##VIDEO ID:sGF947TrECI## [Music] [Music] [Music] e Mr Henry could you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the repic for stands indivisible andice for all okay this is the Planning and Zoning Board board SL looc 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 H1 H2 and h8 are LPA items items on today's agenda will be heard by the County Commission on October 3rd at 5:00 pm. when a motion ends in any kind of a split vote a roll call vote may be taken to ensure accuracy as a reminder each member who makes a motion or a second needs to turn their microphone on so that your voice is on the record speakers for public comment on agenda items will be given three minutes at this time if any board member has had any expart communication regarding any application please disclose so now all right I need a motion for approval of the pnz minutes from August 12th 2024 move for approval second got a motion by Debbie a second by Brian all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously are you ready all right item H1 good or good afternoon uh item H1 is a request for a recommendation to the board of County Commissioners for regarding an amendment to chapter 62 article 10 division 6 section 62- 3751 exhibit a storm water management criteria for the subsections 4.6 D and 4.6 J Bard county code of ordinances uh 4.6 D is to allow polyene pipe uh as an additional optional pipe to be used in the right of County rideway um and then the other section is for the allowance of administrative waivers for inverted siphons under certain criteria for commercial sites right now they're board wavers only okay is the applicant here this was actually a um Direction by the board to for legislative intent um um that the board uh directed staff to look into doing a code change for these sections okay Mr chairman can I yes we'll open for discussion you know over the years here the word poly po poing are we starting to get into the approvals of what pipes you all are going to start using uh the pipe types for use in the county rway have always been restricted they've been restricted to concrete and PVC um this would add in polypropylene specifically um it's not the same as the hdtp black pipe that everybody thinks about it's the gray pipe it's a lot stiffer um it's had a very good track record it was approved by do in 2014 right my concern is if you you may be here the next time for ads and then the next time you're going to be here for accm and then the next time you're going to be talking to us about concrete and you know it seems like if we approve it unfortunately I'm too much up and down this County but it seems like it we're always the bad guys the Planning and Zoning but will you guys approved septic tanks for the Indian River and so we only hear the negative part and so when I read this agenda item I was certainly concerned because you I don't know how many how much everybody in this board knows about it they mean everybody may be an expert in that Arena but I I just Envision the next time you're going to talk to us about a accm you know I don't know okay it's on uh we have no intent to approve acmp in the right of way um it's taken a long time to get to this point on the polypropylene because staff wanted to make sure that the tracker track record was there and that do had had enough time of stuff in the ground to be able to prove that that pipe was uh not going to have some unintended consequences um we're comfortable with it now um there are a bunch of other types of pipes that we are still not comfortable with and are still restricted outside of or inside of the ride of way outside of the ride of way um there are no restrictions it's up to the engineer designing the site uh okay I'm just going to I think it's a strong concern I just I don't think this plan zoning board should be in the pipe approval business that's the only thing I'm going to say Mr chairman yes sir all right I'm been a drainage engineer been a do engineer um the high density polypropylene pipe has been used throughout the State of Florida it's also on the approved products list so it's not necessarily a concern it'll it'll take an H20 loading from a truck so it's um I'm in favor of it um I do have when we get in can I continue on in the discussion yes okay I have a comment concerning the inverted sien um I've designed them I've put them in I've inspected them I've maintained them um they are a maintenance headache so um the only thing that I would look at is on page three under your um Public Works uh reviewer under the following conditions is the approval waiver is uh item one it said inverted siphons Bubble Up structures shall not be located within the public RightWay or in residential developments I'd like to change that to adjacent to residential developments because when they flood and they plug which they do often it's overflowing adjacent to residential developments and I would like the board to consider that change and discuss it if necessary well if you're going to make make a motion Robert include that in your motion okay um I'd like to make a motion that on the exclusion of item one in lie of in residential developments change the wording to adjacent to and with that change I would recommend approval before I second that can can you go along with and residential with your adjacent and in residential because otherwise they're going to they're not going to be in could have a commercial property where and I've built them um where the uh retention or the Bubble Up structure is going to be in the rear and where it clogs it's adjacent to a residential and overflows into the residential people so those are the concerns and the reason you would use a site and is for an underground obstruction like a you you're transversing a canal or something and you want that Bubble Up structure to drain on the other side of that canal and they clog I mean you get Gators you get raccoons you get all kinds of stuff that you know can clog that stuff leaves debris storm damage um yeah Mike yeah but you're getting away from my question my question was it states here in residential developments if you change that to adjacent then you would no longer be in a residential development don't you want to add that it's also in residential and adjacent to no yeah in residential and adjacent to yeah okay I can do that okay then I'll second IT staff did y'all get the motion yes yes okay we got a motion by Robert a second by John all those in favor say I I I any opposed that passed unanimously