##VIDEO ID:UzyfRXhIJ8Y## [Music] [Music] e e Okay it's 3 o'clock if everyone would please rise and Debbie would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please I pledge allegiance to the for the United States of America to the for it stands our nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all okay this is the Planning and Zoning Board looc planning agency it's an Advisory Board which makes recommendations to the County Commissioners who will make the final decision on these items items H1 and H4 are LPA items items on today's agenda will be heard by the County Commission on December 12th 2024 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 your voice is on record speakers for public comment on agenda items will be given five minutes at this time if any board member has had any expart communication regarding any application please disclose so now all right I'll need a motion for approval of the pnz minutes for October 14th 2024 I'll make the motion a motion by Brian second a second by Henry all those in favor say I I any opposed okay that passed unanimously item H1 please sir Mr chair before we get started with the um uh agenda just um for housekeeping so you all got a copy of the board policy and the uh ordinance relating to the membership and the Voting Rights so just want to make sure that there are no alternative members everyone is now a full voting member moving forward with with the exception of the space force representative and the School Board District representative are non voting do we have anyone for those spots for the school board I'm I'm not aware of any um changes and the same with the space all right thank you sir item H1 please item H1 and H2 will be read into the record together they are companion applications however they will need a separate uh recommend ation H1 rhr construction and Development LLC request a smallscale comprehensive plan amendment 24.02 to change the future land use designation from PI to Res 4 under application 24 SS 000012 tax account number 232 0049 in District One rhr Construction and Development LLC request to change zoning class classification from gu and ru- 1-11 to r-111 under application number 24z 0042 tax account 232 0049 and here um it's it's at the discretion of the board if you'd like to table to the next pnz meeting I believe this is the first time this items come before the board so you're entitled to do that Mr chairman yes sir um I'd like to recommend that um we postpone this to the next staff meeting so we're going to need a recommendation for both item one and two for H1 and H2 is uh postponed to the next available opening for the Planning and Zoning Board second okay got a motion by Robert a second by Debbie to table items H1 and H2 all those in favor say I I any opposed those items will be tabled item H3 thank you Mr chair item H3 is schah Inc request a change the zoning classification from bu uh 1 to ra 2-4 this went to the North marit Island spe or dependent special district last Thursday with a recommendation of denial the um applicant provide at that meeting the applicant provided a concept plan that concept plan has not been reviewed for um compliance with our code and regulations do I get more than three minutes I'm sorry do I get more than three minutes yeah yes I'll give you four I'm just kidding name and address yes please good afternoon uh Planning and Zoning Board uh Mr chairman uh members of Planning and Zoning Board my name is Kim rosenka with Lacy L renka 1290 US1 rockage Florida I'm here on behalf of shawa Inc with me is the representative Dan Dvorak if there's any specific questions you have for him um this uh this is a application solely for a zoning ra24 to allow the building of nine town homes on Courtney Parkway uh this is ajacent to uh Courtney Parkway as you can see from page one of what I provided to you um 's Landing is to the east those are 9,000 square well they're allowed to be 9,000 foot Lots uh but they are usually for the most part Halfacre Lots um and that was the first resoning that was done in in North mared Island for quite some time also up to the north you'll see the uh Town Homes the Villas up there those were town homes that were rezoned uh approved through here approximately four years ago they have been built they are single family ownership I understand they might be rental properties but they are single family fee simple title ownership just as the town homes we're proposing would be the property has a f a current future land use of CC and a zoning of bu1 Mr Dvorak did uh back in 2008 have a site plan approved for this to have four buildings of almost 18,000 Square ft of retail there's been no demand for retail in this area so he's not been able to do anything with this property despite owning it since July of 2005 the partiel is 2.47 right now with the commun commercial and the bu1 he could put four town homes on there but as you know costs have been driven up substantially and he wouldn't be able to do it financially that's why he's asking uh for the change from ra24 which is the same as the Villas on the west side of Courtney um page two of the packet I provided you are the Villas that I referenced to the South just three Parcels away that is Sun Island Lakes granted it's been there since the 1980s um but it currently despite the tr3 zoning and the future land use which is res to it is currently at four units to the acre just to let you know um that's from the site plan that's on their website that's on page five so it is more dense the same density that we're looking at for this proposed project um I provided to you a page six uh Mark Burns spoke at the South mer uh South mared Island special defendent district board he was not in favor of it his would be the most uh closest to this property and um I did want to show you that this zoning of eu2 if this project this were zoned eu2 uh the setbacks would be side setbacks are 15 ft currently although we do have a concept plan the intent is to leave a good 25 to 40 ft in its natural state between the strip that's owned by the HOA and the town homes now this was just to show you that the eu2 could be a 9,000 foot lot as the zoning which is five units to the acre even though it's res to uh page nine is that strip of land that would be between Mr Burn's house and shwa property it's approximately 15 ft in width so there's that extra buffer as well so you have Mr Burns's 15 ft plus the 15 ft of the side setback I mean of the HOA property and then you would have at least a 25t setback but the intent is to have a larger setback and to have the um retention pond in the back there and we can put this in a bdp if that's the choice uh of the the board I also put in here um the North marid Island homeowners association bylaws I'm sure you're all very familiar with this group uh they did speak in opposition on Thursday night and I did want you to know that they really had no option because the purpose on page 11 is to Endeavor all future zonings no more than one unit per acre so they do show up at all North Meritt Island zonings and oppose it and it's basically they have no choice they do not represent 10,000 acres or 10,000 people as they State it's a voluntary organization the last page is just a concept plan there have been other concept plans since this time but and this hasn't been reviewed by staff it's not binding it's just to show you what the intent is is to have the town homes closer to the road with a culde AC then you again have an amenity area and storm water Pond and as much as possible is going to be left in its natural state so there will be a large size buffer if you uh are inclined to approve this zoning and you want additional conditions uh we can certainly look at those as the staff report indicated there's no anticipated material reduction material or adverse impacts on the surrounding area there's no level of service issues regarding traffic the corridor is anticipated to operate at 37% of capacity daily with this proposal this proposal with 9 units only has generates nine trips per those nine units per day however that commercial property at 80 at 18,000 Square ft would have 55 parking spaces so it would be a concrete jungle it would not have any green space per se and this is a less intense use than what could be built there currently in bu1 business uses are not in demand uh that was the intent originally Mr Doric was telling me he was driving home from the Space Center where he worked and he there was no place to stop and get a bottle of wine so that's what he initially bought the prop property but there's just no demand up there and so he's trying to do something with the property uh provide another alternative of housing other than uh 9,000 ft Lots or quarter acre lots and with all of the activity at the Space Center additional housing in this area is needed it is not going to be rental it's not intended to be rental by Mr dorak and his company it's intended to be sold uh with that we're here to answer any questions and we would ask a recommendation of approval for the r24 to allow the construction of nine single familyowned Town Homes all right do we have any questions for the applicant board um yes I have u a question but it would primarily was staff all right um this is in the I guess the uh North merid Island dependent special district is that correct yes do they are they the authority having jurisdiction I'm sorry to say that again Mr are they the authority having jurisdiction over Planning and Zoning issues so the way that uh it's set up is that uh they are an Advisory Board to this Advisory board so along with so they make a Rec mendation along with with the recommendation from you all and that gets forwarded on to the board for their ultimate approval or denial of the application okay in the opening statements I think you said Thursday they rejected it outright no so their recommendation was for denial denial okay and they've already voted on it yes okay so um I'm looking at the notice of hearing that I got off of public records and it's dated October 31st and they voted on the 14th is that two weeks there the the meeting that uh they made the recommendation was last Thursday which is which was the 14th yes sir but the notification the notist of the hearing was issued on the 31st of October that's only 14 days is that correct I I if you give me a minute I can check to see when the notice was I'm looking at it so um who issues the notice our um our agenda staff okay all right so it may have been just an error but Florida statute requires 30 days notice what statute are you referring to Mr Sullivan um 16604 one um section one if you want I can read it it's the notice shall state that the substance of the proposed ordinance as it affects the property owner and shall set a time and a place for one or more public hearings on such a ordinance such notice shall be given at least 30 days prior to the date set for the public hearing so apparently uh and a copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours uh you know for the office of the clerk of the governing body so that's Florida statute 166.010 of clarification that is the process for municipalities to adopt ordinances and resolutions okay we a county so technically we fall under 125 with respect to processes for ordinance adoptions and resolutions this is an administrative or I guess it's an advisory determination uh in this case okay yeah all right fair enough all right um the key is that their recommended board their board recommended denial is that correct yes they did okay all right thank you and to clarify further their board it was a unanimous no if I'm correct it was unanimous any other question question from the board here for the applicant for all right seeing that I take it out to the audience does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item okay um sir if you could come up well he's raised his hand first and if you want to come down to the front row that way we can kind of move along when he gets done I'll give you each three minutes to speak that word that was and when you start sir if you can give your name and address for the record my name is Jack rman I live at 568 East Hall Road I'm on the uh North m Island special district board I'm the co-chair and I've been on the North Mid Island HOA uh homeowners group past president seven years uh past vice president seven years and both groups unanimously denied this uh application and there were several reasons why but since I have three minutes I'll get to it here uh we're doing where we're looking at administrative policy 3A uh diminish quality of life administrative policy 3B diminish property values and administ administrative policy 3C which is um non-compatible with local land use and the attorney pointed out that there's some uh Town Homes north of here the chrisop Foy town homes and they were forced down upon us the board and the community voted against them we were told they were going to be sold and they're not sold they're all for rent so now we're faced with a rental neighborhood only two have been rented so far as far as I know that's it so so for them to say yeah this is compatible with other things in the neighborhood the this was compatible with something that we didn't want for the first place you know if you had a um besser furnace uh zoned up there and they wanted to put another one in that wouldn't be quite right