Planning and Zoning Board & Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

The Board of County Commissioners acts as a quasi-judicial body when it hears requests for rezoning and conditional use permits. Applicants must provide competent, substantial evidence establishing facts or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the zoning code and comprehensive plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts or provide expert testimony whether they like or dislike a request is not competent evidence. The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and the existing rules in the zoning ordinance, property adjacent to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area. The Board cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands. If a Commissioner has had communications regarding a rezoning or conditional use permit request before the Board, the Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place before the Board takes action on the request. Likewise, if a Commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the Commissioner must disclose that fact before the Board takes action on the request. Each applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request, unless time is extended by majority vote of the Board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed 5 minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak.

Okay, I'd like to recognize Pastor Lucian Gandolfo. Did I? Love that name. Good Italian name. Beacon Baptist Church.

Yes.

How close was I?

Lucian Gandolfo. Say that?

Lucian Gandolfo.

Lucian Gandolfo. Great. Thank you for being here. Nice Irish name. Yeah, right. Well, thank you for the privilege to come and for your humility as a board to seek God's help in all our deliberations. So we thank you for that. As I have done in the past, I'd like to just read a verse, a passage of scripture, just say a few words and then pray. I'd like to read from Romans 520 and the NLT translation. God's law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God's wonderful grace became more abundant. And you may not be able to say these things, but I must, that sin is an attitude and behavior that is contrary to God's law and his design for humanity. And sin, unfortunately, is abounding in our day. It's abounding globally. There's a distancing from God. There is a redefining of what sin is. There is an abandoning of moral absolutes in many cases. It is seen nationally in many ways, but we could see it in corrupted lawfare and in selective enforcement of laws. We see it individually. We're normalizing immorality and such things as abortion and same-sex marriage and those kinds of things that are very clear violations of God's design, but also in the institutions. And that is that there is indoctrinating, even of our kids, and promoting, celebrating, protecting, and aiding woke science type things, even such things as gender dysphoria. These are really obvious things that are an affront to God. So sin is indeed abounding in our day, but there is hope, because as it's said, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, and God's grace is exponentially greater than all of man's sin increase could be. And so may every deliberation and consideration and decision that's made in this body be sound and pure before God. And thank you again for allowing this time to begin these meetings by asking God's help. So with that said, let me pray. Father, we thank you. for the privilege that uh that we have lord to uh seek your face and to come to your throne of grace we thank you lord that uh even in uh in earthly uh bodies and then the government entities lord that there is still a recognition of our need for you we thank you for this body we thank you for these commissioners we thank you for them individually we pray for them lord that every deliberation that they make every decision they make even tonight will be pleasing in your sight and of a benefit to your people. Bless them, protect them and their families as well. May their work, as noble as it is, may it be aided and guided and directed by you. And Lord, once again, for your glory and for the benefit of your people, we ask these things with thanksgiving in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Pastor. Okay, Commissioner Atkinson would like to lead us in the pledge.

Please stand if you're able.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT COMMISSIONER GOODSON.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER GOODSON TO PARTICIPATE BY PHONE. I'LL SECOND.

MOTION SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER GOODSON TO PARTICIPATE BY PHONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY YAY.

YAY.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. We have no minutes for approval, and we have no resolution, awards, or presentation. We have a consent agenda. We have three items. First is F1.

I'll make a motion for the whole consent agenda if we're doing that in one motion.

I'll second. A motion for the consent agenda, F1, 2, and 3. Any debate? All those in favor say yay. Yay. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay, we will go to item G, public comments. And we do have a few cards in our first public comment section. And first speaker, Mike Stoner.

Testing. Okay. Loud and clear. All right. Well, first of all, I'd like to say thank you for having me tonight. And my name is Mike Stoner. I live at 6280 Capston Court in the Indian River Isles subdivision. I am our HOA treasurer. I'm a longtime Brevard County resident. I've lived here 37 years, the last eight years, in my current residence at Indian River Isles. I'm here tonight to discuss... The Rokutana project, it's occurring at the front of our subdivision. It was a 1.2 acre parcel of land that was zoned BU1 commercial. And they're currently, they've cleared the land and they're putting an automobile dealership there. And so I've come with a lot of our residents. We have some concerns and some asks of the board in relationship to this. And my ask right here is topic one, the sidewalk waiver request. Okay, you can see our current entrance there. It's at Helmsman Place right off of US 1, which is about two and a half miles north of the Pineda Causeway. The dealership location is in that circled red area, the Rokutana dealership. That's kind of a one-way in, one-way out entryway and a lot of dead-end streets there on our community that is on the river and on the canal. The current state of our construction is, like I said, the land has been cleared. You can see our signs right there. Here's the big ask. The owner has left the south sign in place temporarily. He could have removed it, but he was letting us work it out as a community to see if we could get a waiver approved. The north side, there's no issue. They're bookend signs, and they've been recently renovated. to a tune of about $30,000, not an insignificant amount. We made them much more appealing and raised the standard in our community. And this is a close-up of the sign and kind of what it looks like. You can see the lighting and the columns. They're quite attractive. And so here's the big ask. The sidewalk configuration goes right through the sign. That's what will require its demolition. So if you're able to waive that requirement, the sign could remain standing. These sidewalks essentially go to nowhere on US 1. There's not a sidewalk within miles of that location. It would be there just for aesthetic appeal. We have solicited a local attorney. She's helping us fill out a waiver request with the builder. And we realize the owner has to sign off on the waiver and that's going to be coming in front of the board in the near future.

Mr. Chair, if I may, before the next public comment. Sure. So my understanding is that we take five public comments at this section and then the rest at the second public comment, but it could very well be that these are all on the same item. I don't know because it wasn't written on here.

They are all the same address. I mean, they're in the same neighborhood.

So do you want to do those five and these four together?

Let me look here. Yeah, we have a very short zoning agenda, and I'd be hesitant to have the people here for zoning wait. So we have 15 minutes in this section. Okay. And then we'll hear zoning because it's what, like three or four, and none are controversial?

