##VIDEO ID:Dp2gcoI2lms## [Music] you [Music] [Music] w [Music] you e Brian could you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please I pledge allegiance to the of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands okay this is the Planning and Zoning Board looc planning agency it's an Advisory Board which make makes recommendations to the County Commissioners who will make the final decision on these items items H1 H2 and H9 n are LPA items items on today's agenda will be heard by the County Commission on December 12th at 5:00 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 the voice is on the record speakers for public comment on these agenda items I will give you two minutes to speak once the Beeper goes off please be respectful because obviously we have a lot of people want to speak at this time if any board member has had any expar communication regarding any application please disclose so now all right seeing that I need a motion for approval of the pnz minutes from from September 16th 2024 I make a motion got a motion by Henry a second by Robert all those in favor say I any opposed all right that passed unanimously I'm going to move items H1 and H2 down right below 8 h8 so that'll put number one will be going before H9 all right so we're going to skip the item H3 did you follow me on that yeah yes sir so just so the audience understands that items H1 and H2 are going to be moved in front of H9 correct so just H9 before H9 you want it after after H9 okay we can we can do that just for the Mr chair for clarification these items before you today are going to be heard at the November 7th um Bard County Commissioner's meeting not in December uh the other the other uh um item that I wanted to bring to your attention the audience if you are here to speak um uh for items H1 or the previous H1 and H2 there's a signup sheet uh in the back of the room that gets uh sent up to the Florida commerce uh again if you're speaking on one of those items please sign in so we have a record of your um your contact information thank you Mr chair all right item H3 please good afternoon item H3 Michael and Bonita Osborne request to change of zoning classification from ru- 1-9 to tr-3 under application number 24z 000038 tax account number 2 49628 located in District 1 okay is the applicant here okay sir if you could come up here to the podium up front and if you could state your name and address for the record and just a little bit about what you're wanting to do yes sir Michael Osborne address is 12202 rambling Oak Orlando Florida 32832 all right and a little bit about what you're wanting to do uh my wife and I have desires of future planning to uh bring something into the community uh rather it be a um mobile home park there you can or you can push that mic up and that way we can hear you there okay yes sir and so as I was saying my wife we have uh we grew up in the community that is our home um and then we purchased the land with the desires to put either a mobile home park on some kind of a affordable housing rather it be uh trailers rather it be uh condos but we just want to get back to the community where we both grew up and played as kids all right if you could stay right there is there anybody in the audience want to speak for or against item H3 that's really good news seeing that I'm going to bring it back to the board do we have any questions for the applicant Mr chairman yes sir I have a question uh that is going to require a 50ft setback you're aware of that yes we are sir okay my question is would you be willing to have that 50 foot be a vegetative buffer that includes some existing trees uh yes we would sir okay uh sta does that need to be put into a bdp or how do we so um tell me again you want to have a 50ft buffer on what side of the property I forgot to look I know that there was a 50 50ft setback required and I was just requesting that he uh that be a vegetative buffer with and save as many of the existing trees as possible you got a ditch on the west don't you near the interstate uh yes it is Sir so Mr chair as as far as I understand so you're asking for a 50 foot vegetative buffer along the um east side of the property yes on the east side so that should be contemplated in a bdp okay so sir you would need to have a bdp that says you're going to have a binding development plan that says you're going to have a 50ft vegetative buffer and preserving as many of the trees as possible and Sir is that buffer just limited to one side can we bring it all around the property yeah on the on the on the east side that's where all the existing residences are okay so is it just that side or can we bring the buffer all the way around with the vegetation uh from my point of view on the west side it's water water so it's water so I don't think there's anybody going to be on that water water that's going to object to have and you know you may want to have it you need a you doesn't he need a 50ft setback all the way around it shouldn't be no Mr Ron I'm sorry the perimeter setbacks for the mobile homes is 50 50 ft from all property line unless it's contiguous to some other zonings but it is 50 ft from all property lines okay yeah what what I just wanted to have was be sure to have have the had it be a vegetative buffer not just empty space so Mr chair um my staff will get with the Apple can explain on the BD Pro bdp process if that's part of your motion okay uh there before I move that we uh recommend approval with the bdp okay we got a motion by Ron this is item H3 a second by Robert all those in favor say I discussion discussion I already called for discussion a chance he motion after no you don't have to do that he can discuss you don't need to withdraw it we were done but now we're not go ahead John no I was just wondering how you were going to get access to the site where are all the residents for a trailer park or whatever you're putting in there going to get access and Sir if I could ask my wife if she she can come up because she's um she's done a lot of the planning she's a better speaker than I am what I well there's two there's two ways to access there's two ways to access one already exists on Robison MH and the other uh they can access from Parish Road some Parish yes sir yeah I know yeah I should have told you I was asking them Mr chair fa N I need to clarify there there is there is no access currently right now through Parish there's a the county owns some property what we call a spike strip so I just want the applicants to understand the only access to the property is is to the South yes sir and I we've spoken with the um County a couple years ago and I have a which I don't think this will suffice right now but I have a document from Mr Michael who's the engineer that uh works for the county and he says that we can access it from oh there's about a 100 yards where Lake View Boulevard there's a like a a circle a half circle that leads on to Parish he said we can access it without them from that 100 yard Spike but but if we were to go on that corner of Lake View and Parish Road we're going to need to get permission from them now I've also been told that we need to get permission from them regardless if we want to access from Parish period yeah because of what he just said um so without that permission you'd have to have everyone come through Robertson correct yes and and and I'm comfortable with that but are the neighbors yes I would think so the ones I've talked to they just want something nice there okay Jeff isn't broy in Catalina Village the road broy they call it broy yes sir it is the the road to the South they can use that count is County maintained there's no reason they can't use that correct that would that the access to the property will be addressed on the site plan or the subdivision process yeah okay I asked that question with regard to the uh access short drive also fronts the property on the east side so it's Robison and schw actually have access there yeah but then they're having to go through the neighborhood to get access I understand that okay as I just wanted to bring that up the roads there are I don't know how much traffic this is going to generate because we don't know how many units they're putting in there and and he had said earlier in his discussion that uh they were going to do either mobile homes or they were going to do Condominiums there's a big difference and so I didn't know what the occupancy would be and that's why I was asking the question the but my understanding was the question was was there how could they have access and Robison and short both have Frontage on the property uh so either one of them could be used as access or both uh the uh I just want to clarify that for the record that's so thank you Mr chairman okay item H3 we had a motion by Ron a second by Robert all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously all right thank you thank you all have a good day sir okay item H4 item H4 Julia berat request a change of zoning classification from ru- 1-9 to ru- 1-7 under application number 24z 0039 tax count number 23000 349 located in District 1 and he's sending you up here by yourself huh yeah okay ma'am if you could state your name and address for the record and a little bit about what you're want want to do here all right my name is Julia Berto and I live at 4123 chilota Road in Orlando Florida 32820 uh we own a 50ft lot on the Indian River and currently with the zoning we can't build a single family home on it so we'd like to have a reone so we can build a home and enjoy the river it's pretty much it all right well while you're right there is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item H4 I'll speak for it all right if y'all could just take a seat right there real quick we got two people back here want to speak and whoever's not talking sir or whatever you could take a seat oh I can just wait back there oh no you can wait there too ma'am if you could state your name and address for the record Cynthia am Bogi okay and I live next door to the property in question the empty lot I've lived there for over 20 years my father lives adjacent to me who is 96 and my brother senior David he lives next door to my dad on the other side combined we have about 5 acers on the river and we've all my fathers lived there over 40 years and same with my brother okay and we are opposed adamantly to the resoning to lower the amount of square footage and also the property setbacks uh that would be reduced because anything they built or put in there is going to devalue my home um because it's going to be less than what anybody has on the street there um and several I can't speak for anybody else but myself um they have not maintained that property over the last 20 years it has affected me greatly financially because of the wash out to my seaw wall Miss bortot has not done anything to try to preserve from wash outs right now we have where the water is encroaching onto my prop property from their property because they haven't maintained it so now she wants to reduce the zoning requirements and what are we going to end up with then okay thank you thank you all right sir you want to speak my wife fantastic just supporting her in every way there's a lot of Financial and other reasons so we're opposed correct we're opposed completely all right thank you anyone else want to speak for or against this item okay I I apologize all right I'm sorry you we're setting a b bad precedent here for the rest of these people I understand that I apologize Michael Bogi my address is 684 uh 6845 River Edge Drive I am directly next door to the property in question okay um some of the things that are of concern is that there's other concerns that property is kind of in our street we have in direct access to Waterfront there's natural uh waterways When Storms Come that are formed on her street one of them being there down the road Dr katani I don't have the exact numbers probably spent $150,000 on water work for him to be able to divert the water underneath where he could build his large Mansion down there if this isn't taken into account on the Geological Survey end of things stils in a 30 I don't know what they're going to be putting there but there's a lot of considerations with this property that need to go into effect and the last storm has reduced that the the area of that lot by