Planning and Zoning Board & Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

I now call this meeting of the Bavaria County of Zoning Adjustment to order on this day, Wednesday, July 15th at about 2.18 p.m. Will Mr. Bode from the Planning and Development Office please describe the function and operation of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to our applicants in the audience, please?

Yes, Ms. Chairman. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body established by the Board of County Commissioners under Chapter 62, Article 2, Division 4 of the Brevard County Code. The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear requests for variances to the zoning regulation and the sign regulation in Chapter 62, Article 6, and Article 9. Pursuant to Florida rules of appellate procedure, any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment may, within 30 days after the date the order is signed, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. Ms. Chairman, you have five items on your agenda today.

Thank you. Mr. Bond, can you please explain to the applicants and the audience the statutory definition of hardship?

Yes, Madam Chair. An undue hardship. A variance may be granted when it is not contrary to the public interest and where owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. The term undue hardship has a specific legal definition in this context and essentially means that without the requested variance, the applicant will have no reasonable use of the subject property under existing development regulations. Personal medical reasons shall not be considered as grounds for establishing undue hardship sufficient to qualify an applicant for a variance. Economic reasons may be considered only in instances where a landowner cannot yield a reasonable use and or a reasonable return under the existing land development regulations. The applicant must answer a variance hardship worksheet with six questions. The Board of Adjustment will discuss these questions today with each applicant who has requested a variance.

Thank you. I will now address our board members, the applicants, and our audience regarding the board procedures for today's hearing. The Board of Zoning and Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board with members appointed by the Brevard County Board of Commissioners. that utilizes the Robert Rules of Order to conduct its proceedings. The chair is asking all board members not to ask questions while the applicants are making their presentations. Once the applicants have completed their presentation, we will begin board questioning with the board member who represents the applicant's district. When concluded, questioning is open to the full board. The chair will recognize each board member in turn. Once all board members have completed their questioning, we will then open the floor to the audience who may be here to speak concerning the applicant's application. Anyone from the audience wishing to speak will be given the opportunity to address the board only once. At the conclusion of public comment, the applicant will be given additional time for rebuttal as well as to present their final comments. Once completed, no further comment will be heard from the applicant or the public. The action then moves to the board for discussion and action. We will not use a timer for this meeting. Instead, we're asking each speaker to be concise in what you have to say. It's important that you stay on the subject and avoid information that's not relevant. All persons speaking must provide their name and address for the public record. Those wishing not to verbally state their address may ask the clerk at the podium for an address card. Please fill it out and return to the clerk. Are there any questions regarding these procedures from the board members? No. Seeing none. Are there any questions regarding the procedures from the applicants? Seeing none. From the audience? None. We will then move to our next order of business. We will go to our meeting minutes. Can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes? So moved.

Second.

We have a motion to move by Mr. Bond, a second by Mr. Motis.

Yeah.

all in approval aye aye okay thank you can we have our first applicant please yes item h1 target corporation request five variances of chapter 62 article 9 bavard county code for signs in a tu-2 zoning classification application is 26 v 00019 is located in district 4.

Good afternoon. May you state your name for the record and let me swear you in, please? How about now?

Perfect.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And your name for the record? Katie Fitzgerald of Kimley Horn. Okay, how can we help you this afternoon?

Hi there. So we had originally approached staff probably a couple of years ago, and I apologize, just trying to give some context to this application. We had originally approached staff a couple of years ago when Target went to do their initial remodel. The remodel was put on hold. Are you speaking to Mike? I can't hear you. I'm sorry. Is that better? Yeah. Sorry about that.

We initially had...

