Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi judicial body when it hears requests for rezoning and conditional use permits. Applicants must provide competent, substantial evidence establishing facts or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the zoning code and comprehensive plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts or provide expert testimony whether they like or dislike a request is not competent evidence. The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and the existing rules in the zoning ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area. The board cannot consider speculation, non expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands.

If a commissioner has had communications regarding a rezoning or conditional use permit request before the board, the commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place before the board takes action on the request. Likewise, if the commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the commissioner must disclose that fact before the board takes action on the request. Each applicant is allowed a total of fifteen minutes to present their request unless time is extended by majority vote of the board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the fifteen minutes for rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak.

Our invocation today will be delivered by Anthony Meyers, Teen Missions International. Anthony here.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a privilege to be able to give the invocation tonight for your meeting, and thank you for your service. Let's pray. Father, we just are so grateful to be able to be here tonight, and we thank you for this beautiful day that you've made. Father, we just pray right now a blessing upon this meeting tonight. I thank you for the commissioners.

I just pray that you would open their hearts and their ears to what is being said to those who will be speaking tonight, that, Lord, you would give them a clarity. Lord, that you would give them the voices to share their opinions. And, father, that your will will be done and decisions that need to be made. And, Lord, the future of our community. Father, we're so grateful that your son died on the cross for our and we have the hope of eternal life.

And, father, there are things that mean so much more in life than some of the things that that may be talked about here tonight internally. But, father, we just know that you will be here. We ask your holy spirit to be among all the speakers who will be coming up to this podium. Give them the words to say, give them clarity, and give them a just a piece as they share what's on their hearts and their minds. And, Lord, that everything that is said and done here tonight would be pleasing to you. So we thank you for your love and your guidance in each one of our hearts today. We love you and give you the praise. In Jesus' name, and amen.

Amen. Amen. Thank you. Our pledge today will be led by commissioner Rob Feltner.

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

Okay. I'd like to officially call the meeting to order. We have no minutes on the agenda for approval.

Make motion for

Yes. Yes.

I'd like to make a motion for commissioner Goodson to join us by phone due to medical reasons.

I'll second.

Motion and second for commissioner Goodson to join us by phone for medical reasons. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Mister chair, if I may may I just ask for

the record? Commissioner Goodson, are you able to see the meeting on video, sir?

Yes. I am.

Thank you, sir. Yes, Okay. Good. We have no resolutions, awards or presentations. We'll go straight to the consent agenda. Is there a card or question on the consent agenda? See none. A motion would be in order for the consent. I'll make a motion to approve consent. Motion to approve the consent agenda. All in favor say yay. Yea. Opposed say nay. Carries. Thank you.

Okay. Public comment. Item g, do we have any no public comment cards. Move on to the public hearings. We have some items that we're we're gonna hear the first just to move along quickly. Item h five has been withdrawn. So if there's anyone here for h five, it's been withdrawn. It will not be heard. So you don't have to wait here for that unless you wanna watch the show. You're welcome to stay.

Item h eight and h nine, the Turtle Mountain Ventures, that is there's a request that we table that. Two items, one is a companion item. Typically on a first request for table we honor that. So anyone here for that will need a motion to table h eight and h nine, but it won't take a second to spell that so. Well, without anything else, sir, I'll make do we

need separate motions on each one? You want it that way?

Okay. You can, to the date certain of July 9 at the five p. M. Zoning meeting.

Okay. I will make a motion to table H8 to July 9 at five p. M.

Second.

Motion and second. All those in favor say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Okay. Motion on h nine would be

in order. I will make a motion on h nine to table to the July 9 meeting at 5PM.

Second.

Motion second to table item h nine to July 9 at 5PM. All in favor say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Okay. So we'll move on to our agenda. First agenda item h one.

Item h one, Paul and g, Eric Dershka, being represented by Bruce Moya and Kim Rezenka, requesting a zoning classification change from RU dash two dash 10 and RU dash one dash eleven to RU Dash2Dash15 under application 25Z00062 located in District 1.

You're recognized.

Good evening, chairman, members of the county commission. Good evening, mister Goodson. I'm here on behalf of Millstone Ventures LLC, the contract purchaser for the Dershka property. Also here are Eric and Carrie Dershka representing the property owners. Millstone Ventures is represented by Andy Weatherford, the cofounder of Mill stone, Owen Hartman, and Sam Kramer. This is a request for rezoning of 18 o seven acres for multifamily apartments from r u two ten to R U 215. Before I begin the presentation, mister Weatherford would like to tell you a little bit about the project and our company.

Good evening, mister chairman and commissioners. I'm Andy Weatherford. I'm one of the owners of Millstone Ventures. So just wanna start with a brief introduction of our company. We're a small development shop out of Indianapolis.

My business partner and I started this company in 2017 and we're a vertically integrated real estate development company. So we're like what we like to consider a cradle to grave development shop and what that means is we're here through zoning and entitlements, we design the projects, we function as the builder of the project and then at the end of the project, we actually manage and operate the property once we've moved residents in. And we did this by design. You know, we think the advantage for us and for the communities that we build in is for every step of this project through planning and zoning, through design, construction and then the operation of the property. There's one point of contact every step of the way and that is me and my team.

So that's a little bit about who we are, the type of products that we build. We consider ourselves a luxury resort style multifamily developer. And so what that means is we deliver these projects with elevated finishes throughout the units, quartz countertops, luxury vinyl plank, flooring throughout, no carpet, wood shelving, no wire shelving, beverage coolers in the kitchen islands and high end amenities, fitness center, yoga studio, dog park, dog spas, resort style pool. On this project, we're considering a two story clubhouse for a viewing deck to view the rocket launches down here, try to keep our residents on property and off the street during those busy times and we think that'd be a great feature for our project and for our future residents. And you know being vertically integrated as I mentioned earlier, since we control construction that allows us to control our costs and what that means is that we can deliver this elevated product to our residents for just market rate rents.

So that's another advantage of our vertical integration. You know, when it comes to development, we have a very targeted approach. We try to be in places and in communities that need product like we can deliver. And that's what we're seeing down here in Brevard County and in the Titusville area. You know, there's been a lot of job growth, a lot of population growth industry, especially spaceflight and aeronautics are really taking off, but there hasn't been that much product developed here recently.

And so certainly not as much as we would expect to see with with the the amount of population growth and job growth we see happening here in Brevard County. And, you know, another trend that we're seeing is a lot of people that are holding those high paying jobs, those new jobs in those industries, they're commuting. And we think a product like ours would encourage people to come here and live, work, and play in Brevard County and the Titusville area. So that's why we're here. That's a little bit about the product that we're we're planning on developing and a little bit about our company. And just wanted to kick things off introducing ourselves and our project, and I wanted to thank you for for hearing us

tonight. Okay. Thank you. We have another card for Bruce.

I'm I'm gonna present the project now. I just wanted him to tell you about the project. So and Bruce has if you have any questions, Bruce is here.

Okay.

So I know this is in your packet. This is the future land use map. All of this property is Residential 15, including the R U 111 zoned to the north. The Dershkas have assembled these 15 all that yellow is Res 15 and you can see the property boundaries are all in the Res 15 through here. These are 15 parcels that Dursk has acquired over the years.

They're now ready to retire and wish to sell the property. Some of this was zoned R U 111 back in 1955 with the Sun Valley Platte and those are the smaller lots which are not going to be used really for development. At this time, there's some wetlands on those properties so that that area will not be developed. As mentioned, all 18 acres have residential 15 future land use. The county's vision with the comp plan that was developed in 1988 was to have multifamily by the residential 15 designation.

Also, in your of the area with what is surrounding it. This is the property in black down the middle there with the red line is the Breezy lane. That's currently the access to the Dershka's home. To the north is the fire station and then to the south is the Broward County Station. I think it's a barber pill station.

Then you have many vacant lots and then the the new apartments down there to the south, the Millstone. With that, we believe this is compatible with the area. North and south is vacant. There's multifamily across the street to the north and the south. They're all old multifamily.

You have Summerhill Apartments, 2 thousand five construction. You have the WW Apartments, 19 eighty five construction, and then you have Millwright, which is brand new. We are 250 feet to the nearest single family home across State Road 405. The staff report states that the primary uses on 405 are commercial office and government facilities and that the only new development is homes and apartments. Staff report confirms that this area is not an established residential neighborhood, and this is truly undeveloped, commercially zoned land, but actually is undeveloped multifamily land.

Preliminary concurrency traffic will not cause a deficiency in the level of service. There's no school concurrency issues, and the staff report says there's no material violations of relevant comp plan policies. Any environmental issues such as wetlands will be resolved during site plan with site plan standards and engineering standards. And, again, the wetlands will be maintained except for minor impacts. Planning and zoning board recommend approval of nine to one, and we would request that you recommend approval of the residential 15 future the r U two fifteen zoning. We're here to answer any questions.

Okay. We do have a car for Owen Hartman.

He's with the developer.

He's he's covered. I thought he would be. We have no cards in opposition. Any questions? Yes.

I just have to disclose. I actually met with mister Zonka and the developer team for this item for approximately forty minutes on April 28 to discuss their vision.

Okay. Thank you. And I'll disclose that I did drive by the site today. So

And if there's no other discussion, I'll make a motion to approve, sir.

There's a motion and a second to approve. Any debate? Second. All those in favor say yay.

Yay.

Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Our next item, h one.

Item h two is j

two. Sorry.

Item h two is JEJ Ventures LLC. Request a zoning classification change from IU to BU two under application 26Z00002 located in District 1.

We don't have any cards

for agent.

Good evening, all.

Sir, did you fill out the pink card?

I did not.

Can you do it afterwards for us?

I absolutely can. Is it in the back?

Right. The table. Yes.

I'll be more than happy to as soon

as we're done here. Okay. Good. Thanks.

Alright. Yes. We would like to rezone from U 1. Is that what it says? I'm sorry. This is my first time. IU to B U 2. We plan on putting a hardware store in the front of our of those properties as well as a parking lot in the back. And to be able to have outdoor storage, we need to have moved to a B U 2, and everybody around us is already B U 2. So we asked for it, and they asked for me to be here today.

Okay. Good. Any questions? We have no cards in opposition.

I make a motion to approve,

sir. Motion to approve.

And I'll second.

Second. All in favor say yay. Yay.

Yay. No.

Occasion that, miss Lee.

Thank you. I'll send I'll go back to the paperwork.

Yep. Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Item, h three.

Item h three is HQW LLC and HQW Homeowners Association Incorporated request a zoning classification change from EU one and AU with a BDP to RVP and AU with a CUP for boarding of horses and horses for hire and removal of the BDP under application twenty six Z zero zero zero five located in District 1. Planning and zoning board heard this request in a unanimously recommended approval with a BDP limiting the development to 36 recreational vehicle sites in eight cabins.

Okay. You're recognized.

Good afternoon. I'm John Holmquist. I reside in Cocoa, Florida. This property is at 5405 West King Street or F L 520. As stated, there was a building development binding plan that was requested.

I have those to give at this time. My presentation is on slides. We can access that. So the future land use of this property is for r 15 for the southern half of the property and neighborhood commercial on the northern half. The RVP does coincide with the neighborhood commercial according to Zonia when I spoke to them.

The current building development plan on the site is for 40 individual homes. And when we reviewed this, this is definitely a highest and best use of the property if we wanted to just divide it up and sell it, but I think that would be not the best thing for the community. As regarding the R 15, if that was pursued, that would put over 300 units around this pond. And again, I think that would be a very poor use of this property. After careful consideration and speaking with several different organizations in the area from Happy Horse and Amber Acres to consulting with some family and friends in the area.

We have our civil engineered plan and are requesting for the northern portion of the property for the east, north, and west sides of the pond to be zoned as RVP and then return the southern portion of the property to agriculture. The portion of the property on one side, on the west side is currently agricultural zoned. The properties to the north and to the east that is maroon are commercial properties and the properties all around the rest of it is either agricultural, agricultural residential. The portion that we are asking to go to RVP only backs up to two residential properties. After speaking with zoning with our own plans, we plan on fencing the community properly and there's going to be 20 foot the residential property line because there's an easement there.

And then between the property line and where we are going to have our cabins or the RV spots, there's gonna be another 70 feet that we wanna keep as wooded. Our environmental report came back with no issues and we have done our preliminaries with the development and with Florida Department of Transportation for anything that is needed with five twenty.

This

would be our final ask for the change in zoning.

Do we have any questions? Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker we have any questions when we get through them. Speaker, Skip Parrish.

Hi. Skip Parrish, I live across

You might want to pull

that mic. Yes, I am a bit tall. Hi, Skip Parrish, I live at 5250 King Street, so I am basically across the street. His property is fairly long and stretches out a goodly bit. I was here for the initial initial advisory meeting. I talked to mister Holmquist,

is it?

