Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Bye.

wish to speak to any item on the agenda or during the public comment portion of the meeting please fill out a speaker card each person addressing the board shall have three minutes to complete his or her comments on each agenda item for which he or she has filled out a card The chair has the discretion to determine or alter the time limits on any agenda item. The Board of County Commissioners requests that speakers appearing under the public comments section of the agenda limit their comments or presentations to matters relating to county business that are within the board's control, authority, and jurisdiction.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to recognize Pastor Gaston Kinney of the First Baptist Church of Coco. Nice suit, Pastor.

Thank you. Pastor Gaston is our Youth and Administration Pastor, and he was unable to make it. I'm Senior Pastor at First Baptist, Dean Williamson. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Your name is? Dean Williamson. Dean Williamson. Thank you for being here, Dean. Thank you for the opportunity to pray. Let's pray. Dear father, we thank you so much for all of your many blessings. We thank you that you woke us up this morning. We recognize that none of us made ourselves wake up, but you gave us another day. You woke us up today. Lord, help us not to take any of your blessings for granted. We have many concerns that we have that we want to bring before you because we know that you care for us. Lord, we have concerns about, uh, Our emergency personnel. We have concerns about our schools. We have concerns about development. We have concerns about housing. We have concerns about taxes. Lord, we ask that you would give our commissioners and all. everyone involved in government lord please give us wisdom from you and guide us by your holy spirit so that this entire county can flourish and lord we thank you for the blessing that you've given us in jesus christ that you died on the cross to pay for our sins and that we can have relationship with you through jesus we ask your blessings on this meeting we pray that everything that is said and done would be in love and with goodwill for our fellow man we pray this in jesus name amen

Thank you, that was wonderful. Helped us start the day off right. I appreciate it. I'd like to ask everyone to stand for the pledge. Please face the flag.

Pledge of Allegiance to the Defender of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, I think first thing, a motion would be order to approve Commissioner Goodson to appear. I'll make a motion for Commissioner Goodson to participate by phone.

I'll second.

Motion second for Commissioner Goodson to participate by phone. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. It carries unanimously. Thank you. Good to have you here, Commissioner. First, item D1, minutes for approval May 7th, 2026 zoning meeting and July 9th, 2026 zoning meeting. Make a motion to approve.

Second.

Motion, second. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Cures unanimously. Thank you. E1, resolutions. We have a resolution honoring the life and memory of former county manager Tom Jenkins and I think we have Family members here would like to ask them to come up. Thank you so much for being here. It's good seeing you. Thank you for having us. I'd like to read the resolution and then we'll open up for comments after that. This is a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, honoring the life and memory of former County Manager Tom Jenkins. Whereas the Board of County Commissioners, county staff, and citizens of Brevard County pause to honor the memory and distinguished legacy of former County Manager Tom Jenkins, celebrating a lifetime of public service marked by unwavering stability, decisiveness, and steady leadership. And whereas Tom Jenkins began his dedication to public service from the ground up, starting in 1970 as an administrative aide in municipal government and advancing through key administrative roles across Florida, including Surfside, Davie, Broward County, before bringing his extensive government expertise to Brevard County as deputy county administrator in 1986. And whereas, following his service as interim administrator, The Board of County Commissioners recognized his exceptional command and no-nonsense administrative strength, selecting him in February of 1988 to serve as Brevard County Manager, a position he held with distinction for 17 years until 2005, making him one of the longest-serving county managers in the state of Florida. And whereas taken office at age 44 with the clear mission to bring stability to county government, Tom Jenkins immediately demonstrated his resolve by skilfully guiding Brevard County through significant fiscal hurdles, earning a lasting reputation as a master consensus builder capable of forging thoughtful compromises on complex, high stakes issues. And whereas the county manager, as county manager, he cultivated an organizational culture centered on teamwork, growth, creativity, and administrative independence, inspiring county employees through a leadership style that was candid, decisive, and deeply supportive of staff, holding high expectations for hard work while remaining steadfastly focused on expanding community service and infrastructure for Brevard County residents. And whereas his passion for governance and the Bavard community continued long after his tenure as county manager, serving five years as chief administrative officer for the Bavard County Sheriff's Office, contributed as a trusted member of the Brevard County Charter Review Commission across three separate decades, 2009 and 10, 2015 and 16, and 2021 and 22. And whereas Tom Jenkins approached retirement one hole at a time as a dedicated member of the finance chair for Sun Tree Country Club, where his spirited golf cart driving earned him the nickname of Evil Knievel, and where he regularly appointed himself official armchair quarterback for his beloved Miami Dolphins and FSU Seminoles. And whereas Tom Jenkins leaves behind an indelible mark on local government in Florida, remembering by his colleagues, elected officials, and citizens alike as a leader who brought enduring stability, strength, and character, and selfless dedication to the people of Brevard County. now therefore be resolved that the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida does hereby express his profound sadness upon the passing of Tom Jenkins, offers his heartful condolences to his wife, Barbara, family, friends, and former colleagues, and formerly records of enduring gratitude for his decades of visionary leadership and exemplary public service, done and adopted this day of 2026. And I just, I wanna say just a few words, because I was here when Tom came here, and things were pretty tough. It was a very difficult time, and he, brought an overall sense of stability and confidence, and pulled people together like no one I've ever seen, the ability to build compromise on some really difficult and tough issues. If you drive around Brevard County, there's not many things that Tom Jenkins' name that there's not many things that we've achieved in the last 30 years that Tom Jenkins didn't play a very key role in making a reality. So as you drive around, whether it's the Brevard County Governance Center, the Brevard Zoo, former Marlins baseball facility, helped develop the tourist development tax, implement beach and riverfront. When he came into office, we were literally holding court in a hotel room. We had to evacuate our courthouse. We had no government center. Meetings were spread throughout the county, 11 different locations. It really was an amazing time. I think God gave us Tom Jenkins at a time when we most needed it. We had some great people prior to him, but he was the person to really turn this county around. And we, as Bavaria residents, have so much to be grateful for. We set policy, but it's the staff that really makes everything happen. And he made all the things that we've benefited from as a community happen. So I personally am grateful for Tom Jenkins and what an incredible opportunity it was to work with him. Thank you. Thank you. So we do have a resolution. Would you like to say anything? Not me, no. Okay, your presence here alone is just enough. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Do you want a motion, sir? Yes. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve. Okay.

