black bears, and red-cockaded woodpeckers. All right, if everyone would please stand. And Mr. Jordan, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? States of America, on nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, this is the Planning and Zoning Board slash local planning agency. It's an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners who will make all the final decisions on these items. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on November 5, 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 comment on agenda items will be given two minutes. Please spell your last name for the record. At this time, if any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application, please disclose so now. All right, seeing that, I ask for a motion for the approval of the P&Z minutes from September 14, 2026. I move. Second. Got a motion by Mr. Jordan, a second by Deb. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That pass unanimously. Item H1. Item H1. David S. Minnick and Norman D. White request zoning classification change from RU-1-13 to AU-26-Z-00035 located in District 1. Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could come up to the podium, state your name, spell your last name, and if you could just stay close to the microphone. So, okay, it's Donald Minnick. They got it as David Minnick, M-I-N-N-I-C-K. All right, and a little bit about what you're wanting to do, Mr. Donald. All right, I'm wanting to split the 12-acre parcel into two parcels, and that's it. I'm wanting to rezone where it would be agriculture. That way it would meet the size requirement. All right, well, sir, while you're right there, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? I'm going to close it to public comment then. I bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Chair? Yes, ma'am. Moving to from the agricultural use, are you using it to divide for single-family homes or for actual agricultural use? It's just two single-family homes, which they would be allowed to do. You mean chickens have a bigger barn or whatever. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant board? Mr. Chairman, this request is consistent and compatible with the surrounding area, I believe, and so I move that we recommend approval of this zoning change with the BDP to restrict it to two living units. Okay, I got a motion by Ron, a second by Robert. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passionately. Good luck at the commissioner's meeting. All right, thanks. All right, sir. See you, Paul. Item H2. Item H2. Thank you, Judd and Sylvia Joseph, request zoning change and classification change from BU-1 with BDP to BU-1 with removal of existing BDP in addition of new BDP. Application 26Z00030 is located at District 1. This item was held also at the last P&Z and I'll come back for today. Is the applicant here? Yes, if you could come up to the podium, state your name and address, and spell your last name, please. I'm C-G-S-I-J-I. Can you get as close as you can to that microphone? I'm C-G-S-I-J-I. First name, last name J-O-S-E-P-H. Joseph. Okay. And a little bit about what you're wanting to do. Okay. Good afternoon. I am C-G-Joseph. I want to thank the board for allowing me to speak. My husband and I have two children, and we are hardworking, good-fearing Christian family. Last four years, our neighbor called county and court enforcement many times complaining about light, noise, dust, things like that, which are not our control. Our privately owned land is not public property. The association has no legal right on it. The association members call us criminals in front of many people, including our lawyer. They told us color people as neighbor bring down the property value lot. The association members want to know how we made money, why we bought without survey, did we pay cash, question like this. We feel it is harassment and hate crime. They have built a steel fence encroaching two feet into our property as per the latest survey which we have. They need to remove the steel fence for us to build a missionary wall. We are American citizens expecting equal treatment like everybody else. No special treatment required. We will always follow the county code and rules, and we expect them to do so, too. We respectfully ask the board to bring this matter to a fair conclusion. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Sir, was you wanting to say something? I mean, I'm the attorney that my client referred to. Could you state your name and address also, please, and spell your last name. Okay, my name is Greg Jean Denis. I address 47 Anchor Drive, Indian Harbor Beach, Florida, 32937. And what was the other matter you wanted? Just spell your last name. That's the only thing. All right, the last name, and it's spelled on the hearing notice, but it's J-E-A-N hyphen D-E-N-I-S. Okay. Now, is there anyone in the audience who want to speak for or against this item? All right. If y'all could just grab a seat right here, let's stay close. And if we could, while you're speaking, you're going to get two minutes. You know, let's don't, everyone, please don't say the same thing the person right in front of you just said. Because we know about traffic. We know about lowering the prices. We know about design to build stormwater, et cetera, et cetera. So who would like to start us off? Sir, you'll lead the pack. If you could state your name and spell your last name for the record. Is this on before I start? It should be. Yes. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Morgan, M-O-R-G-A-N. I'm the chairperson of the Twin Lakes Association Cocoa Botanical Gardens Committee. This photo shows where the buffer between Twin Lakes and the garden was removed right in this area here. On behalf of the Twin Lakes Residents Association and our 47-home community, I'm here to follow up on our September 9th letter, opposing zoning application 26Z-00030. At the board's suggestion, representatives of Twin Lakes met in good faith with the owners of Cocoa Botanical Gardens and their attorney on October 1st in an effort to find common ground. No new proposal was presented at that meeting. The applicants continued to seek a reduction of the 100-foot buffer to 25 feet with a masonry wall. During the meeting, our residents were called racist for the second time and threatened with legal action over alleged harassment. We categorically denied these accusations, and no agreement was reached. Following the meeting, the applicant's attorney submitted a written proposal. It provides for a six-foot masonry wall and a replanting of at least 25 feet of buffer with an unknown number of trees, followed by a later evaluation of noise, lighting, and air pollution impacts. At the review by our special committee and board, Twin Lakes respectfully declined the proposal. We appreciate that the applicants put their proposal in writing, but it does not materially change the proposed proposal already presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. The 25-foot buffer and masonry wall had already been proposed. Most importantly, the proposal still reduces the existing protected buffer from 100 feet to 25 feet and leaves unresolved the status and use of the remaining 75 feet. Twin Lakes does not believe an existing protection should first be eliminated and then its impacts evaluated afterward. Thank you for your time and your consideration for your service. All right. Thank you, sir. Sir, if you could state your name and spell your last name for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Brad Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, and I am... That's my fault. Sorry about that. Oh, it's only two seconds. All right. We're good to go now. I'm a resident of Twin Lakes and a member of the Board of Directors. This photograph here is from the North Twin Lakes cul-de-sac, and you can see where the existing buffer still exists, and then here's where the buffer was removed. This is from South Twin Lakes cul-de-sac. Again, over here is where the buffer still exists and where the buffer was removed. And this is a picture that shows how exposed we are to US-1, this storage area, and here's where the buffer was removed, this whole area right here. The fundamental issue has not changed. The 100-foot buffer was protected, has protected the separation between the commercial property and our residential neighborhood since commercial zoning was approved in 1982. For decades, that protected area contained substantial natural vegetation, including what long-time residents described as centuries-old oak trees. The natural vegetation has now been removed, and portions of the protected area are currently being used for nursery plantings and storage. We recognize that mature woodland and centuries-old oak trees cannot simply be replaced, but the removal of that natural vegetation should not become the reason for permanently reducing the protected area by 75%. Nursery plantings are not the same as permanent vegetative buffer. Nursery plantings are commercial inventory that can be moved, sold, or replaced. A protected buffer provides lasting separation between commercial activity and neighboring homes. Meaningful vegetation can be restored and grow over time. Once the protected land is given up, however, it will never be recovered. My name is Michelle Parker. I'm a Twin Lakes resident, last name P-A-R-K-E-R. Good afternoon. I'm a resident of Twin Lakes, and my home is adjacent to the buffer zone that is still in place, providing protection from the Emerald Island nursery behind my property. This photograph is on North Twin Lakes Road and shows where the remaining buffer is still in place. The original masonry wall requirement should also be restored. The history of the masonry wall is particularly important. In 1982, the 100-foot buffer was established as a condition of the commercial zoning. A 6-foot solid masonry fence wall was also otherwise required between commercial and residential properties. The commercial property owner subsequently asked the county to waive the masonry wall requirement because the required 100-foot buffer consisted of dense, natural woodland. The county granted that request through V1236, permitting the 100-foot natural vegetative buffer in lieu of the required 6-foot masonry wall. This waiver was granted with support from over 145 residents of the area at that time. That natural vegetative buffer, the basis upon which the wall requirement was waived, is now gone, decided solely by a singular business owner, without regard for residents, any of the residents. For that reason, Twin Lakes is requesting that the application be denied. They're requesting that the county retain the full 100-foot buffer, require meaningful vegetation to be restored within it, and require the masonry wall that the natural vegetative buffer originally allowed the property owner to avoid. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Beth Cavallaro. I'm a resident of the Twin Lakes and a member of the Board of Directors. This picture shows where the 100-foot protective buffer was removed along the west property lines. Yes, Beth, one second. Could you spell your last name, please? C-A-V-A-L-L-A-R-O. Thank you. This picture shows where the 100-foot protective buffer was removed along the west property lines between the Cocoa Botanical Gardens and the Twin Lakes subdivision. This decision will affect our neighborhood for decades. This application is not simply about Cocoa Botanical Gardens or how this property is being used today. Owners change, businesses change, the zoning protection remains. A future commercial use could bring very different hours, lighting, noise, deliveries, equipment, traffic, and activity. If the county reduces the buffer from 100 feet to 25 feet today, future residents of Twin Lakes will live with that decision regardless of who owns or operates the commercial property. The question is therefore much larger than whether 25 feet of replanted vegetation and a wall might accommodate the current nursery. It is whether the county should permanently eliminate 75 feet of existing protection between commercial property and an established residential neighborhood. This concern extends beyond Twin Lakes. Our position has received support from neighboring residential communities, including Brookhill, Parkchester, Sable Chase, Briarwood Manor, City Point, High Point, and Point View Place. These communities recognize the broader importance of maintaining long-standing protections between established residential neighborhoods and adjoining commercial property. A decision to substantially reduce this long-standing protection could also affect how similar protections are viewed when other residential neighborhoods adjoined commercial properties. I think it's ironic that a business who calls themselves Botanical Gardens would knowingly and purposefully remove a 100-foot buffer of canopy of 6- to 60-foot trees that are decades old. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. If you'd state your name and spell your last name for the record. Hi, it's Megan Riker, R-Y-K-E-R. Hi, I'm a full-time licensed real estate agent in the area for eight-plus years here in Brevard County, and I'm here today to strongly oppose the application. This photograph shows where the removed buffer exposes Twin Lake residents to light noise from commercial entities along US-1. I want to bring back to the central issue. We have an existing binding development plan with a 100-foot protective buffer for a reason, to protect the residents, the character of the neighborhood, our quality of life, and our property values. We are asking the county to uphold those protections, not weaken them. Specifically, we ask that the full 100-foot buffer remain in place, that meaningful vegetation be restored, that the masonry wall requirement be reinstated because it was waived based on the existence of the natural vegetated buffer, and that commercial and agriculture operations be prohibited within that protected area. The applicant's lack of due diligence when purchasing the property, including the failure to adequately verify the existing restrictions and boundaries through a survey, should not become the responsibility of this neighborhood or justify altering a binding development plan. What is the point of having a binding development plan if we're going to just do what we want? Reducing this buffer from 100 feet to 25 feet is not a minor change. It fundamentally reduces the protection between commercial and agriculture activity in our homes. It raises legitimate concerns about noise and character of our neighborhood, potential exposure to agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, and long-term impact on property values. The residents of Twin Lakes should not have to sacrifice the protections that have existed for more than 40 years because new owners fail to do their due diligence. For these reasons, the Twin Lakes Residents Association respectfully asked the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend denial of zoning application 26Z-00030 and uphold the existing binding development plan, preserving the full 100-foot buffer and protections it was intended to provide in addition to the masonry wall that was waived due to the vegetation that was removed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Nancy Brock, B-R-O-C-K, and I live in the Twin Lakes neighborhood. My home is next to the property, directly adjoining the Cocoa Botanical Gardens. This picture shows where the 100-foot buffer was removed and converted into an inventory staging area for the business. For me, this isn't an abstract question. The destruction of this area has increased the level of noise and light pollution from the adjoining commercial properties to an intolerable level. I watched in disbelief as the Cocoa Botanical Gardens took down mature trees, not once, but twice, until they were all gone, displacing the hawks and other wildlife that we would watch from our patio. When I look from my backyard, I'm looking at the very land you're being asked to reduce from a 100-foot protective buffer to only 25 feet. Would you accept this in your neighborhood? Would you want your property values negatively affected through no fault of your own? For decades, the buffer has provided real separation between these two very different uses. Much of the immature trees have now been removed. What I am asking the county to do is restore the 100-foot buffer they decimated. A wall or fence may be part of the solution, but it does not replace the value of 100 feet of separation and meaningful tree hammock. This decision isn't only about the current nursery asking to permanently remove 75 feet of the last buffer. If this property changes hands again or another commercial business operates there in the future, we will still be living with the additional light and noise pollution from not only their property, but also the business across US-1 that we now clearly see and hear. Please do not take away