Did the mic go out? One more time? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Sorry, guys. We had initially approached staff when Target went to do their initial remodel for this site. Staff, I think, was under the impression that we would be grandfathered in under certain allowances for what was currently existing on site. When we went to do kind of a refresh in those discussions this year, when Target was finally willing to move forward with the actual installation, it came to our attention that actual sign swapping would need a variance due to not being grandfathered in for square footages and miscellaneous. Unfortunately, that kind of tail spun into several of our signs coming to our attention as not meeting current code. So they would not be grandfathered in if we would like to swap facade or change the look anyway. So just to give you that context, that's where we are today. We are proposing a plethora of variances. There is five in total now. So just go ahead and go down the list. Okay, I think we kind of recapped that. So the first would be to request to allow proposed sign four and a half from the required 15 foot setback to the north property line. That is going to be our main monument that you see off of Wickham. The second would be to request to allow proposed sign 7.84 over the maximum allowed four foot height limitation. That is also for our monument. that currently stands roughly at 11.84 today. Again, the site was built in 2004. Code could have been different back then. We now are trying to swap the face of the sign, which I will later show, which has triggered this variance need. The third variance would be to request to allow proposed sign 3.8 square feet over the maximum allowed 250 square feet sign surface area for one freestanding sign. That would be the rear of site pylon that faces Highway 9. Our fourth would be a request to allow 1,321 square feet over the maximum allowed cumulative sign surface area on the property. That was specifically triggered, and I will also show you, due to the emphasis of the target sign, the EPIS backing of the target. So there is not an actual sign that is that big. The fifth request is to allow 1,500 square feet over the maximum allowed aggregate sign surface for the entire store. Just to give us a good visual, monument being H, and then G being the pylon, as discussed. This just gives us a good visual of what the site looks like today. We currently have a CVS pharmacy grocery super target, and then the expect more, pay less that you're used to seeing on the targets. Okay, and then this is what's proposed. So this is the front facade. It is split and then at the bottom it is in one unanimous. So we start from left moving right. We have CVS, pharmacy proposed, grocery, a new sign drive up to delineate where drive up pickup spaces would go and then the main target sign as we're used to seeing and an order pickup sign. So then just getting into the square footage, as proposed, that 18 foot sign is gonna be our biggest for the square footage. The sign only is 530 square feet, but again, going back to the ethos or that red backing to the target itself, also triggering the signage square footage overage, that would put us at 1,694.33 square feet. Our order pickup by itself is 24.59. The drive-up is 71.93. The grocery, 39.6. CVS is 35.7. And then moving to our pylon. So again, the whole idea here was just for an overall refresh. Everything that was there on site was to get a new face. There's only truly one new proposed sign, which is the drive-up sign. Everything else is a variation, a different color or a new tone for moving with the business. The pylon would be swapping from that super target to target. Unfortunately, this one is one of the big ones that has been grandfathered in up until this point. With this face swap, if you will, we had to go back to the Vieira company and go back through the DRB for their visual approval as well. as we have a 253 square feet with i believe a 250 foot allowance for this sign and just give you a better visual of not only from the right-of-way but also to the actual visual that front face of curb if you will for highway 9 and wickham so everything is well set within the property So I wanna open it to questions. I know that that was quite a bit. Five variances is never an easy task to run through. So please let me know if I've missed anything or are there any questions.

Okay, no, thank you. So now this is for District Four. Unfortunately, Dr. Bass is not in today. So we'll be asking you the questions on District Four behalf. Okay. So would you like to start off, Mr. Vaughn?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My only question, you said you had to go back through VR company for approval. Have you already gotten that? Is that ask concurrent to this one?

Yes. So we did get their initial approval of the entire elevation. We were unaware at the time that we were also going to trigger via the monument in the pylon. So those both went back through them and also were granted approval. And I have both of those copies.

Thank you.

Yeah. Mr. Mullings?

Yeah, I think my only question was how much of this signage is over and above what was existing? I know it's a remodel, so some of this is just, yeah, it doesn't, it would have, if you put it in before, maybe about the code, but now you're putting it in now, it doesn't, but you're adding some signages on top of what was existing. How much of this is over and above what was previously existing?

Yeah, I think that that is an absolute fair question. So if we're going comparison to comparison, the only real differences in signage would be that new proposed drive up sign of the 71. And then also on the side that faces Highway 9, there is a current 12 foot, I apologize, a nine foot bullseye that we're asking to increase to a 12 foot because we're going from a bullseye with text to just bullseye. So we're kind of limiting the visual, but the bullseye would get a little bigger.

Okay.

So when you remove the EFIS, our allowance would be 507 for that front facade. And we're roughly in the 700 range without the EFIS added into the calculation.

I just had a curiosity. What is the drive up for? Drive up to what?

Yeah, the drive up is their online order pickup spaces where you can pull in, order ahead on that app.

And that's something they have now that they didn't have before? Is that something new?

It is something that I believe is currently running on site, but it is set for an expansion as well request, which we are currently working through.

Okay. Okay. Would you mind bringing up that sign that you were talking about, the pylon sign?

Yeah, absolutely. This one.

So... That's the existing one on the left and then the new one on the right? It is. But you're not changing the structure, you're just changing the sign face?

Yes, just the face.

Okay. And because of that, it's really not changing the size of it, is it?

Yeah, and this is where we were kind of getting into semantics. Yeah, so we're not really changing the size of it. It is existing today, but because we're proposing to make it look different, we are triggering a variance need.

Okay, okay.

okay that's all the questions i have well that pretty much took care of my question because what you're doing is just changing that however um you're adding a new sign to the drive-through correct yes ma'am yep we would go from four on the front facade to five okay um my other question is that within that plaza your sign is just not going to be overbearing to what the other occupants in that plaza currently have, correct?

