##VIDEO ID:qeDM6Knx5kQ## [Music] e okay and it's 3 o'clock if everybody could please stand and Mr Logan if you would lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance the United States of America and to the repic for which stands one nation God andice for okay this is the Planning and Zoning Board and also the local planning agency it's an Advisory Board which makes recommendations to the County Commissioners who will make the final decision on all these items items G5 G6 G7 G9 G11 and G13 are LPA items items on today agenda will be heard by the County Commission on September 5th 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 on their microphone so that your voice is on the record speakers for public comment on any agenda items will be given three minutes at this time if any board member has had any EXP parte communication regarding any application please disclose so now all right seeing that I ask for a motion for the approval of the pnz minutes from July 22nd 2024 move for approval okay a motion by Debbie second a second by Logan all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously Mr chair before before we get started I just want to make sure that Mr loose understands that he was not he he will not be voting today since Mark and Debbie are from the same district he's the alternate so I guess he's the odd man out today he can participate in the meeting but he cannot vote all right okay items G5 and G6 I'm going to move to the top so we'll take item G5 as our first item good afternoon Mr chair G5 is a request for recommendation regarding a draft ordinance to amend Bard county code to remove a definition of major Transit stop and insert a definition of Transit stop I had mentioned this at your last meeting this is related to amendments to the live local act um the legislature made various changes one of those changes um is to remove the word major and essentially therefore requiring us to now have in our Land Development code a definition of Transit stop so when we looked at that um we looked at uh alongside Bard County Transit um a definition that FD uses and adapted a definition from there and so staff's proposed definition for inclusion in the ordinance is as follows Transit stop a site designated and approved by a public Transit Agency other than that used for transportation of children to and from school for the purpose of an area where passengers wait for board a light and transfer between Transit Vehicles such sh shall include but not be limited to designated Space Coast Area Transit bus stops so in essence there's uh Space Coast Area Transit has many many bus stops so this has uh far more bus stops than was included in the previous definition um with that said this is only used in the context of the BC board policy BCC 100 that is the only relevance to this definition in rard County procedures and that is to where where a development is in one qu mile of a Transit stop a development will be eligible for the county to consider reduced parking requirements that's that's not a shall that's just a consider so with that said we we're seeking a recommendation on this ordinance okay is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that I bring it back to the board and I believe Mr Robert you had some yes um staff I've given a copy of the actual legislation Mr Sullivan do you have your mic on is it is it here now my lights on it's very solved can you hear him can you guys hear me I can okay all right um I gave out a copy of the 2024 um Florida statute 12501 055 um that is on the current website so that's currently what the legislature says um if on the second page um item F uh 2 a 2B and four is not in the County ordinance is not in conformance with that Florida statute yes sir so those um so there's the the legislature previously had if you look at F1 on the handout you gave out M that's what this definition deals with the county must consider reduced parking requirements for proposed development authorized under this subsection if the development is located within one4 mile of a Transit stop as defined in the County's Land Development code so that's what this definition deals with in addition to that that's where F2 comes in that part was included cuz it Doesn't say required to be in the Land Development code that part was included in the board policy but we requested you to review at your previous meeting and I have it in front of me here um that states um if I can read it back to you um as part of this analysis staff will ensure concurrency under the Count's Land Development regulations this shall include but not limited to parking requirements except that parking requirements under the Land Development code shall be reduced by 20% if the following criteria are met the development is within 1 half mile of a major Transportation Hub and has available parking within 600 ft regardless of whether such parking compensates for the reduction so that section that you've highlighted is in the policy it's just not in the ordinance because we're not required to put that in the ordinance well I would kind of like to follow State Statute I'm not particularly in favor of this legislation but you know it is a state legislation so you're saying ordinance does not have to follow the state ordinance the state that's correct so last year when the first version the initial version of the LI live local Act was first adopted staff had significant conversations with the county attorney's office and others um to determine the best way forward and we decided and and this was brought to you the for the first version of bcc100 about a year ago um October yeah to put it through policy and the reason is because we expect it as has become the case that the legislature is going to continuously amend this in this these the live local act because it's a it's a major act there's a lot of um uh unique Provisions to it and as expected they did so we wanted it to stay as Nimble as possible so where where the live local act and specifically statute 125.0 1055 where it doesn't require us to have something in ordinance we are choosing to do it by policy which we do think is an acceptable implementation in fact in the latest version of the live local act and I don't have the specific citation in front of me it specifically mentions that the county shall have a policy to implement the live yeah the word shall is is in the what I the handout um like to show you that the city of Miami is also adopting their um live local act and they're doing it word for word there is no ambiguity there and I think the intention here is the Intermodal capabilities I mean just because you have a bus stop many bus stops in Bard County do not have parking not even within 600 feet so wherever there's a parking a bus terminal we have the live local act to bypass the planning and zoning and other elements and that's where um it as this definition relates back to BCC 100 um we did say staff shall evaluate whether it is appropriate in the kind of in the cases you're talking about where it's just a transportation or a Transit stop not the Transportation Hub but just a Transit stop um all we would be doing is a valuating whether it's an appropriate and we specifically included in there that we may request the applicant provide data supporting a reduction so that contemplates what you're talking about if the if really the transit stop alone doesn't Justus ify the reduced parking staff may very well deny the reduced parking if they're using these Provisions well what that does is that brings it to staff and not this board is that correct the live local act in general does but um so so the people here will not have an opportunity to object if in general under the live local act if they meet the requirements of live local act that is the case under the state statute yes I'm sure the people out there in the audience are very appreciative of the state legislature um this is an evaluation by Holland and Knight it's one of a one of our nation's leading law firms um they actually go through and they highlight where they say it should be a major Transportation Hub not Transit stop so what we're trying to do is for the live locals to reduce that kind of parking is to make affordable housing where they can use Intermodal Transportation not just a single modal Transportation so like a bus stop which is what I'm seeing this ordinance kind of steer toward but you know the ability I mean we have a very nice audience full of people who are either for or against a particular um agenda item and giving them that voice or relieving it or just giving it to staff um does it takes away from their voice so I'm not in favor of this I and thank you for clarifying that it would be a staff decision and not ever come to the board is that correct the decision on whether to reduce parking in the case of a major Transit stop within a quarter mile of a development would be a staff decision correct if we were to deny that reduced part then it would no longer be a staff decision should they continue to seek reduceed paring but only if you deny it that's correct thank you thank you okay any other questions for staff Mr chairman yes sir Mr r i I move that we recommend adopting this ordinance okay I need a second second we got a motion by Ron this is on item G5 we got a second by Debbie all those in favor say I I any opposed I oppose one opposed that motion passed okay item G6 Mr chairman item G6 is the adoption of water supply uh this is a county wide um request um this is to comply with the statutory requirements the attached ordinance amends the poble water element of the comprehensive plan with the updated 2035 water supply facilities work plan and amends various policies within the conservation pable water sanitary sewer and government coordination Capital Improvements element of the comprehensive plan for consistency with the water supply facilities work plan the updates include a snapshot in time of the water supply for current and future residents strengthen the position to uh compete for funding assistance plan for altern alternative sources that take time to develop and finance ensure local needs are considered by St John's River Water Management District the appal regional water supply plan has been updated and meets the statut statutory requirements in chapter 163 Florida Statutes so on April 4th 2024 the board approved trans transmitt of the water supply plan to the Florida Department of Commerce for the review and comments on June 18th 2024 Florida commerce issued the objections recommendation and comments report this report identified no objections made no recommendations and provided no comments that must be addressed before the adoption of the water supply facilities work plan and related to comprehensive plan amendment by the board so I have here uh Mr fanin who is the utilities director if you have any questions about this uh adoption hearing all right well would that staff is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item okay seeing that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for this staff Mr John okay I'm looking at exhibit B can you get closer to your microphone sure how's that there you go okay exhibit B on the second page level of service standards I see that Mims Titusville Coco South Bard are all crossed out what for what reason um so we're in the as as part of the comp plan so when you submit a water supply plan you can only submit what is um what is currently in the comp plan as we're going through the revisions of the comp plan we're changing the level of service um the numbers that you see there are literally from the mid to late 70s or I'm sorry '90s so we're looking at that so it's it's more of an earmark of a revision to come so we're not cutting off their water we're not cutting off their water okay another one um policy 46 was also crossed out County shall evaluate the water supply and its projections at least every five years are we not no longer doing that I'm sorry sir can you repeat that yeah 46 on page three of the same document that's crossed out also evaluate every five years we're the the consumptive use permit dictates the duration of when we do our evaluation so um we allow the consumptive use permit to be the mechanism of one that evaluation should occur so how often do you do your evaluation I mean with it I I believe the I I believe the requirement is every seven years but you can do a consumptive use permit for 510 and now they're doing 20year permits so when you go through those you submit a request they're asking if you're asking for any additional water when you ask for for additional water they make you go through a complete um due diligence so unless the utility is requesting for um additional water um demand there's there's no need to do it until that until that threshold is met okay unless we have a loss of Supply correct okay um on page four under policy 16 it says uh you've got crossed out continue to participate in Taylor Creek are we no longer going to participate with that Reservoir um we are not because what we have done is we have made um we have made the decision with our two water plants to go to rro Taylor Creek being a surficial water source um so we are not going to be a part of that how big is the r plant here um we're we're so we've we've gone through the request for qualifications and I'm I'm explaining this because um we we tentatively are anticipating double in the size of Mims and most likely of also Barea Bay the reason why I say tentatively is because we've done a we've selected engineering firm for both water plants and we are currently now going going through the population projection where we're actually figuring out what that threshold should be okay so you're increasing capacity of existing Ro plants we are increasing no so both both plants are currently lime softening plants and we are doing the expansion by doing that expansion not using surficial water but using RO water which uses the Florida kn aquifer which is brackish I assume it's brackish um there's a lot more quality um there's more quantity to us and it gives us more flexibility and it's probably the highest means of water treatment that you can find by doing reverse osmosis yeah I'm familiar with that okay all right um that's it thank you any other questions for staff uh just one question um is there any projection on supplying water to either space force or the space community on so uh the federal property that you're referring to is Supply is under the uh city of Coco utility service boundary for water so they are those that are are responsible for for that c always all right Mr chairman I move that we recommend adoption of this work plan and related amendments second okay we got a motion by Ron for item G one a second G6 r g six I'm sorry a second by Robert all those in favor say I I I any opposed that passed unanimously okay before I get going here I see we've got a pretty good crowd and I would assume and we all know the definition of that you're here in regards to the Sherwood Golf Club all those that's here could I see a little raise of hands please and I think we have approximately three or four HOAs that's being represented is that correct yes okay now we all can speak or we can pick one person from each HOA because we're volunteers up here ladies and gentlemen you know we just made make recommendations for the County Commissioners they're they're going to make the final decision but we don't need to hear five different times that traffic's going to be bad or if they do this project it's going to flood your home you know so would y'all entertain having one or two or three speakers we have plenty of objections so well I mean if we have um this could go on forever and we have some people and I know some people that's involved in the projects that need to be leaving a member of the all right well we tried but now with all due respect when we get to this item on this agenda now I'm going to set a timer you see it on the thing in fact we're going to go right down here now it's going to go to three minutes per each person when that timer goes off let's all be respectful you know so we can get through this all right item G1 good afternoon item G1 Gerald Patterson request a change of zoning classification from gu to RR mh1 under application number 24z 0022 tax count number 2981 in just District 1 is the applicant here sir if you could please come up to the podium and get as close as you can to that microphone state your name and address for the record Gerald Patterson 1803 Pimon Circle Edgewater Florida 3275 and a little bit about what you're wanting to do here yes sir the the Lots the uh property was is busted up into small Lots so I've pieced together enough that meets or exceeds all properties around there that are RR mh1 and I just need to uh get that where I can uh get get a building permit all right has anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item that's really good news for you thank you all right seeing that I bring it back to the board do we we have any questions for the applicant no Mr chairman I recommend approval okay I need I need a second second we got a motion by Brian a second by Ron all those in favor say I I any opposed Mr Gerald it passed but now the County Commissioners are going to make the final decision on this all right thank you thank you sir have a good day okay item G2 item G2 home Nation Coco LLC represented by roxen roxan Camino request a change of zoning classification from Au to ru- 1-11 under application number 24z 0027 tax count number 241 9394 in District 2 okay is the applicant here ma'am if you could come up and it's going to be the same drill if you could state your name and address for the record and then a little bit about what you're wanting to do um my name is Susan Martini 1545 Island Drive Meritt Island Florida 32952 and I am representing roxan commo and I have the signed paperwork to represent her on this property we had purchased this hold on one second then if you could take that paperwork over that Rox sand is sign for you and hand that to Mr Jeff there are we good to go sir okay ma'am and a little bit about what she's wanting to do okay when we bought this parcel of property it was owned by the neighbor right next door he owned the lot with a house on it and this lot and they had separated the two lots this was zoned Au and that is no longer large enough to build on or to keep zoned as Au so we would like it to move to ru11 and we're going to be doing a single family residence uh, 1560 ft a 32 okay hold on one second 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 her okay Mr John I have a question for staff um how does this affect the neighbors because they're all under Au also there's plenty of you want one around the the the area does has Pro predominantly or I should say is in a pocket of au there's there's quite a few different um zoning districts out there just to the South is ru11 it's really a um a hodgepodge of different zoning districts what what what you should recognize as Au is a 2 and 1 half acre lot minimum 150 ft deep and 150 ft wide so the um reone of the property would make it a um developable lot to meet zoning District standards but will the neighbors still maintain Au I'm talking about the six lots that are in that same area we would have to look at that individually um but typically know um that they would have to rezone the property as well if they were if they were not considered a non-conformity lot of record and there's certain um time frames that they have to that lot would had to be created prior to zoning District standards or if they were changed so that would have to be looked at from a staff analysis on an individual basis so they wouldn't be forced to to come in here and and ask for a change I would I would I don't want to make a judgment call it would have to be you know if someone were to want to come into the office and ask us we'd have to do research to see what would be appropriate but changing the zoning would be an appropriate measure to make it a buildable lot obviously those lots do not meet the zoning District standards so that would be the first choice of action a be it you know any analysis there's variances or there's possibility that they may be considered a non-conform aot of record but until staff does the research we can advise of that at this point there are houses on those other Lots so they'd be non-conforming then they are now non-conforming now again I don't know when when those building permits were issued they could have been done in the 60s where you know it just I'm almost going to tell you before building perit could be no the neighb fa well I just didn't I just didn't want if we approve this one that they're going to be forced to come in here and pay a fee and and have their Lots updated to the same zoning I think they're going to be in good shape they're going to be fine okay unless they decide to make there before it's a long time Mr chairman yes sir we recommend approval of this Zing change second Brian was that a second from you okay we got a motion by Ron on item G two a second by Brian all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously thank you okay ma'am thank you item G3 Paul and Laura and Futrell request to change zoning classification from ru- 1-7 to ru- 1-11 under application number 24z 0028 tax account number 28248 in District 5 okay and sir you must be Mr Paul P 481 Thomas Drive Melbourne 32935 and a little bit about what you're wanting to do here um just got a vacant lot in West Melbourne and right now it's zoned um R17 and I just want to change it to ru11 to be able to get a building permit in the future to build house 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 we got any questions for the applicant Mr chairman I move that we recommend approval that's something changeing second okay we got a motion by Ron a second by Debbie all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously okay thank you I'm just hoping that you Sherwood people are paying attention see how quick this is going all right item G4 thank you Mr chairman item G4 is the borrows West hotel developers LLC requests a cup for the on premise consumption of alcohol in a PUD zoning classification application number is 24z 0030 tax account number is 303 0319 located in District 4 so and um as I read that into the record this is for a 208 room hotel with a rooftop bar restaurant the applicant already has an administrative approval uh in conjunction with the restaurant part of it but this cup would be for the entire Hotel property with the Rooftop Bar on top all right so anyone in the audience want to speak for against this item seeing that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for Mr chairman I move that we recommend approval of this conditional use permit I'll second all right we got a motion by Ron and I think Mr Robert beat you there on the second and a second by Robert all those in favor say I any opposed item G4 passed unanimously item G7 G thank you Mr chairman item G7 and G8 I would like to read into the record together okay but they need a separate recommendation gen Florida 48 LLC request adoption of the 20 23-2 largescale plan amendment to change the future land use designation from res one to 2.5 acres to Res 4 and CC residential one 2 .5 acres to Res 4 residential 4 and CC Community commercial under application number 23 LS 000000001 tax account number 3277 3368 3827 3829 in District 5 item G8 J Florida LLC represented by Kim renka request to change the zoning classification from gu and Au to PUD under application number 23 PUD 00005 under tax count number 30000 277 3368 300 827 and 3829 Mr chair before we begin I'd also like to read in the uh conditions of approval and also to point out that the applicant's PowerPoint revises three or requests to revise three of those conditions and seeks clarification on one of them okay thank you ma'am and is the applicant here oh Mr chair hold on hold on I'm sorry there are 14 conditions for approval I'd like to read those into the record okay number one the proposed development shall be capped at three units per acre number two the approval of approval of requested waiver from section 62-14 46g the storage of campers travel trailers recreational trailers and vehicles boats and boat trailers and other similar vehicles on single family lots is allowed by Bard county code section 62 - 2217 provided each lot will have a 20ft driveway capable of parking recreational vehicles number three approval of the requested waiver from section 62-14 46 D1 to permit Lots smaller than 5,000 square ft and less than 50 ft in width shall have a substantial relationship to a 15t common open space track directly adjacent to the affected dwelling units condition four approval of the requested waiver from section 62-14 46 d3b to allow residential structures of two stories or less and a minimum building separation of 10 ft rather than 15 provided that the proposed structures do not abut utility easements or otherwise affect the ability to provide and maintain utility service for each lot condition five an approval of the commercial uses as allowed in be1 zoning classification per 62-1 1482 condition six approval of waiver to section 62- 2957 c as it relates to the number of project inass and erass to Babcock Street the waiver is subject to the spine roadways a providing a minimum of two approved access points for each cluster of 350 dwelling units and B single family and or multif family lots shall shall not have individual direct access to the spine Road and C the Project's internal roadway Network satisfying Florida fire prevention code requirements including but not limited to 1 18 18.2 1 18.45 and 1 18.5 approve condition s approval of the requested waiver to section 62-1 1446 to reduce the rear setback for residential principal structures from 20 ft to 15 ft shall have a substantial relationship to a 15ot common open track directly adjacent to the affected dwelling units condition 8 closure of the borrow pit permit shall be in accordance with the St John's River Water Management District requirements condition nine Reclamation of the existing Lake shall include literal plantings along the P along the pond slope in accordance with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission comments provided condition 10 prior to to County approval of a construction plan or preliminary plat or a site plan the developer shall execute a agreement including but not limited to a proportionate share agreement with the county and appropriate Municipal entities addressing and or