uh probably another 12 ft um into it just from this last storm and I've got photo I've got evidence of so much damage over the years so um there was other considerations and that's what I want to bring up okay thank you all right thank you sir ma'am if yall could come back up to the podium and here and that I bring it excuse me I bring it back to the board and we have any questions for the applicant uh Mr chairman yes sir uh I had a question for staff um without this resoning what could they put on that property without the resoning they wouldn't be able to develop the property the rezoning is what um helps to alleviate the issues because it doesn't meet the zoning classification that it has currently um okay do we have any does the county have any liability to or exposure uh legal exposure if we do not pass this zoning uh Mr barer I don't believe that's the case here we would have to look back historically at how the property was divided and how it came into being I don't believe we've done that research at this time but whether or not someone can sue that's always the case but whether or not they'd win that's another issue okay I was just really concerned about that about our not allowing them to do any building and then essentially we've taken away their property rights can I can I talk so so Mr berer and and the rest of the uh board what I would tell you is that when when we analyze a resoning like this we are um looking at or I should say analyzing consistency and compatibility consistency with the comp plan and compatibility with the surrounding area and based on our staff comments um this request meets both that criteria okay Mr chairman yes sir Mr John yes um the um R17 what's the setback requirements 20 and front 20 in the rear and five I think is it seven and a half it's either five or 7 and A2 on the side the r19 it's 7 and2 and the R17 it's five for side setbacks but they both have 20 in the front and 20 in the rear okay so this being a 50 foot lot it'd be a mighty skinny house like a railroad car maybe it's seven and a half did you anticipate that that it would be a very narrow house found um home plans that were you know narrow narrow yeah okay and attractive and there would be there would definitely be 20 ft in the back and 20t in front you get deep enough do that I I didn't see a problem with that um and can I say something about the to the sides would you interrupting No chman I um and as far as can I say about hang on one second let me let me finish here um you going to put a garage in there probably not probably not probably we were thinking about putting the house on stilts if well we have to look in all the environmental issues but we thought it probably be better on still so we the cars under the under the building uhuh if possible I mean it's all what the um you environmental issues the stilt idea is a good one because you know you I'm surprised there aren't other homes around that have still they should okay that go ahead and make a statement no what I was going to say is about the the wash out of the plan would be to develop the riverfront you know uh with rocks or whatever to to fill it in so there wouldn't be any wash out if we had a house there that's all going to be addressed later we're here just strictly for zoning got it my bad all right thank you Mr chairman Mr chair I just want to clarify the side setep back for r19 is 7 and A2 ft 7 and a half on each side side set back side setep back is 7 and a half okay so it's taking 15 ft away from your 50 so you have 30 35t house be better to make a bowling alley out of it Mr chairman yes sir I believe that it it does meet the requirements that we need and so I'm going to move that we recommend approval of the Sun change okay okay we got a motion by Ron on item H4 second by Brian all those in favor say I any opposed that passed unanimously thank you sir all right item H5 Solita Lan LLC request to change a Zone and classification from ru- 1-9 to ru-1 d11 under application number 24z 0046 tax count number 301 7131 located in District 5 okay and the applicant if y'all could please come up and state your name and address for the record uh Brian Kates 419 Avenue B Melbourne Beach Florida 32951 and a little bit about what you're W to do Mr Bri um we are looking to change uh the zoning uh from r19 to ru11 to in order to build a single family house the r19 is not um compatible with the future uh zoning but r111 is and I think that'll exceed uh the r19 setbacks and square footage required all right and Sir while you're right there is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item H5 that's good news Mr Brian we're we're going pretty quick here all right seeing that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for Mr Brian uh Mr chairman yes sir I had a question for staff uh when was the land you set to Res for and why did we create a large neighborhood whose zoning is inconsistent with the land use Mr Brer that's a very good question however um I can answer that Jeff because this guy he goes way back I'm not taking this one I'm sorry go ahead for for whatever reason back in 1988 when they established the res 4 they didn't take into consideration the existing zoning that was in place unfortunately 1255 does not allow for res 4 in the existing zoning to be consistent and that's the whole reason to uh why we're we're ENT retaining this request is to allow for a consistent zoning classification in compliance with the res4 land use category or designation okay um I also had a question why wasn't it set to Res six instead of res 4 wouldn't that be more appropriate considering that this area is how res 4 uh it's more apprpriate to change the zoning to match that uh you you could change the land use part of it but that's um Steph felt it was more appropriate to change the zoning to match I'm I'm sorry I didn't what I meant was uh when the original zoning was put or land use was put in why why was it resz four rather than res six would okay never mind we're cleaning it up one lot at a time right uh all right Mr chairman I move that we recommend approval of this zoning change okay you got a motion by Ron on item H5 a second by Robert all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously thank you okay item 8 6 manarino family revocable living trust request a change of zoning classification from ru-1 D7 and rr-1 to all rr-1 under application 24z 000041 tax account number 28253 located in District 5 okay sir if you could state your name and address for the record uh Mark Manor know uh 2645 Cory Avenue um Melbourne 32904 and a little bit about what you're wanting to do Mr Rand Menino yeah actually um the count the Planning and Zoning commit uh Department indicated that I need to combine these two different zonings on the property I have um we've lived in our house since 81 it's uh the original property we had was about 1.09 acres and it was zoned rr1 bought 15 years ago we bought a little Outlaw that was a quarter acre adjacent to the property uh and that was zoned R17 at the time and according to the planning and zoning department moving forward one's residential property has to be all the same Zone otherwise I can't get any permits so that's I just want them combined into rr1 okay and while you're right there is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item sir if you could step aside there Jesus Christ hi my name is Kimberly Odell I'm 268 State Street Melbourne I'm within 500 ft of the property my concern is that this was a little bit vague and I wanted some clarification from him and from you guys um according to what I looked up our concern con ER as neighbors was the rr1 changed it to um a little bit more um vague family homes Parks public recreational facilities private golf courses foster homes sewer lift station bed and breakfast ends and the list goes on so what I wanted is a little more clarification from him um with if he's changing it to rr1 because it takes away the ru-1 -7 which is residential is he planning to put something like that on the future and if that's the case it if is changed today to rr1 would that be grandfathered in to whatever he wanted to put on that piece of property that's my questions all right thank you ma'am anyone else want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that I'm going to close it to the floor sir come on back yeah this uh little quarter acre is in the uh northwest corner of our property it's a horse pasture right now we have fence around it's been a horse pasture for 15 years we have no plans on changing it building anything on it it's going to stay just like it is so our horse can play around on it the only reason I'm going through this resoning is so that I can get any kind of a building permit in the future um if I want to add an air conditioner if I want to put a door on my house Etc I have to have all my property Zone the same so I have no plans on making any changes to that quarter acre piece of property all right uh here and that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for the applicant Mr chairman I move to approve I'll second okay we got a motion by John a second by Brian on item 86 all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously thank you very much thank you sir okay item 87 thank you Mr chair item 87 is Frank masserone request a change the zoning classification from bu1 and r210 to PUD application number is 23 PUD 0000001 tax account number is 26118 located in District 2 this item was continued from the June 10th um 2024 pnz LPA meeting and the July 11th 2024 uh BCC meeting um so when it when it was in front of this board the this board recommended denial um with the application at the July 11th 2024 board meeting the recommendation was the request was remanded back for staff review in anticipation the applicant is going to revise the request to be reheard at the October 14th 2024 Planning and Zoning meeting and the November 7th 2024 BCC meeting to date the applicant has not submitted any revised plans okay is the applicant here oh that's interesting that makes it [Applause] easy M Mr chairman Mr chairman uh since the applicant's not here and there is no change any significant change I see no reason that I would want to change my recommendation for denial so uh I'm going to move that we we recommend denial okay we got a motion by Ron a second by Robert on item 87 for denial all those in favor say I I any opposed that was denied so does that mean all of y'all are leaving now thank you no we've got wait wait we've got all this stuff we have to do they don't want to hear the you should yeah yeah so just so everyone in the in attendance this will be heard at the November 7th BC meeting where the board will take action whether they're going to approve the application or deny the application okay item h8 thank you Mr chair stickrath developer LLC requests to change a zoning classification from bu-2 to Au under application number 24z 0026 tax count number 2601 1599 located in District 4 this item was continued from the September 16th 20 24 Planning and Zoning LPA meeting for read advertisement okay and Sir you're the applicant I'm uh the contractor for the applicant okay if you could state your name and address for the record Curtis McKenna uh 2108 West New Haven Avenue mcken commercial Construction Group and a little bit Mr mckenny about what you're W to do here um the owner's uh turning that property into a goat rescue trying to save from the Jamaican restaurants no basically he's just wanting to raise he's been over there saving uh rescued goats for some years I guess and code enforcement came down there just doing a regular inspection and seen that and said something about it to him so he's just taking one acre of property out of there and just cut it out as the goat rescue and he just does it for the community probably spent about $100,000 at this point rescuing goats I don't necessarily have anything other than that to put towards it I know that they um you know they they advertise them on uh on the Facebook and places like that if they want to take them and rescue them and put them to a good home and so that's it's just sort of kind of one of those things that he does in his spare time all right if you could hold on right there Mr McKenna is anybody in the audience want to speak for or against this item item h8 me all right seeing that