Planning and Zoning Board & Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Okay, and if everyone will please stand for the Pledge of the Flag. Mr. John, would you lead us? Okay, this is the Planning and Zoning Board slash Local Planning Agency. It's an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners who will make the final decision on these items. Items H2, H4, H7, and H10 are LPA items. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on August 6, 2026 at 5 p.m. When a motion ends in any kind of a split vote, a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy. As a reminder, each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on the record. Speakers for public comments on agenda items will be given two minutes. Please spell your last name for the record. At this time, if any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application, please disclose so now.

So on item H-9, I have had some discussion, but I also do business on an abutting property, so I'm going to recuse on that one, if that's all right. There's some controversy.

Well, what's the basis of the work that you do for the neighboring property?

I own cattle on the property, and I lease it.

I'm not entirely sure that might raise to the level of having to recuse yourself, but by the time we get to item H-9, I'll have an answer for you. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate the heads up.

Thank you, Jared. All right, I need a motion approval of the PNC minutes from June 15th, 2026. Motion to approve.

Second.

A motion by Neil, a second by Erica. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Item H1.

Item H1, Patricia and James Kent request a change of zoning classification from GU to AU. Applications 25Z00045 located in District 1.

Is the applicant here? Sir, if you could come on up to the podium and you could adjust your mic there, state your name and spell your last name for the record.

My name is James Kent, K-E-N-T.

And your address?

Is 5090 Pine Street, Cocoa, Florida, 32927.

All right, and a little bit about what you're wanting to do, Mr. Kent.

Well, we want to improve the property. I'm not sure why the property was ever zoned GU to begin with, but we just simply are requesting a change from GU to AU.

All right, while you're right there, Mr. Kent, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? I'm going to close it for public comment. I'll bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Can I ask a question real quick? What type of improvements are you looking to do on the property?

Namely, a swimming pool.

I have a question for staff.

Yes, Ruth.

For the AU, isn't it supposed to be 2.5 acres and this is 2.22? Will he still need a variance for that?

How does that work?

We were already granted that variance. The AE requires 2.5 acres. GE requires five acres today.

He received a variance in November 19th, 2025 under 25 Z 0 0 0 70, a variance to permit a 0.22 acres from the required two and a half acres.

Thank you. Make a motion to approve.

Second.

Item H1, I've got a motion by Ruth, a second by Neil. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you. Good luck with the county commissioners. This is an LPA item. Item H2.

Item H2, Cocoa Town Center LLC requests a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from CC to Res 15. Application is 26SS00003 and is located in District 2.

Is the applicant here?

Mr. Chair?

Yes, ma'am.

We're going to read in H3 also. It's a companion application. So Cocoa Town Center LLC requests a change of zoning classification from BU1 to RU215 under application 26Z00010 located in District 2.

And, sir, if you could state your name and address and spell your last name for the record.

David Bassford, applicant representative, address 1250 West O'Galley Boulevard, Suite H, BASSFORD.

OK. A little bit about what you want to do, Mr. David.

So the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Lake Drive and Cox Road to immediately north of State Road 520 there at the Cox Road intersection. It sat bank it other than having been used as borrow pit once upon a time that at least partially shares stormwater capabilities with the county. Since it's been vacant for so long, one of the things that we'd like to do is get a rezoning and make it multifamily. I'll save the long-winded version in case y'all got questions.

Well, while you're right here, I'm going to take this out to the audience. Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item, item H2 or H3? Then I'm going to close those items for public comment. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant?

Is that Deb? Is that the piece that's west of what we call road and bridge, the county's road and bridge, just west of it?

The maintenance facility, yes, sir.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Isn't there another piece missing between there, between this piece and what the county owns?

Not that I'm aware of, or at least that was listed on the survey. There's three or four parcels to the west. There's a real small sliver that goes out to Cox Road.

How deep did you go north to that garage center, don't you?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I'm good.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir. Mr. John.

How are you going to handle the traffic going east from that development there? I've always had a problem when I was visiting the maintenance facility because you can't get out onto 520 very easily.

Oops, sorry. I thought you were done, didn't want to cut you off. So we've had a traffic study done. At the moment, a turn lane is not warranted, but obviously we've still got to work through that with city staff, or sorry, county staff. Apologies, wrong meeting. But we are going to have to pipe a portion of that ditch. and that would help facilitate if we needed an additional, but it would all come out right there onto the road to the south, and I'm drawing a blank on the name, and they would go east first. You're talking about Lake Drive? Yes, sir.

Okay, but you can't make a left from Lake Drive onto 520, right?

That's correct.

So how are your residents going to be able to maneuver?

They will not. It'll all go on. So they can't go that way.

Nobody's got a job east of. No, no, no.

What I mean is there's no direct access to 520. Okay. They would come back to that other intersection and enter there.

You mean get over to Cox Road?

No, no. That is blocked off because of the borrow pet the way that that was constructed. The only thing that will be there is a little bit of a pedestrian amenities. Sorry, not pedestrian, but open space amenities.

So how are your residents going to maneuver?

They will go further east and then come out at that intersection. I don't remember the name of that one off the top of my head. Go further east. Yes, sir, on Lake Drive, and then come out to 520. Oh, okay.

Is that Burnett? Yeah, Burnett? Yeah, I think it is. Yeah, North Burnett Road. Okay. That's a trip. There's no way they can get out onto Cox Road?

No. No, it's unsafe there at that intersection, or where 520 begins to kind of curve up to the north.

Okay. All right, next question. You have a lot of wetlands there.

Surface waters, yes. Wetlands, not that have been identified. But surface waters, yes, for sure.

Okay, well, you're thinking it's just pits from the borough pit?

Exactly right. Okay. And anything that is immediately adjacent to the county in our concept plan and preliminary engineering, we're leaving all of that as is, and then anything else is essentially cup for cup. So if we're filling something to make a road or something like that, we're excavating in the portions that are still dry. They're to the northwest.

Okay, but you're not going to affect your neighbors?

No, sir.

Okay, because whatever water you have on that site, you have to keep on that site.

Exactly.

Okay. Okay, it seems to be more of a business zone than residential, so you're sticking an apartment project between businesses, essentially.

Yes and no.

Which is not a bad idea.

Well, there are other very similar zonings right there within that same area. I think it's within 1,000 feet, sometimes less. But it's a nice transitional piece. It's just not feasible from a commercial standpoint, as you've already mentioned. From a traffic standpoint, it's not going to be used for that. So we believe that this is something that's nice there for the community to help actually encourage some of the commercial.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Are we going to handle these as one motion?

No, we'll do H2 first.

I'll move approval H2. Second.

Second.

On item H2, LPA item, we got a motion by Neil, a second by Erica. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Now I'll need another motion for H3.

I will also move H3 for approval.

And I will second it.

Item H3, you got a motion by Neil, a second by Erica. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that passed unanimously. Okay, LP item H4.

Yes, item H4 and H5 are companion. Item H4, Sammy and Violet. Lib, request for small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from NC to RESV2. NRES 2 to CC, application is 26SS00005, it's located in District 1, and application item H5, Sammy and Violet Salib, request change of zoning classification from AU to BU1, and its application is 26Z00015 and it's also located in District 1.

Okay, is the applicant here? Sir, if you could state your name and spell your last name and your address for the record.

Carmine Ferraro, F-E-R-R-A-R-O, 4265 Couture Road, Cocoa, Florida, 32927.

All right, and a little bit about what you're wanting to do.

Sure. So we are seeking a recommendation of approval for a future land use change on two reference parcels. The front parcel along US Highway 1, 504, and the adjoining parcel directly to the east, track 518. As noted, the current FLU for 504, which fronts US Highway 1, is currently NC neighborhood commercial. with the adjoining track to the east, 518 Residential 2. The property to the immediate south has a Dollar General with a CC Community Commercial Flu designation. Additionally, the tracks along the west corridor of US Highway 1 across the street are a mixture of CC and NC. Two of the four corners at the intersection are CC, including a 10-unit motel directly across from this property that we are seeking the approval. The zoning category we're seeking to match up with this flu designation of CC is BU1. We've targeted this because our intended target use for the hard corner is a gas station with a convenience store. And then we would like to also have some retail service type property, a small retail service type establishment that would be able to benefit the community. That's basically it.

Okay, sir, while you're right there, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? It's going to be item H4. Sir, if you could just grab a seat real quick. If you could just grab a seat real quick.

Is this a property in Mims? The Mims. Lionel. Yeah, I'm in favor. I want him to do it. This is America. I want him to be able to do anything he can.

Sir, hold on. Stop one second. Let's get excited, though. Come on up, say your name and address for the record, and spell your last name.

My name is Donald Clark, C-L-A-R-K. I own Sandman Motel, 3810 U.S. Highway 1 in Mims, Florida, 32754. I own two other properties right there next to it, and I am in favor of this man doing anything he can in America. I grew up in a free country. I don't understand some of the stuff that's going on. I've read my Constitution, and I understand it completely. And I'm really, I feel backed in a corner right now. My neighbor's giving me more shit than I've ever had anybody give me in my life. And I don't want to blow, but I'm telling you, I want this man to have his business.

