Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

3 o'clock, if everyone would please stand. And Mr. Jordan, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, this is the Planning and Zoning Board slash Local Planning Agency. It's an advisory board which makes recommendations to the county commissioners who will make the final decision on these items. Items H5 is an LPA item. Items on today's agenda will be heard by the county commission on October 1st, 2026 at 5 p.m. When a motion ends in any kind of a split vote, a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy. As a reminder, each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on the record. Speakers for public comment on agenda items will be given two minutes. Please spell your last name for the record. At this time, is there any board member has had any ex parte communication regarding any application? Please disclose so now. All right, seeing that, I bring it back to the board. I need a motion for the approval of PNC minutes from August 17th, 2026.

Move for approval.

I got a motion by Deb, a second by who was over here? Mr. Eric, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Okay, on the agenda... Staff, I'm going to be going number one, number three, number four, and then back to two. All right, item H1.

Item H1, CRS properties, LLC, request change of property. from BU2 Retail, Warehousing, and Wholesale Commercial with the BDP to BU2 with an amendment to the existing BDP. Application is 26Z00011, located in District 4.

Mr. Moya, are you the applicant?

Yes, sir. Bruce Moya, MBB Engineering, representing the applicant. You guys might remember this project. We got a rezoning. It was a while ago, probably over a year ago, and we had a BDP. And ever since that, we've gone through the design process, and there's been kind of some changes and some things we wanted to do. So we're requesting that we have...

E, is this on?

That was better. So this property is between three streets. It fronts Aspinwall. It has US 1 to the east and 3rd Street to the west, which is an unimproved right of way. And so now the plan is to make a connection, since it's going to be commercial activity, make a connection on the third street and abandon that right away. The county, it's not improved. The county doesn't really care for it. So we want to go ahead and vacate that. And the previous BDP restricted access to the west. So we're just basically modifying the BDP to get that access onto the side street so that we can have better circulation for the property. And that's the only modification that we're asking for.

All right, sir, while you're there, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Seeing that, I'm going to close it for public comment. I'm going to bring it back to the board. Have we got any questions for Mr. Moya?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, sir, Mr. Rod.

The middle residence that's off Third Street, how does that property owner get access when Third Street becomes a private drive?

Yeah, that's a good question. So we have made applications to do the vacate, and that's something that we will provide for when we get to that point. But it's the only property that would need access through that, what would be a right-of-way. So we will give them an access easement so they can have buildable access.

Okay. And what size and type of trucks are going to be using that driveway? And is it going to be used purely as a driveway, or is it going to be used for truck parking?

Yeah, no parking, no access only. I mean, it's a flooring facility. It's been there for quite a long time. Mr. Herndon owned it forever and sold it, and now they're going to expand it. So it's a similar type of vehicles. The bigger trucks actually come off of US-1 and come on the side on the south where the loading area is. So this will just be like for, you know, typical. They're putting in a building for a flex warehouse, so it will be like subs, like plumbers, electricians. They'll be able to bring in their supply trucks in and out.

You're not expecting 18 wheelers to be using that?

No, that all comes through the existing loading dock to the south.

Okay. I was also concerned if there was any parking on having those big trucks running all night long, that'd be a problem.

No, sir.

And then one more question. It seems to me that that barriers would still be needed just because of the traffic along that third street. Are you gonna have any kind of barrier between the street and the property owners?

Yeah, so what'll happen when that right-of-way gets vacated, So now you have the commercial zoning of budding, the residential zoning. So code requires that we have to have a barrier fence landscaping.

I didn't, didn't see anything like that on the plan.

It's required by code.

Okay.

Uh, let's see. I think that was it.

Yeah. That's all the questions I have.

Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Jordan.

I didn't know how that thing works. I just wanted to know, as far as traffic is concerned, are you increasing the traffic at all?

Yeah, of course. I mean, yeah, there's not a project where you don't increase traffic. You can't do a kind of development without increasing the traffic somewhat. But the study's been done, and there's no degradation of the level of service. Okay.

And the BDP that you have right now doesn't work.

It says that we cannot access to the west, so we just want to change it to say we will access because we're going to abandon the right-of-way. We're going to build the road and improve it because it's unimproved now. So in order to have fire access and better truck access, we're requesting the modification.

That's all I have.

Do we have anyone else with any questions? Yes, sir.

Move for approval.

And do you want to state the modification to the BDP?

Yes. I'll second it.

Staff, do you need that?

Yes, we need that included in the motion for recommendation.

Move for approval with the modification of the BDP. Is that good?

Got a motion by Jordan, a second by Henry. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to skip down to item H3.

Yes, item H3. Christopher and Jennifer Profeta of the Profeta Family Trust request a CUP for a private boat dock adjacent to a single family residence. Application is 25Z00052. And the dock parcel, that was the dock parcel, the single family resident parcel is 2953446 and located in District 3. And sir, are you the applicant?

I am, yes.

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

Yes, it's Chris Profeta and it's P-R-O-F-E-T-A.

Okay, and a little bit about what you wanted to do.

Okay, so we purchased this boat dock about two or so years ago, and we had come to find out that back in the 80s, someone who owned it went for a variance and was given permission to do a finger slip, and they built what we had purchased. So I don't want to spend any money trying to fix it up until I legalize it. I'm trying to legalize it and put on a stronger lift. I bought a boat, and it barely gets it up and out of the water. So I'm trying to maintain it. And legalize it.

All right. Well, sir while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item? All right, I'm gonna close it for public comment Seeing that I'll bring it back to the board. We got any questions for the applicant. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am

Are there any environmental constraints that will change as a result of upgrading or trying to improve this lift?

No.

Are there any manatee zones that might be affected?

No.

Will you be doing the work yourself or will you have a licensed dock installer or repair company?

I will have a licensed dock builder install the pylons. I'm a licensed architect and I'm also a builder. I'm currently in the process of getting my general contractor license. So just a general carpentry portion of it. If I have time, I would do that myself. It would be up to code because that's what I do on a daily basis.

Okay. And last but not least, are there any neighborhood objections that you're aware of?

No. I had one gentleman who lived across the canal come and ask because he was under the misconception. Actually, he's on the canal next one over. Was inquiring because he said he couldn't make it down here. And when we explained to him what was going on, it was fine. He actually helped me, you know, do some work on my left.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board to the applicant? Yes, sir. Mr. Robert, can you turn your mic on, please, sir?

It was on. Okay, sorry. I'd like to ask how long the new dock will be.

Well, currently, I'm looking to just repair what I have, and it falls within that 25-foot extension into the water. Anything that would be built or potentially built adjacent to it or next to it would comply with building codes, current building codes. So the length would be about 25 feet? Correct, whatever the maximum or less.

I see. Just concerned about there is one more lot on that canal to the east, and you wouldn't want something long enough to obstruct access.

Now, if you look, I can pull up the aerials if you wanted to see them.

25 feet sounds good. Thank you.

Okay, so...

So you can see this is my dock here. And I own almost all of this property right here. It's a double wide lot. And this is taken in 2006, I believe. There's one over here. And there's one that was just rebuilt over here that has two boat lifts on it. And that's what we're potentially trying to do. We were just approved for a variance to keep and maintain what we have existing. And what I will probably do, because the boat that I have is very tight, and like I said, the lift barely gets it out of the water, is submit a set of plans for building something next to it so that I can utilize that and just keep what I have. But you can see that it's not going to impede on anyone. All the other slips that are over here and people's homes that are on this side of the canal, this is a fraction of what's the overall dimension of the water.

I see, yes. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? I need a motion.

Move for approval.

Second.

Got a motion by Deb on item H3. Excuse me.

I'm going to move for approval of a conditional use permit for a private boat dock adjacent to a single family residence.

There's also a waiver in this as well. And let me just find the language. It is a waiver to section 62-1443.3. Owners of docks established prior to 1917-2008 may request a waiver of any of the following conditions. He's requesting a waiver that the dock be constructed that the dock be constructed must be owned and used by the owner of a residential lot in the same platted subdivision he resides in that i believe it's crystal lakes subdivision first edition, and the dock is located in Crystal Lake subdivision second edition. So he needs a waiver to 62-1943.3. If you would include that in your motion, please.

Okay. I also include the 62-14 waiver to be included in this motion. My second statement.

Okay, item H3, a motion by Deb, a second by Jordan. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, item H4.

Yes, item H4, Cypress MHP LLC, request of zoning classification change from TR-1 and TR-3 to all TR-3. And this is application 26Z00025, located in District 1.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kim Rozenka with Lacey Rozenka in Melbourne, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Cypress Mobile Home Park, LLC. With me today is the owner representative, Sam Smith, and the engineer of record, Landon Shearer.

I can hold it this way.