okay item H2 which is also an LPA item okay item H2 is also a recommendation for a code revision to chapter 62 article 11 flood damage protection um minor changes these are actually the County participates in the um CRS the community um rating system for flood protection and insurance rebates um and so we have to stay current with uh what the state has for flood protections uh these modifications to our code were coordinated with their representatives so that we could retain our CRS rating within the county okay I'll open for discussion on item H2 uh Mr chairman yes sir um I'm I'm currently a consultant to FEMA on their public assistance and grants program um I do have a question on striking the repetitive loss can staff explain why the repetitive loss was stricken from this ordinance and what what was a rationale for repetitive law strike sure uh Mr Sullivan so uh as Rachel stated we were working with the uh Department of Emergency Management at the state they have their consultant and my uh understanding is that the state is moving towards a uniformed ordinance throughout the state so there's a number of jurisdictions that have removed that uh requirement and so they've just folded that into what our proposed changes are now what the basis of that was is they I asked them this morning haven't heard back from them uh but my understanding is that just is what FEMA came down with um and fdem okay um got a letter here to The Honorable Charles Schumer and it was dated April 21st of last year um and it's from the assistant Secretary of legislative affairs for FEMA essentially B basically what they're saying is due to the high number of catastrophes that have hit us Nationwide um Fina is running out of budgetary constraints so um and one of the key components of their coordination manual and their requirements FEA 480 is repetitive law and so we're in a category seven I think and the minimum is a category eight so because of rard County having the St John's on the west the Indian River in the center and Atlantic Ocean on the on the East we are about 38% of our county is in a special flood Hazard zone so what we're looking at is repetitive loss would increase all of our flood insurance premiums so that I'm I'm curious on if you can follow up and find that and and I do agree with um Henry that you know we're going to end up being the bad guys approving ordinances for things that are kind of obvious so I'm real curious on why the repetitive law element which is a Mainstay in the federal insurance rate Maps why that was struck oh that was a question I I yeah took not yes sir I mean like I said I reached out to the fdm consultant and we're working on that and just as a side note we also coordinated with natural resources spoke with them this morning m one of their concerns was also the repetitive uh loss being stricken so um and that was from a um a grant perspective um and so my fall back is if if we're using FEMA they have their own definition of repetitive loss and if we're seeking grants from them they would be applying their own definition so wasn't concerned in that light but like I said we'll see what fdem comes back with well if we're trying to get grants from FEMA for various elements should we not use their definitions in our ordinances absolutely yeah I would recommend we do do that but in in light of there being an absence of a definition in this case I think the one would control well I I agree baby steps are great you know I I kind of like adult steps but you know if we have to move with baby steps well we'll move with baby steps but you know this is um like I said this is I don't care who's going to be president next year this is going to hit with FEMA 2.0 so um you know a lot of people are leaving the State of Florida because the number of insurers are leaving the state and that has to do with how we're managing our flood planes and how we're managing our our flood insurances and our insurance and and risk management so the State of Florida has a very good web flood plane management you know quick guide and it's um it's it's right there and it basically mirrors everything in this coordination manual so I'm curious who the suan was that says we should be striking repetitive loss thank you Mr chairman yes sir Mr JN um this only pertains to um mobile homes is that correct most of the updates were addressed were specific to mobile homes but the repetitive loss that Mr Sullivan was referring to up applies to the whole ordinance okay so are we going to look at residential normal residential and multif family and I mean is that going to come back to us that's all in there already uh these were just solely the updates that the CRS consultant told us were required to continue to meet the minimum Class 8 rating for the nfip okay um I was looking at some of these definitions that you have on page 13 um did these come directly from FEMA no or are they ours I'm looking at things like base flood elevation yes that's defined by FEMA okay because I was having some confusion how would uh a homeowner or manufactured homeowner know that if they're buying a piece of land they want to put a mobile home on it how high they have to be um off that land and it this is off of a flood plane do we have to I mean is there any way that we could put in references to the FEMA flood plane map so they would know if that was associated with this uh with this ordinance so the flood plane Maps get updated um and or every now and then by FEMA um they're Ever Changing um so to reference a specific map would possibly lock us into something old if it's not reviewed constantly uh because it's not a regular basis that they're updated um that being said the flood zones some of them have base flood elevations already defined by FEMA if they're in an AE Zone but a lot of the zones are a zones and they aren't uh pre-identified base flood elevations um and there's a process in which FEMA provides guidelines on how to essentially set that but it's kind of looked at on an individual basis um it would be very difficult to try to Define that in the ordinance okay um that's why I questioned it because just looking at the ordinance it makes it difficult for PE for people to uh identify good land to put their properties on and or their improvements um so you're saying in the ordinance we can't help them I would Rec just jump in real quick so it it's funny because when we were working with planning and development and Public Works one of their concerns was how quickly this ordinance