All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? All right. I'm going to, oh, hold on, Mr. Kirk. You're going to have to state your name and address for the record. No, no, no. Come on up to the podium, please. State your name, spell your last name, and your address for the record.

James Kirshner, 3630 Lionel Road, K-E-R-S-H-N-E-R.

Okay.

I'm not totally against the U.S. 1 frontage being left as it is, but the portion to the east that butts up to a new neighbor of mine that just bought the property, did a lot of work, getting ready to build a house on it. My daughter is right next door to him at 3650, and behind her is my other daughter, and both have my grandsons. And behind her, and I've been at 3630 Lionel Road for 22 years. I grew up at 3620. We have Pinewood Elementary School right across the street. And having trucks coming in and out of that entrance where all the schools are, all the school kids are, with the public library, I just don't think is a very good idea. If they put businesses there, they need to get with DOT and have them put some access in off of US 1 by putting a turn lane in and access, but not turning on Lionel Road where you have so many kids. I'd rather be residential so my grandsons have kids to play with. and not have businesses and semis coming in doing drop-off loads. You're talking about gas stations just contaminating the ground that they're going to be playing in. So I'm against the east portion being changed. Just leave it alone. Leave it residential.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item?

Throw another comment out there?

No. Sir, you already had your shot. Sorry, though. All right. Sir, you had your hand up first. If you could come up and then I'll get to you. We know the drill now, hopefully. State your name, spell your last name and address for the record.

My name is William Gondridge, spelled G-O-N-E-D-R-I-D-G-E. I own the property at 3660 Alana Road, directly next to the property in question. I adamantly do not want that property changed from A-U to B-U-1. That means I've got to look at the back of some commercial building that I don't want to look at. I bought that property specifically so I wouldn't have to look at a commercial business. I didn't buy it to look at the back of a tire store or gas station or whatever. It depreciates the value of my property. I want to live at that home. I want to make it my home. But I don't want to live behind a gas station or whatever they propose. People in that area bought that property for a specific reason. They like country rural living. That's why they bought property there. And to take that away from someone is wrong. That property that is zoned AU That's somebody else's dream. They're taking away my dream if they build a commercial building there, and I've got to look at old tires, gas stations, or whatever. I don't care what they put there. Don't let them do it. That property is for the community, the citizenry of Brevard County. We bought that property because we like that kind of living out there. We like rural living. To take that away from me or anybody else is wrong, and that's my opinion, sir.

all right all right thank you sir if i felt a little adamant but a little pumped that's okay sir if you'd like to come up and state your name spell your last name and address for the record

My name is James Bargeron, B-A-R-G-E-R-O-N. I live at 4865 Meadow Green Road in Mims. Now, what I can say to that is if this man paid the money to buy it, he ought to be allowed to do what he wants to with it. And if you have a problem with what he is doing with his property, maybe you should have bought a bigger piece of property. Maybe the people that don't want it there should have pooled their money and bought bought the property. But instead, we have a man that spent his money to buy a piece of property that now they want to tell him is useless. I don't think that's right. That don't sit right with me.

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Ma'am, come on up. If you'd state your name, spell your last name and address for the record.

Angie Banks, B-A-N-K-S. I live on 3701 Dunlap Road. It is parallel to Lionel Road. So our property, our backyard, is basically their property. So I'm not studied at zoning or what have you. I just have some things as far as my neighbors are concerned and myself. Most people move to MIMS because they want that small town way of life. They want to retire. They want to raise their babies. They want the rural area that it provides. I agree. They bought the property. Profit and progress can still be made without changing the zoning to commercial. It changes the atmosphere. Bigger than that, the environmental effect. Our street, we are all on wells. Putting a gas station in brings a whole other side to it. I realize Changes have been made through the EPA throughout the years to prevent contamination. But once an insult or an injury has already been made to groundwater, it's harder to rectify that. So essentially, we're going to wake up with a gas station in our backyard. including all of our neighbors. I know other permits have to be made to put a gas station in, because I believe there's so many feet that the pumps have to be from a well. But again, all of our neighbors, our entire street, we're all on wells. We're not city water. That, along with just the added people and what am I trying to say? I had it all thought out before. But the biggest concern is, again, the contamination of a gas station being put there. And it's two different things. It's the fact that.

OK. Well, thank you, ma'am.

Yes.

Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? Yes, ma'am, if you could come up to the podium, please. And if you could state your name, spell your last name, and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Brooke Moore, M-O-O-R-E. I live at the address 3640 Lionel Road, which is within 500 feet of this property. Essentially two bills a lot who already came up and talked, and right next to that. I've lived on Lionel my whole entire life, as well as my dad. I've grown up here, and I've loved living here. For the simple fact that it is rural, it is a safe place for, as I was a kid, to be. and i feel like that is obviously going to be changing now especially if a gas station goes in i have my son here today we walk every single day and during school it is chaotic already with the school being there and with the dollar general there is a ton of traffic i also am on a well i have a huge concerned with putting a gas station right next to where my well is where me and my son and my family, that's how we get our drinking water. I don't know what the plan is for that. I have also heard that people can't even build houses right now because of the whole septic issue. So I'm super concerned since this is so close to the Indian River Lagoon, what is that going to be for the aspect of it? Since the Dollar General has been there, the cops are there quite often. There is people always walking in and out i was in there the other day and someone was shoplifting so already living where i've chosen to live and i've lived my whole entire life because this comfort and i have family and my sisters in front of me my dad's next to me there's already a little bit of crime that's already happening so once you put a gas station and another retail business what is that going to do am i going to be able to walk my son every day am i going to be able to walk him across the street to school and feel safe i just don't feel like you know the people who live here What is my safety going to be like at this point? Especially with gas stations. Crime happen at gas stations all the time. And again, the drinking water. I'm super concerned with my well being right here in the drinking water. And I do also want to add one thing. On that next streak on Dunlap and Montgomery, there's already flooding all along US 1. We already have a lot of flooding already. So I am super concerned with that as well. So that's it.

OK.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak for or against this item? I'm going to close it for public comment. One more time, anybody? OK, I'm closing it for public comment on item H4 and H5. Sir, if you could come back up to the podium.

So can I have a rebuttal?

Yes, you have time to do that.

Thank you. First, let me say everything that all the residents say is taken straight to heart, right? If I lived in that community, I would be saying the same thing. I have concerns. Any time commercial development comes into a residential area, there should be concerns. However, a couple of things I do want to point out just to sort of balance the record a little bit. This is a seven acre site. The gas station is a targeted use for the corner, but there is no sales contract for a gas station at this time. The intended use is any approved use within BU1. So it could end up being a restaurant. It can end up being a retail building. It can end up being anything that would be part of a BU1 zoning if we get that use. When the eastern residents say that they are directly next to the property, they are stating absolutely next to the property. But it's seven acres. And there is, from the corner one acre, some 600 feet of distance between the property line to the east. So it's not directly adjacent. However, let me say this, because we anticipated that the residents of Mims would have concerns. The owner has already agreed with staff's suggestion of presenting a binding development plan. Within that binding development plan, we are willing to go ahead and offer a 15-foot vegetative buffer along the north side of the property the entire north boundary, along with, if it's permitted by Brevard County and the authorities having jurisdiction to approve a site plan, we will put our pond on that east side as well, creating even a further buffer. Correct. Our intention is to use the hard corner. That's the main intention. It's commercial in its nature. That is a fore... full intersection that is commercial in nature. It eventually will continue to develop commercially in nature because that's the way the future land use map shows it. It's a ready neighborhood commercial and community commercial. Let me address two other really quick points. Traffic. It's a concern. It's always a concern for any kind of commercial activity. We will, of course, do a traffic study. We will, of course, do any of the improvements that are required of us to make that as safe an intersection as it possibly could be. Typically, when development comes in, Development enhances the safety of an intersection because they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do whatever they need to do to that intersection to make it safer. So that will be part of the process we go through. And then finally on environment, again, I've done this 20, 30 times representing different gas station potentials that are out there. Environment is always a concern. However, in this day and age that we live in, underground tanks are safer than they've ever been. There are redundancy after redundancy. In terms of what type of impact that may have, we would also be willing to do a study and provide that a gas station is not going to create any kind of environmental impact. to the water table or anything such, as long as it is built according to state regulations. There will not be any of that. So with all that said, could there be a gas station there? Yeah, it's the intention of the owner to do that. Could it be something else? I want to make it very crystal clear that we would also be willing to offer right now today Any restricted uses, this board does not feel are consistent with the local commercial area in that, and we'll cross them off the list. We just want to make sure we can bring local type businesses, florists, CPA, small food establishments, anything that would benefit the local community and hopefully a gas station on the corner.

All right. Mr. Chairman. Seeing that, hold on, Ms. Ruth. He jumped ahead of you. Go ahead, John. Okay. Is this property for sale?

It is currently for sale. So the intention is the gentleman that owns it is intending to sell it. And the people that have contacted us are gas station developers. But there is no contract on the property at this time.

Okay, so they're doing it on their own volition prior to any agreement. Because they've had the property for 40 years and haven't done anything with it. You had mentioned, so really it's up in the air what they want to do there. I mean, what they expect to be done there, which it's kind of nebulous for me to go ahead with this because I don't know what the final outcome will be. You can BDP this thing to death, but I don't believe that it will be specific to what actually goes in here. You may be dealing with a gas station right now, but they may come out and say, no, we're not going to do it. So somebody else will come in and they want to do a, I don't know, what can you do in MIMS?