This is just a representative of where the location is. The property is on Friday Road. It has its own access easement and road called Frankie Lane. It's between 520 and 524. The 5.5 acres we're seeking to rezone is currently TR1, and we're seeking to go to TR3. The zoning application and report... is using all the nine acre existing mobile home park and the 5.5 acres, but we do already have zoning on the existing nine acre park. So the Yellow square has the TR1 5.5 acres, and this is from your zoning packet as well, if you have it. And then the TR3 is the existing mobile home park of 97 units. What I provided to you is also in your zoning packet, but it's a little better to see it in large size. Here is the... Overview also from your zoning packet where you can see the existing 97 lots. There's also a laundry facility, a pool, a common area, and an office area. You'll also see from Friday Road going to the west is that 50-foot right-of-way easement that's actually a deeded easement going back to 1964. This has been in place for a very long time. As you may have noted from the beginning, this is a affordable housing type product. It's a mobile home park. The intent has always been when they purchased it approximately four years ago to expand to add more affordable housing options. The existing mobile home park of nine acres was non-conforming because it was only nine acres, and it had to be 10 under the TR. I keep getting the zonings mixed up. Under the TR3 zoning, it had to be 10 acres, but since it was so old. We could not expand it because of the old zoning of TR3. So we went through the Board of Adjustment, obtained 11 variances to make the existing 9-acre mobile home park conforming so it can be expanded, and now we're asking to add the 5.5 acres in order to do that, moving from TR1 to TR3. Currently, the density of the nine acre park is 10.77 units to the acre. The additional 33 sites on 5.5 acres will add six units to the acre. There is a wetland on the undeveloped portion that we are trying to avoid, which you'll see in the documents I gave you. There is a survey and the zoning exhibit, variance exhibit. So you see in the boundary survey that has the green square of where the wreck is, You see the two different parcels. Then if you look at the rezoning and variance exhibit, you'll see where the wetland is, where the stormwater pond. And this is a very old site. So this will actually increase the recreational area for the existing residents. It will protect the wetlands and will add more stormwater. So we're not seeking any waiver from the stormwater of any sort at the Board of Adjustment, just seeking a rezoning to the TR3 to expand. The operating hours of those of a single family home, there is an office up front that has normal business hours of approximately nine to six. There is nothing adjacent to this property to the east or the north. The staff report commented on an equestrian area, but the actual equestrian area is way far up to the north and to the east. Per staff report, the traffic impacts will be increased by 1.48%, but this Friday road corridor is only at 9.98% of traffic capacity. The staff report advises there are no material violations of relevant policies of the comprehensive plan. Again, the current zoning of TR1 requires a 5,000 square foot, 7,500 square foot home site. And we're going to the mobile home site of would be 4,000 per site, but we've obtained variances in anticipation of this rezoning. We couldn't come to rezone until we made the nine acres conforming. The new sites will be somewhat smaller, but they will have proper parking. The drive aisles will be the right size, which right now they are a little small, but they're one way in the existing mobile home parks. So the lot size for the variance is granted already by Board of Adjustment. For the single wide of 17 of them will be 2,444 square feet. And the double wide will be 3,196 square feet. But again, there will be lots of green space, which there currently is not at the existing mobile home park. The management had a, the Board of Adjustment asked if we'd talk to the residents. So the management held a barbecue on September 3rd, late afternoon barbecue into the early evening, and they had about a dozen residents show up. They were excited about the improvements, about the potential of a dog park, about some more recreation space, and about the improvement of the roads. So we did talk to the existing residents. And these are tenants. These are rental spaces. The mobile home park, not only if we make it through rezoning, we also have to make it through site plan, and then we also have to make it through the Department of Health. Department of Health regulates all mobile home parks. So in addition to the oversight at the county level, there will be additional oversight from the Department of Health. The existing mobile home park is already on county sewer and city water, and so it will remain on county sewer and city water. subject to permitting. With that, we request the rezoning of 5.5 acres to TR3. And if you have any questions, the engineer who created that sheet is here to answer any questions, as is the representative of the property owner, Sam.

Ms. Rosinko, while you stay right there, just give me a minute. Does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Okay, I'm going to close it for public comment. I bring it back to the board. We have any questions for the engineer or for Mrs. Rozenka?

Question. Is the elevation of the proposed property the same as the adjacent one?

Land and share 1361 Highway A1A. Final elevations haven't been determined yet. We're not through engineering yet. We're going to keep the elevations as close to the existing property as possible, but ultimately it will be determined by the stormwater calculations and what the peak stages of those ponds are.

I mean, the reason I asked that question is because the... Mr. Eric, could you get next to your microphone, please, sir? The reason I asked the question is because one of the submitted letters we have shows a lot of flooding in that adjacent trailer park area, and I'm just wondering whether there'd be any runoff, or will that be worked on or addressed?

Yeah, all the runoff for the proposed development will be contained on the proposed development, so the northern 5.5 acres. The existing southern 9 acres is just old and was constructed before stormwater was regulated. So it's just very dense. There's a lot of density on it with no stormwater infrastructure, and that's why you in turn see a little bit of – Flooding on the southern southern portion, but the intent I mean we will we will have to keep everything on the five and a half acres We'll be able to discharge it on the southern portion.

Thank you Mr. Eric you good. Yes, mr. Jordan.

Thank you, sir. I think Kim you actually answered the question. It's going to be on Water and sewer from them from the city. Is there any improvements for the roads and themselves? I

Not at this time internal to the park. If the owners wanted to mill and resurface the internal roads, they would be entitled to through maintenance, just standard maintenance as long as they don't really improve them, but they could mill and resurface them or do an overlay to kind of smooth them out if they wanted to.

So the operation of this is they are renting the property or they're renting the property and The trailers. Operational.

Sam Smith, 7 Gulfview Drive, Lafayette, LPA. Sorry I stood up because I heard about the road question. Our plan is to redo all the roads all at once. To my knowledge, economies of scales is our best friend. So if I am expanding the community, adding new roads, everyone else should benefit as well. That's all.

I have a question about operational.

Sorry, what was that? Operationally, are we renting the property or are we renting the property and you're putting a trailer on?

We are purchasing the homes from a manufacturer, and we sell those homes, and then they rent the land from us.

Okay. And you say you have mitigated the runoff from these newer homes from the older homes? Yes, sir. There's no problem.

Yes, sir.

Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Thank you, George.

Any other questions for the applicant from the board?

Move for approval. of the zoning classification from TR1 and TR3 to all TR3 in the mobile home park. Second.

Got a motion by Deb, a second by Jordan on item H4. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Okay, item H2.

Item H2, Thakacha and Silja Joseph, request zoning classification change from B1 with the BDP to B1 and removal of the existing BDP in addition of new BDP. Applications 26Z00030, located in District 1.

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

Yes. Greg Jean Denis. Last name is spelled J-E-A-N hyphen D-E-N-I-S. All right.

A little bit about what you're wanting to do there, Mr. Greg.

Yes. So this... The application requests to change the existing 100-foot vegetative buffer on the property. Right now, it's a nursery, and it's on US-1 and Cocoa. So the application requests to change the 100-foot buffer to a 25-foot buffer with vegetation and to change or to have the fence changed to a masonry cement fence that's six feet tall. It's, that's to bring it, to be consistent with the current code as to commercial or non-residential property that abuts a residential neighborhood. And so the request is to put that masonry wall up in the, to separate the properties.

All right, sir, while you're right there, is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item? Okay, I see we've got four people. Sir, if you could kind of step back over. Ma'am, if you could state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Beth Hands, H-A-N-D-S. I'm here representing my family and my parents who have owned and lived at 143 North Twin Lakes Road since 1982. This is our family home where my parents raised their children, welcomed their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We are one of the two residential properties directly affected by the adjoining commercial property and I want to clarify that I am here today representing my family independently and speaking specifically about our property and our experience. For many years, substantial vegetation separated our property from the adjoining commercial property and US-1. Since that vegetation was removed, my parents have experienced a significant loss of privacy and screening, increased dust and noise from nursery and construction activity, loss of portions of their lawn that depended on that shade, and concerns about the impact on their property value and their ability to peacefully enjoy their home. We have heard discussion about a 100-foot buffer. For my family, the immediate concern is that the vegetation that historically protected our home is gone. And commercial activity now extends to the area immediately adjacent to our property. We respectfully ask that the county to clarify what buffering and screening will actually be required, where it will be located, and what measures will be taken to provide meaningful protection between the commercial use and our home going forward. On a personal note, my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and dementia approximately two years ago. At this stage of my parents' lives, we are simply asking for a timely and fair resolution that allows them to enjoy their home with reasonable privacy, peace, and protection from the adjoining commercial activity. Thank you for your time and consideration. And I do have some images of what...

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

Sure.

Did we have another lady back there? Ma'am, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record.

My name is Dusty Parker. My last name is P-A-R-K-E-R. My address is 142 North Twin Lakes Road. I am a... Oh, my bad.

Go ahead. I'm sorry.

That's okay. I do want to clarify some things. I feel like I missed the attorney for the opposing side represented himself incorrectly. The buffer that was there has already been torn down. So the 100-foot buffer that we had in the BDP since 1982 was completely disregarded. He has already removed all of the vegetation in that lot all the way back to the fence line. What he also, I believe, misspoke about is in the application, it says that he's trying to put a 25-foot vegetative buffer with a six-foot steel fence, which I think when he spoke earlier, he said a masonry fence or a masonry wall, which is actually what would be to code. This has a direct impact on the way that our neighborhood looks. I have lived in my house since 2004. When you drive up the neighborhood, all the trees canopy everywhere. You drive up the south side now and it's a complete stark abandonment of that buffer zone. You can see directly across the road, all the way across US 1 to the neighboring public storage facility that's there. We've already had a zoning like this and a request on a previous business that is just two businesses to the north of this. We came to a resolution where the business erected an eight-foot masonry wall and a 25-foot vegetative buffer. So anything less than that, I think, would be an insult, really. I mean, the damage is already done. They've already ripped it all out. I do have some photos here that go back to 2007, 2016, and it shows the vegetative buffer that's behind my house that is 100 foot and what is now lacking on the south side to that.

Okay. Now, we have photos also in our package.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Sir, you want to speak? We should know the drill by now. State your name, spell your last name, please, for the record.

Sir, good afternoon, Board. My name is Tom Morgan, M-O-R-G-A-N. Before I begin, I'd like to thank Code Enforcement for working with us to alleviate some of the lighting problems in the evening that are occurring as a result of the vegetative buffer being removed. I would not be standing here before you today if the buffer was not removed. Nor would we have purchased our house approximately five plus years ago knowing we'd be looking at commercial businesses and traffic on US 1. The binding development plan, which I believe is in resolution Z6088, and I quote, is subject to a 100 foot buffer, a 100 foot barrier in the east end of the property per building site plan. This buffer was put in place to provide a separation between residential and commercial properties. In a prior county correspondence, it indicated that changing the land designation, and I quote, is strongly incompatible with the single land use to the area to the east. Also, from a 1993 report, the hammock that was destroyed was a mature canopy. This canopy had trees, 100 trees ranging in size from 6 to 60 feet. I mean, scenario, wouldn't you need a permit to cut down trees? Evidently, I guess they thought not. Additionally, this correspondence also indicated removal would cause damage to our ecosystem to include bird habitat, food source, and their population. Presently, the removal of the 100-foot buffer has compromised our neighborhood. We have increased light issues. It has increased the intensity of vehicle and train noise. We can view the commercial buildings and vehicles traversing US-1. This has changed the character of our neighborhood negatively. I implore the board to act as passports have to retain and uphold the existing 100-foot barrier and to... Order the immediate restoration of the hardwood hammock.

