit jumbled, but that's all I have to say. Thank you. Hello, Planting and Zoning Board members. My name is Ethan Packie. I'm here representing St. Anthony of the Great Orthodox Church. Our address is 4031 Aurora Road. I'm treasurer for the church. We received a notification because we are also within the 500-foot boundary of the property. And I'm probably going to be the controversial person here today saying I think it would be okay to move forward with the rezoning because we ourselves are looking to do a project soon, too, to expand our own facilities, and we are coming up against enormous stormwater and sewer infrastructure requirements that we're personally having to pay for out of pocket because of how little public investment has gone into this neighborhood, somewhat at the desired neighborhood, but also because it's just been further out. And now we're getting closer. I'll remind the entire audience that there is a brand-new Amazon warehouse facility right down at the end of Turtle Mound, less than a mile away from this site. So it's not as though there is no development nearby or that it is genuine rural. You can drive 10 miles at 192, still be in Brevard, and be in actual rural territory. So I understand a lot of the stormwater and sewer discussion is going to be handled later. That is the way the process goes. I'm actually representing the Brevard County School Board on Melbourne's planning and zoning as another one of my volunteer activities. But today I'm here for the church. We're interested to see how this development would be interested in going forward to see if there are more public resources being developed in the area because we ourselves are suffering for having to pay for all of our own stormwater and sewer and all the costs that will come with building a larger church as we ourselves grow. Our church has expanded by its population by over 50 percent from some 120 members to just over 180 in the last two years in our reporting to the Archdiocese from 2023 to 2025. So there is more out here than just pure rural residential, and if you want rural in Brevard, you can go further out. But I don't think anybody would want to get off of city water. They don't want to do wells. So they're still living where the city can get to them. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, ma'am. I'm Melissa Pedrick, P-E-D-R-I-C-K. I live at 5165 Pershing Drive, which is west of 95. But a couple things I'd like to address. First of all, that Amazon facility, Bulldoze Wetlands. It doesn't matter. They'll find a way. Them saying that they can, you know, they're going to go check everything out after they get approved, buyer beware. If they get approved, they're going to do whatever they want because they already got past it. Mr. Minibo, Boo, I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name. But Turtle Man Road, I'm sure there's a lot of residents here. If they wanted water, a lot of them were on wells. They had to get annexed to the city of Melbourne to get their well water. I mean, to get off of well water and had to go into the city. So they had to pay for it. So all these concerns, you know, I'm, like I said, I'm west, but I was flooded out. My property looked like it was an island because all the water has nowhere to go. So you just keep bulldozing and putting more concrete and asphalt. We don't have anywhere to go. Our property goes up higher because we're having to pay for flood insurance. It's ridiculous. So please consider that. Thank you. I think if they have all these plans, they should do those plans before they get approved for the rezoning. We have to do it at the top. Greetings. Everybody smile. My name is Chris Hardy, H-A-R-D-Y. I'm at 4395 Lakeland Drive, 32934. We, the undersigned registered voters and property owners and residents of Brevard County, please urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the proposed rezoning of the aforementioned property parcel. Due to the things that I've heard you stand up here and say you've heard it all before, okay? If I'm not mistaken, though, that is your job as the committee, the zoning committee, to hear what the people have to say. So we ask that due to safety, increased traffic, congestion, water management strain, environmental impact, property value, and strain on the fiscal, city, county, resident finances, and the equestrian rights, as well as our agriculture and green space that you've heard everybody talk about here today. The proposed rezoning violates the once-established neighborhood comprehensive plan. Where is the money coming from for the necessary road expansions and improvements? Is it apartments or is it houses? And how many are we specifically talking about? How will drainage infrastructure be upgraded and funded in this area that is currently already experiencing major flooding due to many retention ponds, poor canal maintenance, and lack of city council response? What is the plan and the funding source for expanding police, fire, rescue capabilities? Will the developer cover the impact fees or will the existing taxpayers bear the burden? This area was meant for wooded, larger lots, both deed and non-deed restricted homes where homeowners can expand and garden and enjoy wildlife. We have protected scrub jays and tortoises all over the area. This is about the character and the density of the area. It's about a saturated market already. There are currently 8,000 completed apartments and housing in Melbourne that remain unsold and empty, representing roughly 17%. Okay, thank you, Beth. That was too, wow. Good afternoon. My name is Roger Baxter, B-A-X-T-E-R. I'm going to touch on a little bit of what John McKinley had said because I was a homeowner, a owner of that property as well. I am the B in NYBD. What's amazing to me is we bought the property trying to put two houses per acre, and it can't be done. It really can't because by the time you mitigate wetlands and by the time you give the turtles a new home and by the time you deal with putting the road through there in the sewer and the whole bit, there is not enough property there to follow the rules to do the development with two. We did get approved for 11 homes after we did all the mitigation for the wetlands and dealing with finding homes for turtles. Unfortunately, it was completely too much money to bother to go forward with the project. And all of this information was given to the current owner. We did the studies. We know what the wetland is going to take. We know we did it all. It has the deepest ditches you'll find on each side. They're trying to drain those ditches. They flow. You can go to the side of the bank, and you can see the water coming out of the thing on a dry day. There's always water in the ditches. So, yes, there's a lot of wetlands there. And for the now owner to come back and try to do this when he already knew before he bought it because we gave him everything is just a little bit – It's all over our eyes. It's not sneaky. You have to try to make money with the decisions you make. And I just think, like us, he made a poor decision. That's it. Okay. One follow-up question, the gentleman that just spoke. Sure. Did you and your partner or partners in that venture – There were four people. There were four partners. Did you ever try to go through this particular channel, rezone it? No. The city told us there was no way that they would let us do any more than the 11. They would not. County. The city has to do – Okay. When we put the sewer and everything in – Hold on. Hold on, sir. Please, everyone, could you – if you want to speak, come get in line. Let's just – don't sit there and yell out. Thank you. When we were – put our development to them, we have to hook up water because we can't put a well in any of that. You can't – it's just not going to work. So when we're cutting in roads and putting in drainage and doing the whole bit, the city gets involved with sewer and water. And they came and said, nope, not going to do it. You can have 11. The whole thing is you can't make – So for the city infrastructure that that property ties to – Right. – was getting denied. So you never formally requested a rezone from the county. We didn't bother because if we were only allowed 11, we couldn't make the – we couldn't make it work. Understood. And all of that was given to them. Okay. Not too sneaky about it. No, no, I wasn't implying that. I just wanted to find out how far you guys tried to take it. Thanks. Thank you, sir. When is far as we go? Hello. My name is Chelsea True, and I've lived in Mare Island for five years. I originally am from Washington State and very familiar with the Spokane and Airway Heights area. We don't want to see Brevard County make the same mistakes as Seattle and Spokane, where rapid, high-density zoning completely overran local infrastructure. This project brings Pacific Northwest-style overdevelopment to a rural Florida wetland, threatening our environment and creating flooding and traffic issues we aren't equipped to handle. There is currently a rat race to take up all of our green space in Brevard County. I specifically just dealt with one less than a month ago. Let's keep Florida Florida and not turn into Washington State as someone who personally fled from it. Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Lohse, L-O-H-S-E, pronounced like a grade average. Anyway. That in there for a little smile. Anyway, I moved out. I live on 4065 Carolwood Drive. The property pretty much backs up to the back of my yard. My major concern is it's very scary. You can't walk down our roads anymore. It's unsafe. We don't have sidewalks. And we had to finally petition for speed bumps because we have so many cars coming down our road so fast. No one wants to walk on our road anymore. I'm a dog walker. You can't walk your dogs on the road. I walk them twice a day, my old dogs. You don't see bicycles anymore. I know one person I got ran off. My friend's wife got run off into a ditch, and she came up like a mud puppy, which was not fun. He had to help her out of the ditch. And that's basically my concern is the safety. We're already overloaded with cars out there. We don't have the sidewalks. No one walks out there anymore. No one does their dog walking anymore. Everybody's scared to get out on the road, and that's not right. And that's all I got to say. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. My name is Dennis I. O'Quinn, spelling O-apostrophe, capital Q-U-I-N-N. I live at 2685 Lake Hill Road, 32934. I would like to be allowed to stipulate agreement with pretty much everything I've heard. I want to bring up a different aspect. I have had, or I did have, a professional engineering license in the state of Florida from the mid-1980s to just a few years ago. I'm currently in a delinquent status deciding whether to go ahead and retire or not. Nonetheless, contact information is available under Department of Professional Regulation, PE33714. I did some work about 25 years ago on that site for the owner. At that time was Twin Towers Broadcasting. I walked among those four towers. There are two pairs arranged in a parallelogram, and the distance north to south is something in the neighborhood of 500-plus feet, and the distance between the diagonal towers, because there were two towers on the other side, went off at a different angle. The one thing I found common to that site was it had a dump, trash dump. Those radio stations were out in the woods, and people threw everything in there, specifically a vacuum tube known as an 866 or an 866A. They were called mercury vapor rectifiers. So, if you are going to go forward with this, and I'm not sure at what stage, I'm just making this information available, there should be extensive testing of that site across the site for mercury. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Questions? No, sir. We're good. Sir, if you want to come on up. Hey, last but not least, I'm Mike Bandish. I own Bandish Equestrian Stables, and we're seeing an overwhelming demand for the equestrian. Could you state your name and address, please, sir? Oh, Bandish, B-A-N-D-I-S-H-1-8-0-0-Evers. I own Bandish Equestrian Stables, and we're receiving overwhelming demand for equestrian riding and boarding and stuff like that, to the point where we're looking to maybe expand across the street. With the closing of Wycombe Park and HWH up for sale, it's just overwhelming people in this area love horses. So, we have to decide if we want to remain an equestrian community. That's all I got. Okay. Thank you, sir. Hello. My name is Diane Perrigo. I'm a little out of my element, but I'm passionate about this. I have 4,700 Aurora Road. I bought an acre and a quarter because I wanted a rural living. I've worked two jobs all my life. I'm by myself so that I can have that. I have horses and dogs and gardens, and I see encroachment more and more. You can't ride your horse on the side of the road anymore, and it's a rural area, and we've all sacrificed to live in a rural area. We'd like to keep it that way. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does there anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Okay. I'm closing it. I'm just kidding. I'm going to give someone else a chance if there's anyone who wants to speak for or against it because I'm fixing to close it to public. Hi. Terry Dexter, 4400 Canard Road. I grew up on White Road. I was born and raised here in the area. Our property, they took part of White Road, took part of our property, the 30-acre tract that my family had owned from the 40s. This is a wet area. I remember when Village Glen, the trailer park they were talking about, went in. And this area, if this goes in, we're talking about heavy flooding in that trailer park. I mean, it's going to be overwhelmed. You've got a bathtub there, and we keep putting blocks in it. Sorry. We keep putting blocks in it. That water's got to go somewhere. White Road, where White Road and Marywood is, we were just told that there's a possibility that it could go on White Road, the entrance to that. That's a deadly area right there. I mean, you can't see nothing. Are they going to buy the house? Who's going to pay for that mobile home park if it gets flooded? It's bad. There's got to be another way of doing this, and this is not the way. It really is not the way. WML, they've owned that property since 21, and that building's still there. And there's no way that building should have been took care of. Anybody else in this area, if that would have happened to their home, in four years, they would have told us to, yeah, absolutely. It's deadly a problem, but come on, guys. Don't let this go in. Please don't let this go in. Let us have time. They've come in here and changed it. At least give us time. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. I'm Pamela Baxter, 35, O-B-A-X-T-E-R, 3595 Hammock Trail, Melbourne. I have been here since 1961. The concern I have, amongst all the others, is the last of the large pieces of acreage out there, one including the dairy, which is currently up for sale, over nine acres, that's right down the street on Turtle Mound, does that suddenly become another large development? Those are things I ask you as a zoning board to consider. It's no different than what the first person was saying, change from certain restrictions. But large property is rare. But, again, down the street, less than two miles, there's another large up-for-sale piece. You could be doing this again. Just please consider that. Okay, thank you. My name's Tracy Cody, 3251 Aurora Road. I want to address Mr. Atkins' question to the prior owner. Because they proposed 11 units on 14 acres, a rezone could not have been required on this RR1 property. I mean, how could it be required? That's back before us. Right, but it's there. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak for or against this item? Going once. Done. Okay, I'm going to close it, though, for public comment. Ms. Rozenka, you'd like to come back up? Jake, we might have some more questions for you. Good evening, Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Thank you for letting me speak again. Again, I actually don't know where to begin. There's so much to say. First, development's not allowed to flood its neighbors. This development can't flood Village Glen. There's absolutely no stormwater treatment or stormwater plan or drainage plan of any sort on this 14 acres at this point. This will fix that issue of no treatment and stormwater issues. Regarding the former owners, I've never seen that before, where they come and fight against who purchased it from them. That's new. But they never came before you. There was nothing in the staff report that said they tried to rezone it. They were going into the city. We're not doing that. We are trying to rezone here because, as they said, this property doesn't work for 11 units because there's got floodplains, they've got wetlands. In fact, this is in your packet, this is the wetlands map. Again, these are 1988 maps. They're not accurate. That's why people go and do their own new zoning. But if that area is wetland, you can't impact wetlands in Brevard County. You can in the city of Melbourne. We're not eligible to annex into the city of Melbourne. So that land can only be impacted 1.8% of wetlands, so 1.8% of 14 acres. So there is no way to impact wetlands. We are trying to work around the wetlands by having flexibility of smaller lots, of 7,500 square foot lots or greater. But, again, the best evidence is this land can't be developed with one-acre lots. You've heard that two, three times here today. And you've also heard that it's derelict land, that it needs to be redeveloped. Everybody, please, please, she didn't talk while y'all were talking. Let's be respectful. Thank you. So, again, we can't build homes over wetlands. There might be a way to subdivide the wetlands a lot. St. John's doesn't like that. It's not the best use. But you try to protect the wetlands and give them all upland buffers. The character of this area, well, first, let's talk about the zoning. That's what we're here for, Kim, just zoning. Yes, sir. That's the zoning map. Only one-third of the area around it is RR1, maybe a little bit more. But when you go south over Aurora Road, you have the RU17. You have to talk about the trailer park. That is the character of the area. They might not like it. They built there. But that is part of the character of the area. It's adjacent to it. It's land use adjacent to it. And that land use is 5.26 units per acre. That's 143 units and 27.2 acres. You have trailer parks to the south. You have trailer parks further to the west. So this is the character. This is the zoning. You have RU2 to the east. There were many people said, not RU2, sorry, EU2. There are many people that said, zone it less. How about EU2? We've taken it a step lower to RU111 to give the flexibility because of the challenges of this land. And let's talk about the character. They only want to talk about the rural lands, but there's a lot more out there than just rural lands. This is the pack. This is what's in your package. Defender Homes is there. This is the Fox Bay. Right here. No. Let me see. I'm sorry. I'm backwards. Where's the north? Right there. Fox Bay. Fox Bay. 1.15 acres, 0.33 acres. Those are not rural residential lots. Those are smaller lots. That's a subdivision. That's where most of these people are from that are complaining about this. Those that I saw were from Fox Bay. But you do see the smaller lots. You see the smaller lots all around it, and you see the mobile home parks, which are part of the character of the area. With that, I would ask that you look at the character of the surrounding areas, the five criteria that you are to look at. The staff report that said even for a higher requested density, we're not impacting any of the capacity, schools, or traffic. The site plan will require staff to look at what needs to be done, if anything, for turn lanes, improvements. Sidewalks will definitely be put in along the section of the road. Impact fees will be paid to assist with other improvements of the area. And with that, we would ask that you approve the rezoning to RU 111. Thank you. Kim, you might want to hang out there just a second. I'm going to bring it back to the board. We've already heard from the public. I would like to go. Ms. Deb, go ahead. So I, first of all, would like to say thank you to Ms. Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy, thank you very much for being here. I was a Melbourne City Councilwoman for eight years and termed off after two four-year terms. I do understand why we're here. And it is important to have a P&C. And it's important to have that here. It's important to have it in the City of Melbourne. I have sat before many meetings at the City of Melbourne just like this. And, you know, probably 90% of the time I've agreed with what the development was that was coming in. And I probably approved 90% of the time the developments that were coming in. That being said, my parents built in Carolwood Estates. They were the first home that built into Carolwood Estates back when Carolwood Estates opened. The character of the area is the character of the area of a rural area. It is meant to have one-acre lots per house. That's my opinion. And that is the way that I feel. I also do believe in development. I also do believe in developers for smart development and development that is important. The City of Melbourne does have a stake in this. They provide the water. Lake Washington is right down the road. We get our water from Lake Washington. That is extremely important. It's also extremely important for the runoff and what is going to happen there with that. That being said, it could be improved. It actually could be improved. I think Ms. Roslanka said that earlier. It could very well be improved. But we don't know that without having more information. At this point, I know early on we had the first speaker that came up that said that the residents did not have a meeting. And I don't know. I would like to ask the attorney. Was that supposed to happen or is that necessary? For the developer to have three sort of application meetings with the citizens? With the first person that came up and spoke and asked. No, ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a requirement. Okay. Not being a requirement. I would have loved to have that been a requirement and for you guys to have that opportunity. But the fact that right now the whole plan has changed from what was brought to us originally here on what we have read originally here, I don't want to say that I'm definitely going to give an answer one way or the other. But what I will tell you is that I think it's extremely important that we get these answers before we make that decision as a board. So as it stands right now, I would be a nay vote if the vote does go to a vote. I also believe that they should have the opportunity to come forward and explain exactly what they want to do and how they want to do it. And then you have the opportunity again to come and speak about it. So that is where I sit. Thank you. Ms. Kim, do you want to address that? That wasn't really a question, but this is not a PUD. This is a rezoning. We've met the criteria of the code. We don't have the engineering studies. We don't have the survey. We've said we want to do single-family homes of 7,500 square foot. Everybody, please. I've asked like four or five times now. Please. Thank you. So the wetlands have not been ground truth. There's no elevations. There's no tree survey. So zoning does not require a site plan or a plat. And so with that, I would ask that you allow us to go forward and rely on your staff, which is what all the staffs do, is to review and make sure we meet the code. And I would just like to say, to finish, I think that is true. However, I would also state that this has completely changed from what we've all received previously. Yes, Mr. John. Okay. I'm looking at the document here that we received that I studied before I come to these meetings when you were asking for an RU-2-6. Coming here today asking for an RU-111 is totally different. And we have not had time to research it, to get all the information necessary that that change would make. So I would ask for a continuance of this, and let's get some real information so we can determine exactly what your client wants to do, and then we can make a decent decision. Mr. Hoppingard, what information do you want that we haven't shared with you? I want it all. That we haven't shared with you today. What do you want? Well, you know, I mean, I don't have an opportunity to really think it through. I don't go through these, and, you know, I always object to you bringing things to the dais here for us to see right when you're making a presentation. I want time to think it through, to do my own research on every item that comes before me. This is also one of them that I would like to do that. I'd like to go a little in-depth, find out what's going on, what the impact would be with an RU-111. I don't know. So that's why I'm – and also, staff report is not based on RU-111. It's based on 87 units instead of 57. Maybe so. So – Maybe so. But they haven't commented on an RU-111. You're bringing in something else. Ask them. They have to take it back. No, necessarily. Not necessarily. I already spoke to staff on this. I would if I were they. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I tend to agree with you. Any other questions from the board? Yeah, I have a question, please. I want to ask you – it kind of related to the couple of comments that you heard. Would you be willing to return and come back with specifics, with your revised plan and impacts, or would you rather have a vote on a denial or approval? Well, sir, you need to tell me what you want, because the zoning code does not require stormwater plans, site plans, plaiting, or any of that. If you want us to do full engineering designs, no, we're not coming back with full engineering designs, sir. But that's the main concern of all the residents. But that's not zoning. That's not the law for zoning. Fine. Here again, we are an advisory board to the county commissioners. We're here for zoning. So, I mean, we need to make a motion, and we need to make a second, and the county commissioners are going to make the final decision. I mean – I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to deny the application. I second. Okay, we have a motion by Jared, a second by Eric, to deny on item H3. Four. Four. It's four. Four. I'm sorry. All those in favor for denial, say aye. Aye. Aye. We've got to finish up here, ladies and gentlemen. Help us out a little. Second. People did. Anyone opposed? Aye. Opposed to that. I mean, we asked the question of the applicant. Would they be willing to table it? What would they want to do? I don't know that Ms. Rezenk actually answered that question. I – well, I don't know that she did. I guess I would ask her to come back up and – would you prefer a tabling, or are you comfortable going forward with the denial of the commission? But my question – well, if I can keep talking. If I can – We had the motion, though. I know. I've already voted. All those in favor for denial, if you would. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Hold on. Ron. Aye. Aye. Jared. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I'll say nay. Oh, good. She had a chance. She had a chance. Yes, I know. I think they should have an opportunity to table up. You should do the names, though. Mark. Mr. Chair, what was your vote? I'm sorry, for the record? Nay. Nay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. They – we're putting names on it? Is that what we're doing? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Item H5. I'll leave. Mr. Chair, do you think we might want to take a few minutes? Yeah, let's do – take a break. Yeah, that's fine. We'll do a five-minute recess. Staff, we ready? Did anybody order food in? Ruth, that was your job. Someone could have bought us food from Longhorns, I'm just saying. You didn't, Trina? I didn't even go out to lunch. I ate lunch at my desk. It's working. Oh, that's dedication. I'll bring a whole Longhorn in here. Okay. Just the horn. He's talking about a real Longhorn. Okay, okay. Mark wants to get back. Okay, item H5 is Gunner Downs being represented by Jenna Tyndale requesting zoning classification change from GU to AU under application 26Z-00009 located in District 1. Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record and spell your last name. Gunner Downs, 6645 Miraflores. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do. I'm originally from Arizona. You know, I moved out here when I was like 17 and I was raised on a rural life and I've got six kids and we don't do good in a neighborhood. You know, we've got cows and stuff in Port St. John. So, we're trying to get out a little bit farther away and kind of live that rural lifestyle with the family. And that's the ultimate goal. So, I didn't know that with the current zoning, I didn't know that GU meant general use. I assume that's a pretty big term. That is not what it means. And apparently, you can't have gardens, animals, pretty much anything on there. So, that's what code enforcement said. So, we're trying to do a zoning change to hopefully move out there and be a little more rural, I guess. All right. While you stay there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Thank you. That was a stressful two hours. I'm closing it for public comment. Gunnar, I'm on your side right here now. Seeing that, I'm going to bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the applicant? I have questions about there's an active code case on this property? There was. For the having stuff on the property. For land clearing? Oh, yeah. That one. I'm currently dealing with that one. So, I got the property from a friend and there was already a lot of stuff done. And then there's a lady named Mary Hill. I guess she's made like over almost 200 complaints this last year on people for code enforcement violations. So, realistically, I think I just got caught up in it. And I guess changing zoning is also going to help out with that. It's going to change like what I can do to mitigate what I've already done or what I already impacted to it. It's going to like help, I guess, cover it and make it easier to deal with what happened. When did you purchase the property? Almost like maybe a year, maybe two years. Something like that. I just recently combined them. Do what? No, go ahead, Ruth. You got the floor. I didn't know you were done. Sorry. Because I think the original code case started in May of last year. Yeah, probably. Yeah. And then it continued on. It wasn't a small code case. It wasn't. And it's still open, unresolved? Yep. That one's still resolved. We're actually waiting on the zoning change. And to go for agricultural, I guess they, like if we go bona fide agricultural, then I guess that changes the options of where I'm at. I unknowingly combined the two lots together and what impact I did was so small compared to the size of the property. But when I combined the two together, it increased the impact. So that changed. I looked at the pictures previous and before you freely available on the property appraiser website. You can look year by year. And I'm generally in favor of agriculture. The agriculture, we need more of it in Brevard County and a lot more of it. I'm just generally concerned because I actually read through the very large code case on how that's going to negatively impact or possibly just getting that cleaned up for the neighbors. Oh, yeah. So like. And is running it to AU the solution to get out of the code case? Um, is that, is that what we're doing here? No, a big, a big part of it is it's going to, so I wanted to have, like I sold my house on Merritt Island. I had a house on North Merritt Island. I sold that house in order to go build something here and move on to something else. Cause I was in like a two bedroom mobile home with like six kids. So the whole goal was, was to sell that place and move on over to this place and build something new. So that's the ultimate goal. I didn't know that there was as much legal stuff, I guess, tied up into what you can touch and can't touch. So this was a option that was presented to me from who's the, who's the, the people, the natural resources, natural resources. So yeah, natural resources. This was a good thing they presented. They said, since you want to go for the agriculture pursuits already, that's something you already wanted to do in the first place. So like, if you go ahead with that, we do have other stuff that we can work with you on to kind of settle everybody, to make it happy for them, make it happy for me. So it kind of has a twofold thing. Okay. 2.5 acres, just shy of right about, right? It should be 2.65. Combined? Yes, I combined them. Yes. What were, what were the violations? For land clearing, I removed like four or five palm trees. I didn't know those palm trees. And then they, I mowed down like a bunch of pepper trees. A good percent of the whole front of the frontage that was on it was all pepper trees. I removed some palm trees and then she called about the palm trees. And that's really what set it off was the palm trees. What's that look? Oh, from the property appraiser website, if you look at it from last year or this year, it's pretty much tree lot to almost barren land. I'd consider that more than a couple trees. Sorry, my apologies for the fact. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So those were, those were all pepper trees. So the palm trees were towards the back. Okay. So if you go like down the side of the water, it's got key deer goes down from satellite and then it's got the canal. The palm trees were over here on the end, the end of the, end of where it's cleared. I left a good percentage of the palm trees. I didn't know it took out like maybe four or five of them or something. And that's what he actually said. He went back on the map and he's like, I can see where you removed the palm trees. He's like, we need to figure something out for it. And it was going to be something small, put back some plants. But once I combined the lots together, apparently that changed the whole entire dynamic of it. And I didn't think that would. So that's why it's such a big deal now. So that was the only code violation was the clearing. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And I get the Brazilian peppers. I get that. Yeah. Well, apparently you can remove the Brazilian peppers, but you still have to get a land claim permit. I didn't know. I was told they're invasive. You can just remove them. But you still need a permit to get rid of the root system. So your flow chart is to rezone it to AU and then apply for bona fide ag exemption. And then that clears out your code enforcement, right? Not all of it, but I'll still put stuff back. But that is what would satisfy a good portion of what they want. Land. And I can never get them put there. Can I make a motion to approve? Second. Okay. Item H5. We've got a motion by Ruth to approve. A second by Neal. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. I appreciate it, guys. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Item H6. Item H6 and H7. I'm going to read into the record together. They'll need a separate recommendation. Joshua Law and Jennifer Law request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment under 26S.03 to change the future land use designation from agricultural to res 1 to 2.5 acres under application 26SS00004, located in District 1. H7 is Joshua Law and Jennifer Law request a zoning classification change from GU to AU under application 26Z.00013, located in District 1. And I assume you're the applicants? Yes, sir. Joshua Law. Jennifer Law. LAW. And your address, please, sir. 3608 Ellis Lane, Mims, Florida, 32754. We have a Mims professional on our board. He's back there in the corner. I grew up next to her father. All right. Can you tell us a little bit, Joshua, about what you want to do here? I'm wanting to preserve Florida. I've bought every piece of property I can afford out there. And I've hit the same roadblock with this GU. I wanted to build a house. It's way out in the future. So I wanted to get power there so I don't have to tote water. My daughter's my young. This is the baby out of eight. I have six boys, two girls. And I want to preserve it for my children. It's going crazy. I'd walk about golf courses behind us. There's not an orange road left in Mims. And I've palmed for Mr. H. I've cut palms. I've shown my boys how I used to do it in high school and go cut palms. And, hey, this is how I used to go make money for spending money. And it's hard to get power there. They wanted, I was going to do it, zone it for residential. They wanted to put the tent pole there, pull a permit. It's good for a year. I don't know when I'm going to be able to afford to build a house there. But I'd like to be able to put a well there so I don't have to haul water for animals. Because my daughter, my youngest daughter, is five. And we have a horse. And she's showing a lot of interest in it. And we have the rails, the trails, right there by the property. So I don't have to haul a horse to the trail. All right. While you're right there, Mr. Law, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? All right. I'm going to bring it back to the board. Anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant? I have a question. There's currently a code enforcement case. Yeah, can you explain that a little bit? We started going there. I had a wetland mitigation done first, so I knew not to mess with any wetlands. I paid a third-party wetland mitigator. And then I had the certified arborist come down because all these trees on this property, or half of them when we bought the property were toppled over, tops blown out of them because they're all hollow. So I cut some trees down. And when the code violation happened, the code enforcer said she had pictures of live foliage. Well, FPL cut that tree down. FPL was just there a week ago, and they're taking pictures. Ash Flondo was there. And they're taking pictures of all these trees because they're a hazard, and they're going to try to get FPL to take them down because they're hazardous. And like I said, I have eight children. We love being out in the woods. I couldn't. When I was younger, my cousin's best friend's wife, they were walking in La Sita, and a tree limb fell out and killed her while she was pushing her infant baby at La Sita Golf Course. And I'll always remember that. So when I have my little kids out there playing in the woods, I'm looking around at all these trees that are broken off, and that's what it was. I didn't realize I needed to pull a permit to maintain the property. It says that it's still pending. It is still pending. So what needs to happen to have that not? They told me I was going to go in front of a general. I could file for a small land clearing permit, which was $400, which I'm a family of eight, single income. We're making it. I had $400 extra. It isn't in the budget right at the moment. And then so I said, well, what's the other thing? He said, you'll go in front of a general magistrate, and they'll do a land renourishment act. And I said, well, I don't have any money for a $400 permit. I don't know how I could ever afford to renourish. I haven't done a lot. I've stayed out of the wetlands, did all my diligence before. I did any trimming of any trees. And then I haven't heard anything else from the code, have not been informed, because that one came in a certified letter. Signed for it. Okay. You haven't reached out to them? Yeah. Should we be reaching out, I guess? Like, it's been so busy. I'll be reaching out, but. Yeah, we haven't. I haven't reached back out. But that's not what the intent of getting the AU. That's not to avoid code violations or anything. No, but before I say yes, you know, change it. If you already have a code, you know, violation on it, I would hope that there was a plan in place to fix the code violation. They can do whatever they want. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I'm willing to do, because I, like I said, I have wild orange trees growing all over this property, and I want to keep it that way. Okay. Mr. John. Yeah, Trina, could you clarify something for me? I remember back in 2019, the state passed a law that you don't need a permit to remove trees on your property. So I don't understand now. This is the second one that's come before us today, stipulating that they were in violation because they removed some trees without a permit. But the state had, I think it was 2019 that that came up. Can you clarify that for me, please? Yes, sir. Or Darcy. Ms. Darcy from Natural Resources. Hello, everyone. Yes, that's correct. The state requires an arborist to assess the condition of the tree, tree or trees, before trimming it or removing it if it's a hazardous tree. And the county code also allows the removal of hazardous trees. So. So do they need to get a permit? Well, it depends. Are all the trees hazardous or any of them exotics? I mean, there's a number of different things that come into play. But usually, if you have a hazardous tree, you can remove it if it poses an imminent threat. Okay. So if this gentleman had removed a few trees because he was afraid they were going to fall on him, isn't that legitimate without applying for a permit? And should he not be cited? Well, the state would require an arborist to confirm that. And no, I don't know every detail of the code case, but I would suggest that maybe we can meet with the laws to discuss the way they can resolve their code case. I think there might have been some wetland issues that maybe weren't addressed. But I need to familiarize myself with the case, but we can meet with you. We'll get with you on your way out. Okay. Thanks, Darcy. Appreciate it. No problem. There were wetland impacts. Yeah. Sorry. I was answering this question. There were wetland impacts. I have the report. There were. According to the code enforcement officer in this report that I have, yes. Okay. Didn't you? It does look like there was wetland impacts, but I don't know how far along. Again, when they serve a notice of violation to a property, there's still a process to go through to assess what impacts that happen at the property, if any. You know, we go with best available data when we send a notice of violation and then go from there. And it sounds like maybe we haven't had a chance to touch base on it yet with the code enforcement officer. Right, and I also, before I cut any trees down, the neighbor two doors down is a certified arborist, and I had him come down, and he said he could deem all the trees unsafe. I did not take all the trees out. And when I talked to the code violation guy, he made it sound like I should have, we're on a budget, if I would have just paid him the $5,000 that he wanted, then I wouldn't be having the problem with that code violation because the certified arborist, I would have gave him the $5,000 to cut these trees down and remove the brush, and then I wouldn't have a code violation because the arborist did it. But since me and my family, we were, we're building this together, me and my children, so I wasn't, I couldn't afford the money. I'd rather put my kid, take him to Disney or something with that money. You know, they haven't even been to Disney. I don't think he can. Not with that many kids. He's got five grand. Not with five grand. I know, but, you know, the money. We'll catch you on the, when you guys walk out after this item, we'll catch you and we'll touch base and we'll sort it offline. All right. Okay. I need a motion on H6 first. I have questions for staff. Go ahead, Ruth. According to the maps, all but the teeny tiniest