would take effect so that we could put homeowners and Property Owners on notice and so we built in a 90day sort of phase in where people that come to Planning and Development will be at least notified that hey look if you're going through the review process these are the regulations that are going to be coming into place so ideally when people come in to get building permits they'll be made aware of sort of this new regulation that is going to apply to them okay thank you Mr chairman yes sir any other discussion what are we going to do Mr Robert I kind of like to hear the answer back on why we're not having repetitive loss are you waiting on a response there for that reach back out to fdem so can we go ahead and table this for now and then we'll skip over it and then come back to it you waiting on it now is what I'm asking yeah I have to I have to reach out to them and then they're going to hopefully respond they're usually pretty quick about getting back to us so I mean we can accept it subject to that or if you want want to condition their approval based on an explanation for repetitive loss or it's up it's up to the board I have a question well second John yes sir Brian for staff is there is there a deadline on this for the County Commission to put their vote in to meet the renewal for the CRS we already received a conditional approval but it's subject to us getting this through and they are really pushing for a deadline of October we one more I mean the board can so we're not going to meet again before then so this needs to get either approved or denied here which means it still goes to the County Commission this CRS what it means is if you don't authorize it the county potentially loses a discount on their flood insurance for all premiums so to not pass this 5% discount as it stands today yeah but to not pass this over some simple language could only be detrimental to the people to where their premiums could get higher so I don't see any benefit in not passing it what I would like to see in a perfect world but you know I'm also a realist is that the same definitions for the grants the same definitions for your insurance the same definitions are the same and right now they're slight different differences and all you have to do is say we will comply by the definitions of the CRS manual you know coordinator's manual case closed but that's not that that would require some surgery into this ordinance and I'm not prepared to write that right now so what I'm trying to get at is whether you're in Nebraska or whether you're in Seattle or South cal southern California or Miami you know the same FEMA grants going to have to happen we're currently in region four I'm a consultant to region two um but it doesn't matter one way or the other a flood is a flood is a flood so most of the other counties take these definitions and incorporate that into the other ones so for staff did the consultant that vard County hired is the one who suggested striking that it's not our consultant it's the CRS consultant so the state's or the FEMA consultant is the one who said we needed to strike that there's lots of debate out there on repetitive loss I'm familiar with it I don't want to bore a whole lot of people about it but Florida's had quite a bit of repetitive loss and our insurance rates as you've all paid are going up and insurance companies are leaving the State of Florida and the reason they're leaving is the high risk of repetitive loss apples and oranges because the companies that are leaving Florida are not flood companies they're wind companies but but it's it's all it's all catastrophes whether it's earthquake whether it's flood whether it's hurricane doesn't matter but this subject is specific to CRS with is FEMA which flood policies with FEMA they don't get up and leave because they're written by FEMA so those carriers aren't leaving the State of Florida for that reason no but the flood maps are changing and they haven't changed since 2016 and with the development between 2016 and today8 years I think those flood maps will change again and where previously my house in Fort Lauderdale did not require Federal flood insurance it does now yeah but the the wording of repetitive loss isn't going to change the FEMA maps from changing they continually change them about every 3 to five years you're right but the repetitive loss criteria is integral into this criteria so you're just saying that we need to have the FEMA um use the FEMA definitions is that Fe yeah FEMA definitions for repetitive loss or is that egregious to to do that or can we just I mean if if FEMA is going to um Force us to use that definition anyways and this is about getting FEMA grants then shouldn't we just either refer to the FEMA definition or include the FEA def definition right so like I said previously if in the absence of a definition the default would be the FEMA definition of repetitive loss and in this case we are striking repetitive loss from our code of ordinances I don't think our code of ordinances would Trump whatever FEMA has on the books if anything that would even create a little more confusion so my understanding is that fdem was pushing us to get this going so that we would at least be able to maintain our CRS rating we've been in the process going back and forth with them for quite a few months now so um we're at the pleasure of the board I don't see that wording being stricken from it changing anything because FEMA is still going to be ultimately the one that sets the repetitive lost language so I move to approve this as is second okay item H2 got a motion by Brian a second by Debbie all those in favor say I I any opposed nay I oppose who opposed Robert and John okay but that motion still passed okay item H3 good afternoon Strickland Development LLC request a change of zoning classification from bu2 to Au under application number 24z 0026 tax account number 2601 1599 and District 4 and Mr chairman this applicant has requested uh that this item be continued um so if the it is requested that the pl Planning and Zoning Board continue this item to be read vertis for a future meeting do I need a motion to continue it okay I'll need a motion to continue item H3 make a motion we continue item H3 till do we need a hard date on that I need a second second got a motion by Robert a second by Brian to continue item H3 all those in favor say I any opposed that passed unanimously item H4 yes item H4 put it in me storage LLC requests change of zoning classification from IU to bu-2 