mitigating any infrastructure deficiencies relating to the off-site transportation impacts as identified in a traffic study the agreement shall include Provisions requiring the developer to design permit and construct the identified improvements in addition the agreement well identified timelines for the necessary improvements and monitoring and updating the traffic study as appropriate B 10 t uh 10B execute an agreement with the county addressing infrastructure deficiencies relating to fire rescue said agreement will account for the developer providing the land site design and permitting of the construction of a fire station in addition to the necessary equipment for operation of a fire station excuse me in addition to the necessary equipment for operation appropriate impact fees credits may be requested as applicable under Bard county code of ordinance in Florida statute condition 11 prior to County approval of construction plan and or preliminary plat and or site plan the developer shall demonstrate the adequate Water and Sewer services will be available to the development and are and available prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy condition condition 12 address all staff comments relating to the PDP prior to or concurrent with the site plan and subdivision submittal condition 13 in accordance with Section 62-1 1301 if it is the opinion of the zoning official that an amendment to the PDP warrants board evaluation such modification shall be submitted for board approval condition 14 if the developer is to have on street parking the developer or owner shall establish a financial mechanism for maintenance of internal roadways prior to County approval of of a construction plan and or preliminary plat and or site plan thank you Mr chair before I turn it over to I just want I have some um uh clarifications so um those conditions were for your consideration um to be consistent compatible with the surrounding area in addition the applicant will provide a bdp containing the following waivers and conditions and when when we read item or condition number 10 we it references per porate fair share agreement and then lastly there are City comments from pombay that were handed out to you before the meeting um and that's just as an FYI most of those comments will be addressed during the site planner subdivision review process thank you okay and there's the applicant here and it looks like you have answered every question from the last time and then some well we've gone for further oh Mr chair I'm I'm sorry one last thing so with the with the comprehensive plan Amendment this is a large scale there are comments received from the state agencies that are included in your packet it was addendum number two there are conditions from entral Florida Fish and Fish and Wildlife so I just want you to be aware of those those were the comments from the state agencies and has staff analysis to those thank you that's all are we sure yes all right Miss Kim you know the drill name and address please ma'am yes sir uh Kim rosenka Lacy L renka 1290 US1 rockage Florida here on behalf of Jen Florida 48 LLC the owner of the property uh for Sara Lakes uh the um Santa communities partners with Gen Florida 48 and here representing Santa is Richard German and Dan Edwards the engineer records pulos and Bennett represented by Andrew Ivy to answer specific questions about the Pud and the engineering involved and planner Jesse Anderson formerly the assistant growth management director uh with Palm Bay and now planner with pulis and Bennett here also to answer any questions you have about compatibility or any of these conditions that uh we're not clear on when I'm speaking this is your second go at this you had the transmittal hearing back I believe in April it went to County Commission in May it was transmitted up you all recommended two units to the acre uh we have asked for four units to the acre limited to three which is now limited by the Pud as you'll see further on in this presentation the County Commission recommended four units the acre limited to three there was also a condition that if necessary we would agree to the owner would agree to donate two acres to a fire station and we're still willing to help with the fire station issue but we're concerned this condition goes a little too far uh based upon all the other development that's coming in the area so again we are uh um seeking a large scale future Lane use Amendment on 1,957 acres to allow mixed use development uh the Pud is on your agenda this evening 1 182.5 s acres is requested for res 4 limited to three units the acre by the P PUD and 27.3 3 acres of community commercial for 398,000 Ft of retail the Pud PUD zoning at 3 units the acre would allow 3,241 units and 39 uh 3 398,000 Square ft of commercial uh the location is near deer run south of willbrook Street West of Babcock Street also known as County Road 507 um if you look to the where Badcock intersects with the bottom yellow line and you'll see deer Run Road starting at Deer Run road going west all the way around the property is a canal uh structure so there's a good extra 100 foot of canal right away there that serves as a buffer between all of the properties to the north uh where it says Willowbrook Street there's a sliver of land there that is in the county which presents this land presents prohibits this land from entering into PM Bay there's no way to Annex into Palm Bay and uh we are here staying in the county as you recall this is a challenging project uh there is a bit of opposition from Deer Run This is a transitional area as you'll see quite a bit of this property in this area is going more High Den than this 5 units to 20 units to the acre there is some infrastructure challenges but Florida Statutes and The Bard County comp plan and ordinances address that so as we go forward any proportionate fair share that's necessary we have to be granted uh again the conditions though we believe are a bit overreaching that's why we've asked for some suggestions changes as you'll see uh there are seven large developments in this area that are coming on board and this is uh you may have remembered seeing this before this is all of the development that is coming forward um Rolling Meadows in Willowbrook are actually in Bard County uh they m they went into PM Bay and then came back out of PM Bay in 2014 and they are uh vested here at Bard County at two units to the acre you have water stone and Cypress Bay that are anywhere from 5 to 20 units to the acre Emerald Lakes East is 3.5 units to the acre camel at farms is 2.5 units to the acre Pete holding is 10 units to the acre and Ashton Park is 5.5 units the acre so this is a 2 mile radius this is showing how the area is transitioning into a more dense and how this property indeed does serve as a transition between deer run to all these other developments in the area and that is where we believe the compatibility is shown because of the expanding nature of this area um with that want to talk about Transportation as we know uh that has been a big issue Babcock Street does not have capacity and James Taylor with Kim Le horn is going to discuss that thank you for the record James Taylor kimley Hornet Associates 200 South Orange Avenue in Orlando Florida I am the traffic engineer for the project and as uh Mr rinka mentioned we have done quite a bit of traffic analysis on this we still have some to go uh the first thing that we looked at is the evaluation of what the future land use would have as a Maximum Impact if that does uh go through we did identify both short-term and long-term deficiencies in the area required by the state to do that visioning exercise we did um conclude that bapc tree will need to be widen the four lanes at some point in the future um in 2035 and in 2045 and the study that we're embarking on now is the traffic impact study dialing in specific intersections driveway in some more detail on the roadway capacity and specific to the site plan that's being proposed we before we put pin of paper on that exercise we get with staff early and we talk about the methodology the assumptions that are going to go into that study what sort of background traffic is going to be on the road and where the trips from the project are going to go um that process has concluded um we got approval today with conditions that if we're accepting up of the Tia will start um shortly TI excuse me traffic impact study uh we are going to be identifying in that study intersection driveway operational performances and we're also going to be looking at Future Transportation deficiencies which need to be impact need to be mitigated for the future growth this is an exhibit from the ti methodology and what we're going to move forward with when we study these impacts this the percentage that you see on the screen are the percent of trips that are going to impact each roadway segment in this 5 M plus uh study area radius and again what we're going to conclude in this study is where the deficiencies are and what portion of those deficiencies are attributed to this project the improvements that we may identify are going to include things for site access such as turn Lanes of driveways or traffic control devices such as traffic signal and we're also going to identify where there are needs for off-site capacity for roadways such as backcock Street and eventually that's going to lead into what the mitigation agreement looks like so you heard staff reading to the record about 15 conditions in the staff report and um we we have some modifications that we would like to put on the record tonight for at least four of those for the traffic one 10A that was read in record I'm just going to go over it and then speak through the strikeouts and additions that's being requested by the applicant team so prior to County approval of a construction plan in or preliminary plat and or site plan the developer shall and this is a there's two more conditions to this but for a execute an agreement including we'd like to strike that out and say may include uh and you'll see why in a second but not limited to a proportionate share agreement and the county with the county and appropriate municipalities addressing Andor mitigating any infrastructure deficiencies related to off-site Transportation impacts as identified in the traffic study the agreement not shall but may is what we're requesting include Provisions requiring the developer to design permit and construct the identified improvements and before I go on to the next add in I'll talk about why these things are being requested this is to provide flexibility the developer may come to an agreement with City and County that widens a portion of the road in that case there wouldn't be a proportionate share agreement or they may only enter into a proportionate share agreement and not necessarily widen the road so one of the two will happen and then the the next addition there is those improvements will happen at a cost to the developer proportionate to the Project's impacts we didn't think that it was clear in this uh statement it it reads as if anything that is deficiency will be identified for impact to fund and construct 100% so we wanted to clarify that and with that I will turn it over to back to miss rosinka all right thank you sir um with that I'd go into the Pud and I there was a seven-page PUD in your packet it was hard to read uh was small so I did print out a portion of it and then enlarge the development standards so we could all read them just Kim can I ask you a question after Mr Taylor's statement certainly the spite strip is that what you and I will both call that yes sir to the north legally and technically um have we pursued at all the fact that to try to get access on that I mean just is that just exercise and futility there's another developer that's looking at that but it I I don't know where the county is going with that and I don't know that this development would have access to that and it appears that the St John's herter Parkway May prevent Willowbrook from being expanded for use for large development just Mr Taylor would you even I mean here you got a tremendous Road right next the the the problem with Willowbrook is the right of way are owned by private people even though they've maintained 22 the county has maintained 22 ft of it it's not sufficient for a four-lane road that the county has maintained I'm sure you're aware of how that all works that was just probably a stupid question that I ask you that's okay no it's it's I I've been looking at that road for several months I knew the technical issues there and I I just it just I I shouldn't have asked you thanks that's good so um what you see here is the proposed development program proposed maximum um dwellings proposed maximum commercial the open space has actually increased since we've been here last time because due to redesigns and the open space still might go even further than that um oh this was just to show you again the the crosssection um showing the buffers from Deer Run and and other to the north because there is a 100t canal the proposed buffer track is 50 ft and the um so that really leaves you a minimum 150 FT Property to property line before you even have setbacks for both so this was to show that there's going to be a larger buffer than um you would normally expect because of that natural buffer of the the uh Canal uh this is the phasing plan this is uh C3 in the 7even page PUD and this shows um how the phasing is going to go there is a legend that's on the page in the Pud uh what is important about this is that red line that surrounds the exterior lots that is the line outside of which you will only have 60 by 110 Lots so the larger lots have been moved out to the perimeter and there's a a variety of natural buffers you can see the Lakes the wetlands the uh passive Recreation is in the lighter grein active Recreation is in the middle green and then the uh Wetland is in the dark green and the uh the wetlands to the most extent are going to be preserved for this property there are some impacted Wetlands but quite a bit are being saved these are the waivers that have been requested I believe um Miss Gillum has read them into the record and these are the waivers that will allow this project to be developed there were several conditions added to these waivers that we are asking to be changed mostly because they're unclear I don't know what substantial relationship means and we don't have these Lots identified this was a waiver that was we just got last Thursday when we got the staff report so we would ask that these be stricken on three and seven number 10A uh Mr Taylor explained is to allow flexibility to make sure that this development only pays for its fair share and doesn't design a road structure for 22,000 homes B is similar uh we are working with actually Palm Bay Fire Rescue who has as its number one priority to put a fire station at Sunrise Elementary and we're working with them have a meeting set to contribute to Pal Bay Fire Station they have a higher rate of impact fee of $700 a unit versus our $50 a unit here in Bard County and also two their station will serve 10,000 homes where if Bard County requires us to put in one station it would only serve 3,000 homes so we're working with Bard County we've met with uh we've met with Bard County we're meeting with with Palm Bay there is an interlocal agreement and a joint planning agreement that would allow this to happen so that's part of what we anticipate with a binding development agreement and a proportionate fair share we're just not there yet and the way B is written is that they will provide everything for a fire station when it may not be necessarily when there's a new fire station going in 2 miles up the road so that's why we've asked for that change and 14 we just are not understanding what that is off street parking uh I guess we'll find that out more between now um and County Commission if this is a approved here and regarding uh School impacts there's been a concurrency review high schools are fine middle schools are fine the elementary school is a problem I know Mr hoppen talked about that when we were here last time uh we are working with Karen Black we are working with all the developers in the area are meeting to try to find a solution and to do whatever proportionate fair share is required that is required by Florida stat and the developer will commit to that as well as to the utilities there's a will serve letter that was in your packet and with that we would request approval of the comprehensive plan Amendment request approval of the Pud with the waivers requested as modified on the screen in front of you and we're here to answer any questions you have hold on one second please Kim I'm going to take it out to the audience real quick is anyone here for or against this item so we have one person you're going to get one shot okay we've got two people anyone else okay if both of y'all could come ma'am you could go ahead and come to the podium sir if you could come up to the front row so we can kind of kind of speed this up if you could state your name and address for the record please yes sir my name is Joanne Young my address is 8423 elk Avenue Palm Bay 3299 and I am a bordering resident of deer run and my husband and I own five acres that border um this property two and a half acres and two and a half acres so I own 8413 also um I have followed this case all the way from the community meeting um to the first Planning and Zoning meeting then the county I have bugged your staff for many months asking a lot of questions I've consulted with environmentalists and um I've talked to other developers as well my trade is I'm a real estate broker I welcome development I sell real estate in Palm Bay and Bard County um my husband and I moved from the Lake Washington area of Melbourne to Southern Bard 5 years ago for a quieter lifestyle more room to garden and have our little chickens um like I said we own five contiguous Acres that border this um development that's 400 foot of land that runs along a canal um some of the canals in Deer Run are not 100 foot some of these neighbors will only have a 50ft border um I have a few comments probably more questions than comments um one of my questions was the developer already told us that they had not yet done their environmental study so that was one of my questions because that is a requirement for anyone who wants to build on vacant land and Deer Run um will they be held to the St same standard for Wetlands as deerrun buyers are another concern is the size of the Lots on the border when we went to the community meeting they said that the Border Lots would be larger than what they're proposing today um 60 by 120 is not even a quarter acre in the Deer Run lots are average 2 and a half acres and some neighbors have eight Acres that border this um so we do have concerns about the size of the Lots my husband and I do and other neighbors that we've talked to as well um the count County Commissioners overrode your votes a few months ago because you wrote you voted for res too and you got outvoted on that by the county our other concern is the flooding because we already have a problem in Deer Run with that there's already an exhilarator exhilarating um auxiliary pump in the back that's um being reconditioned right now we need to know if this development is going to be sharing the same canals as deer run and the developer stated that impact fees from this development would help build the roads in wi and Babcock Street we had a concern about that a traffic light at Meo Road and deer runroad when does this take place in the plan we were very grateful for a fire station and we would be relieved of the burden of high cost insurance if it could be built in the very early stages of development um and we also wanted to know what was going to um happen with the recreational Lake please define thank you maam thank you sir if you could state your name and address for the record and Billy Williams Bard County um previously your address please sir Five Buck Court Palm Bay 3299 um you you previously recommended uh two residents per acre don't know what has changed or if you're going to keep up with what yall agreed on before fire station what happens if pombay doesn't build the fire station uh I believe during the County Commission meeting that the two acres was agreed upon by the developer now it sounds like they're trying to back out or get something for it so my thought of if they're trying to back out of it the approval should be backed out by the by the council study shouldn't be happening right now because M Road is closed um and the Heritage Parkway is all messed up nobody's coming that away so if they did a study now it wouldn't be correct that's it okay thank you sir anyone else want to speak for against this item okay Miss Kim could you come back up and I don't know if you want to address those items I I would like to Sir um yes could you get a little closer to that mic please sorry about that thought I was loud enough the uh the Environmental Studies will be conducted they're required before any further all the engineering is not done yet so the environmental States will have to be done before all that can be completed we will be required to abide by the wetlands requirements of the county 1.8% and um it's intended to do that I believe we're actually impacting less than that as shown currently the uh Recreation will be private I know there was some discussion that we might try to open it up to the public but it was going to be private there was some concerns about the way the the roads were and the size of the roads so at this point it is going to be private recreational regarding the 2 acre fire station we're happy to donate that land but the county has come back and said okay you donate the land you build it you you equip it and you basically pay for everything and that's exceeds what the agreement was also the agreement was kind of um it wasn't tied to the transmitt of the future L use it would have to be tied to the Pud so that's where we're at we are happy to pay the fair share we're happy to donate the land if that's all it would take uh that's probably close to a million dollars but it's Palm Bay fire station is going to cost $27 million so we the developer can't agree to pay $27 million in exchange for a two $1 million piece of property so that's that's why those issues have come about and with that we would ask for approval with the modified or removed conditions let me get this right that would be Palm Bay's fire station it is but there is an interlocal agreement and a joint planning agreement with palmbay for fire and Emergency Services well that's very nice of you all to donate that land well we would be donating towards their fire station at Sunrise Elementary most likely and if if in a now where is the Publix's coming in is that right there at Heritage in Badcock because that whole area there is it may be uh it's right there kind of where the 26.0 is it's right at St John's Heritage Parkway on the east side of Babcock all right Kim very nice presentation very nice all right here and that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for Miss Kim because I know she already answered the school questions for John so well I have a I have a question for St staff um has a preliminary concurrency study been performed so so what we do is we look at the chip generation rate for the amount of residents and the amount of commercial and um and what the design capacity of South Babcock is so in essence yes okay but that was for roadway solid ways potable water drainage sanitary Public Schools yes all of it so that and that concurrency study um and with this agreement you're saying that staff has looked at all of the modifications and you're recommending approval I'm I'm sorry you're taing off I'm sorry um yeah apparently the mics are not working there um so you've already done your concurrency your county concurrency preliminary study and um you've revaluated all of the negotiations that has well they've put so the negotiation is just preliminarily uh based on what what we are reviewing today obviously if if this gets approved there would be more finite discussions as far as the next step so the next step if the if if uh the board approved this plan as is the next phase would be the subdivision plan review and that we will get another concurrence review and the amount of homes and Commercial so that goes with that and we will do another current concurrency review and determine if there is enough capacity to support the the uses requested okay um I'm looking at the April 1 letter from Palm Bay um where they're saying the city does not currently have a capacity for commercial fir flow demands in this area nor any additional sewer capacity so is that should we be moving forward with something unless we have you know a definite either agreement saying that they are going to bring that fir flow capacity and adequate sewer or that capacity has to be existing what what I can tell you is the staff report identifies some infrastructure deficiencies in order to move forward to get construction plan approval the applicant will need to provide um letters from any of the utility providers ERS that will provide whether it's water and sewer or Transportation or solid waste they will need to provide the certific capacity at the next stage okay so city of Palm Bay has basically said no we don't have that capacity so how are we moving forward with a zoning change um if we don't meet the three units per acre it apparently it would work if it was at two units per acre and that's what I think we recommended at the last time that is correct okay so currently at three units per acre doesn't meet concurrency again there are concurrency deficiencies that'll have to be worked out during the next phase obviously as stated in our staff report there is there is uh needs for water and sewer all right thank you Miss Kim would you mind coming back up to the podium or you who's the engineer sir if you could come back yes sir just hearing what Robert's saying is this going to be sep at tank and drainfield is no sir okay so you're going to need utilities yes sir we intend to extend lines down uh uh Babcock Road from Palm Bay uh and uh uh we have a will serve from the city of Palm Bay and uh we have been working with Palm Bay for about a year now we' have met with them probably four or five times uh I understand that they have a new um head there uh we're trying to set up a call with them sometime in the next week or two uh there will