Yeah, and I think that that's also a fair question. And honestly, when we open this to community feedback, I can't tell you how many times we've heard clients give us direct feedback that they get overwhelmed when there is not directional signage on the wall signs like this. So we try to limit what we're doing and at least stagger, but most people say that it is not overwhelming, that they would prefer to see exactly where they're going once they're in sight and it actually increases circulation within sight. Okay.

And did you have any feedback from your neighbors or anything concerning this? I have not received any feedback, no, ma'am.

Okay.

All right. Well, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, I'm just asking you to step aside. I'm going to ask anyone in the audience in favor of this variance or in nay of it, you can come forward now if you like. Seeing none, come back. Okay, would you like to make a motion?

I'd make a motion to approve limiting the variance to the assigned plan submitted by the applicant dated 11-17-2025. I'll second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion to approve by Mr. Bond, and we also have a motion to approve to second it by Mr. Moya. Am I saying that correct? Moya. Moya, I'm sorry, Mr. Moya.

Okay.

Okay, I'm going to read the six hardship questions. One moment, let me find your hardship questions. that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, and that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in an identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter that will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise defumental to the public welfare. We have a motion to approve by Mr. Bond, a second by Mr. Mohawk, and we're going to do an individualized vote. Mr. Bond? Motion to? Yeah. Approve? Yeah.

Mr. Moyer?

Yes. And I pass. Your variants have passed. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for last minute coming in. I appreciate you meeting our quorum. Thank you.

Do you want me to escape or leave it up?

We have everything we need.

Okay, perfect.

Ms. Bodie, can we have our next applicant, please?

Yes, item H2, Jeffrey N. Mathis requests three variances of Chapter 62, Article 6, Boulevard County Code for an accessory structure and a fence in a RU-1-13 zoning classification. Application is 26V00035, located in District 2.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record and let me swear you in? Do you swear to tell the whole truth or nothing but the truth?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Your name for the record, please.

Jeffrey Newton Mathis.

How can we help you this afternoon?

We put a variance in. Well, I let this guy borrow money with a mortgage. He defaulted on it. I got this property and house brought to me. He did work without getting permits, so he put a garage on there and a fence in the front. Big pillars, you know what I'm saying? The first thing I had to do is get a variance to vacate the easement. I did that. So now the next step was to get a variance on the garage because it's bigger than half of the house. And the fence in the front. And I also already got a permit to put a new fence up all the way down the side because the guy put a pool in. And I told the county that, hey, you know, there is a pool here. Did he get a permit? No, he didn't get a permit. So that's my next step, too, to get a permit for that. But The first thing they told me I had to do is get a variance on the garage and the front fence as pillars. So this is where I'm at starting it off with it and then I'll do what I have to do to keep getting the permits.

Okay. Well, I see you in District 2.

And I didn't do none of this work. This guy did all the work. All I did was loan him the money, because I have a few houses there. I loaned him the money, and he defaulted, and I got everything handed to me.

Okay. So thank you for that clarification. Yes, ma'am. I see you in District 2. We have Mr. Moll out? Yep. Okay. And I'll just review it. Any questions?

Okay, so three variances, if I get this right. So one, you have the encroachment into the rear setback for an accessories building. Yes, sir. And then your accessory structure being your garage is more than 50% of the principal structure. Yes, sir. And then the third is the fence housing. height limit in the front? It's just the pillars in the front. Where the gate is, it's got two double gates. So now it's not the fence itself, it's the pillars that hold the gate up. I think it's like one foot off. Okay, because I think there's only like a, you can go higher to the fence, but only so high, and they went too high, okay.

Went too high, I think it's one foot higher than what it's supposed to be. Yeah, okay. but that would be a mess if I had to take that down because it's all braked and blocked. It's beautiful. I understand. At least it looks nice, right? It does. I already got a new fence put up, you know, standing on the front and all the way down the side because of the pool, you know, that's in there. Okay. Okay. No more further questions. Thank you.

Mr. Vaughn?

So I think you just answered, I was gonna ask, the permit for the new fence is still using, intended to use those existing pillars, it's the actual fencing that's being replaced?

I paid for a new fence to be put up, so the fencing is in between the pillars, and it goes all the way down the side, because there was no fence there, and they had put a lazy river pool in there. So I already did the permit on that, and had the fence put up, and it is done. The fence is the right height, the pillars are, because it's kind of funny, because they're higher, but what it is, what it is. Thank you. You're welcome.

So looking at your land and the map for the survey of your land, I see you have neighbors to the left of you? Mm-hmm. Anything from them? No. In regards to this?

They're not coming.

They're not coming? Mm-hmm. Are they in approval or?

They're all right with everything.

They're all right with everything. Okay. Okay. So you're pretty clear-cut and dry. Three variants. Let me just check with the audience. Anybody have any discussion?

No, one more question.

