[Music] [Music] [Music] e e 3:00 uh it's actually Monday July 22nd 2024 if we can all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and Brian would you please lead us I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible Li Justice okay I'm uh unfortunately replacing Mark today who's going to be out of town so I'll try to get us through this um this is a planning zoning board and the local planning agency that which is we are an Advisory Board to the board of County Commissioners and they will have the final decision on each and every item here today item G1 is an LPA uh item items today on the agenda will be held at back here at the County commission's Chambers on August the 1st once again items on the agenda today will be heard back here with the commission on the first when motion ends in any kind of split vote a roll call vote would be taken to ensure accuracy as a member of each member who makes a motion or seconds needs to turn their microphones on so your voice can be put on the record uh speakers for today's comments on the agenda item will be given five minutes uh at this time uh has anybody had any Communications with anybody regarding any application that we have here today Mr chairman yes is this one yeah make sure your your mic's on yeah um G7 I had a communication a number of months ago with the assistant County attorney okay on the live local act okay okay all right anybody else okay with that uh we need the approval of the pnz meeting minutes from June the 10th 2024 I'll make a motion there's a motion bar Brian second second uh Rob Robert I'm sorry all in favor signify by saying I I any anybody in opposition that pass unanimously okay Phil you want to Enlighten us with some a little bit of housekeeping yes sir thank you um for those of you who don't know that's it uh on the pnz Mr um Bruce Moya and Mr David bassford has resigned from the pnz effective immediately yeah you know I'm I'm going to speak for Bruce who I've known for a long time it's it's going to be a tremendous loss to this board he's uh highly technical extremely knowledgeable and I worked with him a number of years in the county so I hope everybody here misses as much as I will because he uh he certainly brought some facts unfortunately he's here today but I'd probably said the same okay all right um first item first item good afternoon item G1 and G2 will be right into the record together however they'll need us separate recommendation Paul Turner and Jackie Allen request a small scale comprehensive Amendment under 24s 03 to change the future land use designation from res 2 to NC under application number 24 ss003 tax count number 2110 4754 in District 1 this item was continued from the June 10th 2024 pnz LPA meetings item G2 Paul Turner and Jackie Allen requested a change of zoning classification from r ru-2 d10 with a uh cap of five units per acre to RVP with a bdp under application number 24z 00008 tax account number 210 4754 and District 1 this item was continued from the June 10th 2024 planning and zoning LPA meeting okay is he is the applicant or his representative here good afternoon board it looks like you'll be seeing a lot more of me on this side of the podium as opposed to that side of the podium I appreciate the kind words Henry it's been a pleasure being on this board for gosh 13 years I think it was serving under three different Commissioners um really enjoyed the time I had up there uh but it's just there's just too much uh of my business coming before this board to really make it to the to where I should be able to be on the board as well as present to the County Commission so um unfortunately I had to step down so hopefully you'll be as nice to me uh on this side as you were when I was on that side uh and I hope I'll bring quality projects to this board for consideration uh as well so uh and today is really no exception um today we're asking for a land use of Amendment on almost 7 Acres of property up in Mims uh so um I'm sure that there'll be some comments from that side of the of the uh of the room um it's uh the land use is currently residential um but there is NC to the South uh directly abing this property there's commercial Community commercial to the uh West that directly busts this property I think that's some it's the South property is vacant the West property is some kind of auto automotive repair type of place and um so he wants to put an RV park and uh that would be more appropriate in NC it's kind of a neighborhood commercial type use because there'll be rentals you know typical RV park for anybody that might or may not have an RV uh you know would be a smaller place in the Mims area where someone could bring their camper stay for a short period of time and move on um so this is the land use request we believe it's consistent with with what's there in the neighborhood so um unless you have any questions we would I just respectfully request that you approve our our request so I'm here to answer any questions that you have I didn't get a cue but I bet you got a question one uh yeah one question okay could you explain what kind of buffering you plan for the uh east side of the property that is adjacent to the residential yeah kind of figur that would be one of the questions so the the property to the east is um single family detached residential it looks like it's manufactured homes um probably been there for a long time it's an older neighborhood um I'm not sure what the I mean we would propose that we would meet the requirements of the county for whatever that buffer needs to be between what is this use and what is uh the proposed use or the existing use to the to the east um I don't know if they're both considered residential or if one's considered commercial and if it is commercial considered commercial there would be a required wall and buffer correct or is RV park is actually a residential zoning so therefore it's not uh it would not require that it' be considered residential the residential okay so residential residential wouldn't have a uh it would just be your typical um rear lot um landscape buffer that the county requires okay thank you Mr yes sir um will people be living in these RVs or is it storage only no it's for temporary lodging it is foring they'll stay they'll leave so are these going to be hardened pads I don't know uh I'm not I'm not sure it could be they could be pavers they might be um compacted um uh Marl they could I'm not sure how upscale this is going to be in that area I mean I think the Market's going to dictate what would be required I've seen I I have an RV I camp all over the State of Florida I've