Second.

So motion is second for the resolution. All those in favor say yay. Yay. It carries unanimously. I just want to thank you for what your dedication has been to Brevard County because I know this job that he held is incredibly demanding. It required great support from home to give him the time and the independence and the freedom to really, really... to do what he did for all of us, and we all are grateful for him.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Absolutely. I love it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much.

Mr. Abate. While we have Mr. Abate here, I wish we could have done this for Tom while he was still alive to hear all the nice stuff, but I just want to recognize our past county manager. He was a great manager. The managers have such a hard job of trying to keep control of the commission. and then run a good staff. And Mr. Abate, you did a great job. You got us through very hard, serious times, COVID. And I just want to say I appreciate you, sir. And it's an honor to have you back in the building.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, we will move to the agenda. Okay, item F, consent agenda. Are there any items that we wanna remove from the consent?

We have one card for F9.

Okay, we have one card for F9. We have one card for F9. Why don't we go ahead and get a motion for the remainder of the consent agenda and then we'll hear F9.

Motion to approve consent agenda.

Second. So motion second for the consent agenda. All in favor say yay.

Yay.

Okay. Carries unanimously. Okay, F9. F9, approval of the Brevard County's policy 76, caretaker's policy.

Yep.

Card is from Richard Helfinger. Helfinger, Helfinger.

Rick Helfelfinger, District One. I don't know, did you just make a motion to approve this already? No. Oh, okay, you hold it up, all right. The consent agenda all but this. All but nine, all right. My only issue with this was, and I'd like to make a recommendation, I do not like the idea that this policy now is totally in control of Parks and Rec, so that would be the board is relinquishing any input on this and any visibility to the public, because this is where we find out what goes on. So I have no problem with the changes that they made with the exception of title or part two, sub item C, where they struck the Board of County Commissioners actually authorizing the licensing. I think that should stay as the Board of County Commissioners so it comes before you guys before they put somebody in as a caretaker. I realize they're doing background checks and all that, but I think for visibility for the public and for you to keep an eye on what's going on, I think you should stay in that. I don't care if they maintain this instruction. It is your instruction, your policy. So if you have no part in it, I don't know why you would have it as a Brevard County policy. But if you would just amend it to put yourselves back in, I would think that would be the most prudent thing. I don't like you relinquishing control when in the past you had that. That's all I had, thanks. Okay, thank you for your input there.

All right, any discussion on F9? A motion to be in order. Motion to approve up to nine. Is there a second? Second. Second. Discussion? All in favor say yay. Yay. Aye. Carries unanimously. Thank you. We'll move to G. We have no G cards for public comment. First item of public hearing, H1.

Good morning, commissioners. Item H1 seeks board consideration for the adoption of fire rescue schedule of fees and rates and charges for hazardous material special operations team or the HAZMAT team, standby response, fire prevention and inspection rates. As part of the proposal, we propose increasing the rate by 2.63%, which is consistent with the consumer price index for 2026, 2027. So it's consistent with the CPI. If approved, these rates would become effective on 1 October of 2026. Okay. Motion to approve.

I'll second. Motion to approve in a second. For the record, no cards. Any discussion? All in favor say yea. Yea. It carries unanimously. Thank you.

H2. Yes, sir. Good morning again. H2, similarly to H1, a request for consideration for the adoption of the fire assessment resolution ratifying, confirming, certifying the annual fire services non-ad valorem assessment rule for fiscal year 2026-2027. The board adopted a resolution in 2025 that included increases to the fire assessment rate consistent with the CPI rate 3% or CPI, which is ever is less. The CPI rate for 2026-2027 is 2.63%. So if approved, these rates would be effective for tax rolls 2026-2027.

Okay, any discussion? No cards, all in favor? We have a motion. You made a motion. Oh, I thought you did I'll suck him motion the second all in favor say, yeah Thank you h3

good morning mr chair item h3 is a request for the board to approve revisions to policy bcc 100 entitled evaluation procedures for development proposals pursuant to the live local act which are not otherwise permissible this policy is intended to implement the land use aspects of the live local act and the requested revisions are necessary to come into conformance with state law as the act has been amended since the policy was last revised

Okay, maybe give us a few of the highlights of the changes.

Sure, the biggest substantive change has to do with houses of worship. So the state has mandated that for those who have used a particular property that meet certain requirements as houses of worship for 10 years or more. They get similar Live Local Act provisions as commercial industrial land uses did prior to that, meaning they can build affordable housing up to 30 units per acre. Most of the other changes to the policy were technical in nature to come into compliance with things like definition changes and things of that nature.