I bad with last names. The gentleman trying to develop this. And one of my main concerns, and this is really the only thing after talking to him after the meeting when he was here last and I was here last, is about traffic. Having lived on that property off and on since the seventies. As things come out West Of 95, there can be a lot of traffic.

My main concern with that is anybody coming east from Orange County, the last red light they've seen before they get to Friday Road, is past his property, is in Wedgefield at the other end of 520. If you I don't know if it's in his plan to have a turn lane put in for this, but that would be the main thing. We we have a lot of backups and a lot of people pulling Sharp into different businesses that do not have turn lanes. There is the RV business that is right next to 95 that does not have a turn lane and that has been problematic for a lot of us that live and have lived in that area for a long time. Having talked to the developer, he's a good guy.

I think he has great interest in doing what he's doing. I'm not trying to stop it. My main concern is traffic. I've got three kids. I'm assuming at least one of them is gonna end up living on this property after I am no longer doing so. So that's just my main concern, and that's all. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Lindsey Blair.

Good evening. That was just my husband. I also live at 5250 West King Street, and I'm echoing his concerns. I think the planned use is fine. I have no real issues with horses.

I like horses. But much like we see issues with people turning into the RV place right next to 95 because there is no light controlling the flow of traffic all the way from in Orange County Bifflow area all the way out to Friday Road, having the sudden stop of RVs and horse trailers turning in. I've seen just one person slowing down create massive issues. So if there's any way we can get a turn lane or something installed to make it safer for families in the area and for the the people that do plan on residing there or boarding their horses there, I think would be a benefit to the community at large. And that's it for me.

Thank you. Gary Sereni? Close. Close.

Sereni.

Hey, John. My main thing is there's a question that wasn't brought up last time. And if you could bring the survey up onto the board. On the Southwest side, there's a canal that comes from this lake. This lake is built on an aquifer, and it constantly fills all the time. And that lake that canal is the only thing that keeps that lake in check. Now the first map he had with his horse trails goes over that canal. And my question is, what is he going to do? Is there a culvert going in there? Is he completely blocking the canal?

Because if he blocks that canal, then the lake is going to overflow and the whole property is going to flood because it's on the aquifer and it's constantly running. And there's canal that runs completely along the south side of the property, and that canal supplies water to the pond on my property, which I live on the end of Samard Lane, and my neighbor's property has a pond, and it fills both of those with constant with water. Otherwise, if there wasn't any water that they would just kill all the fish and everything that's in there. So my question is, what he's gonna do with that canal on both of them, the where the horse trail goes across and then where he's been in the horse barns along the south side there to mitigate the water issue that's coming through there?

Okay. I can ask that. I can ask that if he wanted to answer that or if he sure. Yes. You can come up. Yes. Oh, you can come up. Get you on the record.

Southside Canal and the drainage from the pond are going to be maintained. We're putting in a bridge for lack of better words. It's it's it's going to be a culvert pipe, but it's going to be oversized culvert pipe so that we can have a horse trail and we plan on putting guardrails on the side of it so that it has an equestrian look to it. To answer the other questions that we went through here already, Our preliminary with the FDOT said that we do not need a turning lane, we're requesting from them that we can have at least a 40 foot turning lane at our cost put in because of that very situation. Again,

I've

been when they put a light on Friday Road, I thought the whole world changed because I've I've been up and down this area since the eighties. So I agree. Civil engineering. Yeah. And civil engineering is doing, you know, the the work on all that right now. Anything else?

I have a question while you're up. The and maybe a staff, I don't know. The issue of trailers slowing down the turn into the project, will there be a d x l lane built? Is that required?

It's not required by FDOT at this time, but we request that we can do that for that very reason. We think just with the continued development of this area, it's going to be a concern.

Okay.

So we're trying to stay ahead of the game on that.

Mr. Chair, believe that would be something we would look at with DOT through the site planning process to make determination with the appropriate traffic improvements.

Would required. I would Yes, sir. Road is busy as this.

I don't know that it would be required, but it would definitely be something that we take a look at.

Okay. You're seeking permits to do that? Correct. Okay. It makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? That's all our cards.

If that's it, sir, I'll make a motion to approve.

And I'll second.

There's a motion second to approve.

If we make, mister chairman Yes.

Go ahead. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Yes. Sir, just so we're clear, we are good with the the BDP, right, the applicant.

If we So this

is the first time Let's withdraw that motionless here from staff and then we'll I apologize, mister chairman,

but that's the first time we've seen this BDP, we it has not been reviewed. So typically the process would be, you know, we approve a BDP in principle, we work with the applicant to and we'll bring it back for final approval by the board. We would ask that be the case here. Well, no particular term sticks out to me as wrong. It may be missing some of our standard language that we have. It may actually be overly restrictive even on what, you know, accessory buildings, things like that can be used. So we would just ask that to work with the applicant to finalize it and bring it back to the board.

Okay. So what forms of the motion take here then?

Approve with the BDP is fine. Just just as one note for the record that you're not approving

record that I met with the developers for item h four on May 5 for approximately thirty minutes to discuss their vision of the the project. Okay.

Item h four is Dominique f Culpepper, Ralph Williams the third. Ralph Williams the fourth. Erica Williams being represented by Antonio Owens requesting zoning classification change from AU to RU two fifteen under application 26Z00004 located in District 2. And planning and zoning unanimously recommended approval with a BDP limiting structures to one story buildings and occupancy limited to only senior residents.

Good evening, chairman and commissioners. My name is Tony Owen and I represent the owners on the rezoning of this property. What I have here on the zoning map is the Tropical Park.

This is the this is

the property here in the in the center here. What's surrounding it is RU 215, RU 212, a school, and there is RU 19 residential next door to it. Just asking that we get approval to do R U 215 without binding development plan.

Okay. Do we have any oh, there's another card. Chris Reese.

Chris there. But I'm I'm good.

Okay. Good. Alright. Thank you. Okay. Alright. We have no cards in opposition. Any questions in motion?

I'd like to make a motion, chair.

I'm sorry?

I would like to make a motion, chair.

Okay. Go ahead.

I make a motion to approve the r u two fifteen with the BDP that limits the structure should single story and residents for senior citizens. I also would like to allow all the permitted uses of r u 19, which is compatible with the surrounding area.

Okay.

With the understanding chair, it would have to come back to staff for them to review. The BP.

Is that motion any comment? You okay? We're good. Alright. Good. A motion by commissioner Goodson. There a second? Alright. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Carries unanimously. Thank you so much. We'll move on to h five.

Do we have any That's one withdrawn,

I think.

That's withdrawn. We have h six next.

He already said

it. We're gonna move on to item h h

six. Yes.

That's okay?

That was h five. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's right. We tabled that. Yes.

Marisic Family Trust being represented by Kim Rezinka requests a zone classification change from AU and GU to EU under application 26Z00003 located in District 2.

Okay.

There's a motion for approval. Is there a second? You don't have cards. I don't think we have any other cards, but Kim Rozenko.

I'll second.

There's a second. All those in favor say yay.

Yay. Yay.

Yay.

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We will move to h seven.

Item h seven, Merritt Bitco, SPV LLC being represented by Kim Rezanka, requesting zoning classification change from AU with a BSP to r u two fifteen and r u two thirty with removal of BSP under application 25Z00054 located in District 2. And I also like to note on April 2, the board of county commissioners continued this item at the applicant's request to to its May 7 meeting which is tonight zoning meeting. The applicant stated the reason for the request was to for the continuance was because the entity is investigating the possibility of acquiring additional property adjacent to the current proposed apartment site and they were reviewing potentially modifying the proposed number of units considering further modifications to access to the site and for off-site improvements. As of this date, the accounting staff has not received an amendment to the application.

Mister chair, if I may?

Yes.

Just for the record, I want to let everyone know that on May 7, I had approximately fifteen minute phone call with miss Rizanka regarding this item. Oh, sorry. Yesterday on May 7, I had approximately fifteen minute phone call with Kim Rizanka regarding this item. Yesterday.

May 6.

May 6.

Actually, it was this morning.

It was this morning. It was this morning. Yeah.

Yeah. Don't worry. We

need it.

Yeah. Okay.

Alright. Good evening, chairman, members of county commission. Kim Rizenka on behalf of Range Water Development LLC with authorization from the owner, Merit Bidco SPV LLC, to file for the rezoning. Because of the anticipated number of speakers and almost a thousand pages in the agenda, I'm going to ask for thirty minutes total for my team and my experts to present.

Okay. That's that's allowed on our procedures to make that request and it's required that the board of commissioners have the vote to grant that. So is there a motion to grant an additional fifteen minutes?

I'll make a motion to give the applicant total of thirty minutes. Does that does that include the closing and everything?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Rebuttal experts everything.

I I think we usually have a rebuttal we usually have a rebuttal period off afterward anyways.

Yes, sir.

Alright. Thirty minutes.

If that includes everything, I'll second it.

Yeah. And I guess your experts could have filled out a separate card. They got time. But one question that I'd just like to clarify. I think the those in opposition, have they hired counsel? Have they hired an attorney? Are they here to speak?

If they are, then.

If they are, we should grant them the same request if they need it. So okay. There's a motion and a second for an additional fifteen minutes for counsel, expert witnesses, and consultants. All in favor say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I do want to thank all of you and your staff. This has been a long process. You have fielded numerous calls, meetings, as I said, almost a thousand pages. And I know it's taken a lot of time, so we really do appreciate the fact that you've listened.

You've listened to everyone, and it's it's been noted. The rezoning for residential apartments is opposed by many, including in other states in this country from California to New York and other countries, including Spain, India, Egypt, and Pakistan. The public resistance is an emotional reaction to change, a concern for the loss of vacant land that has never been developed, and the fear of the unknown. Rangewater understands this and has and will continue to work with the neighbors, the neighborhoods, FDOT, the school district, the sheriff's office, and others agencies to construct and manage a first class luxury apartment complex. During this rezoning started we rezoning process, we started with a meeting with MIRA staff.

MIRA staff at that time was supportive of this and said it was a very necessary project in this area. We had a community meeting in November and there was opposition. And from that meeting, Michael Oliver, the representative from Rangewater met with several one on one to try to to assuage them, and that has resulted in the conditions in the binding development plan that's in your packet. Speaking with staff, they have some concerns about some of those conditions, and if this approved, we'll certainly work with staff to make sure that the binding development plan meets the county code. Rangewater accepted many of these comments and feedbacks and has substantially changed the design from where they started.

It has offered the BDP with limitations and improvements, including a turn lane on Pioneer to assist with the traffic at that intersection of Pioneer and State Road 3. Rangewater hired a traffic consultant to prepare a full traffic impact study. The last one dated 03/05/2026, which is in your packet. There's actually three traffic studies that were done based upon comments by staff. Usually, TIS is not required or needed until site plan.

Again, we have prepared the binding development plan, the VDP, so everyone knows what this project's going to be about. They're gonna know the units, they're gonna know the the locations, the setbacks, the buffers, things along those lines. So it's to be transparent so everyone knows what's going to go there. It has offered a proportionate fair share contribution if there's one necessary during the site plan process and to work with FDOT if there are improvements necessary. The VDP is to ensure that the multifamily use can coexist with neighboring properties and not negatively impact other land uses, conditions, or neighbors.

We're here tonight with the developer and the experts to present evidence and to inform you of the need for the rezoning and the legal support for the rezoning. With us is Michael Oliver, the representative Kyle Shastine of Bowman, the engineer of record Trent Ebersol, a traffic engineer, and they will be talking during this time frame. Brief overall overview of the project is rezoning of 7.5 acres adjacent to single family homes to R U 215 and rezoning west on State Road 3 Of 3.66 acres to R U 230, a total of 222 units possible. It's also seeking a removal of a nineteen eighty three binding site plan for hospital and CUPs for hospital and medical clinics. So this will remove those uses, which currently according to Trina Gilliam is the only use of this property is for a hospital medical clinic.

This property is vacant and be and behind old nineteen eighty six medical buildings. There's a double wide trailer located on it next to the single family subdivision. The adjacent medical offices are not maintained and were subject to a bankruptcy proceeding when Steward went out of off went out of business. It is unkempt and underutilized property. As shown on the screen and in your packet, the property sought to be rezoned to R U 215 is Residential 15.

Again, was the intent in 1988 when the comp plan was adopted when mister Altman, chairman Altman, sat on this very board and adopted the comp plan. And that was the intent of the comp plan was that to be 15 units the acre multifamily. To the west of that is neighborhood commercial and it's in a neighborhood commercial area. There is not a single single family home along State Road 3 from Skyline Boulevard North to State Road 528. This Res 15 and neighborhood commercial has not changed, the comp plan was adopted in 1988.