seen it multiple ways um whatever the county requires we will meet that I I don't know exactly what um level of improvements they're going to propose but we would definitely meet the the the actual minimum code criteria okay this property is right on Route One it is it's going to have high visibility what kind of amenities or or so I didn't ask him about that cuz that's always an important part want attract you know potential RV campers like myself there will be a uh clubhouse an office a pool and some sort of recreational activity like shelf board or something like that so there will be a clubhouse and a pool at a minimum okay well um what about the view from Highway one yeah that's that's that'll meet your U standard type B uh roadway Frontage buffer landscape buffer that's required by code okay it's a 15t has to meet certain number of trees bushes um that's all very very uh specific in your county code so you're going to make it look aesthetically pleasing AB well not nobody's going to stay there if it don't look good so yes of course we'll make it pleasing okay thank you thank you Mr chairman I've just got one question that city of Titusville water in it yes and then sewer as well yes and they don't want you to come into the City we do not um we can't we don't know about the city's limits but we will be extending City's Water and Sewer property okay that's great okay let me uh anybody else here on the board is there anybody out in the audience like to speak for against this item I see see none I bring it back to the board Mr chairman I move we recommend approval of this land change uh for item G1 okay I'll second got you got Ron down and Brian is did the second all in favor signify by saying I I anybody in opposition that pass unanimously and then Mr chairman for uh item G2 I move that we recommend approval this zoning change with the bdp good catch recommended by Ron seconded by Brian all in favor signify by saying I I anybody in opposition pass unanimously thank you everybody thank you thank you for uh your years of service here next item yes item G3 put it in me storage LLC request change of zoning classification from IU to bu-2 application number is 24z 000010 tax account number is 23 22557 in district one is the applicant here is the applicant here move to continue do we know anything Jeff no applicant no we sent him out email stating that he was had to come to this meeting along with uh the people from the LLC what's the pleasure of the board move to continue um I've got a motion to continue second there in second Mr chair if I can just um Enlighten the board on this one this one was a unique circumstance where this was part of a companion application with a uh land use change okay uh changes in the uh code there was some confusion on where this application would land it was determin that this application for the zoning needed to go in front of you okay so um that was that was the um I guess the X Factor on this but there there was a land use change that went through you all and was recommended approval by the board um last uh last month so this is the companion rezoning to go along with that okay he was clearly notified that they should be here today they they they should be here for today and i' I've made contact with the applicant to make sure that they understood the dates okay so that's a motion by John who second it second second by Robert that we do continuation I can can we can we have a date certain uh the next pnz meeting um is August 12th August 12th okay yes sir is that acceptable do okay all in favor signify by saying I I anybody in opposition please share with him or comment so that's good next item yes item G4 MJ Coupe LLC requests change of droning bar classification from gu to RR mh-1 and this is application number 24z 0018 on tax account numbers 2674 and 2676 located in District 1 okay is the applicant here please come to the front please stay your name and address for the record and tell us what you got Michael coup 3925 Hidden Hills Drive Titusville Florida okay um I guess I got two pieces of property that were uh zoned prior to 1968 um so I guess they what I was told they sort of get grandfathered in before the okay code before it was today's to date that's probably one of the few up there right yeah that goes way back okay does anybody have any questions for this gentleman before I go to the audience seeing none is there anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this item seeing none I bring it back to the board Mr chairman make a motion that we approve the request for zoning change of zoning classification to RR mh1 okay second motion by Robert second by Ron all in favor ever signify by saying I I anybody in opposition that was the easiest one today thank you so is that for both uh you only yes it is I do it again yes or is it for both of them yes okay all right thank you only because it's 1968 last I to do itce all right next item agenda item G5 Walter chiskey uh request a change of zoning classification from ru-1 D13 to ru-2 D4 with a binding development plan under zoning action number 24 Z 000020 tax account number 262 4912 in District 4 uh this item was continued from the June 10th 2024 pnz and LPA meeting is he Happ can here is the applic here on this item okay what's the pleasure pleasure of the board we're doing real well today on it's because Mark's not here I guess Mark's not here they didn't want to do it move to continue um motion by John uh Mr chair if we could just uh pause for a sec I need to look at something in our code about tabling uh requests I think we're only limited to one table based on the actions of the applicant but if you just give me a sec I can confirm that if you want to move on to the next item potentially and then I can give you a hold anybody up we're moving appreciate it thank you so as Paul I'll I'll read item G6 into the record so item g6s K mm- Florida LLC request a change the zoning uh classification from r210 with a cap of 6 to bu2 application numers 24z 0024 tax account numbers are 2601 1612 and 261 7260 located in District 4 okay is the applicant here state your name and address for the record yes Chris Roman ddy 3540 Charlton Place Melbourne Florida okay Mr romelli tell us what you've got here so on this particular property I don't know if you have any images of it but um I actually owned a land around it years and years ago was the sexon Mine Pit when they used to put the old rock ledge schools in there and they dug it all out and prior to that second in um uh this property was from Welty himself on this is on Welty drive right there Rick Welty and this is where