protection for homeowners that has existed between this commercial property and our homes since 1982. Other neighborhoods may also be negatively affected by the precedents that sets in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Okay, thank you. Anyone else would like to speak for or against this item? Okay, ma'am, if you would come on up and state your name and spell your last name, please, for the record. I thought it was three minutes, so I had to shrink it down. My name is Andrea Sadler, S-A-D-L-E-R. My address is 111 Briarwood Lane in Briarwood Manor. While I serve as the president of our homeowners association, I am standing here today strictly to speak on behalf of my family. When we purchased our home, we chose a property that directly abuts a commercial property along US-1. We made that choice deliberately, relying completely on the established zoning protections and historical buffers to ensure we could safely plant deep roots, raise our children in a healthy environment, and enjoy a productive and positive life. We respected the guidelines of the county. We expected that the protection surrounding residential properties would be upheld. Ironically, this property in question was first commercially rezoned in 1982, which happens to be the exact year I was born. For my entire 44-year lifetime, this site has been subject to a 100-foot buffer designed explicitly to separate commercial activity from residential homes. At the risk of setting a precedent, a historical violation such as this should not reward the property owner with a smaller buffer. The current proposal seeks to slash this lifelong protection, and any reduction is a drastic change that ignores the reality on the ground. Traffic and commercial noise have heavily increased over the last few years. Altering this land in any capacity will turn the area into an echo chamber, destroying the peace and quiet of these homes. Furthermore, removing this vegetation degrades air quality by removing trees that filter out dust and emissions from US-1. It also completely disrupts and displaces the local wildlife that relies on the specific corridor for shelter and habitat. Most frightening for us, stripping away established trees and soil disrupts the local drainage system. We've experienced firsthand how this vegetation acts as a natural sponge, and removing it prevents rainfall from absorbing into the ground, completely redirecting runoff onto neighboring properties. This artificial redirection creates significant grading and drainage strains, leading to severe flooding risks for the residential properties like us below. Let's be realistic. There's an abundance of commercial properties across Bevard County that do not directly abut quiet residential neighborhoods. The property owner should have done their proper due diligence prior to purchasing this property. If they do not want to comply with the long-standing zoning protections built into this land to protect families, they can sell the property and move their business elsewhere. Local families should not have to sacrifice their health, safety, and drainage security because a buyer failed to plan properly. We know firsthand how vital established land use buffers are. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. So, I just, um, I urge you to look at the factual record, and then I also printed this out for you, too. Should I give it to you now? That's got to go to them first. My son's going to speak now. Go. And, sir, you're going to have to state your name and spell your last name for the record. My name is Tobias Sadler. Last name S-A-D-L-E-R. Hello. I have lived in Sharps, Florida, for five years. Since I've lived here, there has been a big 100-foot natural buffer of trees and plants between my house and the commercial property that's on the U.S. one. That space is a big reason our backyard feels quiet and safe. I play sports out in my front yard all the time. We can kick the ball around, run, and just have fun without hearing constant traffic or looking straight at businesses and parking lots. Now they want to shrink that buffer down to only 25 feet. 25 feet isn't much space at all and would make going outside feel like standing next to a highway. If they make the buffer that small, it won't feel like the same place to play soccer or hang out anymore. I've grown up here. This is my home. Please keep the 100-foot natural buffer so kids like me can still have a quiet and enjoyable place to play. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else want to speak for or against this item? Sir, if you could come up, state your name, and spell your last name, please, for the record. My name is Robert Sellers, S-E-L-L-A-R-S. I live in Briarwood Manor at 116. I am here strictly to support the Twin Lakes petition against this because once we make the change, it's going to continue down. And right now, with the traffic from U.S. one, the trains, the noise is overpowering. It's coming in. I'm just definitely opposed to anything that takes care, you know, the reduction of the wildlife buffer between U.S. one and anybody along the River Road. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Did I see it? Okay. I'm going to close it for public comment. All right. I'm going to close it for public comment. And, sir, y'all can come back up here to the podium. Now, looking at the zoning along U.S. one, we've got BU one right through there, correct? Now, what are you wanting to do exactly? We can follow whatever county. Can you come up to the microphone? We can follow the county required, like 25 feet and six feet. No. What are you looking to do there? What type of business are you looking to run there? Just nursery business. A nursery business. Yes. Staff, what is the typical setback for BU one against residential? The setback or the buffer? Both. The buffer requirement is 20 feet vegetative buffer with a six-foot wall to separate the residential from the commercial. Would you be willing to put a wall up? Yes. Six-foot masonry wall? Yes. And you're just going to do nursery? Yes. Sir, if I may speak. Sir, if you could get next to the mic. Yeah. And state your name and address. Okay. My name is Tankachan Joseph. Me and my wife own the property. We are open from 8 o'clock, and we close at 5 o'clock. And no commercial activity anywhere near in that 100 feet, because we also live right there, right in the middle of the property. So there won't be no noise, no construction, nothing. We have a big gate. We close at 5 o'clock. Okay. So the area that has been removed, was that removed, the 100 feet all the way to the property line? No. No, sir. Some of the tree. Hold on now. Y'all had your chance. Please, let's be respectful. We had some palms remaining there. The trees that we removed were hanging above our house. Our insurance company demanded, in order for us to have coverage, we need to get rid of it. And it came off during the hurricane. And some of the trees came from the next door, too. The big, as they said, big oak trees. And they wouldn't remove it, and we had to remove that. All this has been done to protect them and us. And that's it. And that's it. Okay. Well, the app has said we need a 25-foot buffer. Ron, you know where I'm going with this. Because you're the BDP pro. Yeah, but I'm not sure I agree with you on this at all. Well, it's BU-1. And it's compatible everywhere around it. And in my mind, the issue here is the 100-foot buffer that was put in and has been there forever, and that they eliminated. Well, it was put in, but now it's when the mobile home sales was there, which is actually more traffic to the surrounding people. But when they bought that property, you had to know that these restrictions were in place. You don't buy property unless you know what the zoning is, the land use, the deed restrictions, BDPs, any of this stuff. And BDPs are not something that we created just here a few minutes ago, or it's just a Bravard County thing. BDPs exist throughout the state, throughout the country, throughout the world, in all countries. So these kind of protections are meant to hold. They're legally binding. And for someone to say, I didn't know about it, means they didn't do a very good job on their due diligence when they bought the property. And that's not a reason for destroying a 100-foot buffer. It's been in place for decades. Any other comment from the board? Yes, Mr. Chair. If I understand correctly, did you already put up an aluminum or metal barrier of some kind? Did you already build a wall? It's aluminum already there. Aluminum wall already there. That's not our... Aluminum steel wall is there, and that's two feet into our property, too. We don't know who actually built that. We have no idea. And I tried to find out from the county. They said that was built without a permit, too. So that's something they have to remove whoever built it in order for us to build the masonry wall. Mr. Jordan. All right. Well, first of all, I'm a little disappointed because I was the one to ask if you go back and talk to the neighbors and see if you can come up with a solution. Because I certainly believe in property rights. And I think your husband is the one that says he didn't understand that there was a BDP when he brought the property for the 100-foot buffer. I'm in a little quandary here because things are different. I think the neighbors are looking at, well, what if it's another type of industry that comes in after the fact? But we're dealing with the nasty now and now, right? So we've got to be fair for sure. And I guess my first question would be for your neighbors, what kind of effect of you doing this is going to have on their quality of life, right? Because we all want to be good neighbors, right? Yes. I think staff was saying that the buffer was 25 feet or 20 feet. 20 feet. And the setback is 15 feet, even less. The challenge we have is you did have a BDP that says it's going to be a 100-foot buffer, correct? But in America, we can change our mouth. Sure. And that's why they are here now and asking for something a little different. So I'm in a little quandary because I don't want to deny just because we've got a crowd, right? It doesn't make any sense to me because you do have your rights. The effect of a 25-foot buffer, you said you could put a 6-foot. So you were talking about even though there's a metal fence there now, you are willing to put a 6-foot fence in front of that. Yes. Yes, sir. We can do that. So you're actually losing two feet of your property, probably another two feet to put a fence in front of a fence. We have no complaint about it. We are okay with that. We are okay with that. We can leave it as it is, and we will build 6-foot masonry wall fence right in front of it. They don't need to move it. But I just want to bring the fact that it's actually an encroachment, whoever built that. Yeah, it's an encroachment. Yeah, I understand that. And also no permit in the county when they built it. Okay. I was told they did it because they wanted to bypass the rule concerning building a swimming pool behind the property that whoever owns behind us. Actually, they approached us, they said they'll pay for the land, but we refused to take that money. That was like two years ago. We have a record also. Okay, just to resolve one issue that you have because... We don't need... We have no problem with