I bring it back to the board uh Mr chairman had a couple questions for the applicant uh does does this property have a grassy field for the goats yes sir and they're fed they're fed pretty good they're fed they're fed better than me and you all right and is the area fence so that they'll be contained yes sir and it's got a shelter it's got everything it's got a it's got a birthing [Laughter] station okay and would the uh owner be willing to had a bdp to limit the use of the Au zoning to a goat rescue only I'm sure he would I couldn't really just sign up for that right now based on I don't know what happens if he gets an alpaca you you know what I'm saying or maybe he gets another goat or I don't it's just it's just a little tiny rescue it's one acre I mean they've never had no more I guess from what the lady told me was seven or nine animals there at any one time I've known about it for about 10 years or eight years that he's been doing it he start started in okobe Florida and now he's brought it up here from okobe this is his second location now so he's tucked in the back behind that walty Lake we all know where walty Lake is Right Hen Henry yeah we know where that one is so he's back in the corner they can't swim they're not coming out of there it's just one little acre back in the corner and behind them is U used to be that big junkyard I don't know what it's called now that dog on a k KQ or something like that so they got a 40ft hill to climb to get out of there so I don't want to say he would be and I don't want to say he wouldn't be is that something that you've got a gun to my head right now uh I really would like to have a bdp that restricts that Au so that because Au is very is au going to just limit just to goats only is what I'm asking or is it can can it be any like little small farm animals uh so Mr chair if I can make this suggestion I'm just throwing it out there to have bdp limit to the raising and grazing of farm animals if that's if that's part of your appetite that sounds good to me would that we're good with that go are good with that we're all good yeah no problem it sounds real good to me Mr chairman um what's the adjoining property to the South uh graveyard everybody's dead no no no no comment from that side no no no no no please sir no little respect here um the owner has the property to the South yes sir he does it's Landscape Depot right full of rocks and I don't you were saying there's there's grass that the that they can eat there's nothing there but a pond on that little section here it's a lot more vegetation than what you're seeing there sir well that's what I have as documentation uh from the and from the staff um they're fed daily no that's not what I was asking asking um I just wanted to know is it only this portion of of the site that will be Au or is the whole thing going to be Au because in the appraisal district it's only the box that's highlighted in yellow on that map okay because in the appraisal district it's got everything it's got both sections and I was a little concerned that this large area over here that was part that was part of the read advertisement John is that uh the the application had to be revised to just have that portion so before you is just that 2 and 1 half acre uh piece that you're looking at from that map which is mostly water it is 50% water yes sir looks more like 70 well we really only needed enough for six or eight goats we only needed about a half or 3/4 of an acre they made us go to two and a half acres that's why we Encompass the lake into it because really we don't need that much property know we're not you know rescuing that many goats okay it also looks like that Lake drains onto the highway that link that Lake illegally drains to my owner's property it's a issue with the county right now because the County's in the middle of a lawsuit with Mr Welty I'm sure you're aware of that too no through our property yes it is you want to approve this and they're suing you they're not suing us no Mr wel is suing y'all yeah that's what I mean he ain't got nothing to do with us he's not on our property all right thank you Mr chairman all right any other questions for the applicant Mr chairman I move that we recommend approval of the zoning change with that bdp I second it or all right got a motion by Ron a second by Henry all those in favor say I I I any opposed that passed unanimously thank you Mark yall have a good day all right you too sir okay item H1 so item H1 is the transmitter of the large scale comprehensive plan Amendment regarding the barrier Bard Barrier Island bbia as a new element to the comprehensive plan under the state coordinate review process on January 1st 2023 Florida statute section 380 38.5 53 the state legislature established the bvar Barrier Island area as a critical area State concern Section 163 3191 for statutes requires changes in the state law to be included in any amendments resulting from the evaluation and Appraisal review of the comprehensive plan um bvar county has contracted with a consultant to identify these goals objectives and policies that are necessary to implement the statutory guiding principles of The Bard Barrier Island area these draff goals objectives and policies will be incorporated and adopted as El element 16 provard Barrier Island area to the bvar county comprehensive plan as part of the legislation 38.0 553 established guiding principles for development State regional and local agencies and units of the government in The Bard Barrier Island area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and Regulatory activities to be consistent with the following guideline principles for development within this area so um guiding principle uh a is preventing adverse impacts of development on resources critical to the sea turtle habitat by prohibiting new Shoreline hardening structures and enforcing existing state and County Coastal Construction regulations prior prioritizing water quality restoration projects in the Indian River Lagoon reducing nutrient contributions from septic tanks and Wastewater facilities storm water discharge and agricultural Nonpoint sources in Indian River Lagoon supporting innovative nature-based solutions including living shorelines and freshwater Coastal Wetland Restorations safeguarding against adverse economic social and environmental and public health and safety the impacts posed by fooding storm surge and protecting critical assets identified in section 38093 protecting Shoreline and Marine Resources including Mangrove sea grass beds Wetlands sea turtles manatees and Fish and Wildlife and related habitats protecting Upland resources including Dune ridges beaches wildlife and related habitats limiting adverse impact of development on water qual quality of water throughout B Barrier Island area and Indian River Lagoon enhancing naturo Scenic resources to promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment and uring the development is compatible with the unique characteristics of Bard Barrier Island area um with that this is a two-step process with the first step of this being transmitted to Florida commerce the adoption hearing will be scheduled at a future board meeting date which allows for County staff and a consultant time to address any comments or responses from the state reviewing agencies part adoption of the board once the element is adopted staff in coordination with the consultant and the Department of Commerce will review the draft and draft Land Development code regulations as part of the implementation tool for the area critical State concern that'll be done later on um on o on August 28th 2024 staff held a public Outreach meeting meeting at the South Beaches community center this meeting was well attended with approximately 254 residents in attendance in person and online in addition to an online survey and questionnaire was published on the County's website those results are included in this packet of the 732 comments received five of them five requested creation of an oversight committee analysis of the public input through both email and Survey that received prior to uh September 6 2024 is included for the board to consider input received after September 6 uh will be attached as separate from the analysis uh the public input was primarily focused on key topics such as density intensity sea turtle project protection Shoreline hardening clear cutting conservation storm water management below are examples of policies and objectives contained in the element that address these concerns so those were density intensity c turtle projection and Shoreline hardening clear cutting conservation storm water management so staff has prepared a draft uh element to include the goals objectives and policies included in attachment this item item will be presented to the board of County Commissioners on November 7th 2024 uh Bonnie Landry Associates are is uh in attendance to answer any questions along with Darcy mclee from natural resources management um to answer any questions that you have all right thank you Mr Jeff so is there anyone in the audience wanting to speak for or against this item if you could come down here to the front row and we could create a line I'll give you two minutes each to speak and as soon as the buzzer goes off let's please be respectful now this is item H1 anyone else would like to speak on this item H1 you're wanting to go I see you you're good I sit here but don't is that okay that's fine all right sir we'll start with you and then when you get to the microphone when you state your name and address for the record get as close as you can so we can get you on record okay I'm Vince lamb 11590 Dragon Point Drive Meritt Island I I'm going to have to adjust my time a little bit I expected three minutes but if so be it with two I I can adjust but uh I I've been invol been tracking this action since uh representative Alman told me he was going to introduce it at the state and uh and I'm overall very supportive of it I uh read the doc the latest draft document that uh the County's prepared on this and uh and I feel like it's it's quite good I appreciate the effort that went into it uh I think there's still a bit of room for improvement uh the uh I'm deeply involved with the sea turtles have been for 17 years of leading Turtle walks down there and working with the Refuge uh so you know we live in an area with the uh uh with uh you know it's the best beach in in one of the best beaches in the world for sea turtle nting and I appreciate this effort to protect it I I support the objectives taken force from the legislative intent which you read a few minutes ago uh I've read the document this is not my area of expertise so I'm counting on as much protection as we can get out of this and I can't tell personally quite whether we're there or not I have a couple of very specific ones policy uh 2.3 the cart of lighting ordinance uh this policy states that the lighting ordinances should be reviewed periodically but fails to identify the period when Bard Bard County had the first lighting ordinance in the state and to my knowledge it's never been reviewed or changed the Sea Turtle Conservancy is encouraging a review I'd rather have periodically change to some you know every five years or every 10 years or something like that and uh you know not be quite that vague similar item on item 2.6 which is uh re-evaluating the effectiveness of the coastal setback line and this policy suggests re-evaluating the effectiveness from time to time and and request a review of the uh of FD 1981 uh Coastal Construction line if deemed appropriate all right yeah anyway I'd like to see I'd like to see that but in a nutshell you're pretty much agreeable to a lot of the issues and just a couple just some specifics okay thank you thank you sir good afternoon Craig Wallace Satellite Beach 585 Haw Island Drive U also with The Bard Indian River Lagoon Coalition our main concerns here are obviously protecting the Lagoon uh both from a watersheds perspective uh any storm water coming off any areas that uh uh are an issue but are m biggest concern is um septic and Sewer uh in the area any increase in um additional septic tanks in that area with new development is is a big concern of ours I'm not sure that this you know addresses that specifically enough uh and I don't have the exact wordage um