okay we do have one card chelsea true i wrote it very clear this time okay um before i begin i do just want to take a moment to congratulate commissioner feltner on his hard-fought primary last week so congratulations I am here regarding the proposed evaluation procedures for the Live Local Act. Let me be clear, affordable housing is important, but so is public safety in our land policy, and our land use policies have to account for both. I want to commend staff for including section 1D4, which seeks to exempt critical areas from these massive state-mandated density spikes. However, as written, this exemption contains a massive blind spot for our county's most vulnerable evacuation corridors. Section 1D4 references the Brevard Barrier Island area of critical state concern. By Florida statute, that state designation strictly spans from Melbourne Beach South to the Sebastian Inlet. However, the state designation does not encompass all of our vulnerable coastal communities. It does not include Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach or Merritt Island. This matters because our own comprehensive plan recognizes that density, infrastructure capacity and evacuation are directly connected. Compounding that risk, our current comprehensive plan under policy FLU 11.2 permits a massive max of density of up to 37.5 units per acre within the Mare Island redevelopment area. For qualifying developments under the Live Local Act, those existing local density allowances can become the ceiling or depending on the circumstances, the applicable development entitlement. In the Brevard County Code of Ordinances, it states that Objection CM-8, that evacuation clearance times are determined by the most current Florida regional evacuation study maintained by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. For our current 2025 operational scenario, it takes a staggering 14 and a half hours just to clear evacuation level A, which completely blankets Merritt Island and the beaches. Florida Statute 163.3178 legally mandates a strict 16 hour out of county clearance cap for these storms. That leaves a razor-thin 90-minute margin against the 16-hour standard. Under the same 2025 operational scenario, the regional clearance time for a level E evacuation is 68 hours. That's 44 hours longer than what the statute mandates. The 520 and 528 causeways are fixed capacity infrastructure. When a mandatory evacuation is ordered for Zone A, the barrier islands and Merritt Island must drain through those exact same bridges simultaneously, and anyone who has sat in the traffic on the 528 during a major cruise ship day understands how quickly these corridors can become constrained. Our comprehensive plan already recognizes this relationship. Our coastal policies calls for limiting density in vulnerable areas, considering evacuation times when prioritizing transportation improvements, and deferring development where adequate evacuation capacity does not exist. I ask you to evaluate whether Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach and Mare Island and other evacuation constrained areas should receive additional protection and whether Brevard County needs a clear defensible maximum density tied to actual evacuation and infrastructure capacity. Today you have the administrative authority to tighten this language. I urge this commission to explicitly amend section 1D4 to add Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach and Mare Island to our local exemption list. Do not allow a geographic technicality compromise the safety clearance times and lives of our coastal residents. Thank you.

Do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you, Justin.

Okay, I think that was the only card. Any discussion? A couple of things I think that's worth pointing out on the House of Worship situation is they cannot split the parcel later. That's my understanding, Commissioner. And so that means those are not going to become individual homes that will then be sold. So those will always be a rental that's attached to the parent property. I think we discussed that yesterday. Is there a way then, because I always have this concern, I know I sound like a broken record, but is there a way for us to stop short-term rental on those parcels when they claim Live Local Act? Is that something we can take up on each one of these as they come up?

This issue hasn't come up before, but unless they were already entitled to do short-term rentals as part of their existing zoning, which they often would be able to if they're in commercial zoning, But absent that, it's not the Live Local Act that's allowing the short-term rental.

I understand. By virtue of them building additional rental housing on the property, now they could be in the business of doing short-term rental, where otherwise they're not doing that in someone's backyard.

If it was a religious institution doing it under institutional zoning, they would not be able to do short-term rentals.

That would only be a concern, if I may, Mr. Chair and Commissioner. In the commercial zoning classifications, as Mr. Prasad said, it would already be allowed there. Also, they'd still have to abide by the affordability requirements, which limits somewhat the ability to do large-scale short-term rental. Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

And I would think it would be very difficult to argue that short-term rentals are affordable housing. I mean, the Live Local Act only allows you to take these land use categories and provide for affordable housing. If anything, short-term rentals have made affordable housing even more difficult.

I don't disagree.

Yeah, I figured. But that's a good point, and I think it's very astute for you to bring that up. I'd like to just say a few things. First, I can't begin to express how horrible this is. And this is an example of big government... big special interests, far removed from the people, just trouncing the rights of our landowners. And it started with the Live Local Act when they allowed industrial uses to be used as affordable housing. Now that's a lot different, because if you're living next to industry, relatively, or BU2, whatever, relatively intensive land use. You could argue, I think, that a residential use is much less intensive, and with the problem of getting approval for affordable housing, that was a reasonable compromise, I think. Not that I agree with it. But I think this shows that reasonableness was not what was motivating these special interests to change the law. It was just pure greed. Now they're saying you can have in your neighborhood a church. or a school of a very low density, community oriented use, open space, and because you were a religious institution, you now have the ability to come in and put 30 unit per acre affordable housing. completely and totally opposite to the original intent of the Live Local Act. And I think, Chelsea pointed out the issue of hurricane evacuation, where you could have these, and we have many churches and religious institutions on the very island that's only gonna clog our roads, not only from a level of service point of view, but things such as hurricane evacuation. Problem is, I don't think we have any authority to do anything about it, do we? I mean, this has been forced on us.

Mr. Chair, that's accurate. The statute specifically exempts a designated area of critical state concern from the provisions of the Live Local Act. We have no authority to designate additional areas for exclusion from the act. So in our South Beaches, we have some protection. only by virtue of the state designation as an area of critical state concern. We can't self-designate as the speaker suggested.

Wow. Well, that's good news. At least we have that because that is a very critical hurricane evacuation zone.

Sir, you made me think of something else. Can I ask one follow-up, just technical questions? So they can operate this affordable housing as long as the church owns the property, as long as it continues to operate as a church.

That's correct. The applicant is required to provide plans for the preservation of the house of public worship and continued operations.

No, no, I just have to ask the play devil's advocate here, right? There are churches that just cease to exist. We see them a lot. So in a situation where they build the housing on there, and I'd imagine people have tenants, tenant rights. What happens if the church just goes defunct?

So under the Live Local Act, whether it's that or some other aspect, if they lose their status, they become non-conforming lots. And we haven't had that issue come up before, but there is a question whether they can continue to operate as affordable housing, because typically, if you're a non-conforming lot, you get to continue the activity.