little corner is either considered and or national inventory wetlands or St. John's River water management wetlands. And GU is one home per five acres, if I'm correct, right? And that is the restriction when you're building within a wetland. And so rezoning it to 1.25 to build a home and where the maps are showing it's all wetlands doesn't exactly allow it to build a home either. So what we would need to do is assess the age of the parcel. So if the parcel was established prior to 1988, they could still do a house access and septic. If it's a newer parcel than 1988, then we would be looking at probably having to do some restoration because you'd be limited to the 1.8%. Because my biggest concern is I'm pretty familiar with that area out there. And down the road, not that far, road and bridge routinely goes out and fixes where the entire road blows out due to drainage. And so if we start compromising the 1 per 5 acres in a wetland to 1.25, all those folks that live downstream, which I believe would be administrative policy 7 that applies to this, would be suffering due to the excess, like, by the time you develop all of these lots out, everybody just next door is going to be underwater and their roads aren't going to be drivable. And so this is my concern. Understood. And, again, they would just need to meet our code of either the 1.8% of the property area, which is not a lot of wetland impact. And if it's a very old lot, they are grandfathered in to be able to have it buildable for a home and access in septic. So we'll assess all that. It's a complicated issue when you have land clearing and you have wetland impacts and you have to go back and some of it is, like, kind of forensic. But that will all be addressed during the code case. And, you know, there may be some restoration that they may have to do. Well, I understand the code case. I'm talking about the rezoning in general because it's asking to go to 1, 2.5. And if we allow a home on half the acres that's required or we rezone it, giving the applicant the idea that he could build a home on 2.5 acres that's wetlands, that is not buildable because you have to have five. This has nothing to do with the code case. I'm asking about policy. Okay, so if you were to rezone it so that it's one unit on 2.5 and the whole thing is wetlands, it then is not buildable if it was subdivided after 1988. If it was an old lot, this is the policy in the code, so if the lot was in existence prior to our code, they would be able to have the ability to impact wetlands for house access and septic. And then they would also have to mitigate for all the impacts as well. I feel like that might be valuable information to have because, I mean, say we just unanimously voted to rezone this property, but it still doesn't mean that this guy is going to get what he wants. That's true. And he pays money to come up before us. I feel like this is valuable information so someone can plan their future. And that's up to you all to make that. It was originally platted in 1911 and then subdivided in 1984. And then you put it back together now, right? What do you mean? Three, what did you buy, three lots? No, it's all one. I bought it all at once. Oh, okay. It's 3.49 acres, one chunk. I have other properties there also because when I first started this process, the guy I was working with with the county said, try to acquire some more land around you to get your five. And it's, I got one, but it doesn't touch mine. So there's two in between mine. Which we'll probably pretty soon have. I'm working to try to get the best deal for it, but I want the property. I'm not trying to disturb anybody. I don't want to, I will do everything. It's going to be a long, long time before I build a house there. I just want to be able to have a well. And it wouldn't be on the front. Like the house would be when we got those two back acres, like in the very all upland. I don't want to mess any cypress swamp up. I don't want to, the natural, those orange trees are 30 feet tall. I'm not going to. Okay. But so that I can understand, to Ruth's point, so when it's that much wetlands, it's typically, you know, the restriction is different. It's not res 1.2.5. It's, you know, 1 per 5 acres, right? So that is policy. I just did what the county told me to do. Kyle Harris. Kyle Harris is the one that I originally started working with, and this is what he recommended I did. And then when I came to do the rezoning and actually sat down, the lady that worked with me, this is what she recommended I do. Right. I don't personally live there. I know that Ruth does, and so she's probably much more familiar with what happens there. To me, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but the policy is what the policy is as far as I understand with wetlands. Administrative policy seven talks about infrastructure and drainage issues. And that is my biggest issue, trying to digest some of this, is the people just to the west of that are already, their homes are surrounded by water and rain events. And so I think when the zoning, because let's be realistic here, the zoning maps didn't come from anywhere. Somebody put a lot of thought into our zoning maps long before we ever got here. They looked at this, and they said, this land out here is low, it's wetlands, and we're going to zone it to apply it as such to meet our code. Because if you have five acres and it's wetlands, you can build on it. GU is five acres. It's compatible. I think they put a lot of thought in it if you actually look at the plan. And when you start compromising that plan, that compromises other people's properties. And we are in a situation, most of MEMS is in a situation, that every whole new home that gets built out there is pretty much putting somebody else underwater. And there's no real easy answer for it. I'm not saying I have the answer for it. I'm just saying these are real things that have to be considered, and it's going to affect somebody downstream. I've got a motion by John. I need a second. Approved. Approved. I second. I've got a motion by John on item H6 and a second by Jared. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Ruth and Erica? All right. Good luck at the county commissioner meeting. You've got H7. H7. You have H7 to go. No, with them. Do I have enough information to go with you? No, I thought you'd want them to stay here. He had it home already. We're doing another one? Yeah, you've got a second. I've got zoning. I'll move to approve on the second. We've got a motion by John on item H7 and a second by Deb. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same two. Same two. Ruth and Erica. Okay, item H8. Okay, now item H8. I'm going to do Prima Construction Corporation and Daniel Carson. Kim Rizanka representing. Request a zoning classification change from RU 113 and RU 210 to RU 215. 26Z-00014, District 5. Good evening, Chairman, members of Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kim Rizanka with the law from Relay Series Rizanka. Melbourne, Florida here. Excuse me. May I interrupt? Hi, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recuse myself because I received a card, so I live very near to the property. So, yeah. That's fine. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, I didn't know where it was coming from. I didn't either. I was like, I'm going to go in. It's the other audience that came back. Again, Kim Rizanka with law from Lacey Rizanka in Melbourne, Florida here on behalf of DiPrima Construction Corp. and Daniel Carson. I put the map up just to show the property that has the home is Daniel Carson's home. The vacant land is DiPrima Construction's land. The existing home is RU 113 zoned. The vacant land is RU 210. There's Res 15 underlying both of those. Mr. Carson and DiPrima Construction have merged together. They plan to build one condominium complex. Single-family ownership, and this was the best way to do it. That house will be destroyed. Also, too, you can see from that picture that most of this is multifamily. Many of it is rentals. A good bit of it is single-family owned. The property immediately to the east is a single-family. It's a piece of property that's a 1952 home. It's 1,000 square feet. It's a widow's exemption. I mean, it's going to be redeveloped at some point, I would imagine. The property to the west has recently been rezoned, and site planned to RU 215. It's been site planned for eight units. It has not been built yet. So this area is mostly residential, medium-density residential, which is what we're seeking. We're seeking RU 210 and RU 113 to all RU 215. The staff report indicates that this area is predominantly medium-density multifamily, that there's RU 215. There's actually RU 230 to the south of this property, Palm Bay Colony. I'm not sure how that happened because it's under, Res 15 is underneath it. But so we believe that this is consistent with the character of the area. We do have a vacant land. I believe that it has been torn down. It was something else before that by the depriments. And so with that, we would ask that you rezone this to RU 215. Kim, while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience who want to speak for or against this item? Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. Board, do we have any questions for Ms. Kim? We do. I hate to do this to you, Kim, but I love that area. I have a friend who lives the next street up, Atlantic Street. And they're single-family homes. They're not just, it's not all multifamily. And there are some quadruplexes, and there are a couple, you know, duplexes and whatnot. But they're some very nice homes. Now, we're increasing the density on the barrier island. And furthermore, if we end up putting 17 units going out onto A1A, we're going to need a stoplight. I mean, it's the mess as it is. We've got all those flashing lights on A1A down there. I just don't see us increasing the density on the barrier island. And furthermore, once you get from Atlantic, you go over and you're at Holy Name. There's a church there. There's also a school, and there's a preschool there. So, by opening it up to have RU 215, we can have transient occupancy. We can have, you know, a lot of things, resort dwellings. I don't think it fits the neighborhood at all. And I don't think we should be increasing density. I don't think we're allowed to increase density on the barrier island. That's what I have to say. There is comprehensive plan prohibition on increasing the land use, but not the zoning. And I have looked at this area. I would say, yes, there is single family to the west. But in this area, the only single family adjacent is the one to the east, which is that very old house, which I discussed earlier. But the traffic issue is a non-issue, according to the staff report. But that is something that if it does trigger something, then a light would have to go up. But currently, right now, the corridor operates at 55.9 percent, 9.6 capacity, and will increase to 56.24 percent capacity. So, capacity is not an issue on A1A. And I do not believe this is in a coastal high hazard zone, so there's no prohibition on increasing that density either. So, I thought, according to the comprehensive plan, that there was absolutely no increasing the density on the barrier island because the other comprehensive plan that went through didn't go through. So, according to SB 180, we're not allowed to do that. This is not an area of critical state concern. But anywhere on the barrier island, I don't know. To me, and I've been down there on that road in that area, I don't like it. So, I know I'll be voting no. But thank you. Okay. To build off that, what is the evacuation to get off the island right now? Does staff know that? What is the evacuation time to get off the island, and what are the routes, and how does this add to that? I do not have that information. Because I feel like if we, without pertinent information like emergency evacuation, information saying that people can safely get off the island prior to a hurricane, I mean, it would be questionable for me to make a decision without knowing that information. I don't think I could do that. I don't think I could support that without that. If the rest of the board feels strongly about the evacuation route, I'm certainly willing to come back with that information that's available. Do you want to continue it? I don't want to continue it, but I don't want to denial either. Kim, we're talking about how many units are we talking? 