Three items. I don't expect there to be much controversy.

It should go really quick, and then we'll hear the rest. Because I don't want you all to feel rushed either.

We'll do the rest at the end. Okay.

Thank you. I thought of the same, but I didn't realize it was controversial.

We could, Mr. Chair, some way to, if the group wanted to talk all together, we could just do the zoning items real quick, and then we could take all of them together. Yeah, we could do that. I don't mean to be difficult.

That's not a bad idea, if that's okay. Why don't we just get zoning out of the way, then y'all, okay. We can take them all at the same time. Great. And we'll give you a little opportunity to close since you.

Perfect. I think our contingent would like that. Thank you.

Okay, great. Okay, we put all of them together. So we'll do the zoning first. That's a great idea. So our first zoning would be H1.

Item H1 is Marta Lydia Ramos Cador, Carlos David Flores, and Oscar Orlando Major Ramos. Request to change the zoning classification from GMLI to RU111 under application 26Z00031 located in District 1.

Mr. Chair, this is easy. So if it's only the applicant, I would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve it.

I'll second. Motion and second. Any debate? All in favor say yay. Yay. It carries unanimously. All right.

H2. Item H2 is Henry and Janet's. Apt, being represented by Cody Spahr, request a change in zoning classification from RU17 to RU111 under application 26Z00027, located in District 1. Mr.

Chair, same type of thing as housekeeping, so I'd like to make a motion to approve it.

I'll second. Motion and a second for approval. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Okay, H3. H3.

Item H3 is Space Coast Discovery Incorporated requests a change in zoning classification from AU to INL light under application 26Z00028 located in District 3. Also, this request comes with a waiver for the application fees.

Again, I would say this is something very similar. I'd like to make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

With the waiving of fees as well.

Okay.

I'll second with the waiver of the fees. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Approval with the waiver of fees. All in favor say yay.

Yay.

Opposed, carries unanimously. Okay, we'll get back to... And the first speaker, Robert Proffitt. Who was the first? Oh, the first was Mike. Mike, you had one second left. It reminds me of the Michigan football game. Oh, wait a minute.

Was it zero or one?

I think it was one, but I was kind of hoping it would be the other team that would win. So... You're closed, unless you have so much you want to say in your Wednesday. No, if you have something at the end, maybe. Okay, all right, great. Okay, Robert Proffitt, our next speaker.

Good morning, Commissioners. Afternoon. Robert Proffitt, Rockledge, 6265 Capston. I'm not asking you to reopen the site plan. I'm asking you to break a deadlock your own staff created. Section 622117C4A, where BU1 abuts residential, and this lot does, commercial vehicles used with that business must sit at the rear and be screened on all four sides by an OPEG barrier. On April 10th, zoning rejected this plan for that exact reason. Seven weeks later, with nothing physically changed, it was approved. Staff now claims C3 governs because these vehicles are only loading. C3 answers whether a truck may be on the property. It says nothing about where it sits or what screens it. C4A answers those questions for lots next to homes. If every delivery can be called temporarily, C4A never applies to anyone. What was approved east and south rely on an existing masonry wall. No height, no ownership, and no permit in the file. West is the building. North is the landscape buffer that was reduced, not made opaque. Under the code's own definition, two sides are unproven and two sides are not barrier. That is not a four-sided screening. The site plan calls this a vintage car showroom. The sealed drawings differ. Unconditional low bay, almost no glass, five roll-up doors facing the houses, a parts mezzanine, and ventilation that works only if those doors stay open. The operator advertises more than 100 vehicles in an inventory. A showroom is not ventilated by leaving the garage doors open. The county attorney's letter agrees on the next step. If the use is parking, staging, or storage, not unloading, the four-sided screen applies. Nothing on the approved plan stops inventory from sitting on the east stalls on the residential side, once off the trailer. That is the deadlock. Direct the county attorney and the building official to issue one written dated determination. before the permit is released, which subsection applies, where on the plan a commercial vehicle may sit, and the ownership height and permit status of the wall. One answer on the record. That writing must also address occupancy and fire area and prohibit staging in the east stalls. You wrote this code to protect the homes next door. Direct your staff to put in writing that it is being followed before any certificate of occupancy issues.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay. Carol Frick.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Carol Frick and I live at 6287 Bertram Drive in Indian River Isles. I'm appearing before you tonight because I'm concerned about your sidewalk to nowhere. It's being mandated along the east side of US-1 along the new Rokotaner Automobile Dealership. It's my understanding that the installation of sidewalks on a new commercial development is mandatory. On residential resale or residential sale, or construction, there is no mandate for sidewalks. I understand that it's Brevard County's wish and or objective to have sidewalks all along the entire length of US 1. However, at this point, the Rockets owner development will be the only property with sidewalks for miles. They go from nowhere to nowhere. There are no other commercial lots south of Helmsman Place past the South Indian River Isles development to where the county owns a small parcel across from Landscape Depot. Nor are there commercial properties to the north end of Helmsman Place past the Indian River Isles north development all the way up until, I think it's called Ruente Place, which I believe is a little access road back to a meter pit. Due to the installation of the sidewalks to nowhere, Indian Riverire South will be forced to remove our community sign on the south side of our entrance. The north side will remain. However, it is not going to be visible going south on US 1 at all. Let's be honest. While the installation of sidewalks along US 1 is a dream, with only residential properties along the contiguous properties along US 1 and no sidewalks required on residential resale or development. The likelihood of continuous sidewalks seems extremely unlikely way into the future. Unless the county could be a recipient of a federal grant for sidewalk installation or somehow or other the county commissioners find tens of thousands of unappropriated dollars For sidewalk installation, it's not going to happen. It just isn't. It's a pipe dream. Everybody would probably love to see it, but it's not going to happen. So tonight we are asking you to reconsider your ruling that sidewalks are necessary at the Rockatonna dealership and grant a waiver of removing the condition, allowing Indian River Isles to keep our community sign monument. Thank you. And thank you for your time and the reevaluation of the mandatory requirements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bonnie Walls.

