[2:54] [Captioner present]
[4:29] >> Okay.
[4:29] Thank you.
[4:30] I'd like to recognize Pastor Gaston Kenny of the First
[4:36] Baptist Church of Cocoa.
[4:38] Nice to see you >> Thank you.
[4:44] Pastor Gaston is our youth administration pastor
[4:46] and he's unable to make it.
[4:47] I'm a senior pastor Dean Williamson.
[4:52] Thank you for the opportunity to pray.
[4:56] Let's pray.
[4:57] Dear father we thank you so much for all of your many blessings.
[5:00] We thank you that you woke us up this morning.
[5:03] We recognize that none of us made ourselves wake up
[5:07] but you gave us another day.
[5:09] You woke us up today.
[5:10] Lord help us not to take any of your blessings for granted.
[5:13] We have many concerns that we have
[5:16] that we want to bring before you because we
[5:18] know that you care for us.
[5:20] We have concerns about our emergency personnel.
[5:25] We have concerns about our schools.
[5:28] We have concerns about development.
[5:30] We have concerns about housing.
[5:33] We have concerns about taxes.
[5:35] Lord, we ask that you would give our commissioners
[5:40] and all everyone involved in government Lord please
[5:42] give us wisdom from you and guide us by your Holy Spirit
[5:46] so that this entire county can flourish and Lord we
[5:49] thank you for the blessing that you've given us
[5:52] in Jesus Christ that you died on the cross to pay for our sins
[5:55] and that we can have relationship with you
[5:58] through Jesus.
[5:58] We ask your blessings on this meeting.
[6:01] We pray that everything that is said and done
[6:03] would be in love and with goodwill for our fellow men.
[6:07] We pray this in Jesus name Amen.
[6:11] >> Thank you.
[6:12] That was wonderful.
[6:13] Help us start the day off right.
[6:15] Appreciate it.
[6:16] I'd like to ask everyone to stand for the pledge.
[6:20] Please face the flag.
[6:26] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
[6:29] and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
[6:31] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[6:38] Okay.
[6:38] I think first thing would be a motion
[6:47] to approve Commissioner Goodson to appear.
[6:51] >> I will make a motion for Commissioner Goodson
[6:53] to participate by phone.
[6:56] >> Motion for Commissioner Goodson to participate by phone.
[7:02] All in favor say aye yea.
[7:06] Good to have you.
[7:08] First item is approval of the minutes from May 7th,
[7:12] 2026 zoning meeting and the July 9th, 2026 Zoning meeting.
[7:17] >> Make a motion to approve.
[7:19] >> Motion and a second.
[7:20] All in favor say aye, carries unanimously.
[7:25] Thank you.
[7:26] E.1.
[7:27] We have a resolution honoring the life and memory
[7:30] of former County Manager Tom Jenkins,
[7:36] and I think we have family members.
[7:38] I would like to ask them to come up.
[7:42] Thank you so much for being here.
[7:45] It's good seeing you.
[7:47] I'd like to read the resolution then
[7:49] we will open up for comments.
[7:51] This is a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
[7:56] of Brevard County, Florida honoring
[7:58] the life and memory of former County Manager Tom Jenkins.
[8:02] Whereas the Board of County Commissioners
[8:04] county staff and commissioners of Brevard County
[8:07] pause to honor the memory and distinguished legacy
[8:10] of former County Manager Tom Jenkins,
[8:15] celebrating a lifetime of public service marked by unwavering
[8:19] stability, decisiveness and steady leadership
[8:22] and Whereas Tom Jenkins began his dedication to public service
[8:26] from the ground up starting in 1970 as an administrative aide
[8:31] in municipal government and advancing
[8:34] through key administrative roles across Florida
[8:37] including Surfside, Davie,
[8:39] Broward County before bringing his extensive government
[8:44] expertise to Brevard County as Deputy county administrator
[8:49] in 1986 and whereas following his service
[8:53] as interim administrator the Board of County Commissioners
[8:57] recognized his exceptional command
[9:00] and no nonsense administrative strength
[9:02] selecting him in February of 1988
[9:05] to serve as Brevard County Manager, a position he held
[9:10] with distinction for 17 years until 2005 making him one
[9:17] of the longest serving county managers in the state of Florida
[9:19] and whereas taking office at age 44 with a clear mission
[9:23] to bring stability to county government,
[9:25] Tom Jenkins immediately demonstrated his resolve
[9:28] by skillfully guiding Brevard County
[9:31] through significant fiscal hurdles
[9:34] earning lasting reputation as a master consensus
[9:38] builder capable of forging thoughtful compromises
[9:42] on complex high stakes issues and whereas as county manager
[9:48] he cultivated an organizational culture centered on teamwork,
[9:54] creativity and administrative independence inspiring county
[9:58] employees through a leadership style that was candid,
[10:02] decisive and deeply supportive of staff holding high
[10:05] expectations for hard work while remaining steadfastly focused
[10:10] on expanding community service and infrastructure for Brevard
[10:14] County residents and whereas his passion for governance
[10:17] and Brevard community continued long after his tenure as county
[10:22] manager serving five years as chief administrative officer
[10:25] for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office contributing as a trusted
[10:31] member of the Brevard County Charter Review Commission across
[10:35] three separate decades , 2009 and ten, 2015 and 16,
[10:43] and 2021 and 22 and whereas Tom Jenkins
[10:46] approached retirement one hole at the time as a dedicated
[10:49] member of the finance chair for Sentry Country Club
[10:53] where his spirited golf cart driving
[10:56] earned him the nickname of Evel Knievel
[11:03] and where he regularly appointed himself official armchair
[11:08] quarterback for his beloved Miami Dolphins and FSU Seminoles
[11:13] and whereas Tom Jenkins leaves behind an indelible mark
[11:17] on local government in Florida remembered
[11:19] by his colleagues, elected officials and citizens alike
[11:22] as a leader he brought in during stability,
[11:25] strengthened character and selfless dedication
[11:27] to the people of Brevard County now
[11:29] therefore be it resolved that the Board of County
[11:31] Commissioners of Brevard County,
[11:33] Florida does hereby express its profound sadness
[11:37] upon the passing of Tom Jenkins and offers
[11:40] its heartfelt condolences to his wife, Barbara, family, friends
[11:45] and former colleagues and records
[11:48] of enduring gratitude for visionary leadership
[11:52] and exemplary public service done and adopted
[11:56] this day of 2026.
[11:58] I just want to say just a few words because I was here when
[12:02] Tom came here and things were pretty tough .
[12:07] It was a very difficult time and he brought an overall sense
[12:14] of stability and confidence and pull people
[12:18] together like no one I've ever seen.
[12:21] The ability to build compromise on some really difficult issues.
[12:26] If you drive around Brevard County
[12:28] there is not many things that Tom Jenkins name
[12:35] is on double Dutch there's not many things we've achieved
[12:39] in the last 30 years that Tom Jenkins didn't play a very
[12:42] key role in making a reality.
[12:43] So as you drive around whether it's Brevard County Government
[12:47] Center, the Brevard Zoo, the former Marlins baseball
[12:53] facility, helped develop the tourist development tax,
[12:59] implement tourist development front
[13:01] when he came into office we were literally
[13:03] holding court in a hotel room.
[13:06] We had to evacuate our courthouse.
[13:08] We had no government center.
[13:11] Meetings were spread throughout the county 11
[13:14] different locations.
[13:15] It really was an amazing time.
[13:17] I think God gave us Tom Jenkins at a time where we most needed
[13:20] it.
[13:21] We had some great people prior to him
[13:23] but he was the person to really turn this county around
[13:26] and we as Brevard residents have so much to be grateful for.
[13:30] We set policy but it's the staff that really makes everything
[13:36] happen and he made all the things
[13:39] that we've benefited from as a community happen so I personally
[13:42] am grateful for Tom Jenkins and what an incredible opportunity
[13:45] it was to work with him.