what I like like to see changed but my my biggest concern is the additional new development creating you know whether it's septic tanks or if we could get sewered down there that would be great but we know that's probably not going to happen in that area so that's that's my biggest concern thank you all right thank you sir all right Mr wise is that correct no I I said the wrong name I'm sorry no I know I didn't want to just upset him again hi there just messing with you Mr Scott it's all good my name is Mill Scott 6415 South A1A uh been a 30-year resident in the South Beaches a 30-year urban planner so this is an area of expertise for myself I do want to thank staff for their hard work I'm very much in agreement uh Jeffrey set the stage for the points um that I understand you are affirming uh as a result of the State legislatur uh creation of this area it's a very very special area uh not just to this County but you can really speak in terms of the Western Hemisphere as it relates to the impact that this has on nesting sea turtles so again I'm just in full support I understand that this is the beginning of a longer Journey that will include this coming back for adoption so at this at this point in time uh you've got a really nice assembly of clay and you're about to make a really nice clay pot and I'm in full support of this thank you hey thank you sir Mel thank you for having something positive sir if you'd come on up state your name and address for the record um my name is Robert Lon I live in 920 South h1a A1A um in the South Beaches area forgive me if I Stumble a little bit I'm not used to doing any of this but um I just wanted to point out some serious contradictions between the Florida statute for the are critical concern and the new BBI uh IIA policy um there's a minimum of at least two 3A and 3 B of the legislation intent and four items 5B 5c 5H 5j of The Guiding principles that are conflicting with the BBI a proposals all these conflict all these conflictions would result in additional nutrient contribution to the Lagoon via language inserted in the bbia policy for Coastal element future land use property designations according to the bbia residential designations a res one owner that is adjacent to a res 4 property could meet the criteria to transition to a res 2 and here's an example of a 1 acre fell that increases density and his existing septic tank is only is old and and the nutrient reduction system is probably less than 50% his new home on the same 1 acre installs a required 65% reduction system so he is now contributing an 85% load the Math's undeniable if he's required to follow the state statute and establish that was established Lish to protect the Lagoon his res to increased destination bumps up to 70 um% nutrient contribution to the lagon and his old system that was only 50% then when you look at the criteria to allow a planned unit development 25% increase bonus increase um this ultimately will reflect the overwhelming number of the Florida land use designation of or future land use designation of res one take 10 res one lots and add 2.5 additional septic tanks that increase the density we we will be contributing additional nutrients to the Lagoon even though the bbia criteria I got like two sentences please okay all right um the higher Des um density designations would require Public Water and Sewer we don't have that there are no public sewer plants in the plan there's the existing South Beaches plan plant is only at 85% capacity and there are no plans to expand in it I'm going to urge you folks to remove all the language added to the existing future land use Coastal element property designations thanks a lot appreciate it thank you sir sir if you could come up and state your name and address for the record sure my name is Mark chanis uh 8885 Highway AA Melvin Beach Florida how you all doing um I'm also the executive director of the bppa barrier islands preservation and preservation Association um and have an organization that was started in the 30s I mean 30 years ago was started in 30 started uh 1990 um and was uh the key uh negotiator and um final um stamp of approval on the public shopping center down there um to allow it and it was traded off um and what that's what we do uh we understand that there's significant um desire to develop down there but it can't be developed because of what this gentleman is saying about the sewer the water flooding evacuation is already three times the amount of time it takes uh as required by the state um specifically in H1 BB 12.1 I'd like to take the sentence that says um not increase residential density ities and insert the words or intensity um so that we don't end up with commercial properties there um in 12.8 take out the entire section we do not have Community commercial on the South Beaches why are you going to open the door of talking about Community uh commercial when there is no Community commercial um zoning down there uh in 12.7 N neighborhood commercial um like to take the items of public facilities and and recreational uses and move them to the classifications of public facilities and recreational uses okay otherwise it's confusing and you can end up with Residential Properties where they end up moving um someone comes in with a public facility uh the county um and they already have their own or recreational uses because there's a lot of language about marinas in this and uh we don't want there be confusion that they can put in a marina because it says recreational uses on the residential property move it to the recreational section um that's about it other than I also agree we should be removing the puds because there's only one PUD on the beaches which is the which is uh the golf course why even mention PUD if there aren't any puds it just confuses things and makes everybody and you know fodder for lawyers all right thank you sir I'm not against lawyers but hello my name is Eva you can pull that to you there Miss Eva all right my name is Eva nagam mahali and I'm Mel's neighbor I'm at 6501 South Highway A1A I'm just adding to what I've heard here I don't have that added information except to Simply say that that is the most beautiful area that I've ever seen and therefore I want that oversight I want people to be keeping it the way it is and no high density for this area and keep it for the animals the wild animals the turtles and for single family homes as much as possibly can be done and I appreciate your looking at this and thank you it's a great place thank you ma'am anyone else would like to speak for against this item or I'm going to close the audience there sorry you're closed all right seeing that I'm going to bring it back to the board and I know John Mr Robert than you Mr chairman um as pointed out by the by the public the couple of things that um I do have a a document that I've provided for staff uh I'd like to hand under that as exhibit one into the record and uh it it actually identifies the same items that the public pulled out uh the first one is the intent of the barrier Bard barrier area Island area uh BBI uh area of critical concern and the most important function for this creation of the area concern was to limit density and intensity of the development within the area and that's referenced in the executive summary on page seven um and if you use the public comment that was uh attached the blue overwhelming is intensity and um intensity and density reduction so that concern is for that area and I'm I'm I'm a consultant for FEMA and evacuation I spent 30 years in search and rescue um Hurricane Katrina bunch of bad ones hurricane Michael Hurricane Florence Kane Harvey um done a lot of victim recovery so evacuation for this area is extremely critical which is why it became an area of uh critical concern so with that um they brought up a number of elements concerning um loading for both water supply and and Wastewater um it's a little bit more there's Solid Waste there's other elements there's utility uh corridors there is um response for search and rescue and response for medical and and Le and um and law enforcement as well but for me um I forget uh which one brought up the planned Urban developments I think yeah I think that was you mark right okay that's primarily what I would like to have I'm I'm all for this document by the way but if we strike item D for you know residential one item D for residential 2 item D for residential 4 and item D for residential 6 and item e for residential 15 and item e for neighborhood commercial and um the community commercial I don't I I found a document that I don't see there any residential commercial there so what that says is the planned Urban Development allows you 1.25 increase in density and that is completely counter to the intent of the area of critical concern if we're here to reduce and restrict development we should not incorporate an option or a loophole that allows 1.25 increase in that so um that's open for discussion I'll make a motion here lately uh but I'd bring it back to the board and let that be discussed thank you Mr Robert any other comments from the board yes uh my name is Erica Oris and I am new here and so I have been appointed to District 3 and I was also at that meeting and I live in the South Shore so I love it there and I agree with everything that's been said how however I do think that them you know as we look at the documents that have been put forth everyone's mainly concern with the density right the density and the intensity and it doesn't say that so if we could make a motion to strike where it says simply and I'm on the wrong page here but I think it says in keeping with CM 7.1 shall not increase residential densities and it may want to say their intensity as well and then also every other place that you have alluded to Robert and additionally you know and it goes into future land use up to a 25% density bonus that we're not that that's I don't think the intent of this document so I mean certainly everyone appeared very very concerned at the meeting about density and intensity so everything else I think can be worked out that seems to be the largest concerns any other comments board Mr chairman yes sir uh yeah I have a several comments uh one is a general comment about the document itself uh there's a whole lot of sheds in there instead of shs and should is a very weak word and I would really like to see that re should replaced with either strongly recommended or shall strongly includ in incourage and the reason for doing that is when PE when you say should what you're here what your person that you're talking to or writing to hears is okay he wants me to do this but he doesn't really care whether I do it or not there's so but if you change it with strongly and and put that strongly encouraged word now you're saying yes I understand he is very very strong about this uh he does care about it and it's kind of like when uh a mother tells her child uh you're going to do this or else that or else is implied in the word strong so the person hearing it says I don't want to find out what or else means the County's been very Cooperative if I don't do what this was they won't be they might very well not be cooperative with me so I would like to see that changed uh both in this document and in the one we're going to review next right and then in addition to that uh I did have some specific comments uh policy 4.7 says we should require storm storm waterer retrofits I would like to see that change to shall there's no better time to do that retrofitting than when when you're doing Redevelopment uh let's see and I had a few more changes if you don't mind uh policy 4.9 says that uh people on the water Li boards are moed for over three days and my question is otherwise what if they just dump the three days wither sewage into the Lagoon uh can't we prohibit dumping into the Lagoon I that's a question I don't know the answer to but if we can I would like to see us do it uh another question I had was in criter 4.10 criteria B says first inch of storm water runoff uh now does that mean the first inch of rain or does that mean the first inch of water that flows out of the retention area and I was just wondering how that inch of runoff is determined Mr berer can can I just interrupt what page are you on I'm sorry on on on on 410 criteria B I don't have the page number I'm