Good evening and thank you for letting me have a chance to speak. My name is Bonnie. I live at 6238 Halyard Court in Indian River Isles. We understand that this property is commercially zoned. We understand that the owner has a right to develop the property. But tonight I am asking you to consider something that goes beyond a zoning designation on a map. I am asking you to consider... What this particular development will do to the entrance and character of an established residential community. Every home in Indian River Isles is either brick or stucco. That wasn't an accident. Over the years, our community has developed a beautiful, cohesive architectural character, and it is part of that that makes this place special and part of what attracted many of us to live there. Now directly at the entrance of our community, we will soon have a large metal warehouse type building take shape. And once that building is finished, it will be there for decades. And we have to ask ourselves, is a large exposed metal building really the best transition between the commercial corridor on US 1 and the residential community behind it? We aren't asking for a residential building. We aren't asking that commercial development be prohibited. We are asking for good design. We are asking that the developer recognize that this isn't an isolated commercial parcel somewhere in the middle of nowhere. It's effectively the gateway to our neighborhood. The portion of this building that faces our community should look like it was thoughtfully designed out for its location, not like the backside of a warehouse that could have been built anywhere. We believe the building should incorporate architectural materials such as brick, stucco, masonry, or comparable high-quality materials. We also understand that the road is public, but public does not mean that the impact on the surrounding residential community should be ignored. We are asking the county to look at the whole picture. Look at the location, look at the surrounding homes, look at the entrance to our community, look at the permanent visual impact this building will have, and ask whether there is a better way to develop this property while still respecting the rights of all the property owners at Indian River Isles. Because once that metal building is finished, we can't move it, the architectural character can't easily be changed, and our community will live with that every single day. And so tonight, I am respectfully asking the county and the developer to do better Don't simply build what is technically permissible. Build something that is appropriate for this location and our neighborhood. Give us a building that respects the community next door. Give us meaningful landscaping and screening. Give us an architectural materials that complement the brick and stucco homes that surround it. And give us a development that can coexist with Indian River Isles rather than becoming a permanent eyesore at its front door. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for thoughtful development, responsible design, and respect for the community that we all will have to live in long after everyone in this room has gone home. Thank you.

Thank you. Jeffrey Lee.

Good evening, and thank you for taking the time to hear us out from our team here. My name is Jeffrey Lee. I live at 6310 Capstan Court. I've been a 42-year resident of Brevard County, and I've lived in the current address for 13 years. You've heard some pretty interesting things. I'm bringing up a pretty different topic on the subject of safety. And while we know there's a commercial lot at the front of our neighborhood, we know we live on public streets. What none of us in here ever thought of would be that there would be a car dealership driving through the neighborhood. on a routine basis. So what's the basis of that statement? Number one, the dealership specifies in Japanese market cars, JMDs as they're called, and mini trucks. Mini trucks are defined by Florida statute as vehicles that generally aren't supposed to go over 55 miles an hour and are restricted from any road with a speed limit greater than 35 miles an hour. In order to even operate the vehicle, they can only drive in our neighborhood. They are not legally allowed to drive out on US 1 at all. So our asks are pretty straightforward. The neighborhood, as people mentioned, we don't have sidewalks. So everybody walks, jogs, takes their pets out, rides bikes with their kids in the neighborhood. There's no other way but being in the street. So this residential speed limit of 20 miles an hour, while it could be enforced, the roads don't go anywhere. So all they can do is drive up and down the cul-de-sacs and back and forth. Our primary concern is safety. This is about all the people here. We have multiple families with special needs, household members that need to be considered. I've looked at a few of the statutes to see what I could at least propose as some ideas. One, clearly the mini truck rules can be extended. There can be a safety concern in the neighborhood to prohibit the driving of these vehicles. Because although they're insured under the dealership, they're really not registered and titled directly by the owners who own them. We would like to see if you could consider establishing an objective that test drives are not conducted in the neighborhood. I don't know how you could allow them to test drive vehicles without driving them around in the neighborhood. The cars don't fall under this rule. They can go out on US 1. So that would be what we would hope they would do. But nothing prevents them from driving around the neighborhood. You can also exercise authority under Florida Statute 316-21-22 and specifically prohibit the operation of mini trucks in our neighborhood. That is something that, from my reading, you would be empowered to do. So we don't want to undo the commercial development that's taking place, but the safety, to the best of my knowledge, there's been no traffic studies, there's been no impact studies of vehicular traffic in a truly closed neighborhood. The roads, just like the sidewalks that aren't there and don't go anywhere, our streets don't have anything either. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Jeffrey Lee? Jeffrey Lee.

That was myself. That was him.

Oh, okay.

I only filled that one card. Okay.