[13:52] >> Thank you.
[13:53] >> So we do have a resolution.
[13:54] Would you like to say anything?
[13:57] >> No.
[13:58] >> Okay.
[13:59] Your presence here is enough.
[14:00] Thank you so much.
[14:02] Appreciate it.
[14:03] >> Do you want a motion?
[14:05] I will make a motion to >> Second.
[14:09] >> Motion and second for the resolution.
[14:10] All in favor, say yea.
[14:14] Carries unanimously.
[14:15] I just want to thank you for what your dedication has been
[14:18] to Brevard County because I know this job that he held was
[14:21] incredibly demanding and it required great support from home
[14:24] to give him the time and the independence and the freedom
[14:27] to really come a really -- to do what he did for all of us and we
[14:34] all are grateful for him.
[14:36] >> Thank you.
[14:58] [Background conversation]
[15:53] [Applause]
[16:18] >> Mr. Abbott.
[16:19] We have Mr. Abbott here I wish we could have done this for Tom
[16:22] while he was still alive to hear all the nice stuff
[16:28] but I want to recognize our past County manager.
[16:30] He was a great manager.
[16:32] The managers have a tough job trying
[16:34] to keep control of the commission
[16:36] and run a good staff and Mr. Abbott you did a great job.
[16:41] You got us through COVID and I just
[16:43] want to say I appreciate your.
[16:44] It's an honor to have you back in the building.
[16:52] [Applause]
[16:56] >> Thank you so much.
[16:58] Okay we will move to the agenda .
[17:06] Item F, consent agenda.
[17:07] Are there any items that we want to move from the consent?
[17:16] We have one card for f nine.
[17:32] We have one card for f nine.
[17:41] F9.
[17:41] Why don't we get a motion for the remainder of the consent
[17:44] agenda then we will hear F9.
[17:51] All in favor, say yea.
[17:53] Carries unanimously.
[17:56] Okay.
[17:58] F9.
[17:59] Approval of the Brevard County policy 76, caretakers policy.
[18:09] The card is from Richard Heffelfinger.
[18:19] >> Rick Heffelfinger, district one.
[18:20] I don't know did you just make a motion to approve this already?
[18:25] >> No.
[18:26] The consent agenda all but this.
[18:29] >> All right.
[18:29] My only issue with this was and I would
[18:31] like to make a recommendation.
[18:33] I do not like the idea that this policy now is totally
[18:37] in control of Parks and Rec.
[18:39] That would mean the board is relinquishing any input on this
[18:43] and any visibility to the public because this is
[18:45] where we find out what goes on.
[18:47] So I have no problem with the changes
[18:49] they made with the exception of title for part two, Subitem C
[18:54] where they struck the board of County commissioners actually
[19:00] authorizing the licensing.
[19:02] I think that should stay as the Board of County Commissioners
[19:05] so it comes before you guys before they put somebody
[19:08] in as a caretaker.
[19:09] I realize they are doing background checks and all
[19:11] that but I think for visibility for the public
[19:13] and for you to keep an eye on what's going on
[19:16] I think you should stay in that.
[19:17] I don't care if they maintain this instruction.
[19:19] It is your instruction, your policy.
[19:23] So if you have no part in it I don't
[19:26] know why you would have it as a Brevard County policy
[19:28] but if you would just amended to put yourself back
[19:30] in I think that would be the most prudent thing.
[19:32] I don't like you relinquishing control when in the past
[19:35] you had that.
[19:36] That's all I had.
[19:37] Thanks.
[19:38] >> Okay.
[19:39] Thank you for your input there.
[19:40] Any discussion on f nine?
[19:42] Motion would be in order.
[19:44] Motion to approve.
[19:47] Is there a second?
[20:01] All in favor, say yea.
[20:03] Carries unanimously.
[20:03] We move to G. We have no G cards for public comment.
[20:08] The first item for public hearing H one.
[20:12] >> Good morning commissioners.
[20:13] Item H one seeks consideration for the adoption
[20:17] of fire rescue schedules of fees and rates
[20:20] and charges for hazardous materials special Operations
[20:22] Team or the hazmat team, standby response, fire prevention
[20:28] and inspection rights.
[20:30] We proposed increasing the rate by 2.63% which is consistent
[20:34] with the Consumer Price index for 2026-2027 so it is
[20:40] consistent with CPI.
[20:41] If approved these rates would become effective on October 1st,
[20:47] 2026.
[20:50] >> A motion to approve and a second.
[20:52] For the record, no cards.
[20:54] Any discussion?
[20:55] All in favor say yea.
[21:01] Carries unanimously.
[21:03] Thank you.
[21:05] >> H two is similar to H one, a request for consideration
[21:08] of the adoption of the fire assessment resolution ratifying,
[21:12] confirming and certifying the fire services none of assessment
[21:15] roll for fiscal year 2026-27.
[21:19] The board adopted a resolution in 2025
[21:22] that included increases to the fire assessment
[21:24] rate consistent with the CPI rate 3% or CPI which is less.
[21:29] The CPI rate for 2026-2027 is 2.6% so if approved these would
[21:37] be effective for tax rules 2026-27.
[21:43] >> Any discussion?
[21:44] No cards.
[21:45] Do we have a motion?
[21:49] A motion and a second.
[21:52] All in favor, say yea.
[21:55] Carries unanimously.
[21:56] Thank you.
[21:57] H3.
[22:11] Random good morning, Mr. Chair.
[22:13] Item H three is a request for the board
[22:15] to approve revisions to policyG-100 evaluation
[22:23] procedures for development proposals
[22:25] pursuant to the Live Local Act which
[22:27] are not otherwise permissible.
[22:29] Revisions are necessary to come into conformance with state law
[22:32] as the Act has been amended since the policy was
[22:35] last revised.
[22:37] >> Okay.
[22:39] Maybe give us a few of the highlights of the changes.
[22:44] >> Sure.
[22:45] The biggest substantive change has
[22:46] to do with houses of worship.
[22:49] The state has mandated that for those
[22:52] who have used a particular property that meet out
[22:56] certain requirements as houses of worship for ten years or more
[23:00] they get similar live local Act provisions
[23:03] as commercial industrial uses prior to that.
[23:07] Meaning they can build affordable housing up
[23:09] to 30 units per acre.
[23:11] Most of the other changes to the policy were technical in nature
[23:17] to come into compliance with things like definition changes
[23:19] and things of that nature.
[23:26] >> Okay.
[23:26] We do have one card.
[23:27] Chelsea .
[23:32] >> Before I begin, I want to take a moment to congratulate
[23:38] Commissioner Feltner on his hard fought primary last week.
[23:41] I'm here regarding evaluation procedures
[23:43] for the live local act.
[23:45] Let me be clear.
[23:46] Public housing is important and so is public safety and land use
[23:49] policies have to account for both.
[23:51] I want to commend staff for including section one D4 which
[23:54] seeks to examine critical areas from these massive state
[23:57] mandated density spikes.
[23:59] However as written this exemption contains
[24:01] a massive blind spot for our county's evacuation corridors
[24:06] from section one D4 references the Brevard Barrier Island
[24:09] area of critical state concern for the statute that designation
[24:12] stands for Melbourne Beach South to the Sebastian Inlet
[24:16] however the state designation does not
[24:18] encompass all of our vulnerable coastal communities Per
[24:21] it does not include Cape Canaveral Cocoa Beach Merritt
[24:24] Island.
[24:24] This matters because our comprehensive plan recognizes
[24:27] that density and infrastructure are connected for compounding
[24:30] the risk our current comprehensive plan permits
[24:34] a maximum density of 37.5 units per acre
[24:38] within the Merritt Island redevelopment acre.
[24:41] For qualifying developments those existing density
[24:45] allowances can become the ceiling or depending
[24:49] on the circumstances the applicable development
[24:52] entitlement.