Okay. Sorry, sir. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, do you want to speak also? If you could state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Hi. My name is Brad Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R. I'm a board member of the Twin Lakes Residence Association representing all 46 of our membership. Our neighborhood is immediately to the east of the property involved in this zoning application. I appreciate your time and consideration as I share our thoughts and concerns with you. We are asking you to recommend denial of this rezoning request. For decades, a 100-foot natural vegetative barrier was required between the commercial property and the homes in our neighborhood. Much of that vegetation has now been removed, dramatically changing the separation between the commercial property and our homes. The current proposal would reduce the required buffer from 100 feet to only 25 feet and add a six-foot steel fence. We do not believe that provides adequate separation between commercial activity and an established residential neighborhood. The 100-foot buffer between this commercial property and our neighborhood has existed since 1982. It was specifically made a condition when the property was rezoned for commercial use. In 1993, the removal of the binding site plan was requested again, and the county commission denied it. This isn't an outdated restriction that serves no purpose. It is a long-standing protection specifically created to separate commercial activity from our residential neighborhood. The 100-foot vegetative buffer is intended to provide a buffer blocking noise pollution, floodlight pollution, and activities from the commercial business along U.S. Highway 1. The Twin Lakes Residents Association was established in 1965 and has fought long and hard to maintain separation between residents and commercial entities. The 50-foot trees and undercover should never have been removed. Please mandate that the owners of the Cocoa Botanical Garden survey the protected area, remove any structures that are encroaching on the 100-foot buffer, and replant native trees to restore the buffer and our privacy. The native trees will eventually grow back.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, did you say you wanted to speak? Okay, before I close it, I'm going to ask one more time, anyone else want to speak for or against this item? All right, I'm going to close this for public comment. Sir, do you want to come back up to the podium, please? You've kind of heard what the public is saying. Do you have any response for that?

Yes, and my clients here, we're well aware of how the neighbors feel about the change. He is proposing to reinstate a 25 foot buffer to address these concerns. You know, the code actually just, you know, it requires that the masonry fence, the cement, you know, fence dividing a commercial property from a residential property. And, you know, the previous owner may have agreed to additional a zone, an additional zone of this hundred feet, which was suitable for the mobile home that was the owner at that time. But, you know, the times have changed to the point where the properties, it's a nursery. It's a plant nursery. And, you know, it's a very peaceful property the way it's being maintained by my client. Also, The fact that when he purchased the property, he's actually cleaned it up. There were homeless people there. There was drugs being used on the property. There was a lot of illegal activity that he took the time to address, to clear it out, to make sure that it was a better Commercial property and a better neighbor for the residents that were abiding the property So he does care about you know addressing these issues from the the neighbors You know he is proposing at least a 25 foot buffer and to build that that masonry cement the block fence Rather than the fence that was proposed in the application, we've requested an amendment to it just to address these concerns, which is what other commercial properties are doing in the area. And there was a proposal about an eight-foot fence. I mean, my client, he's reasonable. He wants to consider... the request of the neighbors as well. But he does want to make this property consistent with neighboring properties, which he should be entitled to do. And so he requests that the application be approved based on that. He would address any questions specifically from the board as needed.

All right. I've got a question for staff. What is the barrier between residential and commercial?

So it does require a six-foot masonry wall. However, you can go up to eight feet in 622109. It also requires a Type A buffer, which is a 20-foot and width landscape buffer.

Okay. Seeing that, I bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Mr. Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

I was curious to know what process took place prior to the removal of all of the trees that were in fact removed. Was there permitting involved or anything else as far as paperwork or, um, I guess planning in place before that activity took place?

Right. The permit was not pulled before the vegetation was taken down. It was a mistake to take it down. And, you know, he apologized to the neighbors. He just didn't, he wasn't aware of the conditions.

Please, everybody. Thank you.

He was not the original owner that agreed to the setback, to the restrictions, which were in addition to what the code required. And so, you know, yes, the answer is no. He didn't pull a permit. And so, yes.

Okay. And secondly, if you do plan to reinstall a 25-foot barrier, what kind of vegetation are you focused on for that?

Okay. I mean, the specific type? Whatever is required, ma'am. he would try to match up the, you know, the vegetative, you know, in terms of the height of the trees, you know, to provide as much privacy to the residents. He's aware of the concerns that have been raised today, and so he would, you know, it takes time for these trees to grow, but, you know, the focus would be to try to provide, you know, comparable, you know, privacy and shade and, you know, for the residents that are next door.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Mr. Henry. Staff, what was, I'm trying to remember, 1980? What was our requirement on that particular site as a buffer? I know nobody was here in 1980, but what were the indicators?

In 1982, I can tell you.

That's right, same.

That they were required to have the 100-foot vegetative buffer on the east end of the property per the binding site plan.

And that was under the BDP?

That was under the binding site plan, yes.

That was in 1982? Yes. meandered around through this requirement. You know, it's real, it's just going to be real hard for me to, you know, Twin Lakes has been there a long time. And those people have been there a long time. So, you know, it's just hard for me to support something like that. That they haven't followed the code, they haven't followed nothing. They're just...

There's been a lot of discussion, and that's about it.

If I can add one more thing. They also received a variance, or the owner at that time, a couple months later, a variance to the wall requirement basically by saying they'll have the 100-foot buffer. So right now they're in violation of both, the BDP, or excuse me, binding site plan, and the variance, as well as unauthorized use of land because they removed it. There is some... Kind of conversation because they do have an ag exemption. However, in this case, they had a binding development plan as well. So our code doesn't exempt them from that binding development plan just because they have ag exemption.

Mr. Chairman.

I had Mr. Jordan ahead of you, Ron. One second.

Mr. Jordan. I will tell you I'm a little uncomfortable with this one also. Actually, the first question you have to ask is, is this BDP better than the old BDP? The answer has to be no. Right? Correct? When you're talking about people's property and you talk about being a good neighbor, you're really trying to help yourself, but you're not really being a good neighbor. That's my summation. With him doing this, is he going to increase the use of his property?

Sir, you're going to have to get to the microphone there, please, so we can hear you.

Sir, we have a house in there. We live there, too. So we're going to have no parking, no activity there, except keeping some plants there. No construction, nothing. And we're going to grow 25 feet trees. And we had problem with animals, raccoons, snakes coming to our home. We have our daughter, my son, and we have a serious problem with animals there. Snakes crawling to the house. So that's why we want to keep 25 foot, and we're not going to do anything except keeping some plant as a warehouse sort of thing. Just keep the plants in the pot. Whenever a customer wants, bring it out. That's all. Nobody goes there except us.

No activity. Your BDP, you're saying you accept a six foot Yes, sir. And then you're going to put vegetation? 25 foot. 25 foot. Yes, sir. So how is that an improvement on what is supposed to be there with the BDP? So you're really decreasing the requirements that was there since, I guess, 1982.

We didn't even know about those requirements.

I understand that, but you bought the land with that BDP there, right? Correct?

Yes. At the time of the sale, we were not told about it. and there was a hurricane and some of the trees fell and it was a danger to our house and that's why we removed those trees. An insurance company wouldn't cover our house. They said that we have to remove all those then only they will cover us, our property insurance. That's why we removed and we asked the company that did. They said since it's a problem, it's okay to do that.

So even though you say you would build a six foot fence, concrete fence, are you willing to build an eight foot fence?

We haven't discussed it yet.

Well, I mean, of course he wants to, you know, he wants to, you know, keep things at peace with the neighbors.

Sir, could you get in front of the microphone also, too, for a recording?

Yes, of course he wants to be at peace with the neighbors. I mean, if an eight-foot masonry wall is... something that would satisfy the neighbors, of course he would definitely consider to, you know, he has to find out, you know, do his due diligence, find out, you know, how much that was going to cost. But he does want to comply and just, you know, keep the peace with the neighbors. And so if that would provide the privacy and the, you know, the separation that they're seeking, I mean, he's a reasonable person.

And there was a lighting issue? Yes. FPL had two lights facing east, and I think this gentleman complained about it, and I called, made many phone calls to the upper management of the FPL. They finally removed it for us. So there is no lighting issue.

I hope not.

I hope not. There's still a lighting issue.

Okay. Let me ask something. Would it be better if you would go back and sit down with the neighbors and come up with something. I'd be happy to do that, sir. I hate for you to be denied the day and then you have to start all over again. I would suggest that you ask for this to be tabled. You sit with the neighbors and see if you can come up with something that everybody can live with.

Sure.

That would be my motion if that's possible, Mr. Chairman. We can vote on it, too.

Are you okay with that?

Yes, sir.

Staff?

If it's the board's direction to continue, it will be to the October 12th LPA PNZ meeting at three o'clock.

If we did continue this, it would go to October 12th. Did you hear what the attorney was saying?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Are you okay with that? Yes, sir. All right. I'm going to need a motion, Mr. Jordan, for that.

Okay. I move that we table this until the October 12th meeting. which requires you to sit down and talk to your neighbors and come up. Absolutely. Okay. That's my motion.

Who seconded it?

Mr. Eric. All right, we have a motion to table to continue to the October 12th meeting, item H2 by Jordan, a second by Eric. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay.

This will be heard by the county commissioners. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're tabling it. We're continuing it until the 12th.

Okay.

Item H5.

Item H5 and H6 are companion applications. They both require their own vote. H5. H5. Loseff and Lyda Myla Triolaga are requesting small scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from Res 4 to CC, community commercial. Application is 26SS00008. It's located in District 1. And Item 6, the same applicants are requesting a zoning classification change from GU to BU2. Application is 26C00032, also located in District 1. Sorry, thank you.

Thank you, man.

Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kim Rezanka. I'm here on behalf of Mr. and Mr. Togola, authorized by them for the contract purchaser Moffitt Properties LLC. The contract purchaser's representative, Parker Hudson, is here so he can tell you more about the site plan and other things. What I've given you for the most part is already in your agenda packet. This is in COCO. This is from your packet. Somewhere in the middle of nowhere, nothing developed around it. We're here for a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning on 2.3 acres. I've provided to you some of the documents from your package. I've just highlighted in red the property that's not in the city of Cocoa. That is the property that we are seeking to have the comp plan change from res 4 to community commercial and the zoning from GU general use, which is the holding category, to BU 2. What's in your packet? This is the comprehensive plan. That's what it would look like if you change the comprehensive plan from Res 4 to CC, right next to all that hatched area. That hatched area was annexed into the City of Cocoa. It is indeed now zoned into manufacturing a light industrial. I provided for you Ordinance 03-2026 from the City of Cocoa that does show that the rezoning was changed in April 28th of 2026. Your staff did not have that available to them at the time. The purpose of this expansion, and you had in your packet and I provided to you, the site plan for Sunbelt Rentals, Site Plan 25SP00041, which is in the county, and this is for future expansion of Sunbelt Rentals. Sunbelt Rentals provides tools and equipment for construction sites, government facilities, maintenance of health care facilities, and even backyard projects. You all may be familiar with Sunbelt Rentals. The COMP plant amendment, as I said, is for Res 4 to community commercialist undeveloped property. It does indeed have access to Grissom Parkway by easements in its deed, but we'll be joined with this property so it will have access through the Sunbelt Rental site plan. The Sunbelt Rental site plan even has a 30-foot easement shown on it. It's hard to see on the north edge. There is community commercial to the west. There is industrial, 46 acres to the east from what you're seeing with the Cocoa annexation. Staff report says preliminary concurrency for transportation did not indicate a deficiency in level of service. Any proposed development would need to be addressed during a site plan phase, and the development will be required to meet performance standards. Flu policy four, staff report state-specific concurrency issues will be addressed at time of the site plan review. For the rezoning, the 2.3 acres from GU to BU2. GU is a holding category. It's for when you don't know what to do with the property. It's usually supposed to have five acres. This is 2.3 for the two parcels at issue.

We'll bring it back to the board. Do we have any questions for her or her partner?

Mr. Chair? Yes, ma'am. Is this property going to contain more warehousing or exactly what you want to zone? What structures are going to be placed on it?

We don't have a site plan yet, ma'am. This is for future expansion. It may be for warehouses. It may be for lay-down space for the rental equipment. We don't know yet. But the opportunity was to purchase this now to allow for expansion.

Okay. And the City of Cocoa's property adjacent to this, I see. It looks like it might be water containment, or can you unpack exactly what's on that city property?

Sure. It's not owned by the City of Cocoa. It's intended for an industrial project. I don't know exactly what it was in place. I do know. I do have the staff report, so I do know what they were intending to do with that. That 46 acres... industrial complex with warehouse and distribution operations and contractor offices, light and heavy manufacturing, outdoor storage, and heavy equipment rental repair service and sales. That was the concept planned, and they had photos in the COCO agenda of April 28, 2026, file ID 2026-296. So that was the purpose of the annexation and rezoning in the city of COCO. It's just in the city. It's not owned by the city.

Mr. Eric.

What is the 2.3 acres that you have outlined there?

That's the property we intend to rezone. That's the property we're asking to rezone.

And how is it accessed? There's a separation there, what I don't understand.

It's actually not the site plan. The site plan actually includes these two parcels, so it's actually 10 acres. So this will be adjacent to this, and they will be combined by unity of title.

I see. Thank you.

And they actually do have a deed at easement all the way along the top here at the north, but that's not their intent to use that.

Another question, Mr. Chair. Did I understand correctly, they want 2.5 acres petitioned to be rezoned, and you said something about 10 acres that will be...

The 10 acres is the Sunbelt rental site plan that's already in process right now. It's in review, and I keep doing this backwards. So this site plan, this was just a rendering created by our engineer. So this is Sunbelt Rentals. This is eight acres. This is another two acres. And that's actually going to have some stormwater for the Sunbelt Rentals. So this all encompasses 10 acres. It's already future land use community commercial and BU2. And then this will be adjacent to it.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Mr. Chairman, do I have to read all of this? Okay. I move that we approve the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use vaccination from Res 4 to CC. Thank you.

Okay, you got a motion by Jordan on item H5, a second by Deborah. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passed unanimously.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I also move that we approve requesting a zoning classification change from GU to BU2.

Okay, got a motion by Jordan on item H6. I got a second by Deborah. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

And that passes unanimously. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Item H7.

Yes, item H7, Defender Homes Airways Heights LLC requests a zoning classification change from RR-1 to RU-1-11 with a BDP. Application is 26Z00034. It's located in District 5.

You're earning your money today, Ms. Rosenga. This is going to be an easy one, though. All those willing to speak against this, go ahead and leave. Or for it.

I THINK I GAVE YOU TOO MANY. Good evening, Chairman, members of Planning and Zoning. My name is Kim Rozenka. I'm here on behalf of Defender Home Airways, LLC. This is a project 14.37 acres on Turtle Mound Road. This is the old radio station. I would say three-quarters of you have heard the earlier version of this. We were sent back to redo the application and come back. We have reduced the request to limit the RU-111 zoning to 14 units, which would be consistent with the RR1 zoning category of one unit to the acre. This request for zoning is to allow flexibility in designing the lots around a large wetland. You can see the wetland on the first page, that big section in the middle. It's either even further defined in the other maps that are in your staff report. The zoning in the area, the density will remain the same. I know that was a concern. You'll remember we came through here asking for townhomes. Neighbors didn't like it. We reduced it to RU 111 to allow 7,500 square foot homes. Still didn't like the density. And so we've come back and said we will limit it to 14 units. And again, the reason for doing that is because of the large objective measurement of the number of people or units allowed per land, such as residents or employees per acre. So with the RR1 with one unit per acre, there could be 14 homes there. This is just allowing the flexibility.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, please, we've got to get through this.

Page two of the packet is the zoning map from your package. with some highlighting annotation. The conception is that this is an RR1 community. It is not. When you look to the east, you have the trailer park of TR3, which we talked about earlier. That's 4,000 square foot sites. When you look to the south of that trailer park, you have TR1A, which is 5,000 square foot sites. You look across Aurora Road to RU17, those are also 5,000 square foot home sites. The development to the east, excuse me, I get my directions confused, to the west, to the east, is Fox Bay. And that's the EU2 zoning. And that is a number of concerns have been raised by them. We're asking for 7,500 square foot homes. Doesn't mean we're going to be all 75 square foot homes. It's just the flexibility to work around that wetland. I showed you from the proper appraisals website the properties immediately to the east across Turtle Mound in Fox Bay. The one unit is 65304, 6534 square feet. The one south is 7840. So a home of 7500 square foot lots is right there in the middle. I've also provided to you the RU-17 zoning code, which does so 5,000 square feet. Again, we're asking for 75,000 square feet. Much of your public opposition is from an attorney representing Mr. Schiffer. I say that. Schiffer. Schiffer. And that's on page 5. Mr. Schiffer has a home that's only 0.15 of an acre. It's represented on page 6. Again, close to the site, but a small lot. Smaller than actually what we're seeking. The staff report goes on... In manners I've not really seen before, talking about floodplains and aquifer recharge and stormwater plans, which was not mentioned when we were here in April. So I was looking at the codes, and you'll see on page seven of your packet, one, general design standards. There's going to be a buffer around this entire subdivision. Page 8, section 72.3723. This is talking about development in floodplains will not have an adverse impact. Of course it won't. The staff won't allow it to do so. So this is not site planned. This has not been fully developed. This is a rezoning with the binding development plan to limit to 14 units. You go on to 623723 subsection 6. All site plans, plats, building permits, and other active development orders shall meet standards for plus hazard reduction. If you want that in a BDP, we'll put it there, but your code already has it. under page nine, 62-2892, construction and design for subdivision drainage. A system shall be provided for draining the lots, roads, streets, and the subdivision for handling drainage runoff that comes into or across the subdivision from outside. This is the pre-development, post-development issue. This subdivision, if it goes forward, will meet all of the code criteria. It will have to. Finally, your staff cites to 62-3724 for development regulations, specifically on page 11 to section 3, isolated floodplain. Development within an isolated floodplain shall not negatively impact adjacent properties or receiving water body quality. That's the recommended suggestion to put in the BDP. We're fine with that because that's what will be done anyway. Page 12 also talks about compensatory storage. I have in here for the record, On page 13 and 14, the addendum for the prior zoning of 26Z0008 for the purpose of the Brevard County Stormwater Management has stated they have concerns. That's all they said when we were here back in April. They've now extended it to a full page in the staff report. I'm understanding we'll hear from someone about that later. Regarding the water and sewer, we haven't designed it yet. We can get water, it's the sewer that's an issue. And the city has said they don't have sewer. There is something that's coming before the Board of County Commissioners this year. It's called, page 15 shows it. It's one such provider is called Onsite. It's a private Onsite wastewater treatment plant. It's different than a septic plant. It's something coming for the county first, and hopefully will go to all the cities. So again, that is a plat issue, a design issue. All things dealing with septic, sewer, water, lot design, flooding, those are all plat issues. And so those will all be handled if this rezoning with the BDP is approved. I just showed you this on-site system to show that there are options and that just because Melbourne says they won't give it to us doesn't mean we can't get sewer from some other mechanism. So regarding the analysis from many of the residents that this is an incompatible zoning due to Carolwood, Carol Wood is only up here. I have a much better diagram. So in order to look at compatibility from a true unit-to-unit count, we prepared this analysis. And starting with the fuchsia color on the left, That's the Village Glen. That's the mobile home park. That's the TR3, the 4,000 unit, the 4,000 sites, 4,000 square foot sites. The yellow, is Carolwood. It does not abut Carolwood Drive. Those are one acre lots, I do agree. And there are one acre lots to the north of Village Green. But Carolwood is not the predominant zoning in this area when you look at everything else. When you go up to Ranchwood, that is also, I take that back, that's also one unit to the acre. But if you go to the pink, Kingsmill, that's six units to the acre. Actual density is 2.62 when you count the units. Then you come down to Fox Bay. That's an EU2 zoning. Those are 9,000 square foot lots allowed, but as I showed you, some are even as small as 6,500 square feet. So this is a mix of zoning. It's all residential. It is all single family homes. What we're requesting is single family homes that allow, with the binding development, to go to 7,500 square feet. What's not on here are the other mobile home parks to the south of this area. You have Aurora Pines Mobile Home Park, Rachel Mober Home Park, Hibiscus Mobile Haven Mobile Home Park, and then you have the Housing Authority right here to the corner of Village Glen, and it's got 25 duplexes. So this is a... neighborhood of many different uses. The request to limit this property to 14 is consistent with the density that the neighbors want and it allows the flexibility for this to be developed. So with that we would request approval of the rezoning to RU 111 with the BDP limiting the density to 14 units to the acre. And I'll leave this map up here for the residents to use if they choose to do so.