So can I ask a follow-up? So I think in that situation, if the church were to go under, then potentially the new owner or whoever it's in receivership, whatever the case may be, may have to come to the board, planning and zoning board, and then seek a zoning change at that point to make them conforming.

I think that's accurate, at least if they're looking to pull any new permits or things of that nature, something different, then they would have to come into conformance. Okay, thank you.

May I?

Absolutely, yes.

You know, great points. Since this has started, I understand what they're trying to do, but them Florida fellows really need to get their pencil sharpened and fix this. Another thing in here is, what is the definition of a house of worship? You know, that could spring up almost anywhere. So, yeah, this is interesting. So, yeah.

And a very good point on maintaining a faith-based initiative. It wouldn't prevent, for example, if I have a church of a particular denomination, because I've seen churches that have sold. I went to preschool at a Lutheran school church, and now it's a non-denominational. The ownership could change as long as it maintained its entity as a church. 501c3 nonprofit religious institution, then that new institution could operate affordable housing. And I don't want to bring out examples of faith because it might seem like I'm picking on things, but it could be a way of getting around if you have an established mainstream religious institution sells to any sort of entity that would qualify on federal law as this faith-based institution, then they could operate on affordable housing. They could do this intensive multi-family zoning. Wouldn't that be possible?

I think that's accurate, Commissioner. You know, staff is not in a position to evaluate the legitimacy of somebody's religious beliefs. So if it's a house of worship and a MESA, those definitions, then they'll be able to go forward.

Okay, so what we have is no choice but to adjust our code to meet the state law.

The policy as written is designed to purely implement the state mandates, no more, no less.

Motion to approve, sir.

Motion to approve, is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say yay. Yay. Okay, carries unanimously. Okay, next item. H4.

H4 is for the adoption of an ordinance to amend membership to the Planning and Zoning Board and, by extension, the local planning agency. Specifically, it would reduce membership from 15 voting members, made up of three appointees from the Commission District, to 10 voting members, two from each district. Non-voting membership would remain unchanged. Unless the board gives other directions to the board approve this amendment, it is requested that each board member submit two members to sit on the Planning and Zoning Board by September 1st, which will allow us to reconstitute the advisory board in time for September 14th meeting.

Okay, we have one card, Richard Heffelfinger.

Rick Heffelfinger, District 1. This whole thing has been kind of done, I would say, poorly. I don't understand what the urgency was. On 8-4 meeting, a motion was moved during board reports, which is already sloppy procedure as far as I'm concerned. The public had no prior knowledge of that intent. When you move something on our board reports, it's not on the agenda. That to me sucks, just to use a common word. Then on 8-6 at the zoning meeting, there was added a consent item that required a supermajority override to allow a consent item to go forward at a zoning meeting. That consent item was to remove one of the D1 designated of the three and replace them with Robert Jordan. and it seemed that the reason for doing that was some type of critical timing need. Not understanding what that was, other than the fact that we know also that our 817, from the board report request to modify this procedure, which was not really very clear what you wanted to modify. You said you were going to look at voting requirements quorum. Going back down to 10, I think, was stated to reduce the size, but the quorum was just kind of said, hey, let's review the quorum. But at the 817 zoning meeting, or the P&Z meeting with the civilians, that item was presented. They did not get a written draft of the policy. They were just told, hey, what we want to do is go to 10, and we'd like the quorum to go to three. Where did the quorum of three come from? Three is not a quorum of ten. That makes it look like that you've delegitimized the whole ten voting members. If three people only show up, and the whole problem with the reason that you claim that you wanted to reduce the quorum was that you can't get people to attend. Well, the PNZ local guys said that has not been a problem for some time, because if they have the right number of people, they will show up. They are dedicated to doing that as their civic responsibility. You delegitimize half of those people on there when you make a quorum three. It makes it look like you don't care, and that is an improper quorum. If you've got ten, the quorum should be six. That's what it was. Right? So that's an improper quorum for any application of a voting member. I realize their vote doesn't even matter to you. You can override their recommendation. Fine. But that just seems like... And by the way, the guy that was, because of the timing matter, Robert Jordan, was replaced. Hopping Garden, I believe, was the guy, the gentleman. He didn't even show up at the zoning meeting, his first meeting. He didn't show up. That's your problem. People that don't show up. I think that quorum should go back to six or maybe compromise at five. That's what they wanted. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any questions as they're all the cards that we have? All right. Motion would be in order.

Motion to approve.

Second. Motion and second to approve. All in favor say yay. Yay. Okay. Unanimously. Okay. H5.

Good morning, Commissioners. Item H5 is requesting four actions from the Board. Action number one is the adoption of the Solid Waste Disposal Special Assessment Rate Resolution for Fiscal Year 26-27. That reflects a 5.33% increase, which is the Consumer Price Index for Garbage and Trash, averaged from March 2025 through February 26. The second action is to adopt the solid waste collection and recycling special assessment rate resolution for fiscal year 26-27. That reflects a 3% increase which correlates with the collection contract that allows a 3% increase. The third action is to adopt the schedule of special rates and gate charges resolution for fiscal year 26-27, which also carries the 5.33% increase. And then the fourth action is to ratify, confirm, and certify the annual disposal collection and recycling special assessment roles to the Brevard County tax collector. And I'll answer any questions if you have them. Do you need separate motions? I think that you could just go ahead and approve all four actions. Okay.

Okay. So we can do that in one motion. I don't think we have any cards here. No cards? No cards. All right, any other questions? I'll make the motion to approve.

I'll second.

So motion and second to approve. All in favor say yay. Yay. He carries unanimously, thank you. Next on to H6.