that. Go ahead. No, I understand. Yeah. But there was a question about all the trees that were removed, and I think you answered it pretty clearly. That it was because of insurance reasons that you had to remove those trees, right? And you weren't the only one that removed some of the trees. Is that what I heard? Some of your... No. Some of the trees fell from next door to our property. Okay. Big tree. We asked them to remove. They refused to do that. Like 70 feet. Like when wind comes, they're hanging like that. Some of my children going back over there, they fall. So that's why we cut off all big holes inside, too. And I went... Really big, half-pitcher or everything. Yeah, I went to Natural Resources, and I told them why we did. They were okay with that, and they said, you may want to replant trees next to that. We're going to do that. And we did some of it, and it was gone during the frost, the last February frost. And we planted again, and we're going to plant whatever the county told us. They gave me a list. Right. Okay. We're going to do it. And we're going to do that. As soon as you guys tell us to do, we'll do it. Okay. All right. That makes a lot of sense then. You remove trees. You don't have a problem with planting other trees based on what... No problem. We want them to be peaceful, noise-free, but some of the noise, train, airplane, rocket launch... Helicopter. Storage room. Rocket. We have no control over it. Rocket all the time going. And you know you have no... And there's development coming all around it. And it's good and bad. I get the property value. One of the neighbors directly told me at my place... Criminals. Criminals. We never did any kind of criminal in our life. And... They call us directly to my husband. Criminals. No, I understand. All right. Let's stay back on the subject. I do have a question, though, when it comes down to reducing the buffer, if you will. Does that have any direct effect on a person's property value when you're abutting... When you're abutting commercial with... I'm not a real estate appraiser, so I really couldn't answer that question. Ma'am, we've already... Y'all have already spoke. I'm sorry. They get an opportunity to talk. Y'all got an opportunity to talk. They're the applicant. Sir, I had one more point I got to stress here. One of the neighbors right behind me told me at my face, if colored people come next to our property, the value goes down 25%. And I told them, that's not true, sir. It's actually on the other way. It goes up. Because we live there, we take care of it. And I didn't want to change his belief. If that's what his belief, so be it. I'm not going to change it. Okay. And that's not my problem. That's his problem. One second. He's Mr. Jordan. I'll read it to you. Go ahead. Is there an active co-compliant case going on? Can you turn your microphone on, please, sir? I was just projecting. There we go. Is there an active co-compliant case going on against your property right now? Mr. Jordan. I'm sorry, Tom. Keep calling county several times. And I hope county is going to keep record of it in case I have to go to the superior court. So is there an open co-compliant case? There was a mobile home they asked us to remove. We removed. We did. And there were several issues. Court comes. Light. And the neighbor behind, Mr. Tom. Court. And is... All those are public record. You can check it out. Whenever he feels something... Is one of those cases to do with the removal of the trees? No, sir. Not removing the trees. Let me just... It's been settled in 2023. Well, yes. And the staff comments that are submitted, you know, they actually reflected on page 13 what happened to that specific issue. And because the property is zoned for, you know, bona fide agriculture, it was an exemption that was clearing of the trees. So it's reflected in the notes, the staff comments, page 13. Can we have... Staff, can you comment on that, please? So it's not zoned agriculture. It has an agriculture exemption on the entire property. That's different from zoning. The reason why they're here is because they have a binding development or binding site plan on the property that predated them having an ag exemption. So because they've removed that 100-foot buffer, they are in violation of that binding site plan, which we today call binding development plan. Mr. Chairman, that's the issue that we need to be talking about. There is an existing binding development plan. Yeah, they're asking to remove that, correct? And then... They're asking to move it. But the problem is, they've already destroyed the entire buffer. It's just wrong. We can have them plant something back. Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny the application, that we request the county to remove that waiver of the six-feet concrete barrier, and that we ask the county to pursue all efforts to try to restore that buffer. That's what... The fact that they destroyed the buffer is what is... And then coming to asking, oh, we would like to have it reduced after we already reached it to zero. Now we'll make it 25. That is just wrong. I'll second that motion. Okay. Well, I got a motion by wrong. Can we have discussion? Yeah, let's discuss. Can we have discussion? We've got to hold the motion and for discussion. We got Trina here. Yes, Ms. Trina. There are some other options. Six-foot wall is minimum. I want to make sure we clarify wall versus fence. They can go up to 10, and with a BDP, they can do 12. So that is another option as well. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Debbie. I didn't hear if there was an answer to this or not. Code compliance. Is there something against them right now for clearing that space? They have a code case on them right now for clearing the 100-foot buffer that violates their existing BDP on the property. So if the BDP is taken away and we change it, that code compliance issue goes away? Yes. All right. I have a question. So if we don't agree to it, then what is the repercussions to them for the violation? So you're making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? And then they will have the ultimate decision on that. No, I'm saying you have a code violation now. Yes. This has nothing to do with what we have here. So if we deny this, so you still have that code violation, what are the repercussions of there? So if the Board of County Commissioners deny it, then they will have to replace that 100-foot buffer. Exactly. That's what should be done. To be truthful, their lot is 500 feet wide. 100 feet is 50,000 square feet. That's 1.25 acres on a five-acre lot. That is a little excessive. This is about 60 feet that we're looking at here. 25 feet is about to that third row there. 25 feet of trees is not a lot. 100 feet is excessive. You know, maybe we have the option of a compromise in size. So it's only 2.3 acres? Your lot on, according to the survey you gave us, is 500 by 400, which is five acres. No, sir. It's only 2.3 acres. Only 2.3 acres. And the demand is 25% of the property that we have when you put 100-foot. Survey. Only they split and sold in one section to somebody else. Only 2.3 acres. I'm sorry, but... 400.05 feet by... Oh, that's not a... Oh, nice survey. It doesn't have a... I was wrong about the 500 feet, so you're right. But it doesn't have a... Oh, 260.48... I'm sorry, my math was completely wrong. So 260.4800. So that's only half an acre. It's a little more than half an acre. It's 0.26 acres that they're asking for. It's 25% of the property that we have right now. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. All right. First of all, you know, your motion, in my mind, is too complicated. I think we need to separate some of the stuff. It's too much. If we're going to do it, I think we just need to separate so we can understand exactly what we're doing. Because you're asking the county to do a lot of stuff besides just denying this. You're also asking them to make them do certain things after that. I guess my question is, and it came from my colleague down here, you're saying if there is a compromise. They've already taken the vegetation down. There was supposed to be a 100-foot buffer. If we went to a 50-foot buffer, there still is a problem, right? I want to clarify one thing. According to the property appraiser, which, you know, take that approximate depth of their property is 400 feet. So to put that in perspective, a 100-foot buffer would be taking a quarter of their property for the buffer. They knew that. They should have known that. Yes. And if they didn't know it, ignorance is no excuse. Well, taking 100 feet of their property, that 100 feet was the buffer that they built into. I don't think that should have anything to do with whether we think they're going to be harmed by it because they had a BDP. It already had a 100-foot buffer on there. So it's not like we've taken something away from them. It was already taken away from them. Right? That's right. No. We're not taking anything away. That's what I'm saying. No. No, I'm agreeing with you. And as far as changing the motion, if you would prefer that I make a separate motion for getting rid of the waiver, you know, that's fine. Yeah. But, you know, regardless, if we do recommend denial and the county board says, no, we're going to accept your recommendation and we're going to deny it, there's still the outstanding case that has to be resolved. Right. Well, that's code enforcement. And that's code enforcement. And I don't know exactly how that's going to work, but at least that gives the possibility that they may have to replant a bunch of trees and restore that buffer as best they can. I know how long it takes to grow trees, depending on which ones you put in. Well, are you up for a 12-foot masonry wall with 25-foot of trees? Because then they couldn't see it. Yeah. I drive around Holder Road, and along that property between there and 95 is a, I don't know, 20-foot wall, which seems to make very little difference to the traffic noise. I don't think a 12-foot wall is going to make a significant difference being that close to U.S. 1. I mean, noise is going to be an issue here no matter what. Yeah. I mean, it would help. With trains and everything else and launches. Now, launch is a different story. Don't get me on start on launches. There was another question about, Mr. Chairman, about lighting. We fixed our light. We fixed already our light. It's a street light. We cannot control that one. So, street light and opposite the storage light, we cannot do nothing. The light that was facing east, I call it FPL, and they removed it. For us. So, there is nothing from outside. It's coming from across the street. Exactly. And it's not a lot of, I mean, you can always check it out. I don't think it's 700 feet away, that light. It's not even, it's very low, pointing down. Anybody can go and check it out. I don't think it's directly facing them at all. And when we will plant the trees, some of it is already planted and taken care of. That will take care of itself. So, it's not going to be a major issue, believe it or not. We want them to go out peaceful and keep up their property value. It's not like we want to go against everything they have. No. We want to work together, but they are unwilling to compromise. So, the reason why you want this buffer zone less is because you're expanding your business. Yes. Is