Okay, just step to the side. Anyone in the audience here in regards to this variance that would like to speak yea or nay to it? Seeing none, come back. Board discussion.

Yeah, I didn't have any more questions. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve all three variances in accordance with the request and the plan, the survey plan that was dated January 23, 2026.

Okay. We have a motion to approve, so we have a second. I'll second. Okay. I'm going to read the six hardship questions, and they are, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings and applicable zoning classification. that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, and that granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in an identical zoning classification. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification, and that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, and that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. We have a motion to approve by Mr. Bond.

I made the motion.

A motion by Mr. Mody. I apologize. I retract that. And we have a second by Mr. Bond. Call for a vote. Mr. Bond?

Aye.

Yes. Approved. Your variants have approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Mr. Mody, can we have our next applicant, please?

Yes, item H3, Daniel and Sarah Dutton, request two variances of chapter 62, article 6, of our county code for principal structure and the TRC-1 zoning classification. Application is 26V00036, located in District 3.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

My leg fell asleep.

How are you? Okay. You both going to be speaking?

He's going to speak. I was just, my name's up there, so I came down.

Okay. Swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth? Yes.

Can you state your name for the record, please? My name is Daniel Dutton. And how can we help you this afternoon? I'm seeking two variances for our house that are encroaching. What we're trying to do, what brought this out, was we have to replace a carport that was damaged during a hurricane. And so deed restriction requires us to have a carport. So when they came out, they found that we were a little bit over on the left side, if you're looking from the road. And then we were a little bit too close to the road. So we're seeking variance for those two encroachments. I believe y'all should have a copy of the neighbor saying that they are fine with the variance on their side. Did y'all?

Let me check. Do we have a copy of that? I don't see that. Do y'all have one?

Let me just make sure. Yeah, we gave that to our carport guy. I don't have a copy of that anymore. If y'all need it, I can, because I would have it still in my email, I could get that to y'all if y'all require it. I think it was like a half inch variance on the one side and then one inch variance on the front too close to the road. Those are the two variances if I'm remembering correctly.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Bohn is in District 3. Would you like to start off with the questioning?

Yeah, my only question, you're replacing the carport just as it was before it was damaged by the storm? It's not being made larger? The location's not changing? It's being made smaller than what it originally was. That's the only question, thank you.

Mr. Muller?

And I assume the resident part's been there for quite some time. The which part? The actual, the resident building. Oh, yes, it's been there since 87.

It hasn't moved or so, okay. It hasn't moved, and my understanding is the variance was in effect before we purchased the property 20 years ago.

Okay, so in order to get your building permit to build the carport, you have to get the variance to bring that into compliance. Exactly. Gotcha, okay.

And I have no questions. Mr. Bond?

I'll make a motion to approve. Do you want to bring it up to the audience?

Is there anyone here from the audience that would like to speak towards this variance or not? Seeing none.

Discussion? Motion to approve limited to the location depicted on the survey provided by the applicant dated 10-13-2025. And I'll second that motion.

I'll do the six hardship questions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. That granting the variance requested would not confer an applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. And that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land building a structure and that the gradient of variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise defumental to the public welfare we have a motion to approve a second individualized vote mr bond aye yes Approve your variants have approved.

Thank you. Thank you very welcome. I'd like to second but thank you for coming in today Next applicant, please

Yes, item H4, Russell M. Scott Jr. and Carol A. Scott request three variances, chapter 62, article 6 of our county code for a dock and a dock roof and an EU zoning classification, application 26B00038, located in District 2.

Good afternoon. Hello. How are you? Great, thanks. Great. Let me swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

And can you state your name clearly for the record, please?

Russell Scott. Okay.

Will you be speaking?

Carol Scott. No, unless he doesn't cover something, I'm not going to.

Well, let me swear you in. Carol Scott. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth? Yes, I do. Can you state your name for the record, please? Carol Scott. Thank you. Thank you. How can we help you this afternoon? Thank you.