[24:52] In the Code of Ordinances it states that evacuation clearance
[24:57] times are determined by the most current Florida
[24:59] regional evacuation study maintained by the Florida
[25:03] Central Regional Planning Council permit
[25:05] for our current operational scenario
[25:07] it takes 14.5 hours just to clear evacuation level
[25:11] A which completely blankets Merritt Island and the beaches.
[25:15] Statute 163.3178 legally mandates a strict 16 hour out
[25:19] of county clearance at for these storms that leaves (Indistinct)
[25:24] under the same 2025 operational scenario the regional clearance
[25:29] time for a level E evacuation is 68 hours.
[25:31] That is 44 hours longer than what the statute mandates.
[25:35] The 520 and 528 causeways are fixed capacity infrastructure.
[25:40] Mandatory evacuation is ordered the barrier islands
[25:43] and Merritt Islands must drain through those exact same bridges
[25:46] simultaneously and anyone who has sat in traffic on the 528
[25:50] during a major cruise ship day understands
[25:53] how quickly these corridors can become constrained.
[25:55] Our coastal policies call for limiting density and vulnerable
[26:00] areas considering evacuation times when
[26:02] prioritizing transportation improvements
[26:04] and deferring development for adequate evacuation capacity
[26:07] does not exist.
[26:08] I ask you to evaluate whether Cape Canaveral Cocoa Beach
[26:11] and Merritt Island and other evacuation constrained areas
[26:15] should receive additional protection
[26:16] and whether Brevard County needs a clear defensible maximum
[26:20] density type two evacuation capacity.
[26:23] You have the administrative authority
[26:25] to tighten this language I urge the Commissioner to amend
[26:29] section one D4 to add Cape Canaveral Merritt
[26:32] Beach and Cocoa Island.
[26:33] Do not allow a geographic technicality
[26:36] to compromise the safety of our coastal residents.
[26:39] Thank you.
[26:44] >> Okay.
[26:45] Thank you.
[26:46] That was the only card.
[26:50] And discussion?
[26:52] >> A couple of things I think is worth pointing out on the house
[26:57] of worship situation is they cannot split the parcel later.
[27:01] Right?
[27:03] >> That's my understanding.
[27:05] >> And so that means those are not going to become individual
[27:11] homes that will then be sold.
[27:13] So those will always be a rental that
[27:16] is attached to the parent property
[27:18] permit I think we discussed that yesterday.
[27:23] Is there a way then because I always have this concern.
[27:27] I know I sound like a broken record
[27:29] but is there a way for us to stop short term
[27:35] rental on those parcels when they claim live local act?
[27:40] Or is that something we can take up?
[27:45] On each one of these as they come up?
[27:48] >> I don't think double touch this issue hasn't come up before
[27:53] but unless they were already entitled to do short term
[27:57] rentals as part of their existing zoning which they often
[28:03] would be able to if they are in commercial zoning --
[28:07] but absent that -- it's not the live local act that's allowing
[28:11] the short term rental.
[28:13] >> I understand.
[28:14] By virtue of them building additional rental housing
[28:17] on the property, now they could be
[28:21] in the business of doing short term rental
[28:24] for otherwise they are not doing that in someone's backyard.
[28:28] >> If it was a religious institution doing it under
[28:33] institutional zoning they would not be able to do short term
[28:36] rentals.
[28:38] >> That would only be a concern if I may,
[28:42] in the commercial zoning classifications.
[28:44] It would already be allowed there.
[28:48] Also they would still have to abide by the affordability
[28:51] requirements which limits somewhat the ability
[28:54] to do large scale short term rental permit
[28:58] >> Okay.
[28:59] Thank you.
[29:07] >> And I would think it would be very difficult to argue that
[29:09] short term rentals -- affordable housing.
[29:14] The live local Act only allows you
[29:16] to take these land use categories and provide
[29:19] for affordable housing.
[29:21] If anything, short term rentals have made affordable housing
[29:26] even more difficult.
[29:29] >> I don't disagree.
[29:31] >> I figured.
[29:34] >> It's a good point and I think it's very astute for you
[29:36] to bring that up.
[29:37] I'd like to say a few things.
[29:39] First that I can't begin to express how horrible this is
[29:43] and this is an example of big government ,
[29:50] big special interests far removed from the people just
[29:53] trouncing the rights of our landowners.
[29:55] And it started with the live Local act
[30:00] when they allowed industrial uses
[30:03] to be used as affordable housing.
[30:05] That is a lot different because if you are
[30:07] living next to industry, or B2.
[30:13] Whatever.
[30:14] Relatively intensive land use.
[30:17] You could argue, I think, that a residential uses much less
[30:22] intensive end with the problem of getting approval
[30:25] for affordable housing, that was a reasonable compromise,
[30:32] I think.
[30:33] Not that I agree with it.
[30:35] But this shows that reasonableness is not
[30:38] what was motivating these special interests to change
[30:41] the law.
[30:42] It was just pure greed.
[30:45] Now they're saying you can have in your neighborhood a church
[30:50] or a school, very low density community oriented use open
[30:59] space and because you were a religious institution you now
[31:05] have the ability to come in and put
[31:08] 30 units per acre affordable housing.
[31:12] Unconscionable.
[31:12] Completely and totally opposite to the original intent
[31:17] of the Live Local Act and I think Chelsea pointed out
[31:28] the issue of hurricane evacuation where you can have
[31:32] these --
[31:32] we have many churches and religious institutions
[31:35] on Barrier Island that's only going to clog our roads
[31:39] not only from a service point of view but things
[31:41] such as hurricane evacuation.
[31:43] The problem is, I don't think we have any authority
[31:48] to do anything about it, do we?
[31:50] I mean, this has been forced on us.
[31:54] >> Mr. Chair, that is accurate.
[31:56] The statute specifically exempt an area from the live local act
[32:02] we have no authority to designate additional areas
[32:06] for exclusion from the act.
[32:09] >> So in our south beaches we have some protection?
[32:13] >> We can't self designate as the speaker suggested.
[32:18] >> That's good news.
[32:19] At least we have that because that is a very critical
[32:22] hurricane evacuation zone.
[32:25] >> You made me think of something else.
[32:27] Can I ask one follow up?
[32:29] So they can operate this affordable housing
[32:32] as long as the church owns the property.
[32:34] As long as it continues to operate as a church?
[32:42] >> That's correct.
[32:42] The applicant is required to provide plans
[32:45] for the preservation of the House of public worship
[32:48] and continued operations.
[32:50] >> I just have to play devil's advocate here.
[32:52] There are churches that just cease to exist.
[32:55] We see them a lot.
[32:57] So in a situation where they built the housing on there
[33:01] and I imagine people have tenant rights, what
[33:05] happens if the church just goes defunct?
[33:11] >> It's only the live local act whether it's that or some other
[33:14] aspect they lose their status they become non-conforming lots.
[33:19] We haven't had that issue come up
[33:21] before but there is a question whether they can continue
[33:23] to operate or as affordable housing because typically
[33:27] if you're a nonconforming lot you
[33:29] get to continue the activity.
[33:33] >> Can I ask a follow up?
[33:35] I think in that situation, if the church were to go under,
[33:42] then potentially the new owner whoever it's in receivership
[33:45] whatever the case may be may have to come to the board --
[33:50] Planning and zoning board, and seek a zoning change
[33:54] at that point to make them conforming?
[33:58] >> I think that's accurate.
[34:00] At least if they are looking to do any new permits
[34:03] or things of that nature, something different,
[34:05] they would have to come into conformance.
[34:11] >> May I?
[34:13] Great points.
[34:14] Since this has started I understand what they are trying
[34:18] to do but them Florida Fellows really
[34:20] need to get their pencil sharpened and fix this.
[34:23] Another thing in here is, what is the definition
[34:26] of a house of worship?