those apartments set a precedent and I don't know if you have your packet or not do you have this packet that they s yes have that M okay how about on p on page 29 it says up at the top us soil hydrology map and I was surprised I went online and looked up uh the first one aaer and hydrate soil both of those are referenced to Wetlands so they go right through the property there but it doesn't say Wetlands but if you look on Google Google that and see what it says it tells you that so in a roundabout way they're skirting around that wetland and then the height restriction the height restriction is 35 ft which one of you would want to have a town home 35 ft next to your house with a 20ft setback that that's unreasonable and then for them to say oh we're going to give a 25 ft setback along that one entry Street there that's a spike strip correct okay who I won't ask who knows what a spike strip is because probably nobody Spike strip means they can't do anything with it they can't sell it they can't egress Ingress anything that's why they have to put in a road themselves and they can't come off of that so this whole this whole thing is ill conceived and I ask you to deny it all right thank you sir sir if you could come on up and state your name and address for the record yes sir um my name is Mark Burns I live on 206 nor Street and I am that property that they were talking about that you mentioned my name earlier uh simply I represent my wife my parrot and my four dogs okay that's about it right now I did 30 years in the Air Force this is my final house this is where I plan on retiring I love the community I love all my neighbors and this and that I just real briefly brought up the wetlands as I was walking the dogs yesterday there was a couple of owls sitting right up there in the tree where they plan on taking them down and there Bobcats that run through there and the lots of turtles and everything else but I'm not that's not really my subject matter uh the thing that I wanted to talk about is they talk about the setback I'm about 15 ft away from where they want to build a retainer Pond basically they're going to dig a hole all the water slopes down from Courtney right to my house I have an embankment that water is going to go in that hole and it it it doesn't go anywhere it stays there and it stays there until it's evaporated and you all you that live in Florida this long you understand that means a lot of mosquitoes for me my wife and all of our fruit trees and our enjoyment out in our backyard not to mention for my one-year-old granddaughter there's a hole out there the size of whatever I don't know are they going to put a chain link fence next to it to keep access away I haven't heard anything about that but uh I'm not um let's see so the other thing is and speos I don't think is here but my neighbors that are not negret Landing they're constantly pumping water constantly before hurricane they have to pump down their Lake probably for about a week it's so noisy all you hear is just that that water pump and uh that's all they need is more flooding going into there they uh they have some real problems right there and they drain it up through the seat uh the street they spend a lot of money on gas and they don't need any more flooding in that area they don't need more water coming down that Hill filling up their ponds uh you know the traffic was already mentioned and what have you uh but my biggest issue really is just you know how would you like to have a big hole you know right in front of where these beautiful trees used to be with a whole bunch of mosquitoes um and the smell you know you know when the foliage dies it sits there and it rots and it smells and um that's kind of what basically what what I want to tell you that this is how this affect me obviously it affects a lot of other people but this is my retirement home and I have to look at have these mosquitoes biting me and uh smell that in front of all my trees well maybe I find another retirement home but uh I don't know how I'm going to do that cuz I spent all my money after retirement buying this house right okay and I'm not going to get as much for this house when I sell it with that hole next to my yard and by the way I paid $225,000 lot premium for this lot cuz it's such a beautiful lot was or hopefully will stay a beautiful lot thank you very much sir all right thank you sir anybody else in the audience want to speak for or against this item okay I'm going to close it then for public comment and Miss Kim if you could come back up and you hear some of the concerns yes sir um regarding the north Mar Island special dependent District board as you heard Mr rman sits on that board he also sits on the nahoa board and he sits um and he's been in this area a long time and he didn't want the other Town Homes he sits on the nahoa board he has to support their bylaws that says no less than one units acre so obviously um his opinion is based upon those guiding principles the board heard there were a dozen people in the audience they heard from four or five people they just don't want any change they don't want that lot developed that lot is currently bu1 they could have a dozen different things there 25 ft from the property line This is a less intent use and is compatible because it's single family they didn't give any reasons other than we don't want it we don't want town homes and we don't want Apartments these aren't Apartments these are single family ownership just the listing of the of the policies without evidence is insufficient to uh deny this request again he's owned it for 20 years he hasn't been able to develop it he would like to develop it um for single family homes which the comprehensive plan says we should have single family homes in a variet of opportunities for people to have single family ownership uh regarding the crystal fules you know the force upon us that was mentioned several times at the uh special dependent District board again they didn't want it County Commission approved it because it is single family ownership and it is compatible with four units the acre that is in this area and other locations including the mobile home park if there is a wetland they will have to abide by all the rules and regulations and won't be able to impact it um except for a nominal amount they could impact it all right now in commercial but if it's residential they'll have to abide by the 1.8% regarding a height restriction the eu2 is 35 fet as well so um Town Homes r24 35 ft eu2 35 ft the height restrictions are the same regarding that Spite strip it's really owned by the HOA it's a buffer it's intended to be a buffer as to the flooding this area of Meritt Island has special restrictions on um compensatory storage that was adopted four years ago because of the flooding and an engineer who designs something in this area has to basically certify with their life that it's not going to impact others and this uh property would be subject to those strict requirements and the whatever it is the uh the something you push numbers in and it pushes numbers out and I don't remember what they would call it cuz I don't know that many people have used it up here uh as to fencing whatever the uh requirements are for fencing will be done and frankly most people prefer retention Pond next to their home versus a 25 or 30 foot town home so that retention Pond will act as a buffer and again there can be a condition to leave the natural buffer as much as possible that's been done several times by this board and County Commission finally there is no evidence of Deval Dev valued property right now uh there there's no evidence to support that that requires an MA appraiser to do so in conclusion this requested zoning of ra24 is consistent and compatible with the existing and emerging development in the surrounding area and keeping to the character of the predominantly single family homes which is mentioned in the staff report so this is a less intense development and we would request your approval with any conditions that you deem appropriate thank you hold on one second Miss Kim Mr Henry you ready for me I'm ready well they they can all talk on North Mar I don't how long they've been there they probably should have named the island after me at least a road been there a long time um without that commotion uh I was on the committee then when they keep relating to Chris of Foley and I'm not sure if there's any alignment to to the Chris fly they owned it at the time I did this own they might have owned it and I but they certainly don't own in now and I took the position I was fairly supportive of that project because I was hoping that was going to be the end and I took that position I said you know we can live with it on North R Island just a little bit but then I watched today State Road 524 and now everybody says well Henry they got one across the street they got another one across now they got 6,000 units on 524 North Courtney doesn't need nothing more we need more retail up there etc etc and I'm just against anything other than something retail up there because this our place is beginning to be a hodg Podge up there so I can't support it no matter what you do I I'm holding hard on what I've done in the past and I'm holding hard now so I'm not going to be support it yeah the the only issue and you may remember goport coming before you it was the only multi-use Plaza up there it had a gym it had an ice cream shop it's now on parking ride for the port because they couldn't couldn't sustain itself it had a sports bar at one point you've got the 3700 Commerce which is many warehouses Warehouse units it is not full you've got right across from these town home Villas is a restaurant that's defunct so there is no support for commercial development up there especially after covid everyone's going Amazon or Walmart or home delivery so there is no I understand everyone wants commercial up there there's no call for it it's it's I you have a Dollar General that may be all that goes up there so again this is uh North mer Island this is we believe a good use of the property and I understand Mr medo any other comments for the applicant Mr chairman yes sir uh the north Meritt Island board uh voted against it uh the north Meritt Island board are so I believe they're actually elected is that correct okay elected as opposed to being appointed like we are uh so my take on it is they have a much more personal interest in it than we do uh and if I think if they voted against it I think I should support them any other comments from the board up here are there any questions from oh is this planed to be a threeory building or two-story no it's plan to be twostory okay can can I ask a question so if it were to develop as commercial where would the retention area or the detention area be located just Cur just for comparison purposes presumably in the on the Eastern end the rear side of the lot as well it gosh I don't I don't I have it back at my desk a minute it's an a sar location it's it's it would be towards the east right and and Jeffrey is there or Mr ball is there a requirement if they were to develop under B one to come in front of of any of these boards to ask for any kind of approval so just site plan approval I'm not an engineer I'm a planner so my understanding of how storm Water Works is that they put it on this lowest part of the property no I mean in general if they were coming forward and they had just a site plan for any commercial property would that have to go in front of any public board no so it would just it would just go through the regular route of site plan approval and go through correct correct so if if they were proposing a retail commercial use on the property it has CC land use and B1 zoning currently it would go through staff review under the S plan process that's it no public hearing okay and the there's several bu1 Parcels as I look at the zoning map surrounding the area that are not developed and presumably haven't been developed in well let's just say ever given the sign theal signature there's homes on bu currently so from a from a property rights perspective which you know that was past a year or two ago um I mean I would support this from the respect that it sounds like they've tried to go bu1 it's been bu1 for decades obviously it hasn't developed um to force somebody to keep a zoning category because that's sort of what they want I think uh you know isn't consistent with the property rights component of of the state and I do see it as a as a consistent use it's transitional between the one zonings and the single family uh to the rear there'd be all of the same you know requirements would have to be met through you know engineering Bard County all the different outside agencies um that would manage the wetlands species storm water flooding components um so because of those reasons I would support this request Mr chairman yes sir Mr Robert well I am a professional engineer and former drainage District engineer and a designer and I've done Land Development down in bravard County uh Broward County uh in Miami dat in Palm Beach and there's literally a thousand different ways you can do a retention Pond you can do storage vaults you can do exfiltration you can raise this thing up so um saying that it needs to be at this location or that location um it's really up to the engineer of record and how creative they are