Good morning, Commissioners. H6 is the annual adoption of the stormwater utility resolution ratifying, confirming, and certifying the annual stormwater utility special assessment role. There is no change proposed to the $64 per ERU rate at this time.

We do have one card, Richard Heffelfinger.

Rick Hufflefinger, District 1. My question is, to kind of clarify for me as well as maybe the public, I see a $64 number, yet I got my trim notice here, and I know that I get a special assessment for Road and Bridge District 1 MSTU. It's not $64. I was just wondering if you could clarify, we didn't increase this, where does it show up, where do I pay that $64? That was my only question. If you could answer that.

That's a simple question, okay.

So the stormwater utility rate is not the same as the MSTU that he's referencing, but I'd be happy to look at your trim notice and identify the $64.

Mr. Chair, if I may, the stormwater assessment is a special assessment. It doesn't appear on your trim notice. It's what they call below the line, but they can look it up and provide it to you.

Just to clarify, though, that's on the tax bill that comes at Halloween. It's just not on the trim notice because the fees are adopted after trim goes out. Yes, sir.

So it's not at the Lord? Is that what you're saying? It's below the line?

Yes, sir. Okay, next up. We need a motion. Yes.

Okay.

Motion to approve H6. I'll second. Second. All in favor say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. H7.

Turn this back on your feet.

H7 is a request by Strada Development LLC, represented by Attorney Kim Rezenka, for property located at tax accounts 231-6605, 231-6606, 231-6607, and 231-6617 to be certified as an agricultural enclave pursuant to Section 163.3162 Florida statutes. I would note that this hearing is to consider whether the property meets the technical requirements to be certified as an agricultural enclave, so no other topics are typically would be considered relevant at this public hearing.

Okay, we have numerous cards. We'll begin with the applicant's representative, Kim Rosenka.

How many minutes does she get?

Good morning. I don't usually get to say that to you all. Good morning, Commissioner, Chairman Altman, members of the County Commission. My name is Kim Rozenka with the law firm Lacey Rozenka in Melbourne, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Strata Development LLC. With me there is a representative of Strata. There's also Bud Crisofulli, representative of 782 LLC, the prior owner, and Troy Lentz, who is the current lessee of the property. Thank you for more time. I didn't even notice. So you have before you something brand new. Legislature just approved it. It was in effect July 1 of 2026. The application is a bit odd. Never done it before. We tried to put it together pretty quickly. A lot of information in that packet. The entire packet is very, very large, as I'm sure you have seen. And the purpose here is to Go briefly over the packet of application, the staff report, and then we have the two witnesses that will testify the agricultural bona fide use of this property, actually since about 2015. This new Florida statute, 163.3162, requires that you determine that the property is owned by a single person, which it was, try to develop the deeds in your packet. has been in continued shoes for bona fide agricultural purposes for a period of five years before the date of this development application to be submitted. All this does is provide that this is an agricultural enclave, and then we still have to come forward with a development plan, be it a preliminary plat or some other pre-application meeting, so this doesn't give any entitlements to this property at this time. This just allows us to move forward with the development application for this property. So the continuous use of bona fide agriculture, there is an affidavit from Bud Crisofulli in your packet. There are the leases in the packet as well, but they are here to testify as well. The third is that the locational requirements based on the adjacent properties. In your packet there is a map, hand drawn, I apologize, trying to get this in time sensitive wise. There are 27 properties that surround this. The properties to the south of East Crystal-Foley Road also apply based upon the definitions in the state statute. So there are 27 properties. Of those, 20 of them are developed with single family residential. All of them are future land use residential. So that's one of the criteria. Has public service or will have public service? That's why you have the zoning report in this application, because the zoning report that was denied previously talks about the water, the sewer, which is there. I put in a map of parks because some jurisdictions say that parks are a public facility, so that's why that map of parks is in there as well. and that it meets the acreage requirement. This is 142 acres. It's less than the maximum of 700 acres. So with that, I will ask that you approve this as an agricultural enclave, but I do wish to call up Mr. Ben Christofoli to tell about the use of the property and his lease on that property for many, many years.

Good morning, commissioners, staff. My name is Bud Crisofulli, North Merritt Island, 5525 North Courtney Parkway. If you have any specific questions, I can answer them, but I can tell you that this property was has been agricultural since the 40s when it was planted in Citrus Grove by the Roach family. I have been on this and had the lease on this property since 2015. We have run cattle. That's when the groves just started going downhill and the owner asked us to step in. We were kind of helping him with his grove family friend. And so we have been there continuously. And all through this time, we changed it over to 782 when we formed a corporation for that land, 782 East Christopher Lee Road. So we call it 782 LLC. And we have farm cattle until Samuel Mack notified the state that he would be taking over that lease sometime after the first of this year. around January 15th February and we actually still had cows in there because we had a few renegades that got out of the pens when we were trying to get them off the property but we finally got everything out and he has been there since that period of time but if there's anything else I can let you know about I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions? I have a quick question. I was by there, looked at it, because I've been out there a lot. I noticed that to the back of the property, if I'm looking at the right spot, it looked like there was palm trees, cultured palm trees. Is there any ornamental growth of ornamental palms, or is that off the property? Or is it strictly cattle that you're... Oh, it's both. You do have palm trees.

Yeah, there's palm trees. We sold hundreds of them at one time.

So it's not just cattle agriculture, it's ornamentals?

You know, I didn't consider it. We have tree farms there across the street and our other family properties. I didn't concentrate on that there, but there were so many palms, and rather than just putting them in a pile, we did sell those and move those to different parcels of our own properties, but it's primarily cattle. It's continually entirely leased around the perimeter, fenced around the perimeter.

I just noticed in the back of the property, it looks like there's a palm grove.