be upsizing of lines uh we understand that there's some concern about capacity right now and meeting uh what the project ultimately will be but we will this project will be phased and so it'll be a phase one where we'll be using capacity that is a available now or will come online soon I understand that there are plant expansions and then uh those expansions will supply the ultimate uh Supply that the project needs are you anticipating that the spine utilities will come down back Road yes sir okay so when does the city look at that infrastructure Improvement so uh the extension will probably be done by us uh with a utility um uh upssize uh agreement in place and then uh that would probably I mean that would need to happen with phase one which would be we hope probably next year all right and then also the um traffic you're talking about for laning Babcock I'm going to defer to uh James because you know you want to put the utilities underground before you widen the road I've heard that yeah go ahead yeah no you're absolutely right it all needs to be coordinated okay so what we're looking at is an a timeline out correct correct how how much of a [Music] timeline you said next year with the city for the utilities yes okay so I'm hearing next year for the utilities if all goes well with the city and then the road improvements will have to accommodate those as well okay so if we're looking at a year out um which I think is aggressive um can we come back when you have all of these negotiations finalized with staff well at that point it's going to be in staff's hands to go through the the P review and site plan review and access review and all those things well I just I'm looking at it as um you know particularly the the res two to Res 4 in or the res three now it's a an agreement to Res three um that there's some time for us to have something other than 20 minutes worth of review yeah I I don't think the request is to get this approved at the board in phases I think the request is to approve the future land use all at once the Pud limit the the density to three units to to the acre correct and then move forward with site planning with staff correct all right so um like our recommendation that last time was for two residents per ACR so that's that's where we're coming in all right thank you understood Mr chairman yes sir um if I may just to further clarify Mr Sullivan's concern um staff's condition number 11 stipulates that they will demonstrate prior to subdivision plan approval that the city will provide water and that it has to be available prior to us issuing a CO the the other thing I would say is I believe that you also question whether we were in agreement with the condition modifications that the applicant has presented I would say that we have provided our conditions that we perceive that we'll be taking forward and the applicant is asking you to consider their changes here today so staff taking it back to you again item G7 large scale plan Amendment G8 the zoning classification all these other items as you were just clarifying are going to be handled prior to correct that's correct the way our conditions are crafted they would have to do it John was saying be sure we've got the water be sure we've got the sewer be sure we've got the roads street signs whatever the case may be we need to I guess zero back end on the the zoning part yes sir okay is there anyone I know I said this I'm going to give you a second chance and I don't typically do it so you sure would people you're not going to get a second chance but these people will I'm just kidding Mr Billy if you'd like to come back up because I hope we're going to get to vote here pretty quick last time I last time I heard from Palm Bay two years out from now before that ever we're not going to know any of those answers here we're just here to vote on zoning right but but so if that comes two or three years down why are we going to rezone it when they can't do it until three or four years why don't they come back when they when they have it have pombay give you a letter saying we'll we'll have we'll be ready to go on Jo on this date but nobody has that we're only here for the large scale planning amendment I understand that and so and then the it was brought up so I wanted to clarify it all right sir two years out thank you all right I'm closing it to the audience please don't change your mind from what you did last time I'm going to bring it back to the board Mr chairman yes sir uh it seems to me that this project is coming before us way before it should you know there's the response times for firefighting do not meet our current standards there's a shorty capacity for school students Elementary School students Babcock Road can't support the traffic that's being proposed Palm Bay doesn't have the capability won't have for a while so they could come back to us next year and all of these problems could be solved and we could say hey in great shape you know they're but it's also a case of we have to depend you know we we can prove it now and then hope really hope that these other entities do what they're going to say what they say they might do they have no commitments to do anything yet and the way government works sometimes it's a little slower than we kind of expect uh I just think this is way too early to to do this and another I have I have another another little comment uh you know our primary job is determine consistency and compatibility with the surrounding area and in consistency you know we've got a little chart that shows us what about consistency don't we really have to worry about that but compatibility is something else that we need to look at and they've gone to quite a distance to try find compatibility for their project uh in I say take a look at their immediate neighbors traffic the existing neighborhood has about 300 homes the new one's going to have 3,000 homes so we're going to have 10 times the amount of traffic coming from this Division and what's already there site design the existing neighborhood developments have lot sizes of over 100,000 square feet these they're 7500 square feet 14 times smaller there's no compatibility there those are just things that would be considered under normal assessment of compatibility and yet they're basically being ignored uh so those are my concerns is one it's way too soon and the other is this development is not compatible with the existing neighborhood you know if you want to go out and find neighborhoods farther away I mean I'm I know that can be done and then you can do that but you ought to be looking at next door neighbors any other comments from the board I'm going to need a motion Mr chairman uh I don't know if anybody will support it but I'm going to move we recommend denying this land ex change my second so this is item G7 correct G7 right who did the second I'm sorry we got a motion by Ron a second by Robert to deny the motion all those in favor say I I any opposed Nay Nay Nay can we do a head count okay we had Ron and Robert and John you opposed okay or well I said that backwards didn't I they voted to deny and so then Brian Debbie Logan nope I don't vot you don't vote sorry Brian Debbie myself Henry can Melissa vote Yes Melissa would you like to vote next time all right so it's four to three okay let let me I'm not going to solve anything but you know when you have a project of this magnitude it it's it's extremely cumbersome from the very beginning uh dealing with government today is probably one of the most difficult things you you can do and I'll assure you when you start a project like this it'll it's three or four years away and we're really only the only thing we're turning on we're really not turning on anything we're just putting the key in the dash these guys got just literally tons and tons and significant expenditures on what's ahead of them and I'm just not sure that's our decision to make I meaning should you do this should you do that I mean I think we the compatibility part will come in time uh whether they get the proper sewage whether they get the proper water they got a they got a monstrous road to go I mean and I think as a planning zoning board all we're doing is just putting the key in the dash and letting them go from this point on because there's a tremendous tremendous amount of work and we did this isn't a $1,000 job this is millions are into doing this project so it doesn't make me in favor of it I just don't think we need to get involved in every aspect well if you can't get a a fire station we we shouldn't allow you to have it I that's not our decision I just think um they they they've got to move forward the County's got to work with it uh Kim got some information the agreement isn't even worked out so that's why um I'm just I'm in favor of of this just moving forward to let him move forward they still have a lot of Hoops to jump through now that was on item G7 now we're going to need a motion on item G8 Mr chairman Mr chairman yes you uh just a point of order uh that motion failed so you still have G7 to deal with I am sorry Ron you're right I'm so used to going yay or nay and we went nay first okay that motion failed so now I guess I need to give a new motion I actually have a question for Kim I can't find it in this thousands of pages we have up here but you showed a map of multiple communities around this that are similar in density um was it in your presentation or do we actually have that it's here okay are all of those in the city of Palm Bay or are some of them in Bard Rolling Meadows in Willowbrook are in Bard County they're immediately to the north and and West they are in the county and they're two units of the acre we're asking for three units of the acre they're vested at two units of the acre so to Ron's point that you're you're too far out that falls on them as Henry was saying if they want to burn cash and go down this path over the next one or two years and they may never get this project built correct I don't think that we're here to deny that if that's what they want to go forward but the density is an issue but the commission already approved it we didn't they did so we deny it now commission's likely going to approve it again so I don't know where we're at with you're at three to the acre correct yes sir and again it may turn out to be two and a half once engineering is done that to get this project off the ground 1100 Acres the engineering that has to go into it the engineering for the water in the sewer because they're paying for it not Palm Bay Palm Bay is just saying you can have our water so it's it's a long process it's a PUD process we have to come back with the final development uh plan within three years or the zoning reverts back so there is that stop Gaff it this doesn't go anywhere it'll go back to the to the zoning that we had before so we we would ask that you allow the opportunity to go forward proportionate fair share is the law in this state you can't deny it because we have don't have school concurrency now we have to provide the concurrency that's the same with traffic that's how the whole proportion fair share ordinance has written that that that we have to have it before we can build but you can't deny it because we don't have it now that's the state statute all right thank you my interpretation Alex made us agree Mr chairman yes sir um two questions are we still at res 4 because the County Commission said they agreed with res 4 but with the condition that you only put three units per acre yes and that's what that's on the record that's what you're asking the other thing is that you had a long list of conditions they objecting to some of those conditions how will our vote today affect that we are presenting the application as we see fit in the conditions written as we see fit if the board has a difference of opinion and wants to entertain that I would suggest that you make that part of your motion and that way we can bring that in front of the board for their decision to to make but to to clarify this item um for the land use this board recommended res 2 it was transmitted to Res 4 up to the state now it's coming back from the state as res 4 the um plan unit development the zoning is the mechanism the cap the density at three units the acre so that's where the cap is it's part of the zoning not the land use and and I further state that the conditions are on the Pud not the land use application which is the zoning correct which is what we're still talking about no we're talking about G7 motion s seven land use that was my fault because see got confused Ron got me on a nay first and I'm used to yay that was my fault John sorry that's okay we're on item G7 for the large scale planed Amendment so is sorry yes ma'am so the conditions that needs to be discussed in G8 is that so G7 right now can okay thank you I need a motion for G7 I move for approval for G7 I'll second got a motion for G7 by Debbie a second by Brian in favor all those in favor say I I I any opposed n that would be Robert Ron and John so it's it's 43 in favor yes and Mr chair just for the record Miss Jackson since she's a an alternate and we have um a quorum there's no necess it's not necessary for any vote from her and now item G8 I would request that maybe we have Miss Ranka come back up again and and go ahead and go back over I know you already did once but go back over the changes that you would like to see and then maybe have staff speak on those because I have it on my screen but you all don't see it on yours okay so number three and number seven these are requesting smaller lot sizes and reduction of rear setbacks staff added the condition they shall have a substantial relationship to a 15t common open space track directly adjacent to the affected dwelling units the concern we had was the substantial relationship who defines that as a very ambiguous term we will work with staff we've not been able to address that with them we got these staff comments on Thursday but we're concerned concerned about that substantial relationship because we do not know what it means regarding 10A that is a proportionate fair share for um traffic impacts and again we do not believe it's incumbent upon Santa to pay for all 20,000 homes that are coming into this area so we wanted to have flexibility they're going to pay their fair share they have to by law but the Way It Was Written is that they shall do it all and we did not think that was fair same with B in the fire station although they did agree to donate 2 acres of land the county has come back and said you're going to donate the land you're going to pay for site design permitting construction and the necessary equipment which according to PM Bay would $27 million where the land to be donated is about a million doar so that's excessive for what we were requesting we will certainly pay the fair share we'll work with the county and with palom Bay to make sure there's a fire station because the residents of senta need to be safe as well we're just looking for flexibility we thought these two were overreaching thank you thank you staff do you care to comment on those and so um I would say that that our conditions are what we felt were appropriate going forward if the board wants to consider the applicant suggested changes then we can you can do that and we'll include that in your recommendation so that being said the 10B the $27 million fire station is it your is it the staff's the County's position that they're expecting that to be the $27 million if that's what it comes out to cost for the fire station to be the responsibility of the developer the the county does not have the money to put in or to build a fire station in in that area so it's not a CIP project we don't have a CIP project for the roadways at this time so we don't have the ability because of that to enter into the proportionate share agreement that they're suggesting until that gets on the CIP so the the fire station that we asked for was not $27 million we just did one with the Viera company and it came out to be about $6 million the problem I think for the applicant is they're looking for reimbursement through impact fees and our impact fee program is not or our amount of impact fees are not what the city is collecting we have no objection to the applicant working with the city and the county and coming up with an agreement on how to provide fire um Services down there but the the county at this point does not have the money to build a fire station down there so it would have to be a joint effort between the three parties or it would have to be the applicant's responsibility and regardless to whether this was left in there as is or not that is something that has to be met regardless before this project continues on yes ma'am thank you yes sir Mr Henry all I'm not trying to point a finger at anybody but Kim and her group got this information on Thursday we we probably should have with something of this magnitude probably shouldn't be having a discussion on a Monday we had it's a little disappointing to me I mean this this ain't like we're giving somebody a residential lot we're this is a major magnitude and here we are debating it on Monday because they got it on Thursday I I I know Kim well enough I'll assure you everything you said is not going to happen in that agreement so it's just we should have had it together we should have we should have even tabled this item it's it's it's becoming convoluted and it's it's not a good situation Mr chairman I have to agree with Henry and and because he's a wise and smart guy um this is very short notice for us to digest on the magnitude to what it is and so I would like to make a a recommendation or or put forth that um we deny before we do that I have a question well he's made a motion uh I'll hold for discussion where's the disparity coming between 27 million and 6 million the the fire station at Mr rank is referring to as a city fire station so I don't have any idea what their standards are or what kind of equipment they're looking at for for that um the one that we suggested or we were hoping for was similar to the one that we just did with the VR company go ahead Kim renka on behalf of Santa I I I I do want to agree Tad and the the fire chief in Bard County did tell us it was a $6 million fire station but because Palm Bay is building one at Sunrise Elementary Fire Station 8 it's 27 million based upon their fire estimate um it serves 10,000 so it's it's a probably a larger station but we shouldn't have a $6 million station and a $27 million station within two miles of each other so that's why I was just trying to show you the discrepancy of the costs and and the fact that 3100 homes homes probably can be better served by the pombay station and that's what we want the opportunity to work with with pombay so I have the numbers if you're interested I can even send you the whole fire report for pombay and all their stations they're building $173 million I think is what they're looking for to upgrade all of their fire stations but now Miss Kim I don't know we're we're happy to work with staff between now and County Commission as well that's where I'm headed I don't know how many people a fire station can hand handle so if the fire station going there is considered a percentage of your development I mean are you willing to modify Debbie I'm hearing what you're saying your statement to pick up your share as far as the subdivision exactly that's what executed agreement addressing infrastructure deficiencies appropriate impact feed credits May requested so yes we have to pay our fair share for all of those homes whether it be fire station water sewer whatever yes sir state law yes sir and county law and there are other developments going in that have not even started yet that are going to be in the same phase so therefore you'll be sharing that 27 million that's what makes more sense to us than building a separate fire station for Bard County when there's not that much in Bard County that would need that so that's all we're just looking for flexibility that's all we're looking for but you are willing to do that yes and we're willing to talk with staff between now and County Commission to to work on these items as well if you're not comfortable making the revisions and at the end of the day if the fire station's not there you can't complete the project am I correct if if there's not fire service so again it goes back to my earlier statement they've got a long road ahead of them if they can't comply with what the county needs for fire service well that's with everything utilities and all right so but we do have a motion from Mr Robert deny to deny item G8 do we have a second or no okay so that motion failed so we need another motion I would like to make a motion um to keep it as the county has written and allow for discussions to continue between the developer and the county to come to agreements we got a motion by Debbie to accept item G8 do we have a second I'll second that and a second by Brian all those in favor say I I I I Mr chair just for clarification included the other 14 conditions and waivers correct correct okay with discussion though correct yes with discussion so we have an i Brian Debbie an I here yes John doesn't make sense we're voting on yeah we're not voting on water and sewer n nay okay so we have three Nays Four Eyes you said three approval I mean four approvals and three Nays a motion set a motion carries okay item G9 Mr chair items G9 and G10 are companion applications I'm going to read both of them into the record but you'll have to have separate motions for each item G9 is Aaron rener requests a small scale comprehensive plan Amendment 24 s.2 to change the future land use designation from agricultural to Res six application number is 23 SS 00002 tax account numbers is 22219 2000 2228 22229 22230 22231 and 22232 okay in District 1 this item was continued from the June uh 10th uh pnz LPA meeting the companion resoning request is uh Aaron reading Jer request a change of zoning classification from RRM h-12 tr-3 with an amended bdp um application number is 24z 005 tax account numbers 22219 2228 2229 2230 2231 and 2232 also located in District 1 okay is the applicant here is this one going to be easier can I don't think so we got faith in you thank you uh good evening uh chairman members of pnz LPA Kim renka on behalf of the applicant Aon reneger uh I am with Lacy lons Ranka 1290 rockage Florida we are here before you for a land use change and a resoning change I have a handout for you uh just to show a conceptual plan of what we're looking at so you can get a better understanding what we're doing on these 17 anres um I did start with the areial which is in your packet of information just to show you the area of the 17 Acres I've lost my glasses this is a very rural area um it is mostly manufactured homes there are a few new homes in the area and it is uh west of 95 in Mims to the right is mostly an fdot uh rest station uh there is some private property uh immediately to the north and to the South is a subdivision of mobile homes which acreage runs anywhere from 6 to 4 Acres uh what I have shown you is Gandy Road tiny home subdivision um Nova tiny home is what Mr reneger would call it after his daughter this is property that he's been acquiring over the years and the idea is to build a tiny home or mobile home to provide uh housing opportunities for others in the community we are actually seeking only two units to the acre but because the zoning isn't allowed in res Two Three or two or four we had to go to Res six to acquire the zoning requested but the two units per Acres reflected in your bdp correct yes sir okay yes sir so we've asked for um res six that would be limited by the bdp to 2 units the acre and with that it would have the uh the quarter acre lot minimum because they will have to be on septic and Sewer there's just not septic and Sewer Septic and uh sewer and Wells and as you'll see there is a large storm water uh Pond there's a wetland that would have to be uh accounted for so this is just a conceptual plan by um troger engineering it's not fully engineered it's just to give you an idea of what it would look like and Hidden Lakes is the property to the South just to show you that there are um lots that are about a half acre just adjacent to it some are a little larger some are a little smaller I think the the smallest is 0.5 Acres that was the plat to show you uh there uh we'll have a recreation area and it will improve the property improve the the value it'll have to meet all current County codes for storm water there's been a lot of complaints about flooding in the area as you all know when this is developed it will have to retain its own water likely will take the water from the road and would help some of that as well the traffic for 30 units is is relatively insubstantial uh and uh will not um substantially degrade the roads if Road improvements are needed that will come up during site plan and that would be addressed with uh County staff there's been concern about the character as I said this character is rural uh half acre lots is still considered relatively rural although these are quarter acre lots they're next to half acre lots the character is determined by the use the these will be tiny homes or manufactured homes there's been concerned about the uh devaluation these for tiny homes will sell at 150,000 for a tiny home with the lot so it's actually going to increase the value in the area when you look at what's out there and granted some of them have been Homestead a long time you have property values from 35,000 to to 400,000 but a lot of the manufactured homes are lower so this will help with the property values in the area will not degrade it this will provide additional housing and types of Housing and it is very similar to The Hidden Lakes to the South uh for guarding the res 6 we do have the binding development to limit it to Res 2 and that's we because the tiny home um for the zoning was required to to go to tr2 or excuse me tr3 uh tr3 is what's being requested because tr2 does not allow tiny homes when they did the tiny home ordinance several years ago for some reason it was left out of tr2 I do not know why uh it's in almost every other uh zoning Cate category except for tr2 the uh tr2 does uh the the tr2 is uh consistent uh with this because of the size of the Lots the tr3 zoning allows 15,000 ft Lots which would be 2.9 units to the acre and here we're at two units to the acre the opposition there was quite a few emails that came in there's lots of pictures of floodings and bears and dogs and