so um as far as you know keeping people from developing their property um it was purchased at that business location the overall planning is to make the main corridors uh business and Beyond those corridors make them residential so the people obviously have spoken um on how they feel on what they wanted and how they in invested their prop their money in their property so we are an Advisory Board and I've advised many clients on many things um sometimes they like my advice sometimes they don't but I do respect the people who uh are the property owners and they appear to have spoken so I'm not in favor of this particular request uh Mr chairman yes sir uh I've been sitting on the West Melbourne board for about 10 years now and on this board for about 2 years and lately every project that comes up has neighbors going we don't want this here not in my backyard I've already got mine nobody else can have theirs um what I'm finding is people are still coming to Florida um they're not going to stop coming to Florida if we do not give them well planned um affordable places to live because these same people who are going not in my back we need we need affordable housing not in my backyard though but we need affordable housing and one of the worst one of the worst reasons that we do not have affordable housing is a because of Regulation B because the cost of of just the cost of construction and see because that it's harder and harder to find a place to build it people are not going to stop coming to Florida if we do not give them good places to live then we're going to end up just like New York and just like um San Francisco where you've got people living on the streets they're going to be here they don't then they get here and they don't have any way to get anywhere else and when people want to do things with their property I notic none of these people ever come up here and go well we got the money together and we were going to buy the property that we want to tell people what to do with this person owns this property and obviously I'm I'm looking at that area yeah there's nowhere to put anything business there and there's all these all these big houses my neighborhood I live in I live in an old neighborhood our NE my neighborhood was built in the 60s and the 70s yet we have um right across the fence there's commercial there's a hotel and then there's apartment and there's assisted living and this is all right where I can see it from my backyard it doesn't bother me these are my neighbors and and we have we have a great neighborhood my neighborhood has been has become so desirable that because I have all this other stuff around that I couldn't afford to live there if I didn't already have a house so like I said it's it becomes a little gnawing to constantly hear people going not in my backyard not in my backyard I'm the only backyard you're talking about you don't have a retention Pond next to you do you I do sir it's not affordable housing hold on one second now I give everyone their time to speak let please be respectful that's that's are you good that's all I got to say about that all right well I see we've got some up here seems to be for some to be against so I need a motion I make a motion that we deny this request second okay I have a motion from Henry uh second by Ron on item H3 for denial all those in favor say I I I do we need a head count please who said I I said I you got everyone yeah it looks like five for the motion and five against so it's a tie so the motion fails okay you're all set well well now you can take the alternative motion and see if you can have additional discussion or if everyone's setting their position you want to make a motion for approval I make a motion we approve item H3 item H3 second okay we have a I'm sorry sir what was your name got a motion by Robert a second by Debbie all those in favor say I I I I so we need to show a hands yes pleas I it's F it's 55 okay stayed 55 so you can either table it or the motion either motion will be brought to the board with no uh Motion in favor or against also consider conditions if that would change anyone's Minds if they want to put conditions in a bdp but I haven't heard that from anyone that would be the other option all right thank you thank you yeah item H4 item H4 Christopher espinat represented by kimy Rena request a smallscale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from res one to Res for under application 24 ss13 tax account number 296 3382 in District 3 is the applicant here uh good evening chairman members of Planning and Zoning actually LPA for this one uh my name is name is Kim renka Lacy Lions renka 1290 US1 in rockage Florida I'm here on behalf of Christopher espot who is here in the audience also with me is Jim mcnider professional planner whom I will pass out his resume when he speaks and ask you consider his testimony to be expert testimony this uh is a request for res one to Res two it normally would be a very simple request we have an inconsistent zoning with a future Lan use um that's of Greater density however there is some discrepancy as to what the comprehensive plan says and what the South Barrier Island law really means and how it's applied uh I had been working with Mr espano for two years to find a way to help him develop this property as you can see from page one he purchased this in 2005 it had just recently become a condominium when you try to find this you pull up the whole condominium of 1.7 Acres but this is really a 7 acre piece of property uh Mr espot owns condominium unit one and he tells me he checked with the zoning office before he bought it but again who knows if the condominium uh were read properly or whatever so he believed he could build one single family home he lives in Del re Beach he bought it intending to move up here says forever home and now he can't build on it if this isn't changed he cannot build on this property um so the purpose of this again is to allow him to build one single family home as you can see on page two this is the AAL map from your package it shows the yellow Square on the right side is one home on the left side the vacant property is Mr espen's property uh you can see that there are there condos it's actually condo to the west but they're more like duplexes there are duplexes to the north single family homes to the South condom minum due east and then some very tall two and three story homes along the beach there to uh the North End South as you see on page three it actually shows the whole property the 1.7 Acres we're only seeking the7 acre future Lane use amendment to Res one the other owner is not involved in this property you'll see also almost everything in the future luse map Is Res one just immediately to the north on the beach side there is some residential 4 and I point that out because this res 2 actually can serve as a transition between the res 4 and the res one this is the same issue we had with Santa in Palm Bay down south the comp plan as you'll see doesn't say adjacent transition it just says transition in the area so when you look at this page four you'll look at the zonings currently with this res one future land use over r210 r24 r28 Sr these are all inconsistent zonings with the future Lane use and and the county did this so um as I was talking with Mr mcnight what happens if these town homes are are blown away by a hurricane are they going to be rebuilt because they're inconsistent I just raise that because this is a huge problem down here in the South Beaches page five Coastal High Hazard area map this property is not in a coastal High Hazard area and that is extremely important because of the comprehensive plan policy that says you can't build in the coastal High Hazard area page six this is from the property appraisers this shows Mr espano property the DT's property which is the built condominium unit and then the condominium common area the Declaration of condominium on page seven uh oh I do want to well you'll see this this is just a few pages this was recorded like two months before Mr espot purchase the property um and it does have on page nine it shows the unit one and the unit two it also shows an Ingress and erress easement of 75 ft um looks like 75 ft by 181 ft that's an easement area granted it has not been approved yet by by the county but that's an administrative approval for an easement and unit two can't complain so there if if this is approved then he would go a building permit and we would go through administator approval through Mr Caulkins to get an easement approved all we need is a 20ft easement under 62102 um page 10 Mr Dort he's the one that owns the built condominium unit page 11 and 12 are pictures from Zillow that show the area even better than the property appraisers map actually beautiful pictures on Zillow like 67 of them um this was recently sold to the dorts you can see um that all of what's around it you can see the vacant lot that's Mr espot it would be next to the pool for the condominium to the West you also see the trees along well the trees along A1A and along the kasiki trail to the South there page 12 again um this is also this is a partially a two-story house so it does have some height as well and then page 12 that's the driveway so it is heavily wooded um and I only raised that because there's some comment in the staff report oh it might har harm the visual buffer to the scenic route to the beach well they're not going to see it anyhow and they're already blocked by the three-story homes that you see on the pop top of page 12 um the hoton that's page 13 they sent in an email um and granted I just got that package before before I got here of all those that came in Friday so I don't know what's in that package of comments uh so this is the one that I did have U Mrs hotson she did not want a trailer park this is not going to be a trailer park a trailer park requires tr3 zoning and 10 acres this is going to be one single family home which we've put in a binding development plan you have the wrong version in your packet I have it for you here today starting on page 14 a binding development plan based upon the future land use paragraph number three on page 15 developer shall limit density to one single family dwelling and permitted accessory buildings if he wants to have a shed a pool that's why that was in there um this was submitted to the county on October 28th that somehow didn't make it into your packet you have the wrong version in your packet page 18 the reason this is acceptable is because the county has done this before they have approved a bdp for a future Lan use Amendment with Duncan Donuts when Duncan Donuts had to reone in North Mar so we had to change the future land use to CC so it could have a drive-through this is next to Divine Mercy up in merid island so there is precedence for this and this is the Duncan bdp uh that I was involved with and that County Commission asked for recommended and approved uh another instant um and this is under 62255 that says you basic to me my reading simplified you can have inconsistent future Lane uses and future uh and Zoning categories so long as a bdp makes them compatible and that's what this bdp is intended to do I show you another one um Island Forest Preserve I think Mr minimu knows this one very well of chis Foley Road this one has res one future land use but it wanted an Sr zoning so that was done and you'll see on page 22 where it's all res one but they do indeed page 22 have Sr zoning and this was to limit the density to one unit to the acre so we're limiting the density to one unit for a res 2 it's the same type of concept um for a binding development plan to limit the use to make it consistent with the future land use page 27 this is where um staff and the applicants Representatives disagree I initially thought this should be changed because to me objective 7 and policy 7.1 are inconsistent the way these things usually work is you start with a if you don't meet a you don't go further so limit densities with the coastal High Hazard area and direct development outside of this area this property is not in the coastal High Hazard area so therefore the rest of this doesn't apply and it doesn't make sense that say you can't develop on a 7 acre piece of property per a single family home so the staff report says this has been an historical interpretation I think it became historical because of this property in 2018 or 2019 I know it was an issue with the Condominiums the deer condominium that we did three or four years ago two or three years ago um but that had the proper future land use and Mr caulin opine oh that's fine you can change the zoning well changing zoning here doesn't help Mr espot we have to change the future Lan use or he cannot develop so again the staff has said it's historical interpretation Mr mcnight is going to give you a different interpretation and you are permitted to listen to Mr mcnight because of constitutional Article 5 section 21 on page 28 of your packet judicial interpretation in statutes and rules a state court or officer hearing may not defer to administrative agency's interpretation of a statute or Rule and must inter the statute or rule on your own so you do not have to abide by the interpretation of staff and you are perfectly permitted to make up your own mind of what the comprehensive plan means and was intended to mean uh finally I cite to you page 29 which Miss