It looks like that when you clean around it, and that's... That's because every place there was an orange tree, a bird landed in that tree and bought that there. And you'll notice that in some of the old groves. It looks like you've planted them in palm trees because they're now in their 20th and 30th year of being frozen out.

And I notice there's a line, a colonnade of palms at the front of the property that have been planted. It really looks nice. I saw that. Did those come from the side or were those brought from outside?

Both sides. Both. We have some on one side. Okay. It's Australian pines that surround their property too from back in the old days when they protected their properties with pine trees from the wind.

Okay.

I have one question. Mr. Christofoli, since the time that you had the lease on the property, were you aware if the property had an agricultural classification by the Brevard County Property Appraiser's Office?

Yes, we've reviewed that on a regular basis. We also had an FDACS with the state on the property, Florida Department of Best Management Practice. In order to comply with the different regulations and apply for these approvals, we have to have that to do our fencing in certain areas and maintain the property in certain areas. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you. Nobody ever says thank you for what you do. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, I would ask, who also has a card in Troy Rents.

Troy Rents. I'm the president of Gold Coast Land Management. We have managed and farmed the property since the purchase in 2025. It still remains as a commercial cow-calf operation, as Mr. Christofoli has had for years past. It meets the requirements, good faith, bona fide agriculture, and has been approved by the Brevard County Property Appraiser under Section 193.461. So it is continued to have green belted property. We run about 50 head of commercial cattle on it. So it is a cow-calf operation.

Okay, any questions? Okay. Thank you.

With that, we would ask that you accept the staff's recommendation that this does indeed meet the criteria of the agricultural enclave certification process and that you find that this is an agricultural enclave. If there's any questions, I just didn't want to go through the entire package. I'm happy to do it if you'd like me to, but your staff has said that we meet the requirements and the only issue that may have come up was the proof that there were indeed cattle on the property since 2015 for the last, over the five year period required. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, and we do have one additional card, Commissioner.

I'll wait, I'll wait then, sir.

Okay, Danielle Duluth.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Danielle and I live on the western side of Crystal Foley on the corner of Judson Road and East Crystal Foley Road. I'm asking the Board to deny the project altogether. I want both sides to be heard today. The applicant has every right to present their case. The community has equal rights to explain why this proposal does not belong here. The request is to rezone 142 acres from AU and RR1 to suburban residential with a binding development plan limited to 61 half acre lots. Those surrounding properties are large agriculture and rural residential parcels, several acres to more than 25 acres under AU zoning, which county code says is meant to protect a spacious character. Across the road is RR1, those require one minimum acre. Half-acre clustered lots on this scale would break the established rule pattern of the corridor. The most severe problem, though, is the flooding. The historic agricultural drainage system that serves this area drains westward towards Judson Road, and as a resident living at the downstream end of it, I can tell you from direct experience that the ground where I live stays saturated for months, not just days, even after an ordinary rain. Standing water and waterlogged soil persist long after the rain stops. Access becomes difficult or impossible during these extended periods of wet. The applicant's own engineer has stated that the development footprint will be 50 to 55 acres. Replacing that much vegetation and open drainage with rooftops, driveways, and roads will push significantly more stormwater and push it faster into a system that is already failing. The result will be more frequent, deeper, and longer lasting flooding on the downstream properties where people already live. And I've seen it every time a main storm comes through there. My neighbor's yards also flood into their homes. I also need to ask this question for the record. If the additional runoff from the 61 homes causes or worsens artificial stormwater accumulation and results in physical damage to established downstream properties, what specific legal remedies or counting hazard mitigation protocols are in place to hold the appropriate parties accountable? The North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board previously recommended denial of this request and preferred lower density zoning. That local recommendation should carry weight. I am not opposed to all development. I'm opposed to a proposal that does not fit the land or the drainage system that already struggles under current conditions. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the board to deny project 25Z0039 as currently proposed. Thank you.

Okay, I have a couple questions. You may want to stay here because you've made some good points and it's brought some things to light that I want to clarify with staff. Could you address this sort of as a zoning item?

Yeah, I wasn't sure. Yeah, me either.

I think this has never been done in the history of Florida before, so you're not the only one. But this really is not what we're reviewing, isn't it? Maybe explain just so the public will understand.

This is not a request for rezoning. The board previously denied a rezoning request, and the next item on your agenda relates to that rezoning request. But the item before you, and this is not, this is about agricultural enclave certification, whether it meets all the statutory criteria that the state sets up to classify it as an agricultural enclave. If it does meet those criteria, certain aspects of our land use development regulations are preempted by state law. and that they would be able to pull in development rights from a neighboring parcel, in this case, Indian River Preserve. But this is not a request for rezoning. This is a request to certify whether it meets the state mandated requirements of an agricultural enclave.

Yeah, I wasn't sure, because it was like the H7 and the I1, so I did put the I first, but I was like, maybe I have it messed up, so I went ahead and redid it to the H7, so that was completely my bad.

Glad you're here. I mean, you are untrod ground here, and so... I know. So what would be possible would be something compatible with a nearby land use, such as any river preserve?

I'm sorry, I misspoke, I think it's Island Forest Preserve. But yeah, so frankly, compatibility doesn't really play into the analysis. If a neighboring property has those entitlements, they would get the same entitlements.

I know the applicant may have some feedback on that, but just want to be sure you understood.

Yeah, very confused on that one. So, again, that's my apologies.

No confusion. I think this is, again, untrotted ground. It's in the law that I think there's only one other place in the entire state that might be evaluating this enclave issue.

Right, right.

But it's, again, another thing that the state of Florida has passed.

Yes.

It's mandating and forcing onto us.

Oh, I know. I've read it many times.

Just a technical question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. By virtue of doing this, they still have site plan review and they're still going to do stormwater retention on the property as part of that process.