[34:28] You know, that could spring up almost anywhere.
[34:31] So yeah.
[34:32] This is interesting.
[34:34] So yeah.
[34:41] >> A very good point on maintaining a faith based
[34:43] initiative.
[34:44] It wouldn't prevent -- for example,
[34:47] if I have a church of a particular denomination
[34:50] because I've seen churches that have sold.
[34:53] I went to preschool church Lutheran school church
[34:58] and now it's Non-denomination.
[35:00] The ownership could change as long
[35:02] as it maintains its entity as a 501 C three nonprofit
[35:06] religious institution.
[35:10] Then that new institution could operate affordable housing.
[35:16] I for one don't want to bring up examples of faith
[35:20] because it might seem like things
[35:23] but it could be a way of getting around
[35:27] if you have an established mainstream religious institution
[35:31] sells to any sort of entity that would qualify on federal law.
[35:38] This is a faith based institution,
[35:41] then they could operate affordable housing.
[35:44] Then they could do intensive multifamily zoning.
[35:47] Would that be possible?
[35:50] >> I think that's accurate.
[35:52] Staff is not in a position to evaluate the legitimacy of some
[35:57] of these religious beliefs so if it's a house of worship
[36:00] and it meets the definitions then
[36:01] they will be able to go forward.
[36:08] >> Okay.
[36:09] So what we have is no choice but to adjust our code
[36:11] to meet state law?
[36:14] >> The policy as written is designed to purely implement
[36:17] the state mandates for no more and no less.
[36:21] >> Motion to approve.
[36:23] >> Is there a second?
[36:27] All in favor, say yea.
[36:30] Carries unanimously.
[36:31] Next item.
[36:35] H four.
[36:38] >> H four is for the adoption of an ordinance to amend membership
[36:41] to the Planning and Zoning Board and by extension to the local
[36:45] Planning agency.
[36:46] Specifically it would reduce membership
[36:48] from 15 voting members to ten voting members,
[36:52] two from each district.
[36:53] Non-voting membership would remain unchanged.
[36:56] Unless the board gives other direction it is requested that
[37:00] each board member submit two members to sit on the Planning
[37:03] and Zoning Board by September 1st which would allow us
[37:06] to reconstitute the Advisory board in time for a September
[37:09] 14th the meeting.
[37:11] >> Okay.
[37:12] We have one card.
[37:14] Richard Heffelfinger.
[37:21] >> Rick Heffelfinger district one.
[37:23] This whole thing has been kind of done I would say poorly.
[37:28] I don't understand what the urgency was.
[37:33] On 8/4 meeting a motion was removed during board reports
[37:44] which is already sloppy procedure as far
[37:46] as I'm concerned.
[37:47] The public had no notification of that attempt.
[37:51] That to me sucks just to use a common word.
[37:53] Then on eight six at the zoning meeting,
[37:58] there was added a consent item.
[38:01] That required a supermajority override
[38:03] to allow a consent item to go forward at a zoning meeting.
[38:07] That consent item was to remove one of the D1 designated
[38:13] of the three and replace him with Robert Jordan
[38:18] and it seemed that the reason for doing
[38:20] that was some type of critical timing needed.
[38:22] I don't understand what that was other than the fact that we know
[38:26] also that on 8/17 from the board request to modify the procedure
[38:38] which was not very clear what you wanted to modify --
[38:41] you said you were going to look at voting requirements quorum.
[38:44] Going back down to ten was stated to reduce the size
[38:48] but the quorum was stated hey let's review
[38:50] the quorum but at the PNC meeting with the civilians,
[38:56] that item was presented.
[38:58] They did not get a written draft of the policy.
[39:00] They were just told hey.
[39:01] What we want to do is go to ten and we would
[39:04] like the quorum to go to three.
[39:08] Where did the quorum of three come from?
[39:11] Three is not a quorum of ten.
[39:13] That makes it look like that you delegitimize the whole ten
[39:20] voting members.
[39:21] Have three people only show up and the whole problem
[39:24] with the reason that you claim that you wanted
[39:26] to reduce the quorum was that you
[39:27] can't get people to attend To.
[39:30] Well, the PNZ local guys said that has not
[39:38] been a problem for a long time.
[39:40] They are dedicated to show up as their civic responsibility.
[39:44] You delegitimize half the people on there
[39:46] when you make a quorum of three.
[39:47] It makes it look like you don't care
[39:49] and that is an improper quorum.
[39:51] If you've got ten, the quorum should be six.
[39:54] That's what it was.
[39:54] Right?
[39:55] So that is an improper quorum for any application of a voting
[39:59] member.
[39:59] I realize their vote doesn't even matter to you.
[40:02] You can override their recommendation.
[40:04] Fine.
[40:04] But that just seems like and by the way,
[40:07] the guy that was because of the timing matter
[40:10] Robert Jordan was replaced.
[40:12] I believe was the guy the gentleman.
[40:14] He didn't even show up at his first zoning meeting.
[40:17] That's your problem.
[40:18] People that don't show up.
[40:20] I think that quorum should go back to six
[40:22] or maybe compromise at five.
[40:24] That's what they wanted.
[40:25] Thank you.
[40:28] >> Thank you.
[40:30] Okay.
[40:31] Any questions?
[40:32] Those are all the cards that we have.
[40:36] All right.
[40:37] A motion would be in order.
[40:40] A motion and a second to approve.
[40:45] All in favor, say yea.
[40:47] Carries unanimously.
[40:49] H5.
[41:03] >> Good morning, commissioners.
[41:05] Item H5 is requesting for actions from the board.
[41:08] Action number one is the adoption of the solid waste
[41:12] Disposal special assessment rate resolution for fiscal year
[41:16] 2026-27 that reflects a 5.33% increase which is the Consumer
[41:21] Price index for garbage and trash average from March 2025
[41:25] through February 2026.
[41:26] The second action is to adopt the solid waste collection
[41:30] and recycling special Assessment Rate resolution for fiscal year
[41:33] 2026-27.
[41:34] That reflects a 3% increase which
[41:37] correlates with the collection contract that
[41:39] allows a 3% increase.
[41:42] The third action is to adopt a schedule of special rates
[41:46] and gate charges resolution for fiscal year 2026-27 which also
[41:51] carries the 5.33% increase and then the fourth action is
[41:55] to ratify, confirm and certify the annual disposal collection
[42:00] and recycling assessment rolls to the Brevard County Tax
[42:03] Collector and I will answer any questions if you have them.
[42:08] >> Do you need separate motions?
[42:10] >> I think that you could just go ahead and approve all four
[42:13] actions.
[42:18] >> Okay.
[42:18] So we can do that in one motion.
[42:19] I don't think we have any cards here.
[42:21] No cards?
[42:22] All right.
[42:24] Any other questions?
[42:27] >> I will make a motion to approve.
[42:29] >> There is a motion and second to approve.
[42:33] All in favor, say yea.
[42:35] Carries unanimously.
[42:36] Thank you.
[42:38] Next On to H6.
[42:56] >> Good morning, commissioners.
[42:57] H six is the annual adoption of the stormwater utility
[43:07] resolution ratifying, confirming and certifying
[43:10] the annual stormwater utility special assessment.
[43:14] >> We do have one card.
[43:16] Richard Heffelfinger.
[43:23] >> Rick Heffelfinger district one.
[43:25] My question is to kind of clarify for me as well as maybe
[43:28] the public, I see a $64 number yet I got my trim notice here
[43:33] and I know that I get a special assessment for road and bridge
[43:37] district 1MSTU.
[43:38] It's not $64.
[43:40] I was just wondering if you could clarify.
[43:43] We didn't increase this.
[43:44] Where does that show up?
[43:46] Where do I pay that $64?
[43:48] That was my only question if you could answer that.
[43:52] >> It's a simple question.
[43:54] Okay.