Saunders referenced a few minutes back private property rights and local decisionmaking process Mr espanet cannot do anything with this property if this has not changed the future land use there's no way to get a variance to the lot size because there's no way to get a variance to the comp plan and therefore this is the only uh potential way to have use of this property um also I did want to let you know Mr espot has been paying taxes on this property since 2005 I know the the page I gave you said the value was 155,000 this year it's 225,000 I'll give a copy to the clerk to show the property appraisers and pulling the taxes that were paid um he has paid almost $41,000 in taxes since he's owned it for property he cannot use so with that I'm going to ask that um Mr mcnight come up I'm going to hand out your resume his resume um he'll give you a little bit of an overview I think many of you know Mr mcnight and and he will uh give you additional information to consider thank you for the record I am Jim MC Knight and I am a professional planner uh most of my life was spent as a city manager but uh I am doing that nowadays and very enjoyable most of the time uh I think what is important in this this seems to be a lot of discussion for 710 of an acre that's intended for one single family home staff's interpretation and you know staff has every right to interpret things the way they see them I'm not going to debate that with them but the objective that says objective seven in the coastal management limit densities within the coastal High Hazard area okay and direct development outside of the area this is outside of that area this meets the objective of directing it outside so we're not requesting that we put uh something on res one we need res two and we recognize it has to be res too it is also a good transition when you do that now I understand it's small piece okay we all agree with that but it is directly behind a single family home and it is before you get to the multif family so from a compatibility standpoint is exactly the way you draw it up in planning so I don't think policy 7.1 really comes into play because you can't get beyond the overall objective because you have directed development outside of that area um you also have a major inconsistency between the existing zoning and the res one that is on the property for the comp plan you've got zoning that's everything out there okay I looked at the map and made my eyes crossed because you've got you know some multif family some single family different types of single family and that's how it's developed over the years but now you have a residential one on it which limit someone from able being able to build simply a single family home on 7/10 of an acre to the north you have seu you have the road with an ru2 210 uh Zone to the South you have RP to the East and you have R u210 to the West it cannot be said that this doesn't fit the neighborhood it does it absolutely fits the neighborhood from a planning perspective I read through the The Guiding principles for development and though that's not really where we're at if you read through the guiding principles for development this is exactly what would be intended for this piece of property it it it's the piece that comes up because you're not increasing residential density because you're building a single home on a single lot so you know Miss Ranka has covered most of the area on that but from what I see and I I read through some of the uh input about statutory non-compliance again we're requesting a change to the comp plan and therefore I don't think comp statutory non-compliance comes into play uh the environmental invulnerability I think whatever gets built there meets the same criteria so I don't think that really plays much into it it is a critical State concern designation and while I understand the critical State concern it is not a coastal High Hazard area and the comprehensive plan uh inconsistency again this is addressing 710 of an acre one unit one home and therefore this would eliminate the uh the inconsistency that's being brought out and while binding development plans aren't normally used on comp plan amendments it has happened and it has been done and I've seen it done in places I've been but it's it's just very unusual I will give you that but it does happen and in this case it would make sense because then everybody would know what you're getting on that property I'll be glad to answer any questions you have but in my opinion this meets the intent of what is in the code and I think it goes outside of what the state was doing when they were trying to limit density okay they weren't trying to create a situation where somebody couldn't develop a single family home on 710 of an AC Jim how many uh yes sir um how many square feet is the house proposed yes that I do not know chrisis 4,000 4,000 square F feet and that's is that under roof for yeah okay so we're talking about what 15% of the property something like that Mr a question Mr briyan forgive me if I'm a little confused on this but who owns that house that's immediately adjacent the one out front towards East to the east yeah okay yeah yeah it's page 10 it's page 10 Mr Dort Mr and Mrs Dort yes cuz when we look at it on Arrow view it looks like the same owner owns the entire partial yeah but it's not it there's some maps in there that show that just our imagination yeah no it's not it's divided you have show divided line but it just shows one owner for both parcels yeah yeah if you look at page six of the packet I gave you when when you want to search by condominium you have to search in the property praiser website by condominium as opposed to owner and when you do it by the kasiki trails condominium page six it shows the three owners as does the the condo docks which shows the unit one and the unit two which page nine shows the clear division of unit two and unit one Mr chair can I can I jump in for a second I just provide some clarification for you all yes sir so so in 1992 the board adopted the South Beach South Beaches area plan where the board directed staff to reduce the densities on the majority of the property down there to Res one based on a number of factors there are there were several properties that remain the res 4 but the majority of the properties was designated as res one this this property along with all the properties in South Beaches is part of the critical area State concern which you all decided to to transmit up to the state and the board uh last week decided to with that there is um regulations that limit the density designations in that area so going from res one to Res two is a density increase because you're going from one unit to the to two that's a density increase as far as the history of the property sometime in 2005 the property was split using a condo dock with the house that was in front to the property to the rear that property before split was 1.7 Acres so the front property is 1 acre the back part of it is7 which is not in conformance with the res one land use and that's why we're here today so if this if this board recommends approval this will be uh sent to the board County Commissioners as well and this would be reviewed under the state coordinat review because it's part of the critical area State concern and that it would come back for you all under the adoption process as well do do we have any other ones because there's so that's peculiar that A1A section do we have some more if we open the door here or that's going to be I would I would tell you from a staff perspective that it would set a precedence yes sir Jeff Rob S so primarily you're this is a preventative issue from staff looking downrange based on the area of critical concerns that has gone to the state and we don't want to open a precedence for Mission creep for later development to use this as a precedence for something so just to answer your question and it's going to go a roundabout way so um this application would so it the way we are interpretating 7.1 and um and that is that is to restrict residential density designations with the South Beach's area this property would do that only only in a zoning aspect I mean I'm I'm very so that is from a land use perspective right not from a zoning perspective because that's a that's a separate issue outside of what we're what we're discussing today so I mean it the impass right now is the res one and the res two correct and you know a solution because they're not the owner is not increasing density um and then this goes back to the owners and what are you recommending to go to Res 2 but that would establish a precedent and so now you know that that is the conflict between staff and yourself um I I don't see a problem with approving it as res one well but I'm trying to figure out why you need it as res two because it's res one right now and you can't build on property that's less than an acre when it's res one and I disagree that it sets a precedent because this is a legislative decision a policy decision of whether it makes sense for this particular piece of property so if you have another one similar to this I'd be really shocked because I'd have heard about it by now M so this is this is not going to set a precedence because each piece of property has looked at individually and because it is a comp plan Amendment versus zoning it's a legislative policy decision right so I don't think it sets precedent and he just can't build on it because it doesn't it's it's too small of a property for the residential one which requires one unit per acre only allows one unit for acre well you have your binding agreement um Builder's agreement um can't you guys get together and have a beer or something we trust me Mr ball has worked with me for two years he really has and there's just you can't get a variance to the comp plan there's no way to do it that that is a difficult so I mean I wish there were a way to do it but so is it true that this is Mis zoned that we cannot we cannot as a county zone property to make it where it can't be used right the the county didn't do this this was done by the person that created the cond minum the prior owner to Mr espot but yes it is true you couldn't Z the county the county puts out the zoning right you can't you can't make your own zoning cuz I would change mine to something let me let me go back there's been a number of times people have come before you and said I need to change the zoning because it's incompatible with the future land use or vice versa I mean that's a lot of what you say I'm I'm sure that that staff has hold on one second ahead and yes sir you got the floor so thank you Mr chair here um the request is to increase density right now they're allowed one unit to the acre res two would allow two units to the acre so that's why they have to have the two units to the acre to to comply with the 7 aspect of of the zoning what they're trying to utilize The Binding development plan is to say that will only build one unit on that property but I think that it's that there's been a lot of discussion but when you look at 71 policy 71 I think it is very clear in the limitations that the board has adopted in the comp plan this say bouard County shall not increase residential density designations for properties located on the Barrier Island between the southern boundary of Melbourne Beach and the Sebastian Inlet doesn't talk about a coastal High Hazard area it gives you a definitive line from the South Melbourne Beach to Sebastian Inland and historically we have not entertained any land use changes which would increase density there have been a few zoning where people have had a higher land use density where they would you know could change the zoning to qualify to meet that those have been allowed but Todd anywhere else in Bor County we can't yes sir or any any place outside of that of that re of that area I would say that you could so this this could increase density down there it will increase density from a from a land use standpoint yes ma'am all right and I live down in that area in the beaches and they pretty about that did not want to increase M Mr chairman Mr R the applicant of speak very eloquently about why this is a not a zoning change I mean a density change uh and my my recommendation is she take that eloquent speech to the County Commission to me we've got a policy and it's very clear what the policy says it's very clear what is being requested violates that policy I for one will not vote to recommend approval because it violates the policy now if the County Commission wants to do that it's their policy they can change their policy right I don't think we have that authority to do uh so I agree with that Mr chairman um yes sir I is it not true that we did enter into an agreement that this County entered into an agreement with the state that we must um make people's land usable that you can't deny the use of a person's property this is this land is unusable the way it's the way it is zoned you can't do anything on it you can't build 7/10 of a house although some people try if I could clarify Mr chair yes just with respect to the timeline in addition to what Mr ball and Mr Caulkins already said um so in 2005 the property was split which created a substandard lot right and that restricted the property owner at that time it wasn't a creation of the board of County Commissioners that's restricting the use of the