That's correct. And in this area, there's enhanced requirements for requiring compensatory storage. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. All right, that's our last card. Yes.

Yes, and that's why I tried to explain why we had part of the zoning report in this application. It was just to prove that there were public services, which is one of the requirements of the Ag Enclave certification. So, again, until we present a development plan, which is a pre-op preliminary plat, the staff will have some discretion to go by the codes to make sure that it's It meets the definition of the state statute, which is a little vague, but this is a brand new state statute, July 1, 2026, and we did not intend to go this process, it was just something the state legislature has allowed, so that's why we're here and we would ask for the ag certification. Thank you.

Okay, great. All right, okay, Commissioner Goodson?

Yes, sir, I'd like to make a motion to approve the agricultural clay back in the state.

second motion second to approve the agriculture enclave designation uh any discussion all those in favor say yay yay carries unanimously thank you thank you commissioner and we will move to h1 i won i won i'm sorry i won

I1 is for consideration of a tentative settlement agreement which comes to you from mediation under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act. This action stems from the denial of this board of a rezoning request under application 25Z00039. Ms. Rozenka represents the applicant. It's the same applicant that was the subject of the previous item. I believe given the board's action on the previous item, this matter may be moot, but I'll let Ms. Rozenka speak to that. Okay, Kim Ruzenka.

Again, good morning, Chairman Altman, members of County Commission, Kim Rozenka here on behalf of Strata Development LLC. With me is also Dustin Gagell. I have always been representing Strata Development LLC. This process, called FLUDRA, is under the Burt Harris mediation process. We brought this forward after rezoning was denied for SR with the BDP. This is the same property in Merritt Island, 143 acres. We started this process before the Ag Enclave certification. As I mentioned previously, that Ag Enclave certification law is brand new. To me, it's a little ambiguous as to what it allows and what it doesn't allow, and we won't know what development will be allowed until we have a preliminary plat, which is a fully engineered drawing like a PUD. We're hoping to do that soon, but in an abundance of caution, we went through this process, we mediated for about five and a half hours with staff, entire staff, I mean there was five or six staff members, we had a mediator, I was there, three members of the development team were there, including the engineer, and we came forward with this mediation agreement. It was mediated in good faith, the staff has recommended it, and this is an option to the agricultural enclave. We're not withdrawing it at this time. What this does is allow it to come back before you with the RR1 zoning. So we still have to come back, it's still a public hearing, as mentioned in one of the letters that's in your packet, And you may recall previously, the North Merritt Island Special Dependent District Board did indicate that RR1 was something they would have considered had we asked for it for this property. We had gone with the SR zoning request because Island Forest Preserve has SR with the BDP. We had no intention of using the open space subdivision. We intended to use half-acre lots. That is still what the developer wishes to do. However, one-acre lots are acceptable to the developer, so we would ask that you indeed approve the settlement agreement that's been recommended and signed by staff, recommended by the mediator, Judge David Dugan, and allow us to go forward. However, the settlement agreement does say we will come back October 1st for the hearing. if you give us a rehearing, we would like to move that till December 10th. I believe that's the first and only zoning meeting in December. That way, if we're able to move forward and have confidence that we can go forward with the development plan under the Ag Enclave certification, we will then withdraw the zoning application. So we would ask that you approve the settlement agreement. We will still make the application, but again, modify the settlement agreement to come back to public hearing on December 10th. So with that, we would ask for your approval of the settlement agreement, tenets of settlement agreement.

Thank you. Okay, we have no other cards? No cards. I don't think, okay. Morris, did you push that button?

I did push that button. I would like to clarify for accuracy and to make the record clear. In this case, staff has not recommended the Board take a specific action under the agreement. The obligation of staff was to request that the Board consider whether to reopen the public hearing and reconsider its denial. Staff did not, in fact, recommend the denial and you'll see that the requested action is it's requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider whether to approve the Special Magistrate recommendation. to reopen the public hearing and reconsider its denial of the rezoning application. You're given three options under board action, which is approve the recommendation, reject the recommendation of the magistrate, not staff, and not a formal recommendation that was just incorporating the agreement, or an alternative option where the board modifies it I would advise the board to consider the precedent you might establish by reconsidering a rezoning application that's been denied post a public hearing without sending it back through, in this case, two advisory bodies, North Merritt Island Board and the Planning and Zoning Board, which would be the outcome if you were to approve this request. I would agree with Mr. Persaud that I think it's largely mooted by virtue of the board's agricultural enclave certification. The board's hands were tied by the state in that case. I think you had no choice but to approve that. You have every choice with regard to this action and staff is not recommending that you take any particular one route.

Okay, any questions? Can I just ask an order of operations question here? Why not just table this one and wait for the ag enclave situation to play out? We could revisit this after. Maybe that's the cleaner thing to do?

I think that would be absolutely fine. I think October 1st may be premature because that will be prior to, I think it's 180 days after you submit an application for the process to play out under the Ag Enclave. So I don't know that we'll necessarily know more on October 1st.

December 10th.

I call.

I don't think you need to table it to a date certain. I think, you know, this public hearing didn't have specific advertising requirements tied to it other than putting it in a... So we could leave it open-ended or you could put it on December 10th. I think it's up to the board.

I just mean for the sake of the applicant, I'll split it with you. We could say that we'll take it up on December 10th. And if the ag enclave is figured out before then, then this is a moot point. And then you'll pull it. We certainly will. That's acceptable to her. Is that okay with the board? Before we have a motion, I'd like to hear from Commissioner Goodson.

Yes.

Did you have any preference, just out of deference of you?

No, sir, I don't. Postponing it like Commissioner Faulkner wants, it's good with me.

Okay, good. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to step on him. I appreciate that. I show deference, too. Okay, so we'll table this to December 10th.