sorry it's page 24 right um someone can does some do we have someone on staff can answer that yes sir the the um 24-year one-day event is a theoretical storm um where the inch of rainfall is the total inch over that area and that will be the retaining area so it's U it is with the south Florida Water Management District the south Florida Water Management District the all all the water management districts use the same criteria okay so it's essentially it's it's per measuring the the amount of rain that's coming in that are it's a theoretical storm yes okay as opposed to actual runoff that's correct it's a theoretical storm but that's to calculate a volume for the uh either retention treatment or whatever they need to use okay uh and then policy 5.2 criteria a um in there's several sentences in there and we're mixing up should and shall and I was just wondering why not why aren't all of those shoulds in that criteria be shall is that a is that a legal problem for us uh Mr barer I think generally with respect to the uh land use chapter in this case the bbia uh the real rubber meets the road with the Land Development regulations which are to come so this are just general guiding principles and then where the the more strict laid out requirements are in the ldrs okay so what I would add what I what I what I would add to that is is this is the framework document that will set up for us to go back in and update Our Land Development code regulations to further Define what we're trying to do to meet these principles okay uh then in policy 6.13 6.13 criteria F uh we mentioned the uh sea level rise and I had a question about how does uh that fit with the government's Governor's Banning of the use climate change are is is are we stepping into a messy area there what page despite that ruling the governor has um allocated a lot of money and regulations requiring cities and counties to look at Future conditions uh the resilient Florida program has um distributed millions of dollars to help communities do vulnerability analyses and risk analyses of critical facility so um we were actually required to do a parallel flood section which I think you all approved last year um that was added to the comp plan so we're we're okay with that we're a good standing just didn't want us to offend the governor by using something that's related to climate change we'd be in trouble if we didn't thank you uh then in policy uh 9.4 uh you need to correct the spelling of previous and in policy 11.2 criteria C uh why are we putting Industrial Area uses adjacent to the Lagoon it seems to me we should that that shouldn't be in there at all I have this feeling that there's going to be a lot of rework done on this but I just am thinking off the top of my head that the to just get it going I'm so thrilled that that Alman representative Alman and and you know our Senator right went ahead and came up with this it's been 40 years since we've identified a critical area of concern and so if we can just get it going and I think that maybe some of because it is the the highest concern of the analysis is 159 people were concerned about density and intensity and I think that's the most important thing if we're going to make any I make a motion to just address that and then the rest of it we can work out I mean that is that's certainly the most important part and spelling errors and things like that we can get to all that yes ma'am I I could have made a spelling error you know so I I didn't I didn't have any other other questions or comments about that this particular document Mr chairman I'd like to make a motion or let's everybody's finished the discussion are we done with this discussion board I think we are look at me I I've got something for H2 Mr Robert here we go Mr chairman I'd like to um incorporate exhibit one um which would be the removal of the uh comments for the uh planned Urban developments um as uh and approve this plan that's his document I need a second second okay we've got a motion by Robert a second by Ron and you want to incorporate ex everyone all those in favor say I I any opposed great work guys down there at that end I think staff um if I can say so I think staff and um our public concerns yes did an excellent job this is a framework as as was mentioned and it's step one well it's a great start yes very good okay item H2 thank you Mr chair um item H2 is the transmittal of the evaluation and appr appraisal review based on amendments to the comprehensive plan the application number is uh 24 ls002 to the state land planning agency Florida commerce for the review under the state coordinated review process established by Section 163 3184 subsection 4 Florida statute give me give me one second so chapter 85-55 laws of Florida amended the chap chapter 163 part two Florida statute that require local governments to comply with amended requirements on September 8th 1988 the board of County commissioners of bvar County approv ordinance number 888-2770 Barbara County comprehensive plan and that is been amended from time to time so bvar County reviewed the requirements of Section 163 3191 Florida Statutes and determine that amendments to the comprehensive plan would be necessary to comply with the statutory requirements the county notified Florida Commerce in a determination on November 28 2023 the county now has one year to prepare and transmit the necessary amendments to Florida commerce for the review and pursuant to the state coordinated review process outlined in section uh 3 3184 uh subsection 4 floor statutes FL Commerce has established a December 1st 2024 is the due date for the transmittal of the ear based amendments again uh Bon Landry Associates is the consultant that has prepared the ear and the ear is the uh 15 elements of the comprehensive plan with the exception of the historic preservation element and the property rights element which do not require amendments um the Amendments consist of proposed new goals objectives and policies and revisions to previously adopted goals objectives and policies for the following elements conservation uh water or Sur surface water management Recreation open space housing portable water potable water sanitary sewers H waste and hazardous materials transportation Coastal management future land use intergovernmental coordination Capital Improvements public school facilities in the glossery the members proposed a new element part 16 to the comprehensive plan establishing goals objectives and policies relating to the just heard Bard uh Barrier Island area um once the ear base Amendments have been re uh reviewed by Florida commerce they will issue and objections recommendations and comments report within 60 days that determining that the transmittal package is complete the county will then have 180 days to make changes to add address the orc report and adopt the ear-based Amendments so this will be heard at the November 7th board County Commissioners meeting um staff is here to answer any questions along with Bonnie uh Landry Associates I do have the directors from the associated departments here to answer any questions as well thank you Mr chair thank you Mr jet now is there anybody in the audience want to speak for or against this item H2 item H2 does anyone want to speak for or against this item just you okay well I'm going to give you he got a hearing thing going on so I have to talk loud next to him yeah I'm going to close it to the floor then I'm going to I'm going to give you three minutes this time because we got less people well can I take the minute and put it on the other one and name again please sir further record okay my name is Mark chanis 8885 South Highway unaa melbour Beach Florida 32951 um number one the plan has a future land use for all of the South Beaches as neighborhood commercial it's like a red marker that goes over the map for all of the beaches I don't get it who thinks that all the homes and all the res one that's on future land use right now is all going to be future land use neighborhood commercial who wrote that does that make any sense to anyone here have there anybody driven down there that's there's no way but if you look on the future land use map I don't know if you have it can you bring it up I can you bring up the one okay we she's doing that the next question again is um I didn't read all 670 Pages because I got uh I only saw it recently um I had no power and no internet for five days so I finally got around to it on Saturday but I did get to the point where every line was crossed out on the manate um protection every line 100% of them is it added someplace else Jeff it is um what it does allows for staff to re reference the manity protection plan and dar's coming back up to that's in in her wheelhouse but my understanding is is that um it just changes the location of it okay while she's doing that can you stop the clock because I might need three minutes Mr chandus is this what you're looking for this future land use map yes yes okay if you take a look at the red line that's all the South Beaches okay and if you look at the chart here it says that all the South Beaches is projected to be future land use neighborhood commercial isn't that what we're talking about here we're talking about not having intensity we're talking about reducing intensity or keeping it at least the same we're not talking about killing growth we're talking about a gradual growth that can be handled with the existing water flooding evacuation and everything else that's needed in order for people to live in a place okay this is a very thin fragile Barrier Island it's always moving a storm just came and it moved there's another storm that's materializing and it's going to move we cannot have any more density and we cannot have any more intensity okay two years ago they almost passed a bakery that was selling International Goods they had a a a a website that sold internationally and it almost passed to go on A1A it it with no so everything they would have had all the waste would have poured right into Bean River Lagoon okay that's what this is saying this is saying you can have all these neighborhood commercial places okay and with today's communication you can have a neighborhood commun uh uh a commercial neighborhood place that is shipping stuff all over the world and you would never know it because the county is not proactive it's waiting for someone the complain so the county can see it and they will not go out it's passive that's the way they enforce okay that's a problem okay we won't get into that the next item is removing the Pud references in the neighborhood commercial uh again why are there PUD references in neighborhood commercial that will allow hotels that will allow people think it's only about units but PUD allows hotels marinas huge Rec ational facilities that we cannot have we cannot have the beaches as a destination for that it's fishing it's surfing but if you go ahead and build some kind of mass Recreational facility that everybody comes to you're going to destroy the turtle habitat you're going to ruin everything down there that's related in addition to having more effluent going into the Indian River Lagoon okay so all references to the Pud need to be removed thank you very much all right thank you sir thank you want this back yeah I was going to bring it up but you already brought it up Sir would you like to speak I think not I have questions well I need you to come back up here if you don't mind though if you're wanting to speak no no I don't want to speak I just want to ask a couple of questions after the meeting possibly of okay after the meeting anyone else want to speak on item H2 before I close it okay I'm going to close it for public comment all right seeing that I bring it back to the board open it for discussion with staff we have any questions for staff Mr chairman yes sir um just to give Mark a piece of mind um my exhibit one yeah includes your map with the question on why we have it there okay so and our new member that was in that was not that was not in the no but it it we that's correct we can make it we can make it so that we can do the same apply the standards or the generic uh intention of this framework to the H2 so that's that's the game plan right that's my game plan yeah so um yes uh you know and and again I think everybody's in a Unison with that this is a a