That was my mistake then. Sorry about that. Should we get another three? Better twice than not at all, right? Mark Miner?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mark Miner. I believe I'm the longest tenured resident of South Indian River Isles. I purchased my property from the Altman family in 1988 and built my home where I raised my family. So for nearly 40 years, it's been mine, my family's home, not simply an investment. Tonight you're going to hear or have already heard about zoning, building codes, permits, FDOT, and other technical issues surrounding the proposed used car facility to be located at Helmsman Place. Those issues matter and they deserve serious answers. But I also ask that you look beyond the paperwork tonight. Let's look at the people and let's look at the families. More than 70 families live in this neighborhood. We've all paid our property taxes, school taxes, fire assessments, and supported this community for decades. We've invested our money, our families, and our lives here with each other. Now we're being asked to accept a large commercial operation to be located essentially feet from our homes. An operation... that will fundamentally and permanently change the character, safety, and quality of life of our entire neighborhood community. Commissioners, believe me, the only difference between you sitting up there and me standing here is happenstance. If this were your home, your family, and your neighborhood, how would you feel and react? Indeed, it could very well be you standing here someday addressing this commission. The Altman family sale of this property is not a personal criticism of Commissioner Altman or his family, quite the contrary. I highly respect Commissioner Altman and his many years of distinguished public service as a senator, congressman, and now commissioner, and consider him a friend. But all of you have a responsibility and an obligation to protect the best interests of the Brevard County residents that you represent, not simply just to determine whether a project can technically meet minimum requirements that were probably written decades ago by people who are not even alive today. Minimum standards do not always equal common sense. If accommodating this business means changing or destroying our neighborhood entrance signs, removing our entrance safety median, or creating sidewalks from nowhere, and bringing commercial traffic into an established residential community, then I ask you, step back, take a look at the bigger picture. Does this really make sense? The business developer can build and move on, and if they do, who will then take their place? Our neighborhood will have to live with the consequences of these decisions. You don't. I'm not against growth or new business, but growth should not come at the irreversible expense of families who have spent decades building their lives in this neighborhood. So I respectfully ask you, please put yourself in our shoes. Listen to your residents. For once, let's not confuse governmental rules written long ago with just plain old-fashioned common sense.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jim Harvey. I live at 6335 Capston Court, Rockledge. I'm here today because I'm concerned about Roco Automobile Dealership conducting vehicle test drives through our neighborhood. Our subdivision is home to 72 families, and 14 of those families have children under the age of 15, and two children with special needs. I understand that dealerships need to conduct test drives. I also understand that customers need an opportunity to evaluate a vehicle before a major purchase. My concern is not with the test drives themselves. My concern is where those test drives are taking place and the impact they will have on a residential neighborhood. Our neighborhood was designed and intended only for residents, families, children, pedestrians, cyclists, and normal residential traffic. It was not intended to function as a test drive route for automobile dealerships. A test drive is different from ordinary residential driving. A potential buyer may be evaluating acceleration, braking, handling, turning, or other vehicle characteristics. We have people walking, children playing, residents backing out of driveways, homeowners walking their pets in cycles sharing these same roads. We shouldn't have to wonder whether the vehicle coming around the corner is simply someone's daily commute or a dealership customer testing how quickly the car accelerates or how it handles. I ask that commissions could consider whether dealerships should be required or encouraged to conduct test drives on roads like US 1 that are better suited for that purpose. POCO's development has created numerous challenges for the 72 families in this once-quiet neighborhood. I respectfully ask that the Commission investigate the issue and approve the recommendations Jeff Lee previously submitted. Thank you for your time and listening to my concerns.

Thank you. Patricia Sheffield.

Hi, good evening. My name is Patricia Shafio, and I have been a Brevard County resident for 25 years and live at 6215 Capstan Court for the past 18 years. I present to you a question that has arisen in our neighborhood. The commercial property at 651 Helmsman Place is zoned BU1. Why is it not zoned BU1A? This designation, per the county code, is for commercial lots that abut commercial property, which is clearly The case here is by definition a restricted neighborhood retail commercial zoning classification that encompasses land devoted to limited retail, shopping, and personal services to serve the needs of low density residential neighborhoods. If this zoning had been assigned to this property, then there's no way this project would have been approved in our neighborhood. There is a list of business types allowed under BU1A and the type of businesses are very limited. This is the whole purpose of this zoning classification to protect residential neighborhoods. So I ask, why is the commercial property not zoned BU1A? Thank you.

Thank you. Last speaker, Debbie Good? Is that correct? She's not here.

She's on her way.

She's on her way. She's had another meeting. She's left, but she's got another five minutes before she leaves.

Okay. Well, we might still be here. We've got board reports. Why don't we, that's our last speaker. Why don't we open up for any questions from the board?

I have a couple questions slash comments. What's the dealership done that's conveyed that they're going to test drive cars in the nearby neighborhood? Is that something they stated or how did that come to be?

I think that's just an assumption of the residents. There's nothing on the site plan to indicate their test drive routes. And they have not said anything to us about using the neighborhood for that.

OK. And I understand these are JDM cars, just Japanese domestic car. I'm the resident car guy on the commission here. And so I think I understand they want to import K cars. And the K cars have an exemption after 25 years. It says they don't have to meet emissions and other safety equipment. So you can drive them on every road in Florida. There is no prohibition for them even to take them on the highway. It's not something I would do. I've seen some of those. You see them out there. But they are more than 25 years old. So when you see them at a gas station or on the road, and I think a big part of... buying one of those cars that someone's imported, because that's what's happened. They've become popular to import once they're past the 25 years. You absolutely would want to take them and drive them on US-1, because I wouldn't buy something that I couldn't handle on a road in Brevard County, and I don't even know how you get a car to an area where you're only going to drive it 35 miles an hour and never have to cross another road that would be 50 miles an hour or so. I don't know why you'd want to only test drive it in a neighborhood as opposed to US-1. Something that occurred to me, and I think this is a technical question for staff. I'm just talking in theory and talking out loud here for a second. Is it possible for South Indian River Isles to become private road? I mean, I know we're further along, but we have this conversation around here quite a lot these days. And I have something in my district that's not, it's different, but we're having a similar conversation. At this point in their existence, is that an option available to them?

Yes, Commissioner. Some of the residents actually met with Public Works last week with Lauren Holman, and she discussed that with them. They also discussed maybe putting up a gate as well. So they have all the information and the packet that they need, the application, and to move forward with that.

Okay. So by virtue of it being private road, then they could put up a gate, and that would control everyone going in and out of their neighborhood?

Yes, Commissioner.

Okay. And that potentially wouldn't have an immediate cost to them. Obviously, they would own the road. They would own the sidewalks.

Or is there? I don't know. There could be a cost because in order to meet the code requirements, they perhaps would have to put in a turnaround. So when people do turn off for U.S. 1 and if they couldn't go to the gate. So there could be a cost of that.

In front of their neighborhood, you'd have to be able to get back out of there. Okay, that seems like that might be a tradeoff there. As far as the zoning, that was an interesting question. I don't know how they originally ended up with BU1, but I'm sure that's a legacy thing, and you know we can't do an adverse zoning change, right? So at this point, without the owner coming in and seeking that change, we wouldn't just be able to impose that. on them. Is that fair?