the dad lived it had been 60 years ago so it was all zoned at one point I IU and then it started going into business and so the applicant is Advantage concrete we own everything around I don't own it the owners here but everything around this little piece of property and we dzone from IU because compliance want say you know it's all beu you're just doing kind this and mini storage and now warehouse storage and so we now have put in eight pieces of property around seven years or eight years around it all into one zoning which is the business use zoning and this is the last one acre of residential that's sitting there now it hasn't if you looked at it or if you look at the Aerials we want to get it into compliance so we bought the property about 2 months ago 3 months ago and we're to the north of it its business which is store storage to the east of it it's storage and to the right of it the county has just had us put in a tax road which is that whole new roadway it's not quite coed yet because to do our storage they needed an exit for the fire truck so it cost it's 150 Grand to put this whole Road system in and then right next to that is also commercial so we're here today to say this will be the last little dot in the center of this N9 Acres that's a residential house and technically if you look at it the guy was doing commercials stuff on it it it has three driveways which I'm residential you should only have two we want to just get it all into compliance clean up the area and we don't want the dirt that has been uh it's all dusty and dirty and ultimately we're going to make it storage just the balance of what we're doing on the rest of the property so that's what we're here today to do is to bring this whole chunk of land into the same on that side of the road to be uh the same as uh the applicant's balance of his property anybody have a question this jeman I have one question it's just going to be 39 self storage units or are they going to be 39 self storage units or are they going to be like Warehouse units well I don't know 39 and I'm sorry uh Brian thought I saw that in here the the the existing one we're ready to hopefully see an own by January will be 70 units on the other Seven Acres right now we had like 30 other units that were done 5 years ago so we've been doing it in sections this unit here if it ever became Warehouse probably couldn't support a storefront warehouse of more than five or eight units it's it's one acre and by the time you do all your setbacks and retention and Landscaping it it'll be five or seven units the truth of the economical issue is when you are between commercial and residential we looked at the net benefit of economy they want us to build a $100,000 wall between the two properties which has to be 6ot concrete wall all the way around the perimeter of the property like 500 foot worth so it was it just be more conducive we bought the property so now we'll have commercial to Commercial and we don't have to go through that 100 Grand expense and yet we don't have a neighbor up front that's not in compliance that runs dirt piles and trucks and it was the gator Trucking system that's been in there for years just it looked like it was commercial but it's always been a residential lot so that's that's the whole gist of why we we uh did it it it's the worst iore on the Block and and the best that'll look like is five or six more units to the other 80 that are there and we won't have the dust storm okay Jeff um there's a bdp on this on the property to the north is there there there is an existing bdp on the North and North um east of the property as well as a property to the South and that wasn't that on bu1 no it um it's uh bu it's bu2 when do you can you see when we did that when that was done sure yeah so if you look on page 203 and 204 um that one was was done back it was a uh 2014 uh application number um so 2014 2015 is when the bdp and then the other property to the South was done in 2019 okay is there anybody uh any anybody on the board have any questions is there anybody out in the audience who like to speak for and against this yes ma'am please come up pull pull that microphone to you and that one will will it will not bite you I assure you uh Maggie Schultz um the president of the LakePoint homeowners association 331 Myrtlewood Road Melbourne um not for or against what we're here today for uh the gentleman who usually would come in and represent us who is a retired City controller or city planner um couldn't be here so he asked me which I had supplied to the young lady and I believe you'll have a copy of it uh the bdp uh plan that was uh in effect in 2015 for one of the properties that uh the gentleman had described so I'm just going to go ahead and read what uh Bob usherson had submitted to me so that we could just make sure that we have the same compliance or the same agreement that was for the other property that they did okay is it fairly condensed yes yeah in 2014 km applied for uh changes to both the comp plan and Zoning to construct an expansive Warehouse development along the east side of Welty Drive immediately adjacent to our residential Community after considerable discussion with km's Representatives about our respective interest K&M voluntarily proferred considerate limitate considerate limitations of the specific land use signage and other apperances which would help ensure that a bu2 district in close proximity to our homes would not be excessively disruptive the limitations proferred by kmm were written into a binding development plan agreement which was approved by the county on March 17 2015 and subsequently recorded in the public record of the adjacent bu2 Zone Parcels so what we're basically asking is that kmm use that same format and agree to those same limitations because um their properties if you will back our our homes back up to the street which overlooks all the businesses over there so it can get a little crazy is the best way I can put it uh standing on that road sometimes trying to get some other information for other things that are going on back there and you could literally be run over by a tractor and trailer cuz they don't like to stay on their side of the road but that's beside the point so that's the only reason we're here we're not agree to it or disagree with him we understand he wants to take that piece of property and make it into something more desirable okay thank you is there anybody else in the audience like to speak for or against I bring it back to the board what's the pleasure uh Mr chairman a question for the applicant okay Mr romandetti she mentioned an a bdp