OK. All right. Kim, if you'll.

All right.

Now, we've already been down this road, ladies and gentlemen. So I'm going to give you an option again. Can I see a show of hands of who is wanting to speak for or against this item? So if you hold on there one second. We got one, two, no, hold your hands up, please. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. Okay, we got 17. We have 17 people at two minutes apiece, 34 minutes. Or do you want me to give a couple people? I'm trying to work with you here. Okay, well, when you come up, we'll just start on this side up front. Sir, if you would, come on, state your name, spell your last name for the record. And please, ladies and gentlemen, we don't want to hear about stormwater 30 times, about traffic, about the value of your home. If we can't be, you know, let's try not to be redundant on this. All right, sir, here we go.

My name is Steve Cordell, C-O-R-D-E-L-L. Excuse me. I handed the letter out from the Wendover Farms HOA. I'm the director at the HOA. We represent 741 homes off Turtle Mountain Road. But if I understand what Ms. Rezinka was saying, she's going to limit this project to 14 total houses on the entire cut spread, I have no problem with it. I just didn't like the density she was going after before. She's gonna limit it to 14 homes, I'm okay with that. As long as she doesn't do it per acre, if it's for the total project.

Ladies and gentlemen, please, hey, if you don't mind, can we just talk while we got the microphone, because we need to have it on record.

Am I understanding that correctly? She said 14 for the entire project, not per acre.

Correct.

So 14 houses total for the whole acreage. Right. I'm okay with that.

Thank you. Okay, we had another person over here who wanted to speak for or against this item.

Hello, sir. Hello, fellow board. I'm Mayor Paul Alprey with the City of Melbourne. Normally, we've had my Vice Mayor, Julie Kennedy, come up. She couldn't be here today, so I took the liberty to come out. And our council has discussed this already. We've had a letter fired off to the Planning and Zoning Commission Development Department, the City of Melbourne. This parcel is within the City of Melbourne Utilities Service Area for both potable water and municipal sewer. However, the City of Melbourne at this time does not have the capacity for the sewer. I heard a little bit ago from Ms. Rozenka that something new is coming. I don't know what that is. All I can say is what's important to me is responsible development. As a government, to say I'm going to go ahead and approve something and build something without the capacity to hook it up to sewer to me is irresponsible. Applause So, and again, I'm just coming up here to let you know that our council unanimously agreed on this, that we do not have the capacity for this. We're looking in 2029, we have a project about $2 million, but that's to replace a six inch from Marywood all the way to Wickham. So even in 2029, when we do the replacement of the six inch cast iron, That's not an upgrade. That is merely updating infrastructure. So I would request that this board denies this on the fact that we do not have the proper infrastructure. Thank you, sir.

Mayor, mayor.

Mr. Mayor, hold on. We had it.

Thank you for being here and thank you for letting us know the concerns of the city of Melbourne. I know that you have discussed this with your board. I was wondering, is this the same with 14? Houses versus possibly 56 or more houses, do you feel like you have no capacity?

No capacity. Okay, thank you. Zero capacity. I just spoke to Ms. Lamb. You're familiar with Ms. Jenny Lamb, our city manager and also our prior city engineer. We don't have any capacity whatsoever. So, you know, that's something that's very unfortunate. But, again, to me, responsible government is not approving something that we don't have no capacity for. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, I'm still on this side over here. Okay, sir, if you could come on up, state your name, spell your last name for the record, and get as close to that microphone as we can.

My name is Richard Nink, N-I-N-K. I'm a resident off of Parkway, close to Turtle Mound. I'm against this rezoning. and I ask you to deny this rezoning request. The zoning change is not compatible with the rest of the area, and I'm gonna go through that. Okay, this property is actually the Turtle Mound Corridor, not what Ms. Rosenko was showing you on the other side of Aurora and areas that were zoned and locked in long before, in the 1950s, before this zoning that we're talking about now. For driveways that are on Turtle Mound, and as this corridor extends to Pinecone and up the post, as well as all the way up to the linear trail, these are plots that are one acre plus. There's not RU 111 anywhere along this corridor. So as we look at that map, Yes, she highlighted a few areas, but those have been there forever. This is a new rezoning request that is not compatible. It is a driveway that is going to be on Turtle Mound, and you go all the way up, and it's all RR1, REU in the city of Melbourne, REU or AEU, and these are all estates. And it's one acre plus. So really, we're asking the zoning, the rezoning to be denied based on it's not compatible. It's not compatible with what she's showing you. You have to look at the right corridor and that corridor that extends up. I mean, these are estates that have horses. These are large properties. They are not areas where the houses are bunched in on this corridor. Thank you.

Thank you.

On this side over here, anyone else want to speak for or against this? Ma'am, come on up.

Yeah, because this is where Carolwood really is. Exactly. I don't know how to get it there, but there's Carolwood Drive, and there's a subject.

Ma'am, you need to state your name and spell your last name for the record.

My name is Wendy Browning and I live at 4080 Kerrywood Drive. I want to start by saying that what this panel and ultimately the commissioners decide will set a precedent for all of the Lake Washington area for the future. If this rezoning with the BDP is allowed, allowing a higher density of homes clumped onto whatever buildable space there is, it can open the door to doing this on all the other acreage properties in the area. Once this is allowed, it will go on from here. Properties that were previously restricted by wetlands and environmental concerns could see multiple homes clumped onto where one used to exist. Second of all, this matter was already decided on June 15th. At that point, this panel voted against recommending the same zoning that we are here for today. You have to excuse me, but I have an arrhythmia. The addition of the BDP to this application.

Could you pull that microphone a little closer to you, please?

The addition of the BDP to this application only serves to make it appear as if there's been some sort of a concession. It only serves to release the county from obligation for maintenance and infrastructure. We fear that this BDP will become null and void once the property owner asks for water. When applying for water hookup, residents in unincorporated Brevard are asked to sign the City of Melbourne pre-annexation agreement. The primary purpose of that agreement is to allow the property that is currently in unincorporated Brevard to connect to Melbourne's municipal water or sewer system. In exchange for getting those utilities, the owner legally promises that they will allow their land to be formally annexed. Can anyone guarantee that that won't happen, thus null avoiding the BDP and the 14 homes? and leaving us with an R111 and as many homes as they want.

Exactly. I'm going to have a heart attack.

Okay, thank you, ma'am. Like I'm supposed to be the pacemaker.

Anyone else on this side want to speak for or against this item? Sir, come on down. If you would state your name, spell your last name, and if we can get as close to that mic as possible. I can do that, sir.

Roger Baxter, B-A-X-T-E-R. As a former landowner of this piece of property, we had done everything we could do to develop this with 11 lots. 11 at the time, the city said they could do that, but that was 10 years ago. So I'm sure they can't do it now. You can't, I'll skip all that. It's just a moral ethic at this point. We were not going to sell this piece of property to somebody without telling them the problems that we had. And we told these people their owner. that we couldn't do it. And he assured us that he was only after the two back pieces that are high and dry in the corner. So we went ahead and sold it to him. But I guess we were lied to. So that's integrity. And that's all I have to say about that. Thank you.

Ma'am, if you could come on. Sir, I got you next. Yes.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Terry Weber, and I live at 4075 Janewood Lane, and I'm currently the president of the Carol Wood Estates HOA. And the reason I'm here is because I've lived in that neighborhood for 30 years, raised my kids, moved there for one specific reason, for the acreage. And we know there are other developments around our area that is changing, but we don't want where we moved to change. Carol Water States has a neighborhood of 60 homes. Each one is situated on one to two and a half acres of land. And the other people, the lawyers trying to make it out like there's these little tiny homes in that area, and there are not. There's plenty of developments that have large acreage, and they move there for a specific reason. And I do understand that the whole area is changing. And I'm not against development. But I do believe that we need to make sure the growth is planned responsibly and that the voices of families who have lived there for decades are heard. I mean, a lot of us have lived there a really long time. I'm not going to get into what the development can cause us, but I do ask that the board please think about the quality of life of the families who already live there for a very long time and what adding these smaller homes in different locations may actually mean to the people that currently live there. And I am just deeply concerned about this for the future of Colorado State and all the neighboring developments in the area. So that's all I have to say. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. If you would, come on down. Sir, if you could state your name and spell your last name, please.

I'm Glenn J. Rokoff, R-O-K-O-F-F. I live on Harlock Road. And I really hadn't planned on speaking today. I just had a question. If it's 14 acres and you take out five acres for the wetlands and then you take out another two acres for roads and whatever else, that leaves a half acre per house? Is that basically what she's saying? They were saying 7,500 square foot lots. So that's it. Well, that sounds to me like a half acre if she's talking about 14 units.

Please, okay, just the person at the mic talk. We've got to at least get what we can here on record.

She said 14 houses. Isn't that what she said?

If possible, yes.

So that's a half-acre lot.

I don't know the exact dimensions.

Okay. I just wanted a clarification on what she was talking about. That's all. Okay. Thank you.

I've been on Harlock Road for 40 years. I'm sorry?