The reason we're here is related to a dock. We live on the north end of Merritt Island and river moorings along a canal. What we would like to do is replace their existing dock. The house was built in 1996, including the docks. We bought the house in 2019, so it's getting old. We'd like to replace that existing dock and boat lift with one with a roof that's essentially the same footprint and the same location. the same distance to the centerline of the canal, but it doesn't meet some of the current guidelines. So those are the three things we're requesting variants to. We went to the, I wanted to make a note, we went to our homeowners association and explained what we were doing. We've talked to all of our neighbors. No one has expressed any concern. So I don't see anybody in the audience from my neighborhood to talk about it. So we've run that through them. Basically, you've got the site plan, you've got everything that was in the package. It's replacing what we have with a roof so that additional space on the roof triggers exceeding a couple of the current guidelines. I think the one that's most important for safety is the projection out into the canal. The way our neighborhood was developed back in the 90s, the standard at the time appears to be about a third on either side, north and south, on the canal for the homeowners to build docks, and the middle third for navigation. So in our case, the west side is about 75 feet, so 25 feet for the dock. On our side, 25 feet for Ms. Jones that lives across, and it leaves 25 feet you know to navigate through with the boat you know it's just idle speed it's just a canal so there's no risk you know we're not going to further encroach on the the passage of boats in the middle of the canal with the proposal The other two things were roof area and total square footage of the roof and the dock. We're trying to protect about 30 feet of a boat, so we need a 12-foot lift beam, 30 feet long, and then with the overhang with the roof, to protect our powerboat. It's 544 square feet, I believe. It exceeds the 500 square foot limit by 44 feet. We just think that's the minimum to protect the boat properly. It's not extravagant, but it's what is consistent with the neighborhood. Total square footage was a little over as well. We actually reduced some of the deck area to try to minimize the amount of dock, right? But with the dock and the roof together, it exceeds that 600 square feet limit. About 114 feet, it should be right in the... In the notes, they're 134 feet over that 600 total. So there are three areas that it violates, the projection, the roof, the total. But this is consistent with the neighborhood. It's almost the identical footprint of what we have today. We just don't have a roof today. The other thing we'd like to do is square it up to the center line of the canal. It's twisted a little bit today, but it will not encroach any further into the canal than the back of the dock already does today. I've got a picture if you want it, but I won't even introduce it. How do I turn this thing on here?

I think you just put it in.

Okay so you can see this is from the property appraiser's office and the little red box shows our house if you're coming into the canal we're the second on the left so our two neighbors the first entry point you have to get in between is their docks right so and they're about 26 feet apart so what we're proposing will not be any closer than what is already there so if you get through the entrance you can get all the way to the marina, so we're not further encroaching in that. So just to kind of show you with a picture, our house is the second on the left, so our boat is on the lift without a roof, but you can see most of the homes on the canal have a dock, and most of the docks have roofs, and they're similar size and construction of what we're proposing, so we're not asking for something that's out of the ordinary or lavish or extravagant. It's consistent with what the neighborhood has had in place for a long time.

Okay.

So that's why that's for our question.

Well, thank you. I see this is in District 2, Mr. Mall.

It is, yes. I think he basically answered my question that he's not going any further into the canal than the existing dock. Obviously, you know, being a boat owner, having a roof on is a... everybody's dream because it just protects your boat that much better so um i don't you know it looks like it's it pretty much matches the general intent of the entire neighborhood so i don't have any further questions on it okay

Sorry, I'm just looking real quick. I don't know if this is something that might be appropriate for staff to answer, but is the distinction simply size between their proposed dock and the neighboring docks that triggers the need for a variance? Because it looked like in the comments there's not a lot of variances for the...

So the dock code states that you can't have any more than 400 square feet of decking over the water. A roof cannot be more than 500 square feet itself. And the total coverage of both of them, when you're looking at a downward view of them, can't be more than 600 square feet coverage. So that's the reason he's asking for it. The projection can be up to 20% of the width of the waterway. So we have to measure the waterway, I think, in this one because it's, I'm not sure if it was platted whenever I looked at it, but it's however wide it is, you can go out 20%. So if it was a 100-foot platted canal, then you could go out 20 feet off of your rear property line. So this was the other one he was asking for as a projection.

Yeah, and that was the defilement like that, so...

We met with Mr. Brody in February to understand the guidelines, and then we developed this site plan with our contractor. So 20%, we're probably at the 30%, a third or so, is what we're asking for, which is consistent with the neighborhood, but it exceeds the guideline. So to me, that was the most important one, and it doesn't impede navigation through the canal with that extra projection. Thank you.

Okay. Russell, my last name is Bodie also.

No R in that. Okay. It's that southern drawl. I thought I said that.

What's the how old is this development? How long have these houses been?

Our house was built in 1996. So I think early 90s. It started as part of Indian Bay and River Moorings had similar development and and they kind of split off and finished Indian Bay. Another person did River Moorings, but we shared the canal with our Indian Bay neighbors. And the folks right across from us, we've already talked to them about it, Robin Jones, the Yakabuchis, and then on our side, the Sheffields and our neighbors, they understand what we're trying to do.

Okay. I would imagine if anybody had to rebuild their dock, they'd probably be right in front of us as well. Yeah. To build what they have. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

i think this is great you just replaced an existing dot you need to both lift the roof it goes with the neighborhood um i don't see anything too bad with this you spoke to the hoa you spoke to all your neighbors so let me just check now with the audience is there anyone here that would like to speak in regards to this variance yay or nay seeing none okay

Okay. Seeing none, then I will make the motion to approve the variance as requested, all three based on the survey that we have in our packet dated April 28th, 2026. Okay.