application is 24z 00001 0 tax count number is 23 22557 in district one and this item was continued from the July pnz meeting okay is the applicant here good afternoon my name is VOR 32 East new hav Avenue um we've been here before for the land use change but unfortunately I missed two meetings due to some accident and some personal emergency so I'm here to just follow up on the resoning this we this we couldn't do this on the I uh industrial for parking RVs and storage for some reason is allowed on the bu2 so that's we're here that's what we asking for I'll be happy to answer any questions all right Mr Beed while you're right there is there anyone in the audience want to speak speak for or against this item that's good news so seeing that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for the applicant Mr chairman yes sir uh I move that we recommend approval of The Zing change second okay we got a motion by Ron a second by Robert all those in favor say I I any opposed you oppose John passed thank you almost unanimously okay item H5 yes item H5 Robert corbert request change of zoning classification from Au to tr-1 application is 24z 000016 located at tax account number 2410 843 and District 1 is the applicant here and whoever is going to be doing this speaking if you could get as close as you could to the microphone state your name and address for the record please sir uh good afternoon my name is Rob Corbett I own 625 Mo Street and my address is 8715 Southeast May Terrace in h Sound Florida all right and a little bit about what you're want to do Mr Ro Robert um the I've owned the property since 2018 um it had a residence on it that was dilapidated I've cleaned it up and uh just looking to to all the other residen on the street are mobile homes and uh the zoning does not allow me to put put one on there it's Antiquated zoning so I'm just looking to bring it up to what everybody else has on the street all right is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item okay seeing that I bring it back to the board any questions for the applicant Mr chairman I move that we recommend approval of this zoning change second got a motion by raw and a second by Robert all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously thank you very much thank you sir youall have a good afternoon have a good day uh item 86 please yes item 8 s Shi Noah NOA and Kimberly a NOA joint revocable trust request change of stoning classification from Au to EU estate use and this is application number 24z 000031 located at tax count number 25111 32 in District 2 okay is the applicant here sir if you could just state your name and address for the record certainly my name is Mitchell Goldman I'm an attorney my office is at 96 Willard Street suet 302 in Coco all right and a little bit about what we're wanting to do here sure uh the client my clients the notas own property at 2001 Rockledge Drive uh the property is approximately 1.83 Acres it runs from US1 to Rockledge Drive uh the the parcel is really three Parcels I call it one parcel but it's really three the the four the 4/10 of an acre um that starts at US1 is zoned um B1 the middle parcel which is the parcel we're asking to be rezoned is about 3610 of an acre and that property um is that size and it's owned Au the balance of the property that runs to Rockledge Drive is uh residential estate use and what my client wants to do is he wants to take the middle parcel that's owned Au it's not used I I don't really know why some of those Parcels are zoned Au it really doesn't make sense to me I don't know how that happened but I'm familiar that other partials are Zone that way it's vacant land really and he just wants to be able to use that parcel as a garage uh the the way the house was built he didn't build the house but that you can't really add any garage there's no garage in front and you can't aesthetically you don't want to add a garage in the front we want to add it behind the house um so that's what he wants to do he wants to build a garage for his own personal use and it's certainly compatible with the neighborhood and no one will ever see it because their fences down both sides of the property and prop there's trees in front so it it shouldn't be an intrusion on any neighbors all right well sir while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that I bring it back if you've got any more to say uh unless there questions let me ask Mitch question are we going to try to clean this up or do we want to leave at peac Mill I don't know the answer to that question I mean I'm sure he wants to I I haven't heard that it's a problem uh he obviously he's going to have to clear a portion of that property and he wants to make it look aesthetically attractive so I certainly will bring that to his attention I mean his house is you know it's beautiful uh so I think the the zoning board will appreciate that okay I didn't know have there been issues with that before does it make good sense down there clean this parcel up so it doesn't come back it's got four applications on it so on this parcel no three you got three you got bu one and Au yeah not I'm using the different sorry yeah you got are you all good with that yes we're good with that the bu1 fronts on to Highway us it's just a mess I I know I'm not allowed to know some but but I do know a little bit about that people we have no plans to change that that's good you're good okay Mr chairman I recommend approval motion for approval second and I'll okay okay got a motion by Robert a second by Ron all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimous thank you okay item 87 item h87 Edwin and Stephanie Silva request change of zoning classification from Au to rr-1 it is application 24z 0032 and located at tax account number 25526 in district one sir if you could state your name and address for the record Ed Sil 2850 Dairy Road Titusville and a little bit about what you're wanting to do yes sir um we bought this home here back in May it originally started off as a four a 4 acre track the family broke it up into two acres and then they fixed it again to 2.5 and left a 1.5 the family member went ahead and sold it to me and the remaining family kept the other 2.5 acres however I'm stuck under the Au for the entire parent and I need to move it to rr1 all right while you're right there's 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 the applicant Mr chairman yes sir have a question uh do you plan to remodel or the house or rebuild or do anything with