211 homes, according to FAR.

211 homes. It's better uses for this than what you're trying under a BU1. You could also do, can you do...

What is it now?

It's a res, too. Okay. I was thinking about live local also. I'm not real happy with what you guys want to do. And I don't think it's justifiable to just say let's make it business so we can sell it. It's just get a deal and then do it. That would be the safer way. Can I answer that?

Surely. And that's a valid question, a very valid question. In order to get the highest and best use price for the property, I'm a commercial real estate broker. So I've had a license for 40 plus years, and I am a consultant with owners of commercial property. That's what I do 100% of my day. In order to get the highest price for that property, it will... be given to an entitled property if someone buys an unentitled property they will deeply discount it for the very reason they're not sure they're going to get the entitlement this particular owner and his family they have health issues they are nearing the end of their life on this earth and they're trying to close out what they have to give on to their children when they sat down with me and they asked me what is your recommendation i said entitle it Entitle it now. You work that out, and then you continue to leave it on the market, and you will get the highest and best price so you can pass this on to your children. So we have all of the uses here, and if you wanted to cross any of them off, this binding development plan that we enter into is binding. It cannot be changed, and it will only be those uses in that binding development plan.

I disagree with binding development plans, period, because they aren't binding. Ron handles all that for us. I'm done.

Paul, is a binding development plan breakable?

Yes.

Oh, yeah.

You'd have to go back through the county commission and have it removed.

Okay. I wasn't aware of that. But to the developer, it's binding.

I got that. Yeah. Ruth's got it. Yeah, that's Ruth.

I have a quick question for staff first. If this zoning is approved and there is a binding development plan, that doesn't stop it from Live Local and FAR, right? like the 211 homes that could go on it if it's rezoned to this? Or dwelling units, pardon me.

Correct, because that's a state requirement.

So rezoning this, no matter what the BDP is, will allow for 211 units to go on seven acres?

Correct. We cannot restrict or limit the Live Local Act.

I think if the...

I'm not done yet. One second.

Okay.

So council has just let me know that if the property owner is willing to include that in the BDP, that they will not live local on the property, then that would be...

Is that legally binding though?

That would be legally binding. It would be voluntary for the owner to do so.

But if he sold the property, would that transfer to the next owner to prevent that? Because half of that back property is aquifer. North Brevard Mims, already we all know, has a water shortage, has a water issue dramatically.

The BDP runs with the land until it's changed. Do what? It runs with the land until someone comes back to either remove it or amend it or use it how it is.

Okay. I don't know. I tend to agree with John. I'm not really sure we need a gas station, and I don't really think we need to open ourselves up to an under 211 homes as a possibility, even with the BDP. We've seen numerous ones of those come back to be changed just after a couple years. I don't think this is something I could support.

Ms. Erica.

Thank you. All right. So, yes, and I certainly understand you want to get the most amount for your money. Everybody does. But the thing is, is that the man owns it and it's zoned as it is. And it has been zoned this way for many, many years. So now all of a sudden we want to sell, we want to rezone. And the only thing that I'm, I don't like the entrance where, you know, I'm looking at where, how the entrance comes in in the school. I'm concerned about that. The other thing is, Staff has pointed out the proposed request may be considered an intrusion into the residential area as the request exceeds the depth of the current commercial FLU designations within the area. So, I mean, I don't know. This is a tough one to just say, oh, let's change it, you know, before we sell it.

Can I respond to that?

Sure.

It's future land use, this neighborhood commercial on the front. It's ready neighborhood commercial. You have an agricultural zoning with a future land use of neighborhood commercial. It's not consistent. It's got to go one way or the other. It's either go back to residential, right, or it's got to go forward to commercial. The area is strongly growing commercially.

Only on one piece, right?

On that front piece, yes.

Only on that one piece. So we can't say the whole thing is.

So can I also offer, if this board's recommendation is supportive of the front piece and you don't want to include the back piece, we'd be open to that. We could always bring the back piece back at a later date. So we would be open to, can we do that? Can we amend? It just was zoned for commercial for the front piece.

That's the 2.5 acres. Zoned agricultural with a neighborhood commercial.

You didn't advertise that way.

I got them talking.

Yeah, you didn't advertise that way.

Well, while they're discussing that, may I put my two cents in, Mr. Mark? Yes, sir. Because I live up there. I don't think that it's unfounded that the residents, especially to the east of the property, because that's the way that the water flows, are concerned with the gas station because we've all seen during a rainstorm the rainbow water headed toward a ditch that is eventually going to make it into the groundwater of these folks' homes. So that is... That's a concern. They don't have a choice to use municipal water supply on that road. Everybody's on a well. That whole area is on a well. I think, actually, is it Lionel? You probably know. Is it Lionel that is the cutoff? So anybody directly east of this, and there are dozens of homes, have the potential to be affected by that. That being said, also... And I do respect people's property rights a lot, but they did buy a piece of property that had certain limitations and that's what they own. There are people out there that would love to buy a piece of property that they could put a horse on or a couple of cows or do a small farmstead or something like that. So I don't think that it's an unmarketable piece of property in its current zoning form either. Would it be worth more money commercial? Probably but also to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood.

That's just my two cents Staff were you gonna say something?

To your inquiry we're thinking that if he does just wanna do the front piece, it would be cleaner for him to come back with a new application and with the legal description of that piece itself, possibly even splitting that out from the other. So it would be just nice and clean and we would have the proper legal description of where we're applying it to.

Yes, sir. Neil.

That being the case, would it be best for us to deny this request and have them come back or table it? I would be interested.

Procedural would probably be cleaner to deny it if that's the decision of the board. Thank you.

Can I make one final comment before you guys go back to that? So since this owner wants this to go forward this way, then I would like you to vote on it as a whole today. And then we're going to take it to the county commission. Because he's paid. He's waited. He's waited now almost 120 days. And guys, 120 days of this man are precious right now. And we're going to go forward. So if that's not an option, let's just go with whatever this board determines as a recommendation. And then we'll go before the county commission.

All right. I got one question. Where does the, that's county water, isn't it? That's to the west? Isn't there a water line to the west?

South, Henry. Oh, is it south? Yeah. There's nothing north of Lionel.

Okay. So it's 46 then? Is it there at 46?

The plane?

No, the line.

Lionel. Lionel. Lionel. Which is the southern. Underwater Lionel, yeah.

It does state.

How far a pool is that?

I'm not quite sure how far it is, but it does state in the staff report that the subject property is within access for centralized water and sewer services provided by Brevard County. Okay. So they would be able to connect.

Okay. I would- Well, that solves one of the problems.

I have- Hold on one second, Ms. Ruth. I got Eric ahead of you. I'm sorry.

Thank you. I want to ask you a question before I ask my other question. Is the buyer, I understand, a gas station developer?

The buyer that has shown an interest in the property is a broker representing a major gas station developer.

Okay, so my question is then, do I assume that you would not be willing or the buyer would not be willing to restrict that if you obtain the zoning for a gas station?

Well, the owner of the property right now is the owner of the property. I represent him. I met with him before this meeting on Friday, and he gave me the authority to negotiate what I've just said before you, that we are willing to restrict any uses within BU1 that you want to discuss. It might not be consistent.

Including a gas station.

I don't know if he wants to give up the corner for a gas station, but... No, he won't do that.

Ms. Ruth.

To what Mr. Manabu was asking about how close it was to hook up to water, it's not just how close he is to hook up to water. And maybe I don't see anybody, but maybe I don't recognize them from the utility department. I've seen numerous development builds from North Brevard MEMS area specifically, East MEMS and other locations, where the utility has to push back and say, we don't have capacity at this time. that you're going to have to contribute or wait it out until we have capacity. As residents who have lots of residents who have complained about water pressure, and the plant has been under maintenance for approximately, and please don't hold me to this number, but it's probably pretty close, five years, three to five years. The fire department doesn't even use the fire hydrants to put out fires in our area. So It's not how close you are to a hookup. MEMS doesn't really have the capacity for large hookups until they can expand their plant, which we've been told is quite a few years out still. So it's not just how close it is, it's capacity. And that MEMS plant, to my knowledge, has never functioned at full capacity and is currently at half capacity and has been for forever. I don't think it's ever functioned fully.

Can I respond to that? Yes, one second. Wait until she's done, please, sir.

It's not just how close you are. It's capacity. And I don't know if there's anybody from utility that can speak to that. But I have seen where the utility is pushing them off. And they have to develop in stages. And when capacity comes available, it's not readily available.

Okay, yes, you can respond. So I just, again, just to kind of bring it back to center, this is a recommendation panel to look at a future land use, right? And the consistency, the compatibility with the area, looking at staff's report. There is a secondary process that will get addressed with Ms. Amato's concerns, and that's a technical site plan. You can approve this. The county can go ahead and change the zoning and maybe there's no development there because there is a fairly stringent process that a developer must go through and he must check off 20 to 30 boxes with multiple authorities having jurisdiction in order to be able to build something. So it's not like, oh, you approve it tomorrow and it's gonna get built. They very well may turn around that it's not buildable for what they wanna do and that's a risk. that the owner is willing to take but i don't know if that should technically be something to look at in terms of your deliberation whether or not there's capacity for water or sewer nope i copy any other questions from the board

Mr. Chairman, there was a comment made that septic is available out there. I would strongly dispute that. I think the septic is about several miles to the south.