The original zoning is from 1973, actually.

Right. Okay. We could impose it on them, but we would have to pay for that. Right. I understand.

Okay. Well, it seems like there are a couple of options moving forward. So I think this will come to us. As far as the sidewalk and the sign issue. I don't, I don't think we're 100% settled on that, uh, today.

So I recommend you go get with your commissioner and your district and then he can work on whatever we're legally allowed to do. There's some things we're legally not allowed to touch, but if you go get with your commissioner, then he can come back and see if he can find some things to help meet some of those needs and then he'll bring it to the board and then we'll see what we can do for y'all.

Is our commissioner having health issues right now?

He's still available. Is he?

I was going to ask if you had any comments, but I have some. I'm done with that, sir. You are a local car guy. That's interesting. I think there's been, it's brought my attention, I've looked at this, I've looked at the video that was put together, I've spoke to a number of people. I think there are three components, three issues that I think do have merit. The question is how much authority do we have to address them? One, I think we do, we will be hearing the sidewalk issue. I think there's an appellate process that, Billy, where do we stand on this?

So as of today, there has not been a formal sidewalk waiver submission at all. So my understanding is, again, when engineering met with them, they explained that process. So when that comes, it could be approved administratively, and if it's not approved administratively, it would go to the board. they could choose to appeal it to the board. As I think one of those public speakers said, I mean, the party to that application is actually the developer, the site plan. So it would go through the site plan process. So that would require their agreement and be a party to that application.

And that would be an application for a waiver.

For a sidewalk waiver, correct.

And we have given those. I think we just recently won them. WEST MELBOURNE. AND I THINK THE ARGUMENTS ARE VERY PERSUASIVE OF WHY, I MEAN, IT'S HARD TO FATHOM A SIDEWALK BEING BUILT. I THINK THE OTHER COMMUNITIES, THE CONDO TO THE SOUTH, THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY DOWN TO RIVER ROCKS, WHICH INCLUDES, I THINK, A COUNTY-OWNED PIECE. NONE OF THAT HAS A SIDEWALK. YEAH. SO THE ODD THING IS, THOUGH, WITH THE DEVELOPER, WOULD THEY HAVE TO? WOULD OUR CODE REQUIRE THEM TO PUT A SIDEWALK INTO THEIR SITE PLAN? ABSENT A WAIVER, YES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST THE WAIVER, THEN. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE HANDS ARE IN THE, OF COURSE, MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T, I MEAN, THEY SAVED MONEY BY NOT HAVING TO PUT A SIDEWALK IN. Has the homeowners had any discussion with the developer? You can come up to the mic.

Yes, so I have not directly, but our attorney has a relationship with Shear Engineering, and she has spoken to the engineer. And she was going to be actively helping him fill out the waiver form and then working with the owner to get his sign-off on that form. Okay. Because I think it's advantageous to them as well. They would probably save some money on concrete, too. Yes.

So I can say that I would not be adverse to a waiver. Okay. So that helps.

Can I ask a technical question about that, sir? I'm going to ask this of staff. Is it possible at that point that you take the sidewalk fee, but maybe you do a sidewalk a little bit further down the road where it makes sense and it joins another sidewalk? I'm just asking in theory. Are there some other places where a sidewalk would make sense closer to, say, Suntree Boulevard?

There are jurisdictions that have a sidewalk assessment fund like that. Brevard County currently doesn't have one. I'm not saying it couldn't exist. The board directed it to be so. But as of today, we don't have a process for that. Yeah.

And you may want to explain how the sidewalk waiver operates and that it's really... Sure.

So generally speaking, absent different board direction, certainly when a sidewalk waiver is approved administratively, typically the design of the sidewalk is still done as part of the site plan. And then there's an agreement made by the applicant that should a need for a sidewalk arise in the future, they would construct it at that time. OF COURSE, IF IT DOES GO TO THE BOARD, IT'S WITHIN THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.

SOMEBODY TOLD ME IN LOOKING AT THIS THAT THEY COULD, THE work its way around the sign that's there, but it may not meet ADA standards.

Should we ask Mr. Goodson if he's got any?

Pardon me?

We'll see if Mr. Goodson's got any.

Yeah, we'll do that.

Just throwing that out.

Did I hear that correctly? I'm not familiar with that. I know staff is meeting with them about a lot of different options, both with the sign, the sidewalk, and whether they could work together or not. One of the issues is the sign itself is not currently permitted at all. So we don't have the design for that.

Okay. Commissioner Goodson, did you have something that you wanted to add at this time?

Yeah, we may have lost him.

He might have been. Maybe we can have somebody try to reach out to him just in case. Are you there, Commissioner? Yeah, we got a bad connection it sounds like. He had nothing to add. Okay, I couldn't hear that. Okay, thank you. If you have anything, feel free to chime in. THE SECOND ITEM THAT I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE HOMEOWNERS, And this is a countywide issue, this is not just a local issue, district issue, is this concept of responsible design. I remember when I was on the commission before, we actually passed a metal building ordinance. Because what we were seeing throughout the county was these ugly, void, box metal buildings being built. next to beautiful, beautiful residential commercial community developments. And it really had a delirious effect on our neighborhood. So we felt that we needed to protect the quality of life and the aesthetic, which helps in many things, economic development for one. So in our major corridors we had a metal building ordinance. I've looked at the plans for this metal building. It certainly could be dressed up somewhat. I don't think there's anything we can do because I believe after I left commission, the commission repealed our metal building ordinance, unfortunately. I know there's some question about the aesthetic on the metal building, but I hope maybe we look at reinstating some of our metal building standards. I noticed on Vieira Boulevard there's a new metal building being built, and it's really aesthetically pleasing. It's a nice color. They have glass. They're using some... cantilevered overhangs that really give it a sense of aesthetic and design. It's really not that much more expensive at all to do some of these simple things. Maybe all we have the ability maybe is to reach out to the landowner at a person building. Maybe we can make a request perhaps. And they might. It's worth a try. But I agree with you on that. And it's unfortunately that we no longer have that no longer have that provision in code. I know you addressed the test drive issue. And then fourthly, I think there's some pretty strong arguments. Again, we're bound by our code, but... The buffer in the back, there really isn't much of a buffer and we do require buffers between commercial and residential. What are the codes right now? I mean, I see no buffer, I just see a six foot wall that And it's looking into garage doors.