that correct? We just keep plants as a storage, that's it. No customers there, no activity, nothing. Just plants sitting in a pot. I don't know how that's going to harm anyone. And if somebody wants a plant, we bring it out to the front. Simple as that. No construction, nothing. Close at 5. Nobody comes in there after 5 o'clock. They open at 8 o'clock. Okay. Ms. Day? But I think the issue, the issue was that there was a 100 feet protected vegetative buffer there. And it sounds like you took this buffer down because you wanted more room for your business. Not really. That's not why we took it out, ma'am. That's exactly why. But here's the thing. It's gone, right? It's gone. It's gone. So, I mean, unfortunately, none of you were able to get together and come up with a compromise. And now it's on us as the board to figure out what to do. Do we take the stance of, you know what, this is the rule, 100 foot vegetative, and that's what we, you know, you took that down. Do we go to that extreme? Or now do we have to try to help this out and help our county commission out and say we need to come up with a compromise here that's going to be something that's going to fix the situation for the long term? You know, I don't even know what that answer is yet, and I don't even know which way I'm going to vote yet on that. But I know that there's a motion on the table, and I'm not sure if you want to change that motion or not or, you know, make it different. But I think that's what's happening here is, you know, the fact that it's almost like a child. You know, you let a child get away with something that they did, then, you know, you're asking for it for something in the future. That could possibly be the case here. But the bottom line is we have to figure out how to solve the problem or at least give a suggestion on how to solve the problem. I have, may I speak, one more point, sir? Properties north of us, several of them, a couple of them have no buffer at all. Here's the pictures. Sir, we're only considering this property. I know what you're saying, though, but there's issues all over the county. But bringing that back, Mr. Ron, county procedure is 20 feet buffer, 20-foot buffer, 15-foot setback, 6-foot masonry wall. With a BDP, go to 12 feet. 12-foot masonry wall, go to 50-foot. We'll split it with it. How do you feel? I would be perfectly willing to do that if they had not torn down the buffer to start with. They're going to have to plan it back. Yes. They've got to plan it back to 50 feet. If they had come in before and said, this 100-foot is just too much. I know, but it's done now. We need to reduce it. Then that would have been fine. You know, it's there. The residents would have a discussion and say, well, maybe 75. Taking some from him, that's giving some to them. Something we're not bringing up is no matter what, we decide it takes 20 years for a tree to grow. Longer. More time. We lived here 30 years. Oh, I know. So, one comment. But that's no reason why they should be. Well, we're not a punitive board. We're not here to punish. That is not our job at all. We don't even have that power. I think the 12-foot masonry wall is going to help a ton. That would help a lot. With noise and also with the sight. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Well, since we have a motion, let's see how that goes. And then if it doesn't pass, then we can always have another motion. Do you want to withdraw it or do you want to run with it? We'll run with it. We'll go with the motion. I'll modify the motion to take out the waiver and keep the motion addressing just denying the application. So, that's the motion. I move that we deny the application. I'll have to second that. Okay, we've got a motion by Ron, a second by Tracy? Yes. Ms. Tracy, all those in favor of denying H2, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Aye. So, who do we, all right, who's the ayes? Tracy, Robert, and Ron? Who's Robert? Oh, he's Robert. And who's the nays, the rest of us? It would be Lisa, Mr. Jordan, Debbie, myself, and Ron. Okay. All right, that got the nays. So, now we've got to go for another one, correct? Yes, sir. I know you were fixing to tell me that. Okay. Attorney. Mr. Chairman, I move that we modify and have them do a 50-foot buffer with addition of all the shrubbery and requirements from the county. And the wall. The question is, how tall? Well, with the BDP, we can go up to 12, correct? With a 12-foot wall. Second. Did you all get that? They're okay with a 12-foot wall. So, what is the proposal, sir, if I may? 12-foot wall? 12-foot wall? How much? 50. I'd say a 50-foot bumper. A 50-foot bumper with a 12-foot wall. And the shrubbery. And the vegetation. 50-foot bumper. 50-foot bumper. And the vegetation. And the 15-foot bumper and the 12-foot wall. Is that? Does everyone on the board understand the motion? Did you second that? I did. Masonry wall. Yeah. Okay. We got a motion by Mr. Jordan on item H2. And a second by Debbie. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Ms. Tracy, are you opposing? I'm not opposed. You're not opposed. I support the motion. Cool. Okay. What is the motion? The motion is that they're going to have to put up a 12-foot masonry wall. They're going to plant back 50 feet of vegetation. And they're going to provide the proper landscaping. Whatever the county recommends as far as the landscaping. And that's going to be 50 foot. It's a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. So this will be heard before them. And then they'll make the final decision. The county commissioners have to approve it now. Do we agree or disagree with that? 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.