Waters and things like that again this is a consistent use the concurrency has to be met there's been no deficiency notice to date there's nothing in the staff report that says this is not compatible and it is compatible and does meet the comprehensive plan uh policies they will have wells in septic which is allowable by law at quarter acre lots and again some of these will be bigger than quarter Acer Lots that's just the minimum many of the oppositions do not want any new homes whatsoever and that is just violation of the private property rights element of your comprehensive plan again the homes are compatible it's a single family use it's not a multif family use and with that we would request that you approve the request for the comprehensive plan of res 6 and the resoning to tr3 with a binding development plan all right is there anybody in the audience want to speak for or against this item okay if everyone could come into this front row here so we get you closer to the podium Mr chair as they as they come up I just want the board to understand that the concept plan that Mr Ren has provided has not been reviewed for uh regulations for for the county code and and um regulations Mr chairman the bdp or no the the plan that she just submitted okay Mr chairman can I ask staff a question Jeff yes sir go ahead Jeff um Mr Ranka said that uh you can do septic on a quarter acre lot I thought it was third of an acre was the minimum I'm not I'm not that that is all handled through the health dep Department I don't know what what their requirements as my understanding it was in order to do well in septic it was a Halfacre lot but Halfacre okay cuz she's saying a quarter now just my understanding okay mine was always a third so okay thank you okay sir you're going to get your three minutes and please at the stone at the tone uh I just want to give these y'all to y'all so you can have a look I have to take that to Mr Jeff over there first okay perfect now these Sherwood people you sure you don't want to appoint someone to speak okay talking about the road and up there and that's it they're going to talk about the rest is that okay to pass out there yeah I don't have copies for each of you I'm sorry but I have just so you know that people part of the record you're not going to get them back yeah that's fine and Sir if you'd state your name and address for the record and I'm going to start your time James I'm James Ranken I live at 4705 Gandy road which is on the very East End at the end okay and I have a lot of concerns about this n numerous concerns the road floods obviously all the ditches haven't been maintained in probably 20 years by the county anytime we get any kind of rain down there it just comes in and the whole Road floods so and you can see in some of those pictures there's a ditch that runs South into the property that is a swamp by the way um you can see where those ditches haven't been cleaned out or maintain in 20 plus years so um there's a lot of concerns it floods every time and then you add another 40 to 60 cars a day and it's just going to be worse and worse and worse so that's just what I got to say about it all right sir I don't think it should be there and then as far as the home values it's going to bring them down I'm at the end of the road I just got my place appraised at 6:15 so they're going to you know go down and put a trailer park you know 3 acres down from me 5 Acres down or whatever what's that going to do to my property you know so I just hope you don't approve it okay thank you sir okay sir well I'll just start here and go that way that's we got to take that over to I already have a copy oh okay Ken Harrison 4960 Gandy Road 62-1 1255 code of ordinances of bouard County current zoning is agricultural requested zoning is res 6 the 1988 County comprehensive plan establishes specific future land use designations which are depicted on the future land use map within the future land use element this plan is further reinforced by the April 2007 Mims small area study both the 1988 comprehensive plan and the 2007 Mims small area study determined the future land use to be Agricultural and set limits to one dwelling per unit per five acres west of meow Green Road properties with approved RR mh1 Au and AGR zoning classifications prior to the study were retained and adopted this property is located in located in the zoning classification area and an increase in density would be an encroachment into the existing neighborhood the subject property does not serve as a transition between areas with land use designations of six units per acre or existing land use designations equal to no more than one unit per acre administrative policy three traffic safety issues due to increased traffic material reduction of property values due to higher density and Tiny Homes Real Estate comparable sales values for the subject area will decrease proposed use is not in is not consistent with the emerging or existing pattern of surrounding development as determined through analysis of of historical and use patterns actual development over the immediately preceding 3 years six new block single family residences were built in the last three years two of them border the subject property development approved but not constructed one single family Residence at 4110 hog Valley Road proposed use will result in a material violation of relevant policies Wetland destructions have occurred policy four the character of the neighborhood or area will be materially or adversely affected by the proposed rezoning or land use application the proposed rezoning and land use will cause a 200% increase in traffic on Gandy Road 30 more single family residences will cause a burden and significant safety and convenience issues on an already poorly maintained dirt road that is only graded 12 times a year here the road is too narrow for two cars to pass each other at certain points poorly drained and unstable with loose soil the subject property is part of Indian River Park Indian River Park is a clearly established residential neighborhood planted in 1914 okay sir thank you and ma'am if you could state your name and address for the record yep Stephanie Knight located at 3995 Golden Shores Boulevard ploted in 1914 the South border is especially defined as the South line of Bernardo seway land grant and has been mapped as such since Spanish land grants the subject property south of line is also the South border of the Indian River Park the north and west east boundaries are designated as agricultural land use with agricultural zoning to the South is public conservation with General use and agricultural zoning the requested zoning and flu could change the subject property to commercial use if rented or charged there is no commercial use properties in the entire area the area is not considered transitional policy 5 if the residence of the proposed zone change utilizes public transportation it would have a significant impact the physical quality of Gandy Road will suffer significant deterioration with 200% increase in the traffic on a poorly maintained dirt road width of Road loose soils of Gandy Road cause the traffic safety concerns for pedestrians it is likely Gandy Road will suffer adverse changes from the type of of traffic that would generate physical deterioration would occur from larger truck deliveries policy six the proposed resoning in fu is not consistent with all written Land Development policies set forth in the administrative policies including portable water sanitary sewer and surface water policy 7 the applicants have filed have filled and cleared subject property without proper permits and are in clear violation of County codes the subject property contains National Wetlands inventory St John's River Water Management District wetlands and hydric soils Florida Department of Environmental Protection wetlands and US Army Corps of engineer Wetlands per section 62 3694 c1a residential land use within Wetland shall be limited to not more than one dwelling unit per 5 Acres unless unless strict application of this policy renders a legally established parcel of as of September 9th 1988 Which is less than 5 Acres as unbuildable this property also contains aquafer recharge soil and may contain protected and specimen trees and protected species the property is currently under investigation for destruction of wetlands with Bard County natural resources and Florida Department of envir Environmental Protection per section 62 3694 C3 in no instance shaller proposed Land Development activity result in increased flooding in adjacent properties many truckloads of filer were brought into the property without permit to fill Wetlands that has resulted in increase in flooding on properties to the West and Northwest this property also o contains Aqua for recharge soils that may have been covered with incapable fill dirt okay thank you ma'am yes ma'am and if you whenever y'all are speaking if you could get as close as you you can pull that mic to you if you need to hello there you go Danielle Bowen 4160 Hidden Lakes Drive Mid Florida 32754 um I am a realtor a rail for 18 years when we chose to move to this very remote area we did so with the understanding that it would have limited growth due to its future land stoning for us this was a calculated risk knowing there is only one way in and one way out we live on one of the two adjoining Lakes which is hidden lakes and the lake is in our backyard Lo his property is located one lot behind the lake so essentially his community would potentially affect our lakes that I live on after serving 3 and a half years on the Indian River Lagoon oversight committee as the real estate seat I learned more about water quality and septic than I ever imagined although the Florida although the State of Florida recognizes that any lot size under one acre should not be developed with a septic system they only limit it to one half acre that was one of your questions that you guys were asking each other according to to the Department of Health and Florida statute 38162 the limitation is 1 half acre but understanding that they do make exceptions for other perious surfaces so they can go to a smaller lot size depending on the surrounding perious surface considering that I'm not sure how we are considering going from one home per 5 acres to one home per fourth acre so my biggest concern is that according to the Bap with Bard County this is not going to require ATU systems it's going to re require only standard septic systems so we're increasing our septic capacity by almost 24 homes and the waterways that it is adjacent to would be potentially affected by nitrogen loads of 960 lb per year and phosphorus at 96 pounds per year and I did that research through the Indian River Lagoon uh paperwork you guys can see the same maps and same data that I can see so um and I want to mention that as Kim demonstrated so well with Gen 8 that once density increases and starts getting approved then it sets a future president precedence for future approvals this area is meant to be one home per 5 acres per future Landing VES thank you okay thank you ma'am hello hey how are you and your name and address please sure Katie Delaney and I live in canaval groves um I am your address please oh the whole address okay um 51 uh 05 cabbage Palm Street Coco Florida 32927 thank you um so I drove up into this area um just because I had never been up there and I wanted to see for myself what it looked like and what the surrounding area looked like what the roads looked like and the this project is completely abnormal for for that area this area is full of homes on on huge pieces of land and um it's mostly dirt roads up there that frankly aren't maintained properly the ditches are not maintained properly like a like a previous speaker talked about um I think that our the MIM small area study as well as the comprehensive plan they don't allow for this type of development for a reason our infrastructure just cannot handle it and so I'm asking you guys to um not approve this project thank you thank you hi my name is Patricia Frank I live at 3825 arancha Road um and I've lived there well since 96 on that on the south side of Rancher Road I started living there in 1961 the old house on the corner looks like nothing more than a shack at this point um that was my childhood home I grew up on a Rancher Road when it was a dirt road and to put basically a trailer park 5 miles out in hog Valley is putting you know whether it's young people whoever desolate in a possible drug breeding ground we got people walking up and down the sidewalk all hours of the night to get to the I say handy way Circle K um and when they get through with their food or drink they're throwing their garbage along a Rancher Road in the yards in the bushes I'm worried about the trash do we have um sheriff's deputies to man this extra population of people of influx to you know stack people on top of people if I wanted to kiss my neighbor good night open up my window and kiss my neighbor good night I'd live down here in the town I live up there and I like it up there I like my elbow room I don't want people that close and the Damage it's doing another 30 50 60 cars on a Rancher Road can't handle it there's already a pothole about 20 25 ft off of US1 across from the Circle K that you come South on us one make a right turn onto a Rancher Road boom there it is I don't see roads and ground running out to maintain the road as it is now we can't handle that many people out there it just is not a good thing okay and yeah I grew up out there it's we like our Elbow Room we're rural we want it to stay that way all right thank you ma'am hi Ruth am motto 1950 tomato Farm Road Mims Florida 32754 okay um I'm obviously opposed to this just like everything else if the land is already flooding I think that would consider make it considered a seasonal flood plane and when you continually build up and drain the flood planes you ruin your aquafer you ruin your water quality and you flood your neighbors due to all of the massive building in bouard County we have started seeing flooding out my way which is not where they live I live at out 46 and about two about 2,000 and consistently every time since we get major R floods our pastures are flooding so if these binding development plans where they contain the water on the land were working our high water marks wouldn't continue to go higher they would stay where they were my family's been on the current property I live at for over hundred years I can tell you my great grandma never lost her Grove due to flooding but she would have lost it in 2022 and you could say that oh Ian he dropped a lot of water cuz it was 24 in in 24 hours did you know Florida our area in Titusville averages 50 inches of rain a year we haven't seen a major rain event since 1953 at 81 in people are already losing their houses flooding that have never flooded before if we don't start with responsible building that preserves the resources that we have we won't have anything left but the people living on the High houses that built last it's got somebody has to bring some sense to this um the discussion of reuse water because we're going to have water issues in 20 years well if you maintain your seasonal flood planes to replenish your aquafers you would have a better water quality and less of a water shortage so when you go cramming all these houses on these little bit of property all you're doing is destroying the future for everyone please vote for responsible building instead of cramming everything in there because somebody bought a piece of property and wants to make a book Thank you thank [Applause] you hi my name is Katherine Martin I live at 43 uh what is my 4355 hog Valley Road I am in the direct Impact Zone where uh the water would be pushed and right now I am high and dry which I am very grateful for but I would be the in the Impact Zone for that I would also be in the Impact Zone for excessive uh septic tanks flooding or the water damage coming over to my area and of course the aquafer I also wanted to touch that uh Kim said 35,000 was the average home I bought my home in 2020 um for 171 and now it's 235 I have two acres also not a quarter of an acre um I can tell you all the acreage of the people ride on hog Valley that butt up to this project and there may be one that's an acre to a half acre so that is those two pieces that she touched on for 35,000 and the small acreage or the quarter acreage is inaccurate um I am against this for obvious obviously the same reasons that everybody else I do believe if it wanted to be you know as it is currently zoned to build um that would be welcomed you know uh I have two acres I think the minimum for some of the places before was one acre um I think if it was something more along those lines it would be more welcomed to the community because that's the size of home the style of home but as it is it's it's kind of ridiculous I am against the rezoning of that area okay thank you ma'am hi yes sir your name and address my name is Harold McKuen I live at 4335 hog Valley Road okay um very against this having a what what are you talking about a quarter acre for a house that's just not going to work it's it there's one Road in and out of the neighborhood that's hog Valley Road I live there and they're talking about Gandy road which well hog Valley does this and Gandy does this and it's over here all right you're it's two-lane road uh-uh you got too many people there's too many people coming in out here now doing 60 70 M hour in a 25 mph Zone um I just want to voice that I am totally against this okay and I'm Katie's neighbor so she couldn't remember her address all right it's funny all right uh I'm totally against it period and my reasoning is the same as all of them people here you got water more people it's a rural neighborhood okay I live there because I like peace and quiet and a lot of people running up I have horses and dogs and cats and I'm totally against this all right thank you sir thank you good afternoon I'm Deborah Gray 5440 Dix way um I'm against this I know that we talked back this several years ago when we took down the um they were going to build down on County Line ditch and that was in 2022 or was it no I think it was just before Co it was just before Co hit they were supposed to do a small town study up there another one because I live right next to the National Cemetery okay now it's a little bit different from where they at but we're having salt intrusion they've put so many houses up on Huntington and and this is and they're two and a half acre lots they're not small Lots they're 2 and a half acre lots over there and most of them have 5 Acres but the impact that just those houses have made even on the big side is really impacting our water we're talking about having to have water that is put in great big containers so we can have our own drinking water and not worry about the salt intrusion and also when you're coming down a rancha besides all the people that are back there now every single year there's people at least twice a year killed right there on rancha and uh us one there at the handyway there's no lights there we don't want a light there but if you keep bringing all these people up in here and I heard you guys talking about Mims doubling their size where' our hometown steud go they just forgot about it we are a small community I've been up there since 2006 and I have seen how the water levels have dropped I my Wells have went dry you they've turned to Salt people are having to redrill Wells continually where I'm at and I'm on the opposite side of Dixie so that on the other side don't even try to put a well in you got to have somebody who knows what they're doing to be able to put a well in to not have salt in it now I'm sure the St John's is bra is fresh water it's not brackish but still all of that stuff increases plus all the wells that they put in up in that area to go down to Titusville that impacts our water you know you guys went and and all this stuff is going on things are going on without a lot of people even knowing I didn't even know about this I heard about this from on Facebook that there was even a meeting here today you know and that's not really fair that the community really doesn't know what's going on and just you keep bringing all these houses in and they're talking you know 15,000 up on 5A they're talking over across from d& they're putting in all these subdivisions up here we can't sustain that they couldn't sustain the 20 is up there on County Line ditch because of the runoff into the water systems so we're going to just keep building us up until we have to all move away because we don't have good water or out like at um lofman Lake where they have to have Sterns out there and they have their water they can drink it from there remember the little girl died from the amoeba out there we're looking at the same thing happening up here where we're at we're not the rest of this community everybody moved far away to get away from the city I lived in Coco for 20 years all right well thank you man anybody else want to speak for or against this item hello I'm Jeremy par uh 4705 metal Green Road um um a driveway that all these people are going to be driving past um I have small girls there now and as people have mentioned there's already enough traffic um people driving it's a 35 M hour in front of my house I've called barard County Sheriff's many times to try and get people to slow down I've asked for Speed bumps nothing's happening I mean I can sit out of my driveway any day of the week and count cars going 70 plus miles hour down the road um that's not the big concern though my big concern is Mrs rosinka has spouted lots not shouldn't say spouted made many claims I wonder if anybody's factchecking them because I heard three or four things that I didn't agree with I can't say scientifically whether or not they're true but I'd like to know that somebody's doing some research on it rather than just having somebody like her who's paid to come do this that's her job and say these things and everybody says oh wow that's nice I'd like to know that there's some truth to them or not but the real question is what if the thing she say is wrong we all live up there it's rural we like it there I've been there 17 years many of these people have been there their whole entire lives I can't tell you what happened before 2007 but since 2007 I've been very happy there so if you guys approve this now and we get a potential rezoning future use of six homes per acre from one per 5 Acres what does that do for the rest of our lives there I mean you guys are here you're supposed to protect our rights our rights as homeowners and land owners up there is because it's rural so if you approve this that ruins everything for us and the only people holding the bag of poop is us you guys go home every night you feel great we're left dealing with it so I want to state that I'm very much against this all right thank you sir anybody else want to speak for or against this item yes ma'am hi good afternoon my name is Jennifer parish and my address is 1260 Old Dixie Highway in Titusville and I am very much against this idea and here's why um my entire family uh has been here since about 2003 2004 and we lived all over the county as far as merid Island district one or District 2 as and Coco and we as a family made a decision to move up to district one for the exact reason of being a rural area and for the exact reasons of it being overcrowded I sat in a um Redevelopment agency meeting where they were talking about our roads where this person was defending the fact that the roads in District 2 were rated an e um very close to an F but defended the fact that we could still squeeze more houses in this area it was kind of the final decision making uh your seat as Planning and Zoning has a very important role in protecting the residents that are begging you to do what's right have a conscience knowing that we moved to these areas for the exact reason that we want it to stay rural area so please hear your constituents and protect what why we moved here in the first place thank you all right thank you anybody else I'm fixing to close it okay it's closed Mr rosinka do you want some time to address those concerns yes sir you have it uh first I'd like to start off with the map the yellow is the project it's right next to Res 2 that's all we're seeking Is Res 2 that Hidden Lakes plat has half acre lots 5'7 52 so it's not inconsistent we wanted res 2 we were told we had to go res 6 to limit by a binding development plan I argued with Planning and Zoning say this is what we did in merid island with Dunkin Donuts we did the future land use and The Binding development plan to modify The Binding develop the future land use we just want the ability to do two units to the acre next to two units to the acre that is not inconsistent from a transition standpoint um also too to clarify I do have an email from Steve Swanky which I will pass out I don't have enough but I will pass out um regarding the quarter acre lots uh Steve Swanky sent me an email of just spoken with Environmental Health they do not have a minimum light lot size requirements per se they do enforce a separation distance so we will not require a minimum Halfacre lot size uh so um and it talks about 62255 which I'd ask so I will I will pass out a few of these I don't have enough for everyone and I'll give one to for the record so again the requested is a minimum quarter acre but it looks like they'll be larger than that so I want to look at the staff report because I didn't make these things up I would like to know what Mr par thought I would make up so I could respond but he he did not uh offer those opportunities so so I'm looking at the the staff comments the developed character of this portion of Mims is single family mobile homes and single family site built mobile homes and tiny homes are very consistent the zoning tr3 allows both residential 6 allows a uh land use destination affords a trans transition in density between higher urbanized areas and lower intensity land uses again we're really res two to Res two if you all wanted to make the res 2 with the binding development plan to make it consistent under 61255 as we do with Dunkin Donuts that would be a potential as well but the bdp will limit it as well the land itself because it's of an odd size and they have to have enough land for the uh sewer and septic staff report no material violations of relative relevant policies have been identified and this is whether the proposed use would