I've been on Harlock Road for 40 years. I guess I consider myself a Harlock elder. There you go. And I know you're around the corner on Lake Washington. I know.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Come on, ma'am.

Good afternoon.

If you can state your name and spell your last name.

Sure. It's Alison Sferrazza, S-F-E-R-R-A-Z-Z-A. And I am a resident of the area on Harlock Road. And I just have one thing to bring to this board's attention. And it has to do with the gentleman who sold the lot to him about his ethical behavior or unethical behavior. This person who's procured this lot has a... serial kind of not following public code. He's got code violations at his house that he's done repairs for and still waiting for variance afterwards. He's done it on his property at 1275 South Patrick Drive, Suit C and Suit H, where he has allowed for building without permits and then tried to squeeze things in without it. He is right now seeking a variance for things after the fact. So I think we need to consider the Person as well, and we're saying this is all gonna be good after the fact well He has a proven track record of breaking basically code and then going for after the fact Doing something about it, so I don't think we should go forward with this type of person as well I just want to bring that to your attention Okay, I'm gonna close this side if I don't see another hand all right You were just in time

You've got to state your name and spell your last name, please, for the record.

My name is Tamsen. My last name is Wright, W-R-I-G-H-T. I was five years old when I moved to Turtle Mound Road in 19, I want to say 86, but that's giving away my age. And it's a beautiful place to live. My parents live on the other end of Turtle Mountain Road now. And the traffic situation, Turtle Mountain was put through essentially the neighborhood, extended. And the situation with the noise, the traffic there is already pretty extreme. There have also been a number of accidents at the intersection of Aurora and Turtle Mountain Road, and I know that there would have to be some kind of road put through, or entrances to the neighborhood put there, which would put additional stress on that area. You can sit in their backyard, and occasionally you'll just hear two cars hit each other. That intersection is dangerous, and I don't know that... absorbing even more high density housing. I don't see this being for 14 homes if they're acre lots, but I think that adding additional people there is going to put more strain on that intersection. It's already very dangerous. And the noise pollution in the neighborhood there by Benelli Court is extreme. And I think that that should be taken into consideration as well. We also have a huge wetland in that area that needs to be considered. And I think that the ethical concerns about the builder, it seems like I'm going to do what I want now and then go ahead and ask for forgiveness later. And that needs to be taken into account to somebody with that kind of track record.

OK. Thank you. Okay, on this side over here, we got any more people want to speak for or against it? Going once. Going twice. Okay, I'm going to close this side for public comment. And we'll open it up over here if you want to start in the first row. Anyone want to speak for or against it? If you would, ma'am, come up, state your name, spell your last name, please.

Good afternoon, my name is Chris Hardy and I'm at 4395 Lake Glen Drive, right off of Lake Washington. We are all very blessed to live within the Lake Washington area and we do not take it for granted. But when we look out across the land, we also wonder how long these views are going to last and exist in Florida. We are watching development spread at an incredible pace. Woods disappear, open land gets cleared, roads become more congested, and communities that once had their own character are transformed almost overnight. Growth itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but unchecked growth without proper planning has consequences. What concerns us all the most is the lack of accountability from many of our elected officials. Too often it seems like the question is not whether another development is good for the people who already live here, but simply how quickly it can be approved. Meanwhile, residents are left dealing with the increased traffic, strained infrastructure, disappearing green space, pressure on our water resources, and the gradual loss of the character of Lake Washington. We don't believe protecting it means stopping all development. It means demanding responsible development. It means asking whether our infrastructure can support it, whether our natural resources can sustain it, and whether the people making the decisions are putting Florida residents ahead of the developers and the special interests. I just worry that if we continue down the path we're on, one day we'll look across the same backyard and see rooftops, street lights and other subdivisions where trees used to be. Some things, once we allow them to disappear, never come back. Please preserve the character of Lake Washington where Indians once roamed and were animals now home. Thank you.

Ma'am, if you want to come up.

Good afternoon. My name is Suzanne Bella. I live at 5225 Sand Lake Drive, which my property actually backs up to the woods that go from Sand Lake all the way out to the flea market.

Can you spell your last name? I'm sorry.

It's B like beautiful, E-L-L-A-H.

Okay.

All right. So my concern, of course, is the precedent that's going to be set here because of the 500 acres behind my own home. So we just want to make sure that we specifically know what we're dealing with. When somebody buys a property and you have a zoning problem, already attached to it, that is what you have to deal with. When I bought my property, it was one house per acre. I didn't ask anybody to change the zoning, give me a variance or anything. I knew what I had, what I had to deal with, and I had to follow the rules because inspectors were coming out to see what was going on. So if this property can fit five houses, Let's see how it can fit five houses. Obviously, it can't take 14 units because it's got the water there and roads, things that have to be built. So what I would like is to know exactly what they're going to put there. What is the definition of a unit? And to clarify that Carol Wood does go right next to that property. Her map did not show it correctly.

Okay, thank you. Ma'am, if you could state your name and spell your last name. Sure.

My name is Erica Allen, A-L-L-E-N, 3908 Lightning Bug Lane, about 15 houses north of this subject property. I've lived on Turtle Mountain Road since 1971, so that'd be 55 years. My parents bought property on Turtle Mountain Road in the early 60s in 2006. I built a house there. Many of the residents here tonight in this area are also generational residents. While I support responsible growth and development, the proposal is incompatible with the existing community and I strongly oppose the proposed development. Their statement of their proposal of 7500 square feet is actually .15 acres, not a house per acre. Any development should remain consistent with the current RR1 zoning designation, one house per acre. The developer bought the property knowing full well that was what the current zoning was and it should remain the same as how they purchased it. There isn't any reason to change the zoning just because they want it. There has been no underlying change in the community to warrant this. The attorney won't specify exactly what they're going to do with the property and trying to play... play with words and be completely disingenuous in my opinion. The density proposed is excessive and completely incompatible with the character of our community, the area, That conveniently is never mentioned by the applicant is the entire community to the north and west, most of which the people here today are in opposition from or in that area. As you can see from this map and as many others have pointed out, her map is not correct. The rest of the community north and west is RR1, which is what that property is and needs to remain the same. That's basically what I want to say. Okay. Thank you.

Ma'am, if you could come up, state your name, and spell your last name.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS DIANE AND MY ADDRESS IS 2445 TURTLE MOUNTAIN ROAD. WE WERE HERE IN JUNE AND JULY OPPOSING THIS APPLICATION FOR RU 26 AND WE ALSO OPPOSE FOR RU 111. I'm asking you to deny the binding development plan and deny the rezoning. There's been a lot of discussion, incompatibility with the character of our community. Representative Thomas, you mentioned that at our last hearing, that it was incompatible with our community. Once you open up this change of zone, it creates a floodgate of opportunity for any person who owns property in Lake Washington to have their property rezoned. We can't come back from that. And that's what everyone needs to know. There are other families here who live adjacent to the property. I'm really concerned about flooding. and how that will in a in a strictly change their way of being if you look closely at the light our map the flood zones for twenty five year hundred year really take a close look at that uh... also uh... not that this specific item is relevant to the application today but the property owner has code violations on the property, the property is noticed for those code violations. He is two years behind in his property taxes and currently has liens on those as well. Those tax deeds have been sold. So I mean, it just points to the character and integrity of the applicant. How can we trust anything that they're asking for? Thank you.

Okay, anyone, ma'am, if you want to come up? And if you could state your name and spell your last name.

With pleasure. S-E-E-T-A, first name. Last name is D-U-R-J-A-N, hyphenated. E-S-M-A-I-L-B-E-G-U-I. Sita Durjan Ismail Beghi.

OK.

And I live at 3720 Lake Washington Road, Melbourne, Florida. So I know you said you didn't want to hear too much about drainage problems, but I think before someone tries to transform a community, reinvent a neighborhood, reshape the local area, they need to know that for those of us who live out in Lake Washington area, there's absolutely nothing wrong with one house per acre. We bought our lot knowing very well that's what we were going to build. And we built one house. The problem is I live right on Lake Washington Road. And in the evenings, there's tons of traffic, accidents, At that stop sign at the corner of Lake Washington and Turtle Mount, you can hear the brakes screeching. There are people on golf carts. There are children walking. There are people riding their bicycles. It is a community. It is where we choose to live. When someone purchases the property and decides that he's not going to look into developing the property and drainage problems, the roads, the kind of folks that would be coming into our neighborhood, which is A-OK. But we need to know what exactly he's planning to do with that building or that land. Because as it is right now, we have enough problems with Lake Washington. We don't need to change the face of Lake Washington so that politicians could take pictures for photo ops or people could come into our neighborhood and What I would like to say, get gritty? No, we don't need that. So it's one lot per acre. We like it to stay that way because we bought it knowing very well that's where we were going to live.

Okay, thank you. We're working our way back.

HI, MY NAME IS HEIDI WELCH. I LIVE AT 2101 MARYWOOD ROAD. I HAVE FIVE ACRES. EVERYBODY ON MARYWOOD IS TWO AND A HALF ACRES TO MY FIVE. IT'S ALL AG. I do have horses. There's a lot of people in Lake Washington along Carolwood Road that has horses. I moved out there 27 years ago and built a house on five acres for my horses. I enjoy the... country and I also enjoy I'm here for the animals coyotes and Fox and Bobcats run through my pastures. I just absolutely love seeing them raccoons opossums. And I want to tell you that property that they're trying to develop, that's where they live. That's the wetlands. That's where the coyotes live. That's where everything, all those animals that come through the neighborhood live. And if you develop that, you're just running out the animals and I'm a love animals. And that's why I moved there.

Okay.