Sewer, you mean, right?

Sewer, yeah, septic. Yeah, sewer.

We actually get a report from the utilities department. They add in their comments into our staff comments. And if you look on page three, that paragraph is directly from the utilities department. They do note that the MEMS water plant has capacity as of March 2026. based on actual connections is 42%. The MEMS wastewater plant capacity as of March 2026, based on actual connections, is at 49%. And so they're stating here that they do have availability for this property to connect. So just let me clarify.

What's the distance from this to their nearest connection point for the sewer? I think it's quite a ways south.

I don't have that in front of me at this time.

So trying to make a sewer connection would probably be millions of dollars.

And again, that would be a site plan as well. So they'd have to make that determination.

And the other thing is the water line does end at Lionel. People in the south have water. People to the north are on wells. So that decision was made. I don't know why we'd want to change that decision. Otherwise, we really ought to be offering all of those residents access to the county water system.

That was my concern, is not if this property would be able to hook to a municipal water supply. It was if a gas station goes on that property, how it would affect some of the runoff, how it would affect the neighbors that are not hooked up. dozens of homes to the east which is the direction that that water flows to the river so that it wasn't so much this property and would it be able to connect it was the downstream effects so mine wasn't related to capacity

so can i can i uh address that that and that's a good point right so when a property is developed regardless of whether it's a gas station a restaurant or not a drainage plan would be part of a technical site plan that drainage plan would have under ground piping that pumped any water that's on the site it would either flow sheet flow or would go to a drain and that drain would go to a retention pond where that water would be treated and go to an outflow. And it could be a wet pond, it could be a dry pond, but there wouldn't be water runoff just running off of property onto streets or anything like that because the county will not allow that. So it has to have a self-contained storm drainage plan to meet the, I believe it's the 100-year storm event. So it's a fairly complex plan, and it also has to be blessed by St. John's Water Management District.

So I do understand that, but because I live there, I don't believe it because I see it.

Okay.

And we've also had multiple 100-year flood events in the last year. So, you know, I mean, it takes one contamination to put forever chemicals in these people's groundwater. Yeah. so i i just don't i i can't support it mainly because of that and also these you know these folks moved up to uh mims to this area um bought agricultural land that's surrounded by other agricultural land because nobody's found that spot yet And that's why they want to live there. And they just want to preserve that. I don't think it's compatible. And is it across the street from Dollar General? Yes. I also don't think that's compatible. These people didn't ask for crime at their doorstep, and that's what that brings. Not to say that the gas station would, but that has happened. So anyway, those are the reasons.

Mark.

You know, I'd like to add to that, too, is when you have a pouring rain, That's not controlled that runs all over the place runs on the streets runs on the next door properties With all the tire marks from the gas station to spilled oil to spill the gas that people do the garbage that they'll throw out Not everybody's great putting it in trash cans. So I've seen the impacts of gas stations Can I make a motion when everybody's done?

Still in discussion, sorry, mr. John

Yeah, I don't like the speculative nature of this. As a developer that I am, if I'm interested in a property, I have the money to change the zoning and the land use to make it work for me. I don't usually rely on landowners to do it because they don't have the experience that developers have. And this is just too speculative. And I would make a motion to deny.

I'll second.

We were still in discussion. I had Ruth on hold.

She wants to do the same thing.

Ruth, are you good?

I'm waiting for just, I was just waiting for discussion to be over. That's all. I'm good.

One second. Mr. Neal.

I just want to clarify if a motion's made, we need to do four and five separately. So I need to clarify. Okay.

Ruth?

Does John want to make the motion, and I'll second, or I can make it? I don't care.

I made the motion. I second it.

I think we had a second by Eric, didn't we?

Correct.

So we got a motion by John, a second by Eric for item H4. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those who deny, say aye. Aye. Aye.

The motion was to deny. I said in favor.

Yeah, and then you said something else. Okay, let's redo it. You with me, Seth? The motion is to deny. Item H?

Yeah, let's go ahead and redo it.

Okay, my motion is to deny the application for the land use change.

Item H4. H4. The second was first by John, second by Eric. All those in favor to deny? Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously.

To deny. So H5 is denied as well? We haven't had a motion yet.

We're going to do that next. That's just H4.

I'll hang out for that.

Go ahead. All right. I'll make a motion on H5 to deny also.

Second.

We have a motion on item H5 by John, a second by Ruth. All those in favor to deny? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir.

Good luck with the commissioners.

Item H6.

Yes, item H6, Anthony Flanagilla. Request change of zoning classification from AU to RR1. Application is 26C00017. It's located in District 2. Also, the North Merritt Island District voted unanimously to change this. Approve it.

Sir, it appears you're the applicant.

Yes. My name is Anthony Falanga. Last name is spelled F as in Frank. A-L-A-N-G-A. I'm currently residing at 4365 Piaget Street, Cocoa, Florida, 32927. Went in for a building permit, found out that the property is no longer, please excuse my ignorance, I don't know if it's the correct word, but no longer compatible because it's now two acres of property and it needs to be a minimum two and a half to be agricultural. So it was recommended by the board that I rezone the property of a residential Which is conducive to the area the property due north of me is rural residential All right, sir while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item Sir if you could grab a seat real quick ma'am you could come up

And if you could state your name, spell your last name and address for the record.

Yes.

Hello, my name is Mary Hilberg. I live at 3780 Sierra Drive in Merritt Island. My last name is spelled H-I-L-L-B-E-R-G. And I'm on the North Merritt Island Special Advisory Board, and we discussed this item and was unanimously voted to recommend approval. We think it's compatible with the area, and it's in the interests of the entire community.

Okay, thank you. Thank you ma'am Anybody else want to speak for against this item? Then I'm going to close item h6 for any public comment sir if you could come back up to the podium I Bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the applicant.

This is for a single home, correct?

it's a two acre parcel that's not conducive to the zoning any longer and And the county suggested that I change the zoning from agricultural to rural residential.

Right. And then what? Is there going to be a house built on it?

My plan was to build a home, yes.

Okay. And if you sell the property, that's the idea, is to put a house on it?

I can't speak for somebody else, but that's, yeah. It has to go to rural residential in order to get a building permit.

Yes, sir, John.

So your intent is to build a house yourself? Yes, sir. Okay, so the compatibility issue came up when you went to the county to say, I want to put a house on this property?

It's a long story. I'll tell you if you want to know the whole story.

Well, not too long. I mean, you know, I've got a date.

I went to the county to get a building permit. And when I got there, they said that the property was not buildable. They said that the road that goes through the property has too many homes on it already. The road was actually an easement. And what happened was is over the years, people kept putting more and more easements, and this dirt road has, let's just say eight, I can't remember exactly, eight easements. And they said they absolutely positively will not allow another building permit. So it was first suggested to me to put in a variance. And we tried and then it was brought to my attention that it was kind of an informal change of policy with variances. And then went back to the county and it was suggested that I get the property to code. So two acres is not code for agricultural and to change it to rural residential so I can at least have the property code. I have, the road problem is still there and that's another battle for another day. But I do have that documentation here if you'd like a copy of it that basically shows I owned the house in front of the property. Unfortunately, before I completed it, my life partner and my girlfriend, it's kind of emotional for me, she passed away from cancer. I moved into the home. I was there for about a year, and I just, it was too difficult. Biggest mistake I ever made was I sold that home. Shortly after that, I wanted to come back. We had bought the surrounding property, me and my girlfriend, so we could basically kind of guarantee our privacy. And so I'm fortunate that I do have an adjacent piece of property that has another access. But like I said, that's another story. But I've got the paperwork here if you'd like to see it.

So if we change the zoning on this, would that affect the easement issue that you've got?

That's another easement.

So why bother doing it if you can't get the easement in order to get on the property?

I can't even go to the next step until I rezone it.

That's called a flag lot overload stem. That's what happened. You only allowed so many units on the stem and you guys overloaded them.

It was frustrating because we went all the way back to microfiche. The county staff was wonderful. But then a year later, a neighbor on the same road built a house, got a permit. I was told absolutely positively no. And yet another building went up. I never made a big stink out of it because I don't want to tell somebody they can't do something on their own property. It ain't right. But I wish they would have given me that permit.

So if I understand it correctly, this zoning request. I'm not finished.

Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, I'm still. I'm just trying to understand. Yeah, I am too. OK. Staff. What can he do? I mean, does he have to do the zoning change first before you resolve the flag lot issue?

Right now he needs to have it rezoned because it doesn't meet the size requirement for the AU. Then he can apply for an access easement after it's rezoned.

So he's not guaranteed that he can get that though, right?

I can't guarantee it. You have to get approval to go across somebody else's property and come in and apply for the access easement.

But doesn't that give him an extra expense by having to do it that way? going from the zoning change first when he doesn't know he's not going to be able to get access?

We can't approve an access to it because it does not meet the size requirement. No, I understand that. So that's the reason he's here.