giant step in the right direction there are million people a year that come and visit this place right okay and don't kill the Golden Goose Mr if Mr sh just wants to come up to the podium just so we get it on the record if he's going to speak from the audience understood you just emphasize that there are a million people a year that now come and visit because of the Beauty and the and the nature that is down there okay right if you change that okay okay and you turn it into Indian Harbor Beach IND thean Atlantic which is a different kind of a place a different kind of living okay you will eliminate all those million people which is on its way to some other big number okay and a lot of this is ecotourism and a lot of this is people coming down there and spending money on the neighborhood commercial little places and spending a fortune when they come across 192 before they even get there okay and that's you don't want to kill that it's this is a destination around the world where people come from you know Mr let's not kill it Mr chair if I may just ask a question for clarification from staff standpoint the map that is being discussed is that page is that the 2045 future land use map I believe it's page okay so so on that map it shows a red line around the area of critical concern to identify the boundary it's a little bit confusing I can see from The Legend because Community commercial is demonstrated as solid red in the map there are two other maps on uh 823 through 825 which get more specific with the future land use in the area of critical concern and you can see on those maps that the entire area is not being designated as Community commercial than in fact there is very very limited Community commercial identified thank you sir for that clarification okay thank you because it's very confusing you know okay all right so Mr chairman I did hold on here let me unless he has another question do you have a question no I was G I was going to do a clarification sir are you done you need to say anything else um I was someone was going to talk to me about the manate situation and at the end of what we were talking about and explain why it was all crossed off and that was I think that was Darcy and here she comes sorry to make you get up twice that's okay I get my steps okay yes Mark we um we deleted a lot of that because we're g to we're adopting the MPP by reference into the comp plan we haven't updated our plan since 2003 and it's time so we want to go in do boating studies and update the plan you haven't done that yet no we're getting ready to do that so that would leave a lot of really specific conflicting information potentially from a bystander like me it looks like okay you're removing all this stuff because now marinas can come in here without having to worry about manatees no that that's absolutely not case they don't have another permit that they got it's much easier you know no that's not the case that's what it looks like okay and I understand that and I apologize but there was a lot of specificity in there that really wasn't I'm glad you clarified thank you very much thank you thank all right thank you sir all right it is going to be closed to the floor this time all right I bring it back to the board and open it up for discussion up here um yes Mr chairman um as with H1 U my exhibit one if we can also incorporate it for exhibit one for H2 um the primary concern I think of the public is with the puds and the uh one 1.25 uh increase in density when intensity and density are the critical factors here so if the board doesn't have any other comments I'd like to make a motion no go ah not yet you know you guys are preempting stuff today and that's not that's not really good my apologies you'll get a chance to have your vote Mr chairman I have I have a list of questions and comments regarding this document how do you want to handle it you want to go through each line item or do you want me to submit it to staff staff what's that is that questions for staff yeah it's all for staff not for us it's for staff how would you like to handle that Mr Jeff because we got a Mr homarden wants to go line by line that's that's fine okay fine hey John John I have a list of questions too do you want to try to uh have them coordinate so that they're going through the document um I would if you let me speak first you can cross off the ones that may be the same on yours and then you can speak how about that that sounds fine with me okay good deal all right some of the mine are just minor questions and I just want to know because there's a lot of cross outs in this doc document and I want to determine if we are not going to do anything when they're crossed out that that particular item is being eliminated from the plan so let's start on um page 455 which is policy 4.5 C is crossed out John John you said uh conservation policy 4.5 criteria C yes which is crossed out on my document Dar do you want come on darc just Darcy we're going to put you a chair up here okay let just pull that up real quick pull it up it's a big Doc is it pulling up now okay might is it up already yeah yeah it's right here it's the okay my question is why is this crossed out we are no longer going to leave the flood plane in its natural state or do you have it written somewhere else it's contained elsewhere in the uh flood plane protection elements there is no annual flood plane of the Indian River Lagoon of the EST flood plane okay wouldn't it might have been easier if there was a reference to where it was going to be further in the document rather than just taking it out completely and leaving a void okay okay thank you thank you okay um policy uh 4.7 you did some language change here um you're taking out Coastal flood plane and just said flood plane of the Atlantic Ocean uh Coastal flood plane we didn't have like a coastal flood plane the way it was referred to in the policies the the flood plane on the Atlantic Ocean is a velocity flood plane so we tried to update the language to make it more technically correct we still do regulate development on the Atlantic coast through the coastal element and our um Coastal setback lines and then the building department addresses the actual flood plane elevations cuz are based on not on elevations but velocity and I think Anna knows more about this feet above um so many feet of free board so it was more technically correct okay on the criteria below that you crossed out a which was to prohibit the development within the annual Coastal flood plane uh same thing there is no Ann annual Coastal flood plan so you crossed it out because of annual yes because of the terminology doesn't mesh up with the way we apply the flood plane regulations okay so are you prohibiting development on the flood plane again no we have for the Atlantic coast we have our Coastal setback line that regulates the development that's allowable there in terms of the land uses so you have to stay back from the Dune in terms of the flood plane which is typically you know out further um where there is the ve flood plane the velocity flood plane the building department is going to regulate that on what elevation the first floor should be so but we do regulate where that development can go and then once you just figure out where it goes the building department addresses the flood plane okay I believe it was last month that we' reviewed something like that on the level of the flood plane do you remember yeah that ordinance was for the uh base flood elevation for mobile homes and it was plus one foot above that level but that ordinance Is On Hold by the way based on our discussions at the last meeting yes sir okay good thank you appreciate that one uh let's see 455 minum criteria okay 461 I'm sorry John what was that on page 461 item six you're Crossing out beginning January 1st 2010 are you going to put a date in that for mixed use Land Development activities that evidently was an older date that you had in the previous document can we set some dates you know some scheduling on some of this stuff I believe the consult recommend striking where there's dates in there because they don't want to hold your feet to the fire no it it had to do with um I think it was that was the date of the change of that policy if I remember correctly I don't I don't foresee a need to have the date referenced in there that was that was aprilis to have the date in there okay so it wasn't like a deadline corre to actually do that okay all right 4 468 policy 7.2 is uh has been cancelled localized soil erosion is noted by the code enforcement natural resources management department or the other County agency um will be contacted and they're recommended shall incorporate why that I'm sorry we we have never coordinated with lanan and I don't know who they are um we yeah I didn't know who they it was there's we found a lot of stuff in there that was you know not been updated in many years even beyond the seven years from our last year so we really tried to do an excellent cleanup of stuff that's out of date old references old um agencies that may no longer exist and we just we don't do this so we struck it out okay I just didn't want them taking away any of your responsibilities no okay keep your oversight 475 what's a type one aquafer the type 1 aquafer recharge areas are where they have what we Define as highly permeable soils which are 20 Ines per hour over the first 5T and they also above 30 ft in elevation and gvd and they also are within areas of um Titus ville's wellfield so it's it's an area where there's drinking water that you want to protect okay yeah because I noticed that they was um you put in you you crossed out new septic tanks on C on 475 can we get rid of septic tanks that would be wonderful however there's existing Lots there that are um have been there for forever and they still require septic tanks up there and also some of the area is in with the city of Titusville so um we thought it was the fair thing to do I mean if if you're over the aquifer and you have a a septic field you know it's going to leech into the aquifer eventually and I'm surprised that they're even allowing it I mean you're taking out fuel storage tanks which is a pollutant of course hazardous material um well and I think the treatment systems are much more improved since 1988 when all this was written so if you can get improved uh treatment for the lots that are existing in the area that have not yet been developed okay you don't want to take out septic tanks no why you have one at your house yeah oh okay well as everybody on North Mar island page 488 uh objective s sf1 it says Identify existing storm water system defici icies I mean it's very weak in that paragraph any way you can strengthen that up sorry I'm just trying to put this in context yeah it's difficult with the strikeouts the intent is still fulfilled with this I think with this surface water element when we went through with um our storm water department and with sorl that there was some outdated terminology again on B maps and the way the terminology was used so we tried we still try to keep the intent of everything there but make the language a little bit easier to read and a little bit more up to-date and this this isn't weakening anything it's still it's still looking at retrofitting existing storm water systems where we can yeah but it's that you're not proposing that they do it you're just suggesting it was some of the like the language that Ron was mentioning about shall or should you know you're doing something here that it's this paragraph doesn't really mandate anything yeah and and that's an excellent point um one thing with existing development some lots and some you know commercial facilities or subdivisions that were developed a long time ago may not have existing storm water or they have really deficient storm water management and um to they may not have the ability to treat it in the way that we would all like to see it be treated so what we do is where there's new where there's retro when you're coming in to upgrade a facility we do try to imp get that um retrofit done to the best of the ability of this that the site can hold for instance you need to upgrade for the new development but to force a retrofit for previous development that could have been around for decades and is not possible on the site could be problematic