[43:55] >> The stormwater utility rate is not the same as the Mstu that
[43:59] he is referencing but I'd be happy to look at your trim
[44:02] notice and identify the $64.
[44:06] >> Mr. Chair if I may, the stormwater assessment is
[44:09] a special assessment.
[44:10] It does not appear on your notice.
[44:13] It is what they call below the line
[44:14] but they can look it up and provide it to you.
[44:17] >> Just to clarify though that is on the tax bill that comes
[44:20] at Halloween.
[44:21] It's just not on the trim notice because the fees are adopted
[44:25] after the trim goes out.
[44:27] >> So it's not ad valorem?
[44:29] Is that what you're saying?
[44:31] >> Yes sir.
[44:37] >> Okay.
[44:41] >> We need a motion?
[44:45] >> Motion to approve H6.
[44:48] Second.
[44:49] All in favor, say yea.
[44:53] Carries unanimously.
[44:54] Thank you.
[44:55] H7.
[45:15] >> H7 is a request by Strada development for property
[45:23] 2316605, 2316606, 2316607, 2316617 to be ratified pursuant
[45:35] to section 163.3162. (Indistinct) not a topic that
[45:46] would specifically be considered relevant at this public hearing.
[45:49] >> Okay.
[45:50] We have cards .
[45:55] We will hear from Representative Kim Rezanka.
[46:03] >> Good morning.
[46:04] My name is Kim Rezanka .
[46:10] I'm here on behalf of Strata Development LLC.
[46:13] With me there is a representative Chris Foley
[46:19] and the prior owner.
[46:21] And Troy Luntz who is the current lessee of the property.
[46:29] Thank you for your time.
[46:32] I didn't even notice.
[46:33] So you have before you something brand new.
[46:36] The legislature just approved it.
[46:39] It was July 1st of 2026.
[46:41] The application is a bit odd.
[46:44] We've never done it before.
[46:45] We tried to put it together pretty quickly.
[46:48] A lot of information in that packet.
[46:52] The entire packet is very very large
[46:53] as I'm sure you have seen in the purpose here is to go briefly
[46:58] over the packet of application, the staff report
[47:01] and then we have the two witnesses that will testify
[47:04] to agricultural bona fide use of this property
[47:07] actually since about 2015.
[47:09] This new Florida statute 163.3162
[47:13] requires that you determine that the property is
[47:19] owned by a single person which it was in your packet.
[47:23] It has been continuously used for agricultural purposes
[47:27] for a period of five years before the date of this
[47:31] to be development application to be submitted.
[47:34] All this does is provide that this is an agricultural enclave
[47:39] and then we still have to come forward
[47:41] with a development plan, preliminary plat
[47:44] or some other pre-application meeting.
[47:46] So this does not give any entitlements
[47:48] to this property at this time.
[47:51] That's just allows us to move forward with the development
[47:54] application for this property.
[47:56] There is another -- an affidavit in your packet.
[48:08] The location requirements based on the adjacent properties --
[48:12] in your packet there is a map.
[48:15] Hand-drawn, I apologize.
[48:17] There are 27 properties that surround this.
[48:20] The properties to the south of East Cristofoli road
[48:24] also apply based on the definitions in the statute
[48:27] so there are 27 properties.
[48:29] 20 of those are developed with single family residential.
[48:32] All of them are future land use residential.
[48:35] So that is one of the criteria.
[48:37] Has public service or will have public service.
[48:41] That is why you have the zoning report in this application.
[48:44] Because the zoning report that was denied previously talks
[48:47] about the water and sewer which was there.
[48:49] I put in a map of parks because some jurisdictions
[48:53] say that parks are a public facility so that
[48:55] is why that map of parks is in there, as well.
[48:58] And that it meets the acreage requirement.
[49:01] This is 142 acres.
[49:03] That is less than the maximum of 700 acres per month so with
[49:09] that, I will ask that you approve this as an agricultural
[49:14] enclave but I do wish to call it Mr.
[49:17] Bud Cristofoli to tell about the use of the property and his
[49:20] lease on that property for many many years permit are --
[49:37] >> Good morning commissioners and staff.
[49:40] My name is Bud Cristofoli, North Merritt Island 5525 North
[49:45] Portman Parkway.
[49:46] If you have any specific questions I can answer them
[49:49] but I can tell you that this property has been agricultural
[49:53] since the 40s when it was planted in Citrus Grove
[49:58] by the Laroche family.
[49:59] I have been on this and had the lease on this property
[50:02] since 2015.
[50:03] We have run cattle.
[50:06] That is when the Groves started going downhill
[50:09] and the owner asked us to step in.
[50:11] We were kind of helping him with his grove.
[50:13] Family friend.
[50:14] And so we have been there continuously
[50:16] and all through this time.
[50:18] We changed it over to 782 when we formed the Corporation
[50:21] for the land.
[50:23] 782 East Cristofoli road so we call it 782 LLC,
[50:27] and we have farmed cattle until Samuel MacK notified the state
[50:33] that he would be taking over that lease sometime after
[50:36] the first of this year around January 15th or February.
[50:42] We actually still had cows in there
[50:44] because we had a few renegades who got out of the pens
[50:47] when we were trying to get off the property but we finally
[50:50] got everything out and he has been there
[50:52] since that period of time but if there's
[50:54] anything else I can let you know about,
[50:56] I will be glad to answer any questions.
[51:04] >> Okay comment any >> I have a quick question.
[51:07] I was by there and looked at it.
[51:09] I noticed to the back of the property
[51:10] if I'm looking at the right spot,
[51:12] it looked like there was palm trees, cultured palm trees.
[51:20] Is there any (Indistinct) palms or is it off the property?
[51:28] >> We do have palms.
[51:31] We sold hundreds of them at one time.
[51:34] >> So it was not just cattle agriculture?
[51:36] It was ornamental?
[51:39] >> We have tree farms.
[51:40] They are across the street on our other family properties.
[51:44] I didn't concentrate on that there but there were
[51:46] so many palms and rather than just putting them in a pile,
[51:49] we did sell those and move those to different parcels
[51:51] of our own property but it is primarily cattle.
[51:54] It is continually and entirely fenced around the perimeter.
[52:00] >> Just noticing on the back of the property it looks like
[52:02] there's a palm grove.
[52:05] >> It looks like that when you clean around it and that is
[52:07] because every place there was an orange tree,
[52:11] a bird landed in that tree and bought that area and you will
[52:15] notice in some of the old Groves it looks like you have planted
[52:18] palm trees because they are now in their 20th and 30th year
[52:21] of being frozen out.
[52:23] >> I noticed there is a line colonnade of palms in front
[52:26] of the property that really looks nice.
[52:28] Do those come from the site or were those brought from outside?
[52:35] >> Both.
[52:35] We had some on one side.
[52:37] And Australian pines around the property,
[52:42] too, from back in the old days when
[52:45] they protected their property with pine trees from the wind.
[52:50] >> Mr. Cristofoli since the time that you had the lease
[52:53] on the property were you aware that the property had
[52:56] an agricultural classification by the Brevard County Property
[52:59] Appraiser's office?
[53:01] >> Yes.
[53:01] We reviewed that on a regular basis.
[53:03] We also had an Fdacs with the state on the property best
[53:07] management practice.
[53:09] In order to comply with the different regulations
[53:13] and apply for these approvals we have
[53:16] to have that to do our fencing in certain areas
[53:19] and maintain the property in certain areas.
[53:24] >> Okay.
[53:25] >> Thank you.
[53:27] >> Thank you commissioners and thank you.
[53:29] Nobody ever says thank you for what you do but thank you.
[53:33] >> Thank you.
[53:34] >> Next I would ask who also has a card, Troy Rentz.
[53:54] >> Good morning.
[53:55] My name is Troy Rentz.
[53:56] I'm the president of Gold Coast Land Management.
[54:00] We have managed and farmed the property since the purchase
[54:04] in 2025.