Okay.

No, I understand why he's here. Extra expenses.

I just want to see if you can actually accommodate him on the access issue. I mean, otherwise, maybe you should say I can't do this.

That would be administratively done after the rezoning.

Say that again.

It's administratively redone after the, after the rezoning.

So you will grant the easement.

No, he has to come in and apply for it.

But I understand that.

But will you, so in order for this gentleman to develop his property, it needs to be rezoned to our, our one. because he doesn't have the size requirements for the zoning, right? Got that. Under Section 62.102, that deals with access for single-family residential building permits, right? So this individual is going to have to go to his neighbors, secure access, likely through an easement that meets our code requirements, and then he'd be able to get his building permit. So either way, there's going to be costs, it sounds like, associated with this, whether he be getting the easement from his neighbors, which potentially would cost him more because it's up to you guys and the Board of County Commissioners to grant him his zoning change, which is not guaranteed. So either way, it sounds like there's going to be costs associated with development of this property.

That's fine. I understand that. What he told us was that there's a... a limit to how many easements that you all are going to grant on that area. So even if he does the zoning change, he's not guaranteed that he'll be able to get access to that parcel.

Well, he has to work with his neighbors to ensure that the area that he needs.

Is it the neighbors that would help him, or is it you guys?

No, he needs to get an easement from the neighboring properties in order to connect to the public right-of-way. because he doesn't have frontage.

But when he said that they've exceeded the maximum number of easements available.

Let me stop you for a second. It's two different roads. The property, the one road that goes to the property, that's the access to it right now. It's done.

Can't use that road is what you're saying.

No. Well, no, but somebody did.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Okay. But no. When we built the home, We had sold a larger home further north on the island to downsize for that to be our retirement home, the new home. And we had purchased the surrounding properties. So I do have the property to access it. Okay, I don't have to go to my neighbors. So I do have the property to access it. And that's why the county suggested to rezone and to go in, because with me owning the property, I don't have that step.

Okay. So you'll be granting your own easement, essentially, because you said you own the adjacent property.

All I'm trying to do is get a 20-foot access to the property so I can get a building permit. Yes, sir.

Okay. So that means he can get access. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Neal.

Just to clarify, he still would have to ask for the easement, but the neighbors that he's going to get their buy-in is himself?

I don't think I have to go to a neighbor.

That's why I was asking the staff. So because of what he's talking about now, that the access is going to be through properties that you already own, does he have to get an easement still?

I still have to get the easement.

But he has to get it from him.

It just depends on the circumstances of the property surrounding his property. Right now, before you guys, is a rezoning that deals with making it compliant with our acreage requirements.

I have a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Somebody else?

No, go ahead.

I have a question for you. So the lot that you would use for your access, It's 0.65 acres, sound right?

It sounds about right.

And then you own another lot the same size just to the south of that.

And I own two lots on the other side. I bought all the surrounding lots that were available around that home.

So since the one lot touches, why not just combine that to this one and have more than two and a half acres, and then you don't have to rezone it at all and go through all this?

I went to the county. I think I have to, well, I don't know about that. I went to the county, like I said, originally, I was told I could do it with a variance. And when it took about a year, because it was very difficult at that time to get a surveyor, it was in that boom area where just there was nobody available. When I finally got all the paperwork, I went in, and it was politely brought to my attention that the variance, there was an internal policy that they, most likely would not approve it. So then it was brought to my attention to just rezone it, okay, and then use the property they had, put an easement over the top of it, and I can get to the property. I would not like to start this procedure all over again if I can help it.

Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion?

I'm sorry?

Can I make a motion? Yes, sir. I make a motion we approve the rezoning.

Second.

Second.

Hold on, I already had a second. Who was the other second? Okay, a motion by Robert, a second by Eric. All those in favor for item H6, say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Since it's behind us, how many under the old flag lot is, what was that number? Is that four or five?

You can have two flag lots side by side.

Still back sides? Mm-hmm. So you can get eight?

I guess depending on how you configure it, but two side-by-side. And then there's another property to the south there that you can't get an easement over an easement, which is that road. But since he owns the other two properties that abut the main road there.

Because, see, so much of that was flag lot split up there. Mm-hmm. His is no. I know all about it.

I mean, that's the thought. Mm-hmm.

okay lpa item h7 yes item h7 and h8 are companion items bt roads llc pageant properties trust requests a small scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from residential six to community commercial Application is 26SS00006. It's located in District 5. And item number H8, BT Roads, LLC, Paget Properties, Trust. Request... change of zoning classification from BU-1-A and AU to BU-2, and its application is 26Z00020, and it's also located in District 5.

Okay, and is the applicant here?

No, don't hand us anything.

Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Delmonico. I am a planning consultant on behalf of the property owners and the applicants. One second here if I could get the projector up and running. Okay, I'm here today with Jason Bartlett and John Turner here in the front row with me. They are both with Building Management Systems, or BMS. They have been in this community since the 80s, so for over 42 years now. They've been here on John Rhodes Boulevard. Let me pull up my notes real quick. So this request today, we're looking at two different things. It's a small scale comprehensive plan amendment, as well as a rezoning, and it's split into two parcels. So the first parcel, get my pencil. Right here, that's the north parcel, that's 1675 South John Road. So it's a little under an acre. It's zoned BU 1A and it's been the established home of BMF since 1984. Their success as a local certified general contractor, design building construction management company is resulting in them outgrowing this small property that they've utilized for the last 42 years. If you can see the big long shadow on it too, it also contains a monopole tower. So this aerial image is one with the eagle eye view. So we're looking at it a little at an angle. So you can see the north property that has the monopole on it. And then we're also looking at 1715 South John Rhodes Boulevard. Just to the south there, there's an existing single family home on it. It has an AU agricultural zoning. So this property was purchased in 2025 by these same folks in hopes of supporting the expansion of BMS. So they're looking to expand BMS and also maybe have a couple extra units for different types of contractor supporting uses that also support this community. The primary objective of our request for a comp plan amendment and a rezone is to align the property's future land use with its longstanding functional use and proposed future expansion. So currently BMS uses this property for their offices plus indoor and outdoor equipment and material storage and outdoor covered commercial vehicle storage. all secured behind a gate and a fence. They actually take very good care of the property. It's always super clean and put together as you can see from these aerials. What is strange about this is that current BU1A zoning on the north parcel with the monopole does not allow for contractor storage either indoor or outdoor. So how we got here, we don't know. It's been going on for over 40 years. This amendment will facilitate a subsequent rezoning from BU1A on the north and AU on the south to BU2, which is retail, warehousing, and service business. The change will bring the existing contractor's office and storage facility into zoning compliance and allow for the responsible future expansion of a local established business. Rezoning the south property away from AU will eliminate the potential for its use for agricultural pursuits, processing and sales, and the raising and grazing of animals. gosh, I'm getting good at this projector. It's always backwards and feels like a mirror. So again, the two requests we have here, so on the right-hand side in the color, you'll see the future land use category. So we're looking at, it's all res six right now, res six, And the BU1A is already a little weird. So we're looking at changing both of those properties into CC. And then from the zoning perspective, which is on the left side of your screen, we're looking at taking the BU1A and the AU and converting it to BU2. for the purpose of the contractor's office with indoor and outdoor storage. Now we understand BU2 does have some compatibility issues potentially with surrounding neighborhood residential uses. So the sheet that I passed out to you today is we did a deep dive into the code and we looked at BU1A, BU1, BU2, and we went through and created this little exhibit because, I mean, there's lots of uses in BU2 we don't want to touch and we wouldn't want to live near it either. So things like seafood processing, recovered materials facility, bottling beverages and ice plants, flea markets, pet kennels, crematoriums and the like. That is not at all an interest of the applicant and these property owners. So we did also come up with a list and what they're looking to hopefully accomplish here is, yes, they want to set forth their future home and expansion for BMS that's been there for four decades, but they also want to have a couple units in there as well for similar contractor type uses. So we've come up with a list. That is a great conversation starter. So they'd be looking for the uses that are allowed in BU1 with other additional uses. For example, dry cleaning laundry pickup station. We figured no one would get upset about that. Glass installation, plumbing and electrical, testing laboratories. Building materials, supplies, under the uses permitted with conditions, you can't really tell it's in bold, it didn't show up very well, but contractors' offices and storage yards, what they need, that's really what they need here for their business, and then other things that might fit along with them. So the rationale for this amendment is looking at consistency with the neighborhood as well as economic vitality. So the existing use has been established at that location and the Res 6 designation doesn't reflect the historical or current commercial and industrial character of the site's operation. So this would help rectify that. This would eliminate the split zoning between the newly acquired property and the old property, and it would also support a local industry that's been established and wants to continue growing on this John Rhodes site. The subject property is situated in an area where single-family and multi-family residential uses transition south into commercial corridors along both John Roads as well as 192. The corridor is a mix of unincorporated Brevard County, where we're at, as well as the city of West Melbourne.

I have some emails.