Mr. Chair, there's a Type A landscape buffer that has been required there. We have Amanda with Natural Resources. She'll be able to give you a better description. But there is a buffer that's been planned.

Good evening commissioners. Yes, the landscape plan is separate from the site plan. Sometimes you see that with development review. So if you were Strictly looking at the site plan you wouldn't have seen the landscape buffer so this was part of an alternative landscape enhancement plan submitted by the landscape architect and And what that means is that it has to exceed code by at least 5%. So in every regard, they've exceeded the quantity, the size. So it absolutely does meet the buffer requirements and actually well exceeds the buffer requirements.

So there is a landscape plan.

There is a landscape plan and it's heavy.

Has anybody seen that?

IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF.

I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PACKET.

YEAH, BECAUSE IT IS A SEPARATE PRESENTATION. FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE SIX TREES REQUIRED AS A MINIMUM LANDSCAPE CODE AND THEY HAVE 31 TREES AND 24 PALMS. THERE ARE 161 SHRUBS REQUIRED. THEY HAVE ABOUT 700.

Okay. Are you aware of that? Have you seen any of that? Okay. Maybe we can. It should be a public record. It's been submitted.

It's in the BAS portal, so it's available.

Okay, good. We can maybe help the residents to see that. And then finally, and this will be my final point, and again, this has a countywide. I know I've been to city council meetings where they had a little bit of a different standard, a somewhat different standard on site plan review. THAT WHENEVER SITE PLANS, THIS IS QUITE A CHANGE FOR US AND JUST DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANT. I KNOW IN SOME OF THE SMALLER JURISDICTIONS WHEN THINGS COME UP FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, THEY'RE VERY ADMINISTRATIVE HERE. PRETTY MUCH WE'RE RESTRICTED. But perhaps maybe in the future we should look at when a site plan comes for approval that just as in zoning residents are notified. So they are aware when a site plan or commercial development is being put in their backyard or their neighbor that they can actually see what's being presented. And if there's some interpretive things that... that are questionable or interpretive in nature, that they at least have an opportunity to have a voice. Because if we'd have had this when the site plan came for a review before us, it would have been a little bit different. Would it change things? I don't know, but it would open up some lines of communication. That's just a thought and something I might be personally willing to look at. In complete transparency, I used to live in Indian River Isles. Part of it was developed by my family. This land was sold as part of a trust to private landowners, residential and commercial. So I have a heart for this area and I'm deeply attached to it. I have no conflict. I've checked with our county attorney about that. But so obviously that signifies my interest in wanting to keep the area nice because I have a personal attachment to it and I really appreciate the neighborhood. I've been very impressed with their response and their communication and the civil nature. You can see the way you've conducted yourself here today. It's been very impressive. And that's all I had. And maybe we can get some mid-course corrections as we move forward. Yes, sir.

I have a question because two weeks ago I was a K car fan.

I was looking at . It was brought to my attention

and I went off and I did the best reading I could, so maybe this is Attorney Richardson's domain, but 316-21-22, Section 1, Section 8, explicitly defines a mini truck as pretty much any truck that doesn't have an NHTSA type rating sticker on it, which nothing from Japan would have, and probably nothing 25 years old. So the question would then be about them driving it on US-1 versus driving the hood, because I totally agree If they can drive the trucks legally on the road, they'll go to jail.

Sorry, can you speak to the mic?

Oh, sure. Sorry. I was just trying to indicate that if the trucks are truly legal, then I would certainly say that people will mostly take them out on US 1, and the traffic impact would be reduced. All of the JDM cars are legal, and they can go drive away all day. So I just would like to have a reading that says, Many trucks, as defined in that statute, can be operated on roads with speeds above 35 miles an hour because it's real specific about this. And this is the 2026 statute because I was looking at a 2011 one that was different. So that's my only ask.

I would say to you that I see them every day and I always stop at a gas station and I talk to the person that has it and Wow, you know, you're driving on the wrong side of the car, a five-speed. And, you know, I watched a guy overfill a gas tank one time at Wawa because, you know, he thought he was putting 10 gallons in there and it only takes, like, five. But they're absolutely titled, they're registered, they're licensed. Yes, and the statute allows that. They are driving them on the roads. I think the important thing is they're more than 25 years old. Mr.

Chair, so they may be driving them. It may not be enforced. I'm not law enforcement, so we don't enforce Chapter 316. That's the sheriff and the state attorney. So I'm not the definitive answer. But if the K truck, regardless, the 25 years exempts it from certain requirements. But if it meets the definition of a mini truck, there's no exemption for K trucks, regardless of age, that relates to their import status. You know there are a lot of those speed vehicles and many trucks that are titled But they're still subject to the statute you're referring to and they can't operate on Roads or highways with speed limits over 35 miles per hour they can cross them and the board You were correct in saying that the board if it were to determine that it's creating a safety issue within the neighborhood the board could prohibit the operation of LSVs in many trucks on any road in its jurisdiction if it makes that determination, I think you'd need more information to determine that the prohibition is in the interest of public safety. You need to see are they actually doing test drives there and things like that. And if they are, that would be within the board's authority under the statute. But otherwise, we're largely preempted when it comes to 316.

They wouldn't be able to legally drive them on US 1, even though the minimum speed on US 1 could be, say, 35. I mean, it's 45 or 50. You don't have to drive that speed, obviously.

It's the posted speed of the road that determines whether you can operate. So if you have an LSV or a mini truck, you cannot operate it. I'll tell you what.

I wouldn't buy something that I couldn't drive on US 1. I just tell you.