result in material violation of relevant policies in any element of the comp plant staff says no uh one quar acre lots in this area would not adversely impact concurrency standards the subject property is located in a residential area proposal is not anticipated to create a deficiency in level of service regarding traffic that's in the staff report so again this is a consistent use it's next to Res 2 it's two units to the acre and density is spread as you know I did not say the average value is $35,000 I said some are as low as $35,000 and some go much higher due to the size and the uh the fact fact that they're not um not older homes some of these mobile homes go back to the 1970s some in the '90s and some are newer regardless any of this has to be engineered he's going to have to meet concurrency standards um this is a project again it's affordable but only because it's 150,000 is going to be the minimum value Which is higher than many of the values in this area regarding the filling and the wetlands that's not here before you I haven't seen any evidence of that I was told that there were some aerial photographs Miss McGee told me I haven't seen anything I haven't seen any code complaints but that's not an appropriate issue for you today runoff has to stay on site post development can't be worse than pre-development as you all know and with that I ask you that you approve the change in future land use again we wanted res 2 they told us we had to go res six limited by The Binding development plan through the zoning and the zoning is requests tr3 to allow for mobile homes or tiny homes and uh with quarter acre lot minimum for the bdp if there's something else in the bdp uh that you think is necessary that's obviously your purview to do but that was to limit the size of the lots and I apologize for not looking at you all so often it's just easier to look straight ahead okay so um with that we're happy answering questions Mr rener is here if you would like to ask him any questions as well Mr Mims uh yes are you planning a traditional mobile home park where the property is rented sir this is going to be an actual subdivision and you're going to be selling these Lots what um my name is Aaron reneger and I'm at 1865 South Banana River Drive Meritt Island and uh so the idea was to uh take the land and build uh tiny homes or mobile homes on the properties depending on what the uh the econ the economic situation is uh creating affordable housing for people I know and friends family um is something that's not available now and so that was the go the main goal behind it um those I have no intentions of getting rid of the property so I would build them and hold them wait wait a minute you you you're not going to get rid of the property no sir you're not going to sell it I'm not selling okay if we could just have we only got two speakers please audience okay him and I I don't understand I just ask if you're going to be a traditional mobile home park where you rent the property is that what you're going to do yes sir I would rent okay so it's not a subdivision it's a mobile home park I don't know the clarifications between the two so I can't answer that so my next question is you're talking about tiny mobile home tiny homes tiny homes are not mobile they they sit flat on the ground on a slab uh have you looked into financing tiny homes yes sir uh you have a lender who will lend you money to buy a tiny home when that doesn't sit on property the property owner owns yes sir oh really yes sir that is amazing I would like to know who that is because I haven't found one Mr chair can I just can I just interject for a second so just so the so this board understands ti3 does not allow for fee simple Lots it all has to be done in a mobile home park that's great leased area these these tiny homes will have to sit on a pad that's owned by one person the other thing that I wanted to bring to your attention is goes back to Mr Rena's email for my staff p& and Planning Development is not the regulatory agency as far as septic tanks and a minimum size requirements for that all Mr Swanky was saying is that bvar County does not have a require half acre lot for well and septic but again it's an environmental health that is a regulatory agency that permits well and septic thank you yeah I I yeah I understand the half half acre quarter acre lot dis dispute uh it's kind of immaterial because it's it's a 75 ft distance between your septic tank and your will and it may be a 75 ft distance from your septic tank to a water supply I'm not sure yes I believe that is true that was be my question take Thunder but that was we've always understood it's always been that way 75 feet from any body of water I.E being a lake Indian River etc etc that is my understanding again the health department is a regulatory agency I would defer them to their requirements and they would have have to meet those requirs correct definitely M Mr chairman and I can do some clarification I've done a lot of designs for septic tanks and Wells on the same property typically it's a rule of thumb for the Halfacre it's not a set rule um FD and and the health department uh will actually look at the density of how many septic tanks are going to be in a given acreage so if we're looking at flood and I'm a former distri District drainage District engineer if you're looking at flooding as what some of the homeowners are saying um flooding and septic tanks don't mix that's oil and water so you have to build up so that your Anor robic digestion can actually occur so if you're doing fill now you're in a core of engineers dredge and fill permit so there's a number of permanent requirements to go to this if we're already at a flood level that the the residents are saying it's a tall order it's a tall engineering order I'm looking at the sizes here engaging the 50 Foot right away I it it it'll be some gymnastics geometric gymnastics to make 75 ft between each adjacent well plus the water source which is the Retention Ponds the wet retention so it it's very challenging just given the subdivision that's presented to US 10 minutes ago um you you haven't even added a drain field to the exactly no the drain fields are that's a water source so again how it's the density of those septic systems not the lot size it's the distance and it's the closest distance of the drainfield to the next drain field and well so it's it like I said there's a lot of gymnastics geometric gymnastics are going to have to occur but this is still two per acre correct two units per acre I have some questions for staff I've heard of it in a conversation today and I just want to educate the board and myself mostly hypothetically we passed this they don't get their engineering that this that and the other it reflects back to the original zoning once once the board of County Commissioners approved the zoning this zoning is in place whether they approve it contingent upon the bdp the bdp will stay in effect until someone or some um entity removes it from the property so if if so the the plan that's not tied to a plan it would just be the conditions in in the bdp but Miss Kim if you could come back to the podium you're going for the TR three yes sir with a regulated by a bdp to is two units per acre yes sir okay and it it's the final development plan that if it doesn't get submitted in three years it was I just want a clarification on that all right uh Mr chairman yes a chair a question for staff uh in the report it says a tiny house or is permitted with conditions what are the conditions I'm sorry can you can can you say that again Ron I was having trouble hearing you a tiny house is permitted with conditions in a tr3 what is what are the conditions I don't I if you give me a chance I'll I'll look at that it's section 6218 44 uh minimum living area of 12200 ft up to maximum of 750 square ft uh tiny home shall be the only Primary Residential structure upon the lot and accessor structures up to 600 square ft shall be exempt from the size limitation so it's section 621 1844 okay thank you any other questions for the applicant Mr Henry now between you and this fine lady that's been there her whole life she probably knows you as long as you've been in this County that's she's probably glad she doesn't I'm GNA leave with Mr Ron here I'm going to let him push pull or get out of the way okay uh okay couple of comments Ron could you get a little bit closer I'm having a hard time hearing you too sir okay a couple of comments uh the only access to this property really is via hog Valley Road the traffic increase on that road will be about a 50% increase when when this is developed uh and it may very well be more than 50% depending on how many of the people there have to work and and a lot of times both parents work so there's multiple cars traveling uh that's one one thing uh that doesn't address the traffic on a Rancher Road or US1 and it's my understanding when we say that there's uh we do a traffic study and where the traffic study really consists of is what's on US1 it really there is no traffic study on hog Valley Road isn't that correct if we were do a traffic if you ask for a traffic study it's going to be on a main road not a little narrow neighborhood Road when we ask for the uh traffic impact analysis they they look at the roadways that would be affected in in that area so it could include hog Valley um but how far down on hog Valley I I wouldn't say okay well that's that's my that's my assessment of the uh my of the traffic study there's probably 60 to 70 homes that use hog Valley Road these are going to add 30 so that's a 50% increase in traffic there there's a density increase on this property of about 400% uh that is just totally goes against the MIM small area study the MIM small area study was designed to preserve the wh Ray of life in North Bard a mobile home park is not a part of a wh Ray of Life R means you've got lots of space you've got space for uh neighborhood neighboring houses that aren't right next to you as one person said she doesn't want to go up and kiss their neighbors exactly we want we want those neighbors far apart they're friendly but we don't want to be able to have hug them uh you know we want trees and stuff for wildlife this is you know there's already some clearing been going on apparently on this property and that shouldn't have happened uh so my take on it is this is just not the kind of development we need up in in mim's area and I move that we recommend denying this land use [Applause] change I'll second that okay we've got a if we could we got a motion by Ron to deny a second by Henry all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously uh Mr chairman on item G10 I move that we recommend denying the zoning change I'll second that okay Ron with a motion on to deny on item G10 Henry the second all those in favor say I I I I said that wrong I said all those in favor see I'm starting off with the eyes again all those to deny item G10 to deny item G10 in favor yes any oppose then that was denied un unanimously okay thank you [Applause] don't get all happy now we're just an Advisory Board you've got to go before the county commiss go to the County Commissioners to get this to happen and you sure would people y'all are hanging out here I mean we'll sit here and discuss it all day but if y'all could help us when you and thank y'all for being polite and when the buzzer went off you you stopped talking sir you especially you had plenty of notes you was getting to thank you now if that could happen too with this next item it's really appreciated if someone has said they don't want it because it's flooding please don't repeat it if someone says it's a traffic issue please don't repeat it if you have something different to say come say it because I mean we've got I don't even know how many people in here and it's quarter to six all right thank you okay item could I have a five minute break to use the restaurant cuz I have next two items actually four items yes thank you sounds like a good idea [Music] [Music] [Music] what [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] girl [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] we're missing briyan okay we're not we're on item G11 uh before you read it in I'm waiting on Brian here to come back this way I pass out papers you can pass out papers thank George George GM I know what's the z okay item G11 thank you Mr chair item G11 and g12 are companion applications I'm going to read them into the record together however you'll need to have separate motions for each item G11 is Ibraham and herun real estate Inc request a small scale comprehensive plan Amendment 24 s08 to change the future land use designation from res 2 to community commercial application number is 24 ss008 tax account number is 231 7736 located in District 1 item g12 is Ibraham and harun real estate Inc request a change to zoning classification from tr-3 with a binding site plan to bu1 with the removal of the uh bsp application numbers 24z 000023 tax account numbers 2 3 17736 located District 1 now just for the board's understanding is this the information that Mr resen has provided in that document it states that or it has a concept plan again staff has not reviewed this concept plan for Code Compliance or regulations in addition to the that there's a zoning map reference a gml that's written in there the property is Zone Au with a uh public school on it all right thank you Seth is this one going to be easier I hope so okay good evening uh chairman wassworth members of the Planning and Zoning Board Kim renka on behalf of Ibraham and Haron real estate I'm with Lacy lons renka in the rockage office here with me uh representing the applicant is Dr Niazi I'm sitting here if you have any questions that I cannot answer um what I provided was just what I thought was research that would be helpful um obviously it is not um as stated by by Mr ball it's it's not been reviewed is to show why we're looking for the resoning as to the con plan and to show what I believe is to be inconsistencies in the zoning and future Lan use on the map as they sit today so that's why have provided that to you um we're seeking uh future land use uh from res 2 to community commercial on property that sits behind Community commercial land the entire uh Corridor here of Coco is mostly commercial as referenced by the staff report uh the fair Glenn uh Elementary School to the north of this property does have um a zoning of agricultural and future land use of res one but it should have have a futur l use of government managed lands institutional by the county code and um I don't know why it's been that way I think it's just been that way for a long time uh the land to the west of that is owned by bevard county and looks like it's mostly just for storm water uh the best I could tell I did not realize fairl did not go all the way to US1 the property to the south of this property is a mobile home park it's a rental property it is um res 2 it has a tr3 Zone it's not big enough it should have 10 acres to have a tr3 Zone uh so that was another it's just it's just land that's developed peace Mill throughout time here I suspect so the trade ons mobile home park is to the South that is a rental Community it's a as tr3 as we just discussed it can't be subdivided so it's a rental Community it has commercial to the west of that uh this is a commercial quarter you have hes to the West you have Bishop's transp transport to the west and you do have three homes to the east of this proposed development um really one is most of it has all of its uh land adjacent to this property and then there's two that have uh small pieces next to it um there is one person that wrote in an email that I could find that that they objected to it they are further to the South immediately adjacent to all of the um stacked mobile homes manufactured homes there so we have the aerial we have the future land use map which shows res one really government man managed lands res 2 and then you have rental property which could be considered commercial actually so the commercial does extend further in my opinion than what the staff report says it's a huge expansion because youve got a rental Community there which can be and is taxed as commercial looking at the comp plan analysis to go from res 2 to community commercial um this property is accessible from US1 US1 is generally commercially developed it's an infill commercial development it's not located in an established residential neighborhood these are all taken directly from the staff report again along a commercial Corridor uh will'll need to comply with the performance stand standards at the site plan review stage that deals with noise and lighting and setbacks and all of those things uh it also states that there are no material violations of any comprehensive plan policies for the rezoning we're seeking the bu1 from tr3 again this tr3 land at two two plus acres isn't big enough to be developed it can't be used right now and it's current tr3 zoning so we're asking for it to be changed from tr3 to The Bu one with the removal of The Binding site plan it was changed to tr3 in April of 1987 and it already had bu1 to 250t deep in that same zoning change uh but nothing's been built on this property since 1987 even though in theory it could have been built as a mobile home park next to mobile home park there is um the 621 1255 portion that shows the Matrix uh tr3 cannot be in res 2 as it shows here tr3 can be in NC and CC so trade wins could be a neighborhood commercial or Community commercial in fact would be more appropriate to be there and bu1 uh must be in community commercial so that was the purpose of showing you that and then to explain uh what the applicant wishes to do was the concept site plan drafted by Aaron McDonald the engineer of record and it does show um the buffering it shows the this the uh you know just a concept plan of what they're looking to do uh perhaps 27 units they would have office hour time so they would end by 6:00 at night and uh they would have to meet performance standards to make sure they did not impact the residential homes to the east with that um I can answer any questions but we'd ask for the change of the future land use to community commercial on 2.8 6 acres and then we'd ask for the change of the zoning from tr3 with a binding site plan removal to the bu1 with no binding site plan uh Mr chairman yes sir Kim the um on the illustration with the aerial map the piece that AB buts US1 is that separate ownership from same ownership same ownership that's reflected in the concept plan with the that goes through it yeah so that that 250 ft is owned by the same entity and it would be used for the entirety of the property but to the extreme East that is exactly where the his East extremity is yes sir okay which you can see there's quite a bit of buffering there with trees okay and you have sewer and water up there yes sir cim um Mr chairman Mr John yes sir yeah uh how big is that that lot to the left to the west of that one do you know the lot to the left um it was it's a little under two acres I believe the entire property is 4.86 Acres something so your the two of them together is 2.86 is that what the two of them together is almost 5 Acres Okay so so under live local you could do 150 dwelling units there um 30 per acre on on commercial land it's not even in the Wheelhouse hasn't even been a thought so if you wanted to limit it to commercial uses by a bdp we could do that if that's your concerned okay thank you but that that's not Dr nii's plan yes but if he decides to sell the land guy can do that Mr Ron uh yes question about the buffering can you describe the buffering it's it's hard for me to read on this uh currently the required buffer the that would be the East buffer I know it's on here and I apologize I couldn't find AER type a buffer with a six foot high completely opaque visual buffer but I actually believe it's going to be larger than that based upon the placement of the driveway and the what I meant from the the property to the east there's a substantial natural buffer on the owner's property that's going to be preserved well I mean we can make that a condition I mean I would like to do that please okay and uh would your client be willing to entertain a bdp that restricts him to the bu1 uses uh that he has mentioned in his plan um retail office and personal service yes yes sir okay all right I'm going to take it out to the audience real quick is there anyone want to speak for or against this item Kim don't get too far away Mr chair can I just um Ron what was the condition for the buffering uh I I had asked her to describe the buffering because I would like to see some buffering both on the south and the East okay CU cuz the the the current B the the current bsp um has it's limited to seven lots of at least 15,000 square fet provides a 50ft buffer to the East and the 75 foot buffer to the north that's what the current bsp states right yeah because that school is to the north and they've got their own fence around there I'm less concerned about the buffering on the on there what I was more concerned about was buffering to the east where it's residential and and then the trailer trailers to the South I'd like to see as much buffering as possible there uh there probably isn't enough room for a 50ft buffer there but if you can make it 20 25 ft and then for staff is there also as well as that vegetated buffer is also a requirement for a wall is that correct six foot completely visual buffer barrier it could be I I read it to be a fence or a wall but it's it's a six foot wall it's a six foot wall because it's commercial to residential it's a type a buffer that would be on both the South and the East the South yes sir okay you know Jeff it looks like it's naturally buffered down there is that from the are it does look like there's quite a bit of vegetation however unless you stipulate um what the buffers or or existing vegetation they can go down to what the code requires okay because if it's natural we' well if it's natural it could also be oh what are those invasive plants we're trying to get rid of pepper trees pepper trees well I'd hate I'd hate to have it say use that and then it' be all pepper trees and those have to be cut down use the term Australian pines A next or something so you'd be willing to have a bdp that says uh you restrict the bu1 uses to retail office and personal service and buffers to the South and to the east vegetative buffers to the south and east and a on the east side 50 feet and on the south 20 at least we had not agreed to the 50 Foot to the east we had agreed to keep the natural buffer there well the natural buffer may end up being something that has to be removed okay and that I would like to see it agree to if you have to remove it I'd like to see you replace it with something just we we haven't done the engineering yet and it's an awkward size shape I think it's going to be more than 20 ft but I I don't have any Dimensions yeah 20 ft is fine with me I mean more is better but yes 20 is fine right if you can agree to that yes sir okay in that case I move that we recommend approval this with this hold on what Ron I still need to take it out to the audience I think you did I know but the lady back there in the back she had raised her hand ma'am do you want to speak for or against this item as John as Mr Robert would say I got to give him a voice your name and address again please Jennifer Parish um 1260 Old Dixie Highway Titusville Florida I just had a question just because I'm learning as quickly as I can that lot it is just south of an elementary school when you if is it my understanding if it's commercial are there any restrictions as far as what because I have little kids what commercial stores or anything there go there right next to a school that would be a question for staff I guess so so bu1 is kind of our midlevel um commercial zoning District it allows for retail office and personal services there's some light manufacturing that could go in there there's also some um minor automotive repair but based on what I'm hearing from from you all is is that you want to restrict the uses to retail office and personal services correct but there wouldn't be any would there be any restrictions if he sells it or they sell it that something else could go in there just to keep it safe for kids as far as chemicals manufacturing that would potentially expose kids to something harmful so the bdp runs with the land so even if the property is sold those restrictions would still apply unless um there's a request and approved by the board to remove those restrictions okay thank you ma'am anybody else want to speak for or against this item Miss Kim come on I just wanted to add that there couldn't be any alcohol sales or adult entertainment there either because it's so close to a school so those would be restrictions just to answer Miss peris question we don't need that in a bdp that's just the way the uh the law is you don't need a cup for alcohol you can't that close to a school all right uh well with that bdp I move recommend approval with zoning change and removal of The Binding site plan can can can we can I have those conditions just so I uh yes yes I'm sorry you need to vote on the small scale first restrict the B bu1 uses to retail office and personal service got that and vegetative buffers uh 50 ft to the east East and 20 at least 20 ft to the South got it hold on Miss Kim was shaking her head because she had went over that with you Ron we we haven't we don't know what we can do to the east that's the problem that's what I was saying we haven't done engineering and it's a long strip of land I don't know how close we are to that property that's why I was talking the 50 versus the 20 so I I don't we we can't commit to the 50 at this point can you commit to 20 yes sir of course okay 20 ft all around all right I mean 20 ft on the south and the East now we we need a motion on 13 for or I'm sorry 11 yeah I'm sorry I got ahead of myself I I'm with you Ron let's go all right I move that we recommend approval with the land use change second G11 Miss Debbie beat you Mr Henry good we got a motion on item G13 by Ron a second by Debbie in favor all those in favor say I I any opposed item G11 passed unanimously okay Ryan item g12 motion okay uh okay well I okay never mind with the bdp I move that we recommend approval theing change and removal of The Binding site plan Mr Robert I didn't hear did you second yes I'll second okay item g12 g12 Ron with a motion to approve and Robert with a second