property it was the property owner at the time splitting the lot improperly that has created this limitation on the current owner who bought it subject to that limitation well we're F we found a lot of ways why they can't but it seems like we need to find a way that they can is that owner or that split that property in 2005 still the owner of the East section no no that was Mr La he sold it to Mr Dort I I just I I have to respond because I I believe there's a Mis we disagree with staff you don't have to hold what got what the staff said say his gospel when you look at the objective we meet objective 7 7.1 is inconsistent with that we don't get to 7.1 because objectives Trump policy and so this is a legislative decision a policy decision that you all get to recommend and and yes it did happen in 2005 and and Mr espenau apparently went and talked to staff and got misinformation and they can't be held to that so we are trying to make it buildable if if you look at objective seven we meet it therefore 7.1 is either a typo or or inconsequential or inconsistent and you can choose to look at seven and not 7.1 and you're probably going to hear from people who disagree but this is a policy decision and the Constitution says that you should not defer to people and use your own judgment thank you okay so I'm going to hold up the board here we're going to take this out for public comment and so we can and hear what the citizens are saying is anyone want to speak for or against this item sir if you'd like to come up and state your name and address for the record you know Todd Todd go ahead come on up the one thing that no just wait dwelled on everything that's been said I fully understand but you know what's amazing nobody's missed a beat on the taxes he's gotten to pay those the whole time you know that's you could might say that's a little bit disturbing but you unfortunately it just you know I'd be a little disappointed I think I don't know if it has any impact I'm just saying here the tax side they didn't miss a beat they chopped it up and then put it in the register so sir if you can state your name and address for the record my name is John chord address 103 Casi Trail Melbourne Beach Florida uh I live directly to the West in other words the there you go the uh lot said in question art pool and my building is the first building I live in there it's uh I realized I can't see the ocean because of the seven story that was there forever uh but the lot was as they said a 1.7 acre lot and the owner broke it down into two lots because he couldn't get get it sold 1.7 acre he you know figured he could get more money so he broke it in two so that's the story on that um but but uh why we're my question is how does the how will the new owners get to their lot in the back there that's what I'd like to know because as they said or whoever wrote that it's landlocked you know they can't enter it from our side and they would have to enter it from A1A okay let that go but still um there is this Barrier Island area of critical State concern and every septic tank every whatever is that's buil on there is going to really put a lot of strain on the whole ecosystem there uh the owner is going to have to build up they're going to have to fill in because the whole area is in like a little uh lower than any anywhere else so they're going to have to fill in which may cause that water to drain into our pool but that's okay that can be probably prevented somewhere uh but um I I just don't everybody talks about cutting the uh density down and yet uh you they keep building it up there is a lot to the south of this lot uh it's lot 5660 which uh eventually will come if they get their way that will come under the same condition and all of a sudden you have God knows what uh what we're trying to prevent is naturally something like what the uh Harbor Island up there near the 7-Eleven and the oan ridge people there's single family homes and then there's a three-story plus a garage right next to them so they don't get any sun any time of the year you know so it's they say one story I don't know two story I don't know what they're going to put there so we need more info thank you okay thank you sir is anybody else want to speak for or against this item or I'm going to Sir come on up and if you would state your name and address for the record sure I'm Doug pagee I'm at 122 Kiki Trail I live around the corner from John um so any case so so I've Heard lots of stuff this afternoon um and it's clear that the property owner knew or ought to have known when they bought the property what the zoning was I also heard tonight that there's one philosophical approach of finding ways to help people use their property now it seems to me if you knew what the Zone was going into it you may have reflected you may not want to buy it and if we knew it was a piece of cake to go change the zoning maybe we would have gotten together and bought the property but we didn't and we recognized what the zoning was um it it appears that the owner had it for 19 years and now wants to build on it 19 years later or so that's my understanding um and we don't really know what's going to go on the on the property we are s 4,000 ft single family home where's the septic where's the sewer going to go I think John eloquently made comments about the issues with the uh leech eight going in into the uh India Atlantic um and I guess I just have one additional comment that the board now has documents that the public does not as of immediately starting before this meeting the the um applicants attorney handed out documents that are not part of the public record that we have no idea what's in it um and it just seems that there should be more public time for to review and comment on on documents that are provided at this hearing okay well that's my that's my two minutes thanks all right thank you sir anybody else want to speak for or against this item ma'am if you could come on up and state your name and address for the record I'm Katherine odm I live at 5721 sea lavender place in Melbourne Beach and our community um is 138 homes just to the north of this property uh we are South Shores Riverside um we're made up of um the large homes across the street a few of those homes um within um the west side of A1A we have single family homes we have town homes and we have um Condominiums um I don't know if you received emails from people there was a mixup in the communications regarding who was who was to be copied on this I think some of your emails went to uh the city of Melbourne so um you may not have gotten those um but the majority of the people that I've spoken to are opposed to this for the single fact that we are now a state area of critical critical concern and um as that we need to be careful that we don't uh set up the precedent which may or may not you know be be considered a precedent um I don't want to see this happening throughout the community I feel badly for our potential new neighbor excuse me that he um purchased a home that did not have zoning that would accommodate him what we can do about it is beyond anything I can understand and I do understand that there is an easement there that that will be used as the driveway right and that's really all I have to say okay well thank you ma'am uh you're welcome anybody else want to speak for or against this item okay I'm going to close this for public comment Miss Kim if you could come back up briefly thank you um again this isn't zoning it's future land use it's a legislative policy decision versus zoning which is strictly if you meet the requirements then you should be considered uh so there is an easement it's in your your documents it's a 75t easement that he would have access subject to approv approval by Mr Caulkins or his designate um it Mr espot actually went to Clayton Bennett in 2018 to start this process and Mr Bennett got shut down and didn't want to fight and I get it because this is not an easy fight um this is trying to get people to understand the difference between policies objectives and goals and the fact that this is a completely unbuildable without a change this would not have sewer it would have the high density nut nutrient reduction septic system as in your staff report uh and just um regarding Miss odm um we again we do have the zoning but if you look at that the zoning that her development has that's ra a210 seu r24 R17 it's all over the place most of it inconsistent with res one so again we are trying to make the zoning consistent and we can't build with we could build under RP he could build a house under RP but he can't build anything because of the residential one in the size of the lot um yes he thought he did his due diligence and now he's stuck and something he didn't create so we would ask that you consider our arguments consider our statements that uh let me see that the objective controls over the policy on page 27 and that that uh one unit is not going to impact the environment the flooding the birds or anything and even if it were he would have to comply with all the zoning codes but it's not and it's not going to stop the visual impact which the only thing that came up well there's been a lot said from staff and board now you said there someone I think said there was a res 2 with a bdp that was yeah that was not in this area that was that was in Meritt Island that we used a bdp to make the zoning consistent with the future L use change and that was the Dunkin Donuts in mer Island I remember that that's Dunkin Donuts yes yes sir right next to for the drive-thru for the drive-thru and here weing house so everyone knows that there's going to be one single family home and not an 85,000 ft commercial center which is also permitted under the condominium docks and under our pay he just wants to build a house yeah thank you okay hearing that I bring it back to the board can I ask staff a question yes so Mr cin so um I heard Mr mic knite say that it's unusual but can be done a bdp with the land use can you speak to that a little bit they're doing a res to land use that prably would increase the density but they're willing to restrict it to one would that be consistent with 7.1 in your mind then I'm sorry can you repeat the last part of that question so if they were to restrict it to the one unit would that help with the consistency of this policy 7.1 by not increasing the density in your mind I think the problem is with the res to Future land use that they're requesting because I see that as a density increase which you know their position is that the objective is what we should be enforcing but if I have just enforced objectives I I wouldn't be here very long because the comp plan is full of policies and we have to enforce all of the comp plan and so so question Mr briyan for staff when was the law put in force that restricted increase in density to the South Beaches the the study which was the South Beaches area plan was uh adopted in 1992 so that law was enforced before this property was split who's takes the responsibility of allowing that split to have taken place since technically it was probably done illegally well my understanding is it was split through a condo plat which staff does not review condo plats yeah the condo plots are reviewed by the clerk of the clerk of the Court's office by Statute so staff um there was no opportunity for your staff to review the partition of that property is that correct to the best of my knowledge the county staff did not have any review of that document thank you so if that property had stayed one partial there would have been one tax bill and probably similar to the tax bill that sits on that single house now but instead now the county gets the enjoyment of two tax bills at a much higher price in which the owner cannot build on it but he's being charged taxes on it am I correct I can't I can't address what or how the tax collector taxes the properties that's out that's outside of what our staff does so I realize this is planning not tax but I have a problem with the fact that he's being told he can't use that property but he's getting taxed on it so this again isn't for this board to address him not having to pay taxes on it but for almost 20 years of taxes I think that this needs to be reviewed maybe between you and the tax department to try and figure out what can come to fruition to help this gentlemen we we can do that we can talk to them I think that the the challenge though is that this property is inconsistent and its substandard that what wasn't done by us it was done by an action of an individual and so you know properties sold every day that we're not we have no part of or we are not including regulations where we come in is when people try to develop which is where we are which which where we started two years ago yeah but I'm sure he's paying fire fees and all sorts of other tax fees for a property that's unbuildable that he can't use so at the end of the day you guys didn't do anything wrong the person who divided that property up did and there's got to be a way he's not going to get his money back okay let's say you lift the taxes and he can't pay doesn't have to pay taxes anymore on it that's great but he's still out a quarter of a million dollars for a property he bought that he cannot develop and it's let's be realistic it is developed land their request is to put a single family home on there and it's