back from 2015 are you you remember that bdp no sir I wasn't part of that okay uh I I'll look at the re I'll look at what it contained I don't think there's anything we're doing any different than was in it but it's hard for me to make a judgment without understanding what it was it sounded to me like she was kind of hoping that you would have that same bdp attached to this property so without reading it and knowing it and then Consulting with the owner I I just don't I I would sit here today to say of course but I can't that would be not rightful to the owner to to not know what it says I mean if you want to put in there all the tyght business we're not going to open up a strip club we're not looking for it to be a business we that isn't going to be generated around a warehouse or a storage building that's what we're planning to do so if there was something about on signs I heard but you know we don't run we don't own tractor Travers that's that the yard down the end of the road kmm there the the the uh there's an auto wrecking on this road here this is IU just the next door to us I mean we crush cars there and those tractor trailers are running between their warehouse there and they're up at uh the furniture now building up there all day long running those tractor trailers and I I can site with her if you don't look two three times that they're rolling on that road but that's that's not not what we're doing and we're not trying to be any other business than what we're doing now but I it's hard for me to stand here right now and tell you yes to something I haven't read and until the owner I just restricted you to something I didn't know what it said so Mr chair one of the things I'd point out so that you're aware in the bdp it mentions U-Haul services and being that you're in the warehouse business you wouldn't be doing U-Haul with the warehouse cuz some warehouses have U-Haul components to it yeah I I I I would want to believe U-Haul right no there' be no hle you know that the most this property could ever be would be a re five retail uh stores so if it was a cabinet maker he'd have his storefront and he loads in from the rear or it's just going to be a load in from the rear Warehouse that's the only thing we're talking about on this on this 200 foot of property that's there Ron yes I guess that's not that restrictive that's why I'm not sure that I'm I'm sort of in favor of maintaining that bdp through the with some uniformity through there and not having one of the skip in there and this one's this does that make a little sense of what I'm trying to say here I I understand where you're coming from uh there there um there is an extensive list of or prohibited uses and one of them I just heard Mr Roman talk about canet making and C uh carpentry that those are one of the uses that are prohibited under the um existing bdp um I can read through those um prohibited uses at your discretion the other uh prohibitions um limits the height of the freestanding sign to 10 ft in height the gross uh floor air ratio not to exceed 75 to be consistent with neighborhood commercial um and then the other list of um uses that uh are prohibited so all and I didn't we don't have a cabinet maker I just use it as an example you know so being close to VI a serf so the signed is I can already tell you is no issue and this and the acreage we're not trying to overdevelop it so so those don't and also I can is either give me the list and I don't know if you have more to go here and you want me to go out in the hallway and table with the owner and I'll just read through it and then we'll come back in but other than that it's that's my personal opinion but I'm just the list is in the packet so we not give them the list let them go out in the hall and then if he approves it he can come back in cuz we only have one more item after this so it you got to have some consistency here you just can't let well it these are Under the bdp but this little piece over here here is not so right right Ian you got to understand where we're trying to get with it so [Applause] okay why don't you just take three to whatever you need and come we'll take a little we're not going to take a recess we're going to move on all right good afternoon G7 G7 is a request for this board to issue recommendations uh recommend regarding an update to the board policy bcc1 100 which implements the live local act uh some members of this board may recall that we requested to recommendation with the initial version of this policy in September of last year the board of County Commissioners did adopt that policy but since that time the legislature made some changes to key parts of the ACT via Senate Bill 328 which has since become law some of the changes just reinforce what we already had in the policy so those those changes we didn't need to make but there were some sub of changes that require us to update the policy and a full summary of those changes can be found in the Agenda Report some of the key updates include modifications to height requirements and reduced parking requirements as before in drafting the updates to this policy we tried to stick as close as possible to what the law required us to do we weren't trying to put our fingers on the scales one way or the other it's just a pure implementation of the ACT also of note you may recall that last year this was accompanied by an ordinance change to Define major Transit stop and this board issued a recommendation on that as well the update uh Senate Bill 328 did uh amend major Transit stop and now it just says Transit stop so we're going to have to change the ordinance for that as well and so because of advertising requirements related to ordinances that that we expect to be on your next agenda next month so that that's coming to you so you might notice a discrepancy if you read through the policy where it refers to an or uh code about Transit stop and that's to be coming soon okay so with that I'm just seeking your recommendations okay sir go ahead okay um the first question comes to uh item 2A adjacent 2 and you've added a Separation by a public road where did that come from where did you get that idea to put in that part of it for a I believe that was taken directly from amendments to section 125.0 one55 of Florida Statutes if you if you're really interested I I can search search the statute real quick but like I said I I most of these were copied and pasted language from the statute okay how does that affect the statement on H2 uh where it says if the proposed development is not adjacent to on two or more sides a parcel zone for single family residential use