18, 17? It could be 17. It will be 15 or less because of the open space requirements when you get to that. So, I mean, I don't, here again, we're zoning. I mean, we don't need to go for plans and, you know, engineering and all this. So, even 17 units, what have we got, two, three people per unit? It's about seven trips a day per unit. I have a question for staff. Yes, sir. Mr. John. Trina, did you guys get your comp plan approved yet? We did not. You have not. So, you're still sitting at 18 hours on the evacuation? If that is what was. That's what I recall. Yeah. I would have to verify that for you. I wouldn't want to answer it with inaccurate information, so. No, I understand. Okay. When do you anticipate the comp plan being resubmitted to the state? Won't it come back before us first? It will come back to you first. Right. Correct. So, what do you think? Another month, two months? I think we're looking into some options right now. What path we're going to take on that. Okay. So, you don't know. I don't know right now. Okay. Because we're getting into hurricane season. I'm just curious. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to move for approval. Got a motion by Deb. Second. I got a second by Henry on item H8. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Aye. No. Who's opposing? Ruth? Jared, John, and Erica. Everyone else is a yay. All right. Thank you. Item H9. H9, Robin R. and Maxine M. Bland and Tara Brosman, John Campbell representing. Request a zoning classification change from GU to RR1-26Z-00016. That's in District 1. Is the applicant here? Tired him out. Seeing that, we'll bring it back to the board. Make a motion to table. Sergeant. Continue. We should be able to make a pretty easy decision on this one. Yeah. Not here. GU to RR1? Yeah, but the applicant's not here. I'd rather... If they're going to use our time, they should use theirs, too. Yeah. I'd rather table it without the applicant. So that was my motion. Or continue it until next month, whatever the appropriate thing would be without the applicant. I need a second. We did. Second. Who did? Right there. John or Eric? Eric. I did. All right. Item H9 got a motion by Ruth, a second by John to continue until next month. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item H9 is continued until next month. Do you need a specific date on that, Alex? Yeah. That would be helpful if we know the next P&Z meeting. Well, I got the calendar. July 13th. What is it? July. Continue it until July 13th. Okay. Yes. Very good. Okay. Item H10. H10, recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, revisions to BCC 100, evaluation procedures for development proposals pursuant to the Live Local Act, which are not otherwise permissible. John, you got your questions ready? Yes, sir. I do. You got the floor. Go ahead. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a YIGBY, right? Yes, in God's backyard. Okay. I have a couple of questions. It's stipulating here that it's when the property is more than three acres. Okay. You have a statement on your page 485, which is Roman numeral 4, triple I. It states, can you get to that? I'll wait for you. The entire proposed development site? Yes. Okay. Got it. It says the entire proposed development site is on property that is more than three acres in size, comma, that the property is owned by a religious institution. I've got a problem with the comma, because if you leave the comma in there, it stipulates it's three acres in size. And I don't think that's what your intent was, because it makes it separate. So you want an and in there? Or, or, or, or. I do see that. I do see that. And I'm looking at the statute. The statute does not put a comma in. It says, is more than three acres in size and owned by a religious institution. Okay. So you're going to correct that for me? Yes, sir. Noted. Thank you, ma'am. Excuse me. Why, why does there need to be an and there? If there's an and in the next, I mean, it's, whether it is more than three acres, is owned by a religious institution, and has contained a physical house of public worship. So it is all three. Well, we don't have that one. I don't think you're reading about number 17? No. Okay. What's? No, that's another one. This one is 4, triple I. Excuse me. 4, yep. Article 4. From 485. D, triple I, on page 485. It's the same, it's the same composition. There's an and there, the third line from the bottom of that subparagraph, and that the And that the House of Public Worship will continue. So it has to be, all of those requirements have to be met. That's the question. Can't you do it less than three acres? Some of these churches, I received a map today from the State Housing Authority. They mapped everybody in our county, every church in our county, and they covered all of them, from the real small ones to the larger ones. And the question is, can someone with an active church, that's been around for 10 years, be able to develop it for affordable housing under Live Local if it's less than three acres? And that's what I wanted to clarify. I don't believe that's the intent of this legislative change. It does say, is more than three acres in size and owned by a religious institution. Okay, if you're saying it that way, then you could say, okay, it's not a religious institution, it's just three acres, right? I would still group it together. It has to be more than three acres and a religious institution. So why isn't it stipulated a religious institution greater than three acres, greater than or equal to three acres, and did it that way? This is kind of backwards. Can you take a look at it? Sure, we can look at it, but yeah, I'm not necessarily tracking. I'll tell you why. The state came out with mandatory and voluntary, okay? In the voluntary, it's less than three acres. What chapter of Florida law or section of state statute are you referring to? You would ask me that, wouldn't you? Well, it would be helpful if I look into it. So then we can verify that we're either correct or correct. Off the top of my head, I don't remember. But I can't give that to you now. I don't have it. Do I have it here? I have here a copy from them on how the two Yigby laws compare with local option and state mandate. Would you like to see that? I can give you that. Yeah? You want it? No, don't get up. So if I can just clarify, the Affordable Housing State Statute 125.01055, subsection 7A, which I believe is the basis of these changes that we're discussing now, the language that the legislature included states that the property has to be more than three acres in size and owned by a religious institution, which has contained a house of public worship for at least 10 years before the proposed development. Yeah, that's what I had read also. Right, so more than three acres. Okay, that's the mandatory. Okay. Okay. And the permissive? The permissive was less than three acres. Okay, what house bill or state statute can you find that? It could be Live Local 3.3 or something, because they're up to, what, version 4 now? I mean, unless you want to state this as mandatory only, and then when we get into the voluntary part of it, it'll come back as a different ordinance, because you're trying to comply with the state. I understand that. Sorry, Mark. We don't have that in our records. We have the 2025 and 2026 spreadsheet of all the changes that are applicable to zoning, and we don't see it in either year, but we can go back and do some more research. We can go back tomorrow, if you want. Okay. Okay? Because I don't want to hold us up, because we've been here all day. Sure. Thank you. Okay. So, you want to table this until, or how do you want to do this? Well, we can always make it conditioned on if what you're proposing, it being less than three acres, if that language turns out to be what the state statute was or whatever the bill was, then we can incorporate that with the recommendation brought to the board so it doesn't get postponed another month, we can make it. Okay. You want a deadline? Or you want a deadline to get this thing back to the state? This is BCC policy 100. This is just for internal purposes. Just for in-house? Okay. This is just for our own internal purposes for processing. Okay. So, there's no rush on it, really? You just want to comply? The rush would be that the state law requires that things be put in place sooner rather than later, right? So, the quicker we can put something in place, the better it'll be for staff as well as applicants. Okay. All right. I'll get it for you tomorrow. If we were, if the clock didn't say 6 o'clock, we could have gotten it for you earlier. By the way, this did not come to AHAC. I was surprised. We didn't get it. My committee didn't get a chance to look at this. It was only me. Again, it was sent to Juanita. We actually met with her as well, so it was approved by housing. Billy Prasad made sure that we coordinated with housing on this. All right. I will get this back to you. So, Mr. Chair, my recommendation would be that if the board is good with the language that has been presented by staff, we can move that forward subject to Mr. Hoppinggarden providing us with the additional statutes or whatever that have been passed. Staff will incorporate that in whatever we present to the board. All right. So, I'll approve that motion as you stated. Can you read that back to me? Sure. I think Ms. Amato has a point to make first. Okay. Yeah, I do. Five. Monitoring compliance and enforcement. B, the county manager or his or her designation