I just wanted to bring up this county map as well because right across the street to the west, you can kind of see the beginning of the multifamily development that starts here and goes all the way over to Coastal Lane. So there are a couple hundred dwelling units there from the multifamily residential. And on the other side of that apartment complex, actually recently constructed, there's an industrial property in West Melbourne over there that has an entire facility of what we call flex warehouse. So they've grown out a phase of that, which is kind of a good companion to all of this through there. So things for contractors and spinoff companies to have storage. It's not mini storage, but you work out of those units. Because the business is already established, the change in land use will not introduce new unexpected impacts on local traffic. Future expansion will be subject to standard county buffering and screening requirements to protect any adjacent residential interests. So we did do a significant amount of community outreach in this situation because we're right next to those single family residential uses that are also established. You can't see it very well here, but that's the map that shows the 500-foot buffer of everyone around it. So what happened is Jason and John, on May 29th, they went door-knocking to the single-family residences to the north and all the way down the east side, and they talked to whoever they could. They had discussions with a few of those residents there, and they were like, hey, BMS has been a really good neighbor to us We don't have any complaints with what you're doing now. We don't have a complaint if you want to expand your business to the south piece in the future. The things that they heard consistently from those neighbors was, we don't want multifamily. We'd like you to put in an opaque wall or fence for separation, which would happen and is required in code, as well as trees along the common property line, which would also happen, and they're happy to provide those. In addition to them walking and talking with the neighbors, we sent out notices to everyone within 500 feet, and we held a community meeting in open house style in the evening at the BMS office right there. We only had one gentleman come, and it was the neighbor to the north, and when he realized he was the only one there, he left because he just wanted to see if anyone else from the neighborhood showed up. So we sat together for the two-hour open house and chatted for a while, but we didn't have anyone else show up. I also haven't had any neighbors reach out to me with my contact information. So here's the notice that we sent out. The proposed amendment from Res 6 to CC is a logical correction to the future land use map. It acknowledges the 42-year presence of a successful contractor's office and storage, eliminates the logistical hurdles of split zoning, and provides a clear path for a local business to grow. This change is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan to foster a balanced, sustainable, and economically diverse community. The requested BU2 zoning, with the suggested changes on appropriate uses, will allow the property owners to properly screen and organize any outdoor storage per county code in order to protect and buffer the neighbors. And with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Well, while you're right there, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? That's good news. So I'm going to close it for public comment. Seeing that, I'll bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, sir.

Okay. What kind of contract work do these people do?

Would you like to answer that? General commercial.

General commercial. Okay. Thank you. You want to go from BU1A to BU2 on the zoning, right? Yes, sir. And you want to go from Res 6 to CC on the land use. We're doing the land use first. Yes. If you go to CC, you can essentially turn this into a live local housing project.

There's no desire to construct multifamily residential here. I think it would be the zoning, the BU2. The BU1A would already allow Live Local Act to happen there today. That's obviously not happening on it. If we rezone the south piece to BU2, it would open the door for Live Local Act, but we're happy to add that to the red X list. That's not of interest to this property owner.

You'd have to talk to Ron about a binding development agreement on that. Why are you jumping to BU2 instead of just regular BU1?

Because BU1 does not allow for what they're already doing on the property, which would be the outdoor component of it. So BU1 allows for contractor's office and indoor storage.

Okay, not outdoor. Correct. Yeah, I'm looking at the list.

Yep, so in order for them to get everything straight with their current site and be able to expand it, we need BU2. We don't need all the uses in BU2, but we need BU2, which requires us to obtain CC. So we're asking for the least we could ask for to help this business stay in this location.

Okay, and you'd be willing to do a BDP on that?

Yes.

To restrict it? I'll let Ron do that. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

very familiar with the area. I'm right up the road from you. I know Mr. Turner over here. I think it would be a good fit.

Mr. Chairman, so you'd be willing to put these items in green in a BDP saying that you won't do So you'll be able to do those. I've got two questions. One, would you be willing to put in a BDP that's more restrictive?

In what way?

That says you'll take the BU1 uses plus you'll be able to do outdoor storage.

We have not. I haven't analyzed the code for that. That would take me some time to analyze. There's a lot of uses. So BU1, let's say, for example, someone wants to come into the county and do, like I said before, a flex warehouse that is open to different types of contractors. You have your HVAC and your plumbing and all of those uses. Those are all held within the BU1. Not BU1A. BU1A is more professional office.

I'm not interested in BU1A. What I would like to do is to have BDP that says you can do any of the BU1 uses. Yes. Great. And in addition to that, you can do outdoor storage to solve the problem that you're addressing.

So what I have in the green area there, so if this is what you're thinking, so the permitted, permittive conditions and conditional uses allowed in the BU1 district plus those uses in the green, right?

And I'm just asking, would you be willing to accept a BDP that is somewhat more restrictive?

I guess it depends which ones you'd want to see removed from that list.

All of them except for outdoor storage.

If you're restricting it so much that building management systems goes belly up, then you've got a dead piece of property. So don't restrict it more than that.

What it means is that you'll have to come back to the board, whoever would want to buy it or whatever, would have to come back to the board and have a public hearing saying, this is what we want to do.

Yeah, if there's any on the green list that you're concerned with to chat about, we're happy to chat about those. But a lot of these kind of go along. What they were worried about is, I know these are principal uses, but for example, on a piece of their equipment, they might need to change out the glass on something, or they want to be able to make welding repairs. So they were trying to include in here things that they might do on an occasional basis as well.

Or they just have more storage.

Oh, they've got outdoor storage. They have their indoor stuff because they also have commercial vehicles. So it's a full contractor office and facility.

Okay. Then one other thing. You mentioned about... protecting the residences that are to the east. Yes, sir. With a vegetative barrier? Mm-hmm. How big are you talking about? 15 feet or 50 feet?

Whatever code. Code already requires something. I can't remember if it's 15 or 20 feet. I know that the building setback itself is 15 feet. And a wall. And a wall.

I was wondering, were you being willing to have something larger than 15 feet?

Like 20? 20, 25, 30, 35? Not that big, no. The property's not. No, because we'd have to set our building back. But if you're looking for five more feet on the back. I'll take it.

Can I jump in and ask a question just to help maybe the conversation a little bit? So just by looking at the parcels, for easy math, I'm going to call it 220 feet deep. You're going to have a drive aisle, parking spots, drive aisle that goes all the way around for fire access, stormwater swales, et cetera. I think from the buffer perspective, my question would be, it looks like there's a lot of existing pretty nice-sized trees there. Is there any opportunity to maybe preserve some of those before we start changing our grade elevations and putting in the wall and that sort of thing? I think If I were the resident, I would prefer to have the existing tree saved, then put the wall up, and then you guys slip up and do what you need to do on your side of the line. But is that a possibility? And maybe that helps with the buffer component. I'd rather keep my large trees than have an extra five feet with brand new four-inch trees that take 30 years to grow.

I just wanted to pull that up so I could take a peek at that.

And the aerial is a little deceiving, right? Like it's a GIS map on the county appraiser site. So I know you don't have a tree survey yet, but to the extent possible, is there the ability to look at preserving some of those larger species trees, provided that they're not compromised? Arborist says they're fine, all that sort of thing.

Yeah, how many of those trees are actually on your property?

We haven't done the tree survey, but to sit here and say, oh, we're going to be able to keep the trees, we're going to have to do a site plan. We're going to have to do elevations and ponds. I can't really commit to say that the elevations that we're going to generate are going to be able to save those trees if we go to backfill and they have certain elevations. We'll certainly do any kind of mitigation and pay mitigation banks and credits.

Excuse me, sir. Sir, over here to your left. Sorry to interrupt, but could you state your name and get up to the microphone for the record, please? Thank you. Absolutely.

Jason Bartlett, Building Management Systems. So, you know, we can't really commit today to saving the trees. I don't know what those final elevations are gonna be, if we're gonna have backfill up against there. We would be doing any kind of mitigation. From our perspective, we did talk to every, well, we knocked on every door behind us. We got about four residents. What most people were concerned with was transient people crossing from the apartment complex and some of the other motels, hotels on that corner, cutting through this property and cutting into those residential neighborhoods where we're going to be building a wall. And everybody was very pleased with that, that we're going to be separating that residential area from some of this commercial development. And that's where the lie... That's where the people's concerns lied. So for what that's worth.

Just to bring it back for clarification. So it's really not just outdoor storage. You really need all these that are in green. You need to limit it with the BDP to these uses, each and every one of these uses.

Right. Well, for example, we don't need dry cleaning laundry pickup stations. But I can't imagine... it's not even a dry cleaning facility, it's just a pickup. So we were just trying to add in uses of businesses that also might join in. But this use specifically, they were really concerned with glass installation and plumbing and electrical. like companions, welding repairs, like wholesale storage type uses, building materials and supplies, garage or mechanical services for the vehicles that they have, service station, and then warehousing, which is just storing. The other things, like commercial entertainment and amusement enterprises, that could be like an indoor golf simulator, or They have a really cool indoor golf simulator inside BMS. So they were thinking something like that could be a business that might co-locate with them. So just trying to remove some barriers for uses that shouldn't be of irritation to the neighbors.

Right, right. So it could be BU2 and then cross off a couple that you absolutely don't need with the binding development plan.

Yeah, this is basically what we had narrowed it down to. So if there is a use in the green area someone's really concerned with, we definitely would be happy to talk about it. But I think this allows so people don't have to keep coming back to revise BDPs for something that really shouldn't be of consequence. Right.