for us if we that absolute standard for what if they wanted to do an improvement so they go to the building department to get a permit couldn't you then require them to upgrade yes for the for the new portion of the development they would need to meet the current Cod how about a renovation internal renovation we don't require upgrades in storm water I believe and there I think we specified that it was if you're doing everything internally that you're not triggering uh an increase in the structure size in the impervious footprint okay it really it really depends on the improvements that they're proposing yeah I'm sure it does yeah I'm just you know I was trying to put a little heavier language into this too yeah I understand so John just to to help you so the way that um this is set up is that you have the goals and objectives the objective is what you're trying to do there's no there's no um policy in there we're just saying hey this is what we like to do as an objective and then what follows that is the policy how do you implement that okay I understand that was if your objective though is much harsher than your policy it's the policy that rules but the objective means like at the end of the day you really want to do this that's why I was looking for something a little stronger okay 492 [Music] um SF 2.1 on 492 um you've struck out storm water management plans and you replaced it with storm water area studies a study is a study a plan is something is actionable and I'm looking at Virginia as I say this again the terminology um I don't think we have storm water management plans but we do a lot of studies for instance the big study we just did in North merid Island recently that looked at the entire area north of Hall Road ground truth all the structures and now we're incorporating that study into the development review so if you're doing a site plan or subdivision you're going to need to take that study which is a that is boots on the ground best available data and you need to show that you're not going to have any adverse impacts using that study that was done on North merid Island for examp is that the one that John presented at the uh north bravard um homeowners association meeting it's an engineering study uh that sounds like it could be for U runoff yes it was a big study it was it took a number of years to do and and uh we're very proud of it okay um but your implementing it once you implement the study doesn't it become a plan I'm looking at we have regulations based around the study so if you were coming in for a subdivision and you're on North Meritt Island um the code says you cannot have any adverse impacts in that area and that you have to accommodate both of the water quality and the water quantity so now you've got to meet not just your flow but your volume kind of getting in the weeds here but the code code you take the code and then uh and then incorporate the study that is part of what the developers will need to use to demonstrate that they're meeting the code that makes sense yeah no I understand you also amended it I remember that um some of the neighbors said well what if I were to put a shed on my property would I have to go through this study and the answer was yes but then they took it out well we we we left it in there as a Prohibition until the study was done and then once the study was done we said okay you can have an accessory structure if you demonstrate no adverse impact um this is you know this the study is going to be a living document we're going to continue to build on it there's with rainfall mitigation there's a lot there's so much data out there now so it'll you know these these models will build on themselves and they'll continue to improve and the code is you know the big thing is there is no adverse impact so that's where we're going to fall on all of the developments to make sure they're not going to cause flooding to adjacent Properties or Downstream yeah I know he'll be happy to hear that okay 496 um I assume this is somewhere else policy 4.7 you've taken out the mosquito impoundment uh that was relocated into Rec put that we actually took the whole thing and moved it so it's still in there although we did move this was a long read by the way it is we've been working on it for a little while yeah I was working on it this week or last week and yeah the mosquito uh section was moved and I apologize I don't know off the top of my head but let's see if I can so we we are still handling the mosquito problem absolutely yes and there was no other Chang that's all I needed to know okay hey John uh tell about getting along with yours uh I found that is located in section about Fisheries thank you I don't know what mosquitoes have to do with Fisheries but food food oh it's food okay yeah it's fish food I yeah I I looks like it looks like the mosquito empowerments reference was moved to the conservation element why are we conserving mosquitoes now conservation 3.5 potentially that yeah you have a page per chance yes it's uh policy it's in conservation elment 3.5 which is on page four 451 oh it's back somewhere 451 okay 3.5 okay all right um 5 point or 502 1.10 ocean breezeways we still doing those I'm going to defer to Jeffrey on that one which one 110 here these way yeah that's still that's still part that's in our L of H code regulations okay but it's it's being stricken from this document did we did we move that uh I I don't recall that one was outside of my perview it just it just it was just moved to the following objective it's in there some so um r2.2 okay yeah so it's yeah it's one point it's uh it's on page 503 R 1.2.3 I got it and and yeah 22 and two three okay that's fine all right the on 503 the goal provide a comprehensive program of active and pass massive Recreation that meets the needs of the public you no longer have that as a goal that one that one was moved as well um I would tell you that it's uh part of 1.2 under the visual appeal up on the top of the page visual appeal okay so that's an objective not a goal correct okay all right 525 this going to go forever time we getting you want me to get to the school board Stu you said it not me um on on 525 policy hou 1.1.2 [Music] um just add the word addition after fifth John we're on the eth edition of the oh we're on the eth okay I I'm in favor of it be instruct and just reference Florida building code latest edition yeah yeah or yeah you could put latest edition of the Florida building code I believe the the fifth is actually struck yeah it is so the way it reads is for just the Florida bu yeah okay it's difficult to see that okay all right I'll buy that all right okay that was good good 542 uh on policy 1 well it's PW 2.3 you you've added in there maximize reuse of treated Wastewater and water water conservation Tech techniques while maintaining an an ACC Jesus adequate reuse level of service to recover and diminish the demand for pable water are you referring to the fact that you're going to treat Wastewater as a recycled water or are you talking about in a treatment plant hey there what are you doing I'm sorry sir can you repeat that question no okay you want me to really um I just wanted to know if you're using recycled water or it's in a waste treatment plant that that's the only question there reuse water comes from a waste treatment plant okay so it's already processed okay all right but it's not re it's you wouldn't consider that recycled water uh it's treated water it's treated okay okay I just want to make sure that there's a difference between recycled water which doesn't get treated as well as pable and I didn't want that to be substituted as pable the D has a requirement for anything to be distributed as reuse it has to meet a criteria so whether we call it treated or recycled it has to meet a criteria 70 parts per million and all that yes okay all right so you are aware of that yes I thought so okay um 545 talks about wellfields we went through a whole was about a year ago we went through the document on wellfields and all the water um that we needed for the next 30 Years or something 20 years yeah that that was part of the water supply plan we just did a couple months ago yeah that yeah that was the second time around right okay this one um you've you've struck 4.1 so you it says you're not going to do a wellfield wellfield expansion program there is no well uh I think we rewarded that for something were we're shifting toward a different well field and I think the intent of this was surficial as we're moving to reverse osmosis that'll take us to a different criteria okay what's your percentage of Ro that you're looking for from the total water supply of the total as being what available all available water that we're using currently we have not gone through that due diligence yet okay but it's Justified to have an RO because it's very expensive Capital costs are expensive and operating costs are expensive right but in our um and there's a few factors one is there's um the the source of water is more plentiful as surficial Wells become drier solinity um the technology of do an rro in addition with the past rules um you know R is a is a proven form of removing P house that's correct okay I've got does the county have an R plan not currently no your taxes will so the only one is probably Melbourne is that correct uh Palm Bay has one yeah that's right Palm Bay and Melbourne does yes okay 590 uh SS 1.4 you took out the shell and you put a May permit the use of onlite onsite sewer treatment that's your discretion or should we make it shall [Laughter] Ron yeah that's a component of the um the DP the D is now the agency that permits those you guys don't no okay so they may but they they won't shall correct okay they have that discretion all right 593 um SS 3.7 County shall evaluate all fees and rates to assure adequate funds are available to fund all current and future projects you going to do any revenue bonds for some of this stuff we will okay all right getting to the end here thanks for bearing with me um hang on a second oh I picked this um I'm looking at SS 311 you have health and environment needs here but somewhere in the earlier in the document you struck health and environment needs and I don't recall where that was it was like it was missing you know they had you had struck in the health and environment concerns right on the water but now it's back in again and I'm just wondering I mean everything we do Associated to Water and Sewer is all state and federal regulated geared around health and environment okay okay in on page 594 policy 3.16 is stricken what's replacing that I don't think uh exactly where but all this is saying it's talking about outside of the 6 and 20year future service area which is verbage from 20 some years ago which didn't make sense so because we're identifying a utility service boundary that's what we're focused around okay all right the last thing I have is from the school district which I happen to represent um they only had they had reviewed this document and they were fine with it there was one thing that they were concerned about um on policy 1.1 um on 1013 it talks about the uh the county shall maintain a level of service standards of the public schools based upon the interlocal agreement for public school facility planning and school concurrency they had wanted to add in there that The Bard County hereby adopts the following level of service standards for public schools based upon the interlocal agreement for public school facility planning and school concurrency which established the Los for the district at 100% of Florida inventory of school houses which is fish capacity the Los is calculated by dividing enrollment by factored fish total capacity permanent and relocatable student stations you take you had taken the chart out it's been it's been moved through the Capital Improvements plan which is where impr it's in the Capital Improvements element it's [Music] um evidently they weren't notified of that but you had moved it to there because they they thought it would slip because they had requested it and it was taken out of here when you all took the chart out which they were fine with they didn't want that yeah our conversations with them is that that that our understanding is that they knew it was being moved that's not my conversation this morning okay okay I I'll make