which is within a residential development with at least 25 contiguous single family homes does that also include that Public public road because of the word adjacent being here because the definition of adjacent 2 does not include properties separated by a public Road that's so that that is imputed into that word that ter adjacent to okay so the public road issue would be in this also so if somebody wanted to build across the street they could do so uh yeah that that J H2 would not apply in that case yeah it's not adjacent 2 okay thank you uh the next item 2B on the airport impact area I found it interesting that it says um that it's from the end of the runway for a distance of 10,000 ft normally when the FAA restricts development around an airport they do it as a trapezoid because planes do not take off from the end of the runway they take off from the runway which could be couple hundred feet be before the end and I'm just wondering about this language here that you're taking it from the end of the runway and not as the FAA requires I'm double-checking now but the the ACT refers to chap statute 333.03a statutes and I believe that definition was pulled directly from that but I'd have to double check to be sure and so I will check that again but um I believe it was taken directly from that okay I wonder if they looked at what the FAA requires because we've run into that a lot on buildings when we're building around an airport um then on five AI a and five AI I you have both the major Transportation Hub and you also have Transit stop I'm sorry did you say five yeah I meant to say four no I no I'm saying five well it's it says five after four so that's why I went to five where sure sure right you got it yes yeah okay yeah the the way the ACT revisions take place there's there's two ways and this comes directly from the updates um there had already been some uh provision that you you can see that which is now is 582 that if the development is within one quarter of it used to say major Transit stop that they made some minor modifications to that and that's reflected there but they also added in that piece above it so they're kind of two different tracks and that that is designed to be that way why the legislature did that I couldn't be sure but one is kind of um is discretionary on our part and one is a a requirement on our part so if they meet those criteria it says you know then we shall reduce it by 20% that's new yeah I saw that um the discretionary part of it is a little worrisome because then it kind of Le leaves it to you all to do whatever you want that you're you have the discretion where it says shall the staff shall evaluate yeah right and that is again that is how the ACT is written for whatever reason one one of them is is a just a flat reduction of 20% right if you meet that certain criteria the other one is just an evaluation whether we can see it's an appropriate we put that in there but I I mentioned last time this came up we already have certain um affordable housing incentives in our code um including for parking requirements and so it's most likely going to be easier for any developer just to go under that and seeing um which is it's pretty similar in any case so in most in most most cases this actually will have probably the second one will have very little impact because we already have Provisions in our code allowing for reduced parking but we're required to have it in this policy but didn't you have to adjust your policy based on what the state came up with not so much because what was already in the code for affordable housing incentives is still in the code and so that's available to everybody whether you fall under the live local act or not um in addition to that we're we we are required ired to consider reduced parking requirements if to consider reduced parking requirements if it meets that that just has to be in the policy the way the ACT is written but again it's discretionary it is discretionary yes okay yes the other thing was that in um in five a i a I hate that um as part of this analysis staff may request the applicant to provide data supporting a reduction in parking requirement ments prepared by a professional engineer what what would you be looking for there I mean that would be that's that's not an engineering issue it's more like um a request to change the parking requirement I mean it what can a professional engineer do Jeff to uh so so our Co so our code already has a provision in their where they can do an alternative parking study where a professional engineer can sign and seal that study that says hey for this use I am you know my analysis indicates that it would be a reduction you know by whatever so that part is already in our code to allow for that so and you will accept what the results of that study we have the ability to accept it okay but again it's discretionary it is discretionary okay all right thank you than you any anybody else yes yes sir yeah I'd just like to generally ask a general statement on staff are are you in agreement with this legislation in bypassing building and Zoning I can't comment on the policy I I just again I we really just looked at this I realized it's controversial we really looked at this to not try to make any kind of judgment as for others to decide this is as pure an implementation as we could do requires all right thank you for your honesty um I'm very much against this this entire legislation but I also have concerns about some of the technical aspects of it and the first one is as as John already pointed out doesn't even meet the FAA requirements and it doesn't meet DOD requirements so if we want to go to um section four item D and very familiar with both of them uh staff shall confirm the proposal is not within a quarter mile of a military installation um can we put in there the existing airspace restrictions instead of one quarter mile that quarter mile from a military installation that the the live local act under the revisions does not apply to that so that's again that's straight from this straight from the the live local act right but we have the discretion to modify this so that it meets DOD requirements so the existing I can't fly a drone at my house because I'm I'm a little further than a quarter mile from Patrick's space force bation but I can't fly a drone because I'm in existing restricted military airspace so all I'm asking is that you meet the FAA you know 107 requirements and I I understand what you're saying and I might refer to Alex behind me for but I think you know with the way the ACT is written it's an exemption from county code requirements so