I'm in strong agreement. I love these cute little cars. The issue is being forced to drive in the neighborhood by law. And that I am against and what I've tried to bring to the attention. And it is possible for you to say no to those. Because again, all the JDMs, they're going to take their skylines and go race them down US 1.

Yeah, I don't think you're going to have any problems with that. The K truck specifically, but a K car, that's different, right? Is that what we're saying? Okay.

Anyway, thank you very much for that. I just wanted to be clear and appreciate...

I know this is all a very new thing because they're importing these things, and I think because cars have gotten expensive as of late. I know there's another gentleman who wants...

Yes, sir.

I've attempted to contact... You can come up.

We need to have you on record. We want to hear what you have to say and reintroduce yourself.

Jim Harg. I've attempted to contact Commissioner Goodson, and we are aware of his health concerns, but does he have an aide that works for him that could possibly speak with us? Absolutely. I'm sure they will get with you. I'll just try again, and I'm sure eventually I'll get hooked up. Thank you. Mr.

Chair, who could speak? Susan? Or Kika in my office. Susan or Kika. Kika?

Yes.

Kika or Susan in District 2 office. Yes. That's correct. So they will definitely be more than happy to get with you. You know, as you can see, our staff as well as our board has put a lot of attention on this. We're listening to what you have to say. This is a fascinating issue because of the unique nature of the vehicle. And we also were talking about if this is done properly, this could turn out to be a positive for the community. BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THESE SPECIALTY CARS ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE RESPONSIBLE AND IF WE CAN ENFORCE THESE STANDARDS AND IT'S BEING HELD PROPERLY, LET'S HOPE THAT IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE Not negative to the neighborhood. There are BUN uses that could be fundamentally, dramatically worse than this. So if we can play a role in preventing that from happening, as well as supporting Commissioner Goodson, but as a board as a whole, because many of these issues are countywide. And I think as we get more and more crowded, these site plans are going to be issues more and more. And we might want to have a little more say early on in the process, just from a dialect point of view.

yes billy if i may just make one more point on i know you mentioned the metal buildings and um you know it may not be what it could be or what it used to be but there is some restrictions on metal buildings and what you know what it does say we are enforcing i just know we looked at the building permit earlier today and our zoning reviewer did flag it as as needed some changes to the building to meet the metal building code specifically has to be galvanized, shall utilize factory-finished painted siding at a minimum in the roofline. So we are trying to enforce the standards that we do have, and I just want to assure the public of that.

Okay, great. Well, that's good. Okay, well, thank you for your time. Yes, sir?

Is anything summarily dismissed?

Well, why don't you step up? I highlighted four, five, but maybe I missed yours. I will...

I think I had like 38 seconds. I'm just asking, is my ask being summarily dismissed? Remind us what that was. Okay, that I asked for the county attorney and building official to issue one written dated determination before the permit is released, which subsection applies. where on the plan a commercial vehicle may sit, and the ownership, height, and permit status of the wall.

That was a good point. One of the questions is those walls are not on the property. I know, and that was in the video that I read.

They talked about that. Okay, so it says one answer on the record. That writing must also address occupancy in the fire area and prohibit staging in these stalls. If we're going to say that C3 overrides C4A, because anybody can say temporarily, anytime, then we have to make sure that we have a way of making sure that C4A is covered. Because if you look at C4, it only has two paths. It has one for residential and one for non-residential.

If they start parking a commercial fleet back there, they'll have to comply with C4 and do whatever the screening requirements are. If they're only having a truck come in occasionally and unloading and unloading and it leaves, or loading and unloading and leaves as soon as it loads and unloads, in no zoning classification do you require screening for that activity or we would have screening literally in any commercial site we have. It's really designed for places with commercial fleets, you know, plumbing companies, HVAC that have their trucks and things like that parked long-term in an area behind the building.

Billy, were you about to say something? No, Mr. Chair. I completely agree with Mr. Richardson. I thought I heard something. It might have been in the video that permanent parking or continued parking, long-term parking in large trucks was not allowed.

In this case, if it was being utilized, that would implicate the screening requirements. The site plan does not call for that. So if they were to do it, they would have an issue.

Okay. The gentleman mentioned that the wall was not on their property. Can we address that?

For the site plan code requires that there be a wall in the site plan between the BU1 use and the residential use, there is an existing wall. So it doesn't require a different wall. It just requires a wall. And in this case, the site plan depicts the existing wall as present, and that satisfies that code requirement.

So does that mean that the existing wall is not on our property?

No, it's not. I believe it's on the HOA property. So then we would be?

asking them to put up a wall in front of a wall?

That would be, and that's the issue, the kind of rational, the logic of having a wall being put up right next to another wall. But aren't they obligated to put the wall on their property, the developer? Not in my opinion, no.

If there's not an existing wall, they absolutely would, but because there's an existing wall, we haven't required people to sandwich a wall.

What is the use permit for that existing wall?

We have never required... businesses to sandwich another wall next to an existing wall. We're not asking them to do that.

We're just asking them to put up their own wall.

The existing wall is not theirs.

And it's not even six feet. Yeah, a wall backing an existing wall. And it's dilapidated.

Mm-hmm.

The wall requirement, is it six feet? Is that what it is?

Yes, six feet.

Okay. All right, well, we will definitely be continuing to monitor this, and I know staff is on it, and maybe even... Yes, ma'am. Yes. Yes. Oh, you made it. Oh, good. Okay. I'm sorry. We've been waiting for you.