This is adjacent to res Residential 66 units of the acre, which are two single family developments. But again, Residential 6 is land use, affords a transition and density between higher urbanized area and lower intensity land use, and that is what this is. This is a transitional use from single family to commercial uses in a commercial corridor. I provided a nine page memorandum on 04/24/2006 and request that be incorporated by reference into my presentation. There have been so many things stated about this project that it was necessary both from this as to what staff and the addendum stated into what two residential opponents have stated.

I do want to look at one of the issues of compatibility in the surrounding uses. Page eight of the staff report has often been cited in emails that have come before you as to administrative policy three. Administrative policies three requires compatibility with existing or proposed land uses to be a factor, and you shall consider whether the proposed use would have hours of operation, lighting, etcetera, similar to other uses. This is a residential use. It's just multifamily.

Whether the proposed use will cause a material reduction in value of existing lands. There's no information. There's no MAI appraiser that has said it will. Whether the proposed use is consistent with an emerging or existing pattern as determined through the analysis of historical land patterns, actual development, and development approved. And when you look at what the staff says in a staff report as to historical land uses, it says it's not consistent with the pattern of surrounding development, which is single family and medical facility.

No. It's a transition, and it but it could be considered a transition from high intensity, which it is. But it does go on to state there's all kinds of mixed use future land uses in this area. And then it goes on as also the actual development, is either or hysterical, historical or actual. And there's an assisted living facility immediately to the south, and that is at 20 beds to the acre.

It is a multifamily use. Administrative the character of the neighborhood has also been cited. Again, this is a transitional area. It's got multifamily. It's got across the street. It's got single family. It has Starbucks. It has assisted living facility. It has a bank, and it has medical use adjacent to this property. This property will not introduce traffic into the identified boundaries of these subdivisions.

These people are not going to go into their subdivisions. The access is on Pioneer And State Road 3. Any statement that the character of these two neighborhoods will be a materially character of the neighborhoods will be material or adversely affected is pure speculation. The access to the property will primarily be from State Road free with some accessing Pioneer Road, but the residents and guests of the apartment complex will have no reason to travel into Raintree or Villa De Palma. Based upon the recent development of the 10 acres of commercial land to the south of this property, the Starbucks assisted living facility, Space Coast Credit Union, and Twins Car Wash.

This area is transitional and not primarily residential. This rezoning is supported by the MIRA staff report of 12/11/2025, which stated the requested rezoning is consistent with the county comp plan and the Myra redevelopment plan, and this is definitely in the Myra redevelopment area. This portion of Courtney Parkway exhibits a robust mixture of commercial businesses and single family residential property. In Merritt Island, there exists a deficiency of newly constructed multi family rental units. However, because of increased employment opportunities in the space industry as well as the tourist industries and other industries at Port Canaveral, individually seeking to fill those vacancies require housing that is proximate to their work.

Apartments appeal to younger individuals because of decreased maintenance, enhanced security features, amenities such as on-site fitness and common gathering and a sense of community. Clearly, a request for development in multifamily. Also, Dmerit Island redevelopment agency mission statement says that they need housing to support the workforce. The MIRA board did vote against it saying they needed more information. Because of that, we got the traffic impact study to assist with the information that they sought.

This luxury apartment complex is a logical transition from res six single family to commercial uses, and it was intended by the comp plan drafters back in 1988. With that, I'm going to bring up Michael Oliver to discuss the specifics of the projects and the conditions. Thank you.

Good evening, chairman, commissioners, staff, and members of the community. My name is Michael Oliver, and I represent Rangewater Real Estate tonight. I am a Florida resident, and I manage Rangewater's development platform across the state. Rangewater has developed two properties here in Brevard County, both within the Viera community here. Across Florida, we have delivered 27 communities and more than 100 nationally.

We have twice been recognized as the National Association of Home Builders Developer of the Year. We are excited about the opportunity to develop our third community in Brevard County on this property in Merritt Island. Tonight, I'd like to focus on three points. First, as Kim mentioned, this rezoning request is consistent with the 1988 Brevard County comprehensive plan. Second, we have listened carefully to the surrounding neighborhood and made substantial changes and concessions to our plan in direct response to the community feedback.

Those commitments are memorialized in our binding development plan. Third, Brevard County's economy continues to grow rapidly around the Kennedy Space Center and Port Canaveral. Yet, as Kim mentioned and as Myra notes, new housing options near these employment centers remains very limited. This projects project represents more than a $55,000,000 investment in Merritt Island and helps address that need. Over the past nine months, we have spent significant time meeting with nearby residents and addressing concerns.

Many of those same concerns will be raised again tonight. And I would ask the board to consider the meaningful concessions we have already made. The property has 13 direct residential neighbors. In response to concerns about compatibility and proximity, we have committed in the binding development plan to a 100 foot setback along the eastern property line. That is five times greater than what is required by zoning.

We also committed to preserving existing trees along the north and east property lines to create additional buffering and privacy. We heard concerns regarding wetlands, and we completed delineations very early on in the process that were accepted by staff at the St. Johns River Water Management District. We are preserving the vast majority of wetlands on the site in compliance with Brevard County regulations. We also heard concerns about building height.

As a result, we moved away from a four story product and instead proposed a three story garden style community that better transitions to the surrounding homes. While it is not in the binding development plan, we are willing and able to provide a 200 foot any with any buildings within a 200 foot setback from the eastern property line to be two stories. We heard concerns regarding stormwater. Modern stormwater standards are stringent, and the project will not move forward unless it fully complies with all county and state regulations. Traffic.

Although a traffic impact analysis was not required for this rezoning, Rangewater voluntarily completed one because we took the community's concerns seriously. The study was reviewed and accepted by county staff and concluded that the project would not negatively impact the roadway level of service on North Courtney Parkway or Pioneer Road.

We

also committed to tripling the length of the right turn lane on Pioneer Road to help reduce congestion during peak hours. I think it's important to recognize what could otherwise be developed on this property today. The site, as Kim mentioned, has a conditional use permit that could allow for a twenty four seven ambulatory care hospital with minimal setbacks and minimal buffers. The existing owner of this property is motivated to sell the property. So I would ask the commission this.

Is a three story and potentially some buildings two stories garden style multifamily community less compatible with the neighborhood than a hospital use directly adjacent to their

homes? The

economic engine of Brevard County is centered around Kennedy Space Center and Port Canaveral. Blue Origin continues to expand. They just doubled committed to doubling the size of their manufacturing facility on Merritt Island. SpaceX continues to grow. Port Canaveral is now the busiest cruise port in the world.

These employers are creating jobs rapidly, but housing diversity near these employment centers continues to lag behind demand. At the end of the day, we understand that not everyone supports growth. We believe this property is located on a major corridor, urban corridor identified for redevelopment and diverse housing opportunities. Our proposal creates an appropriate transition between the existing neighborhood and North Courtney Parkway while bringing new investment, additional housing options, and economic benefit to Merritt Island. Rangewater is prepared to invest more than $55,000,000 into the community, and we respectfully ask for your approval tonight.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mister Oliver, reaching the era and comparing

it with that area of Maritime is like comparing a proctor with direct.

Not a card. We're welcome. And we're gonna give you five minutes. So

Good evening. My name is Kyle Shastine. I'm with Bowman. Bowman will be the site engineer for this project. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida and I've been practicing land development in the state of Florida for ten years.

I've been working with Rangewater on this project and they have developed this conceptual site plan. I just wanted to highlight some things that Michael has already covered in his presentation to kind of visually depict it to, the commission. You can see along the eastern buffer, this is the enhanced buffer that he mentioned to the existing residential neighborhood here. He also mentions an enhanced buffer along the northern portion of the park property that will be zoned r s 15, adding additional buffering to the residential houses here. Oh, sorry.

They will also maintain and keep any existing vegetation where feasible along those buffers to help with buffering to the to the community. He did mention that there are wetlands on-site that have been delineated better understanding then able And seeing a we'll course be approved by the county and the state during the site plan process. There's also an existing bald eagle nest that will probably come up tonight. It's located in the vicinity of the property but it is not on the property. It's to the Southeast.

You can see this line here is the required setback by FWC to be met. So this project will meet all requirements of FWC regarding the the bald eagle nest. Mister Oliver did mention off-site improvements. The site plan shows where those are to be located. This is the turn lane on Pioneer Lane and then there will also be turn lanes on Courtney Parkway. I have Trent Ebersol here. He is do to we're right

opportunity to

speak. Do Trent And Ebersole with Bowman, the the traffic engineer. I am a registered professional engineer in Florida, thirty seven years of experience, and I have been accepted as subject expert in judicial proceedings. With the time that's left, I'm going to most of what I was going to say has already been said to some degree, I'm going to jump to the end and actually state why this is a favorable project as far as development is concerned with regard to traffic. And I do understand where the statement was made and it's true that this project, the site traffic will not worsen the levels of service on any of the facilities in the study area.

I understand the concerns because there are some existing congested movements in particular the westbound left approaching approaching Courtenay Parkway from Pioneer Road. So with regard to that, Kyle mentioned, if I could just change the graphic real quick, that part of our proposal is to lengthen the westbound right turn lane. So today the left turn movement is so long, queue that it blocks the ability for traffic to get into the right turn lane on the top that's the existing condition, the red cars would be those wanting to turn left, blue cars not all or the right turns that can't get in there. With the lengthening of that right turn lane, the delays for people wanting to make a right will be eliminated. There will actually picture, the amount of trips that this project would put on that that heavy movement of the westbound left turn would be about one vehicle every two minutes.

So to the naked eye, if you're out there and you looked at it today and you went back and looked at after the this was built, built, you would not notice the difference in in traffic. To to further that point, the traffic that would be generated by the by right use of the hospital would be four times as many trips. So this is in effect a very large reduction in the potential traffic for development on this site. The only way that it would be less in effect would be to not develop anything and so that's really the question here is what would be development. If there will be, this is a very favorable development. And with that, I'm available for questions. Okay.

Is that the applicant are you Yes. It is. Do we have any questions? Yes.

So you mentioned possibly part of it would be two story. Can you tell me where that would be, and is that actually reducing the number of units? Units?

So we right now, this is where I'm pointing right here is about a a 100 foot building setback. What we're committing is that any unit within 200 feet, which runs pretty much from this line line right here, 50 foot taper down here would be we can commit to two stories. At this time, I I don't know how that affects our unit count. We would still request res r u two fifteen, but we're willing to commit to a two story product so that there's no concerns about anyone anyone's units looking into any rear backyards.

But we don't but you don't know how many units that would reduce by?

It would

it would likely reduce the unit count by maybe 10.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. Yes.

Okay. That was one of my questions. I do have another a couple questions. When you say garden style, what what does that mean? What

what's the It's a it's a lower density multifamily development style. Yes. Does it does it it sounds like it denotes more vegetation, garden. It's it's surface part. It's more, you know, R U 215 requires a certain amount of open space. I believe it's off the top of my head, I believe it's 35%. R U 230 is slightly less than that, but it's it's open space. It's surface parking rather rather than a structured parking deck, but that's the definition of garden style apartment as I define it.

And the other question I had, I know in the presentation, you mentioned that this would be a high quality residential Yes. Multi family residential development. What in your bonding development plan commits you to a high quality verse what would be a non high quality?

We as a developer develop luxury apartment communities across The United States. We have developed two properties here in Viera, Marisol at Viera and Azul at Viera. I would define those as high end, high quality multifamily developments. I understand that Viera is very different than Merritt Island, but I'm I simply was noting that we've done business in Brevard County. We've developed in Brevard County, we like Brevard County and I was providing that as an example.

So what is it that makes it higher quality? Is it the design? Is the exterior finishes? Is the windows? What what are you doing?

It will be the from the exterior finishes in the rents that this property will command are north of $2,000 per unit that will likely be higher than many mortgages in the surrounding broader MSA. So when we look at that, we'll have quartz countertops, we'll have, you know, enhanced cabinet finishes, you know, as Millstone developed previously, there's LVT, you know, flooring throughout the the the units. It's a a luxury finish package that we provide to the

residents. Okay.

Thank And we professionally manage the communities internally. We manage 75,000 multifamily units across The United States. We're a top 25 property manager nationally.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Goodson, do you have a question?

No, sir. I do not. Not at this time.

Okay. Okay. If that is the applicant's finished, we will now go to the cards. First speaker, Ray Ann Saenz. Yes. Five minutes per speaker.

Good evening. I live

in the Raintree development that they're speaking about just behind this complex. Been there for two the mic.

Yeah. You don't pull that mic down.

I'm a

little short, so

excuse me. I live in the Raintree development behind the proposed development. I've been there for twenty one years, so I've raised two children there. They both gone to Lewis Carroll, and I have my oldest daughter also has a home there. So I'm very concerned some of the issues that have come up, especially traffic.