Well, you spoke with the neighbors, so it sounds like they're not. Thank you.

I have a question. Yes. Are you planning on building another building on that property?

I don't want to limit it. Do I need to come back?

You're a contractor.

I don't want to limit it, but yes, I mean, they're...

So it's not just for outdoor storage that you want to change this thing to CC?

Well, I mean, I don't know what the future is going to hold. Nobody does.

He's asking if you want to build on it, like a building, another building expansion.

I can't. Because you're asking... There's no immediate plan for that right now.

Okay, but you're asking for a lot of benefits from the BU2, which would allow you to do that and rent out space to other business enterprises. However, you're coming in here with a proposal based on you needing outdoor storage and the BU1A does not allow it. So it's kind of confusing. I get confused a lot up here.

That is my current need at this present moment. is outdoor storage. I really can't speak in kind of what Mr. Brother, I mean, has been in business for 46 years, but if BMS closes tomorrow, I have three acres that is unmarketable at AU1 or AU, so I don't want to speak to the future or limit myself on the future, but right now, today, my present need is to expand my service. I mean, I have vehicles. You can... There's a residential person there now, but I have heavy equipment. I have vehicles. I have dump trucks.

What are you doing with them currently?

Where are you putting them? Job sites.

You're leaving them there and not having them in your home facility?

Correct.

Because you got it out loud?

Correct.

Okay, I get that. It's just, I don't know, it's just...

I just can't speak to the future. I'm trying to see through the fog here. That is my need today. I can't speak to the future for tomorrow.

No, I understand that. And I can take that at face value. in the back of your head you could be planning to expand into a different operation. And, you know, we always look at that. People say, you know, we get the public in here and they say, well, what would happen if they sell it and it becomes X? And I never worry about that because everything can happen. But could you do a BU2 without the CC?

No.

Why?

Because it's not consistent with the future land use. BU2 needs CC to be consistent.

Staff, true? OK. Thank you.

Did you want the floor?

I'm about to make a motion. Again, we've overcomplicated something that seems very simple. And so I make a motion that we approve the rezoning second okay you now do we need him to clarify the motion yeah yes with the first is the with the conditions that that are on this list that we were handed okay this is item h7

And Robert made a motion to...

The BDP wouldn't be applied to the small scale, so you need to vote on that one first. And then he can make his motion to include that list on the rezoning.

You just need to make a motion on item H7 for now. H7.

Which is the future land use.

Yes.

Okay, I'll make a motion we approve the change in the future land use.

Second.

And we had a second motion by Robert, a second by Anna. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Point of order, is that with the BDP?

No, that's the item H-8.

Okay, I'm in favor.

Okay, item H-7 passed unanimously. Okay, now going to item H-8.

I make a motion that we approve item H-8. We recommend approval of item H8 for the rezoning from BU1A and AU to BU2 with a BDP, including the document I'm holding up.

Second.

Staff, are you good with that?

On the green, if I may.

One second, Eric, because we actually got a motion going right now, though, sir.

Right, but he referred to this document, and I have a question on this document.

Do a second and then a discussion.

Can I get a second first, and then we'll go for discussion?

Yep, second.

Okay, item H8. We've got a motion by Robert, a second by Ana. All those in favor? Hold on.

I'm sorry.

I've got too many chiefs up here. I'm a hold it for discussion Eric.

Just just had a question. I was looking at the at the impacts on your green Which all of them are are pretty what I'm just trying to get clarification on when you talk about service stations Automotive vehicles and you all services that's big impacts compared to all the others. Is that? Also allowed under that particular zoning. I

That was the weird, the county has such an intricate list of uses, and I pulled that from BU2. Right. Yes. But the ability to work on vehicles is what they want to make sure that they have the ability to preserve. So that's what I pulled out.

But you don't have any interest in that, don't you?

Yes, they have big vehicles that they do keep up themselves.

Right, but we're talking about U-Haul here, and we're talking about automotive services.

That was just the use from the BU2.

That language came from there. You done, Eric? Then would you strike some of those that are on your green list?

Like U-Haul service? Yeah. We'd rather just leave. We'll just leave it. There's no desire to do it, but I think we'd like to just move forward.

And again, we seem to have a desire to limit what can be done here, even though it will probably never be done. But if it should need to be done, then you've limited it, and you don't see the future. So it's a very good agreement as it stands, and there's no need to fiddle with it more.

Yeah, I agree. Mr. Robert, you done?

I withdraw the answer. Mr. Neal? I'd like to call the question on the motion.

So we're going to back back up. We have a motion by Robert on item H8, a second by Anna. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed.

Thank you, everyone.

Got H8. That's what it looks like if you don't have time you can go somewhere else.

Okay, item H9. Hold on, Paul.

Paul, hold on. Mr. Adkins? Yes, sir. Based on your question and your disclosure early on, I would just suggest that you abstain. Okay. And then we'll give you the necessary paperwork. It doesn't seem like a mandatory abstention, but just based on the circumstances.

Understood. Thank you.

The appearance of it. Thank you.

Item H9, Sandman Outdoor Storage, request a change of zoning classification from BU-1 to BU-2. Application is 26Z00021. It's located in District 1.

And sir, are you the applicant? Yes. All right. If you'd state your name, spell your last name and address for the record.

My name is Donald Clark, C-L-A-R-K. I own 3850 US Highway 1, Mems, Florida, 32754. I own three properties right there in a row. I'm here to talk about 3850 today. I'd like to change it from BU1 to BU2 to do outdoor storage of boats and RVs. I'm working with Jacqueline on my site plan right now. There is a question of my fence was on my neighbor's property for a second and I moved it. And he's taken, turned code enforcement into a vendetta against me. After he tried to extort me out of $375,000, he told me I would buy his property or he was not going to allow me to have the business there. Sir, you better stay here with the microphone, please, because we've got to put you on record. Yes, sir. I told him I would never give him $375,000 for the property. And he told me, well, don't move the fence yet. Let me go make some phone calls, and I'm going to try to sell you a 3, 4, 5-foot strip there so you don't have to move that fence. And I said, that's ridiculous. I've come to grips. I'm going to move it. So the next day, he shows up there. I've already moved it. And he starts filming me, going crazy, screaming and yelling. He's going to call the state. He's going to call code enforcement. Code enforcement shows up. I do have a fence permit. I thought it went around the back. It does not. I have an amendment to it right now. I let the state of Florida or Brevard County use my property to stage to repave US 1. In doing so, they had me sign a contract where they agreed to put in a driveway for me for use of the land for the year. And also on top of that, I've sank money into it because part of it, they gave me, they put the, I have a contract. They put a driveway in for using the property Then they needed to use more property. So they said, they came to me and they said, well, if you need more millings, if we need to use more property, we'll split the difference. You can buy millings from us for half price. So I bought more millings. Well, I'm about $82,000 into this and now my neighbor's here to oppose me. So I was $90,000 into architectural drawings when, I'm glad you said what you said, building a motel addition seven, eight years ago. And it was turned down by the assistant fire marshal. Paul can attest to that. It was turned down by the assistant fire marshal because he said I was going to have to bring water from behind Dollar General or across US 1 and put a fire hydrant in my yard before they would approve me getting that permit for the motel, which I'm not here about that. But she says, they don't even use the fire hydrant. So they stopped me after I spent $90,000 on architectural drawings and told me I had to put a fire hydrant in. The assistant fire marshal, not even the fire marshal, the assistant fire marshal, And I was on my way to my mother's funeral that day. It was a big community call, and I told them I didn't even want to deal with it. Anyway, I spent $90,000. Now I hear they don't even use the fire hydrants. That's crazy to me. I mean, I know that's neither here nor there. That's not what I'm here for. I'm here about 3850. I'd like to be able to use my property. I've paid $65,000 in property taxes since I bought them properties there in the last 11 years. And my property taxes have doubled in that 11 years. Actually, they're over doubled. I pay $6,700 a year to insure that property so the kids don't go on that property and do donuts and break their leg. And that's why I'm fencing it in across the end there. He's just trying to give me problems. He's turned code enforcement into a weaponized thing here. Because code enforcement told me that they don't come out unless somebody calls code enforcement on them. So they don't come out and inspect nothing unless somebody calls. So it is a weaponized thing that they've done with code enforcement, and he's using it as a weapon over here. He's tried to extort me out of $375,000 to buy the property. Then he told me, he said, nope, I'm going to sell you the other property. Let me come up with a price. He told me he's got an in down here, and that's why I'm glad you recused yourself. Thank you so much. This is my neighbor. Well, I thought he was my neighbor. He has the cows on the neighbor property. When the cows get out, his fence was in disarray a year ago. His cows kept getting out. I doubt he pulled a permit to do his fence. Punk Rhodes dug his pond and told me he didn't pull a permit.

Sir, you've got to get back in. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Let's don't get off track here. We're here to go from BU1 to BU2 so you can get outdoor storage.

I'm praying for him. I'm praying for everybody. I'm a good man.

So, okay. So anyhow, let me go back out in the audience here. Anyone want to speak for or against this item? Okay, sir. If you'd come up, state your name, spell your last name and address for the record.