with the bdp correct yes all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously Mr chair just so in that motion it's the removal of the existing bsp correct correct okay yes yes okay item G13 thank you Mr chair item G13 and G14 I request that we read that in together however we're going to need separate recommendations okay with G14 I'm also going to be reading in the conditions of approval as well consideration for approval all right Villas of Sherwood Incorporated in Sherwood Golf Club Incorporated George ballerina request a smallscale comprehensive plan Amendment 23 s05 to change the future land use designation from res 4 to Res 15 under application number 23 ss005 tax account number 21937 21 0938 2113 021 211 1319 in District 1 G14 Villas of Sherwood Titusville Incorporated Al gabo Development LLC Sherwood Golf Club Incorporated and TRS t l LC George ballerina request a change of zoning classification from gu Au EU Sr ru- 1-11 ru-1 D13 r-2 d10 ru-2 D15 and PUD with two existing bdps to all PUD and removal of two existing bdps under application number 23z 0035 tax account numbers 21937 21 13020 21120 21 21 13023 21 13024 21 0938 2 210093 9 21 0094 21 00942 2 1 0943 2 1 0952 2 1 0953 2113 019 it's missing a number excuse me and 21 01 016 in District 1 the board may wish to consider the board may wish to consider if the request is consistent and compatible with the surrounding area in addition the board may consider if the conditions and waivers mitigate potential impacts to the surrounding properties without board approval of waivers all Design Elements shown on the PDP will require conformance with The Bard county code the applicant will provide a bdp containing the following waivers and conditions the proposed development shall be based on 187 single family units 48 multifam units due to historical drainage patterns and flooding issues and drainage study with and with and Associated Master drainage plan is needed prior to construction of the first phase of development approval of requested waiver from section 62-14 46 PUD Land Development regulation subsection D minimum lot area Frontage and setbacks accessory uses paragraph 1 to reduce the required 5,000 ft minimum lot area to four 4,000 square ft in pod 3 only all affected lot shall have substantial relationship to a 15t common open space tra directly adjacent to the affected dwelling units number four approval of the requested waiver from section 62-1 1446 PUD Land Development regulations subsection D minimum law area Frontage and setbacks accessory uses paragraph 3 to reduce the required minimum 20 ft rear setback to 10 feet in pod three all affected Lots shall have substantial relationship ship to a 15t common open space track directly adjacent to the affected dwelling Lots with adequate separation of units and the living area will be properly related to the configuration of the proposed Lots number five approval of the requested waiver from section 62 2956 Transportation technical guidelines and performance standards subsection a roadway paragraph paragraph 1 to to reduce the required minimum 50t wide right of way to a minimum 30 ft with 10 ft easements on each side of pod three the affected rideways shall be private and maintained by homeowners association number six approval of requested waiver from section 62- 2956 Transportation technical guidelines and performance standards subsection a roadway paragraph paragraph 1 to reduce the required minimum 50 foot R 50ft wide rway to a minimum 30t with a five foot easement on each side of PODS one and four the affected rideways shall be private and maintained by the homeowners association approval of the request number seven approval of the requested waiver from section 62- 2956 Transportation Tech technical guidelines and performance standards sub subsection a roadway paragraph 3 to reduce the minimum 100t setback of a culdesac right away to the plat boundary to 15 ft with the inclusion of a six- foot wall in landscaping in one location in pod three Landscaping shall consist of a minimum of two shade trees per 100 linear feet and four understory trees per 100 linear feet number eight approval of the requested waiver from section 62-28 83 General design requirements and standard subsection D to replace the required 15t perimeter buffer track with a 15t buffer easement or a 10-ft perimeter easement where adjacent to any existing drainage easement and allow it to be disturbed for grading landscape and buff for improvements including but not limited to walls fences retention slopes walking paths and Utilities in pod three number nine prior to County approval of a construction plan and or preliminary plat the developer shall execute an agreement including but not limited to a proportionate share agreement with the county addressing and or mitigating any infrastructure deficiencies relating to the off-site Transportation impacts as identified in a traffic study the agreement shall include Provisions requiring the developer to design permit and construct the identified improvements in addition the agreement will identify time frames for the necessary improvements and monitoring and updating traffic study as appropriate number 10 prior to the county approval of a construction plan and or preliminary plat and or site plan the developer shall demonstrate the adequate Water and Sewer services will be available to the development and are available prior to issuance of certificate of occupany number 11 address all staff comments regarding the PDP prior to or concurrent with site plan and subdivision submittals number 12 in accordance with 62-3 1901 if it is the opinion of the zoning official that the amendment to the PDP warrants board evaluation such modifications shall be submitted to submitted for board approval number 13 if the development is to have on street parking the developer owner shall establish a financial mechanism for maintenance of internal Road raise prior to County approval of a construction plan and or preliminary plat and or site plan number 14 prior to County approval of a construction plan or preliminary plat and or site plan the developer shall submit a road system condition assessment to include an evaluation of evaluation of potential impacts on public safety and number 15 prior to County approval of construction of a construction plan and or preliminary pla or site plan the developer shall submit a traffic calming study for the affected roadways and will identify necessary improvements to mitigate speeding and encourage preferred routing of traffic thank you okay thank you ma'am that was a long winded one okay Mr mcnight thank you Mr chairman and members of the board let me get that closer um I will do one presentation to cover both if you could state your name and address for record I'm Jim mcnight I am the planning consultant for ballerina my address is 1168 shallows Court in Port Orange um with your permission I'll do one presentation for time's sake you can do two if you'd like three whatever yeah I think y'all like to get out of here before then um the actual comp plan amendment is less than 10 acres so it is a small scale uh that is the change from the res 4 to the res 15 the Sherwood PUD provides Redevelopment of a golf course that failed to continue to operate this is a trend that has been apparent in the country since 2006 and the beginning of the Great session since that time over 100 golf courses annually have closed operations in our nation and Bard county has experienced some of the same fate with six locations now closed or in the process of Redevelopment felling golf courses impact property values when they are left unattended according to the National Golf Foundation the project has been through a process of three Community meetings held in September and November of 2023 and may of 2024 at each meeting we listen to concerns regarding traffic storm water safety property values and other issues as you will see in our presentation we listened and have significantly reduced the density as well as addressing major issues such as drainage original plans called for 98 units and we are now at 595 total units or a density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre there are now now four PODS of residential and one pod devoted to storm water and open space previously there were six pods with storm water integrated throughout it also provides a new Clubhouse with amenities to go with it the approach for the Pud is traditional step down zoning within the Pud with the highest density along Carpenter Road to the east with its own access and reducing the density east to west As you move from east west with in the existing neighborhood when you get to the first single family lot on London toown you only have 37 single family units that are accessed beyond that point um those would be um as you move to the north excuse me to the west and the north um on the plan so we heard safety concerns about additional traffic back in that area that will be minimized by limiting the number of single family lots in that area Okay moving on okay where's our oh oh there you go okay okay the proposed project um is for resident residenial 4 and residential 15 currently we have almost 39 Acres of residential 4 that will be reduced down to or yeah that will be actually reduced down uh from the 39 that currently exists 38 plus change um the total land area is 136.6 Acres again the total number of units is 595 187 single family and 4 48 multif family with a gross density of 4.36 which we've rounded up to 4.4 um moving on these are just some of the pictures of some of the things that will be done with regard to the amenities uh I did want to add one thing in your notes under the proposed project it had shown the storm water area at 62.8 that is incorrect it should be actually 2.51 uh total Acres of storm water area uh however the buffer open space and Conservation Area totals 88.4 s of the total open space amenities will include uh things such as a clubhouse obviously exercise stations park benches walking trails an observation Pier a Tot Lot pickle ball educational Trail Etc uh these are just some renderings uh that we have put together for the project the project as I said went through multiple iterations originally when we submitted in uh the plan it was 136 Acres as we said at a density of 6.65 units per acre that's 98 units that was in April of 23 okay and that was the plan right there six pods when we after our first and second neighborhood meetings which were held in September and November of 2023 further uh revisions were made and we came down to 796 units we still had pods okay but we had reduced the no number of total units uh by about 110 or so and there's your changes there after the May meeting uh with the neighborhood and the community a further change was made and we decided to limit it to four PODS of development um two single family one being town home one being single family ATT uh single family uh traditional and then we'll also have Villas and the multif family along uh Carpenter Road with its own access so we ended up with 597 after that meeting four pods one pod dedicated to storm water which will be addressed a little more later that's our final submitt after staff comments was done in July and we reduced it slightly uh less down to 595 and that's where we stand today is a total of 595 units that's where the 4.4 overall density comes from and that is the plan the blue area is your 37 single family lots the green area is all storm water the area in pink is your Villas the yellows the multif family and the blue are your town homes these are some of the surrounding area um developments and their current densities uh which vary from you know as low as you know two units per acre one unit per acre things like that all the way up to 7.8 this slide shows the layout of the golf course just so you'll have a point of reference from what exists today let's talk about the individual pods this will be the town homes um if you can look at track C I believe it's C or G within there that is an active open space area that's currently where the clubhouse is at or the the lounge that exists there today the road that is to the immediate west of that will go into the town homes and there would be a connection to the South as well so there would be multiple areas for emergency uh Ingress and egress okay catch up on my total numbers here the 230 Town Homes is at 8.1 units per acre on 2 29 Acres okay that is all uh town home there are some additional buffers placed in in this project as well uh between existing uh residential and the town homes and that's just a typical town home layout this is storm water and I'll not go deeply into that I'll let Bruce Moya cover that but that is POD two that is our storm water pod the next pod pod three are the 37 uh single family lots that I referred to as the only area of development that is beyond the first single family house on London Town the lots to the extreme West are all 90 by 100 uh basically lining up with the lots that they abut uh on their basically on their Southeast the other um lots are the 40x 100 and that is a total of 21 lots and uh that is there are some larger Lots as you come along that area the smaller lots are further to the east Advan what's that advaned oh sorry about that there we go sorry about that so basically the brown area are your standard uh single family lots may be a little larger and the uh purple area are your 40 by 100 and that is 21 lots of that uh Dimension and 16 of the 90 by 100 okay again single family layout very traditional from that standpoint okay next pod is the 150 Villas at 5.97 dwelling units per acre um we have buffered this area from the existing s s single family that exists to the South and West uh there are a total of 150 in there and uh they have uh two access points back to London toown Road as you can see on the East end of this The Villa layouts again uh planned for one story attached in this area Okay the next pod is four buildings multifam total of 150 units as you can see you we I've kind of moved from west to east to show that the density further to the West is less it the most density goes to the east uh in this case again that is a standard traditional zoning approach to Stepping your zoning down uh in this case not your zoning because it is a PUD but stepping your density down as you move move uh closer to the single family area with that I'm going to give way to Bruce Moya who's going to go over the drainage and waivers as well thank you Mr orite Mr Moya good evening chairman members of the board I apologize in advance my throat is acting a little weird on me today so I will do my best to be clear um there was just a point before I get into drainage I wanted to make when you because the slide is up here the way this property exist the future land use in this area is the only part that's res 4 so we're asking for res 15 so we can take the density and move it towards Carpenter so the it's less dense where all the single family residents are and move it up here and that's the only reason we're asking because this was the only piece that had res 4 on it so it didn't make any sense to to have that that's why we're making that land use request for this only um okay so I don't know how to advance this was there just hit enter wrong enter oh here we go okay so yeah I guess uh Bruce Moya I'm the engineer of record on the project I should have said that first um um at 1250 westo Galley Boulevard um I've been uh I've had the pleasure of looking at this in a drain standpoint it's been probably the the most contested issue that we've faced uh with the residents this area has historic flooding um it's kind of a hodg Podge you know it's a it's a golf course that was developed back in the 60s a lot of this stuff was built in the 70s I think the only development that was built uh recently was Eagle Point was built in the early 2000s so the drainage system does not has come close to what we're required to do today it's basically just get the water out of here we don't care where it goes um it's just a happening so nowadays I'm sure you're familiar drainage systems are very very Advanced and Technical and we have to look at all kinds of things like elevations tail waterer uh you know flood planes all that stuff and and come up with a a system that's going to work so um really our desire here is to improve the drainage situation in this area because to do nothing just means they're going to have to live with the flooding problems forever so I think we have an opportunity here to do some good and that's really you know I I'm I'm impressed with this developer that they have made so many changes and adapted this project to The Wills of the of the neighbors and by making that PO a storm water park is going to we feel is going to help this drainage situation in this area tremendously um so we're looking forward to that challenge um what else was I going to say so you know we will be doing a full-blown engineering analysis I think that was a condition in the whether it was a condition in there or not it was something we were going to have to do is Analyze This Basin it's going to be computer analyzed to a level that it's that's never been done before in this area so we think we're going to get this thing real really good um you know some of the property that drains to the neighborhood that we're that's going to be on our property will no longer be allowed to drain on to the neighboring property so we're going to take land out of what's draining in their basins and take it and bring it to our lakes and discharge it away from the neighborhood so I think we really got a good chance to improve the drainage on here now I've been doing this a long time and this has got to be the most challenging project I've ever worked on because this property is not a square it's not a rectangle it's it's all kinds of stuff so it is very long and it's very skinny because we're basically building on holes we're building on golf uh course holes so we have to get some sort of waiver to make this project work um and we're trying to asked for the minimum to make it feasible at all so the first one and this is a pretty standard waiver I think this has been granted on many projects that we asking for a reduction or a waiver to the minimum lot area of 5,000 square ft I'm pretty sure this was granted for watermark that's approved under construction I think it was one that was just here uh uh today so um that's not uh unusual so we're asking for that so we can get some sort of density on this property because we're building a lot of uh single tiered roads and you know single tiered roads are not very effective cost effective so you got to get some houses on the road to pay for the cost of the road drainage the utilities so that's one that we feel that we think is u a pretty standard waiver now uh also we would like to look at the setbacks um so we you know in order to make the Lots fit and the build and the buildings fit on the property to get the road there and and the Lots we run out of room so we want to at least get the building on there so we're asking for a rear setback uh waiver and this isn't for all areas this is just for areas where it's actually only absolutely necessary to get a lot in there um and in in addition to doing that just to get that setback and get the lot in we were asking for a waiver to the RightWay width um so what we're going to do instead of a you know standard 50ft rway where you have your roads and your sidewalks and your utilities we're asking for 30 ft and then we're going to put a 10ft easement uh so you basically have 50 ft you just don't have 50 ft of ride away they're private anyway they're not going to be maintained by the county so I don't really see a difference I've seen subdivisions with no RightWay where the blot line goes down the center line and the whole thing's an easement uh in private private subdivisions not done that often anymore but it it does it does happen we feel we have plenty of room to accommodate the roadways the drainage and all the utilities in that total of 50 ft so we're requesting that waiver in addition to that and um I think that's the same as the next waiver I believe oh okay and okay in pods one and four I'm sorry we're going to ask for only 5 foot eement so it will only be a 40 foot total right away or from easement line to easement line and that's for the smaller you know town home type project um waiver five is when you have in some of these areas where it's so narrow we can't have meet the 50ft setback plus the 100 foot for the culdesac plus another 50 foot to get from property line to property line it's it's it's impossible so in order to make get the road to end and have a turnaround for the fire trucks and the ambulances and the garbage trucks we want to go ahead and get a waiver I think it's in one location only and because of that it does B up to uh existing residents that we want to put in a wall and Landscaping to augment that that situation um it does exist in the area currently uh Eagle Point has a sub has a uh culdesac with zero setback from the culdesac to the next property um and I think in the existing town home development that also has a culdesac that has no uh no setback to the property boundary so uh we think it's appropriate in this area uh waiver number six this is my favorite one because I wrote this code I was forced to write this code when I was here as a development engineer that they wanted a 15t perimeter buff around all subdivisions this was when Vieira was in its heyday and they were building massive subdivisions next to existing long-term residents and there was a lot of clearing going on a lot of erosion and stuff so they wanted a 15ft buffer this is not a wooded area this is a golf course it's already developed it's already cleared uh we don't think it's necessary we there's no vegetation to save so we're going to PL it we're going to put it there we're going to install it so there's really no reason to have this um we can make it better and and we got to grade in there we got to make sure we can grade in there to make sure we can handle the drainage so to have this this buffer um I don't think it's going to serve anybody so we really feel we need it because the the width of the the property and the fact that there's no Vegeta buffer there got one more to address oh is it not oh there's no seven on there oh gosh this one is weird I think this one's been approved on some other developments so when you do a um a p p is that because of the zoning requesting it's the height of the building yeah because we're doing a PUD there's some weird requirement that if you because of the height of the building that you're required to put a parking garage in or a first level parking in so you're actually are increasing di to the building for I no reason that I can I understand I'm sure staff might be able to to educate us on that um but we don't think it's necessary here and we'd rather not build taller buildings than we need to U the expense for 150 units would be astronomical and it would just cause the buildings to be another story higher and I believe that waiver has been uh approved on some other project so we're requesting that as well and that gets us to um one thing I did want to mention where we're on the reduction of the buffer and and the and some of the areas is that where we have it was really our intent on this new layout was to put like units next to Lake units so we we increased the size of the lots and I don't know how you go back in the pods where single family detached or abing existing single family detached where there's no homes that's where we put the smaller Lots where there are homes we' tried to match their width over here I believe is one of the only only places so we're doubling the buffer in here from 15 to 30 so because we have single family homes there in order to develop pod one we we are increasing that buffer to help protect them from from that development um and I think couple more slides yeah so here's the typical cross-section of uh of what the road will look like with the rideway it doesn't look any different um what we're proposing to do is put the sidewalk only on one side of the road because that's the only one side that has homes um so there's really no reason to have a sidewalk on the other side of the street and we don't have the width so we're we think this is a better situation to have a a wider 8ot pedestrian way so what we're trying to do is is kind of recreate the the the golf course look and feel by using some of the existing golf cart paths and then putting 8 foot paths within the development so we think that's going to help make it more desirable to to be more pedestrian friendly and am I the landscape up for guy or is no we got I'm going to go ahead and take a seat and I'm going to give you the landscape guy talking about landscape offers okay okay uh my name's Brian Davis and I'm with Libra Design Group we the Landscape Architects for the project and I'm going to talk in terms of uh the buffers that we're proposing and as Bruce mentioned on pod one that's our most uh intense and high density parcel so it also has the most intense uh landscape buffer also so this plan shows five different uh buffer sections um the first is again around pod one you can see it's colorcoded uh the second is around um pod four which again is probably the next uh most intense use uh section three is in blue it occurs primarily in uh pod 3 uh we don't have any any buffers obviously for the uh what used to be uh a pod with all the uh attention detention areas and then uh pod four or section four sorry um occurs mostly along uh the single family to single family areas of uh pod three and section five is uh again uh a section that shows where we're going to have uh wall uh screening out uh car lights those sorts of things so the next slide shows a a section of each of those buffers that we just talked about and you can see on section one um we have again the most intense buffer uh the outline of a tree that you see there at the top top left hand uh section indicates uh an existing tree that we're hoping to save uh wherever we can uh and wherever the grades uh allow us to we're going to try to save as many existing trees as we can on the project but we're also adding uh the tallest green element there is uh shade trees we're going to do two of those every 100 ft and then you'll see a small canopy tree uh called out also where we're doing four of those every 100 feet and then we're going to have a continuous hedge also um and we're thinking in terms of again a hedge