sure that they they're aware that where it's moved to that's fine just as long as they are happy okay absolutely chairman thank you for your patience all right thank you Mr chairman Mr Rod uh on page 707 last item item J criteria J it says binding development plans are are not to be used determine consistency uh I think we did that in the past we're not going to be allowed to do that in the future is that correct 707 so so we added that to Ron just so clarify that um the bdp are not to be used to provide for the consistency as one might allude to in 1255 so it's it's not to prevent someone that in order to support their rezoning to hey we you know we'll support Au zoning if you limit these uses it's it's a bdps as a mechanism to say hey I have res four and I want to have R17 I'm going to cap the density at two units to comply with the land use that's what it's meant to stop and we have done that in the past and you're saying that we cannot do that cannot do that in the future I'm just codifying it a little bit more whe and uh then related to that is what I think you just said uh for example another thing that uh we have done in the past is to uh Grant a bu2 zoning with restrictions that are listed in the bdp correct that yeah that is not what the intent of this language is to do okay so that that part does doesn't change yeah it's just it's just the density okay uh and John reminded me of something uh I don't have an exact well let's see act I do have one in policy CI 1.1 what page are you on I don't have a page number are you under future remember where that's no it's not in well no it's not future land use it's the it's in the Improvement it's after it's one after future land use before that what was the policy ci1 uh CI 1.1 criteria E3 we have the word rate that is used but the word volume is omitted it's not there and if you say rate by itself without using volume you have a significant problem yeah you do now I noticed that there's I I don't remember the exact places but I've seen this problem in at least one other place but I've also seen it where it was correct in some other places so I'd just like for you to check wherever you use the word rate to be sure that you're you doing rate and volume okay we we'll we'll Che that okay and uh in in the in the future land use 21 you mentioned a Ser series of small area studies and I noticed you didn't talk about the Mims small area study and I kind of felt personally offended by that I just was curious if if as to why that wasn't mentioned got it that's all I got sorry any other comments from board yes sir Mr Robert yeah I have one it would be on page six8 under transportation element it'd be U number 9-9 and it would be policy 2.6 um you have struck Bard County shall monitor the needs of the coastal population identify major transportation improvements to maintain levels of uh for ensuring timely evacuation prior to impending disaster so this goes back to evacuation routes and um the level of service for evacuations and right now I think for a category 5 we're not we're not anywhere close so I was curious on why that was struck we're we're we're we're trying to find that answer for you okay and that so and also on Coastal management element um that would be the objective for for cm8 um you know currently we're at 61 hours at a cat 5 and you know we need to have the evacuation times compatible I mean I it's an objective I understand it's a framework in an objective but it's um it's critical for Life Safety so Mr Sol when I was just so what we did and and John Scott's not here but my understanding is is that we took that out uh to be consistent with their state evacuation plan so it's still there but it's reference it's it references um the evacuation plan and I don't have the language in front of me yeah well you know Jeff you guys did a great job I I think making a framework on this and um and and as everybody has pointed out with their individual um Minds evacuation Life Safety storm surge uh obviously um other people have other criteria so is there an opportunity for more um input to this comprehensive plan prior to it being approved so let let's talk about process for a second so um your recommendation will include all the discussions that we had and that will be forwarded on to the board for their um their recommendation where they include your recommendation you know in part in full or nothing that's up to them to decide so you know and then once that if the board decides to transmit then it goes up to the state for their review okay and then it'll come back to us for adoption with changes without changes and then it'll be up to the board to um adopt with the pending changes so you know um there's always opportunity to provide input um from the public side as well um we just need to have time to assemble it and and package it for the board meeting yeah I mean 25 years I mean when when you're referencing The Standard Building Code and Florida building code was 2000 yeah it's so great job on and upgrading all of the criteria marking out the stuff that U is no longer in effect because of differencing policy changes and stuff I know that's a Herculean effort to cross the eyes and Dot the dot to tease and cross the eyes so um yeah the couple of the misspellings and other stuff is understandable but yes I I think you guys have done a Herculean job thank you I think it's U long overdue but you know you're doing it now so this is great well thank you again any other discussion I need a motion um Mr chairman I'd like to motion approval based on some of the recommendations and incorporating portions of the H1 elements um I recommend approval I need a second I'll second okay we got a motion by Robert and I'm sorry ma'am what was your name Erica Erica and a second by Erica all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously okay item H9 just give us a second Bill he's gonna good afternoon Mr chair H9 comes out of a direction that was given to us by the border of County Commissioners on April 9th uh they directed staff to develop an ordinance um to allow for accessory dwelling units where may be appropriate for the purpose of encouraging affordable housing um so we've tried to do so with the proposal that's attached essentially what it does is create a new conditional use entitled accessory dwelling units and has a variety of conditions so you would still uh somebody who's looking to do this would still need to come for a conditional use permit which goes before this board as well as the board of accounting Commissioners um and is inserted into as a conditional use into all residential um single family classifications with and then in the addition of uh rural residential mobile home classifications as well uh we thought that was the most appropriate Place places to put it um there are some Protections in those conditions I I spoke to before um specifically it still must meet all the requirements of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan for density for uh in particular it um the primary structure on the lot where somebody's looking to put one of these structures can't have more than one kitchen already um the structure can't exceed a size permitted for all the other accessory structures um it can't be more uh or there has to be there's certain visibility protections built in for Neighbors um and also we restricted these structures from being built in the coastal High Hazard area as well as the area critical State concern that we just spoke about earlier at least and it so when it comes to the area critical State concern should should there be desire to have them the time to discuss that would be after the adoption of the BBI element that we discussed earlier and when we were discussing the Land Development regulations associated with that so with that we're seeking your recommendations to the Board of accouny Commissioners there will be two additional public hearings at the board for the before the board Comm Board of County Commissioners because this um amends the actual permitted uses under zoning classifications thank you all right thank you sir I have a question yes sir Mr John yes um Jeff do you remember that young woman that came before us twice that wanted to put originally an Airbnb and then was she on on the coastal High Hazard do you recall I don't believe she was she was um near K she was up in Marin Island that Coastal High Hazard yeah I don't believe that that property was in a coastal High Hazard area Okay I I should have pulled it but because I was reading all this stuff it took my time away um in her case the Restriction was that she couldn't have a kitchen in the accessory building unit will this change that will she now be allowed to have one do you want to take that I'm not familiar with those specific circumstances that you're were referencing but yes she wants uh she wanted uh she wanted to make some money originally and and have an Airbnb and and then you guys R you said no you she couldn't do it sure so the the the restrictions on Resort dwellings um are what's already in the code still apply so they would have to be able to do it today in order to be able to do it in with one of these accessory dwelling units the likelihood of that happening is extremely low because of the classifications that this was included in specifically was not we did not put adus in multif family classifications so the overlap there between where somebody could do a resort dwelling and also have an accessory dwelling unit under this code is very low I would also say that that's something that the board probably could look at at the time where somebody makes an application for a cup for an accessory drilling unit okay but what I'm trying to discover here is based on two hearings that we had we per we permitted her and and the County Commission did also in having that accessory unit if it did not have a kitchen okay so what she said at the end was she'll let them live in her house and she'll go live in the in the accessory dwelling unit without a kitchen so you know just to help her out if you're changing this she may apply for that I think she was an SE an SE uh designation and she were will may be able to I mean she she must have been coming in under the guest house which is I think believe 62 1932 so this would be an additional potential accessory structure and if she she found that advantageous she could make an application for a CP if she met all the requirements in here that would include things like future land use okay I apologize that I didn't pull that from my files to see where she was and everything but Jeff if you could look into that and and um you know maybe give her a call I can I can add my staff do that yes I appreciate it thank you uh Mr chairman I had yes sir question um what about setbacks from lawn lot boundaries does the same existing set I mean uh same setback rules apply for the uh this new dwelling unit yes sir all the setbacks that exist for uh current accessory structures would apply to this as well and is there any uh distance between the living units and the Adu to accessory buildings is there any restriction there there are there is not a in the current in this proposal there is no uh requirement for a certain distance between the primary structure and the accessory structure if I understand that's the question that's part of the question the other qu part was what about the Adu to accessory buildings no the current the current code between accessory structures 5T which is very minimal okay all right I think that's all I got any other questions from board to staff you're doing Ron good Ron let's go I need a motion you and Robert been killing it today over there yeah he motion men all right yeah I'll I'll make a motion that we recommend approval okay a motion by Ron on item H9 a second by Robert all those in favor say I I I any opposed that passed unanimously and board hey good job today we didn't bore you really good job you focus on school stuff now never okay meeting adjourned the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of County commissioners of Bard County Florida Space Coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of County commissioners of bravard County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any in all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period [Music] [Music] [Music]