We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? I'll second it. I'm going to do the six hardship questions. Hold on a moment. that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, and that granting the various requests would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning structure, Four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in an identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter that will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And six, that the granting of variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise defument to public welfare. We have a motion on the floor to approve and we have a second individualized. Mr. Mower, start off the voting please.

Yes.

Mr. Bond.

If I may speak on it for just a moment. They've already kind of spoken on what they think of the idea, and if I owned a boat and lived in the area, I'd want the exact same thing. With that being said, just from the information that was presented, I don't... I don't know that I can support a variance for it. If anything, maybe it's indicative of possibly some bigger policy changes that should be adjusted, especially if there's a whole neighborhood that has docks, you know, similar situated to yours. But I don't believe based off the evidence permitted that I can support a variance. So I'm going to be a no on this.

Okay. have a chance to elaborate one of the reasons we can't go closer to the shoreline is we have a rock revetment and the mean high water mark comes up on those rocks probably three feet you know for the water for the high water we have a nice beautiful three or four feet wide set of mangroves that grow along there that protect the shoreline because we don't want to encroach on the natural protection of the waterway so that's that's the reason we can't

bring it closer to the to the shore i can appreciate that and i saw a comment to that effect i just i don't believe that based off what you want to do it necessarily arises from a point of undue hardship now with that being said i don't think my no vote is going to make a difference on you getting it so i'm not trying to kill your dream i just just based off just my understanding of the information available so thanks

my vote is yes your variants have passed okay thank you very much appreciate the consideration Mr. Bodie, can we have our last applicant, please?

Yes. Item H5, Kurt and Natalia E. Blackman, request variance of Chapter 62, Article 6 of our county code for the lot size and an AU zoning classification. Application is 26B00040. It's located in District 1. Also, I'd like to state that the Applicant is trying to cure a substandard situation that the Brevard County comp plan encourages.

What does that mean, encourages?

Look it in the dictionary.

So, they're asking for a variance of something that the comp plan believes should happen, or should be... Yes, it should be compatible. Compatible, gotcha. Okay, thank you.

Okay, good afternoon. Hi. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Can you state your first and last name for the record? My name is Tracy Saika. I'm here speaking on behalf of Mr. Blackman. Okay, how can we help you to set this up? Okay, so... Mr. Blackman and his wife purchased the home a couple years back. When they purchased the home, it was sold to them as being agriculturally zoned. It come to find out later on and actually because the property was originally agriculturally zoned, it was then grouped together with other properties by the same owner and set as one parcel and then re-subdivided. So when it was re-subdivided, they lost their grandfathering for the AU zoning. When he was sold the property, he was sold the property being told that it was still agriculturally zoned. As far as I know, that was the belief of the owner and the person that sold it to them. I actually am under contract with my husband to buy the lot adjacent to this one that's being subdivided from it. He would like to keep his agricultural zoning because it was originally sold to him that way, not that he wants to do anything exorbitant with the land other than be able to have chickens and goats. It's actually larger than it was originally. It's below the minimum needed for the agricultural zoning but it's larger than it was originally when it was grandfathered into the agricultural zoning when if the variance is approved then that will also be able to finalize the property that's being subdivided from it which is the one that my husband and I are trying to purchase that is directly behind it I think that's it okay

I see this is in District 1, which is my district.

And your address, can you state the address please? My address is 460 Allen Drive, Merritt Island. The address of the property is 2125 North Singleton in Titusville. Okay. Okay.

And I just want to state for the record, it says MIMS, but it's the Titusville area.

Oh, it is MIMS. I'm sorry. Yes, it's right on the border. So yes, the technical address is MIMS. Okay.

So we'll start off with questioning. Mr. Bond?

I don't have any questions, discussion whenever the board is ready for it. Mr. Moe.

Okay, so I just want to make sure I understand. So there's a parcel that doesn't meet the minimum lot size, but it already has a house on it.

Yes, so this is the lot that's requesting the variance, or not the lot, the home. The home. The home is requesting the variance. Because? Because it was... It originally zoned agricultural to begin with, and then when it was recombined and then resubdivided, it no longer met the requirements for the agricultural zoning, and it lost its grandfathering.

Okay, so you just want to make the lot compliant. You're not planning on doing anything. Or are you planning on doing something and you can't get a building permit?

He won't be able to get any building permits until the zoning issue is fixed. So his options were either to request a variance for the agricultural zoning or to request to have it zoned to rural residential. He wanted to keep the agricultural zoning.

So there are some plans to do some modifications. He just can't get any permits.

He cannot get any permits to do. Well, he just not even to do like if you had to fix your septic or, you know, anything.