that could get as high as 12 13 ft or so so between those three we feel like we're doing a good job buffering the intensity of the town home to the existing uh homes that occur on the other side um section one again you'll see a two-story element that's the new town homes proposed and on the other side you'll see a single family existing single family residence uh section two um here we've got again uh shade trees two every 100 feet we've got four subcanopy trees and here we have a continuous fence uh again to screen uh the ex existing uh large lot single family backyards that show on the right to the proposed 40ft lots that are proposed on the left and here we again um have a very tight area to work within and that's why we've added the continuous fence to uh to help with that screening section three is again we've got existing single family we've got a uh continuous fence um in a buffer area we've got tree Tre shade trees uh two every 100 ft we've got four sub canopy trees also we've got our interior roadway um and then again we've got a series of shade trees and small canopy trees on the right hand side section four um again we have the proposed 60ft Lots on the left large uh existing single family lots on the right and with then a 30ft la buffer we're doing again two shade trees every 100 ft four sub canopy trees every 100 ft section five is again where we're using walls to do that screening between the proposed 60ft Lots on the left hand side and the large single family lots on the right with again two shade trees uh per 100 feet and four subcanopy trees every 100 ft so with that I think we go to traffic come come back I don't want you to leave okay of what percentage of this project will be vegetation what percentage of the project when it's all finished you're talking about buffers existing trees that sort of thing you got 136 Acres yeah I don't does any what percentage vegetation that number yeah I would think we'll give you some time we're going to be here a while okay all right I I have a question for the landscape architect these these buffer trees that you're looking at how many of them are native versus how many of them are Nursery native versus Nursery yeah um most everything will be native okay and most all of it will come from a nursery we're not planning on okay I'm sorry you know again maybe I was just think save some of thees native Live Oaks and that sort of thing yeah Live Oaks yeah we'll do as much as we can as far as FAS the existing no no no no no no no no no FAS those a rain trees right or uh punk trees or Australian pines and braan nobody actually plants those anymore that was the turn of the last century right even even camper trees um are you know restricted these days which is good yeah all right thanks evening James Taylor kimley horn associatees traffic engineer for the site my address is 200 South Orange Avenue sweet 600 Orlando Florida all right so as part of this project we're doing a lot of analysis um the traffic impact analysis is something that we get the the assumptions approved in advance of doing the study with staff um that has been approved recently uh everything you see on the screen here in the figure it makes up the study area everything in red is the roadways and all those little dots with numbers or letters are either driveways or external intersections that we're going to evaluate trip generation for this new the new development is going to be generated from uh the it handbook that you guys have probably heard about at length in many of these meetings in trip generation is going to um be where those trips are going we we we we're Guided by the traffic counts but also by the do's uh approved Regional travel demand model on that and then the analysis itself we're evaluating delay times and level services and cues at all these intersections and capacities of roadways that you see on the screen and then based on that analysis we're going to generate a list of conclusions and recommendations which will guide us on how we mitigate for for project impacts so a little bit about the scale of this project um you'll see that this slide says 605 residential units where we're coming in with 595 the difference is what we got approved in the ti methodology versus dropping 10 units between then and now um but at that 605 which is very slightly higher in terms of magnitude of trips we're we're talking about 4,500 daily trips uh 300 of those in the AM Peak and then 364 in the PM Peak now that's both directions if you break out ins an ounce that number goes down and then if you consider that all these trips are not in one place at one time there is going to be five different ways to access Carpenter uh Road North Carpenter Road from this project um three new driveways London toown Road and then longbo drive the density pods and this was talked about earlier in the presentation are Loc ated against Carpenters Road and what that does is it reduces the impacts for the rest of the the site um and then let's talk about Carpenter Road just a little bit in terms of what this looks like today versus what it's going to look like in the future in our estimate our estimations so today that road is operating about 32% of capacity in the future with 87% of the project on the portion of Carpenter Road north of Dairy Road all the way to State Road 46 um we're anticipating that that 4,900 daily that you have there today is going to go up to about 9500 or about 61% of the maximum adopted service volume of that road so next steps on traffic we we again we have that methodology approved we're going to go ahead and move forward with the traffic study um we already have the traffic counts that we need for that study they were collected in May the um the county is going to want to look at this dos might might uh poke their head and see what's going on at the State Road um the deficiencies will be identified any mitigation strategies will be worked through with your staff and on that point you you heard again some of the some of the things that staff is requiring in The Binding development plan and we would like a little bit of leeway to work with staff on some of those items to just to make sure that it's clear how we're mitigating for the impacts fair Fairly and through through the the stake con currency guidelines and requirements uh and then we will also be um providing any Land Development required Transportation plans throughout the site such as turn lanes and driveways in fact London toown Road we've already discussed with staff adding a dedicated left turn lane eastbound um at that intersection any with that is it back to you Jim oh yeah I was going to say let me jump up I do do have some numbers um based on calculations that were done uh 88 plus acres are going to be in open space buffers and conservation which uh relates to about 64% of the overall site good thank you good evening ladies and gentlemen Tim Maslin Florida environmental Consulting 1835 20th Street Vero Beach Florida um I'm the envir environmental consultant on the project and I've been with the project since the beginning and I've been to the property I've been all over the property I've seen most of what's out there um everything from uh gopher tortoises to birds to raccoons to bugs and bunnies and and oak trees um but what we don't have out there is is a native habitat um you know like I mentioned we had go for touristes um we haven't done a scrub J survey yet but that is in the works as it would be required um there's potential for wood STS um but again a wood stor study hasn't been done uh it's just within the range of wood STS in the general uh State and vicinity same with the Crescent care care care we're not expecting any of these species to be there but we are going to do everything possible to look at them study them and find out what they may do on the site if they do it all um everything that we're going to do is going to be according to FWC in the FWS and Bard County um obviously we can't uh impact any protected species um without proper permits without proper planning and without proper uh function to where they're going to go so um many of the ponds that are out there we're going to expand and the ponds will be expanded and they'll have similar Wildlife protection measures so um you know we're not recreating what's out there we you know if we have to maintain a pond we're going to dig some ponds put silt fence barrier around and each one of them will be staged so that bugs and bunnies get a chance to re relocate themselves as well um one of the one of the big issues is Wetlands um wetlands are protected obviously and there are a 1% 1.8% rule uh for existing Wetlands uh we haven't done a wetland delineation that has been reviewed by the St John's River Water Management District yet but that is in the plans it's obviously part of uh the Land Development process so um in general in summary um we acknowledge that there's protected species out there and we're going to relocate them as as applicable by law and whatever mitigation is required to accompany that we will do that of course um additionally Wetlands we're going to be preserving almost all the wetlands possible with appropriate buffers and as much preservation and existing Wetlands to be kept where they are in perpetuity um obviously we talked about trees previously um trees are going to be preserved where they are as as best practical um we'll follow all the requirements per law and any mitigation that might be required we will of course do so with that thank you very much okay with that we'll conclude any questions you have of us we'll either answer now or later as it is your I want to ask Bruce Bruce I seen you sit down until I wanted you up um Bruce in the early that it of anything I think it's important on this project is is the drainage because unfortunately you and I don't need to we know uh I know sure went inside now you do too uh if anybody that can make a ton of improvements if this thing is approved it's going to be drainage and uh you've got a load on you there I mean it's I feel very confident you thing moves forward that you'll be able to solve some problems but I hope them I hope the people realize how how important that piece of land is to the to the drainage of that subdivision you're you're so right in 1967 and 68 they didn't care where it went and they proved it time and time again and it's just been a difficult task but uh I'm fairly excited that you're getting the opportunity maybe to uh take a look at it and and solve a tremendous problem you know it's I guarantee anything you do is going to be a lot better new today that's that's all I have thanks Bruce Bruce I have a question for you you got wa for the people I was going to when they come back up to respond can we sure take the questions in if it's okay with the board to the public and those people that are wanting to speak as you've seen here today on a couple projects the county the state municipalities hold these deel Vel opers to higher standards than probably what it was when we all built our own home whether it be Water and Sewer whether it be safety whether it be a new fire station that some developer possibly might have to build just to get his project done they're going to be sure and I like what Mr Robert and me were talking in our break you know it's great to have a voice don't misunderstand me but uh I can go down my list here real quick and I know there's going to be someone out there going to say traffic we already know that we just heard the traffic guy safety we know that I don't want to be like what Mr Henry minbu said earlier you know and what Brian said it I don't think it's going to be our responsibility as the board to make that decision it's we need to focus on the small scale comp plan change and the change of zoning you know but saying that how many people want to speak okay here again if you could come down to these first two rows so we can go through as quickly as possible and if the person in front of you said something uh there would only probably myself would need to hear it twice the rest of these people are pretty smart so but seeing that sir I'm going to give you three minutes and as we did earlier if you hear the Bell please stop okay but everyone that comes up needs to State their name and address for the record okay thank you so my name is Tom Erdman my address is 4791 Squires Drive Titusville Florida and so what I want to do is start take this up at a higher level not just go down say I know you heard flooding zillion times over the years everyone says that Bo have we ever so what I want to do is look at let's not just look at Sherwood let's look at what's happening in North Bard you heard that from our from our buddies in hog Valley you hear that from everyone we need control Smart growth now out of control growth 595 homes is a lot of homes for the Sherwood area but then when you add in you know Brookshire just down the road granted that's in the city 170 homes and I think a l lot of us got nervous with how Brook show is handled they just cut every tree down and then once the homes start getting built yes you do see flooding on 95 and Garden Street because they took away a lot of that water area then you look at 46 they're building more homes there across from the RV PL Place uh hog Valley they want to build them there as you heard and then you go up farther north gr this is in fuchia County Deering Park you know they want to build start at 7 00 homes this is going to overload all of our infrastructure so you look at the bavard or the Mims bavard County Planning and Development a comprehensive plan what they say quote above all Mims should remain Mims a special place for Rural and small town in nature and history and so that's what you heard from the hog Valley folks again you'll hear from a lot of us we moved here to not to live in South Florida not to live in Orlando we like our space then from our perspective this is not all or nothing you know no homes versus 600 homes it they've already compromised we've met with them and they've compromised some but I think there's a little more room that we compromise you know reduce 600 homes down a little bit more to try to reduce some of the impacts to us and I would like to continue working with them when they do their Wildlife survey their tree which ones are saying get the community involved how do we understand what their drainage problems are and how to fix it and then quickly for one thing you know it's a water you know water pressure we got a letter probably in April from the Mims water department said you're going to be low in water low on water pressure what does that mean if they build all these homes and we're building homes my house catches fire the firemen don't want to go in there and I'll it's it is a safety issue for me and the fire department so okay I guess my time's up all right thank you very much thank you sir can I go yes sir okay my name is Richard Horvath I live at 4418 Sherwood Forest Drive which is in the subdivision reason I'm here oh sorry about that it's okay okay go ahead again Mr Richard do you want me start over no you're good okay good reason I'm here is I live in the subdivision I see what's going on I see see the golf course I see the snakes I see the rats um I have a wolf that lives in my backyard um I hear it killing animals um this isn't something that's this goes on every day so what I'm trying to say is the golf course is already closed it's not being taken care of we have animals and wild animals in this place this subdivision is going to be the best thing for this area I told toally believe in it I'm I'm there because I'm going to buy something in there that's why I'm here today thank you all right thank you sirale can we keep that down please I I appreciate it but we're come on Ma you're doing great my name is Wendy Smith I live at 4511 Sugarberry Lane I live in the uh Bridgewood Forest um on the map I just have a question for these guys on the map it looks like we're the very top of the Sherwood Forest estate thing and right behind uh our little circle there is a retention Pond has that did they pay for that and will they be taken care of it I couldn't tell from the picture they will address that ma'am when they come up after everyone speaks thank you that was it I we can wait okay sir my name is Louis Basler live at 4460 Button Bush Drive been a resident of Titusville since 1964 took me 40 years of saving and working to buy a home in that neighborhood I could have went anywhere in the county could have went to Meritt Island Coco Beach had plenty of money I chose that neighborhood because of the neighborhood I grew up in the area all the people that spoke none of them are from there they'll come in they'll develop they'll take their money and they'll leave we have to live with that so with that said small area study Mims area Bard County 2007 final draft this was conducted by VAR County pable Water haven't heard these guys talk about that continued growth would likely exceed the County's ability to supply pable water due to aquafer limitations this is 2007 executive summary analysis and of data and Community input show reducing future land use densities in part of a Mims will further desire to address the Water Resource concern concerns the major exception infrastructure they talk about infrastructure this is from that that study that you guys did the major exception as will be seen is poble water supply Public Water Service the remaining vacant properties and service were developed to their maximum density under the current adopting zoning four units per acre water demand close to its current maximum Supply limit of upon completion of the program projects it is conceivable that the system May well be at or over capacity when the program projects are included that's 2007 when the 2007 developments are implemented it could be overc capacity now they want to go further than that so I had a lot more to say one thing I'm going to say is we can rezone it to be commercial we shouldn't you can rezone it to be industrial we shouldn't and we can reson it to what they're asking but you shouldn't we don't want that that one gentleman that just spoke he's the only person that I've heard saying he's for this everybody in our community says we don't want it we just don't want it there please do your job please support the people that live there appreciate your time all right thank you sir hi Laura MOA 4460 London toown Road the famous London toown Road that they speak of often so my traffic will be in and you didn't want to hear it but I'm telling you my driveway is going to be tough to get out of I moved here 20 years ago from South Florida I was the victim of development in South Florida by developers such as the ballera group and others my two-lane roads turned into four and six Lane highways because growth was exponential the area had to pay for the improvements to the infrastructure it was not the burden was not borne solely by the developers it was born also by the people who live there and my quality of life deteriorated so I chose to move here I chose to move to Sherwood because of the character of the community that Community is different than any other community I have ever lived in or been around I also love the trees and I heard that the um environmental fellow or the tree fellow I'm sorry I don't remember your name who doesn't live in Sherwood by the way um they're going to retain as many as they could I've been to two out of the three meetings I asked about the trees and they told me they would be trying to keep 10% in in other words removing 90% that's a big part of Sherwood and it's personality and it's draw to the people who live there I'm not going to talk about some of the other stuff because people already have and probably will we don't live in the rural area of Mims that those people do but I can't lean out my window and kiss anybody or shake their hand I love my community I live there because that's the place I want to live the PE people who are going to benefit from this is the fellow who bought the golf course who doesn't live there he lives in California the people from ballena group who are from Miami the Engineering Group who I believe are from Melbourne if I'm not Incorrect and the developer who does not live in Sherwood our quality of life the reason people flock to us for holidays and Christmas parades and Halloween and all those kinds of things is going to be negatively impacted I understand capitalism is the way I like to make money too not my argument but my argument is the people who are going to make the money live in California and Miami and Melbourne and not in Sherwood so please protect our community please keep the integrity and the character and the trees in our community all right thank you [Applause] ma'am hello sir my name is Heidi Peterson 4405 London toown Road and I'm just like her the road's going to be terrible you know and when you build all these different units the building codes are different now than it was back in the 80s when these houses was built they're going to be built 18 Ines higher now how would you like to have a house and everybody around you be 18 Ines higher it don't work you know I've lived in Florida for 72 years and I'm thinking about moving to Georgia if this thing goes in cuz I'm tired of it that's all I got to say all right thank you sir ma'am can I pass some stuff out you need to hand first off to Mr Jeff there on the left thank you we'll share thank you oh okay all right thank you sorry one second okay Ruth Amato 1950 tomato Farm Road Mims Florida 32754 good afternoon as you can see by the first image Sherwood area was a swamp it was originally drained as a swamp all the drainage disches that connect to Sherwood are draining the swamp ma'am could you get next to M there you go you can pull that Georgia all Sherwood was a swamp originally it was a swamp Sherwood was drained as a swamp and that's why there's so many flooding issues what are you supposed to do with a swamp it drains the pictures um of the flooding that is the neighbor the property to the north of the property they want to build on that is a ditch on that same along hammock road which is just to the to the north of this property that is after Ian the pasture is my pasture my pasture has never flooded we only got 44 Ines of rain that year that's almost 40 Ines shy of a record year what are we going to do with an extra 500 homes and nowhere for the water to go who who do who who do you pick get the flood Agricultural and Bard it's killing us small egg provides most of the food not big a most agricultural businesses are placed next to a flood plane they do that so they don't have to go far for their water supply they're not pumping water up out of the ground they always have access to water close to the ground your crops grow better your animals have more food when our pastures are flooded because the daring ditches cannot take anymore you're not just killing small a you're killing your food bill too cuz when we're gone when we don't when we can't afford to replace our cows and lose our calves because we don't have property that's dry anymore who's going to feed you this goes on all along the St John's river in Bard County the St John's river bottlenecks on the other side of Lake Carney with high Bluffs and a narrow River it can't go anywhere when it hits the other side of Lake Harney you can't pump it out fast enough when you get a big rain and we haven't seen one what are we going to do then how many homes have to flood I know you don't want to hear about flooding but it's coming and we're going to lose our homes we're going to lose our livestock and everybody here is going to feel it when you hit the grocery store cuz it's not just my small farm that's going to lose it's every small farm along the same John's River that is south of Lake Harney when you put in these developments every single one of us thank you all right thank [Applause] you Richard Jones 4930 Squire's Drive um the first thing I want to say you held up a stack of notes earlier from our residents that could not be here a lot of people couldn't be here we live in Titusville so all the way down we have a lot of older residents but everybody want their voice to be heard I know the whole neighborhood is against I've never heard anybody for except the man that spoke earlier that's a lot of notes there the entire neighborhood everybody in that neighborhood is against it for good reason a lot of things I already pointed out earlier number one the flooding yeah I mean I heard Bruce say you're going to analyze and come up with an answer that's not good enough where's your answer now I heard him say that this is the hardest project I ever saw trying to fit these houses in there there's a reason why it's the hardest it wasn't made for houses to be in there it was made for a golf course it doesn't fit it plainly does not fit talk to a lot of candidates because we really thought originally September 5th wasn't going to be our answer and now it's like looking like it is talk to a lot of candidates three of them representing district one that are going to be on our general ballot the libertarian the Democrat and Republican were all here behind us every single one they can't agree on a lot of issues they can agree on this I think that says a ton we've been here for 4 hours all of us been here for 4 hours waiting we thought we were in and out here 90 minutes 4 hours that's how much this means to everybody we can lose our houses due to the flooding there's no answer for it they want to do analyzing after that's not good enough because what you say is going to hold up September 5th if you do not vote for us right now to help us save our houses and we go on September 5th we have no ammunition To Give Commissioners whatsoever so we can't have it pushed forward say let them make the decision that's not good enough decision has to come from you guys right here right now to do the right thing listen to these residents we live here they do not thank you all right thank [Applause] you hello Katie Delaney 5105 cabbage Palm Street um um one of the things that I'd like to address is you said earlier that the standards are higher and yes they may be higher but that doesn't mean that the governing officials hold them accountable when they break the law just last week in the um wiw Pine Community that's being built in Coco a gopher tortoise was found killed and placed in a rubber storage container nothing is being done nobody's holding them accountable so how can you all sit up here and tell us that that the governing agents are