I appreciate that, and I apologize. I was at another meeting. I want to thank you for allowing me to present the reasons that I think this commercial construction project currently slated to go in front of Indian River Isle subdivision should not occur. I understand this commercial lot, and it's important that commercial development occur, but if you take a close look at the zoning rules and the submitted building permit, Basically, this is a used car lot warehouse that's not aesthetically appealing for the front of our neighborhood. We were originally told by the realtor that sold the property that a beautiful high-end showroom would be on the lot and that the self-contained building would be a nice addition to our neighborhood. What we are now finding out is that the owners are planning to relocate their Palm Bay location, Cumara Imports, to this location once construction is complete. And like here is what the building looks like that they're currently in. It's in Palm Bay in a high industrial zone, HI. So the plans for the new building that are currently in permitting, based on these plans, the building is constructed of metal and has several bay doors in the back and one in the front. That's what their current building looks like, and it's got all this debris. and this building, and it has the truck sitting outside, which is all supposed to be self-contained. The current building is, as you said, a metal building. It's got bay doors in the back, which looks like this, and a bay door in the front. It's very similar to the Palm Bay location in the high industrial area. The building plans indicate that there will be 2,000 square feet of office space and 10,000 square feet of warehouse space. This building is clearly a warehouse and not automotive sales, which would put it in the B2 zone, not the BU one. Based on the company's website, they sell mostly used cars made in the 90s that have been imported from Japan. And again, this points to the property being used as a warehouse for a used car dealership. The company's structural sheets title block submitted to the county called the building the Roku Tana Warehouse. I would argue that this is not a labeling inconsistency next to the site plan, which calls the building a showroom, since the planned actual use for the building is really bulk vehicle storage and parts mezzanine and service receptacles. The applicant's own sealed drawings assert it's a warehouse, which again falls under BU2, not BU1. If you look at those pictures that I just showed you, you see that they have all this stuff outside. They have inventory outside. I think that the nature of this operation is going to result in significant and substantial noncompliance with the BU1 rules if it is allowed to build there. And the neighborhood and the county will continuously be dealing with noncompliance issues. Lastly, I do not believe that the current design plans are aesthetically pleasing for the front of a warehouse, for the front of a waterfront subdivision. It is important, and if you look at this, this is the inside of their current showroom. It's important that as a development occur, it match in with its surroundings. Used car dealers and warehouses belong in an industrial area, not in the front of a neighborhood, which is the whole purpose of the zoning codes that the county has put in place. For all the above reasons, I ask you that you please stop this project from developing any further unless the purpose and design of the buildings are substantially revised. Said that real quick. So I think that is really the issue is that it doesn't fit in with our neighborhood. It's terrible. You guys, I don't know if you've seen the permit and what they've, well, you said you have.

I have not, no. I've seen some of the site plan.

The actual building? I haven't seen the building permit, no. Do you have a picture of the building?

No, the building plans or the landscape plan. No. No, you don't have that.

The actual building, I mean, it looks like a warehouse, and it has bay doors in the back and a bay door in the front. It's not pretty in any way, shape, or form, and it looks like a warehouse. So I'm not sure where you figure out the difference between a warehouse at a BU2 and a BU1, because they're going to be storing stuff there. And I don't know.

So that was a question I had.

Did we talk about BU1A?

I don't know about.

Did you talk about BU1A? Yes. Okay. Okay. All right.

Why don't you speak into your mic? I'm sorry, sir. I think we need to put this on the agenda if we're going to hear it. I don't have data. I don't have any of the background on this. I haven't seen it. You all came up with a public record. I don't have any of it. So if we're going to do this, I think in all fairness, even to the person who's building the project and Commissioner Goodson, I think if y'all want to do this, we probably need to follow those processes because we're not doing it right now. And we're just going to frustrate you with stuff that we can't do anything with right now. So that would be my request for y'all. If y'all want to do this, maybe we just put it on the agenda later and look at it. Because right now, I don't know if we've got anything we're voting on. I don't see anything that we're supposed to make any recommendations on. You have a lot of good ideas, but I don't even know legally if there's anything we can do. Yeah, so we're going to a place right now. I'm not sure what we can do with this, and we can't make y'all any promises because we can't. So if you guys want to do that, I would recommend we do that to give staff time to put stuff together instead of putting them on the spot to try to give us information where they could actually tell us things that aren't correct either just to protect them. And to protect me from saying something stupid right now, too, that would be great.

Yeah, we're just hoping that our minutes doesn't get approved.

Well, that's a good start, and this is why we have the public section part of the agenda so that we can be appealed to. So let's do that. I think that's a good idea. I have more questions.

I just put the building up there. Okay.

I've seen that one. So we'll follow up, and I will have a lot more questions.

Do you guys have the authority to put the permit on hold until we resolve all these issues?

That's a very complex legal question, probably something we can't even comment about right at this point. I think we want to be sure we keep ourselves in proper... Or just leave it as is for now until it's... Well, that's something that we probably would... Yeah. This is more just public input. We can't public comment.

How long before the permit would be approved? Do we have a schedule? It's not approved right now. It's got all kinds of deficiencies.

I think what we'll need to do is to get with our county attorney and our staff. And I think the applicant probably hasn't noticed. So we'll follow up. Thank you.

Are you still one of my favorite auditors? I'm not an auditor anymore.

Not anymore.

I'm retired. So just representing myself.

No, I think you've given us a very good public presentation. We'll definitely be following up. I know I will be. And Commissioner Goodson is also giving you the name of his staff. Pardon me?

Would you like some of our stickers?

Yes. I'll take some. I always take a sticker. Okay. Thank you very much for input, and we'll be in contact.

When would we hear some change?

Pardon me?

You said you're going to follow up, so how would we be contacted when there's a next project?

Commissioner Goodson, and we'll get you, make sure you call his office. That would be a good start. And I'll have questions, too. We've got many questions. So I think what he's told you is his staff will work with you on that. Okay. Great. We will move on then. Thank you. We will go to new business. That's our public comments complete. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. We'll go to reports. County manager?

No report.

No report. County attorney? No report, Mr. Chair. Commission District 1? No report. District 2? No report, sir. No report. 3? District 3? No report. District 4? No report, sir. All right. And thank you. Thank you. I have no report other than I'm so happy we have a board member whose car expertise. So I appreciate that.

I learned something tonight. I guess the trucks are different than the K cars.

Yeah. I wouldn't buy something I can't drive on US 1. I'll tell you that. It's fascinating. That's what makes this job so interesting. You just never know where you're going to go. A lot of diversity. That's it. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you so much.

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