if you meet these requirements you don't have to follow certain county code requirements so we can't be over inclusive than what the ACT requires because by we can't have a policy that exempts County ordinance unless we have the enacting legislation that allows us to and we can't be under inclusive because the ACT says that we must allow these developments that are outside these that meet the the criteria of the live logal act to get those exemptions well if it doesn't meet a federal requirement either for the airport for the entire length of the runway as John pointed out or doesn't even meet DOD requirements uh whether you're at Canaveral whether you're at uh KSC whether you're at any of the airports in the area or even Patrick's um shouldn't our local ordinances be following the same guidelines is the federal requirement let me be let me be clear about something so if if a if a development does uh get approval under the live local act so you're you're not within a quarter mile but you may fall under other restrictions be a county code State Statute or federal law those regulations will still apply the live local Act only exempts certain regulations having to do with density height um parking requirements things of that nature the live local act development still have to follow all other comprehensive plan and and county code requirements as they relate to multif family developments so where is that where is that language in this oh um sure give me one second um Mr suvin could you repeat that uh question where is the language that says they have to meet the federal and DOD requirements for the restrictions I think the purpose of the live local Act is like as Billy was identifying uh relate to certain components of our land use or zoning uh requirements so density floor to air ratio uh floor area ratios height and land use outside of that the live local act doesn't exempt these developments from any other regulations and if I'll just point to you to to uh section four review criteria H5 where it says staff shall determine that the proposed development is otherwise consistent with The Bard County comprehensive plan and Bard county code of ordinances and based on what you're saying maybe we need to add some language in there as part of your recommendation and consistent with all other state and federal law yeah considering you know that we have three major you know military facilities or government facilities for our space program that we want to meet contain so we don't start putting highrises next to where we're launching our Rockets so that's that's one of them um the other one questions I have is some of the percentages that are used under the review criteria uh where did these percentages come from uh in particular items uh f and g under uh review criteria four sure that comes from the Amendments um to give me one second the amendments to section 125 0155 of Florida Statutes so only 40% of a residential unit can be classified as affordable so 60% is they're bypassing Planning and Zoning with 60 % not that is potential yes okay now you know why it's so highly charged politically and with people all right um and then for item h under review criteria um install you know just my personal preference is instead of shall not require the proposal it shall maintain requirement to obtain a land use and Zoning change I haven't found a a need or requirement having been an assistant developer of Land Development for Keith and schnars in Fort Lauderdale making millionaires billionaires um I haven't found a need for this that's just my opinion thank you for La Mr chairman yes I'd like sorry um I'd like to propose uh rejecting this hold on a second you haven't gone out to the audience oh we haven't I'm sorry yeah go ahead go to the okay sir everybody in the audience like to speak for or against this item okay sir go ahead Mr chairman I'd like to um send this back to staff for uh reviewing with the comments made by both John and myself to look further and see if we can get a different um perspective and looking at uh increasing the percentages on item 4f and 4G okay as well as putting FAA requirements and DOD requirements for airports is is there a second second a second motion by Ron Robert and uh seconded by John order before we vote do we have the ability or does the County Commission have the ability to make changes to this considering the state is the one who passed this amendment we are required to implement state law and it does dictate the 40% threshold so I I think the short answer is no so to my point we can ask staff to review this make some changes but if the changes aren't in compliance with what the state has passed us approving this motion is useless am I correct I we'll forward whatever recommendations you make to the board of County Commissioners um so but at the end of the day I I do think refer to Alex but I think we're required to implement the state law we don't have discretion on things like the 40% threshold and assuming we passed this and it went to the board the board says no we can't from a legal perspective they can't um to me I don't see that's appropriate to go through that exercise if we can't change it with our attorney here yeah those numbers don't seem to have changed even from the uh initial iteration of the live local act that's not something that we're coming up with now that's been in the law for at least one cycle now uh with respect to the 40% minimum Mr chairman yes if us sitting here and discussing this means that we cannot change anything or advise to look into more detail then what's the point why are we getting this I think the purpose of this is uh to make you guys aware of what live local act uh requirements are in place and to make the public aware of a different alternative avenue for administrative Authority that's given to staff by the state legislature but doesn't don't they get that through the County Commission why do they have to come through us well for your feedback and concerns that you raised to make the board aware of those concerns also so if we vote no that would be a feed back would that not be true it would be your feedback yes sir we'd still give it to the board based on whatever comments and concerns you might have thank you so instead of voting yes or no could we not just make an advisement that there are some items that would like need to be addressed instead of voting yes or no yes your feedback is advisory so if you have any pros and cons of the proposed BCC 100 then could make it part of the record that gets brought up before the board but again our feedback is not going to reach the state