it yes sir originally I I started off with trying to get a generator for hurricane season I found that I couldn't even put a nail in the wall you know so I'm just coming here to uh actually to extend the property I mean excuse me extend the um the house itself no but I'd like to put a three-car garage where the two-car garage is currently at okay that's the only extra thing that I'm looking at right now and again my generator okay well let's keep the generator away from Windows all right Mr chairman I move we recommend approval of this zoning change all right second got a motion by raw and a second by Robert all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously thank you sir all right thank you thank you item h8 Mr chair item h8 and 89 I will read in together there're uh it's a companion application but it'll need SE separate recommendations Judith a baker revocable living trust request a small scale comprehensive plan Amendment 24s 09 to change the future land use designation from res 1 2.5 to CC under application number 24 ss11 tax account numbers 3414 300 394 3395 300 396 30041 3 0042 30043 30045 346 30047 30048 30049 30041 0 3004 411 3 00412 3 00413 in District Five item H9 is Judith Baker again revocable living trust request to change zoning classification from gu to bu2 under application number 24z 0036 under taxx account numbers they're the same tax account numbers as the first item that I read in I believe the first item was missing the last tax account number of 3414 and they're also in District 5 okay ma'am if you could pull that microphone down closer to you if you could state your name and address for the record my name is Judith Baker I live at 419 1 Avenue Melbourne Beach Florida okay and I'm very nervous there's no need to be nervous none at all and uh if you could just say a little bit about what you're wanting to do yes first of all I'd like to give a little history of my property uh willbrook street is the main road that the property is own one and we purchased the first it's 16 Acres more or less it's only really 14 acres we purchased the front 10 acres in 1988 and at that time willbrook Street was a dirt road the road was paved sometime after 1988 but no RightWay was asked or given I'm willing to give a RightWay to the county for that particular section of the road Bard county maintains that road which is 100 ft wide from the sale to the sale and has installed concrete head walls for drainage on the south side of the road willbrook Street has been used very heavily since we've owned it by dump trucks semi trucks farm equipment Etc the purpose of my request is there are 11 developments with 27,000 residences either in progress or in the planning stage surrounding my property I want to service those homes by providing many self storage and outdoor parking for RVs and boats using a binding development agreement that Mini Storage should really not have any huge impact on the traffic um or any real big impact on the roads should I go to the second um the zoning part or we just stop there no that's good go ahead okay you're doing doing great thank you the zoning The Binding development agreement again is for the mini self storage and outdoor parking for RVs and boats I'm asking for it's the zoning is currently gu I'm asking for bu2 again the development uh I won't repeat that I feel the proposal is complimentary to the surrounding residential needs and as reading the staff report I noticed that the staff report also said the proposal is complimentary to the emerging development of the surrounding area that particular area is is just lighting up like fire um it's the South Bard County just north of the County Line and all around us is development I think you approved the what's it called sunra Zen properties north of me south of me and then all around me is building and it's all Resident mostly residential um there was a question about the there are four Lots in the back in the north section of my property I think you all have a map of what's going on and they appear to be landlocked I have three lots on each side and there's four Lots in the middle owned by Mr Ken SE we've had a gentleman's agreement with Mr SE since 2005 for Access across uh his property and my property to get to his property because he has property on the east of me property on the west of me there's a dirt road running east to west on the north side of our property from Babcock Street that is not recognized by Bard County I'm willing to give with a mutual easement of 50 ft to the property owner Mr Kenzie Willer Brook Road Again is 100 ft wide Swale to sale um the bu2 zoning is what I need for Mini Storage and outdoor RV and Boat parking my intention is to service the residences there um water and sewer is not available but I have a letter from the city of Palm Bay a will serve letter that they will have it that available if not we can dig a well we can put in a septic system if approved that will go with whatever the state requirements are or the County requirements I'm done all right well while you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item okay seeing that I bring it back to the board do we have any questions for the applicant uh Mr chairman yes sir uh I uh a question question for staff does the original plat did this have any space for roads or access to these lots that are we're going to create an onclave for no no okay that's interesting staff I'm I probably shouldn't [Laughter] say well we know that you have been around for just a little while so probably have a good idea that was one of the question I had was CU some some plants actually have space for roads and I just wonder if this had so will book no so so since there's no space for roads in the plat you're going to be you're willing to give a u an access to those lots right yes sir yes sir okay Mutual is that uh as far as the Count's concerned is that adequate what one of one of the comments was that we're going to create an enclave and I mean in reality that already exist we're not creating it and she's willing to solve that problem so is there anything that else she needs to do uh in the report we um consulted with uh Public Works and what they had asked for was that if the roadway is not 100 ft in width that she dedicate what was needed so she is willing the applicant is willing to do that um the Willowbrook itself also needs to be repaved um so that will be something that will come up during site plan okay all right and uh I don't think that as far as the you know