going to protect our land they they're not and that's that's part of the reason why so many people have come here I mean I I've been to the community meetings and they were full in the Harry tore Center it was full they couldn't even get all the people in the building because people are so upset about this and then to sit here for 4 hours and be told we don't want to hear the same thing over and over again this is their right this is our right to come and and plead with you to please be our voice please be our voice because North Bard is getting ruined because nobody is protecting us and we're we're feeling it everywhere we're feeling it in canaval groves we're feeling it in Mims we're feeling it in Coco we're feeling it in Titusville our homes are getting affected by this and this is our lives most people their entire life is wrapped up in their home we have agriculture businesses saying they their lives are being affected we have to come up with a better way we have to and until we have that better way the answer has to be no no go back to Orlando we don't want you here we have to come up with a better way and I know that we have the intelligence to do that in Bard County we do so I'm asking you all to please vote no on this for today thank you okay thank [Applause] you hello good evening my name is Anthony Jaa I live at 4251 longbo Drive um first off just appreciate your time tonight hearing us out um I I do have to say in the development and construction industry the developer has made considerable effort to reach out to the residents of the community um so for that I I commend them um I stand here um opposed uh to specifically G14 about the plan development um modifications it's specifically pod one um I think what will ultimately be figured out in the engineering analysis is there's a huge grade differential between what would be London toown Road and the residence of longbo Drive which I currently live at that is going to be a considerable task to kind of densify the area that's being proposed um and I think that any visual barriers that you're going to work to achieve with Landscaping is going to be overshadowed by the fact that those lots are going to be considerably higher than the residents along longb drive so just want to bring that forward for consideration thank you okay thank you sir hi my name is Faith Swanson I live at 2036 North Carpenter Road and in pod one you could see a blank spot all around me all around that map that's us it's one acre uh multif family we were the model homes for the uh sh uh town Town Sherwood Forest in the back that's all the town homes back there so um with that said I there was an amendment that um he was talking about that um about 5T and I would like for you to vote not on that 5T the land is all around me where he where they want to develop um and uh um right now there's very dense uh property on both sides of us and in the back um and I know everything is meant well but I know um new developments when they come in and then they leave um there's usually not enough parking uh we I I have friends that you know have bought into these um there's cracks in the foundation cracks in the walls they went to pressure wash the whole Community is in a lawsuit with the paint um fish catfish are coming up this is the one behind Enchanted Forest catfish are coming up every time it rains and leaves a smell um the tile pops up the there's cracks in the tubs I mean it just goes on and on and on so those are beautiful pictures but when they leave um there's things that happen to all the but it it will um affect obviously my home and over the last 10 years uh they have built the county has come and digged and digged and digged in the front and now there is a ditch that was not there 30 some years ago when we bought the place so um there is a lot of problems and also I'm on well water so my well goes right through this project all the way in the back of where the country club is so and I have three 4 foot poles out there on on the land in the back noting that so I don't know how that's going to be mitigated um anyway the list just obviously goes on and on but thank you thanks for listening and I appreciate uh if you would consider not to vote on this I really thank you thank you anyone else okay because I'm going to close it to the public anyone else all right so will ma'am or you okay I saw your hand all right we're going to close at the public comment uh Kim do you want to come back up or who do you want to start answering questions well I'm going to do just a little summary and then if there's specific engineering tree questions things like that but um just I had just have a few points to make and a few points to address so again Kim renka um on behalf of the um developer ballena uh one 290 US1 rockage Florida Lacy Lions Ranka I first wanted to talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan Amendment because it's it somewhat was lost in all of what you've heard uh it is 7.75 Acres it's along Carpenter Road it's next to residential 5 it's next to Nottingham Manor which is built at 14 units the acre and this will be built at a little bit less again this was moving the density towards Carpenter Road to the east uh and keeping more single family homes more to the West so that was that is consistent it meets the transitional zoning as 15 to 15 and I also wanted to mention somewhat relatedly that most of this is already res 15 if you look at your map in fact if this were built to the potential of future land use it would be 1619 units and we're at 595 so um again we're transferring the density we created a whole storm water park in pod 2 hopefully that is going to address it has to address it this can't be built if it doesn't address the flooding that's there I know Mr Moya has even met with the county and said hey you all need to fix some of these pipes these pipes haven't been maintained properly and I know those conversations are ongoing because a lot of these issues weren't known to the owner or the developer at the time that uh this project started and I was at that Harry T Mo Center and they were there and I was the one that took the notes I'm once you got that citizens report they it was a very long meeting we had over 46 people speak and and raise concerns and and they have changed the the uh project substantially so that's just with the residential 15 it does meet the criteria of the future land use regarding um the change for the future Lane use from res uh 4 to Res 15 in fact we might even be do a transfer of density uh rights if necessary but this was the easiest and cleanest way to do it and made sense um I wanted to talk about the Pud uh the Kim could you get a little my my my throat's going in too the um 4.36 average density the staff report repeatedly says it's over six and it's not um so the average density for 595 units is 4.36 units to the acre um if you somehow M there was discussion about the MIM small area study and that water treatment plant um first on page 14 of your study of your uh staff report for the zoning this property was not part of the mim's small area plan because it was considered already developed but it does say that the Mims water treatment plant design capacity is adequate to serve the proposed development and again that's a that's a concurrency issue that would have to be worked out but it is in your staff report that it does meet that concurrency issue on page 19 of your staff report it shows the various surrounding area developments some are at greater density 7.8 units the acre 5.23 units the acre um four units the acre quadriplex and the uh 14 years the acre of the Nottingham Manor multif Family those were just specific as to issues that had come up that were addressed in the plan you heard that 64% of this will be open space and green space which is substantial yes it was a golf course but now it hasn't been a golf course for years and it's a Redevelopment project to provide more housing opportunities uh the question or the statement from Mrs Mario that they would try to save 10% of the trees the tree survey hasn't been completed yet uh we don't recall that statement being made that 90% of the trees would be removed and 10% would be saved but that hasn't been determined as of now again those are those are just the questions it's it's a change and no one likes the change they have had these Community meetings they have listened um from the over 200 people that were there to the 12 people that spoke um they have come a long way uh if you have questions are here to answer we have all the experts here to answer your question and we would request that you approve the future Lane use on 7.75 Acres or res5 and the Pud is depicted in the plans that set before you and with the um the the waivers and items identified in the staff report that seventh waiver staff has said we cannot do at this point um but it is a waiver to stop the that we will request to stop the height of that building because no one wants a higher uh to building right there on Carpenter Road so that was uh one of the reasons we wanted to share that waiver with you as well so with that we're here to answer any questions you may have all right Mr Bruce yeah I just had a couple things to add um if I can remember because I tried to write them down and I couldn't so trees um that property is not wooded there are some trees on the property what the requirement is that you have to save a minimum of 10% of the canopy but that's over the entire site so what we're trying to do is is save that 10% of existing trees over the entire site so if you take that area times the that canopy that's a lot of trees so we're trying to save all those trees it's not we're not removing 90% of the trees that is completely false so I wanted to get that out of the way two the elevation of the of the proposed buildings this property is not in the flood zone this this whole area is not in the flood zone so kind of surprised it floods but it does anyway you know there could be events that you know it doesn't uh take into account but um there's no reason to to artificially Elevate the property it's already filled we don't need to elevate it we don't need to be bring in a bunch of fill because it's already filled so there's no reason to be 18 inches above the neighbors I don't see that happening so I don't think that's going to be an issue and third I was at all three meetings and that first meeting was packed at that little little them's house with were out the door so we had a second meeting and we had a nice big room and all those people came and we had hundreds of them and they still didn't like it nobody liked it true third meeting we came with this plan and maybe they're not telling their neighbors but they told us that they like the project well there was a they believe it or not a lot of people came up to me and said they are not opposed to this project a lot so to say that every neighbor in this NE neigh Hood against this project is not true so I just wanted to make that clear no matter what they think please if we could ladies and gentlemen everyone had their chance to speak so let's please be respectful Bruce I'm going to go over a couple things and Henry you've known me on this board for eight nine years you ever seen that many notes on it no but it cares me this late at night yeah and I get upset with Mr hopping Garder over here but when he gets off track because I want to bring it back to like Kim what you said item G13 is a smallscale comprehensive plan Amendment yes sir period period period period I'm going to be John hobing Garden I'm going to go off that right now and I'm only going to do that because of the people we had in the audience you had three meetings yes sir my hats off to you thank you I don't think any of us on this board that's been on this board has heard of a group doing three meetings maybe one hats off to you uh storm water you've been in this County for how long my whole life 62 years and you long time I don't no want to say Robert is an engineer so you understand them with storm water Ron you're the MIM specialist you're the north Bard you know flooding issues these developers are going to be held accountable yes sir but we're not here for that we're here for a small scale comprehensive plan cor correct I'm still going to bring up some other things though please do you lowered your density 50% % almost yes almost yeah so that's telling me you're trying to work with these people yes sir to a degree yes sir to a degree Mr mcnight opened this project and I don't know if a lot of people know his background but very smart and that's telling me that he's tried to work with these people too so sewer water all this other stuff that's going to be handled later so I'm going to take it back to the small scale comp plan Amendment thank you item G13 Lord anyone got any other comments to the staff well I would say staff out there and over there Mr chairman I had a Bruce I had a question for you uh in terms of drainage there's it's my understanding that when one property tra has traditionally drained to another property that the receiving property has to accept it yes sir and what I heard you say in your comments I think was you are going to be doing something different than that no you're going that you're going what we're going to do is we're going to accept all drainage that flows onto this property but we're going to prevent drainage from this property from draining on offsite to other people's property and that's because this project has to be self-contained yeah well we have to take theirs but they we have to remove Ours from theirs when you say you're going to prevent drainage from your property onto other property uh that's something that is above and beyond uh it's pretty standard in development yeah I've been I've done as much research as I can and and that's what I find is that all the legal people say if property has traditionally drained from one property to another the other property has to accept it and going to we're not going to re-engineer Mother Nature and prevent water from flowing downhill correct and what I heard you say was you're going to try to do something different that actually helps the existing flooding problem yes sir and that's uh to me that's unusual it's it's it's I haven't heard anybody say that before well like I was saying not to step on your toes Mr Ron but I haven't heard of three meetings neither you know that the hats off there but Mr John you mention my name go off SC um in the package that I received it showed pod 2 being developed but now you're saying it's just going to be a storm water open space okay uh what is that a canal how how is that no it'll be a retention pond basically we're going from about 10 acres of existing little under 10 acres of existing retention and going to over 25 acres of retention okay there's a section in the middle of that that's owned by alobo development he's shaking his head yes uh who is that they bought it just this past uh June is that part of you guys that's part of the request you're just going to let it flood no it's part of the the whole problem yeah it's part of the request it's going to be no I understand that I'm just saying though that when I look at your graphics and it shows the canal going all the way around or however you're going to handle that drainage that little piece of land is right in the middle of it and we'll get flooded that's a just I just you know if you wanted to do something else I didn't know what it was so I wanted to ask about that the other thing um all the existing homes in the area are they on sewer and water yes okay so there's no septic in the area we know there might be some on some of the outling Lots but cuz there's some lar one one woman said that she was on a well that's why that's unusual but there are some larger lots to the north that could be on septic okay um you know when I looked at this thing when it first came to me I was curious because and and from the people that spoke tonight um nobody said anything about I'm going to lose my view you cuz they used to live on a golf course you know and the golf course is quite Pleasant and and uh I'm wondering if golfers are going to become endangered species with with all these golf courses closing goers Gophers yeah goers um but they don't seem to be concerned about that and that was surprising to me because that I looked at a development once we were going to purchase another Golf Course in um Broward County and they had so many restrictions on what could be done on that site that we couldn't develop it because they had closed everything off and said you could not develop anything other than what had been proposed and that was in the covenants but this one doesn't seem to have that so and they still have an Architectural Review Committee on this with their HOA we have we haven't well on the there's no existing HOA but there will be an HOA with the p with the Pud there'll be a creation of a homer Association yeah I figured there would be okay um but thank you for giving them that ammunition I'm sure we'll hear about that sure you seemed obvious but we are putting in landscape buffer where where there isn't any um well you've got so many different elevations there anyway yeah so Mr Mr Robert um Ru for the benefit of the audience um you know the difference between retention and detention yes so why don't you go ahead and explain because what you're saying is you're going to be increasing your retention by using that one Pond is that correct oh yeah okay I I I've used those terms interm you know together because we call them Retention Ponds even though they do both they retain and detain so obviously the detain is to part is to temporarily hold and to retain is to permanently hold so the probably right now I'm I'm venturing a guess I think this is probably accurate is that all that area is only uh detention um to very large degree because the there was no real storage requirements back in the early 60s mid 7s um that is way different now so there's going to have to be a storage volume because we have to meet water quality standards correct that meet the the new state requirements that just passed um well they become effective in December but um we got to do BMP trains we have to make sure that the water is going to be very very clean when it discharges so we have to retain a certain portion and the only way to retain that portion without causing flooding is to make larger ponds so because we don't want to make it elevate so we'll be looking at that to we will have to meet all the retention requirements as well as the detention requirements how'd you like that softball one yeah thank you sir appreciate that no the um and the interconnected model that you're going to be using I mean you you have your stage storage and and and this is also for the benefit of the people who are saying that they're having a flooding issue here so what you're doing is you're retaining the water on your property and then slowly bleeding it out when the receiving Waters can take it well it'll it'll it'll Crest pretty fast once it reaches the corre the after the retention portion to get rid of it um but but then it still has to meet we have to meet the prepost requirements but what's great about the new analysis is that we're going to put in all the conveyance systems all the pipes and it's going to be a complete analysis of that system so we'll know if we put a pond here and we connected to the existing pipe we'll know how high the water is in that pipe if it backs up or if it doesn't back up and if it needs to be replaced or fix again you may have slle Gates you may have other control it's going to tail elements so um this is just to give the audience a little bit more Comfort saying that you know it's not just going to be 100% impervious and right the hope is the Hope is is that if once you exceed uh the design storm because the design storm is only here but then the big storm comes so if we can build a bigger discharge to so that when the big one comes it discharges faster in the post than it does now because right now there's probably like a little box that holds the water back so if we can store it and get rid of it before it stages up I think we can make a big difference in this right and then if you have a um homeowners association and a monitoring system you know you can release storage with a with a slle gate or something along that line so that you can actually build more retention when you see a storm coming you yeah exactly you can prepare I I just wanted to give you another softball once to clarify that you are on top much better than the one John gave me yeah all right thanks anything else any other questions uh yeah I think it's probably for maybe for Kim or maybe not but or uh Mr mcnight um the 15 uh the bdp with the 15 points are you willing to accept that I think we have some questions on some yeah kind of like the last one that was done some of the some of the statements are similar to what you saw in the last one that were really kind of this is we've never seen comments like this before come from the county before so we don't even know what some of it even means so we would like the opportunity to be able to meet with them and kind of figure out what exactly they want because I've never even seen some of these studies they're talking about if they have examples that they that they already seen done and we can look at it and say yeah that seems reasonable but I think we need to meet with staff and and prepare better for the County Commission meeting on some of those requirements because I think some of those studies are a little little far overreaching um or at least they're definitely something completely brand new that we've never seen before even in other municipalities so um most of them I think are okay for the most part um I don't know if we want to sit here and go through them any longer than we already have and go through Point by point but I think that we would like to have the opportunity to address those with staff before we get to County Commission like kind of like you did with the last project if that makes sense uh to me at least it's in a quandry as to what to do with this bdp well it's not a bdp well it's a it's an approv it's a PUD approval with conditions there's right there's no bdp right no it it anticipate Kim Ranka it anticipates a bdp which will have conditions that will require the studies require proportionate fair share it's the same as you saw for Gen Florida 48 LLC Santa earlier today so they have some of the same qualifications the substantially the substantial question which we don't know what that means um there's a studies that we haven't seen before we don't know what they mean uh and so we most of them we can agree with we just don't know what some of them mean there's something about on street parking we have no idea what they're talking about in financial mechanisms to M so we'll have to we'll what we'll have to do essentially is to approve it without the bdp and let the County Commission will you will you have time to approve it with the conditions subject to us discussing with staff what exactly they're requiring because some of them they need to be modified we we don't know accept yeah we don't know what substantial means in their minds because it could mean something different okay that's developer but yes you can approve all the conditions and waivers that are in the staff Report with the Pud if you're inclined to approve the Pud thank you okay I'm I'm looking at you Mr Ron I was going to say that uh to go ahead and approve it and get and and with with the bdp but give them then the opportunity to review with state have uh those 15 items CU I know some of them are identical to what was in the previous PUD correct and they had some corrections to make to them and and I've seen you know these these address the waivers and other staff concerns but uh since they really haven't had a chance to review them right we need they need to have that opportunity but I don't want to I don't want to say just ignore that altogether I I well first you have the land use and then you have the Pud request and the staff report says the the applicant will provide a PUD containing the following waivers and conditions so we don't have a bdp yet but these are the waivers and conditions the waivers of what we have asked for the conditions are just needing some tweaking so I think you can move to approve the Pu with the conditions listed in the staff report subject to further discussion with staff I think that's what you do with Jen Florida i' like those words are you going to try to get that before the commission meeting I don't think we're going to have the bdp for no it's going to have to come back for two more meetings because we can't do a proportionate fair share yet we don't know what we're doing so we may I mean we're going to have a bdp that has conditions but I don't know if we're going to have it by September 5th you know substantials a bunch I didn't know if you knew that is that what that means a bunch of flowers substantial relationship that's the phrase that's a little confusing so Mr Ron you're item G13 correct uh yeah G13 is the small scale what I was talking about was really for G14 is right what we need to hit G13 here first the small SP comprehensive plan Amendment uh I move that we recommend approval I'll second it okay we got a motion by Ron and a second by Henry for item G13 all those in favor say I I I any opposed G13 pass unanimously and item G14 and then I move that we approve recommend approval of G14 uh with the caveat that the applicant will work with staff on the uh bdp that was suggested and staff reported and I'll second there Jeff do we need to have any clarification on phrasing or anything or you know what he's saying correct no as long as you understand the framework what the conditions are I I think that we can work with the applicant to to provide any clarification that they need moving forward okay okay okay item G14 we got a motion by Ron and a second by Henry all those in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously all right and I just want to say before we close the meeting we've got a new board member sitting over there Melissa Jackson hello this this this was a tough one here tonight this is the longest that we have had since I've been all right meeting adjourned I mean it's not it's not unusual to 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 bvar County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all resp responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]