I find it hard to believe that there will not be more traffic there, is already highly congested, especially with the Starbucks and at the school hours. It's very difficult to get in out and onto Courtney Parkway. I can say that with firsthand knowledge. But I'm here today to point out the administrative policy four, which talks about no new intensity of traffic. Under administrative policy number four, the proposed use must not materially and adversely impact an established residential neighborhood by introducing types or intensity of traffic, including but not limited to volume, time of day, traffic activity, different types of vehicles, parking, trip generation, commercial activity, or industrial activity that is not already present within the identified boundaries of the neighborhood.

I believe that the developers own roadway capacity analysis confirms this project will add 855 daily trips to the Courtney segment alone, consuming 25% of the remaining capacity with additional trips flowing onto Pioneer Drive that the developer did not even study. A development of this scale would fundamentally change what our neighborhood is, and I'm asking that you would disapprove of this project. Thank you.

Thomas Reedy. Thomas Reedy. And the next speaker will be Robert Baker. So he may be ready.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Thomas Reedy, and I am here to oppose the development case number 25Z0054, the proposed 220 unit three story complex. This development, in my opinion, is not appropriate for this location. It places a high density multi story complex directly in the middle of an established single family neighborhood that's incompatible with the that we currently have there.

I know there were some issues brought up about the zoning and everything, but in talking to some of the staff that I spoke with yesterday, Courtney was designed to have commercial on the front, residential in the back. And, you know, everything that was stated, yes, there is a commercial site directly across the street from that with the, you know, the assisted living home, the bank and such. But, again, that's commercial, and that's what it was designed for. It wasn't designed for a large complex like this. And, again, I know you've heard about the you know, I'm I'm not gonna go really into a lot about the traffic, but, you know, the traffic is a big concern.

And my question is, has anybody here any of the commissioners actually went out and and witnessed it? Team? Are you know, have you have you seen it? You know, you're you're seeing a lot of issues. You're hearing a lot about traffic, but has anyone gone out there to to witness it?

I mean, when the when the when the bridge is up, it backs way up during you know, when everybody's letting out, you know, coming south on Courtney from the space center. It created a huge impact there. I mean, a lot of us that live there on the weekends now with the port traffic, you can barely move on 528. I mean, it's it's it's it's a very, very congested area. So, I mean, that's something else to look at.

You know, there are a few things about the traffic. It increases the congestion and safety risk that are currently there. The about the FDOT that's possibly putting in the medium all the way down past Publix, which is gonna there's the turn lanes are going to disappear. You know, there could be a delay in emergency response times, and it's it's or it's gonna overwhelm the intersection that cannot realistically be expanded with just the right turn lane to court need to head north. The infrastructure we haven't talked about is strained.

I live in the in Via The Palmas. And in the last six months, we've been out of power eight times. No hurricane, no storms, and the infrastructure, which basically the where Via Della Reina and it backs up to Raintree, power, you know, the power poles are in that area, which causes a lot, and now this will be there. Also, was a lot of work that was done on the sewer system, and they're still continuing to work on it. Every once in a while, we see Brevard County out there looking at it.

They did put in a couple of new lift station in lift stations in, but it was in in a it was an issue at that time, and I'm I'm afraid that it's going to be a continuing issue. You know, there this area is vulnerable to flooding as we discussed in the past on previous meetings, especially in Sykes Creek in that area, Sykes Creek Cove. So without this, you know, this, I think, you know, with non permeable area that this is going to be built on, the rainwater has to go somewhere. And I know we discussed that about ponds and such, and there is wetlands in there. But, you know, in closing, this project would permanently change our neighborhoods and reduce our quality of life and also potentially putting our residents at risk because, yes, the people are gonna come out.

You know, right now, people that live in the other development behind us on the Via De Harvey, nobody goes out to court I'm sorry. Nobody goes out to the end of Via De La Reina. They all go past you know, they go down Via De La Reina. They go down Sykes Street Cove, and everybody goes to the light. Currently, right now, in that residential area where we have over 500 homes or more. So with all that being said, I respectfully urge the commission to deny this case and and also to, you know I'm just asking that you really consider opposing this. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Robert Baker. And the next speaker will be Valerie Vreedy.

Good evening, y'all. Can

you hear me?

Yes. Not really. Not really? Alright. Is that better? Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. So my name is Robert Baker. I live at 2395 Sykes Creek Drive. When I got out of the military, we moved back to Florida. I'm a native Floridian. Love it here. Absolutely. We're stoked to come back here.

Like I said, we bought our house nine years ago. Great. High finish floor elevation in the waterfront neighborhood is it was everything we could dream of. And then as the development started to happen with Hampton Manor and Starbucks and all that stuff, you know, everybody is everybody wants to talk about how, you know, that development is, you know, it's zoned for commercial, which is true, and that's fine. But the s the I think the important aspect to consider there is is it necessarily right as further development right.

We've seen my house is flooded three times since 2021. I have no documented history. My house was built in 1980 and there's no documented history that has been disclosed to me that that property has ever flooded once. And I think what's even more concerning is that, you know, the team proposing this development dismissed all of our concerns as fear of change as opposed to it being legitimate concern for houses and properties that we've invested in for schools that our kids go to and we want them to go there safe. I sent you guys thank you.

I sent the board pictures today of vehicles that were going up the middle of the two yellow lines as that as it was backed up down Pioneer trying to get Lewis Carroll to let out. And I'm sorry. A 350 foot turn lane going into a development of what's probably gonna be around another thousand people is not gonna mitigate that. So in, you know, in the side of that, our aging infrastructure, like the gentleman before me brought up, we were we've never had any sort of power loss. And then all of a sudden, I had actually sent you guys pictures of that too, FP and L coming out because the storm water is so high, it's overwhelming the switches that are there.

And this is after improvements have been made here. The development that's gone on has already brought down our quality of life neighborhood, and further development is damn sure not gonna help, but I apologize for the language. That's all I really have to say. Y'all, thank you so much for your time, and I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Valerie Reedy and next speaker will be Tina Rowen.

Hi. My name is Valerie Reedy and I live in the Villa De Palmas area. And I'm here today because I too oppose the proposed high density rental apartment complex on North Courtney and Pioneer. Everyone keeps talking about progress, so I decided to do a deep dive into the definition of what progress is and how it relates to this project. We all agree that project progress should strengthen a community, not weaken it.

True progress improves long term economic stability, protects existing neighborhoods, and ensures infrastructure can safely support growth. This project does none of those things. First, our infrastructure is already overcapacity. North Cotton is a constrained corridor with no room for meaningful expansion. Adding a high density rental complex will increase traffic, slow emergency response times, and strain utilities and storm water systems that were never designed for this level of density.

When infrastructure fails, taxpayers, not developers, pay incompatible with the surrounding area. Our four subdivisions are made up of approximately 600 single family homes, placing an eight building three story rental complex in the middle of established subdivisions disrupts the character, safety, and stability of the community that already exists. Third, this development does not improve long term economic stability. High density rentals often generate less less tax revenue than the public services they require. If property values decline because of incompatible high density development, the county loses tax revenue.

That isn't progress. It becomes a long term financial liability. Finally, this project provides no benefit to the current residents. It is designed for transient renters, not for the families who've invested their lives and savings into this community. Progress should serve the people who are already there, not displace their quality of life.

Growth is the same as prog growth is not the same as progress. Progress improves the community's quality of life. This project does the opposite. For these reason, I ask you to listen to our voices and vote on the vote with our majority and asking you to vote no on this proposal. I do have a couple of comments because I wanna address some of the things that miss Ruzanka said earlier and also the developer.

One of the things that they did talk about was they won't use our roads. I live on Via De La Reina. That's where the light is going from this new DOT project. I currently make a right into Pioneer Road, I would say about 90% of the time going north because the traffic is so backed up, I can't even get to Via De La Reina. So you know what's gonna happen.

When they come out of their development, they're not gonna be able to make that right to get onto Courtney, so they're gonna make the left I mean, onto Pioneer. They're gonna make the left, they're gonna go down Pioneer, onto Sykes Creek Loop, I think it's called, and then up Via De La Reina to go to the new light that's coming. So all that traffic, they may tell you no one's gonna do that, they do that because we have to do that now to avoid traffic. And I know that even my husband sometimes when he's he's pulling his boat, he can't even pull into make the left into Via De La Reina because there's so much traffic. We actually go to the light, make the left onto Pioneer and back track and come all the way up to Via De La Reina because there's so much traffic.

And it like he said, with the port and on I wish you guys would go there on Saturday. We left the island one day on a Saturday afternoon. We couldn't get back to Saturday night with all the roads. 520, 528 was all backed up because when 520 backs up, that also overflows to 528 and vice versa. So when 528 backs up, you can't get off 520 either. So we have no way of getting on and off this island and adding more of these high density apartment complexes. These aren't even people that are gonna stay within our community. They're here temporarily. They're renting because they're here for a project. They mentioned the cruise port, that's gonna be Airbnbs.

And we already saw that happened down in Melbourne Beach. I think you guys are familiar with the Harbor Island and what happened down there when the developer came in. They got the rezoning change, and then another developer came in and did a completely different project. I have a friend that lives there. She they're literally on blowhorns in the middle of the night telling people to be quiet and there are people yelling back, sorry, we're on vacation. We don't have to be quiet. So this is what we don't wanna see in our community. This will this project will ruin our community. Thank you.

Tina Rowan. Tina Rowan. And next speaker will be Susan Cole.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tina Rowan. I live at 131 Cove Loop Drive in Sykes Cove. I'm here today to address the issue of school capacity as it relates to the proposed 222 unit residential development. This is not a minor procedural concern.

It goes directly to whether this board can lawfully and responsibly approve additional residential density when our public schools are already operating under significant pressure. Policy 2.1 of the public school facilities element is quite explicit. It states that the county shall not approve any non exempt residential development that increases residential development rights until a school impact analysis has been completed and a capacity determination letter is issued by the school board confirming that adequate school facilities exist. That language isn't optional, it's not discretionary, it is mandatory. The policy uses the phrase shall not approve, which clearly establishes a legal prerequisite before any rezoning can move forward.

Before the board can consider approving this application, there must be confirmation that the affected schools, which include the Lewis Carroll Elementary School, the applicable middle school, and Merritt Island High School have the actual capacity to accommodate additional students that will result from this project. And we must be honest about what we are talking about. A 222 unit apartment development will generate students Depending on accepted planning methodologies, that could mean anywhere from roughly 30 to 80 additional students entering the system. Those students will not be theoretical. They will require desks, teachers, classrooms, and space in already constrained facilities.

The adopted level of service for our school system is 100% of capacity. That means we are not planning for overflow. We are planning to operate at the limit. If any of these schools are already near capacity, even a modest increase in enrollment can push them beyond what they were designed to handle. We know from publicly available data that Lewis Carroll Elementary operates with an average student to student to teacher ratio of roughly 15 to 16 students per teacher.

While that may sound very comfortable on paper, it's important to understand what that number actually represents. That ratio does not includes not only classroom teachers but also specialized staff. The actual classroom sizes are often significantly higher, typically ranging from 18 to 25 students in elementary grades and sometimes more depending on the grade level and program needs. At Merritt Island High School, classroom sizes commonly range from the low twenties to the upper twenties and in some cases exceed 30 students particularly in core academic courses. These are already filled classrooms operating under state imposed class size requirements with limited flexibility.

So when we add an even relatively modest number of new students from a single development, those students are not absorbed into excess capacity. They are absorbed into systems that are already carefully balanced at or near their limits. The land development code reinforces this concern. Section 62 dash six zero two, section d number seven requires the school district to issue a school capacity determination letter for non exempt development and that clearly ties adequacy to the comprehensive plan. That means capacity is not a general planning concept.

It is a required finding tied directly to approval. The applicant has presented a school concurrency determination letter indicating no deficiency at this time. However, that letter is explicitly nonbinding. The school board has reserved the right to amend its findings during the formal concurrency determination process at the site plan and final development order stage. In other words, the letter is just a snapshot in time, not a guarantee of future capacity.

The distinction matters because the question before the board is not whether the schools had capacity at one moment in time. The question is whether the capacity will exist when this project is built out and begins generating students potentially years from now. Even the school board itself recognizes that uncertainty by reserving its that uncertainty by reserving its right to revisit analysis. That acknowledgment alone should caution us against treating preliminary findings as final assurances. We are also required to consider the broader public health safety and welfare impacts under factor five of section 60 two-eleven 51, section c as well as overall consistency with adopted planning policy under factor three.

When school capacity is uncertain, those factors weigh heavily in the analysis. Overcrowded schools affect not only education quality but also transportation, staffing, safety conditions, and overall community infrastructure. At minimum, if the board is inclined to approve this request, approval should be conditioned upon a binding and final school capacity determination, adequacy adequate capacity at the time of the final development order approval. Without that assurance, we are effectively approving population growth without confirmed infrastructure to support it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan Cole. And our next speaker, Marcus

Herman. Thank you, and thank you for listening to all of us. I wanna remind you of the Brevard County's mission statement and vision as your role as commissioners. The mission is to contribute to enhancing and ensuring Brevard's quality of life today and always. The vision of the community which excels is and is recognized for one, providing for the health, safety, education, and social needs of our community.