You're right.

Right now he's stuck with not being able to do anything permit wise until the zoning issue is fixed.

Okay.

So my question would be right now is zoned AU. Correct. Correct. And you want to keep it that way. Right. Because he wants to then do what with the property.

Because it, well, he wants to keep the AU zoning. It is currently zoned AU, but it's not in compliance. Somehow when the title got recorded with the property, with the County, it got recorded with the AU zoning, which was incorrect. So then it wasn't in compliance. so he just wants to be able to keep that au zoning and have it be in compliance and with him keeping the au zoning what is he going to do with the land nothing special he already has the house on the property he just wants to be able to have chickens and goats okay nothing yes and everybody else around him is all zoned out it's all the agricultural zoning surrounding it i did talk to the neighbor on the Northside, he is also, you know, an approver, and I believe he said he sent a letter stating that he was in approval of keeping that agricultural zoning on the home. Okay.

Can we have a motion on the floor?

I just had one question for staff. It's not unusual to have an AU lot that's less than two and a half acres, right? That's less than two and a half? Yeah, I mean, there's been plenty of AU lots that don't meet that size requirement.

Right, if you look at some of the ones that are out in Canaveral Groves and such, those are non-conforming because they were subdivided before 1975. This property here, when it was in its original configuration was a non-conforming lot. The guy subdivided it, he took the flag stem off the north end of the property and removed it and put it on the south end for the Sycas property that they're wanting to purchase. So they reconfigured it and lost the non-conforming size limit that he had before because it was reconfigured.

Gotcha, I gotcha, okay. Understood, thank you, Paul.

okay let me check with the audience is anyone here that would like to speak in regards to this variance yay or nay seeing none okay board discussion

If I may, I can appreciate from the records that were provided that staff did make the recommendation to consider seeking a variance, and I appreciate why it can be the more convenient route, but given the area, given some of the issues that subdividing of parcels has created up in MIMS, the fact that At least part of what's prompting this is an individual interested in acquiring the parcel. It's difficult to argue that they're experiencing an undue hardship. So I can't support a variance. I think this should go through the zoning process and the board should have the opportunity to make their determination.

We're not trying to. Can I just clarify something real quick? We're not trying to purchase his lot. or his property. We're trying to purchase the lot behind him. So whether he gets rural residential zoning or whether he gets agricultural zoning has really no impact on the lot that we're trying to buy other than we're just trying to resolve the situation one way or another so we can purchase the lot and the lot be buildable.

So it's not... How is the variance on property they're not going to build on make their property compliant?

There's a code that says that in 2106, I think it is, is that you're not supposed to subdivide any property and create a code problem. Right, correct. And so that's the reason. And it's created a code problem in the way that it's reconfigured the flag stem property that she's trying to purchase with her husband. And that's the reason that they need to go through and get the variance.

So the parent parcel is still okay. It's the new parcel that's creating the nonconformity issue. and if this property gets the variance, then the remaining portion of the parent property becomes compliant?

Yes, it's going to make the other one become compliant.

Okay, so they won't need to come back when they need a building.

No, they won't have to. Theirs meets all the requirements for the AU.

Okay.

Also, I was just notified that our director, Billy Prasad, he wants to come and speak to the board for a minute. So if you could hold on. Okay, sure.

Is that based on his email address? Okay. I just want to make sure I understood exactly what was happening here. This is a little unusual.

Yeah, it's like I said, there was a non-conforming lot. The flagged stem was on the north side to the part that they were wanting to purchase. Right. The lot was reconfigured, added together. and then the gentleman reconfigured the flag lot moved it from the north of the property to the south and made the property that was non-conforming a bit bigger so he reconfigured it but it doesn't meet the two and a half acre requirement for it okay and none of this was done by the applicant this was all done by the property owner is actually done by um a previous owner previous owner okay gotcha and he sold the property and then Now they're wanting to buy the flag stem part in the back, but because it's been parted in the back, it doesn't meet the requirement. They're here for that.

Understood. Okay. We'll wait for Billy. I'll be very patient.

We're just glad we don't have to come back.

You still owe us a push-up for every minute you're late. I think it came to 49.