not it's it's not doesn't have the proper land use density for that I'm I'm just going to add to Brian's if if if this was anywhere else we wouldn't be having this this discussion if it were outside the if it was on Merit Island we wouldn't have a discussion correct yeah there may be other issues but but this would be the one it would be this particular Poli we make the be the beaches unique that's good Mr chair I have a question for the applicant it was brought up about access is there a plan for how to get access to this property uh yes sir if you look at the condominium doc L page 10 or 11 there is an access easement on that property and the process is to make an administrative application that would go through Mr cochins or his designated say hey this is where we want to put put our driveway and there's already a Bonafide easement and they hopefully would recognize the easement to allow him to have access and that current owner is not having a problem with that issue he has no choice it's it's in the document he bought I mean and I don't know if he does or not but he would have no choice I mean it's in the condominium docks they agreed to it when he bought the property at his expense or the at Mr espan not's expense I mean there's already a driveway there the current owner Mr Dort may want that used may want it next to it but it's 75 ft there's plenty of space to put a 20 foot driveway okay Mr chairman are we done with discussion on the board well we can ask that any other comments by the board I guess we're done with discussion um I move that uh we take uh staff's recommendations and deny this request I'll second that okay we got a motion by Robert a second by ER Oris Erica all those in favor say I I we're going to need a show of hands okay we have four motion fails you're going to have to take another another vote we're going to need another motion someone want to make a motion to approve and we take I make a motion we approve uh item H4 with the bdp yes I need a second help me out staff uh Mr chair I must not have understood the previous vote it looked like it was 46 and now there's not a second for the approval so maybe we need to take a another toll we have a vote on the floor Flor but a motion on the floor rather doesn't seem like it's tracking we have a motion for an approval I need a second a second okay we have a second by Miss Saunders son Saunders saund all those in favor say I I I we need a show of hands for the approval so we have some undecided that was confusing yeah I frankly I apologize for my ignorance I'm not understanding either so it looks like it was 4 to six last vote and now it's 3 to7 no I think you got yeah you can't yeah you can't abstain uh you have to vote unfortunately unless you have a conflict which I don't think anyone does so what do you want us to do let's do a like a vote uh by I guess you just point people out and they'll vote in favor or against okay we'll start here I'm I'm against it no SRA I'm so sorry that's okay you're for it yes I'm against it against against for I'm in the middle question for staff why can't you abstain unless there's a conflict you have to vote Mr Henry for Mr Bryan for Mr Robert against Mr Ron against Robert for for there it is 644 okay that motion passed Kim can you come with some easy ones okay item H5 item H5 mahasu Associates LLC request to change a zoning classification from Au to ru-1 D9 under application number 24z 00009 Tex count number 241 9409 in District 2 okay is the applicant here sir if you could get as close as you could to the microphone and state your name and address for the record good afternoon Mr chair Commissioners my name is Sam sabali I'm with Florida Engineering Group my address is 5127 South Orange Avenue Orlando Florida and I'm here on behalf of mahasu Associates LLC all right and a little bit about what you're want to do there sir yes so the parcel which we are requesting resoning from Au to ru-1 D9 is a 0.31 acre portion of a larger parcel which is 7.71 acres and that parcel uh serves for for access to the main parcel the main parcel is zoned r-19 and all we are asking for is to reone the the parcel which serves for Access it's a flag lot to the same zoning as the main parcel so they are consistent um the requested zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and it doesn't allow or it doesn't cause any addition of any uh units or cause any concurrency issues it's basically to make it consistent with the main parcel um I'll be glad to address any specific questions but this is the request okay seeing that I bring it to the board we have any questions for the applicant Mr chairman yes sir I do have a question um how how do you access the property now um the property is not developed so but the access is through that parcel uh the issue came up uh when we submitted an application for development of the main parcel and staff asked us to rezone this parcel so it's consistent with the main parcel zoning and what we are proposing as far as the development itself is consistent with the r19 which is the main parcel but this is the only legal access for that parcel so it would serve as uh an access roadway it is 50t wide and uh because of this zoning requires a minimum of uh 66 ft we had to get a variance and uh we came in front of the board of zoning adjustment and we did get a variance we worked with the adjacent property owners and they understand what we are doing and uh you know everybody was okay with it do you know if the county has any plans for the west side or the South Side to put a roadway in or would that be under your obligation to make that uh I do not know I think uh when with this uh with this request you know we would have to build the roadway to connect to Bev Road through this uh portion of the property which is where the access is currently from I don't believe the county has any plans but I'm not aware so yeah my concern was the the width of that lot being 50 ft versus 60 right and we did get we did get the variance for that the 50 Foot RightWay is adequate to provide you know the uh well there's utilities and other things that have to come through those in that access area and that's uh 50 ft starts getting crowded very quickly with drainage stitches and utility corridors and things like that yeah okay thank the um the internal just for clarity but the internal right away would be 50 ft and would have the same utilities and we already looked at a cross-section going through there thank you have you been on the property yes sir you you know I'm trying to answer Robert better than you did but in that beus through there it is and then beavus goes left right left right it does me Anders yes it's probably the only Road in Merit Island's got nine curves it does and I I know a little bit of it yeah yeah okay they one one of the concerns on the south and the West there is a canal and you know we're trying to stay away from that and that's a drainage system through there so I don't I don't expect you know there'll be any roadways Think answer Robert needed Vias yeah all right sir if you could just hang loose right there just a minute is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item come on back up that's good news okay well seeing that I'm going to bring it back to the board see if they have any more questions for all right I appreciate that you good Robert yeah you making a motion I just had a question so um so you're saying that there is currently no access but You' be putting in Access or the county could put in a county road so that the property is not developed so there is no uh it does abut the RightWay through the flag portion of this lot so that provides the access into the property so it is an access but when you develop it you have to meet certain standards which is it has to be the same zoning as the main parcel M and then we would have to build a proper roadway which would meet the county standards and that is the intent okay yeah but you don't have to go all the way to the back uh we will we will take it all the way to the parcel and as part of the development we're going to have a roadway which would be the same with the you know it would be uh meeting the county standards for right away with all the utilities and what have you it would be a closed drainage system so that's why we can do it than 50 ft any Mr chairman yes sir I recommend that we approve the zoning classification from agricultural to Ru 1-9 I'll second okay you got a motion by Robert a second by Brian for item H5 all those in favor say I I I any opposed that pass unanimously thank you okay item H6 thank you Mr chair item H6 say Ross and Don Buck request a conditional use permit for a private residential boat dock application numers 24z 000044 tax account number is 2953 085 295 5 3257 located District 3 okay is the applicant here sir if you could come up and get as close as you can to that microphone so we can hear you and state your name and address for the record yeah my name is Steve D Phillips I live at 5235 excuse me pal M Drive in Melbourne Beach and I'm a owner of East Coast docks and we've been hired by Ron and I mean Ross and Don to build a dock form on this little Canal property these properties are kind of unique as they're not tied physically to the house or the houses up the road on in the same plotted subdivision but they have these little Canal properties that gives them water access so we have to file a conditional use permit to get the dock approved so there's already a a cup approved for the property from the previous owner but since we are Chang changing the design of the dock and removing the existing one we have to file again which will include the new Property Owners being on the the newer cup and not use the old one that's existing now so again um the doc will meet all the current County codes for size setbacks and projections so it's not like we're asking for something different than which normally we get approved for it's just that these unique properties being there not tied physically together that we have to file for the conditional use so um do not form Seven Acres yeah right no I don't I don't think this is quite as complicated as the last couple of them but yeah we we have to go okay if you could just hang loose right there I think we're okay does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item see that's good news all right so seeing that and hearing that I'm going to bring it back to the board do we have have any questions for the applicant I'll move for approval of H6 second I'll second we got a motion by Debbie on H6 and Brian beat you Erica on a second by Brian all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously thank you all right thank you sir item 87 thank you Mr chair item h87 is 31 10 3101 ganet Plaza Avenue LLC is requesting a conditional use permit for alcohol beverages for un premised consumption application number is 24z 000045 tax account numbers are 26024 23 and 260 2422 okay in District 4 Mr chair and board members the staff is requesting that you add a condition to allow for the applicant and staff to work uh for language to come up with a condition for them to to um work on easement language so just for your edification utilities is looking for to the property owner to for an easement to maintain the uh lift station that's on property and Mr fonin is in the audience if you have any questions all right is the applicant here sir if you could state your name and address please for the record good afternoon board it's Kevin Saltzman 5439 Robos Lane rocklage okay and a little bit about what you're wanting to do uh we had a conditional use permit for a two cop license unanimously approved by the board in Octo in August of 200 or you 2020 and we are simply looking to upgrade that one was for beer and wine only we're simply looking to upgrade to a for cop same location uh to include uh liquor okay if you could hang loose right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item that's good news again good seeing that I'm G to bring it back to the board do we have any questions for the applicant I do um sir can you speak a little bit to uh what Mr ball said about the utility easements your agreeable to that well I just learned of it when I came in here this evening so I I'm I'm here on behalf of you through an authorization to act on behalf of the owner they're out of state um so but I can provide some some help but what I would like to hear in your comment to the board is it going to be will my approval be this approval for the cup be tied to getting an easement or just starting a conversation which sound like you've been un successful being able to get a conversation even so moving forward all we're asking is to start the conversation as a framework that may lead to a condition that would allow the count the county to get to get an easement understood so with back to your point I I I can help with that sound like they've been kind of at a stalemate to get a good conversation going for that easement and I can certainly help with that any other questions for the applicant I recommend approval second okay but we're going to want to re recommend for approval with the condition of continued talk for the utility easement correct what he said okay so just just so I have it memorialized on the record is is that you're recommending approval and the um the ability for staff and the applicant to work on