These are all things that you need to consider when is it going to happen if this development takes place. Number two is building a diverse, strong economic base with the needed infrastructure to support the quality lifestyle. Three, protecting the environment and conserving our valuable resources. Four, creating cooperative partnerships between government, businesses, community organizations, and our residents. Five, maximizing performance and communications to provide excellent service to our customers.

These mission statement and the visions are directly from your website. Rezoning this property is irresponsible and goes against the mission statement and each and every vision and goal for all the reasons that you've heard already, you've heard in the past, and you will continue to hear. The health I'll go back to number one because number the health the health facility, if the rezoning does not go back, that would be fine. And it I I I don't think anybody here agrees that the twenty four hour traffic is gonna be what a 22 unit luxury condo or apartment would be. They're only allowing 1.7 parking spots for each of those units, and it's a one to three bedroom unit.

And as they stated, it's 2,000 or more. There's not gonna be one person in that unit. There's gonna be there's so we already have additional traffic traffic. Safety, huge concern. Kids ride their bicycles. They walk to school. And with these traffic and these cars going at school time, it's it's terrible. The education, we've talked about some of the problems with getting to kids to school. All those that they've actually said in the past is that it's it's a it's a education board of education problem, but it becomes our problem, the taxpayers, and the social needs of our community. We like our community as it is.

We've got the infrastructure. I mean, we've got the the Starbucks and the Target and the grocery stores and the restaurants. There's nothing that this luxury condo is going to do to enhance our our lives. I respectfully suggest that you we focus the time and energy and our resources, including all the money that it's gonna cost to fix these problems. We've already got a huge apartment complex that we haven't even dealt with the con the traffic that's gonna be coming towards Courtney going to the space condo by the mall.

All that's to come. We don't even know what's gonna happen then. But you I'm willing to you know, if you work with developers and businesses, they're willing to revamp all the empty storefronts and dilapidated buildings and existing apartments along Courtney Boulevard between 05:20 and 05:28, and that would work towards the mission statement to enhance and ensure the quality of life today and always. I respectfully ask you to protect the residents of Brevard County and say no to rezoning this property.

Marcus Herman. And the next speaker will be Holly Olson.

Commissioner

staff, I am Marcus Herman, the current chairman of the Maradona Redevelopment Agency. First off, I I really wanna give hats off to the developer and their representative for doing everything they could to try to make this project work. It just doesn't. I am here representing the MIRBoard as well as being a concerned citizen who has lived in Maryland for sixty years. I was sure that the county commission was very aware of the my reward stance on this project.

But to be clear, our board voted unanimously to deny this zoning change. We did so in part because we did not find it to be compatible with the surrounding area, and we were concerned with the level of density. Now for context, I feel it's important to understand that the MIRA board is made up of individuals that are business minded people. They live in Merritt Island, and they are very active in their community. They were selected by many different commissioners over the years.

These commissioners trusted their individual integrity and reasonable thinking skills. The board as a whole is made up of pro business individuals. They, along with the staff, are always looking for ways where developments can enhance the well-being of the people in Merritt Island. The board also understands the that growth is inevitable, but we need the need for responsible growth is also very imperative. Myra does support us a what of that I'm not going able to reality or the facts of the matter also We're strongly indicate that this project could have more adverse effects than positive ones.

The MIRA board stands with this community and ask that you deny the request for the zoning change.

There's been a request for a ten minute break. We typically take those after every hour and a half, two hours. So we'll break until 06:45 and come right back. We have quite a few cars left, so we'll be up here for a bit. Thank you.

I wanted to let anyone Darren King had to leave, but I wanted to put on the public record that he came here to speak out against the project. And anyone who wishes to make sure going to that we're Olson.

Good evening, commissioners. Good evening, commissioners. It's my first time speaking here, and I get a little anxious, so bear with me. I have to say that I'm I'm a Merritt Island resident. My name's Holly Olson, and I feel like Brevard County is a beautiful county, and we are so diversified in our businesses with tourism, the space industry, all the things that Brevard County has.

I have to say that for every speaker that spoke tonight, I'll double down on it because I feel choked up because I feel like they were so smart, and and they weren't being emotional. They were being correct as far as I see it. I specifically wanted to speak about a couple of different points. I am speaking, first of all, to urge you to vote no on this project. It is because of the three basic things, the water issue, traffic concerns, and voters.

The water issue, I would say, is I'm my opposition is based on significant concerns regarding the water supply and management, specifically as many speakers spoke on tonight as well. Specifically, I'm concerned about the potential destruction of local ecosystems, including the Mosquito Lagoon and Sykes Creek. I'm thinking a little bit like inside the box, but more probably more outside the box because I think that we're all right now sort of glued to comprehensive plan and everything is within that. But the reality of our world is we don't live inside that comprehensive plan personally as residents. We live live outside of it in the communities that we represent and the businesses that we have.

So whereas that is very important to them to them, and I think they did a fantastic job, by the way. And I'm happy that they're such good builders. But for our specific area, it's not emotional. It's just wrong. So I said I had three things.

The water issue is one. The traffic concerns, can't even say anything about because everybody spoke so brilliantly about the traffic concerns tonight. The other thing is the voters. I don't know a voter as in a local resident who hasn't been against this project. We have a great county.

We're very blessed. I want to say I respect you, and I thank you for all you do. I think but I think we'll be well served in the future with considering renovations, conservation efforts, teardowns with improved rebuilds, which might be a great thing for builders builders and other recycle strategies that would benefit our county's maintenance. I also think that will bring down the expense for the county because they wouldn't have to pay for all the growth issues that we always get behind on, it seems. We build the things, and then we have to catch up with It's not supposed to be working like that, and you're supposed to be the people that defend our safety.

I feel like people that come in to change the zoning, they come in to change the zoning, but they're not the residents and they're not the voters. They're from Indianapolis, and we vote for you. We're your constituency. So when you weigh one against the other, you have to say, who do the commissioners care about? And that's kinda what I care about.

Anyway, I think that's that about about wraps it up. I think we love our businesses here. We love our communities. We like beautiful buildings, but not when it comes at the expense of our destination's charm and quality of life. In my opinion, we would be better served with renovation, conservation.

I probably already said this, tear downs with improved rebuilds and other recycling strategies for future benefits. We love businesses here, etcetera, etcetera. And for our sake and the sake of the tourist industry and mother nature and quality of life, we should vote this down. That's

it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, Diana Schomer. And after her will be Veronica Ochlear. Ochlear? I think. Diane Schomer? Okay.

I

should have called your name, Senator.

Hi. My name is Diana Schomer. I live on Andrick Street on Merritt Island, and have been there for quite a while. I am also against this project, and I think that it it it's maybe kind of important that that nobody has talked about this, but the the whole thing that got all of this started, and it started all over the country. In this state, it started with the Live Local Act, and it it's what promoted all these high density projects, and they gave these developers many many perks.

They don't have to pay impact fees. They they don't have to pay sales taxes on up to $5,000 of sales tax per unit, so they can buy all the materials tax free. They don't have to pay all their property taxes. They can build these things in any zoning. This is what the state law said.

And so all of these people jumped in and these things are going up all over the country. I mean, they are just everywhere now, and I think it's part of the World Economic Forum where they said, oh, you'll live in these places and you'll you won't have anything, you won't own anything, but you'll be happy. And that I'm not happy that way. I'm not happy to live like that. I I think it's overcrowding, it's over dense.

I mean, years ago Harvard did a study with rats, and they put rats in a in a building, not a building, but a facility rat maze, and they fed them, but they didn't add any more food, and they let the rats multiply. And in the end, the rats were eating the other rats because that's what it's too dense. It's just too dense. Anyway, the other thing that I'm very upset about is I've read that there's gonna be a $200,000,000 upgrade to our sewage, our Sykes Creek sewage facility. Facility, $200,000,000.

Now the developers aren't gonna pay for that. I'm guessing we're gonna pay for that, and that's a lot of money. And shouldn't that upgrade happen before we have you've already approved 300 units on Merritt Island that we don't have room for, and we have all these sewage spills all the time. We voted this tax that we pay every month, it's a half a cent sales tax, to go towards cleaning up the Indian River Lagoon. Well, this money amounts to roughly $4,000,000 a month.

Meanwhile, the lagoon isn't looking any better, probably because the sewage treatment plants aren't upgraded, and we still have the spills, and we're spending I mean, $4,000,000 a month, that's $48,000,000 a year. We should be able to make an impact. How are we gonna deal with all the overflows if we don't have this facility in place to handle it before these units? And they put them up fast. It doesn't take them long.

And the other thing that I take issue with is they are not luxury apartments. Everybody knows on Merritt Island, your housing should be made out of concrete block. If it's not made out of concrete block, every time we have a hurricane, you're gonna have to evacuate out of those. They're built out of sticks. The only thing that's concrete is the stairwell. That's it. So all of those people in all of those units are always going to have to evacuate every time there's an evacuation notice. Already the evacuation time is well over six hours, another 300 units here, another 200 units there. You're adding hours to the evacuation time. Sometimes there isn't that much time.

These are barrier islands. This is not like in in interior land. We are subject to the weather here. Let's see. I know I must have had more to say than that.

Anyway because anyway, I just I don't think it's right to settle the taxpayers with all these expenses to help the developers. These are not a needy group of people. They do not need to be subsidized by me or any of us here. And I realize that, you know, you you have a difficult job and and all of that, but this I am emotional about this one. I am emotional because I travel that road, and they are gonna concrete what they call the suicide lane, which is our turn lane.

There are businesses on both sides. When they sit when they do that, you're gonna have to make u turns to go places. You're gonna make more congestion. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Please vote no.

Veronica and our next speaker, Michael Wilson.

Actually, I'm the attorney who's representing the community association. And since we are getting more time for the attorney, I'd rather go at the end if we can do that so it doesn't interrupt the flow of all the community members whose voices should be heard first.

Okay.

Okay. I'll go after. Did you fill out a

did you fill out a

Yes. I have a card already out.

What was your name again?

Veronica Ochler.

Okay. I'll put you at the end.

Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, that's right. I called your name, didn't I? Duh. Okay.

Hello, commissioners. Michael g Wilson. I'm the chairman of the Space Coast Patriots in Merritt Island, but more importantly, I am a Merritt Island resident. I live at 2562 Sykes Creek Drive. And the first point I wanna make tonight is miss Rezinke prepared a addendum, and she sent it, and I assume all of you got it.

And there is a key point of wording in her addendum. It says Brevard County may approve rezoning applications, and the keyword there is may. That doesn't mean you have to, it means you may if you decide it's a good use of the property and good for your constituents. And I'm going to ask you to vote no on the rezoning, and I'm going to tell you some of the reasons why I think you should do so based on the addendum that miss Rizenka provided. In the addendum, miss Rizenka said that they may consider going to the live local act to put in affordable housing, which would increase the number of units to 337.

Now I've taken a look at the developer's website, and as far as I can read, they are not in the affordable housing business because in when you're in the affordable housing business, it requires that you manage these properties for thirty years. You have annual audits. So I think these guys are willing to throw anything out to get you to do the rezoning, and I don't think that that should happen. Another point that I wanna make is they hired a traffic study, Bowman Engineering, which is fine, but they were unwilling to go an extra step and do the site plan. If they wanted so badly, they should provide a site plan, and they have not, because I think it would reveal other problems that are of quite a serious nature, but you don't know until you have the site plan.

The other thing that they have said is that Hampton Manor is a high density application, and it may be by definition a high high density application, but I can tell you based on going by there every day, it's a low traffic output because the people who live in Hampton Manor, for the most part, do not go back and forth to work. These are people who are in assisted living. So that's another point that they've thrown out that I don't think is a good point. They are also threatening, as they did tonight, they said, boy, oh, boy, if you don't let us in, they're gonna put a hospital in. That's gonna be really, really bad.

Well, I don't agree. For those of you and most of us do live in Merritt Island, and most of us access Cape Canaveral Hospital, whether as a patient or a visitor, you can go to the hospital any time of the day, and you'll see just a few cars coming and going. And realize that a hospital, the people who work at the hospital work shifts. It's not like everybody goes to work at eight and goes home at five. So everybody can attest that the traffic is fairly low volume even though a hospital is twenty four seven.

So let's disregard that point. As part of the traffic study that these guys have provided, they failed to mention that the evacuation component. And I think that's very, very important, and I think they should not have left that out. The other thing that they did not consider was that FDOT is going to improve, so they say, the access on 528 and they're going to put a hard median in the middle. That's going to create a lot of problems.