There he is.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. I understand you guys are considering the Blackman request. I just wanted to give you a little bit of background, if I may. This was the result of a predecessor in interest from the current owners. At one point, this lot was a non-conforming lot of record. It then got combined into a single lot with a parcel to the east, so it was made one lot. At that point, it lost its non-conforming status. then it got split back out into a different configuration to the original configuration and so at that point the properties were sold or at least the one that the blackmanville now are sold It's effectively created a substandard lot. Now, the property to the east is effectively undevelopable until that problem is cured. Because the lot split had created a substandard lot, we consider both lots effectively substandard, even though the lot to the east does meet the minimum lot size of the zoning. So under the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, we do typically look to make conforming substandard lots to bring it into compliance with the code. There's two ways to do that in this situation. One would be to have the Blackmans rezone. The problem with that is, you know, my understanding is the Blackmans wish to keep their agricultural uses. Meanwhile, the people that are interested in purchasing the property of the East don't mind those agricultural uses. They've stated that to me, so that's the best information I have. Really, the Blackmans have put in this application at the request of both the parties interested in purchasing that parcel to the east and the county. Like I said, there's really only two ways to cure this problem. One is a variance that they're asking for, and that would allow them to keep their agricultural uses, even though it's a larger variance that we normally consider. that we'd normally like to consider, it is at least a way to bring this property into compliance. The other would be, if the board were to deny, their only other option is to do a full rezoning. So I just wanted the board to have that information as they make the decision. And that the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan does encourage us to try to make conforming substandard lots in these situations.

Just a question, if we would do the rezoning, that would be rezoning from AU to residential?

AU is a single family residential as it is, but it would be a residential classification with a smaller minimum lot size, perhaps RR1 or something of that nature. But the kind of incidental agriculture uses are typically not permitted in those classifications.

Okay.

All discussion has to be on the record, please.

Yeah, it's your district, you wanna make a motion?

Yes, we're gonna have a board discussion now.

Okay, discussion, okay. Well, I understand, thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Persaud. Yes, thank you. I mean, if this is, obviously there's two ways to get those two vehicles. This is the one I think staff recommends and I think the comp plan encourages. So based on that information, I'm going to be in favor of the request. Okay.

And what I'm hearing from all parties around to legitimize it and It would be in favor of the zoning, I would believe, of the variance.

Please speak into the mic.

I said that it would be in favor of the variance for me. I'll make a motion to approve this variance.

Then I'll make a second.

That's depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with a date of 12-23-21.

Okay, now I'll make my second.

Okay. Now I'll check with the audience.

We did already.

We did already. Now we're going to do the reading of the six hardships. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings and applicable zoning classifications. that the special condition and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, and that granting the variance request would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in an identical zoning classification. And that little enforcement of provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land built in a structure. And six, that granting the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. and that such use variants would not be injurious to the area. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Sonia, Chair Sonia Millard, and we have a second individualized vote. Mr. Bond?

Madam Chair, can I ask you to pause for a second? Just for clarification for the record, since you were the member making the motion, technically under Robert's rules, if you want to make the motion, you should pass the gavel.

um unfortunately we don't have well uh we don't have the vice chair here either um but would you um would you so it would be okay if she retracted she can make a second correct well yeah okay so you can withdraw the motion and i withdraw my emotion and i will draw my second and i will make the motion to approve the variance as requested based on the survey that was dated what's the date 12 23 2021. i can make a motion to second individualized vote mr bond

After staff's compelling elaboration on the comp, then I'll vote in favor.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree. I'm sure there was a lot of work regarding this issue done at a staff and director level, so I'm voting yes.

And I vote yes. Your variants have approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. We all appreciate it. Okay.

Also, staff, the attorney would like to address y'all as one of the past.

Well, we'll do that at a future meeting. We're not at this one. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Are we getting a raise?

You still got to give us those push-ups, Bruce.

Mr. Bodie, that concludes our applicants for this afternoon. yes that's the end public comment oh i'm sorry yes according to my last email from the county i have a meeting today i'm sorry i don't see you on an agenda can you come down to the front please for a moment yes ma'am our last email from derek cuby says the board of wait wait wait speak into the mic so we can hear you please that's okay

my last email that i received from derek huey dated 5 28 26 says good afternoon mr ulrich the board of boa hearing date for your variance has been moved to july 15th at 1 30 p.m this will allow you to get the survey and have everything ready in enough time for the advertisement and i provided my

That application was moved to the August. The reason is that we did not get the survey in time to get it advertised to be able to advertise for the July meeting. I'm sorry if Derek sent you that. Nobody ever informed me of that. I'm sorry Derek didn't inform you of that. I really am.

That would have been nice to know.

I'm so sorry.

I didn't see myself on that, but I thought maybe it was different.

Yeah, I apologize.

So am I going to receive an email formally informing me of when this is? You will receive a new letter stating whenever you're going to be heard in August. We didn't get that survey.

I sent him multiple emails. I was at the mercy of my surveyor. There was nothing I could do, but I never, the only thing we received that he sold me was he passed it on.

Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, the surveyor never got it to us in time to be able to. Yeah, no one ever informed me that it got moved. Okay, all right. Sorry about that. I really am. Yeah, sorry. I'm going to have to get on Derek about it.

Okay.

This meeting is adjourned.

Okay. Thank you.