level no so um doesn't have to we can we can say that this is that this is not in compliance with we can make a motion and to advise that these are not in compliance with laws in place with federal laws in place which the state has no no power to change um so someone who comes and and gets their their clearance through this live local Act is still going to get shot down by by the uh Federal uh the dod and the FAA right no they will never see it I'm sure the uh air I'm sure the airport is not going to let you put a highrise in their flight path it doesn't having having rebuilt Fort Lauderdale Airport I'm here to tell you there are a lot of people objecting to the second Runway the South Runway and they'll only get it after the fact I mean well we got a motion and second on the floor can in light of this new information um can you amend your your motion to an advisory that the the points that we raised will be brought to the County Commission so amended how about that that's got to be better than what we structurally what we had before yeah because I I do not want to direct direct staff to go back and review something that they can't do anything about yeah but I think they they still need to know what this board's feelings were on on these items so we got to get them this information to them somehow I don't want it to die here that's my opinion so all right want to move forward with it you want to you want to vote on motion or he's amended it well but his motion was as as amended yeah I amended for recommendations yeah to review um not only the dod requirements but the FAA requirements and to see if the um see if the percentages can be altered okay so is your motion to deny it with the recommendations to review or to approve it but that they should be reviewing those items to deny it with the recommendations to review I don't think we're going to get um a rubber stamp if we don't deny it I think we will get a rubber stamp if we don't deny it there's not going to be a review that's my personal opinion I mean if you guys if you review it are you going to go to the state and say hey you got this wrong can you fix this is that going to happen or what you just it just goes to the County Commission and it has to it has to the way I'm understanding it by the state law it has to be approved am I right we are required to have a policy to implement the live local act yes and these These are re we're seeking recommendations to go to the board of County Commissioners for this policy in particular so if there's specific amendments to the policy like you mentioned adding in potential language about you know state and federal law including fa a regulations absolutely we'll we will include that in the recommendation I mean should we include language in this that that says that this policy is not in compliance with federal law no that's what we were asking them to review I'm I'm oh no the the the initial the initial um motion was for them to review and change it not to add language to warn people that this is not in compliance well the motion I mean the motion is to deny approval with a recommendation to go in and re and review all regulations state federal local to make sure that we're in compliance and if there's ability to change um percentages to look at that I think 40% for affordable housing is woefully low and it's not the first time legislation has been an error or has been misguided but this is the opportunity to correct it not just rubber stamp it Mr chairman yes um didn't the County Commission decide to opt out of certain provisions of the Liv local act yeah there was an OP out an opt out for tax exemption uh under certain circumstances yes so could they essentially do the same thing to parts of this I believe this statute and and the legislature created a process for these types of applications to be handled administratively and in order to do so they've put in certain requirements that staff is supposed to be looking at and reviewing in order to determine if it needs to if an application qualifies to come before the pnz and then the board of County Commissioners or if it could just be handled at a staff level so they're essentially trying to expedite the review process for these types of projects it seems like yeah I think that was one of the provisions in live local to expedite permitting and okay Tad you got something move down yeah please maybe you can lien this this one is concerning I think for everyone you know does when you have the statute that sets certain thresholds and then as Alex said you know we have to implement that so I think that the concern that you all have with this is related to what's been handed To Us by the state through legislation and with that our hands are tied we have no way of changing that we just have to implement so there may be another regulation out there that is more stringent for us if it's the FAA airport aspect but as Billy said if they're within a quarter mile then they're not eligible to be this if they're in the flight path of the airport they have to contend with that as they get built that's going to be something that'll be looked at through that through the site plan process it doesn't just wave that requirement for them it just simply says as Alex mentioned if you have 40% is you know affordable housing and if you're in commercial land use and if you're this then you qualify for live local and an expedited review that doesn't have to go to the board or go through the public hearing process to be changed from commercial Zone and commercial land use to residential land use or residential zone so it's just a it's essentially a mechanism that the state has handed us that says this this is how you're going to approve these developments at a staff at a staff level and it doesn't require a public hearing or to go through the board of County Commissioners so if there's things in the policy as Billy mentioned that are within the board's purview is adding the language we're happy to do so and and and I think any recommendation that you guys give us we're going to take to the board and say here board the board may ask ask us is this something that's been handed To Us by the legislation is this not and we'll respond accordingly so I don't know that you know I don't know that this helps you all as a board or if it doesn't but I mean there's certain things that that are in the legislation that we have to come forward with you know some folks went out some municipalities went out and they created a an ordinance all the way around well now they're in the process of redoing their ordinance because the statute changed we chose