Once again, James Bargeron, B-A-R-G-E-R-O-N, 4865 Meadow Green Road, Mims, Florida. Now, the issue that I would like to raise some attention to is the fact of the millings. The millings... in this whole situation where now they're saying this guy wants them removed. This, apparently there was an issue of permutation or whatever the fact may be. They supplied a portion of the millings for use of the land, Brevard County. So by them doing that and then him stabilizing the land that they were using with that, they have now created an estoppel situation. Are you familiar with estoppel? No, sir. Basically, they agreed to something so they could use it for their benefit, and now they're trying to renege on it and take that use back and say, you need to pay us a permit now. When they negated that, when they allowed him to do it so that they could park their vehicles without sinking. Now, second thing. The only time that a, a, um, permit is needed for millings in Brevard County is if it does not, it has not ever been a stabilized driveway. If there is a, um, variance to the easement or the right-of-way, which he has neither. There was already a gravel driveway there, dirt and gravel. It was used to stabilize that so these county trucks wouldn't sink in it, and now they're trying to pull back on him and tell him he needs a permit. All right, so we've created an estoppel situation, which is also, you know, punitive by court. So it can go to court. Okay, now with that, not only do we have that, we have a situation where he stabilized this ground. In Brevard County, there are many, many driveways out there that as long as they are an existing driveway and it is not pervious, it's not concrete or anything like that, it's not impervious, it is not required to have a permit in that area. So why are we even here? We're here because somebody has tried to use this county as a weapon. That's why we're here.

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to speak, sir? If you would come on up and state your name, spell your last name for the record.

My name is Brent, last name is Fowler, F-O-W-L-E-R. I live at 3883 McCullough Road. I am the adjacent landowner. Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to cause anybody any problems. I just feel like that things need to be approved by the guidelines that are established by the county. Some things have not been followed to this point. Part of the property that we're discussing here is the millings aren't really being discussed as much on the applicant side. paperwork, but since he's brought it up, the millings are of concern because the adjacent lot to this request is an agricultural lot. It is zoned AU. The millings have been put over the entire property, not just a little bit. I'm wanting it to not be changed from BU1 to BU2. Because it appears to me, in sitting in this meeting and heard what I've heard from some very well put together presentations, that BU2 carries an extremely wide use, extremely. And therefore, even isolating it back to just a storage for outdoor storage, And I've heard some input about trying to restrict the uses. But now we're opening it up to vehicles can be worked on there. Other things can be done. Some things have been brought to light to me by being in this meeting. And I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to come. I have been more educated by being here than I was by not. The general public generally is not as educated as they should be about the things that are being presented. With that being said, I won't take up any more of your time. I thank you for allowing me to speak.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak for against sir? We already you already had your shot, but thank you though Hey, we You've said your opinion. He said his he said his anyone else in the audience want to speak for against the item? All right. I'm gonna close that for public comment Sir if you want to come back up and you're wanting to go from bu1 to bu2 and

Yeah. It's only the couple acres of my, I think I have seven acres there. It's only on two acres. It's not even covering two full acres, I don't believe. So I do have a survey showing it all.

Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant?

Yes, I do. So I'm wondering what the status is for the land clearing, which you're talking about the code enforcement for land clearing.

on the property in twenty twenty the case is pending is what it says oh yeah uh... okay uh... matt smith from tree smith came out because i had a bunch of dead trees out there and he told me i had a bunch of pine borer beetles and he gave me a thing and he says recommendation was have these trees removed i grew up up in michigan i've never heard of getting a permit to remove a tree i went out and took out the bad trees so yes i did take them trees out

So it's still pending?

Yeah. My wife told me it had been closed. She had talked to somebody about it. She does all the paperwork and everything. I'm half dyslexic, literally. I'm not just saying that. And so she does all the paperwork. So I thought it was closed.

Staff, it is still pending?

I'll also add, when code enforcement was out the other day after he called him, he said that there were some other tree issues. If you look on... The aerial views, you'll see I took them palm trees out and planted them right along the front of the road. They're right there. So I didn't just remove them palm trees.

Okay. But I guess my question is for staff. So the code enforcement from 2020, is that still pending? The land clearing?

Unfortunately, I was not able to remote in, so I don't have access to that system right now to be able to answer you. Sorry.

That's okay.

Mr. Ron.

Mr. Chairman, would you be willing to accept a BDP?

I'll do a binding development thing for both NRVs only. Yes, sir. 100%. Okay.

Would you be willing to include... Because with FAR, with local act, it would allow for 44 dwelling units on this property, which is one of my major concerns when you up zone to BU2.

I've already wasted $90,000 on architectural drawings to find out that they're not going to let me do that unless I spend another half a million dollars to bring water over.

Can you make sure you speak into the microphone so we can pick it up?

Oh, so sorry. Yeah, no, I don't have any intentions of building any houses over there. I'm just going to do boat and RV storage, period.

If that was included in the BDP, that would make it more favorable for me. Okay, very good. Sounds like you've got two votes.

I just wanted to quickly ask again. Hold on one second.

Eric, Ron, were you done? I'm sorry.

Yes. We can make a motion whenever you're ready.

Okay, one second. Ms. Erica.

I have a question for staff. You have some more information, it sounds like, about the tree crew.

Yes, ma'am. Miss Erica, I do apologize. But it is in the staff report that the natural resources code enforcement case is still active. It is pending. OK. Mr. Chairman.

Erica, you.

What does he need to do to get that taken care of?

That's a great question.

What is that, a whole team of code enforcement over there?

No, it's not. It's natural resources. OK. And they're leaving. While we're coming up, Mr. Chairman, staff, what's the drainage situation on that site with all the millings?

I've already got a retention pond there. Everything drains perfect.

Where is your retention pond on that site?

It's in the back corner there.

But it's not on that site. It's on adjacent site.

Yes, it's on my 3810 property.

Right, but we're talking about this one property.

Well, there is a little spot. You have to get to the microphone, sir. Sorry, I keep walking away. I'm hard of hearing, too, so I keep trying to get closer to you to hear is what I'm doing. I also have a spot right there in the back where it drains right down. I've had no problem. We just had a massive downpour the other day, and it just all went right to that little spot, and it's on that same property. So I have plenty of drain retention on both properties. In fact, his farm field, I'll bring his all over there. I even let his farm field drain into my yard. His farm field, when... Okay, Punk Road's dug his pond out, and... Fred Custard bulldozed it out. Bobby Hussey told me he did not get permission to drain on my land. His property drains onto my land. I'm okay with his property draining onto my land. I don't have a problem with that man or anything he does. But I have plenty of retention. I've got great drainage. The men that did the road company out there fixed my whole property for me. They told me I was going to be able to go in and be a piece of cake. I had no idea any of this was going to happen. My property drains perfect. They already put everything in. And I have, it's just like an asphalt driveway already. I mean, it's packed. They graded it, packed it, rolled it, everything. It's done.

So it's a parking lot.

It is a parking lot. Yes, sir. It is a parking lot. Not back in the woods. He said it went all the way back, and I just want to correct that. It doesn't go all the way back. I've got like, I don't know, 50, 60 foot of trees there. It does start into the front of the tree line, but there's a big tree row that goes along that whole back of that property that abuts his property. 50, 60 feet of big trees, massive trees. It's not all the way back there. It goes partially back a little bit, but that's where they stopped.

Mr. Rowan.

I JUST, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AS I LOOKED UP SOME OF THESE ZONING REGULATIONS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BU1 AND BU2 IS THE IMPACT OF VARIOUS COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. THIS MAN IS USING HIS PROPERTY AS LIKE BOAT STORAGE AND RV STORAGE. SO WHY IS HE LOOKING FOR A B2? JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M VOTING FOR. HOW DOES THAT CHANGE HIS CURRENT OPERATIONS?

BU1 DOES NOT ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE. So BU2 would be that limited to the boat and RV storage. I got you. Thank you.

So we could do a BU1 with an outdoor boat storage within a binding development plan, and that would give you what you need.

Anything you guys want to do, I'm the easiest guy in the world to get along with.

We need to ask staff that.

Okay. And that's a question for staff. And they're still looking into how he's going to finish the land clearing code.

Do we have to go BU2 limited to only boat and RV storage?

You don't have to, but you're going to have to have BU2 to do the RV and boat storage. There you go. You can't do it in BU1.

So Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval with a BDP that restricts the, provides all of the BU1 uses and adds the outdoor storage from BU2. And?

Removes the FAR of 44 dwellings. The live local, the FAR for 44 dwellings, FAR. Restrict it, yes, so that there's no 44 dwellings.

Well, technically he's BU1, so he could do that right now because it's commercial.

It floods. There's a massive flooding problem to the west of there, specifically along the railroad. I could go in much greater detail if you would like. And then there's the water restrictions. While I realize that the report said there was 49% capacity, that was not the percentages that I saw like a year ago when I looked at the actual numbers. And again, the flooding along the old railroad trusses, because I'm not really sure what the disconnect is. There's major flooding through Quail Haven. I mean, the whole thing. To raise that up to code is going to put property above everybody else. And then it's going to consistently cause more flooding that's going to go directly to the west. And it's going to continue to make things worse. That's why I am against additional dwellings on that property.