They also said that everyone or almost everyone will access the new complex through State Road 3, yet they provided no proof of that. That's just what they say. That's what they believe. Who knows? The last thing I wanna point out is they keep saying over and over again, gosh, we don't have any homes or apartments for these people to live in. I did a quick check today on realtor.com, and they say that in Cocoa and Rockledge, there are 2,024 apartments or homes for rent. So I think that just tells that. Commissioners, thank you very much for your time, and please vote no.

Thank you. Lindsay Lindsay Buckle is our next speaker, and after her will be Barbara Giles.

Alright. Good evening. I'm Lindsey Buckle, and even though I stand here in uniform today, I am a Florida and Brevard County voting resident, Florida native born and raised, and I'm so happy that six years ago, I got to come back and put my roots down here. I live on 2645 Raintree Lake Circle. My kids attend Lewis Carroll Elementary, ride their bikes to and from school every single day. They like to play in those woods that are behind our neighborhood development there, and they also like to play in the storm water every single time it rains and floods our neighborhood. And I'd like to share some pictures with you if I can. I don't know if we can pull that up. But my kids, every time it rains and some of the pictures I'll show you, this one is from 2000 and oops. Get the glare off here.

This one is from 2022. And what I wanna show you here is I live

make this a little prettier for you guys.

Print other way. There you go. I

live

directly I live directly where two storm drains are. So right at the end of my mailbox is a storm water drain, and across the street from there is a storm water drain. As you can see here, it is lightly raining. This is not a hurricane. This is a rainstorm.

I'd also like to point out this right here, walking across my back back patio is from 2024. Flooding in my house. And in 2022, I have pictures here here that I have emailed of us paddleboarding and kayaking down the street. All three of these events are again from rainstorms, not from hurricanes, normal rainstorms. And each one of these events, several of them, I reached out to the county commission and I asked, what is your storm water maintenance plan for this neighborhood because it's not working?

Across the street from us is Raintree Lake Circle. The lake is not flooding in these events. The storm water drains are not taking care of the water like they should be. I talked to some of my neighbors that have been in the neighborhood for a long time. There are culverts that used to run all behind the houses. Those are not maintained. They no longer exist. They've been filled in. We have the culverts that run all along Pioneer that are not accounting for this storm water. And so my issue, I applaud the development team here that has taken the site plan, they have listened to the community and tried to mitigate as many of the concerns that they can that are within their span of control.

But my issue here is with the county maintenance of our storm water. That is not the responsibility of these developers. They will be responsible for taking care of the three inches of rain that their code requires them to take care of on their site plan. The problem is is that site plan is gonna include some filter, it's gonna include going to a retention pond, and it's gonna include going out to our storm water maintenance that connects to our neighborhood that is already not maintained. And as they as they tie into that storm water maintenance, that flooding that I experienced on an annual and persistent basis in the six years I've lived in my house is going to continue and get worse.

I have already spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get drainage companies out to my house. The only thing they can do is put drainage ditches in and send it out to the street, which I just showed you is already flooding. That's not gonna get the flooding out from around my house. I don't know what I can do anymore within the neighborhood, and the development that's going on around me is gonna raise the dirt level, it's gonna tie into our storm water, and it's gonna make the flooding of my house and my neighborhood worse. And so my issue, I applaud the team for listening to the community, it is not their responsibility to make sure the storm water drain at the end of my street is clear for their development to occur.

That is its responsibility of this commission. And I can tell you after each one of these events, I have also reached out to the commission as an engineer myself and as a as a program manager and government employee. I said, is your storm water maintenance plan for my area? Crickets. I got emails about if I this is a once in a lifetime rain event.

We can't account for this. I said that's funny because this has happened about five or six times now since I've lived here. I have been told, well, here is our GIS data for what our storm water plan is, looking at the map of where all the drains and ditches are. I have asked repeatedly how are you gonna maintain our storm water system in this area, and I have not gotten an answer from our county. And so that concerns me when we talk about adding hundreds of development units that are gonna tie into our storm water plan and how that's gonna affect the flooding that's already occurring in my neighborhood.

And so I am a no on this project and not because they haven't done their due diligence, but because the county has not done theirs on maintaining our storm water system. Thank you.

Barbara Giles. Barbara Giles. And our next speaker is Gregory McCluskey.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Barbara Giles, and I live at 203 Cove Loop Drive, Merritt Island. I want to address the most critical procedural point before you tonight before your vote. Your authority and your obligation is to evaluate the infrastructure impacts at this hearing before you vote. Your own guidelines and the comprehensive plan are clear.

You must consider the impact of a zoning change on traffic patterns, water, and sewer systems, and the established character of the neighborhood before granting new development rights. These are not suggestions that you can just consider at a later date. They are mandatory factors for your decision tonight. If the infrastructure cannot support the proposed intensity, the rezoning should not be approved. You've heard from a lot of people here that we can't sustain another building like that.

We don't have the infrastructure. It's not there. There's already flooding. The reason your rules require a preliminary evaluation is precisely so you don't approve a density that the community cannot physically handle. You cannot responsibly grant increased development rights today without first confirming that the roads and utilities have the capacity.

If the capacity isn't there now, you can't can't approve it. The project is incompatible with the area. I believe you have an obligation to the public to evaluate infrastructure impacts of the proposed apartment building change right now before you vote on that change. You already started that process and already concluded that this project is going to endanger the users of Pioneer Road, families, neighbors, school children, and parents. So you're making a decision.

The decision impacts thousands of people, thousands of people. All the users of Pioneer Road and Courtney Parkway. And by the way, I think Courtney Parkway is being at that Pioneer and Courtney. They're gonna be making some changes. It was just announced to the they're gonna be working on it because it's so dangerous.

There are so many accidents. Right there, Pioneer in Courtney. If infrastructure cannot support the project, the zoning change should not be approved. You cannot responsibly grant more development rights today without confirming there's capacity for the development. If the capacity is not there, this project is incompatible with the area.

And you've heard from all these fine people who dressed in red and came here and came here before and came here before. It's important. It affects lives. It's dangerous to allow this and to just go ahead and say, yeah, go ahead and build when you already are on alert that there are serious serious traffic problems now. Thank you.

Thank you, Gregory McCluskey. And the next speaker will be Daniel Delewd.

Daniel name Delewd. My name is Gregory McCluskey. I live at 1899 that talk about we're we're to to

about

percent from the background growth alone. This one project wants to grab 25% of the tiny bit of space left on that road and who will be responsible for the major changes required when growth exceeds the capacity within a short period after 2027. I was trying to come here tonight and I was in that right turn lane, no other traffic, but Courtney was backed up well beyond Pioneer Road. So I had to wait for the light to change in order to be able to make a right turn because the capacity wasn't there for me to be able to make a right turn. It was that crowded on Courtney.

Worse yet, the study completely ignored Pioneer, the side road which our kids and grandkids go to school at Lewis Carroll Elementary. That omission alone should concern this board. I've seen some personal examples. I happened to leave one time and forgot and went during the time that school was let out. It took three traffic light cycles for me to get through to make a left turn.

The traffic has gotten so bad that many people now are cutting through behind Starbucks and going past the assisted living to try to get out onto Courtney To the point where Hampton Manor, which my wife's excuse me, my wife's mother lives in, they have warned all the residents who may be walking over to Starbucks or the bank to be extra careful because of the cars traffic going through there. The extension of the right turn lane really isn't going to do anything. And if you look at the drawings that they gave you that shows the cars that are trying to make left turns and those making the right turns, their exit is going to compound that because people are going to be trying to get over into the turn lane to turn left and cutting across where this traffic is supposed to be flowing through on the right that they are bragging about. My kids go to Lewis Carroll, my grandkids go to Lewis Carroll and they ride their bikes there and so I am very concerned about the safety and the issues there because they're coming over from the Glenwood Circle area Glenwood Circle. If 1,400 new car trips are added daily as their study suggests and over 500 of those use the school road, it's a massive safety risk for children walking and biking.

The comprehensive plans administrative policy five criteria in G requires this board to evaluate whether proposed rezoning load would and I quote, materially and adversely impact the safety or welfare of residents in existing residential neighborhoods. Criteria B, C and D also requires you to consider three additional criteria about Pioneer Drive regarding road quality. A, whether the physical quality of the existing road system is sufficient to support the use without significant deterioration b, whether the surrounding road system is sufficient within construction quality to serve the use without the need of substantial public improvements and c, whether the road system is of such within construction quality that the proposed use would pose potential for material danger to public safety. It does not qualify for that and this only makes it that much worse. We need to be able to turn left and right now it's very difficult to turn left during school hours particularly, but also at other times.

Policy five Criterion E asked whether the proposed use would result in a material and adverse change in traffic capacity that design capacities would significantly would be significantly exceeded. Commissioners, I along with thousands of area residents and parents of children going to school respectfully ask you to deny the rezoning application because the traffic it would generate poses a clear and material danger to the safety of these children and families who depend on Pioneer Drive every day. The developer has not even studied that impact. In addition, we elected you as our commissioners, all of your constituents to protect us from overcrowding and for this this impact on our quality of life. Thank you for listening to us.

Thank you. Danielle and our next speaker will be Pam Steele.

Alright. Good evening commissioners. My name is Daniel Allude. I live on Merritt Island, and I will try to get through this as quickly as possible. I wanna speak about the serious water sewer and utility capacity impacts of the proposed 220 unit development on Pioneer Road.

Brevard County land development code section 62 dash six zero two d three, the adopted level of service for potable water is 250 gallons per day per residential unit. For 222 units, that equals approximately 55,500 gallons of potable water demand per day. Section 62 dash six zero two d two sets the level of service for sanitary sewer at 200 gallons per day per unit, which equals approximately 44,400 gallons of sanitary sewer demanding per day. These figures do not even include the swimming pool, the 6,500 square foot clubhouse that they're wanting to put in there, or other amenities. Section 62 dash one one five one c three of the land development code expressly requires this board to consider the impact of proposed rezoning on water and sewer systems and other public facilities at the rezoning stage, not defer it to site plan.

Additionally, chapter 13 of the comprehensive plan policies five point two and five point five require preliminary concurrency evaluation during zoning review and rent verification from the utility provider that adequate capacity and water supply are available. To date, no such verification has been provided to the board. Brevard County is already facing a massive inch to infrastructure backlog. What was it? $800,000,000 between sewer and water infrastructure?

Are you serious? And they're talking about busting the cap guys. Now Brevard County is already facing that. We should not approve additional demand that could degrade service to existing residents who have already paid for our current water and sewer systems, I respectfully urge you to require clear written confirmation of adequate utility capacity before any approval. And to deny this application if that capacity does not exist or will not be fully funded by developer. Thank you.

Thank you. Pam Steele, and the speaker after Pam will be Drew Orr. Is that right? Pardon? The next speaker will be Drew Orr,

Good I think I got it evening commissioners, I'm Pam Steele, I live on Merritt Island at 203 Sykes Loop Drive, which my entrance and exit is definitely on Pioneer Road, and I just got through paying a thousand dollars two months ago for the mildew molded drywall from the last two years floods in my house, so what they say I have incurred as well. So I'm gonna get my emotional stuff over first, so miss Rizenka is happy and then I'll get to the facts. So first of all, I've worked at NASA for thirty five years. I'm now retired. Fifty five years, I've lived on Merritt Island, so I think I know the place pretty well.

My dad was there twenty years before me. I know a lot about sure I'm not

if if

the I'm other one, not

other

demographics have changed, but I don't believe we have a housing need overall. We have what I think is opportunistic greed. We have and and it's it's not just y'all, I'm not really against, you know, it's not you personally or anything, but I my son lives in Sarasota, I just it's everywhere, every time I go visit him there's another one of these matchbox apartment buildings going up. It's miserable getting around over there. Today when I left Pioneer Road to come here, it took me nine minutes once I made the right turn after fighting to get in the left lane, nine minutes three turns of the light just to get on to 528.

When I arrived in Viera, I'm like, what a great they planned this out, the roads are wide, they can expand, you can get around, it's a planned community, it's a beautiful thing. I'm happy Viera is here and growing, but that is not Merritt Island. Okay? That's not what it has been, what it should be. And when you cut yourself, you don't put salt in the wound. Well, that's what we're doing. We've already approved as a county and the port commission and the state and all of that, all that growth at the port. We on Merritt Island are very, very impacted by all the port growth on 05/28. We can't move around. It it quite a lot of times.