to do a policy because we felt like it would make us more Nimble and give us a better opportunity to respond on how this was going to play out and there'll probably be some more Corrections next year through the legislation but those are through the legislative process at the state they're not for the county to to take on or or to to do and and that so I just wanted to give you all that that information that helped yeah we we still have a motion in second on the floor do we want to withdraw call for okay uh the mo do you want to recite the motion again yeah the motion is is to reject is your mic on my apologies um the motion is to reject uh approval but provide recommendations for the inclusion previously stated okay and you still second on your all in favor of the motion signify by saying I I nay that passed so that's what we got for you okay you want to come up so just for the record we're opening up G7 correct G6 I'm sorry G6 G6 G6 yes sir so in looking in the uh The Binding development plan and speaking with the owner um we're we're 99% in compant because we see how this was done on the front property which actually of our 9 Acres it's only the front parcel that that a butts wealthy drive so that it doesn't bother the neighbors with retail signs and these type businesses and we feel we can comply with that because we had no intention to do any of that up in the front other than what it is doing right now is in the paragraph of it we were hoping and I might be interpreting it wrong but it says here um contractors will not uh hold on one second it was in yours the development plan will not store contractors will not store any materials or things outside we we wanted to be clear that right now we're parking whether it be a dump truck or different thing we pay for storage people Park in there it's been that way for 20 years and that's the only line says contractors outdoor storage yards I think we were just asking that meant like trusses and buildings we have no storage of any supplies for contractors okay I'm going to go right to the man Jeff I want your interpretation it starts with contract if I may and I I don't want I don't want to we're getting in uh tick for tax so what I would suggest is what I'm hearing from this board is is that you're wanting um this bdp and we can use that language now the bdp is voluntary Mr romanti does not have to agree with it but that could be part of your recommendation is to move forward with the bdp and the conditions as stated for the north property and that will get transmitted to the board and the board will have the um opportunity to make changes to that or you know whatever they decide to do now in the time between today and when it go to the board we can have those discussions with Mr romanina to get his his you know his take on what that means and what it doesn't you okay with yes okay good and I was just asking maybe he knows what the definition of what you're all asking us to comply to is do we know what that is or not or that's not we can't answer that again like I said is the bdp was in place as far as is the intent of that I'm not going to get into what the intent and what the definition of that is we can certainly do that outside of this public forum okay then we we'll approve it okay doing that on the next one uh Ron do you want to make that motion yes I would I would Mo U Move that we approve this with that bdp attached I'll second and second by Brian motion by Ron and second by Mr chair can I can I just so your your motion is for for the bdp as stipulated for the north property correct for and you can use the word consistency cons consistent with the north property that's correct okay of this is already all in favor of the motion signify by saying I I anybody opposed we got you out of here okay next item so Mr chair we're going to have to open up the um the record for G5 which is Walter chawii requests a change the zoning classification from ru 1-13 r24 with a bdp okay is the applicant here and we can't continue not here okay I thought they might are we allowed to do two in the same meeting to table no sir no based on what the code says it says no application for a zoning Amendment uh shall be tabled more than once by the pnz board as a result of the action or request of the applicant and it looks like this item had been previously continued to today's meeting that's why I raised that point okay so we can do more than one in the meeting it's just this one has already been continued item specific chairman uh Alex why was it uh continued last time I I believe he left the meeting uh before the item was heard and he has to reapply if he wants to come back correct there's certain requirements that it's a six-month limitation however that can be waved by the board if certain circumstances exist so so can we move to deny and have him come back in six months would I would just like to have a motion to deny let's just don't tie it down oh no I I didn't mean by that I yeah that's fine I'll move to deny okay motion by John second second by Ron all in favor signified by saying I I I that pass unanimously okay what else we got okay I'm going to just spread one little thing here and it's it's really for the board members and it's might be humorous but it's it's something um many years ago when when some of us were on this pnz board we actually got comp compens at and uh it was a big deal at the time and it I think we got $15 Ron were you here when we did that no uh well it was big time and I don't want to go through any lot of detail I just would say just put that in your mind and see what it make if it makes sense today you know it wasn't much back then but uh you L today yeah it are are you have changed everybody else is on a train maybe we need to get on it are you making a recommendation we ask no I'm not making a recommendation I'm just saying implant that in your mind and see what we have for the future I'll tell you why I'm asking that because um I sit on the independent citizens oversight committee for the half penny tax okay and I requested from the school district that they pay our members travel expenses when we go and visit the schools yeah and and they approved that really yes so my my item may not be that far-fetched it's not okay all right meeting to jourm $15 that's almost a me the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of County commissioners of Bard County Florida Space Coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of County commissioners of bravard County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any in all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]