we mentioned there's no or inadequate infrastructure in this area but I think this project will have very little impact on that infrastructure uh you know there's a we've already approved a whole bunch of housing developments with small lots a lot of residents with actually no place to store RVs and boats on their property so the kind of stuff that she's proposing we need agree and I'm also also very pleased you put in a binding development plan to Simply limit the bu2 uses that was a Prett appreciate that thank you uh I move that we recommend approval this zone or this land use change uh Mr h8 Mr chairman I'd like to ask some questions there to okay we'll hold that motion open for discussion Robert go um and I got how is the and this is for staff um it looks like from the aerial um to access the northern portion of her property to get to the isolated four plats um there is a access on Babcock Street but it does not look like it's a controlled access like The Interchange so how would how would the county look at whether you want to do a a T intersection because right now it goes to the middle of that property goes up to the northern portion of it to get to that access can I answer that how How would that work for the county yes ma'am go ahead can I interject something Mr SE who is the owner of those four Lots in the middle of mine owns the property to the east of me that accesses willbrook street so he can get to those lots from Willer Brook Street through this easement that we're proposing to allow him to get to that property would he and you don't have to answer for him but is he going to be putting I mean the road is obviously going east west to access it but it curves around to the front of his Frontage on the on Babcock Street so would he want to put an inter intersection in there um I mean that what that does is that gives access to the other lots that are on the north side of those elements I I don't know I I haven't been able to get in touch with Mr seeve in years years yeah cuz I I'm I'm in favor of your proposal um but I like uh Henry has so eloquently pointed out so often that you know we don't want to create a problem for the next board or five years down the line without being you know judicious up front so how you would access those Northern uh properties those Northern Lots um is not from the southern where where you're going to be coming from but it would also happen to impact your neighbor you know the the property owner that has those four lots and how you're going to get access to the remaining Lots throughout that plat um Mr SE who who we haven't been able to get in touch with him in years and we actually traded Lots with him years ago okay so that we could line things up better at his suggestion but again he owns the property that adjoins my property on the east from Willowbrook Road yeah all the way back so even if that dirt road in the back wasn't there he could still get to his Lots by way of our 50ft easement that we're you're proposing proposing he can still get to his property and and he can get to mine and he can get to his again cuz he's on both sides no I think you've done a wonderful job thank you um you know in preparing it for here but I'm looking at the step the next step for the other lot owners down the road sort of speak and no pun but um so someone would have to dedicate that 50ft lot all the way down and would that and this is a question for staff are is that something The Works she hasn't the applicant hasn't presented us with a site plan yet and know those are things that would be worked out during that time well it would be to the property owners not this lady's property it's the all the property owners to the West they would also have to have that 50ft easement and is that a consideration that the county is looking at now because like she mentioned and what we have all seen here is this district is exploding with Housing and Development and commercials and changing from residential to bus buus and and commercials so is that a consideration for future planning or uh so again Mr Sullivan when the site plan is presented you know there's several different departments that would be re reviewing it um Public Work in engineering Land Development all of those things would be reviewed during that process we would make sure that the property owner owner of those four Lots would continue to have access to their property those agreements would be worked out during that time so we wouldn't work we wouldn't start working on it prior to her um zoning being approved understood understood okay um if there's no other comments I I will second Ron I've got a question for staff did I'm trying to remember is the spike strip on satii is it on the south side or the North side it's on the south side of Willowbrook is it yes it was it 10 10 or 15 feet wide do you remember does see I'm saying I'm pulling from memory here I think that's something about just just enough yeah just enough that that's good we're talking about something with you don't even have to bother you it's going to be great I know Sor that's good thank you all right so Ron I've got your motion still here on item h8 correct right on h8 to make approval of the land use change and Robert Miss Deb well she beat you on the second oh that's fine so item h8 motion by Ron a second by Debbie all those in favor say I I any opposed and now item H9 and then on item H9 uh I recommend we approve that zoning change with the bdp and then a second y'all are messing with me here today now okay we got a motion on H9 by Robert a second by Debbie on item H9 all those in favor say I I any opposed both of them passed unanimously and don't be nervous now when you go to the county commissioner just run up to that I will and can I ask what LPA is you had said at the beginning of the meeting what local planning agency thank you all right thank you thank you everyone have a good day now item h10 item h10 Leighton and Michelle Hodes request to change the zoning classification from Au to AGR under application number 24z 000034 tax count number 21755 in District 1 okay ma'am and if you could state your name and address for the record my name is Michelle at 4090 Baker Avenue Titusville Florida and a little bit about what you're wanting to do here um my husband and I purchased this property it's about 9 Acres um right now it is currently zoned Au um we'd like to change it to AGR to be in coordinance with the future used land map um we are just planning on putting a single family home