[54:06] It still remains as a commercial cow calf operation
[54:16] as Mr. Cristofoli has had for years past.
[54:20] It meets the requirements of good faith, bona fide
[54:25] agriculture and has been approved by the Brevard County
[54:29] Property Appraiser under section 193.461,
[54:33] so it is a continued green belt property.
[54:39] We run about 50 head of commercial cattle on it,
[54:43] so it is a cow calf operation.
[54:52] >> Okay.
[54:53] Any questions?
[54:56] Okay.
[54:58] >> Thank you.
[55:00] >> With that, we would ask that you accept
[55:03] the staff's recommendation that this does indeed meet
[55:07] the criteria of the agricultural enclave certification process
[55:10] and that you find that this is an agricultural enclave.
[55:15] If there's any questions --
[55:17] I just didn't want to go through the entire package.
[55:20] I'm happy to do it if you would like me
[55:22] to but your staff has said that we meet
[55:24] the requirements and the only issue that may have come up
[55:27] was to prove that there were indeed cattle
[55:29] on the property since 2015.
[55:32] Over the five year period required permit --.
[55:51] >> We do have one card.
[55:54] >> Good morning.
[55:55] My name is Danielle and I live on the Western side
[55:57] of Cristofoli and the corner of Justin Road and East Cristofoli
[56:00] Road.
[56:01] I'm asking the board to deny the project altogether.
[56:03] I want both sides to be heard today.
[56:06] The applicant has every right to present their case.
[56:09] The community has equal rights to present why this request
[56:14] doesn't belong here.
[56:17] Those surrounding properties are large agricultural and rural
[56:25] parcels.
[56:26] County code says zoning is meant to protect
[56:32] the spacious character.
[56:33] Half cluster lots on this scale would break the established
[56:38] problem of the corridor.
[56:40] The most severe problem though is flooding.
[56:42] The historic drainage system drains westward
[56:45] toward Jensen Road and as a resident living
[56:47] at the downstream end of it I can tell you
[56:49] from direct experience that the ground where I live stays
[56:52] saturated for months and not just days even
[56:55] after an ordinary rain.
[56:56] Standing water and waterlogged soil
[56:58] persist long after the rain stops.
[57:01] Access becomes difficult or impossible
[57:03] during these extended periods of wet.
[57:05] The applicant's own engineer has stated
[57:07] that the development footprint will be 50 to 55 acres.
[57:11] Replacing that much vegetation and open drainage
[57:13] with rooftops and driveways and roads
[57:15] will push some more stormwater and push it faster
[57:19] into a system that is already failing.
[57:21] The result will be more frequent, deeper
[57:23] and long lasting flooding on the downstream properties
[57:26] where people already live and I've seen it every time
[57:30] a rainstorm comes through there.
[57:32] My neighbor's yards also flood into their homes.
[57:34] I also need to ask this question for the record.
[57:37] If the additional runoff from the 61 homes
[57:40] causes or worsens artificial stormwater accumulation
[57:43] and results in physical damage to established downstream
[57:46] properties, what specific legal remedies for county hazard
[57:50] mitigation protocols are in place
[57:52] to hold the appropriate parties accountable?
[57:54] The North Merritt Island Board previously
[57:58] struck denial of this request and prefer lower density zoning
[58:02] permit that recommendation should carry weight.
[58:04] I'm not opposed to all development.
[58:07] I'm opposed to a proposal that does not fit the land
[58:09] or the drainage system that already struggles
[58:11] under current conditions.
[58:12] For those reasons I ask the board to deny probably
[58:16] 2500039 as Proposed.
[58:19] Thank you.
[58:26] >> I have a couple of questions.
[58:27] You may want to stay here because you've
[58:29] made some good points and it has brought some things
[58:31] to light that I want to clarify with staff.
[58:33] Could you address this as a zoning item?
[58:37] >> Yeah.
[58:39] I wasn't sure.
[58:42] >> It's never been done in the history of Florida so you're not
[58:44] the only one but this really is not what we're reviewing is it?
[58:51] >> This is not a request for a rezoning.
[58:53] The board previously denied a rezoning request
[58:55] and the next item on your agenda relates to that rezoning request
[58:59] but the item before you is not.
[59:01] This is about agricultural enclave certification.
[59:05] Whether it meets all the statutory criteria
[59:08] that the state sets up to classify it
[59:10] as an agricultural enclave.
[59:12] If it does meet those criteria, certain aspects
[59:16] of our land use development of regulations
[59:20] are preempted by state law.
[59:22] They would be able to pull in development rights
[59:24] from a neighboring parcel.
[59:26] In this case, Indian River preserve.
[59:30] But this is not a request for a rezoning.
[59:32] This is a request to certify whether it
[59:34] meets the state mandated requirements
[59:36] of an agricultural enclave.
[59:45] >> Was H seven and I one so I did put the I first so maybe I
[59:47] had messed up so I went ahead and redid it to the H seven
[59:51] so that was completely my bad.
[59:54] >> I'm glad you're here.
[59:55] We are on untrodden ground here so
[59:58] what would it be possible would be something
[1:00:00] compatible with a nearby land use such as Indian River
[1:00:06] preserve.
[1:00:08] >> I'm sorry I misspoke.
[1:00:09] I think it's Island forest Preserve but yes.
[1:00:13] Frankly compatibility doesn't really play into the analysis.
[1:00:16] If a neighboring property has those entitlements
[1:00:19] they would get the same entitlements.
[1:00:23] >> Okay.
[1:00:24] I know the applicant may have some feedback on that
[1:00:26] but I just want to be sure you understood.
[1:00:29] >> Yeah.
[1:00:30] Very confused on that one so again my apologies.
[1:00:34] >> No confusion.
[1:00:35] Again this is untrodden ground.
[1:00:38] I think there is only one other place
[1:00:40] in the entire state that might be
[1:00:42] evaluating this enclave issue.
[1:00:44] But it is again another thing that the state of Florida
[1:00:47] has passed just mandating and forcing onto >> I know.
[1:00:54] I've read it many times.
[1:00:55] >> Just a technical question.
[1:00:56] Thank you Mr. Chair.
[1:00:57] By virtue of doing this they still have site plan review
[1:01:02] and they're still going to do stormwater retention
[1:01:05] on the property as part of that process?
[1:01:09] >> That is correct and in this area there is enhanced
[1:01:12] requirements for required capacity storage.
[1:01:15] >> Thank you.
[1:01:17] >> Okay.
[1:01:18] All right.
[1:01:19] That was our last card.
[1:01:23] >> Yes.
[1:01:23] That's why I tried to explain why we had part of the zoning
[1:01:26] report in this application.
[1:01:27] It was just to preserve their public services which are part
[1:01:32] of the requirements of the ag certification so again until we
[1:01:36] present a development plan, the staff will have some discretion
[1:01:41] to go by the codes to make sure it meets the definition
[1:01:47] of the state statute which is a little vague but this is a brand
[1:01:52] new state statute July 1st 2026 and we did not intend to go this
[1:01:58] process.
[1:01:59] It was just something the state legislature has allowed
[1:02:02] so that's why we are here and we would
[1:02:03] ask for the AG certification.
[1:02:08] >> All right.
[1:02:09] Commissioner Goodson.
[1:02:11] >> I would like to make the motion (Indistinct)
[1:02:18] >> Second.
[1:02:19] >> A motion and a second to approve the agricultural enclave
[1:02:22] designation.
[1:02:22] Any discussion?
[1:02:23] All those in favor say yea.
[1:02:28] Carries unanimously.
[1:02:31] Thank you and we will move to I one.
[1:02:42] >> I one is for consideration of a tentative settlement agreement
[1:02:44] which comes to you from mediation under the Florida Land
[1:02:48] Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act.
[1:02:57] Miss Kim Rezanka represents the applicant
[1:03:03] who is the subject of the previous item.