These homes, these new apartments, in my opinion, are not going to be If they are for the employees at the space center, they're gonna be transient renters. The construction will eventually die off because NASA is only gonna lease out so much land. And then you're going to have it's gonna be northern seasonal people, not long term residents festive. They're only here part of the year. Or it's gonna be you're gonna be gouging Elon and Jeff Bezos for their employees to stay there, but it's a whole different island. It's not the kind of people we have now in residence, long term vested, generational, a nice community. There's

plenty

of growth in Brevard County outside of that for for all of the rest of this. Okay. Aside from that, I'd say I'd like to address factor two of section sixty two eleven fifty one c, change in conditions. In factor two, it requires you to evaluate the change in conditions of the land use of property being considered in the surrounding properties since the establishment of the current applicable zoning classification. This is one of five mandatory decision criteria that you must consider.

It focuses on the property and the surrounding property, not the regional trends. Just because it's happening in Viera doesn't make it right for Merritt Island. The developer must demonstrate that the conditions actually have that will actually change in a way that warrants this rezoning. The burden is on them to prove it. Administrative policy three c reinforces the change in conditions inquiry or requires you to evaluate whether the proposed use is consistent with the emerging or existing pattern of surrounding development through an analysis of historical land use patterns, actual development over the immediately preceding three years, and development approved in the past three years but not yet constructed.

This three part test that the comprehensive plan requires you to apply, let me walk you through it. The developers gonna argue that the conditions have changed since the AU zoning was assigned, that regional employment has grown. I just explained it hasn't. Is my five

Finish your thought. Five minutes ago, and finish your thought.

Oh, wow. That original environment has grown, and the space industry has expanded. There is demand for rental housing on Merritt Island, but the relevant inquiry under factor two is not rather county wide or regional market change has shifted, it's what has changed in our immediate area. Nothing has changed in our immediate area. It's still a residential area. There's still a

school

there. AU one and r u one character of this corridor has not changed. Pioneer Drive is still a local resident road. The wetlands still exist. We're still flooding. The single family neighborhoods east of the site will define this still define how this community should continue. The developer's own aerial map confirms this. Let me apply the three part test. Historical land use patterns. The historical land use pattern is overwhelmingly single family residential.

It has been for decades. Fifty five years, I can attest to it. Actual development in the preceding three years, this includes Hampton Manor, but as someone's already pointed out, that population is an elder sector, they live in assisted facility assisted living, they don't mostly drive, so they're not gonna impact us on Pioneer Road. Approved and unbuilt, there's a 22 unit mobile home community that's been approved but it's not been built yet, pretty insignificant. Nothing that compares to this.

The developer zone traffic study shows Courtney is already at 88%, I think that was already a point made by Greg, so I won't belittle that. Merritt Island requires travel to Lewis Carroll Elementary, you already have heard all about that. The change in conditions has increased congestion. That's all that's changed. And this project does nothing to help that. It only adds to it. The exceptions do not create a trend. Just because some have been built, that doesn't mean you should build more. The others have been substantially smaller, built under different conditions, and none of them involve the kind of market rate luxury rental intensity being proposed here. These are going to be tourists.

They're going to be, you know, people renting them out or construction workers at the space center. They're not gonna be long term residents of Merritt Island. Thank you.

Thank you. Drew Drew Orr, and next speaker is Rebecca.

Commissioner, I got to apologize. It's Dean Orr. I my

handwriting Dean. That's okay. My handwriting is not that good. Well, I'm not the greatest reader either. So

Okay. Alrighty.

Yeah. My name is Dean Orr. I live at 172 Cove Loop Drive in Sykes Cove. I've been there for twenty five years. Raised my kids there and it's a wonderful community. I love it there. Tonight, I'm going to talk about density, density of developments. The maximum density is a ceiling, not an entitlement. The developer and staff may suggest that because the future land use designations of neighborhood commercial and residential 15 technically allow up to 15 units per acre that the board is required to approve the project at or near that density. That's not correct.

Policy 1.1 of the future land use element expressly states the approved densities may be lower than the maximum allowed by a residential land use designation. Therefore, the board Florida, of the Policy 1.1 identifies six six specific reasons the board can approve at a lower density or not at all. Environmental constraints, land use compatibility under administrative policy three, unavailability or inadequacy of public facilities and services including educational facilities, a lot of which has been mentioned already. And the character of the general area should be considered hurricane evacuation and other policies such as the MIRA plan. So a lot of different going do to that.

Residential development in a neighborhood commercial designated area is only permissible, and I quote, provided that the scale and intensity of residential and mixed use development is not compatible with a budding residential development or is compatible. But the the problem here is it's not compatible with with the local residential development. The the density is the problem here and we just wanna make sure you guys realize you don't have to approve the maximum density that's on a map. You know, we can approve lower if or none at all. And, you know, this is a lot of technical stuff, but I kinda wanna step back and talk big picture now a little bit.

I've lived there for twenty five years in the Merritt Island area and, you know, the congestion has gotten more and more dense over the years

then then

coming we're to try to get through that area. So we are super densely to populated during rush hour. That that whole place is packed and to put a high density apartment right in the middle of all that is is just trouble on all fronts as has been stated here today. So you're here to protect our community and not our develop not developers' profits here. So we we implore you to please vote no on this and think about the homeowners like me that have been here for twenty five years. We love our community. We don't wanna ruin with the big development. Thank you.

Thank you. Rebecca Hauser, our next speaker, Heinke Jonnert. Jonnert?

That was correct.

Oh. Good

evening, commissioners. My name is Rebecca Hauser, and I live in Sykes Cove Association. I'm also on the board of directors. I've been on the board for five years, and I have three kids currently at Lewis Carroll School. I wanted to show some pictures of what Pioneer looks like during pickup hours. I know nobody has brought that up yet. So let's see if I can show these. That would be great. Alright. Now I gotta flip it.

Sorry. Okay. So this is what Pioneer looks like. The whole side on Pioneer is completely full. They're supposed to be pulling over on the right hand side, but no cars pull over.

So as you can see, you have cars passing the entire right side to go past the school pickup line. And you can see there's a car going forward. So there's lots of kids that are coming out of the school, and I'm gonna show a picture of how close these kids are. So in the same picture right here is where the kids get to go. And back here where the kids so they're crossing across the street while cars are driving around the cars parked on Pioneer and going back and forth.

Lewis Carroll also has a crossing guard at that intersection. They do not have a crossing guard at North Courtney and Pioneer Road because it was determined to be too dangerous for a crossing guard to be there. So I just wanted to bring that up that Pioneer and Courtney, it's a scary intersection as it is. I love that they would be able to make the right hand lane longer, but the left side is the problem. You're going straight and left at the same time.

I always kind of wait before I'm going left, hold my breath to make sure the cars aren't gonna keep going before I actually turn. So I just wanted to note that. And then I also am I allowed to ask a question?

Sure.

Okay. So I wanted to ask the question about the live local act. From how I understand it, that it does not apply apply to AU land. Is that correct? Because currently, this lot okay. Sorry.

Let's let it. Okay.

Mister chairman, that is generally correct that agricultural use in for our county is a residential use, but local applies to commercial and industrial land uses.

Okay.

So currently, that lot is AU as well as those commercial buildings are AU, and the only reason why the commercial buildings were allowed was because they got the cup. So I wanted to point that out that even if they said that we could do the liberal local act, make the apartments bigger, that doesn't apply to this current zoning right now. Then just to end it with, I'm gonna be kind of quick. So if this board approves 222 units at this location and at this intensity, you are establishing a precedent for this immediate area. You are signalling signalling that the single family residential character of this community can be overridden by any developer who points to a future land use map designation and demands maximum density regardless

own.

To not you're do that. That.

You're

be be do

to Heika. Heika.

Yenert. That. And Heika then what? Yenert. Yeah. It's German.

That's great.

That's great name.

To cite the facts. Good evening. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Heika Yenert, and I live at 6729 Mangrove Drive, Merritt Island. I want to address the wetlands and the environmental constraints on this property.

Number one, wetlands confirmed on the property. The MIRA staff report and the final wetlands delineation both acknowledge that this property contains wetlands over two acres that must be preserved. The staff report itself states that a portion of the property containing wetlands is required to be preserved. Number two, conversation element objective five, no net loss. Objective five of the conservation element establishes the overarching standard.

It directs the county to preserve, protect, restore and replace wetlands to achieve no net loss for functional wetlands in Brevard County. It requires that protective activities to be prioritized in this in this order. Number one, avoidance of impacts. Number two, minimization of impacts. And number three, mitigation for impacts as the very last last resort.

This is binding county policy, not a suggestion. Number three, policy five-two E-one, density within wetlands limited to one unit per five acres. Conservation Element Policy 5.2 E1 states that residential land uses within wetlands shall be limited to not more than one dwelling unit per five acres, net acres. This dramatically constrains the developable area of this parcel, number four, policy five-2E4A, NC designation with wetlands. There is an additional constraint that is critical.

Policy 5.2 E four provides that institutional or residential professional land developments on property, which contains wetlands and which are designated on the future land use map as neighborhood commercial or community commercial shall be considered commercial as set forth in policy 5.2 E3. And what does policy 5.2 E3 says? It prohibits commercial and industrial land development activities in wetlands based on the FL Du designation, not the proposed or actual intended use. This means the wetland constraints on this property are even more restrictive than the developer may have represented. Certain types of residential development on this NC designated parcel with wetlands are treated as commercial and commercial development in wetlands is prohibited.

Number five, effective density increases on uplands. If the developer must avoid all red lands, which the conversation element requires as the first priority, then the effective density on the remaining upland portion increases substantially. This raises serious concerns about building height, building mass and intensity on a reduced footprint. This also raises compatibility issues because the buildings will be more imposing and more impactful on the surrounding single family neighborhood. Number six, the last one, the site plan places buildings on wetlands.

The developer's own density study and conceptual site plan show building footprints that extend directly into wetland areas as identified on the wetlands delineation. The only stormwater feature shown is a single area labeled SW one at just 0.14 acres. This alone demonstrates that the developer has not taken the conservation elements requirements seriously, and it calls into question whether two twenty two units can be feasible constructed while complying with all applicable wetland protections. Commissioners, the developers the developer bears the burden of demonstrating feasibility. That burden has not been met.

I urge you to scrutinize whether this project can actually meet the conversation elements element requirements and to deny this application if it cannot. Thank you.

Thank you. Tracy True? Did I get that right? No. Chelsea. I didn't see the

l. Okay.

Time. I'll work on my handwriting.

That's alright.

We'll get get there. Okay. Good evening commissioners. My name is Chelsea True and I live in the neighboring single family residential neighborhood to the north of this property. I have spoken several times in opposition to this application and there's still far more that could be said, but tonight I wanna focus on key issues that remain unresolved.

Section 62 dash one one five one of the land development code requires you to consider five mandatory factors before granting a rezoning and the comprehensive plans administrative policies impose additional criteria covering compatibility, neighborhood character, transportation impacts, environmental constraints, and consistency with the element of the plan. The burden of proof rests on the applicant, not on this community. The applicant has stated time and time again that the infrastructure is a site plan issue. However, section 62 dash one one five one and section 62 dash six zero two and administrative policies three through six contradict the statement. You are required to evaluate these impacts at the rezoning phase.

Administrative policy five requires you to evaluate whether this material materially and adversely impacts the safety of residents in our neighborhood and the staff analysis stated it does. Additionally, the surrounding area remains the same as when the AU zoning was assigned. It is a single family residential. The three part development pattern analysis under administrative policy three does not support this intensity. The one condition that has changed is the increasing congestion on Courtney and that argues against this project not in favor for it.

A housing shortage doesn't automatically make a project a good one. We can acknowledge that there is a housing issue and still expect thoughtful planning. We need housing. It should not be a blanket justification to build anywhere at any scale without considering the long term impacts on local roads, schools, or the environment. I also want to address the worst case hypothetical scenario, hospital.

The market for healthcare landscape has significantly changed dramatically since 1983. A new hospital is slated to open within approximately four miles of this site in 2027 and there is no market demand and quite frankly not probably not enough staff to employ two hospitals on Mare Island. My last point I have to make is about administrative policy three which is compatibility because this site and the existing or proposed land use in this area, this requires evaluation of impacts to the enjoyment, safety, and quality of life in existing neighborhoods and to property values and with this criteria, this project plainly fails. The character of these neighborhoods that abut this property single family residential with nothing remotely comparable to a 222 unit three story apartment complex with 389 parking spaces within two miles. Taken together, every mandatory review factor under the land development code and every relevant administrative policy of the comprehensive plan weighs against this rezoning at this intensity.

The developer has not proved that 222 apartment units are compatible with this community, that infrastructure can support the demand or that public health safety and welfare will be protected. Commissioners, I humbly ask you to look into the crowd tonight and see the faces of everyone this affects. These faces are just some of the many people behind the overwhelming descent you have heard for the last six months about this project. These neighbors of mine have provided real live testimony and impact. The impacts are substantial enough to require ongoing revisions and mitigation discussions.