on the res on the property um and and homesteading all right while you're right there is there anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item all right seeing that we have a specialist up north there his name's Ron barer over there so he might have some questions for you uh Mr chairman uh actually I don't have any questions but I do move that we recommend approval of this Zing change second that's the fewest words he's ever had on any I feel honored sir yeah okay we have a motion by Ron a second by Robert on item h10 all those in in favor say I I any opposed that passed unanimously thank you good luck at the county commissioner's meeting okay item h11 yes item h11 Pierre Carlo and Christina Chachi requests change of zoning classification from Au and gu to all Au application is 24z 0033 and this is on t accounts number 2314 742 2314 743 231 14744 and 23 22851 located in district one okay sir and if you could state your name and address for the record thank you good afternoon my name is p Cari and I'm at 3355 perut kalain coko and a little bit about what your W to do here um we purchased me my wife and I purchased this property some seven eight years ago with the purpose of uh build our residence which we did and have the plans to um have a a guest house for my family which is getting older so we would all live together and uh in the process I realized that uh I didn't know that before that for the way that the land was designed now uh it wouldn't allow us to it wouldn't let us do that so I was suggested the that all land should be Au uh three of the four lots are Au there's a lot Frontage that is gu um I got more familiar with these terms lately but uh the the whole point is to make the whole five acres Au uh which seems to be closer to what we are willing to do with the property we will be staying there there's no PL store selling for forever i' says there are no reason for selling it will be just a resident for our family and some uh um uh limited agricultural activities of course so smaller U utility um accessory buildings for equipment for the property itself okay sir while you're right there 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 do we have any questions for the applicant Mr chairman I move that we approve this sing change second okay we got a motion by Ron a second by Debbie on item h11 all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously thank you sir thank you thank you okay item h12 Tyler Gardner and Shelby Hines request a change of zoning classification from gu to RR mh1 under application number 24z 000037 tax count number 24 6117 in District 1 ma'am could you state your name and address for the record please hello Shelby hindes we're at 480 Key Road Titusville Florida and a little bit about what you're wanting to do there um so we purchased one acre that's currently zoned gu and we want to change it to our mh1 so we can put a manufactured home on it all right why you're right there is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this item seeing that I bring it back to the board we got any questions for Miss Tyler Mr chairman I move we recommend approval of list Zing change second okay we got a motion by Ron a second by Robert all those in favor say I I any opposed that pass unanimously have a good day well I guess we can say meeting adjourned then on you guys 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 County commissioners of bravard County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such [Music] period I had some questions that I've been trying to get answered because I I realized that there's an agenda item tomorrow's BCC on the consent that modifies the structure of this board and I've been trying to figure out what what was going on that would cause us to want to modify that and I can't get a lot of answers because I also can't find your minutes I don't know if you guys know where they are but I can't find them on the listar or on the website so I was going to do a little research to see if you've already talked about this did you have an I don't want to put anybody on the spot I realize you're all volunteers and thanks for that last meeting last month because that was brutal and I don't want to was your time but if you well there should have been meetings uh the minutes attached to that meeting if you found that meeting but now well we just approved them today I'm sorry so what you're saying that they're in they're part they're part of the package from the previous what what minutes to the issue never discussed by well we weren't aware of nothing there I know that's why it's not the well I was going to try and check check the minutes but I couldn't even find your minute so maybe you could help me out with that I called Chris Christina CHR Kristen from staff maybe is she is that you yeah I talked to on the phone um I also talked to technology but they can't somebody can't seem to explain why I can't find the minutes to your guys okay sir what minutes are you looking for and we'll get them to you all of them every from what they I I swear to God yesterday I was looking into this and they were up on the website not the not the Leger star they were up there in PDF and now I look and it says there's no documents to be seen so I don't know where they are okay well I can take down your information and I can we'll send it out to you we'll treat it like a public record technology says there's nothing wrong with the website understood all right and then we also so I don't know where that is but I hate to waste your time when I could do the research myself so that that was that's a good answer I'll take that but I was just wondering if you guys that consent item it looks like again I I'm a little it's not a conspiracy theory so much as it looks like they're trying to uh pack the court they're going to they're increase the number of voting members and and the re rationale was that uh they couldn't get enough people they were worried about not making Quorum and I didn't know do you guys have a problem making Quorum I know that you could max out a 10 I the way I look at it John toaya never even put anybody on this board right are you three down right now that is that true Mr chairman I if you look at the sheet we have yes but I mean we still have enough for a quorum and we still have well they're they're trying to they're trying to assign three voting members now Per County Commissioner so you're going to have well we haven't even seen that item okay well I just so I mean