Yes.

And with the hopes that the ag enclave situation works itself out by then. If not, then we'll reconsider this then. That's my motion. Second. Motion and second. All in favor say yay.

Yay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Motion carries. And we will move on to J1 New Business, which is my item. This is... Asking the board to approve a letter. And what the letter does is it offers support for a regional LNG production and storage infrastructure facility at, I want to clarify this, at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral. Space Force Station, so it's not an effort to put LNG outside of the Space Center, but I know that KSC is in the process of looking at creating an LNG facility on site. This simply supports that to support the LNG needs. We know, for example, just one Starship launch may, and I hear different numbers. I've heard anywhere from 200 to 400, 500 semi-trucks load of LNG just to support one launch. This would keep production going.

Collection production on site and that would be I'd make a motion that we should and just a quick a quick thing So this relieves the the notion that they're going to be doing LNG production somewhere along the barge canal Absolutely.

Yeah, okay This would be at the Kennedy Space Center There's a motion second all the favor say yeah, yeah Yeah Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay, thank you. We will move to public comments. The second public comment.

We have no cards, sir.

We have no cards. Then we'll go to Board of Reports.

County Manager. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have just one item. We had a resident send in a comment card for Liam Wham at Natural Resources, and the person was guidance on native plants, and our resident said Liam is awesome and helpful. And I know Liam, and the resident is correct. So she is also awesome and helpful. That's it. Thank you, sir.

Awesome and helpful on native plants, so we know who to call. Should we give her her phone number out here? I'm joking. That's wonderful. Thank you. County Attorney? I have no report, Mr. Chair. Commissioner One? District One?

Chair, I'd like to just piggyback on what you said earlier about the county staff and their support. It's such a great staff and I just want to thank you all for all of your help and your wisdom and all the studying you do. So I just wanted to jump in with what you said earlier. Thanks, guys.

Fantastic. District two? No reports, sir. District 3?

Yes, sir, I do. I actually have a request more than a report. I'm hoping the board will support me in asking the Eels SMC to reconsider a property that they recently denied. There's a piece of property that is down in Mikko. It sits on Waterfront. And I am It's important to me that the public have water access. My hope for that piece of property should EELS acquire it is that it just stays natural, maybe a kayak launch. Kids can get to the river. It's along the San Sebastian River. I just think that it would have, There's a lot of public, there's a lot of protected land down there by St. John's, and I think while for us and our eels, it would just be one piece that we have there, if you look at it in the big scheme of all that's down there, protecting the waterfront and keeping access to the public, I think would be really worthwhile. So I'm just asking them to reconsider, and I just wanted your support to do that.

How much is the... How much is the owner...

wanting for the property do you know so we've just the conversation has been very flexible i know on the property appraiser's website it says it's vacant commercial land and the market value per acre is 831 670 with my vague math that would put it at a little two and a half million to be fair we would be losing about nine thousand dollars a year in tax money which is a bummer but i think if we look to the future and the importance of keeping access that's you know i think really important to this situation obviously ian is here if we have any questions that are technical that i can't i can't answer so for me the importance is public access to water and just asking the smc to reconsider this property

i know i'm familiar with this property and it is unique it's one of the last remaining natural pieces of property on the san sebastian river which is an of a unique environmental resource with manatees and at florida i think that's florida outstanding waters out there right off of sebastian and have great i think it's great habitat value as well as potential recreational use I know there's some standards that may be a little outdated because I think shoreline preservation, aquatic species and mammals like the manatee, and public enjoyment and access are things that should be considered. As well as an incredibly visible property, Ralph U.S. 1, I think it definitely would be worthwhile looking at.

How do we manage this? Does ILS, I'm sorry, I just haven't had time to look this up. Does ILS make the final decision on what they purchase and don't purchase? Does it still come to the board?

So this action by the board, if you request or vote to have the SMC reconsider this, would start the process of them going and getting appraisals.

Okay.

And then if it, again, approved by the SMC, they would go get their appraisals. Final decision about whether or not to acquire the property would always come back to the board.

Okay, I don't mind that. I don't know any information on this at all.

I just want them to re-look at it, and that way we then maybe, if they decide to go, we could then have numbers. It's important to you. I would like to look at it.

I'm familiar with this property also. Can I just ask a technical question real quick? You know, we're always looking for access points for the river and what have you. I mean, we definitely need that on the beach for beach re-nourishment. That's a whole other day, but... For future river work, that may be something that affects the appraisal if we take into consideration that property may be an access point if we need it for the river, for Sorrel. That's a good point. I don't know how that would influence things.

As you know, our department has partnered with Sorrel on multiple projects regarding the river. Because we do, as a department, have parcels that are along all the rivers, most of the waterways. as well as the beaches. So there would always be that opportunity. This action would also, if it is and does end up being acquired, does fit underneath the mission of EELS to provide passive recreation. So I think there would be concerns potentially from the state to try and put in boat ramps, but I think with the idea of passive recreation, such as the Commissioner mentioned a kayak launch or something along those lines, which fits right underneath EELS.

Yes.

Morris, do we need a motion here or is this just a consensus of the board situation?

I think you should make a motion.

In that case, I'd like to make a motion to direct staff to place the reconsideration of acquiring the property located at 4100 Main Street, Mecca, Florida on the next EELS SMC agenda.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Okay, motion and second, all in favor say yay. Yay.

All right.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. District four.

You're stuck with me for another four years. It looks like that. Anyways, I appreciate everybody who's helped me along the way. And so glad that's behind me and look forward to serving with everyone in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, and I'm looking forward to serving with you the next two, maybe four, you never know. It's been a great honor serving with you. You've done a wonderful job. Okay, I have no reports. Meeting adjourned.

The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period.

you