language for a possible easement yes okay we got a recomendation by Brian and a second by Debbie all those in favor say I I any opposed so to still one point for further clarification so I'm I'm acting on behalf of the owner but I'm also the operator of the family entertainment center looking for this upgraded license the commission meeting is December 12th yes so my my my role now becomes to and what roadblocks am I going to run into with the commission meeting if if between now and then this line of communication has not been established well enough to meet your satisfaction then we just we just direct the board of the conversation or lack thereof that is that has come to that point okay very good thank you all right but that did pass unanimously okay item h8 William M Brazelton the third request to change the zoning classification from ru 1-7 to Ru 1-11 application number is 24z 0050 tax account number is 28475 okay District 5 okay and is the applicant here sir if you could state your name and address for the record good afternoon William brazzleton 3:15 3rd Avenue in the Atlantic and a little bit about what you're W to do there Mr Brazzle sure thing just looking to rezone from R17 to r111 that requires a larger lot size to bring this property into consistency with res 4 which is over the entire area all right and while you're right there sir if you could hang loose do we have anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item we're doing good come on back I bring it to the board do we have any questions for the applicant I have questions I recommend approval I second it we got a motion by Brian a second by Erica all those in favor say I I any opposed excuse me I'm sorry um I don't know what you just said 335 ft for come to the and I don't know anything ma'am I'm sorry but I opened it up to the audience but we took a vote and Mr chair in an abundance of caution it's probably best just to let her come forward and at least okay if the applicant talks to her in the fure oh absolutely yeah I didn't know if she was going to do a public comment or not I don't even know what I have no idea about I just got my ma' if you could please come up to the microphone so they could catch you on the record that'd be appreciated thank you I'm just curious I think it's important I got to notice hello I'm Karen Bales I live at 2205 Wood Street I am according to this little notice I am 335 ft East uh I mean 335 ft away from his property which is so tiny that you don't even notice it only reason why I knew about it is cuz I got this um I just want to know what does all of this mean what does he want to do I'm sure it's not going to impact I live my house uh covers three streets covers Wood Street Miami Avenue and Elm Street so I could throw a baseball probably to his lot so that's all I want to know curious never been to one of these um he just asked for a zoning change from R17 to ru11 and so as far as this is just a Planning and Zoning Board now we don't not know what he intends to do with the property but uh Mr chair I can have uh Paul meet with um this young lady in the back and and he can go over the application with the with the applicant okay yeah there's your answers I'm just because I like I said I don't know why other some people I went around and checked to see if they got this and a lot of people said they didn't even know what this was so I'm kind of like waned to take notes all right no problem thank you but Mr brazzleton that passed unanimously all right thank you sir item H9 orge and Olga uh Carolina to Bush request a change zoning classification from gu to EU application number is 24z 0054 tax account number is 260 5989 located District 2 is the applicant here good afternoon my name is Clayton benett I'm with benett engineering and Consulting 4940 Ranch Lane Road Melbourne Florida 32934 uh we're here on behalf of the applicant to the owner to um rezone the property it was previously uh or is developed as a um three units which um they recently demolished the zoning is gu there's um EU to the north um r19 I believe it is to the South or ru1133 to the South um what we like to do is go from uh gu to the EU in order to bring that zoning down so that the lot is consistent with the zoning regulations Mr Bennett while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that I bring it back to the board do we have any questions for the applicant Mr chairman yes sir I recommend approval second got a motion by Robert a second by Debbie on item H9 all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously thank you sir item h10 item h10 is kellyan Watkins who requests a change of zoning classification from R17 to r111 this is application 24z 0048 tax account 21107 707 District 1 and is the applicant here sir if you could come up and get as close as you could to the microphone state your name and address for the record my name is Kayan Watkins um my address is 2668 Mur Avenue Ms Florida and a little bit about what you're want to do there m I'm trying to put uh well actually I got two pieces of property adjacent to each other and I was trying to change it from R17 to r111 to put single family homes there all right while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that I bring it back to the board do we have any questions for the applicant yeah just to clarify you're going to put one house on this property yes sir okay yes sir what yes sir Mr chairman yes sir I move we recommend approval I'll second got a motion by Ron a second by Brian on item h10 all those in favor say I I I any opposed that passed unanimously sir okay I have another one I'm sorry I have the next one too whatever okay yes sir I'm sorry that's go ahead well we've got to read it into the record one second item h11 please item h11 is kvk management and remodeling Services LLC requests a change of Zone classification from ru 1-7 to Ru 1-11 this is application 24z 0049 tax account number 210 3672 District 1 so Mr chair just so you understand this is that this is a this is the property to the South who's under um the same applicant but under different ownership that's we had a separate amount okay all right sir yes sir you want to go ahead and say a little bit about what you want to do there oh the same thing sir um trying to put a single family home there all right is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that I bring it back to the board again we have any questions or motion Mr chairman I move we recommend approval second okay got a motion by Ron a second by Robert on item h11 all those in favor say I I all right any opposed that passed unanimously thank you Mr Kelly item h12 thank you Mr chair I'm going to read um item 13 and 12 together they're companion applications but they're they're tied to the same property so items 13 which is the ads uh the Vera company requests an ads which is alternative development standards for the central Vera PUD parcel 3A application number is 24 PUD 00005 tax account number is 2631 1510 portion of this is located in District 4 so the ads would allow for waiver of three items number one is the lighting standards that um that we have about having cut off fixtures um and the how we calculate the signage on the on the building and the third waiver would be the allowance of a defense so the netting is considered a fence so those are the three uh waivers that would be considered with the ads and so with with that there is some conditions that the board should consider let me get those for you the board may consider including a condition that the applicant must demonstrate during the site plan the process and provide applicable permits prior to the approval that the lighting configuration does not adversely affect conditions for traffic traveling along I95 the applicant shall meet all local state and fed regulations regarding lighting unless they expressly waved so the companion cup is the condition use permit to allow for the use of the property so under the um PUD um entertainment facility such as this requires a cup um so with that there is a site plan that's included in your packet of that use so with that um you may entertain uh conditions um that address off-site impacts such as lighting um and any other offsite impacts that you may determine that needs to be addressed okay is the applicant here sir if you could get as close as you could to the microphone and state your name and address for the record of course my name is Jose pasino uh 500 West Monroe Street Chicago Illinois I'm here with the applicant Aram Murray and a little bit about what you're want to do sure so as uh Mr B stated uh we have submitted a conditional use uh permit application and an alternative design standard um these applications will permit us to construct and operate a state-of-the-art golf entertainment venue we are very excited about the opportunity to bring this concept to rard County um I'm I have here with me uh Copeland who is with top golf u a representative of the brand that owns and operates over 100 uh of these venues across the US um we have a presentation here for you um the purpose of which will show U the proposed development how this use will complement the existing amenities in the VAR community and the requested code amendments uh necessary for the facility to operate so that being said Greg all right thank you hello uh I'm Greg Copeland I'm uh with top golf we're based out of Dallas address is uh 8750 North Central Expressway Dallas Texas uh 75231 uh so Top Golf obviously people across the world have probably heard of us or been to our venues uh we are the number one Premier golf destination for entertainment in the entire world um there's a lot of imitators but never duplicators we're number one reason uh we're the number one company uh for a reason uh as Jose mentioned we have 100 venues open worldwide over 100 90 of those 90 plus are in the United States uh nine are currently operating here in the State of Florida we have one under construction in Panama City Beach and this would be our 11th uh venue here in the state of Florida um but what really sets us apart is we're a community-driven type of company we're large name brand uh company across the world but we operate as a small Community Partnership with all the communities that we uh that we go into um that being said uh the next slide here is kind of moving into the meat meat and potatoes I'm not sure if I should operate it or if that's Mr ball over there is it ah let's see there should be a um there we go there we go um as you see here this is our our site plan we are excited about this particular site it's wedged in there just east of the Avenue Vera west of I95 and uh just north of the uh existing uh car dealerships right there feel it's a great use with the whole site in general uh the the booming and popping Avenue Vieira we've got the uh Space Coast complex just right up the road we have all the baseball fields that complement the area we're a great compliment to the already vibrant uh sport scene here uh you see here uh would be a part of a 18 plus or minus acre mixed use development uh the initial investment for us to come to this site is approximately $28 million and uh that's another reason we're excited we we you know we we're putting a lot of money into it and this we feel this is a great site for us um the overall uh amount of jobs we create is about plus plus or minus 200 on a permanent basis and as you see here it's it's it's uh currently vacant land so we'll be it will be a a great generator for for a good tax base for the future use um let's see here so the venue this is relatively newer type of venue that we've unrolled over the last 2 years or so it's one the first of its kind this would be the second one here in the State of Florida the the first one is panal uh Panama City Beach is the one under construction right now uh ours here this site would be almost identical to that one um of course we're we're familyfriendly Community that's the key word Community focused venue and this store uh this particular uh project is a two two story with 64 hitting bays and uh kind of our bread and butter is a top Tracer technology that's what makes or helps to make Top Golf Top Golf it attracts the ball fly it attracts everything you can imagine and and makes our game play what it is topnotch um we'll have surface targets here at this particular location and U part of the community fill is the the outdoor patio area we've got large patio areas especially in this warmer climate it's going to draw a lot of people in so very excited about that uh next slide here I'll just touch on some of these items um we are currently a wholly uh owned subsidiary of Callaway golf um I kind of said it earlier but the community and making memories but we uh creating moments that matter that's one of the things that we pride ourselves on whether it's celebrating a birthday whether it's going there for a first date whether it's whatever the case may be creating moments that matter and we want to make that a staple here in the Viera and Bard County communities uh we also have some strategic Partnerships with the PGA Tour PGA of America LPGA first te organization and Special Olympics and we do lots of great work with them and partnership with them again Community Driven uh that that that is definitely our our our key uh our key key Point here is Community Driven and then kind of a recap there at the bottom just some