These are not concerns fabricated by the residents. There there is nothing spurious as described by mister Zonka in regards to their statements. We are not misinterpreting section 62 dash six zero two and we are not asking you to ignore the code. We are asking you to enforce it including the parts the applicant would prefer to minimize. After six months, multiple continuances, evolving access plans, shifting density discussions, and ongoing mitigation revisions, the core issue with this project remain unresolved.

And as you can see, we have a lot of people here in opposition, but I also wanna mention the voices that aren't. There is a petition that has been going around that has over 3,000 signatures against this proposal. So on behalf of the entire community who will live with the consequences of this decision long after tonight, I respectfully ask you to deny this application. Application. Thank you. Thank

you, Brandon Shannon. And then our next speaker is Teresa Clifton.

Can't believe I have to follow that one. What what? I'm sorry?

I said I can't believe I have to follow that one. So my name is Brandon Shannon. I've lived in Brevard County for the last six years and on Merritt Island only for the past six months. Clearly, I wasn't born and raised here, but I'm standing here before you because of the community and and the people in it. Time and time again, this community has shown commitment to responsible development and preserving what makes this place special. And that commitment is what brought my me and my family here into the fold in the first place. That mentality and that commitment to community is what my family and I call this place home. This is my community, and these are my neighbors and my peers. I love living here. The friendly faces I see at the store, the simple kindness between neighbors, the gorgeous weather, and the low key way of life.

That's what makes Merritt Island in our community great. It's our responsibility as residents to make our voices heard, and it's your primary responsibility to act in the best interest of the people you serve. That means listening to us and rejecting this proposal to rezone the parcel. The proposal rezone the parcel from agricultural residential to medium density, multiple family residential with the intent to use as a dense pack apartment complex is irresponsible, largely irreversible, and risks setting a damning presence. According to traffic study by Bowman cons consulting group, this project would generate 1,379 daily trips in and out.

That's 1,379 additional turns across traffic or U turns. That's 1,379 more opportunities for crashes, and that's 1,379 more vehicles feeding into the 528 Interchange. None of that is in best interest of the residents who live here. The same traffic study also claimed that the current agricultural residential zoning could generate up to 5,500 daily trips attributed to the proposed future land use for hospital. But we have to ask, do we really think a hospital will ever be put in this place?

Cape Canaveral Hospital down the road is roughly the same size of this size of this plot. The replacement Rockledge Hospital will be about double the size and it would be a stretch to make a business case to build a hospital at this specific location. Even if it were, it at least would provide long term quality jobs for hundreds of people for decades into the future. This apartment complex simply will not. Attachment three of the study also listed traffic impacts for other potential uses of this land, 36 daily trips for single family homes, nine for a park, 341 for plant nursery, 42 for a golf course, and if I may, I'll add zero if we just leave the land alone.

I also wanna acknowledge the need for affordable housing is very real in our community. This proposal does nothing to create affordable living for people who live here and work here without clear enforceable affordability commitments. It would simply add more expensive market level market rate apartments, not the attainable homes that this community and people that we want to move into this community desperately need. I wanna be clear, I'm not against growth. My family's here because of thoughtful growth made it it's what made this a great place to live and it's what brought us brought us here.

What I'm asking for is growth in the right place at the right scale and for the right reasons. Zoning is a promise to current residents and to the future buyers about what they can reasonably expect next door to them. If this promise is broken here, you don't just change one parcel. You weaken the trust that keeps people engaged and supportive of of our mission. Individual choices add up to big change none of us intended.

If there is any doubt there on the side of protection, we can always consider a better proposal later. We unbuild a project that doesn't fit. Today, you have an opportunity to show that local voices matter more than distant interests, to show that stewardship outranks short term gain and show that your duty to the public interest guides you when it counts. This proposal is being brought forward by outside interest. Approving the rezoning of this parcel for agriculture from agriculture to medium density multiple family residence would not reflect your core responsibility to the people of this community.

It would mean ignoring the voices of the people who elected you in favor of those who don't live here. Please listen to your constituents and reject rezoning. I I do wanna quickly acknowledge I I see you guys are are tired and hungry and thirsty, and I appreciate you guys listening to us. And I do wanna acknowledge the the effort you guys put forward. It was clearly a lot of work and very expensive, but I do wanna reiterate that this is our community and not yours. This is Vieira, and this is this is not Vieira. This is Merit Island. Thank you.

Teresa Severson.

Good evening. Teresa Clifton. I own a house at 2350 Raintree Lake Circle. I bought it in October 1998. So my heart goes out to the young lady. She probably lives on the backside of the neighborhood because when it rains, that it the water flows down towards the river and that's why that happens. Anyway, I'm not gonna add comments for everything that's already been said because I don't wanna waste y'all's time. I'm tired. I got other stuff to do too. What kept me here is I had an interesting conversation with people from FDOT.

My conversation had more to do with this project that they're gonna do with North Courtney Parkway safety improvements that will literally, to me, cause more traffic jams than save more lives, but that's that's not here or there for today. The interesting part was they're not aware of that development coming in that wasn't part of their study to try to fix Courtney Parkway. Also, I've I've heard remnants of there's about 40 acres on the other side of Pioneer that, well, they're looking at seeing what happens here to see if they can do that with theirs. So Pioneer is already under stress and when they go ahead and do what they're gonna do with the concrete barriers, I'm not real big on what I call suicide lanes because, yeah, that gets scary on Courtney, but it is creating a really bad situation, and it's only gonna get worse. And you don't wanna stop development.

I get that. I do have concerns about the environment. I don't think that you can concrete in around one acre and whatever creatures living there in that wild area in the wetlands is gonna survive it because I've seen it and it just doesn't it just doesn't happen. You might as well just go ahead and just mow it all down because whatever's there is going to one day come out and get mushed in the road, and then there won't be it there. So, anyway, that's pretty much what I had to say.

I just wanna make sure y'all are aware that the two people I spoke with last Thursday from FDOT who came over from Sanford who are in charge of this project were not aware that we're we have all these other building things happening. So they were not taken into account with any of that traffic study or whatever that was. Thank you.

Thank you. Joseph and Kimberly Jarvis will be next.

Alright. Good evening. My name is Joseph Severson. I am also an engineer here on the island, so I applaud you guys coming up and giving your credentials. That's great.

However, my background is in the US army as a veteran and currently as safety engineer with a background in environmental studies and environmental sciences. My career both in uniform and outside of uniform working as an engineer now is been built on identifying hazards, evaluating risk pathways, and protecting people from preventable harm, which by looking at this zoning question here, that's what we're doing. We're trying to protect people from preventable harm by coming here and speaking against this effort. From that perspective, the proposed the proposed development in North Courtney Parkway and Pioneer Road presents multiple high severity risks that cannot be responsibly mitigated and so far from the planning that I've seen have not been responsibly mitigated. Several of these risks directly conflict with the current Florida law.

I wanna begin with the most immediate and unacceptable risk which is the school's own safety. I know a lot of folks that have been here including a couple veterans have already spoken on that tonight and so I won't hash over a lot of their things that they've already covered, but Pioneer Road is the primary access for Lewis Carroll Elementary. During drop off and pick off, the corridor already experiences congestion, unpredictable traffic behavior, limited visibility including introducing a high density residential complex to that flow will increase the number of conflict points between the vehicles and children, which in my understanding is the worst case scenario we're looking at here, overarching all of the other discussions that we've had this evening so far. And I'll get to that at the end of my discussion here. Under Florida statute one six three dot three one seven six section six a, local governments must ensure that land use decisions protect public safety and maintain a safe transportation can maintain safe transportation conditions.

Looking at all of the things that have been discussed here this evening, that's not what's happening and especially if this gets approved. This project knowingly elevates probability of vehicle and pedestrian incidents as an area where the are severe and irreversible. We're talking about the lives of children and once again I'll get to that again at the end here, but second and not as serious as the first issue that I was bringing up is the flooding and storm water risks are substantial and well documented, not to mention that there have been lived experiences here this evening that have documented that and showed that to both the board and the other members of the development team here. Elevating a new development and adding large is is bit the is

efficient.

Proposition that went into the storm water area there. And so that's going to create a significant issue and any engineer worth their salt knows that the more concrete you add to an area that's currently under not developed is going to create water issues. And so looking at that alone in from a layman's perspective knows that it's going to create an issue. I also want to make the point that under Florida law, the burden of proof is on the developer, not the public to discriminate to demonstrate reasonable assurance that this project will not increase flooding, degrade water quality, or create off-site impacts. Once again, looking at the plan that was proposed, that's that's not being addressed and it's not creating reasonable assurance in my eyes and of those that are already here for the meeting as well.

The community does not have to prove that this project will harm us. The applicant, meaning the developers must prove no harm and in that case it's not happening. So it would be negligence in order to to approve this zoning this rezoning. And I apologize, I'm a little bit nervous here. I wasn't emotional when I started out this process, but when the individual came up and spoke and and spoke to the emotionalist and almost insulted all the folks in this room, it kinda set me off a little bit, so I apologize for that.

Section three zero three d of the clean water act in Florida statute four zero three zero six seven governs b maps. Our and I apologize now I'm drawing a complete blank on the acronym for b map, basin management We're present. We're looking looking at at adding adding more more concrete concrete, which which is is going going to to exacerbate that situation even further. Not to mention the amount of pollutants that are gonna come off of these parking lots, not to mention the amount of pollutants that are gonna come out of the folks that are living in these high density housing areas. It's gonna add more pollution to an already struggling VMAP and it's gonna cost us the taxpayers more money to try and fix those issues.

So we're basically shooting ourselves in the foot by approving something like this. It's gonna cost us more money in the future. Lastly, I wanna say that as a safety engineer, I evaluate risk for a living. Looking at this rezoning effort, we're we're looking at a risk where the severity is very high. That worst case scenario of a vehicle impacting a child is the highest case and the worst severity we're looking at, it's already got a high likelihood that that will occur based on the traffic patterns and admittedly the traffic patterns that most folks here have admitted and then the failure of the analysis that was conducted by the other engineering group here.

And the mitigations are either non nonexistent or insufficient to prevent that from happening. All in all, I wanna say that in the event that that worst case scenario does happen and that there is a death of child in that area because of that school's proximity to this proposed high density living area, that blood is gonna be on the hands of the individuals who approve this, not on the hands of the developers because they don't care. They don't live here. I think it's obvious my vote is no and I hope that you guys see that as well. Thank you for your time.

Kimberly Jarvis and then Lynn Knight.

My name is Kimberly Jarvis. I am a Mary Allen resident. I'm also a member of the Space Coast chapter of the National Audubon Society, and I'm a volunteer with the Audubon's Eagle Watch program. There is an active bald eagle nest to southeast of that property. Hello. I have it right here. I have it right here. That's Courtney. That's Courtney right there. Yep.

There's a nest. This is the property right over here. This right here. The southeast south the 660 foot buffer for the nest crosses the Southeast corner. The 660 foot buffer for the nest crosses the Southeast corner of that property. To put it in perspective that most everybody here can understand, 660 feet is two footfall fields and two two footfalls. I'm sure every everybody can relate to that. Let me give you this for a second. Bald eagles have exceptional eyesight. They can see rabbit sized prey in the grass three miles away.

Their herring is a formative to that of an adult human being. This development will have a very negative impact. We've already had I'll show you some pictures of my nest.

There's a microphone. Microphone. We

have some pictures here. Oops. That way. Come on, Tim.

Yep. That

way. I'll figure it out. I'll figure it out when you say. I took this picture in January. Seeing a little prayer?

I took this picture in early March. He fledged two days after I took that picture. I couldn't wait for me to get back there. There are also owls on that property. There are barn owls, b a r r e d. Of course not. I'll figure it out one of these days. That is a fledgling barn owl. Somebody who lives in Miller, the palace sent me that picture. I went out there one rainy Tuesday night before the planning and zoning board meeting in March, and I recorded owls calling.

I can play the call for you. I don't know how you can hear it. My phone's not that loud. Yeah. But anyway, there are there are barren owls on that property.

I also heard black bellied whistling ducks. At the end of the Space Coast Shorebird partnership meet preseason meeting in April, I spoke with one of the men from FWC, and he said an environmental impact study is required to be done, and developers have a bad habit of skipping that part. If the rezoning is approved, I'll be on the phone with FWC first thing tomorrow morning to make sure an environmental impact study is done. There are there are more eaglets in that net. There's at least one more eaglet in the nest.

I've seen the female laying in the nest, and I've seen her sitting up on a branch above it being very watchful. There's only two times the eagles laying in nest. One is when they're incubating eggs, and the other is when they're brooding brooding egg whites. Since the owl since adults are not there all the time, there's eaglets in that nest, which means we're hoping we're gonna have another fledge. So nest is not only considered active, it's considered successful. And I will be ensuring that my eagles are protected. I love my eagles. I keep pulling my nest my nest. And somebody asked me, well, how can you own eagles? I said, I don't I just own the nest and rented two eagles.