[1:03:06] I believe given the action on the previous item
[1:03:08] this action may be moot but I will
[1:03:11] let miss Rezanka speak to that.
[1:03:17] >> Good good morning.
[1:03:19] Kim Rezanka here on behalf of Strada Development, LLC.
[1:03:25] Here with me also is Dustin Gudgel
[1:03:27] representing Strada Development, LLC.
[1:03:31] This process called FLUEDRA is under the Bert Harris mediation
[1:03:37] process.
[1:03:38] We brought this forward after rezoning
[1:03:40] was denied for SR with the PDP and this is the same property
[1:03:44] in Merritt Island, 143 acres.
[1:03:46] We went through this process we started
[1:03:49] this process before the ag agriculture Enclave
[1:03:53] certification.
[1:03:54] As I mentioned previously, the ag
[1:03:58] enclave Certification law is brand new.
[1:04:00] To me it is a little ambiguous as to what it allows and does
[1:04:03] not allow and we don't know what development
[1:04:05] will be allowed until we have a preliminary plat which
[1:04:09] is a fully engineered drawn like a pud.
[1:04:11] We're hoping to do that soon but in an abundance of caution
[1:04:14] we went through this process.
[1:04:16] We mediated for about 5.5 hours with staff --
[1:04:25] I mean there were 5 or 6 staff members.
[1:04:26] We had a mediated.
[1:04:28] I was there.
[1:04:29] Three members of the development team
[1:04:31] were there including the engineer
[1:04:32] and we came forward with this mediation agreement.
[1:04:37] It was mediated in good faith.
[1:04:39] Staff has recommended it and this is an option
[1:04:41] to the agriculture enclave.
[1:04:43] We are not withdrawing it at this time.
[1:04:45] What this does is allow it to come back
[1:04:47] before you with the RR one zoning
[1:04:49] so we still have to come back.
[1:04:51] It is still a public hearing as mentioned
[1:04:54] in one of the letters that is in your packet,
[1:04:56] and you may recall previously the more North Merritt Island
[1:05:01] Special District Board did indicate that RR1 was something
[1:05:06] they would have considered had we
[1:05:08] asked for it for this property.
[1:05:10] We had gone with the SR zoning request
[1:05:13] because Highland Forest Preserve has SR with a BD p.
[1:05:17] We had no intention of using this as a subdivision.
[1:05:20] We intend to use half acre lots which
[1:05:22] is still with the developer wishes to do.
[1:05:25] However one acre lots are acceptable to the developer
[1:05:28] so we would ask that you indeed approve the settlement
[1:05:31] agreement that has been recommended and signed by staff
[1:05:33] and recommended by the mediator, Judge David Duggan,
[1:05:37] and allow us to go forward.
[1:05:38] However the settlement agreement does say we will come back
[1:05:41] October 1st for the hearing if you give us a rehearing.
[1:05:43] We would like to move that until December 10th.
[1:05:47] I believe that is the first and only zoning meeting in December.
[1:05:50] That way if we are able to move forward and have confidence
[1:05:53] that we can go forward with the development plan
[1:05:55] under the AG Enclave certification
[1:05:57] we will then withdraw the zoning application.
[1:05:59] So we would ask that you approve the settlement agreement.
[1:06:02] We will still make the application but again,
[1:06:05] modify the settlement agreement to come back to public hearing
[1:06:09] on December 10th.
[1:06:10] So with that we would ask for your approval
[1:06:13] of the tentative settlement agreement.
[1:06:18] >> Okay.
[1:06:18] We have no other cards?
[1:06:20] Morris, did you push that button? >> I did.
[1:06:28] I like to clarify for accuracy and to make
[1:06:30] the record clear in this case staff is not recommended
[1:06:33] that the board take a specific action for under the agreement
[1:06:36] the obligation of staff was to request whether the board wished
[1:06:39] to consider to reopen the public hearing
[1:06:41] and whether the board wished to reconsider its denial.
[1:06:44] Staff did not recommend the denial
[1:06:46] that the requested action is to consider
[1:06:49] whether the Board of County Commissioners
[1:06:51] consider the recommendation to reopen the public hearing
[1:06:54] and consider its denial of the application.
[1:06:55] You are given three options under board action which
[1:06:58] is approve the recommendation, reject
[1:07:01] the recommendation of the magistrate, not staff,
[1:07:04] and not a formal recommendation that was just incorporating
[1:07:07] the agreement or an alternative option
[1:07:09] where the board modifies it.
[1:07:11] I would advise the board to consider the precedence you
[1:07:20] might establish by denying without sending it back
[1:07:25] through North Merritt Island Ford and the Planning and Zoning
[1:07:29] Board which would be the outcome if you
[1:07:30] were to approve this request.
[1:07:32] I would agree with Mr. Prasad that I
[1:07:35] think it is largely mooted by virtue
[1:07:36] of the board's agricultural enclave certification.
[1:07:40] The board's hands were tied by the state in that case.
[1:07:42] I think you had no choice but to approve that.
[1:07:45] You have a free choice with regard to this action.
[1:07:47] Staff is not recommending that you take
[1:07:49] any particular one >> Okay.
[1:07:54] Any questions?
[1:07:54] >> Can I just ask an order of operations question here Kim Mac
[1:07:57] why not just table this one and wait for the Argonne --
[1:08:09] Ag enclave situation to play out?
[1:08:15] >> We could revisit this after?
[1:08:16] Maybe that's the cleaner thing to do.
[1:08:19] >> I think that would be absolutely fine.
[1:08:21] October 1st maybe premature because that would be prior to I
[1:08:25] think it is 180 days after you submit an application
[1:08:30] for the process to play out under the AG enclave so I
[1:08:34] don't know if we will necessarily know more
[1:08:39] on September 1st.
[1:08:42] >> December 10th.
[1:08:44] >> I don't think you need to table it to a date certain.
[1:08:47] I think this public hearing didn't
[1:08:48] have specific advertising requirements tied to it
[1:08:51] other than putting it in.
[1:08:52] So we could leave it open ended or you could put double dashes
[1:08:56] up to the board.
[1:08:58] >> I just mean for the sake of the applicant,
[1:09:00] split it with you.
[1:09:02] We could say we will take it up December 10th and if the AG
[1:09:05] enclave has figured it out before then then this is a moot
[1:09:09] point.
[1:09:09] Then you will pull it.
[1:09:12] >> We certainly will.
[1:09:13] >> That's acceptable to her.
[1:09:15] Is that okay with the board?
[1:09:19] >> Before we have a motion I would like to hear from
[1:09:23] Commissioner Goodson.
[1:09:24] Did you have any preferences just out of deference?
[1:09:29] >> No sir I don't.
[1:09:34] What Commissioner Feltner once is good with me.
[1:09:39] >> I'm sorry.
[1:09:39] I didn't mean to step on him.
[1:09:41] I appreciate that.
[1:09:43] I show deference, too.
[1:09:48] So we will table this till December 10th and hope that
[1:09:51] the ag enclave situation works itself out by then.
[1:09:53] If not then we will consider this then.
[1:09:55] That's my motion.
[1:09:58] >> Second.
[1:10:03] >> All in favor, say yea.
[1:10:05] Motion carries and we will move on to J1 new business.
[1:10:09] Which is my item.
[1:10:11] This is asking the board to approve a letter,
[1:10:14] and what the letter does is it offers support for original LNG
[1:10:22] production storage infrastructure facility
[1:10:26] at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
[1:10:32] So it is not an effort to put LNG outside the Space Center
[1:10:37] but I know that KSC is in the process of creating an LNG
[1:10:45] facility on site.
[1:10:46] This simply supports that to support the LNG needs.
[1:10:49] We know for example, one structural launch --
[1:10:56] I've heard anywhere from 200 to 400 or 500 semi trucks load
[1:11:00] of LNG just to support one launch and this would keep
[1:11:03] production -- collection and production on site.
[1:11:09] I would make a motion that we -- >> And just a quick thing.
[1:11:13] So this relieves the notion that they
[1:11:16] are going to be doing LNG production somewhere
[1:11:19] along the barge canal?
[1:11:22] >> Absolutely.
[1:11:23] >> Okay.
[1:11:24] >> This would be at the Kennedy Space Center.
[1:11:28] Motion and a second.
[1:11:31] All in favor, say yea.
[1:11:35] Opposed?
[1:11:35] Carries unanimously.
[1:11:36] Thank you.
[1:11:37] We will move to the second public comment.
[1:11:41] >> We have no cards commissaire.
[1:11:43] >> We have no cards then we will go to board reports.
[1:11:46] County manager Kim MacK
[1:11:48] >> I have just one item.
[1:11:49] A resident sent in a comment card for Liam Lamb,
[1:11:54] natural resources and the person was guidance on native plants
[1:11:58] and a resident said Liam is awesome and helpful.
[1:12:02] I know them and the resident is correct.
[1:12:04] Awesome and helpful.
[1:12:09] >> Awesome and helpful on native plants so we know who to call.
[1:12:13] That's wonderful.
[1:12:15] Thank you.
[1:12:16] County Attorney Kim Mac
[1:12:18] >> I have no report come Mr. Chair.
[1:12:21] >> Commissioner district one?
[1:12:25] >> I would like to just piggyback on what you said
[1:12:27] earlier about the county staff and their support.
[1:12:29] This is such a great staff and I just
[1:12:31] want to thank you all for all of your help and your wisdom
[1:12:34] and all the studying you do.
[1:12:37] So I just wanted to jump in with what you said earlier.
[1:12:39] Thanks, guys.
[1:12:44] >> Fantastic.
[1:12:44] District two?
[1:12:46] >> No report.
[1:12:47] >> District three?
[1:12:49] >> I actually have a request more than a report.
[1:12:52] I'm hoping the board will support me
[1:12:54] in asking the eels SMC to reconsider a property that they
[1:12:59] recently denied.
[1:13:00] There is a piece of property that is Down in Mico.
[1:13:08] It sits on waterfront and it is important to me
[1:13:15] that the public have water access.
[1:13:17] My hope for that piece of property
[1:13:20] is that it just stays natural.
[1:13:23] Maybe a kayak launch.
[1:13:24] Kids can get to the river.
[1:13:26] It is along the San Sebastian River.
[1:13:29] I just think that it would have -- there is a lot of public --
[1:13:37] there's a lot of protected land down there by Saint Johns and I
[1:13:40] think well for us our eels -- it would just be one piece that we
[1:13:45] have there.
[1:13:46] If you look at it in the big scheme of all
[1:13:48] that is down there, protecting the waterfront
[1:13:50] and keeping access to the public I think
[1:13:52] would be really worthwhile so I'm just
[1:13:54] asking them to reconsider it I just
[1:13:56] wanted your support to do that.
[1:13:58] >> How much is the owner wanting for the property, do you know?
[1:14:06] >> So the conversation has been very flexible.
[1:14:09] I know on the property Appraiser's website it says it
[1:14:12] is vacant commercial land and the market value per acre is
[1:14:16] 831,670 come up with my big math that would put it at 2.5
[1:14:23] million.
[1:14:24] To be fair, we wouldn't be losing about $9,000 a year
[1:14:28] in tax money, which is a bummer but I think if we look
[1:14:32] to the future and the importance of keeping access,
[1:14:35] that is really important to the situation.
[1:14:40] Obviously Ian is here if we have any questions that are
[1:14:43] technical that I can't answer.
[1:14:44] So for me the importance is public access to water
[1:14:47] and just asking SMC to reconsider this property.
[1:14:58] >> I'm familiar with this property.
[1:14:58] It is unique.
[1:14:59] It's one of the last remaining natural pieces of property
[1:15:03] on the San Sebastian River, which
[1:15:06] is a unique and environmental resource for manatees.
[1:15:11] I think Florida outstanding water is out there right
[1:15:15] off of Sebastian Lane.
[1:15:17] I think it's great to have that as well
[1:15:20] as potential recreational use and I
[1:15:22] know there are some standards that it may not
[1:15:26] meet that may be a little outdated because I think
[1:15:29] shoreline preservation aquatic species
[1:15:33] and mammals like the manatee and enjoyment and access
[1:15:38] are things that should be considered as well as incredibly
[1:15:42] visible property.
[1:15:43] I think it definitely would be worthwhile looking at.
[1:15:51] >> How do we manage this (Indistinct) does eels make
[1:15:56] the final decision on what they purchase and don't purchase
[1:15:59] or does it still come to the board?
[1:16:02] >> This action by the board if you request or vote to have
[1:16:05] the SMC reconsider this would start the process of their going
[1:16:09] and getting appraisals and then if it again is approved
[1:16:14] by the SMC they would go get the appraisals put my final decision
[1:16:17] about whether or not to acquire the property would always come
[1:16:20] back to the board.
[1:16:21] >> Okay.
[1:16:22] I don't mind that.
[1:16:24] I don't know any information on this at all.
[1:16:28] >> (Indistinct) look at it in that way if they decide to go we
[1:16:31] could have numbers.
[1:16:33] >> I'm familiar with this property also.
[1:16:35] Can I just ask a technical question real quick?
[1:16:38] You know we are always looking for access points for the river
[1:16:43] and what have you.
[1:16:44] I mean we definitely need that on the beach for beach
[1:16:47] reimbursement.
[1:16:48] That's a whole nother guide but for future river work, that
[1:16:55] may be something that affects the appraisal if we take
[1:16:59] into consideration that property may be an access point if we
[1:17:03] need it for the river for SORL.
[1:17:15] >> I don't know how that would influence things.
[1:17:17] Our department has partnered with SORL on the river
[1:17:23] as we do have parcels that are along all the rivers and most
[1:17:27] of the waterways as well as the beaches
[1:17:31] so there would always be that opportunity.
[1:17:34] This action if it does end up being acquired does fit under
[1:17:38] the mission of eels to provide passive recreation so I think
[1:17:42] there would be concerns potentially from the state
[1:17:45] to try to put in boat ramps but I think with the idea of passive
[1:17:51] recreation, passive -- boat ramp or something along those lines.
[1:18:06] >> Do we need a motion here?
[1:18:08] >> I think you should make a motion.
[1:18:10] >> I would like to make a motion to direct staff to place
[1:18:12] the reconsideration of acquiring a property located at 1400
[1:18:18] Florida on the next agenda.
[1:18:26] >> I'll second.
[1:18:27] All in favor, say yea.
[1:18:29] Motion carries.
[1:18:30] Thank you.
[1:18:32] District four.
[1:18:34] >> You are stuck with me for another four years.
[1:18:37] It looks like that, anyways.
[1:18:41] I appreciate everybody who has helped me along the way
[1:18:47] and so glad that's behind me and look forward
[1:18:51] to serving with everyone in the future.
[1:18:56] Thank you.
[1:19:00] >> Thank you and I'm looking forward to serving with you
[1:19:03] the next two, maybe four.
[1:19:05] You never know.
[1:19:06] It's been a great honor serving with you.
[1:19:09] You've done a wonderful job.
[1:19:11] Okay.
[1:19:11] I have no reports.
[1:19:13] Meeting adjourned.
[1:19:20] >> The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any
[1:19:22] period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views
[1:19:25] or opinions of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard
[1:19:27] County Florida, Space Coast Government television
[1:19:30] or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter.
[1:19:33] The Board of County Commissioners
[1:19:35] of Brevard County, space coast government Television
[1:19:39] and the Program sponsor hereby expressly
[1:19:42] disclaim any and all responsibility or liability
[1:19:44] for any defamatory and slander statements expressed
[1:19:47] by any member of the public.