And that's wetlands. I'd love to see that become an animal preserve or some kind of a park or leave it to the animals.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, my name's Renee Kowalski, K-O-W-A-L-S-K-E. My husband and I reside at 3955 White Road, which is located directly across the street. When I exit the front door of my house, I exit to the proposed property development. We have one and a half acres, and my next door neighbor has two and a half acres. My husband's family has been residents of Melbourne for over 106 years. My family has resided here for 66 years. When I was growing up, it was a dream of both of ours to move to the country and be surrounded by local wildlife and horses of Turtle Mountain and Lake Washington. 28 years ago, we purchased our dream property on Turtle Mountain White Road and built our dream home. We've lived here for over 27 years, and I absolutely love our area. Ask any native Oak Alley and Melbourne resident where the country is in Melbourne, and they'll tell you Turtle Mountain Lake, Washington. We have beautiful bobcats, several different turtles that pass through our yard and have seen several growthful turtles on the proposed property as well as Florida scrub jays, red-tailed hawks, barred owls, giant otters, great horned owls, pileated woodpeckers, swallow-tailed kites nest here every year as well as eagles. Our yard is a certified wildlife habitat recognized by the National Wildlife Federation as well as a Monarch Way Station. I have seen the endangered Florida scrub jays on this property that they're proposing to destroy. Florida scrub jays are a threatened under the Endangered Species Act. AND THEY HAVE DECLINED 90% DUE TO HABITAT LOSS. WE ENJOY WATCHING OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS RIDE HORSES DOWN WHITE AND TURTLE MOUNTAIN. THERE ARE PEOPLE ON WHITE ROAD THAT OWN HORSES.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

Hello. Terry Dexter, 4400 Kennard Road. I live in Wendover Farms area.

Could you spell your last name too?

D-E-X-T-E-R, like the murderer. My problem with this whole thing, I'm going to speak drainage, but it's from 1975-76. This property... What's the problem? Village Glen was built there. And when it was, the drainage was on this property. Now, all these years, that water's been going to this property. Val Steele, Joe Wickham. Lee Winter, Gene Roberts all voted for this to go there. At this time, flood control, St. John's Water Management was not there when Village Glen went in. The county commissioners could allow with that water drainage. So I don't understand how they got the property The past owners with this being a drainage property with those towers here. And that's going to be the problem. When they go in there and develop this, this water is going to go some damn where? And it's going to go on the mobile homes? It's going to go on these people's property? It's going to go on a lot of property. It's used for drainage. And where's that water going to go? It's pretty interesting. The mayor of Melbourne coming here and saying, hey, it can't happen. It's not going to work. I'm sorry, but I've got to ask this question to the attorney. They're going to have a sewage thing. Where are they going to put it at? In the middle of White Road and the middle of Turtle Mound Road with 14 houses? Something's got to be said about it. Something's got to be done, and I don't think this should go through. That's just my opinion. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Anybody else over here want to speak for or against this? Ma'am, if you could state your name and spell your last name.

Sure. Michelle Ritchie, R-I-T-C-H-I-E. I live at Village Glen. I've been there for 10 years. And the land does get flooded quite a lot already. And the main thing I want to say besides that, it's the safest place I've ever lived in my whole life. I'm from Tampa originally, and I've never lived in a mobile home park before. And I can go outside and walk the street anytime. I have never been approached. I've never been harmed. It is the safest and quietest place I've ever lived, and I love it. I'm so grateful that this little bit of land, which I call Florida land, it's the way it was when I grew up, is still around. And I don't want it disturbed because the environment counts on it and the people that love the environment count on it. And so I sure hope that you can turn this down. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to speak for or against this item over here?

I wanted to, I'm turning this in for, oh, sorry. Alice Hartnall, H-A-R-T-N-O-L-L. I was turning in our petition, and it's got 14, 1,415 signatures.

Can we take that now, or?

Is that later?

Sure, we can accept that and put it into the record.

Yes, sir. And then I just had another one I wanted to reiterate that the lawyer kept saying 14 units. And does that mean a house or is that some other unit? I'd like clarification on that. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else over here wanna speak for or against this item?

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon. You can pull that mic down to you. Better. Retired school teacher, I can talk louder than this. My name is Phyllis Curry, C-U-R-R-Y. I live at Trout Island Place, O'Galley, Florida. My parents moved me in 1956 to O'Galley. In 1960, we moved to a house in Leawood Forest on Leawood Boulevard. Living in that house, I went to four different elementary schools. I went to Lyndon B. Johnson Junior High School, O'Galley High School. I went to BJC, and my master's and bachelor's degrees are from colleges in Florida. Over 30 years ago, we moved to a house in Fox Bay. That's the corner of Turtle Mound and Aurora Road. That's the most that we could afford to live out there around the Turtle Mound area. That's because I grew up learning to drive a car in there. Our driving instructor from Johnson would take us out there, too. Quiet, beautiful, lovely trees, just a really nice place to be. Growing up, when I went to church, Papa Joe Wickham was at my church door, shaking my hand and my parents' hand. I sat next to David Wickham in band. Hugh Evans Sr. was a member of our church. Marilyn Evans was my Sunday school teacher. If we had any questions about the development going on in our community, they were there and we could ask them questions. The trailer parks that happen to be along Aurora Road, they've been there as long as I can remember, and I don't know if they've ever moved any new trailers in or out of there. However, when we have people coming into town, we bring them down O'Galley Boulevard to Wickham Road to Aurora Road. We don't bring them down that area. Yes, the developer has the right to develop this as he bought it. However, he knew what he was buying when he bought it. Does he have the right to change that and change the environment? Please, no, thank you. Thank you for listening.

Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, SCOTT DANGLER OF DANGLER LAW. ON AUGUST 31ST, I PRESENTED TO THE BOARD A 12-PAGE REPORT, 69 PAGES WITH EXHIBITS THAT DETAILED SEVEN KEY ISSUES WRONG WITH THIS APPLICATION AND WHY IT MUST BE DENIED DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS. I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT AND RUN THROUGH THOSE. First of all, let's talk about the applicant. In addition to everything else we're talking about, this is an unregistered LLC. It's not authorized to conduct business in the state of Florida. So I'm not sure why we're here. Now, you can own land, but you can't do anything with it. You can't develop it unless you get a license, which they have not done. The BDP has failed four of the five required elements under 62-1157. Only addresses one of the four. The other four do not address. With regard to the report that they're relying upon, even that requires dismissal and denial. One, the Stormwater Program Administrator's own language says that this land use, as they're proposing, is expected to acerbate flooding in the area. Now, it's since been watered down to go ahead and has potential to do so, but still says it will provide flooding. And that's going to be to the area to the north, because as they said, this is going to have to be developed on the three and a half acres on the northern boundary. So it's going to flood those four houses directly to the north. That's the issue for them. What the board, what the staff didn't address is an inconsistency regarding conservation element 4.1. This is the floodplain. Now, the question is, is it riverine floodplain? If it is, you can't build on it, period, absent special circumstances. Now, the Stormwater Program Administrator and Natural Resources Management reports conduct a riverine analysis. The rest of the report conducted an isolated analysis. So we don't even know what type of floodplain we're dealing with because the staff has a contradiction in that. The last thing I would point out, since the Mayor has already addressed the sewer, Mr. Renzeck is wrong. You do have to consider today what the sewer water circumstances are under 1151C3. That part of your job. The last thing is, to this day, they still have not met with the opposition, which they're required to do, under your own application process.

That's it. Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else want to speak forward? Yes, sir, come on. Sir, if you could state your name and spell your last name.

Yes, Kelly Rich, R-I-C-H, 4095 Carolwood Drive. So our property is right there. I got your card in the mail again because I'm within 500 feet. So I feel obligated to come and speak for my neighbors, for myself. And I agree with him. You can't let this happen. The zoning change, now is not the time. This is definitely not the place. To change the zoning now opens it up. Who's to say now some other neighbor or somebody else that has a two acre lot isn't gonna put three trailers in their backyard? That's where it starts. You've got to stop it now while you still can. The people that bought the property, I feel for them. I looked at the property when it was for sale. I was interested in it. And, of course, I didn't even get a call back, but it is what it is, right? So I feel obligated to say I agree with all the people that are against this change in zoning as I am. Thank you.

Thank you. Ma'am, come on down. If you could state your name and spell your last name.

Good afternoon. My name is Amanda Tanner Seibel. I wasn't going to speak today, but I felt compelled after I heard a few people talk. Can you get a little closer? I grew up out in Lake Washington. My parents moved over here from Orlando like 50-something years ago, and they were builders and decided they wanted to live and build out in Lake Washington. They built several, many... custom homes out in the Lake Washington area. I can tell you for a fact that Joe Wickham, the Connors, the Woodson's, their plan for Lake Washington when they developed it was one acre or more. Period. Always. To change it now would be such a disservice to everybody that's lived out there forever. I brought out there when I could. I moved to Washington State for a few years, came back, and I knew I wanted to be in Lake Washington. That's where I grew up. That's where I wanted to be. There aren't many areas that still have that character. There aren't any areas that still have that acreage. And it needs to stay that way. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak for or against this? Going once. Going twice. I'm closing it for public comment. Ms. Rozenka, if you want to come back up.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Again, Kim Rozank on behalf of Defender Home Airways LLC. If the plan was to have one acre lots, the zoning has been poorly done because that's not what's reflected that's out there. You have RU17, you have TR1A, you have TR3, you have EU2. EU2 is immediately to the east. Did I get that right? East, yes. And that is one of the members spoke from there. And those are the sizes of the lots. By the way, 7,500 square feet is 0.17 acres, not 0.15, if you do the math properly. So this is not a community of one acre lots. This is a community of single-family homes, and the trailer parks have been there a long time as the housing authority, and that's part of the community. That's part of what makes it a mixed style of residential. If you look to the north and you look to the east, to the east, that's south and to the east, those are not one acre lots. So if you go north, yes, they are, but there seems to be a dividing line. And I do also want to state that Carolwood Estates is a replat of the Indian River Groves, Indian River Groves and Gardens plat, and Carolwood does not extend all the way to Carolwood. That portions along Carolwood are still in the Indian River Groves plat. And I will submit that for the record to the clerk.

It is Carol Wood, HOA.