of the points I've touched on about a $28 million investment to bring Top Golf here would create about uh 200 permanent jobs uh which is again great for the community we're employing the community here at our site and brings over about 200,000 uh visitors per year um and then uh just get Premier destination for corporate charity and group entertainment um next slide here uh Top Golf we we try to draw on a lot of people who just aren't professional golfers who don't come uh come a lot we try to bring in new faces from kids all the way to adults and everything in between as you see there 51% of people are non-golfers and it's really about having fun that's really what we generate is come here make memories create those memories have fun doesn't matter what age you are what skill level you're going to have fun um and then again the key word there the first one fun it's fun it's affordable Tech driven which uh it's our top uh top Tracer technology all inclusive all people uh can play and then all weather uh that's key here uh if it's a hurricane probably not but we're R open rain shine wind uh regular wind not hurricane G um but we're we're open uh and it's a great uh destination there's that word again the community um huge driver for us we're not Top Golf without being synonymous with the community in which we go um part of that there's some programs we have in place uh youth play at Ford so the high school golf teams and and other youth in the community could come to Top Golf uh try it out for free from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m you know there's the Vieira High School just right up the road there's the charter school right around the corner um there's a great base for that this is a great Community too lots of uh families live here in this community so just a way to give back to the community uh another way of giving back as it says they are heroes Heroes discount offer uh discounts to our active and uh inactive military members uh EMS fire um just a small way that we can get back uh to them uh kind of touched on it national Partners uh we have Partnerships with make a wish folds of Honor bunkers in Baghdad and then a relatively newer one which has been successful is the Special Olympics um which is been fantastic um volunteering and local support uh again keep saying it but it's very important to to to cement in your head is is the word Community uh as you see here we we have opportunities at all venues we set monies aside to do uh volunteering opportunities whatever that may be it's it's a venue by venue type of situation but we want to give back to the communities that accept us and uh again be a partner in those Endeavors uh next few slides just some pictures this is um this is a there's one thing to talk about and one thing to see some drawings but this is the actual venue in witch itah Kansas um um this venue here Vera would be almost very similar to this one maybe a little changes here and there but what you see is kind of what would what you would get in a sense um very vibrant it's a two level like I mentioned this one's slightly smaller but it's uh same almost the same type of thing that we'll get here um you walk in just a vibrant have fun type of atmosphere got the goofy Wall Graphics over there and the big TV screens and just a great place to hang out that restaurant um if you even if you don't want to golf you can just come hang out and have some food have some drink um just a very inviting type of place same uh room just a different uh direction of what you're looking you see some of the top golf uh fun fun there's that word again fun signage and uh fun lighting just inviting place to come hang out with your family friends um this is a the picture of uh of the te line or the the hitting Bay rather um again it's an inviting place come sit down and have some drink have some food with family friends and um just kind of forget your cares for a little bit and there's a picture of the actual teal line up the kind of up close version of it um just very well done very Sleek uh design um just very cool uh the again this is great for the the weather here at the outdoor patio space um sometimes if you're waiting for a bay a lot of people just like to come out here and have a drink or some food options even if you don't want to golf you can come you can come here and and enjoy yourself um and then these uh Lux space space so this is for private events you can rent the space out um it's still open to everybody that can walk in to but you can rent this space out and close it off and and just make it your own so it's uh again you see the vibrant colors there and the vibrant designs that's just part of our fun inviting feel for Top Golf and then this is the uh a great picture of the exterior lighting at night um you can see there the the heavy concentration of the lights are close to the tline and as you get further away out uh towards the net poles it the the lights di down significantly um this is just a great and we'll get to another picture here in a few moments but this is a great example of what it looks like uh until you see it you don't really quite grasp what it looks like but this is a great representation of U of the nighttime conditions um and then as Jose mentioned the conditional use permit so it's part of our process here we have to uh get this approved uh because it's required for uh proposed commercial entertainment and amusement uh Enterprises uh touched on it a little bit ago but we we're a great compliment to the Space Coast complex um that's just up the road uh anticipated hours of uh operation are Sunday to Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and Friday uh through Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 2: a.m. and the most important part to note is all the requirements of uh the the section 62 of The Bard county code we will meet those standards and we'll we'll get to that slide here in a second um you want me to just keep rolling H good okay um I got questions for who perfect don't let him get away oh wrangly over here the the ads is a separate uh item if you could come up to the mic please sir sure the the alternative design standard application is a separate item or do you guys need to vote on it separately or should we jump into it no it'd be separately okay so I think this is the end of the conditional use yes we we will meet all these standards for the section uh 62 that's outlined here that's it well I don't think we have anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against this item so I'm going to bring it back to the board do we have any questions on item I got you I'd like wean probably these guys from Chicago mran come son the uh I was trying to ascertain if they you got two access points here you got one by the dealerships and then one from the other facility is there two here yeah that's correct uh my name is Assan Kamal with BC Consultants address is 312 South Harbor City Boulevard yeah there's an access on the south from Bramley drive that's going to go through that's by the car dealerships and then there's another access to the Avenues the VR company retained uh an access agreement to allow access to this parcel when the Avenues was developed when I first seen the site or temp preliminary site plan I said they're not going to be shooting that ball toward the Lexus dealer and I I realized wisely turned to the other way I could just imagine anyway thanks sir are you done I'm done with this with the cup correct sir all right so I'm GNA need a motion on item h12 I'll make the motion to approve Mr chairman if I may just I tried to squeeze him before the presentation started but I I didn't get a chance to I just want to um get the county attorney's um recommendation or guidance on this I assume that it's appropriate for me to recuse myself uh I do work for BC Consultants uh we do a lot of work with the VR company and while I'm super supportive and very very excited about this project um I want to make sure that it would be appropriate for me to recuse myself from yes ma'am on both items you can recuse yourself and we'll make sure we give you the right forms to file with the cler much thank you thank you on that and we got a motion by Brian for approval I need a second a second by Robert all those in favor on item age 12 say I I any opposed that pass unanimous ly Mr chair can I just for clarification did that motion include the board shall consider a condition that the applicant must demonstrate during the site plan process and provide applicable permits prior to the approval of the lighting configuration that does not adversely affect conditions for traffic traveling along I 95 the applicant shall meet all local state and federal regulations regarding lighting unless expressly waved yes okay and you already read in item h13 who wants to speak on that further request for the ads my name is Assan Kamal with BC Consultants 312 South Harbor City Boulevard um there is an ads and ads we kind of used to abbreviation it's alterate development standards to give the board some background the project is located with the central vrp UD and within that PUD there was a set of documents that was generated years ago which helped the project take the form that it has and has some special conditions and special allowances for that and to address the unique features of this type of development uh which you obviously don't see everywhere there was three items that we needed to include in the alternate development standards Mr ball referred to them earlier but basically uh what we did is that we took the Pud and we created a parcel of specific to this location so these conditions wouldn't be applicable to any other project within the Pud so you can't go put up 165ft fence somewhere else it's specific to this particular parcel so the three conditions deal with the lighting standards that we discussed earlier that allow this kind of operation to take place um the the The netting oh and those lighting standards only apply to the the driving range portion of the project you can't the the normal in the parking lot or any other portion still applicable to the uh county code um and same similar to the the The netting The netting uh height is only allowed for the driving range portion of the operation any other fencing that's within the site has to meet the current county code requirements and um because of the unique shape of the building we we included language uh in the definition of how we calculate on premises signs uh normally that's based upon the perimeter of the building but this building only has three sides because of the open Bay so we clarify that definition to allow the signers that they propose and and calculate that open Bay uh or include that open Bay Side as part of the building Frontage in the in the square footage calculation I'll be happy to answer any questions about those conditions we have any questions from the board for the applicant I have no questions I motion to approve a second it Mr chairman Mr chairman I don't believe we actually voted on the first the first one yes it we got a second but I didn't hear hear vote did we yes okay yeah I thought we did yeah we did okay now this is a item AG 13 I got a motion by Brian and a second by Erica on item AG13 all those in favor say I I I any opposed and that pass Mr chair and and that included the language about the lighting not creating adverse Brian yes you had the motion on the second one too yes what about he asked about the lighting yes and the N the ads M all the verbiage what about the conditional use permit for alcohol so this the the C for this is not for alcohol it is for uh the outdoor entertainment so so just so if so we do allow um to serve alcohol when it's tied to a restaurant and we had conversations with them prior to so as long as it's tied with 51% of the General Revenue they can do it administratively it's only when it's not then they would require a CP for that I just did want to see him come back for after all this yes sir I I did just want to clarify that and my name is Eric ubar also with Aram Murray construction 500 West Monroe Chicago Illinois um just wanted to get clarification on the board may also consider including a condition I is is that condition now included in the approval for a signed and sealed document from a professional engineer cuz it's a little objective in nature from a standpoint of glare versus foot candles that you would typically sign off on so I just want to make sure we understand what the goal posts are so so the the way that the way here let me get that should be a s plan issue not yeah it's not us okay okay I I don't know we ought to get involved in that one all all we're all we're saying all we're saying is is that they have to demonstrate at site plan that their uh the lighting configuration does not adversely affect the conditions for traffic so it's not a not per se a a sign and seal plan you just need to demonstrate to staff satisfaction you're not going to adversely impact understood I just want to make sure it's Crystal Clear that these light fixtures are not full cut off fixtures so we usually he get involved in the design understood and lighting too understood okay thank you very much I'm sorry adjourned yes meeting adjourned gosh 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 rard 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] [Music] [Music]