we're I don't I don't want to get anybody in trouble because you all serve at the pleasure of the County Commission right there you go well I guess apparently they're going to be meeting on that tomorrow night is that correct tomorrow morning that's going to be step one well it's a consent item so they're going to blow right through it unless somebody raises I'll I'll be down there I'm going to ask a question and see if they'll pause and but they see you guys tend to ask see see how you're answering questions I love this I love this board they have a tendency not to do that so if they decide not to discuss it they'll blow right past well the two guys that get Stars today is Ron and Robert that that got us through this all right we good yeah I just I'll I'll be at that meeting I just didn't know I I'm trying to figure out who moved that item I staff we are none of us up here are even aware we know less than you do ah well who could staff answer that question right now what well you didn't start my clock damn it well I'm going to try to close this meeting so we can get these fine people on this board oh go ahead did anybody want to answer who moved it Mr chair do you would you like me to address the question I know you're trying to close the meeting I'm happy to if you'd like me to please okay so sta after the last meeting that you all had where it was 5 and a half hours and we had a couple of alternates here that were courteous enough to stay the entire time we thought that if people are going to be volunteering to give their time to this board and to this County it would be in our best interest to make sure that they had the ability to vote after sitting through a meeting like that so there's some things in our code that become there the way we handle alternates currently which each commission District appoints two regular members and one alternate so there's already three pnz members or LPA members for each district the one is an alternate and there are certain rules that allow them to vote in certain situations and that becomes difficult to administer a lot of times and it doesn't necessarily stay true through the whole meeting it may fluctuate for each item so it's just a matter of cleaning things up making it easier rather than reducing the number asking the board to reduce the number of members we thought it would be the best approach would be to just increase it by having the alternate be a regular member that's that's what the item is it's legislative intent we didn't bring it to you all because we thought it was just more of a you know housekeeping matter on our end and the board will either choose to go forward with it or they will not okay and now the Commissioners are going to discuss this tomorrow permission advertis is tomorrow legislative intent and permission advertise the code change is tomorrow there is a draft to the code change attached to the agenda item so if anybody wanted to see it you can see that we're not trying to go further than what was in the in the item you know it's already there's already a draft associated with it Mr chairman Tad um Why didn't did you change the Quorum requirement because we have had difficulties getting quorums before and so we lowered it to six and we thought it would be in the best interest for everyone to keep it at six and rather than a majority but with three members free voting members per District you could have essentially a quorum with district one and District two people and that would snowball something into something that the rest of us may not like we could have that now with the alternates only if the regular member is not in attendance not because they won't have a vote alternates don't have a vote when the regular members that's one of the problems I think they're trying to address is the voting of an alternate because if you read the bylaws alternates can vote and and not necessarily just because they're an alternate for their District but depends on who El what other districts have people here so last meeting we were down I should have been able to vote and it was found out after the fact even though my two people were here wait that's not clear in the audience well you were specifically asked and it was pointed out by the the manager guy that was here that last meeting and he followed up and said that you Bas that I should have been able to yeah so today I think I don't even know if the if the uh the statute that they're stating has anything I read through it kind of briefly but I don't think it says anything about on what the warum is I know it says 10 votes and it will never exceed 10 votes and I I think it's pretty confusing I I just I just probably was going to try to find it I I'll follow up with you guys about my question I mean we agree with you that's why we are offering up this ordinance change it is confusing and we don't want people to have waste not wasted but have sat through a long meeting potentially and not have their voice or expertise heard on so the CH that I don't I don't believe I asked that question Tobi is three three members that he could designate there's nobody from his district here is there currently I think has one alternate via online I think it just depends on when people leave or when they resign or if people get appointed it's just as simple as that okay well you're trying to expand the board and you know you don't even have you have some Commissioners that aren't even filling their positions so I don't understand that why you would expand the board when you don't have Commissioners that are even and and his responsibility is this this uh citizen board he's the representative that represents the interests of this board and he put nobody on the board it seems insane to me that you want to expand it and he doesn't seem to ort support the board so I don't know it just seemed a little weird I just came down to make some trouble and I think I've done that and I'll follow up tomorrow with those guys that the of course again and I appreciate you guys answering questions and you know that I I do have the contacted staff I'll follow up with an email and try to get some stuff all right figured out all right thank you guys very much thank you sir can we say meeting adjourn this time all right the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of County commissioners of Bard County Florida Space Coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of County commissioners of bravard County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]