Sir, please, thank you. The point that's been missed by everyone except Mr. Cordell, thank you, is that this is going to be 14 units. That's all it can be. Unit is a dwelling. That's what the code says. That's what the staff report talks about. So they're units. They're 14 homes. All of these issues are what it's going to look like, where the stormwater is going to go. Those are all defined by the platting and by St. Johns River Water Management District as to what's going to be allowed. If Village Glen is draining to this property, they're going to have to find a way to hold it and work around it and build on it. So, again... That's the wetland. And that is what's being worked around. In theory, they could do a subdivision that includes the wetlands. That's not the best interest of anyone. And it's not a good way to do a subdivision when you want stormwater that's maintained and contained. The wetland must be preserved. The code requires it. Only 1.8% of that wetland can be impacted. That's a small amount. There's no idea where the driveway will be. There is obviously going to be larger lots than 7,500. That's a minimum. There will probably be larger lots up there towards the north and the west, but they don't know yet. They haven't done all of the engineering. They haven't done all of the design work. They haven't created a preliminary plat. The engineering is not complete. The BDP that's provided is a draft. That's what we have to submit. The county attorney's office will review it to make sure we meet all the requirements and that everything, including the joinder, is correct. So that is very common under 62.1255. The BDP is used to put the zoning and the comprehensive plan compatible and to do extra conditions. If you want the extra conditions of staff regarding the stormwater that's in your code, we're certainly happy to have that as well. Regarding the water in the sewer, that is mentioned in 621151 with all of the other criteria for zoning. I have them. There are five factors to consider. The character of the land of the property surrounding, which you've seen, is all kinds of different zonings. Single family, manufactured homes, all different types. The change in condition of the land use of the property being considered. Again, this used to be a radio station. It's no longer a radio station, so it's not being used for anything. The impacts of the zoning on the available and projected traffic patterns. Traffic will be the same, 14 units, as if it were one unit acres. Water and sewer system, other public facilities and utilities. Those are factors to review, recognizing the fact that your code maintains that all of these things have to be done at the platting stage. The compatibility of the proposed zoning classification with existing land use plans. Again, your land use plan. is your comp plan and your zoning, and that's the zoning. Fifth, the appropriateness of the proposed zoning classification based upon a consideration of provisions and conditions contained in this article, laws, ordinances, and regulations relating to zoning and land use. This is a compatible zoning. We didn't go to RU17 for 5,000 square feet. It was in between those two Fox Lake properties larger than the 4000 size mobile home lots to the West. And we believe this is compatible. The BDP makes it compatible and it was compatible without it, but to assuage the concerns of how many units, how many dwellings, it would be 14 max. And with that, we'd ask you to approve the rezoning request with the BDP.

Okay, seeing that, I bring it back to the board. I have a question for the attorney. Hold on one second, Mr. Eric. Here, you want to go first, ma'am?

Do I have to? I'm only kidding. I just want to state for the record that there's 43,560 square feet in an acre. You take out the wetlands, you take out infrastructure, travel, roads, driveways. The math ain't mathin' somewhere. And I could sit up here and probably take the time, but something's not working right with the math. So I just want to address that for the record. I think there has to be more clarification on that. Anything within this property that's recognized in any form or fashion by the National Wildlife Association, if that's properly documented, is something that should be considered as well. And then last but not least, the devil's in the details. And I just feel that some of the details on the water situation, whether it be wastewater, rainwater, stormwater, sewage, that really hasn't been unpacked clear enough for me personally to adhere to what the guidelines are for this zoning request. Having said that, it's like punching the ocean. doesn't really have an effect until you have all the details. And so I just want to on record that I think some more information would be paramount.

Okay.

Thank you. So, um, once again, I'd like to state, thank you very much for coming out and thank you very much for voicing your concerns. I think that's extremely important. Um, I've sat through many of these different kinds of issues at the city of Melbourne, uh, for eight years. And, um, Mayor Alfrey will be the first to tell you him and I went up against each other on a couple of those occasions and me being on the opposite end of what I'm going to state right now. I think that I need to start with we as the zoning board have rules and regulations that we have to look at to be able to decide whether we think something is compatible or not compatible. administrative policies in the future land use element establish the expertise of staff with regard to zoning land use issues and set forth criteria when considering a rezoning action or request for conditional use permit. And then you go into administrative policy four, Character of a neighborhood or area shall be a factor for consideration whenever a rezoning or application involving a specific proposed use is reviewed. The character of the area must not be materially or adversely affected by the proposed rezoning or land use application. That being said, you look at section 621151, you go to number 3. the impact of the proposed zoning classification or conditional use on available and projected traffic patterns, water and sewer systems, other public facilities and utilities, and the established character of the surrounding property. So you look at all of these different things and you add in the conditional use, the CUP, in addition to the specific requirement for each conditional use permit, Section 62-1901 provides that the following approval procedures and general standards of review are to be applied. You look at D. The proposed conditional use shall not cause the adopted level of service for solid waste disposal application to the property or area covered by such levels of service to be exceeded. You look at all of these different things. You have a mayor that's coming from the city of Melbourne, the city of Melbourne who provides all these services to you as a community and to any future community. With all of that, I just don't think it's responsible for us to pass this. I don't believe that this is compatible. I will say that I do believe in growth. Every single one of you at some point either purchased or built a house in that area. I'm not opposed to that, and I want that opportunity for anybody else that wants to come into an area, but it's got to be done responsibly, and that is why I'm opposed to this.

Mr. Jordan. Mr. Eric, are you still holding?

Yeah. I wanted to ask the attorney, based on the testimony by the mayor, how are you addressing, no matter how many houses, the sewer situation?

Well, again, we can do septic permits with one-quarter acres. With that new on-site system, which is not a septic system, we may be able to do smaller lots. So that's how we would do that. We don't know yet. We haven't done design. We haven't done engineering.

Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Jordan.

That actually was my question. I agree with you. There's a lot of different uses for all the land around there. I was fine with that. But when the mayor got up, unfortunately, it really bothers me because he says it doesn't have the capacity. And that's important. You've got to have the capacity. I think you're thinking about something future that hasn't been designed yet is what I'm hearing as far as the sewer system is concerned.

It's designed.

So the question I actually have, being from Titusville area, when it comes down to what's in the county and what's in the city, anytime you have something that's in the county and it has to be connected to a municipality, then you have to annex that area into the city. I don't know if Melbourne does that or not. I know the city does that. So that would actually end up being... We're not adjacent.

We would have annexed it if we could.

Well, wait a minute. That was going to be my question. Thank you so much. So I would think that If you are going to connect to the water, being in and getting it from the city, then you would have to be annexed into the city.

We have to be adjacent under Florida law. Yes, you do. To annex in, you have to be adjacent.

Okay.

You can sign a piece of paper just like Titusville that says if you're ever adjacent, we want you to annex in.

Right.

They're not adjacent.

So the city of Melbourne does not require you to annex into the city.

Unless you're adjacent.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Rowan.

I had a question for staff. In there, you're suggesting that we put in a BDP, and it says that the stormwater will be engineered at a minimum to maintain preconditioned rates and volumes. It's my understanding that's what Florida law requires. Is that not correct?

Oh, really?

What kind of mistake was made? Who made that kind of mistake?

We've made the same mistake, sir. And that's where adherence to the code doesn't guarantee that the volumes will not impact other people. And that's what I don't know. Without knowing what the design of the system is, I can't say. OK. And that's where we're at.

I was just curious because it sounded like you're asking them to agree with the law and then put it right in that they will agree with the law. Right.

I didn't understand it. So that's where that's an additional burden.

OK. And a couple other comments. One is the lots are going to be small lots. 7,500 square feet next to one acre lots immediately adjacent to I Don't see that as being compatible on top of which On top of which we're talking about house size of 1100 square feet When the average house size surrounding that property is 2,000 1100 is not compatible with 2,000 This compatibility issue for me is really not there. There's just no compatibility. So I just cannot support this.

Ms. Rosinka, you want to come back up, please, ma'am? Can you kind of just summarize where we were, where we are now, the path we've been down?

Yes, sir. When we first started this process, the owner wanted to put in town homes, and we were changing the future land use and the zoning. We had all the public comment come in, drop the future land use, change the zoning to RU 111, which is 7,500 square feet. After further comments, we reduced it to the density of 14, the number of units. And again, those houses won't be 1,100 square feet. No one's buying 1,100 square feet in this neighborhood anyway. The cost is cost prohibitive. We could even add a criteria of 2,000 square feet. We can add the BDP requested criteria of the rate or volume? Volume? Okay, both, the rate and the volume. But to say that the flexibility of design is not appropriate when you have so many different zoning categories and so many different sizes of homes around it doesn't make sense to me. And also, no one designs their stormwater prior to getting rezoning. It's just not done unless you do a PUD, which we may have to do. If it's denied, that may be the only option. But it's never a requirement of Florida law to have a site plan or a plat at rezoning.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I guess my first question, because I hate people work, and the challenge that I have is if we deny this, then it's dead, and you have to come up with something else. My question would be, is there any room for compromise at all?

Are you asking the people or the attorney? I'm asking there.

Leave the zoning as is. That's how you bought it.

We're requesting an aggregate density of one unit to the acre. We could even go to EU2 if 9,000 square feet is more compatible in your mind with Fox Bay to the east. The idea is just to allow them to build 14 units with the five acre wetland. That is the whole purpose of this rezoning activity. So we, yes, there is, but we still have to go to, we will still go to county commission regardless with whatever the recommendation is. So we can do 2,000 square foot homes. We can do a new U2 zoning. We can do the requirement of the stormwater. So the property, it belongs to someone. It's not an environmental property for the community, and they have private property rights to develop it if they want to.

That's the zoning they bought it.

Please, please. Okay, everyone, I give everybody a chance to talk. So let's get through this. Please.

He is going to continue to attempt to develop it. As I said, if we could have gone into the city of Melbourne, we would have. But there wasn't the ability to do that because of the adjacency.

Okay. The process really is if we deny this, you still can go to county commission.

Yes, sir.

All right. Then I'm going to make a motion to deny the request. Second.

Second I second we got a motion by Jordan a second by Deb all those in favor say aye Any opposed That passed unanimously That was our little class today. You missed our class.

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.