shall have the authority to require a land use restrictive agreement in order to ensure the development maintains affordability requirements under the Live Local Act. My question would be, it says they shall have the authority. Is that going to be a requirement or the county? It's already a requirement. We coordinate with housing on all of our affordable housing site plans and they work with housing to do the lure. Right, but this is the county manager, her designate. So, I'm guessing you guys are the designee if you're working with them. Right. My question is, does this give the, does this mean you have to require a land use restrictive agreement or is this saying that it's up to the county manager's discretion on which one to get this agreement or not, I guess is my question. If it says shall, that means that. He shall have the authority. Right. He doesn't say he shall have to do it. He has the authority to do it. We require it right now for all of our affordable housing projects that come in under the Live Local Act. Again, we coordinate with housing and work with the applicant to get the lure done before development is approved. And my other, the other thing I had a question about is, I understand that this is complying with state law. I'm not arguing with state law whether I agree or disagree with it. Um, however, having to deal with this because this is going administratively behind the scenes and is not going to come before this board or the commission, basically it's put blindfolds on the public as to what's actually going on in their areas unless they, until somebody breaks ground and they're like, what the heck's happening, right? Because they're not getting notices for 500 feet. They're not having meetings to come to you. So there's, the public is absolutely blind to this. Is that correct? The state law specifically says that it's not required for rezoning. Um, so they don't, there's no requirement for them to have any hearings for this. If they have a commercial zoning or industrial zoning, they are allowed, they are permitted to do this. And I'm not arguing with state law. I'm asking if that was a correct statement. That, that, that is correct. They, they, they, they are not required to come, come before you. Dan, this is probably an unpopular thing, but I'm going to say it anyways. I don't think it's right on any level for the public to be blinded by anything going on in their neighborhoods. And we cannot fight the state on, and the state has told us what we have to do. My recommendation would be to find a way to create a public facing website with just the information on the projects that are going on that stays up there. So the public can see what they're not allowed to have a voice on. I think the public should have, be able to see what's going on, even if they don't get to have a voice on it. And, um, I, that way the true impacts of what this is doing can be seen because if the public doesn't know what's going on, they don't know what the projects are until after the fact, the problems will occur. And no one's going to know about it until the damage is way beyond done. And I realize that's a big ask, but that would be what I would recommend. Mr. Chairman. Ruth, I agree with what you're saying on one part. However, because, because you're right, freedom of information, we need to know what's going on. This is only industrial and commercial properties. It's not like it's in somebody's neighborhood. Doesn't it include mixed use as well? It does. It does include mixed use. So in commercial zoning, you can do a mixed use. Right. You can do residential and commercial. I just think the public got to know what, what's going on. And there's not that I know of a current way to do that unless you actually know about the project and then choose to do a public records request. Because while BAS is great and there have been some improvements, oftentimes after approvals get done, that information disappears off BAS and then it's no longer available to the public. So I just think the public got to know what's going on in their backyard. That's, that's all I had. Interesting. Is there a way to notify by ordinance the public that we're doing a live local project? Just all of them, you know, that come around? No, Alex? Well, I'm just thinking practically what would be the benefit of that anyway? I mean, if it's an administrative process and okay, your neighbor knows what can the county do about stopping it if it checks all the, you know, the requirements under the statute. That's true. You're right. But again, it gets rid of home rule where we don't have an opportunity to have 500 people show up, but that's, you know, because they came for us. But when you have a situation where nobody knows, it goes up and live local. But like I said, it's industrial and commercial. It's not really in somebody's backyard, which may not have an effect. But just the secrecy of it that Ruth's speaking about makes you question it. That's all. I mean, it doesn't, I mean, obviously there's no hearing. There's no nothing to be done. It's just a notice that this has been administratively approved. And maybe, I mean, maybe a thought is you still do it for the 500 feet around the project, but it's not a notice for a hearing. It's just a notice that this has been administratively approved and this is going to happen. And at least some people know that it's going to happen. I mean, at least it's the neighbors know, right? I don't know. It was just where my head went. Yeah, you can't stop it. Where do you stop? It's called transparency, isn't it? She's looking for. You have an interesting point, Ruth, really. Yes, ma'am. You've got the North Merritt Island woman over here that wants to. Can you have public comment? You can have comment on it. Public comment? Ma'am, would you like to speak for or against this item? Okay. For this item? Yes, sir. If you could come back up to the podium. You know the drill. Yes. That's interesting. Mary Hilberg, H-I-L-L-B-E-R-G, through 3780 Sierra Drive in Merritt Island. I've been getting quite a few calls and emails, relatively frantic, about this issue, which is not anything that you can stop or do, I understand. Right. But this issue, and they do feel blindsided, because in North Merritt Island, we have one road, State Road 3, which is a state road, not your road either. And it's completely lined with commercial and industrial, and everyone's thinking, oh, my goodness, we're going to have huge apartment buildings lining the whole corridor down through the middle of the community. Maybe, and I keep telling them, I don't know, I don't know. I'm looking it up thinking, oh, my God, I don't know, I don't know. But I would say that someone needs to speak to let the community know that this has been done. It is done. It's not, you're not being asked to approve it or not approve it. It's done. Is that correct? Mary. Yes, sir. You know, North Merritt Island is sort of gossip-driven. Be up there, has a tendency to create stuff that really, you know, you say, I get so many calls, you think you get some? I get a bunch of calls. Well, I hear they're going to put this. Where'd you even get that? You know, nobody's, I try to stay up with the development on that end, and some of the stories you hear, I mean, there's going to be two new car lots and a bus station. So, I don't know at what point. Well, this is about the local act. Yeah. This isn't a gossip. Well. Well, we're not set up for apartments either. Oh, I understand. I mean, you can defend that immediately. The zoning is not there. So, what are they, are they going to be condos? Are they going to be hotels? I mean, people are asking me, what is, what are they talking about? Because I know we don't have any choice. So, I don't know. Okay. Ms. Dab. I think that at this point, you know, that's out of our control, out of the county's control. I think it's already been passed. Different things can happen. You have to remember and take into consideration that this has to be something that's viable for a developer, right? That they're going to make money. So, I don't think it's going to happen like you think it is. It's very unfortunate that home rule is not being allowed to be the way it is. But, also, there is a huge cost to putting information out via letter, via, you know, I mean, can the county commission state that when it's publicly out there? Yes, they can state that on TV. But how many people are watching? The same thing with sending a letter. A letter is probably a large cost if you start to think about the county and how many, the county, they couldn't just send it for one area. They'd have to send it for all areas. Because that would be the only fair thing to do. And there's a huge cost to that. That's true. And so, you know, it's sort of a dilemma. I agree it would be nice for everybody to know, but I'm not sure that's viable. Imagine, in this time of technology, we might be able to communicate without stamps and letters. We might be able to. I'm thinking that you could put it on a website someplace, right? I bet there has to be some way to have this information. Give the information to the local paper that everybody doesn't get the paper, but they get it online. A lot of people get it online just to keep track of things. So it wouldn't be a bad thing to do. Could you put it on the county website? Could you have, like, a thing like, what's happening in your neighborhood? People don't go to the county website. That's scary. I do. But I get scared going on it, so it's okay. You could still put notices up on the electronic notice, like, I forget what it's called. But the county has a, where they notice their website, their meetings and whatnot. People go to look at it. I can't think of the name off the top of my head. I'm sorry. It could be noticed there. And to the expense thing, the county's already sending notices for these hearings, only there's not going to be hearings. So the cost would just be the same as sending the same letters to the same 500 feet in the same area. That's different, because the applicants are paying for a zoning hearing, so they're using that money to pay for it. Well, in addition to being informed and being fair to everybody, it isn't even fair to, I imagine it wouldn't be fair to even the folks who own the property that could be used for that if they don't know that it's happening, unless all the property owners are being told. Is everybody in commercial and industrial being told this, or are they, word passes, or I don't know how that goes. But, you know, anyhow, my community is very interested and very protective, and it's not gossip. They're very protective, and they're very protective of each other and their area, yes. I think it's a great suggestion. I don't know where to take this suggestion to get it put onto the website, right? There's an affordable housing project going on here or whatever. Well, just the fact that this has passed, and it is in, you know, if I were going to buy a home behind a three- or higher-story building, and I ever wanted to see the sunset, I wouldn't buy a home there. If I knew that that was possible, I would buy it somewhere else. You know what I mean? I mean, it's not just for the properties there. It's for the people around. And, you know, it's just not a bad idea to let everybody know. And then if the 500 people come, then they come. They love you, you know. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Can I make a motion to approve with recommending that they look at a way to notice people in the vicinity of 500 feet of projects that have been administratively approved? Is that viable? I mean, anything can be done. It's just at what cost. It's up to the board to make the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. It's up to you all. Yeah, it's all it is. It's a recommendation that they look at it. We are. Can I ask you a question? What's – I guess we need a second first. No, no. We haven't started yet. Okay. She just started with – I guess my question would be, what is the cost of that typically range? To do, like, mailers, courtesy notices? No. For the 500? Just the – 500 feet. Is there, like, a range? Yeah. Like, from 500 to 1,000 or from 100 to 500? Just depends on the location of the property in question, right? If you're in a highly dense area, you're going to have more notices. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I agree with you. Regular postage? Just regular postage, so price of a stamp. Staff time. Staff time. I think we pay a flat fee. Printing. I think that would pay a flat fee when we do site plans or things like that to you guys, and then the postage is on top of that. So, what happens is she prepares all of the notices. They go to the mail room. They do that, and then they send a bill afterward. But administrative services doesn't get the bill, so we don't get to see what it costs to send out those mailers and notices. So, I would advise, since I don't know what the cost of something like that is, I would advise then that if this is approved with that, that you maybe look that up before taking it to the commission so the commission can look at what the cost of that is as well to make sure to see whether they want to spend taxpayer money on that or not. Are there fees associated with a live local application? Staff time. That's all? Is it an application fee? Yeah, and that would go through the site plan, but, you know, staff time of having to review it, make sure it meets the criteria. Trina, that's not what I was asking. Okay. Is there a set fee, like if someone wants a zoning change, it's an X amount of money they have to pay for that application. Is there one also for a live local? No, not a set fee, no. Ah, okay. Right. So, it's charged on an as-used basis? It's based on whatever the site plan fees are. Okay. Site plan, subdivision fees, that's what it's based on. Okay. Craven's nodding his head. It should be a site plan, yeah. It'd be a site plan thing. Okay. So, I was just thinking maybe it could be, the fee could be upped in order to include what it would cost to notify the surrounding area that that is being applied for. Yeah, there just usually has to be a legal basis of what charges you're assessing to the applicants, right? So, in this case, it's not legally required that that fee gets incurred by the applicant, right? We're adding something additional that wouldn't otherwise be required. So, that's something that we don't have to do. That's a good neighbor policy. But I think that you couldn't charge that to the owner either, to the developer. And then 180, but kind of lock us in anyways. Kind of lock us in to not doing it, yeah. And I think it's an interesting concept because she, you know, Ruth's right in what she's stating. So, I don't like hidden stuff in government. How do you imply it? That's the hard part. Yeah. I would like to make a motion that we approve this with, we recommend approval of this item with recommending that the commission look at either electronically or mailing notices to people that will be affected by the administrative approvals. I will second. Within the 500-foot area? Yes, within 500 feet of whatever a normal notice would be. I will second that. Okay. We have a motion for item H10 from Ruth for approval. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Item H11. Last but not least, H11, request for recommendation draft ordinance amending Chapter 62, Brevard County Code of Ordinances, Land Development Regulations, specifically amending Section 62-1102, Definition and Rules of Construction, and 62-305, Reasonable Accommodation Standards and Procedures, as well as creating a new section of Brevard County Code, Section 62-305.1, entitled Certified Recovery Residences. Okay, I'm going to open it up to the board for discussion. Question. Mr. John, go ahead. Does this include halfway houses? This includes any type of residence that would be considered somewhere where there's a clean and sober environment. Okay, I'll rephrase the question. Does this include halfway houses? Is staff involved in halfway houses? I mean, sometimes you are. No, I mean, if you've been locked up. Staffing of a halfway house. There couldn't be any staff living there. Right. I mean, any nursing, nurses' assistants. No, I was worried about, you know, prisoners coming back out of jail, that kind of halfway. Because this is mostly for people with disabilities, people with drug problems, right? And I was just wondering if there were convicted felons that are being released, would this also include them? I don't know that they would qualify or fall into the definition of the intent of this. The intent is— It could be a prisoner with a drug problem. It could be. It could very well be. So the intent behind it, obviously, is so that people can find a place to live where they're in a clean and sober environment with other folks. So if it's someone who just got out of prison and they had a drug problem, I guess, you know, it's no more than how it was explained to me. If you had an apartment or a house and you're a college student and you want to have some roommates in your house, it's essentially what this is. It's a bunch of people living together, trying to create an environment for them to be able to stay clean and support each other. So does this come under group homes? This does not. Oh, so it's a separate and independent? It's an independent. Anybody could do it in any neighborhood in any house. It's not something that they need to come in and apply with us for. This is put in place so that if there was ever an issue, they would come in and request a reasonable accommodation. I believe that maybe there had been some other maybe counties or municipalities that were kind of restricting these things. And so since the state is trying to help people with like opioid addictions and such, they put this into place so that they have somewhere that's safe where they can fully recover. And how is this monitored? We don't monitor this. It's not required to be monitored. So you're essentially putting in a neighborhood a home that's full of prior drug users? I mean, we are not. Again. No, I mean, you're allowing it. It's not that you're doing the physical thing. Right. I mean, anybody can rent a home or apartment anywhere. We can't. Yeah, but now you're creating a conglomerate. We can't, you know, there's no regulations against that. We can't prohibit that. It's like a commune in the 60s. And now it's worse. It's worse than that. And is this required? Are we changing this because of state law? Correct. Yes. This is, yeah, state legislative change. But one of the things that I noticed or I looked up, and I might be wrong, but that you do not have to be a United States citizen to get any of these services. You can come in and say that you need accommodations, and you can get accommodations. You do not have to be a U.S. citizen. Are they, so we're not allowed to restrict where these places go? Is that the idea? Correct. So they can just put them right next to the school, daycare, parks, we're good. Your house. Again, we can, we cannot restrict where people move in and decide to be roommates with each other. I look at it because there is a park down where, in North Brevard, and there is a facility very close to it. And all I can say is it's not super comforting when the police get called and there's somebody who's run away and there's all kinds of crazy things. And your 15- or 16-year-old kids are at the park and you don't know where they are and what's happening. It's just, it doesn't feel like there was a lot of thought. And I understand we don't have a lot of say. It's just concerning. I think we do have a lot of say, but I just don't think we have a lot of say here. I think we talk to legislation and our house representatives, right? That is where we have some say, no? No, I don't think we should let it happen. Because what essentially they're doing is they're putting these oases of houses within the neighborhoods where there could be a problem. Okay? And especially when it's not just one individual. It's a group of individuals. And not everybody can stay clean and sober at any one time. And, you know, the police can be called on numerous. I know it's state, but I can fight the state too, right? That's what I'm saying. I'm for home rule more than anything. And for somebody in Tallahassee to tell me that I have to allow the house next door to be a halfway house for drug offenders who are trying to clean their act up, it's all very nice. But I don't want it. So are what you, let me understand what you're saying. Are you saying deny this, let it go back to the commissioners, and the commissioners could choose at that point to try to take legal action of some sort if they did not want to go forward with it? Let them do what they do without us giving an okay to it, you know, because I don't think it's right. How many people can live in these homes? There's no limit. Oh, yeah. Is there an occupancy requirement? And are they still subject to zoning in these homes and sizes and limitations? Yeah. I mean, the property itself has to meet the zoning and be consistent with the comp plan. But, again, it's just not something that they come in and apply for with us. But they don't have to be certified through the state, though? Well, it's voluntary. I get it. Interesting. Yeah, if you look at Chapter 397. I saw the certification. I missed the voluntary part. I apologize for that. Yeah, it says voluntary certification of recovery residences. Everybody fall asleep on me. Let's go. I move to deny. Second. Second. Okay. On our last item, we've got a motion by John to deny, a second by Jared. All those in favor to deny, say yay. Yay. Yay. Any opposed? It's funny parties. I've been waiting a long time to say this. Meeting adjourned. Oh, my. Thanks, Mark. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor, and are solely those of the presenter. The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida.