[00:00:01] ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED. WE'RE GOING TO DO A CALL TO ORDER FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY THE 4TH, [CALL TO ORDER:] 2026. AS A REMINDER TO THE AUDIENCE AND ALL THOSE IN THE ROOM, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES, WHICH I JUST DID. SO THAT IT DOESN'T DISRUPT OUR MEETING. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IF EVERYBODY WILL PLEASE RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MISS POWELL. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES. MR. KARAFFA HERE, MR. WARNER PRESENT. MR. FILIBERTO HERE, MR. HIGGINS HERE, MR. MCNALLY HERE, MR. NORRIS HERE. SCHOOL BOARD APPOINTEE LIAISON VACANT. AND CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY TANYA EARLY IS PRESENT. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE MOVING FORWARD DO WE HAVE A [ADOPTION OF MINUTES:] MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING? I FORGET THE DATE. BUT OUR MEETING IN JANUARY, O JANUARY THE 7TH, MR. CHAIR. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 7TH, 2026. SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ANY. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING I. I. ALL OPPOSED. CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PUBLIC, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANTS AND THE AUDIENCE. [ANNOUNCEMENTS:] THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IS AN ADVISORY BOARD COMPRISED OF UNPAID VOLUNTEERS. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION STAFF WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT FOR EACH CASE. BOARD MEMBERS WILL THEN BE ASKED IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WILL THEN BE ASKED TO APPROACH THE PODIUM AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION GERMANE TO THE CASE, AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. THE FLOOR WILL THEN BE OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION THAN THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION. FOR ALL PROCEEDINGS, ALL APPLICANTS AND SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE MUST SIGN SPEAKER OATH CARDS THAT ARE LOCATED AT THE SIDE OF THE ROOM AND AT THE PODIUM, PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE STATING YOUR FULL NAME, ADDRESS AND THEN YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD. AS A COURTESY, I ASK THAT IF THERE IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO MAY HAVE SIMILAR COMMENTS, YOU INFORMALLY APPOINT A SPOKESPERSON TO CLARIFY YOUR VIEWS. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS. I WILL BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE BOARD. AT THIS TIME, THE FLOOR WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD FROM THE AUDIENCE. I WILL THEN CALL FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND, AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION. I WILL THEN CALL FOR A VOTE. DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ARE THEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DISPOSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN ADHERING TO THE MEETING GUIDELINES. NOW, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I KNOW EVERYBODY HAS GOTTEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. YOU HAVE GOTTEN A COPY OF YOUR AGENDA HERE TODAY. I DO HAVE TO ASK IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD HAS PARTICIPATED IN ANY. THE LAWYER'S GOING TO HELP ME HERE. EX PARTE DID I GET IT RIGHT? CONVERSATIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON. ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA IS V2500002 DETACHED GARAGE. [NEW BUSINESS:] WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF. CERTAINLY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ALTHEA JEFFERSON, FOR THE RECORD, PRESENTING CASE V 20 502. THE APPLICANT, CATES FAMILY TRUST WITH REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MONACO, IS REPRESENTING. 974 PELHAM AVENUE NORTHEAST. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO ENCROACH 3.2FT INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, WHICH IS A 12 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED. THE SITE ITSELF IS POINT THREE ACRES. FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE CURRENT ZONING IS ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, AND THIS IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION, THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING. NOTIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ADVERTISEMENTS AND POSTING ON THE PROPERTY, WERE DONE ACCORDING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND A REVIEW OF THIS BOARD IS IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ZONING AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MUST HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO [00:05:02] THE CITY COUNCIL TO GRANT, DENY OR GRANT WITH CONDITIONS ANY VARIANCE REQUEST. AS YOU SAW IN YOUR PACKET, THE APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING THOSE REGULATIONS IN 172025 THAT LOOKS AT WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVEN THEY HAVE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PLACES UPON THEM A LIMITATION TO USE THEIR PROPERTY TO ITS HIGHEST AND BEST VALUE, THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR THE PROPERTY USE, MEANING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM VARIANCE POSSIBLE TO STILL HAVE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THAT WOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO ANY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR USE IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN HARMONY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INTENT. NO DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC WELFARE OR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A RESPONSE TO 172 025, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. ON THE SCREEN YOU'LL SEE THE APPLICANT'S NOT SURE. OKAY, THIS DOES SHOW THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, WHICH INCLUDES A RESIDENCE, A SCREENED IN PORCH, A POOL. WITH SURROUNDING CONCRETE DECK. THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THEIR INTERIOR SIDE LOT NEXT TO THEIR NEIGHBORS. SO HERE IS AN INTERIOR SIDE LOT, WHICH IS THEIR LOT. AND THEN NEXT TO THEM HERE WOULD JUST IT'S ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE REQUIRED SETBACK HERE IS 12FT. THESE RED AREAS, ARROWS INDICATED ON THE SCREEN, SHOW THE EXTENT OF WHICH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING YOU TO ALLOW THEM TO VARY FROM THE 12FT. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE MAKING A PRESENTATION. BUT I WILL GIVE YOU JUST FOR CONTEXT. THIS AREA IS THE AREA THAT WILL REMAIN IF THE PROPOSAL IS APPROVED AS THEIR SIDE YARD SETBACK. THIS AREA IN YELLOW FROM THE TIP OF THIS ARROW TO THE END, IS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF WHAT WOULD LIKELY BE THE 12 FOOT SETBACK. IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTED A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS FIVE FEET FIVE FOOT. DISTANCE IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS, WHICH ENDS HERE, AND THE START OF THE PROPOSED ENCLOSED CARPORT. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON THAT TONIGHT. BUT I INCLUDE IT FOR CONTEXT TO LET YOU KNOW ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS ACCESSORY USE THAT IS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE 20%. SO YOU'RE JUST CONSIDERING THEIR REQUEST FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, WHICH THEY ARE LOOKING TO HAVE 8.8FT RATHER THAN THE 12FT REQUIRED. ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THIS EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION. THEY DID APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THIS. CURRENTLY IT GOES UP TO WHERE THIS ARROW IS. THE PERMIT THAT WAS SUBMITTED DID NOT INCLUDE THE YELLOW AREA TO BE CONCRETED. SO THIS IS WHERE THE CONFLICT HAS COME UP. IN STAFF'S ANALYSIS, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THE VARIANCE IS EQUIVALENT TO 26.27% REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SETBACK. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ACCESSORY USES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK PURSUANT TO CODE 172002, FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGES OR INCONVENIENCE TO THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF NECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. ALSO, AGAIN NOTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANTS THAT STAFF WILL BE ISSUING A VARIANCE ORDER FOR APPROVAL. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN THE INSTANCE OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. [00:10:01] AND STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION, INADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED. THE REQUESTED ACTION STAFF IS SEEKING FROM THE BOARD TODAY IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. ONCE YOU HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, THIS APPLICATION WILL GO FORTH TO THE CITY COUNCIL REFLECTING YOUR VOTE AND RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM. SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. WE'VE PROVIDED LANGUAGE FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN FOR THAT, AS WELL AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE FOR A MOTION TO DENY. WE WILL GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE AFTER THE APPLICANT MAKES THEIR PRESENTATION. BUT AS FAR AS STAFF'S REPORT. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR JUST A MOMENT. ANYBODY FROM THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? SORRY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SO WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE LIKE AN APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE? WOULD IT BE LIKE UNDUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR. THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE REASONS UNDUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? NO, IS NOT ONE OF THE REASONS. YOU COULD SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CITY REQUIRED A DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT THAT PERHAPS SAT WITHIN THE SETBACK, THEN THAT MAY BE AN INSTANCE, THERE COULD BE AN INSTANCE WHERE THE CONDITIONS OF THE LAND, SAY IF THERE'S A SEPTIC TANK OR SOME OBSTRUCTION, OR THE CONDITIONS FOR DRAINAGE WOULD INTERFERE. THAT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP. BUT IN THIS CASE, IN STAFF'S OPINION, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION AS APPROVED BY THE FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT DID NOT EXTEND INTO THE SETBACK. HOWEVER, THAT'S HOW IT WAS BUILT, WHICH THEN RESULTED IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE VARIANCE. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE, 2.2. FOUR FEET REDUCTION FROM THE 12FT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMISSIBLE AND APPROVAL THROUGH STAFF WITHOUT THE PROOF OF HARDSHIP. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY UTILITIES THAT NEED TO BE ASSESSED? ARE THERE ANY UTILITIES THAT NEED TO BE ACCESSED FROM FROM THAT EASEMENT? NO, SIR. THEY DO HAVE AN EASEMENT IN THEIR SIDE YARD. HOWEVER, THAT EASEMENT WILL BE UN UNTOUCHED. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY PROBLEM IF THIS VARIANCE IS PERMITTED. THE SIDE YARD SETBACK WILL STILL BE INCLUSIVE OF THAT EASEMENT WITHOUT ANY ENCROACHMENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED, HOWEVER, SO THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE WITH FPL, UTILITIES OR SPECTRUM TO GET WHERE THEY NEED TO GO REGARDING EASEMENTS. IF THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED, IF THIS IS APPROVED AND THERE ARE UTILITY EASEMENTS, YOU'RE ASKING IT. WERE THERE ANY BE ANY PROBLEMS FOR UTILITIES, FPL OR SPECTRUM TO ACCESS WHATEVER THEY NEED TO ACCESS, EITHER IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY OR IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IF THIS WAS APPROVED. WELL, I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THEM, BUT I WILL SAY WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED TO BE RESERVED, WHICH IS THAT SIX FEET FROM HERE TO HERE, WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF THEIR CURRENT SETBACK, WOULD BE UNOBSTRUCTED. SO THE PORTION THAT THE UTILITIES COMPANIES HAVE REQUESTED TO REMAIN FREE AND OPEN FOR EASEMENT USE WILL STILL REMAIN FREE AND OPEN FOR EASEMENT USE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. GO AHEAD. SORRY. IT DOES SAY HERE A STAFF. ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT? LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT RIGHT HERE. IT MAY BE INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. IF YOU CAN ELABORATE, WHICH NUMBER IS THAT? ITEM NUMBER SIX. STAFF REVIEW. SO KIND OF JUST TO END IT ON THE LAST SENTENCE, IT MAY BE INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. IF STAFF CAN ELABORATE ON THAT, PLEASE. SO. SO WITH STAFF SAYING IT MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE IS JUST BECAUSE, THERE ARE REASONS WHY WE ESTABLISHED THE SETBACKS FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO ALLOW THAT DISTANCE [00:15:08] BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. SO SAY THEIR NEIGHBOR WANTS TO ADD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THEIR PROPERTY. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET TO. AS YOU CAN SEE IT TO TO THEIR POINT, THEIR DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT CLOSE TOGETHER. HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THERE. HOWEVER, IF THEY ALSO DECIDED TO DO A CARPORT OR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND THEN THEY ASKED FOR A SIMILAR VARIANCE. THEN YOU SEE HOW YOU START TO GET VERY TIGHT IN TERMS OF ACCESSING THE PROPERTY FOR THE EASEMENT AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THIS, BUT THESE ARE THE SORTS OF ISSUES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID WHEN WE ESTABLISH THE REGULATIONS. SO WE DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD RESULT, BUT IT MAY RESULT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, SURE. NO PROBLEM. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. HELLO. KELLY DELMONICO. I AM THE APPLICANT AND THE PLANNING CONSULTANT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO TONIGHT I'M JOINED BY BOTH MATT AND NICOLE KATZ, WHO ARE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE WITH ME TONIGHT. AND SORRY, I WAS TAKING NOTES AS I WAS CALLED UP TRYING TO FINISH THAT. I CAN RUN IT FOR YOU. I'LL WAIT HERE. OKAY, SURE. AWESOME. THANKS. OKAY. AND I CAN HELP ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL THAT YOU HAD EARLIER. AND I'LL TRY TO PUT THAT INTO MY PRESENTATION AND FEEL FREE TO STOP ME ANYTIME AS WELL. SO TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT IN TIME, THIS PICTURE IS FROM 2022. HOWEVER, THE CATS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2014 AS THEIR HOMESTEAD RESIDENCE FOR THEIR FAMILY, SO THEY'VE BEEN RESIDENTS HERE FOR A LONG TIME. THEY OWN A TRAILERED BOAT THAT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN STORED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, NORTH IS TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT SCREEN. SO IF YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT RED ARROW IS AND YOU KNOW THAT LITTLE THAT LITTLE COVER THERE THAT IS WHERE THEY HAVE IN THE PAST BEEN STORING THEIR TRAILERED BOAT. THERE'S MORE SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THERE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. NOT TO MENTION THE DRIVEWAY IS ALSO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH HAS TO TRAVERSE A DRAINAGE CANAL. THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE CONTAINS ADDITIONAL VEGETATION, SO IT WAS NOT AN IDEAL PLACE TO PUT THE BOAT. WHEN THEY WERE STORING THE BOAT ON THIS NORTH SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE. IT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF PALM BAY CODE, BECAUSE IT WAS BEHIND THE FRONT BUILDING LINE, AND ALSO BEHIND THAT SIX FOOT FENCE, BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS LOOK NICE AND LOOK GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS. SO THE CATS STARTED ON A VERY INTERESTING CONTRACTOR JOURNEY OVER A YEAR AGO, WITH THE GOAL TO PROTECT THEIR TRAILERED BOAT WITHIN AN ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, JUST WHERE THAT ARROW IS. THEIR DESIRE IS TO STORE THE BOAT INDOORS, TO PROTECT THEIR INVESTMENT IN A WAY THAT THEY BELIEVE IS ATTRACTIVE AND ALSO IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BY PLACING THE BOAT OUT OF VIEW BEHIND A ROLL UP DOOR IN THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH THEY WOULD PAINT TO MATCH THEIR HOME, THAT IS ONE OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MEET ALL OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT THE ONES WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS HERE TODAY. THEY'RE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO A LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN AND OCCUPANCY OF THEIR PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THEIR EVOLVING NEEDS OVER TIME, AS THINGS CHANGE AND AS THEY'RE ABLE TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY, THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT. SO THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS REALLY A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE LONG TERM PLANNING FOR THEIR RESIDENTS TO KEEP THEM ON THIS PROPERTY. SO HERE IS A PICTURE TODAY LOOKING AT THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT. THAT'S A NICE OVERALL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'VE MADE SOME UPGRADES TO THE PROPERTY. SO I SAID THEY'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS JOURNEY FOR OVER A YEAR. THAT IS WHEN THEY STARTED WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHO IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THEM WITH SEVERAL THINGS. IT WAS A NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. THE WHOLE THING IS BRAND NEW NEW CULVERTS, NEW DRIVEWAY, APRON WORKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK, I'M GOING TO TURN THAT RED HERE. SO RIGHT HERE IS WHERE THEY HAD A CONCRETE FOUNDATION AND FOOTERS PUT IN FOR THE BUILDING THAT THEY HIRED THE CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ON THIS [00:20:09] PROPERTY TO FIT THEIR BOAT AND TO FIT THEIR STORAGE NEEDS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY TRUSTED AND EXPECTED THE CONTRACTOR TO LEGALLY PERFORM THIS WORK. SO AFTER THIS CONCRETE WORK WAS COMPLETED WITH THE APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION AND FOOTERS FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THEY BOUGHT INTO, THEY DISCOVERED THAT THE PROMISES THE CONTRACTOR HAD MADE DID NOT MEET CITY CODE. AND AS STAFF DISCUSSED EARLIER. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PERMIT THAT ALSO HAS TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AS WELL, WHICH WE'RE HOPING FOR A POSITIVE OUTCOME FROM THIS VARIANCE CASE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITTING PROPERLY THE COSTLY FOUNDATION AND FOOTERS MEANT TO ACCOMMODATE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING THEY SELECTED DO NOT MEET THE 12 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THIS RE ZONING DISTRICT. RE ZONING IS KIND OF YOUR ESTATE SIZE PROPERTY'S BIGGER LOTS. SO THE 12 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK IS LARGER THAN MOST OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY, WHICH ARE SMALLER THAN 12FT. SO MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THE CONTRACTOR GOT CONFUSED, BUT IT WAS OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE CASE. WHAT HAPPENED HERE? AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE SEPARATION. SO I'LL TRY TO SKIP OVER THOSE THOSE THINGS. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO THIS EXPERIENCE FOR THE CASE OVER THE LAST YEAR HAS BEEN EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY DAMAGING. AND SO WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO WORK THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS HERE TONIGHT TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THEM SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. THEY'VE BEEN STORING THEIR BOAT OFF PREMISE, AND THEIR LIVES HAVE REALLY BEEN INTERRUPTED DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. I BEGAN WORKING WITH THEM SEVEN MONTHS AGO, SO WE'VE HAD TO DO A LOT OF THINGS IN THOSE SEVEN MONTHS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY. THEY'VE BEEN HELPFUL THROUGH THE PROCESS, LETTING US KNOW WHAT THE PROPER PROCESSES WERE TO FOLLOW IF WE WERE SEEKING A VARIANCE. THEY HIRED A SURVEYOR TO COMPLETE AN AS BUILT SURVEY SO WE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY. SO THE AS BUILT, WHAT YOU CAN SEE THERE WHERE IT SAYS THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD GO. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THERE'S 8.8FT TO THAT NORTH PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE 12FT, BUT IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THAT EXISTING SIX FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT. SO WE'RE NOT INTERFERING WITH ANYONE'S ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. IT WAS DETERMINED AT THAT SAME TIME THAT THE STRUCTURE SEPARATION WAS A FOOT OFF, BUT APPARENTLY THAT'S BEEN HANDLED. AND THAT IS WONDERFUL. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 3.2FT TO THE NORTH. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE VARIANCE TO ALLOW RELIEF FOR A PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON AN EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION IS TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD ACCESSORY SETBACK FROM 12FT TO 8.8FT. YOU KNOW, THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES. THE LANGUAGE IS VERY SIMILAR. IF YOU GO FROM JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IT'S, YOU KNOW, BASED ON CERTAIN DIFFERENT HARDSHIPS AND THAT YOU'RE NOT HURTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. BUT THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON THE BOARD'S VARYING DEGREES OF INTERPRETATION OF THE VARIANCE CRITERIA. SO, SO MANY JURISDICTIONS HAVE BASICALLY THE SAME VARIANCE CRITERIA. SOME JURISDICTIONS PROVIDE A LOT OF VARIANCES. SOME DON'T. SO REALLY IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE HOW TO INTERPRET THOSE VARIANCE CRITERIA. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE TOO BORING HERE, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST PUT SOME OF THIS INTO THE RECORD. FOR OUR OWN SAKE. SO THE FIRST CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IN OUR CASE, THIS HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1986, PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASING IT IN 2014. AND IT WAS ORIENTED IN A WAY WHERE THE HOUSE IS CLOSER TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE THAN THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, AND BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY IS ALSO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE LOGICAL PLACE TO PUT THIS BOAT STORAGE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. WOULD HAVE MEANT A SECOND DRIVEWAY, TRAVERSING THE OPEN SWALE IN THE FRONT YARD, AND REMOVAL AND DISRUPTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPE BEDS, AND ADDING ANOTHER DRIVEWAY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THAT'S ALLOWED BY CITY CODE TO HAVE THE TWO DRIVEWAYS ON THIS ONE PROPERTY. THE SECOND CRITERIA IS THAT THESE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. [00:25:01] AND SO THE LOCATION OF THIS HOUSE AND WHERE THE GARAGE IS GOING ON THIS SITE IS NOT A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER SINCE THEY PURCHASED IT IN 2014. WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO WORK WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY THAT PREEXISTED THEM, PURCHASING IT TO BE ABLE TO STORE THE FAMILY BOAT IN AN ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. RELIEF FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO STORE THEIR BOAT IN THE PREFABRICATED STRUCTURE, WHERE THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WAS POURED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE THIRD CRITERIA IS LITERAL INTERPRETATION. SO LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE ABILITY TO ERECT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN WHICH TO STORE THEIR FAMILY BOAT, AND WOULD CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. VARIANCE FOR IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY, AS YOU COULD SEE IN THAT AS BUILT SURVEY WE PROVIDED THAT SHOWS WHERE THE EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION AND FOOTERS HAVE BEEN PLACED. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR MORE THAN WE NEED. WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED. CRITERIA FIVE IS THAT THEY'RE NOT GRANTING ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. SO ALLOWING FOR A REDUCTION IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND WILL ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PREFABRICATED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO STORE THE FAMILY'S BOAT. VARIANCE CRITERIA SIX IS THAT IT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE, AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE. I DO WANT TO SKIP AHEAD TO MY NEXT SLIDE. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE INJURIOUS OR DETRIMENTAL TO ANYONE, AND WE THINK IT'S IN HARMONY. HARMONY WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TO KIND OF SHOW THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN RED WITH THE RED OUTLINE AND THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IT'S SMALLER THAN WHAT THE RED SHOWS, BUT IS GENERALLY THE RED FILLED IN BOX ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE. THE KATES HAVE GONE TO THEIR NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IN THE YELLOW BOX AND IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST ACROSS THE STREET IN THE YELLOW BOX. THOSE ARE THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED BY THIS COUPLE ADDITIONAL FEET THAT THE BUILDING IS GETTING CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEY HAVE BOTH SIGNED LETTERS, WHICH I THINK WERE HANDED OUT FRONT AND BACK SIDE. IT'S A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION THAT'S SPECIFICALLY STATED WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, AND THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE KATE'S REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VIEW KIND OF TO SHOW WHERE THEY ARE NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY, AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER ON THE RIGHT SIDE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE. WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS, AND ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY CAN MAKE A POSITIVE INTERPRETATION OF THESE VARIANCE CRITERIA SO THE KATES CAN FINISH THE PROPER PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STRUCTURE. GREAT. OKAY. DO IS THIS A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION? NOPE. NO. IS THIS A GARAGE OR A CARPORT? YES, IT IS A GARAGE. FULLY, FULLY ENCLOSED GARAGE. I ACTUALLY HAVE. SOME OF THE SLIDES. IT SAYS CARPORT, WHICH IS NORMALLY AN OPEN AIR KIND OF A STRUCTURE. AND OTHERS I'VE HEARD ROLL UP CARPORT AND SO ON THE SLIDE IT SAYS CARPORT. SO WE'RE WONDERING, OH, IT'S I DIDN'T PUT IT IN MY SLIDES BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS FOR THE VARIANCES, BUT I DO HAVE A CAN I HAND THESE TO SOMEONE? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S. IT'S A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. WE'LL CALL IT A GARAGE BECAUSE IT HAS IT HAS A ROLL UP DOOR BOTH IN THE FRONT A LARGE ROLL UP DOOR TO FIT THE BOAT WITHIN IT. AND THEN THERE'S A SMALL ROLL UP DOOR ON THE BACK SIDE. SO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR BACKYARD, THINK LAWNMOWER. AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE SIDE PEDESTRIAN DOOR. CAN YOU PASS THAT DOWN TO SHONDRA? SHE'S GOING TO NEED THAT. OKAY. AND THIS THIS BUILDING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, OTHER THAN THAT SIDE YARD SETBACK MEETS THE CODE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN PALM BAY. OKAY. SO JUST I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, AND THEN I'LL DEFINITELY ENTERTAIN OTHERS FROM THE BOARD. A NUMBER OF TIMES IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MENTIONED THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1986. WHAT BEARING DOES THAT HAVE ON THE REQUEST? WELL, THAT THE HOUSE, THE LAYOUT FOR THE PROPERTY WAS SET UP BEFORE THEY PURCHASED IT. SO BECAUSE OF WHERE THE HOUSE WAS PLACED ON THAT PROPERTY, THEY CAN'T CHANGE THAT HOUSE AND MAKE MORE SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY EXISTS TO THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT. BUT THEY BOUGHT IT IN 2014. CORRECT. AND THEY GOT TO SURVEY THE LAND. I'M GUESSING WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT. CORRECT? YES. YEP. WHAT'S THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THEY'RE WORKING WITH? EXCUSE ME. WHAT'S THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THEY'RE WORKING WITH? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY WANT TO SAY THAT ON PUBLIC RECORD. I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT LIBELOUS? THEY'RE WORKING WITH THEM. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM. DO YOU GUYS WANT TO COME UP HERE AND GIVE YOUR NAMES REAL QUICK AND ANSWER THAT? [00:30:04] I GUESS THAT'S MY FEAR. IF YOU KNOW, WE SEE THIS ONE MISTAKE, WE GRANT A VARIANCE. YEAH. LET'S SAY, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE SAME CONTRACTOR. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WE WIND UP HERE AGAIN. YOU'RE IN ANOTHER ORDEAL FOR. YEAH, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY SAY YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO SAY IT ON RECORD, BUT WE COULD TELL YOU OFF THE RECORD AFTER. I'M JUST SAYING IT COULD HAVE APPEARED ON A SLIDE FOR ALL I CARE. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT WHEN I HEAR THAT OKAY. AND THIS IS A METAL STRUCTURE. A PREFAB METAL STRUCTURE. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE THEM TO GIVE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESS? FOR THE RECORD, I'M MATT CATES. YEAH. NINE, SEVEN, FOUR PELHAM AVENUE, PALM BAY. AND I'M NICOLE CATES, RESIDING AT THE SAME LOCATION. HI. MY LAST QUESTION IS WHY NOT ATTACH IT? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND NOW IT'S A PREFAB. YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO ATTACH IT TO THE HOUSE. YOU'RE GETTING FOUR FEET ON ONE SIDE. YOU'RE ASKING FOR THREE AND 0.2FT ON THE OTHER SIDE. WHY NOT JUST ATTACH IT TO THE HOUSE AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY? BUT IT'S A METAL PREFAB, SO I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S NOT OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT. YES. MINE ARE ABOUT THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION. WHEN? SO IS THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION BEING THAT IT'S ALREADY POURED. IS THAT WITHIN THE GUIDELINES? IS THAT WITHIN CODE FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY OR OR IS THAT OUT OF CODE? I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. OKAY. SO THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION ITSELF ISN'T AGAINST CODE. IT JUST NEEDS TO FINISH BEING PERMITTED. BUT YOU CAN'T PUT A BUILDING ON TOP OF THAT FOUNDATION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S POURED RIGHT NOW. THE FOOTER OF IT. CORRECT FOOTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OUTSIDE OF CODE VARIANCE. OR IS IT INSIDE? SO THERE IS NO SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION ITSELF. SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY VIOLATING CODE. IT'S THE STRUCTURE THEY WANT TO PUT ON TOP OF IT. IS THAT. SO WHAT IS THE OVERHANG OF THE ROOF IS THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE AN OVERHANG. AND THE OVERHANG ACTUALLY DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS THE SETBACK. RIGHT. SO THE BUILDING WOULD GO TO THE EDGE OF THAT CONCRETE FOUNDATION ON THOSE FOOTERS IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT SETBACK. IF THE BUILDING WAS PLACED THERE, IT WOULD BE VIOLATING THE CURRENT SETBACK. BUT THE CURRENT THE FOUNDATION DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET THE SAME BUILDING SETBACK. YEP. SO IF YOU REDUCE THE BUILDING. JUST A QUESTION. BUT IF YOU REDUCE THE BUILDING, WOULD THAT THEN WORK OR WOULD THAT FIT INTO THE SPACE THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE CONCRETE, OR WOULD THAT TAKE OUT THE. IF WE REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THE CONCRETE WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CONTRACTOR POURED THE FOOTERS. IF WE REDUCED IT, IT WOULD BE INSIDE THE FOOTER, WHICH WOULD JUST INEVITABLY RUIN THE SLAB AND CRACK AND BREAK. AND THEN IT WOULD JUST BE IT WOULD JUST WOULDN'T LOOK GOOD AND JUST WOULDN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO ASK HOW HOW BIG IS YOUR PROPERTY? WHAT SIZE PROPERTY IS IT? .34 ACRES. PUT PEOPLE ON A THIRD OF AN ACRE, AND THEN WHEN THEY TRY AND BUILD SOMETHING, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE ROOM FOR ANYTHING. OKAY, IF THERE AREN'T ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANTS, WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM V 20 5-2. ALL THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST. FIRST, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT KNOW ME, I'M 100% IN LANDOWNERS RIGHTS UTILIZING YOUR LAND. MY OPINION ARE NOT IMPOSING ON ANYBODY. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ZONED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF RS TWO OR RS THREE, THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN LEGAL CRITERIA. THEY JUST PUT A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR ESTATE ZONING, WHICH WE HAVE SO LITTLE OF ANYHOW, IN PALM BAY RESIDENCE. RIGHT. THAT'S THE FIRST TWO ITEMS. NEXT ITEM WAS THE FACT THAT THEY HIRED A CONTRACTOR WHO, WHEN YOU HIRE THE CONTRACTOR, YOU'RE GOING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO TO MEET YOUR GUIDELINES. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED, WANTED ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE CONTRACTOR BUILT IT. AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE READY TO BRING THE SHED, THE METAL SHED IN OR GARAGE IN, THEN THEY FIND OUT THEY'RE IN A VIOLATION AFTER THEY'VE HIRED A CONTRACTOR. WELL, THEY'RE BEING NICE, BY MY OPINION, AND THEY'RE NOT SAYING WHO THE CONTRACTOR WAS, BUT THAT CONTRACTOR IS NOT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, [00:35:03] AND THEY DIDN'T OFFER TO MAKE CORRECTIONS. SO THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. BUT SOMETIMES THAT'S WHERE THE FAULT LIES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE REALITY OF IT. THE OTHER ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS I'VE WATCHED MANY OF THE BOARDS WARDS APPROVE VARIANCES FOR PEOPLE TO PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL TO EXTEND THEIR PATIO. AND THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT ANYTHING THAT'S A HIGH VALUE LIKE THEY ARE FOR THIS BOAT. SO MY OPINION IS YOU'VE APPROVED ALL THESE OTHER VARIANCES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF PEOPLE USING THEIR THEIR LAND. SO ME I SAY GO AHEAD AND LET THEM HAVE IT. SEE IF THEY CAN PROTECT THEIR INVESTMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BILL. ANY OF THOSE? OH, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE. I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO ACT LIKE THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE. I'M LOOKING AT THE LAWYER. I DON'T WANT TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAWYER. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY WHO WOULD. WHAT WAS THAT? YOU'RE FINE. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK A POSE WHICH WOULD ONLY BE STAFF AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WITH THE APPLICANT, LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ADDITIONAL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. NO. OKAY, GREAT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. BEFORE WE GET INTO A DISCUSSION WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. MR. CHAIR? YES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 25 0002 DETACHED GARAGE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND. NOW WE CAN OPEN TO DISCUSSION. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I'LL SPEAK FIRST. I MADE THE MOTION. I SEE THIS FAMILY KIND OF DID EVERYTHING RIGHT. THE CONTRACTOR IS THE ONE WHO SCREWED UP HERE, AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. HOWEVER, THEY DID. AND THEY DO HAVE APPROVAL FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS, AS SEEN HERE. I'M SORRY TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM. I DO ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THE STEEL BUILDING I FEEL LIKE PROBABLY THE BEST BUILDING TO PUT ON THERE. HURRICANE RATED PROBABLY UP TO ABOUT 140 MILES AN HOUR, SO I THINK IT WOULD KEEP THEIR BOATS SAFE. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH THE WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED FOR STORAGE AND NOBODY WOULD BE LIVING IN THERE. OKAY. HOW LARGE IS THIS BOAT? I'M SORRY. I SHOULDN'T HAVE LAUGHED. THAT WAS. THAT WAS FUNNY. OH, MY GOSH, I HAVE THE PAPERWORK. I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD SIZE BOAT 18 TIMES. WAS IT THE BOAT OR THE BUILDING? THE BOAT? YEAH. ACTUALLY, BOTH. THAT'S. THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. THE BOAT. OKAY. IT'S A 26 FOOT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL MY THOUGHTS ARE I, I DID SEE A LITTLE BIT OF UNDUE HARDSHIP WHEN YOU WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE THE GARAGE HAD BEEN PLACED THERE, AND THEN IF IT'S NOT OVER THE FOOT OR HOW IT COULD, YOU KNOW, CAVE IN. SO I DO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF UNDUE HARDSHIP THERE. SO MY, MY, MY REQUIREMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT STAYS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THAT, OF THAT SLAB. AND I THINK THAT IF ANYTHING, ONCE YOU GO OVER THAT, THEN I THINK YOU'RE NOW YOU'RE OUT OF COLD AGAIN. SO I WOULD I THAT THAT'S KIND OF MY TAKE ON IT JUST TO KIND OF STAY WITHIN BECAUSE CONCRETE SLAB IS THERE. SO IN IN A SENSE UTILIZE IT. SO. ANY OTHER STATEMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? YOU KNOW, FOR ME I SEE IT AS MINIMAL IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ASKING. I UNDERSTAND THE SPOT YOU'RE IN. I CAN SAY THIS. I FEEL BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T MENTIONED THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, BUT I THINK THEY DEFINITELY PUT YOU GUYS IN A BAD SPOT. YEAH. MAYBE I WILL KNOW. WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT IS? JUST OFF THE RECORD FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION. ANYWAY WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS VARIANCE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO SKIP OVER ITEM NUMBER 2T2600001. THAT HAS BEEN ASKED TO BE WITHDRAWN. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3T2600002 STAFF. GOOD EVENING, DEBBIE FLYNN, ASSISTANT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR. [00:40:06] THANK YOU FOR I MEAN, SORRY, I GOT DISTRACTED. GOOD EVENING. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE RECORD, DEBBIE FLYNN, ASSISTANT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR I'LL BE PRESENTING CASE T 26 00002, A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS. OH, SORRY, I THOUGHT THAT WAS UP THERE. A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN MEETING WAS NOT REQUIRED. THE REQUEST WAS ADVERTISED AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 172 022, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REVIEW PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS AT PUBLIC HEARINGS, MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO REFINE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS BY ALIGNING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT WITH THE APPROPRIATE STAGE OF REVIEW. CURRENTLY, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED AT THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE AND THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE, SO CURRENTLY IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH APPLICATIONS. WE'RE REQUESTING THAT IT'S ONLY A REQUIREMENT FOR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NOT THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BECAUSE DURING THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE PROJECT DETAILS ARE STILL CONCEPTUAL. AND DURING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT HAS MORE DETAIL. THIS AMENDMENT REMOVES THAT REQUIREMENT FROM THE PDP STAGE AND INSTEAD REQUIRES THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO PROCESS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ONLY WHEN PROJECT DETAILS AND PHASE IN AND IMPACTS ARE FINALIZED. THIS CHANGE IMPROVES PROCEDURAL CLARITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY WHILE MAINTAINING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND AUTHORITY AND PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. SO IT WILL STILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IT'S JUST JUST WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NOT WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS PROJECT SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITMENTS, AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS. HOWEVER, THE PDP STAGE MANY DEVELOPMENT DETAILS SUCH AS THE FINAL SITE DESIGN, INFRASTRUCTURE SIZING AND PHASING HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED. AS A RESULT, AGREEMENTS ARE OFTEN NEGOTIATED PREMATURELY AND MAY REQUIRE LATER AMENDMENTS. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHIFTS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE ONLY WHEN PROJECT DETAILS AND IMPACTS ARE FINALIZED. IMPROVING CLARITY AND EFFICIENCY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REVISES CHAPTER 172 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADJUST THE TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. SPECIFICALLY, IT REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. INSTEAD REQUIRES THE AGREEMENT TO BE PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY ONLY WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE AMENDMENT RETAINS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS MANDATORY FOR AN ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUD AND MAINTAIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND RECREATION REQUIREMENTS. RELATED CODE SECTIONS ARE UPDATED TO ENSURE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND TO CONFIRM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REMAINS BINDING ONCE APPROVED. REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE PROCESSED WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDES PROCEDURAL CONSISTENCY BY ALIGNING THE TIMING OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FINALIZED DEVELOPMENT DETAILS, INCLUDING SITE DESIGN, INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND IDENTIFIED IMPACTS. AT THE PDP STAGE. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED IN CONCEPTUAL, WHEREAS THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE ALLOWS IMPACTS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS ROADS, STORMWATER, UTILITIES, PARKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE FULLY EVALUATED AND ADDRESSED IN A MANNER DIRECTLY RELATED IN THE TYPE AND AMOUNT TO THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS CHANGE IMPROVES ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY BY REDUCING PREMATURE NEGOTIATIONS AND MINIMIZING THE NEED FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS WHILE MAINTAINING LEGAL AUTHORITY THROUGH THE CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND RECREATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. THE PUBLIC PROCESS IS PRESERVED, AND THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT ELIMINATE PUBLIC HEARINGS OR OVERSIGHT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ORDINANCE UPDATES RELATED TO CODE SECTIONS TO MAINTAIN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 172 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PREVIOUS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I AGREE, WE STILL HAVE A FEW PROJECTS USING THE PREVIOUS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT REQUIRED THAT ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO BRING THE THE PDP AND THE FDP TOGETHER. AND THAT'S WHY YOU WERE SEEING COUNCIL WITH SEEING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS DURING THAT STAGE TOGETHER. BUT WITH THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ANY NEW APPLICATION, THEY HAVE TO BRING THE PDP FIRST TO PNC AND THEN TO COUNCIL. [00:45:07] SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS CHANGE. NOW, WITH THIS NEW WITH OUR CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN SEPTEMBER 2020, FOR US TO HAVE THE ONLY REQUIREMENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NOT THE PDP, BECAUSE NOT ALL THE EVERYTHING'S WORKED OUT YET UNTIL THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO WE PREMATURELY GO BACK AND FORTH MAKING CHANGES THAT WE'RE JUST NOT READY TO DO YET UNTIL THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MUST RECOMMEND THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WHETHER TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND ON YOUR SCREEN ARE TWO CHOICES FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. AND STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR STAFF? YES, I WAS GOING TO SAY HEARING NONE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. WELL, I MEAN, JUST REAL QUICK, JUST SO THIS IS NOT GOING TO TAKE PLACE OF THE OF THE PUD. TOTALLY. SO IT WOULD STILL BE IN THE HANDS OF THE PNC BEFORE IT GOES TO TO CITY COUNCIL. OH, SORRY. CORRECT. IT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE. WE REQUIRE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO GO WITH THE PRELIMINARY AND THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RIGHT NOW. AND IT'S TOO PREMATURE TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION FINALIZED YET TO BRING TO CITY COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ONLY GO TO CITY COUNCIL. THEY DO NOT GO TO PNC, BUT IT'S A REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE PHASING ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE SUBDIVISION MAY HAVE, AND SOMETIMES THE APPLICANT DOESN'T KNOW THAT INFORMATION UNTIL THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO IN SO IN ESSENCE, IT'S REMOVING THE PRELIMINARY PART OF THIS. YOU'RE REMOVING THE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION. SO THAT MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE THOROUGH. YEAH. THE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL GO WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RATHER THAN THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. IT WILL IT WILL GO NO MATTER WHAT IT HAS TO. IT'S A REQUIREMENT. BUT IT'S JUST PREMATURE TO BRING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK WE GOT SOME CLARIFICATION. MISTER. MISTER CHAIR, IF I MAY, I THINK AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGING IS THAT INSTEAD OF WORKING ON THIS CONTRACT TWICE, WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IT ONE TIME WHEN WE KNOW WHAT ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SO THE PUD APPROVAL PROCESS OTHERWISE STAYS THE SAME. THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESSES ALSO STAY THE SAME. WE'RE JUST MOVING THE CONTRACT TO THE END WHEN WHEN EVERYTHING IS KNOWN AND THERE'S A CLEAR MEETING OF THE MINDS, AND WE KNOW IMPORTANT DATA THAT NEEDS TO GO INTO THAT DOCUMENT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS AT ALL. OKAY. WITH THAT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY OF THOSE WHO WISH TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALL OPPOSED? PLEASE COME FORWARD. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF WHAT I THINK ARE KEY POINTS WITH THIS ONE. THE FIRST ONE IS UNDER CONCEPTUAL DRAWING. AND THAT'S ALL YOUR PRELIMINARY PLAN IS, IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. WE'VE SEEN MANY, MANY TIMES WHERE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS WHAT'S PRESENTED, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOESN'T MATCH THAT AT ALL. AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE'RE ENTITLED TO 20 OR 30% MODIFICATIONS IN OUR FINAL PLAN, VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOUR PRELIMINARY WAS. THAT'S ONE THING THAT I DON'T AGREE ON, BECAUSE PART OF THAT THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES THAT YOU NEED. WHO'S GOING TO BE PAYING FOR WHAT IN THE INITIAL IN THE INITIAL SETUP OF YOUR CONTRACT OR OF THE OF THE BUILD FOR THE PUD? RIGHT. LIKE I SAY, I'VE SEEN CONCEPTUAL PLANS CHANGE TO THE FINAL PLAN MANY, MANY TIMES. THE NEXT, NEXT PART OF THAT WAS UNDER THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THAT'S ALSO WHERE YOU START TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR ZONING CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO MEET THE CRITERIA TO PROCEED WITH THE BILL? [00:50:08] TO GET TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT. PART OF THAT IS YOUR ZONING CHANGE. WHAT IMPACT IS THIS GOING TO HAVE UNDER THEIR PRELIMINARY, UNDER THEIR PRELIMINARY WHEN THEY'RE REQUESTING ZONING CHANGES? AND I'LL AND I'LL USE ONE EXAMPLE WHERE THIS HAS COME INTO PLAY. AND THAT WOULD BE THE GODADDY GOLF COURSE. THAT PROJECT WAS PRE-APPROVED UNDER A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. AND ALL KINDS OF ACTION WAS TAKEN. BUT ONE THING THAT HAS HAPPENED OUT OF THAT IS THE LAND HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY, BUT NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED OUT OF IT. SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S ACTUAL AFFIRMED NOW IS WE LOST THAT RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ESTATE HOMES OR ANYTHING ELSE, INSTEAD OF JUST APARTMENTS LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO BUILD. BUT THAT DID HAPPEN. RIGHT NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT I SEE CONFLICT WITH THIS ONE IS WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES IN THEIR CITY COUNCIL, THEY NORMALLY VOTE FOR THE PRELIMINARY AND THE FINAL. AT THE SAME COUNCIL MEETING, THEY JOINED THE BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER. SO WHERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS WHERE YOU SEE A CONFLICT? IF THEY'RE VOTING ON PRELIMINARY AND FINAL AT THE SAME VOTE, THERE'S NO TIME FRAME WITH WHICH YOU CAN READDRESS IT TO STAFF. SO THEN THEY'D HAVE TO SAY, OKAY, LET'S TABLE THIS OR WE'RE GOING TO DENY IT FOR THIS, FOR THIS REASON. SO ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW IT MAKES IT EASIER ON STAFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP REVIEWING CONTRACTS. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE WHAT PROTECTS US. SO I VOICED MY OPINION. YOU ARE THE VOTING BOARD. I HATE UPSETTING MY THE PALM BAY STAFF BECAUSE I KNOW HOW HARD THEY WORK. BUT THIS IS WHERE I SEE A CONFLICT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU BILL. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I DO HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM ANY DISCUSSION. OH, SORRY. WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO MOVE FORWARD, MR. CHAIR. YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. T260002 PDP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REMOVAL. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND, AND WE HAVE A SECOND. MR. FILIBERTO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS MEAN THAT YOU MADE THE MOTION? SURE. WELL, I DO SEE WHERE STAFF'S GOING WITH THIS TRYING TO STREAMLINE AND MAKE MAKE DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT. WITH THE EXPANSION AT PALM BAY. SEEING. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD MAKE DEVELOPMENT ANY MORE EFFICIENT THAN WHAT IT ALREADY IS. WE HAVE DEVELOPMENTS GOING UP ALL OVER THE PLACE, ESPECIALLY IN IN THE SOUTHEAST OVER THERE NEAR HERITAGE PARKWAY. REMOVING THE PDP. I DON'T SEE IT AS ADVANTAGEOUS FOR OUR RESIDENTS OR FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL. BECAUSE DURING THE PDP, OBVIOUSLY, WE LOOK AT TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND KIND OF THE WAY OF THE LAND, HOW IT EVEN IF IT IS A CONCEPT, IT'S A LAY OF THE LAND OF WHAT COULD BE HAPPENING. I KNOW I LIKED I LIKE TO SEE IT AND I'M SURE THE RESIDENTS AND COUNCIL LIKE TO SEE IT, TOO. YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO VOTE IN THE DARK. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, MISTER CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. YEAH. SORRY. JUST YOU GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME. I HAVE BEEN TAKING NOTES. WHAT A MAN YOU ARE. I JUST ECHO THE SAME THING. ONE OF THE. AS HE WAS SAYING IT, IT WAS EXACT THOUGHTS. I, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY OPPORTUNITY OR ABILITY AWAY FROM THE COUNCIL OR THE PEOPLE OR WHOEVER TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS, DEBATE, CONVERSATE ABOUT ANYTHING AND ESPECIALLY YOU KNOW, IN OUR CURRENT STATE OF PALM BAY. SO JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. OH, YOU'RE GOING TO GO. NO, NO. GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GETTING READY TO START ON MY LIST. OH. GO AHEAD. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO STAFF I FEEL LIKE A LOT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. AND I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE BY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS THAT AT THE END OF THIS, AFTER ALL THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN INVESTED AND ALL THE PROMISES MADE AND ALL THE THE TALKINGS OF THE PUBLIC THAT'S BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF LEFT IN A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION MANY TIMES AND MANY TIMES WITH THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE TO VOICE THEIR DISPLEASURE AT THE END OF SOMETHING. WHEREAS MAYBE WE COULD HAVE VOICED OUR THOUGHTS, OPINIONS AND CONCERNS UP FRONT. AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AS WELL UPFRONT. SO I ALREADY KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE'RE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCESS TO A LARGE EXTENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS. [00:55:05] AND I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE REAL ABOUT THESE VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS. WHEN THEY COME FORWARD, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO. THEY'VE STUDIED IT, THEY'VE DRAWN IT, THEY'VE HIRED ENGINEERS. THEY YOU KNOW, THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE SOIL SURVEYS, THEY'VE DONE TRAFFIC STUDY, THEY'VE DONE ALL KINDS OF STUFF. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND TO JUST ASK THEM TO PUT SOMETHING ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE BEFORE HUGE DECISIONS GET MADE AND LOTS OF MONEY GETS SPENT. AND BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT NEEDS TO BE. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME INPUT, I THINK WOULD BE WELCOMED. ADDITIONALLY, A LOT OF THESE THINGS TAKE YEARS TO HAPPEN, YEARS TO HAPPEN. HAVING A CONVERSATION UP FRONT, I DON'T THINK IS A PROBLEM. WHEREAS, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT SOME PROJECTS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BROUGHT BACK DATING BACK TO 2004, I THINK. I REMEMBER WHEN CHANDRA CAN CHECK ME IF I'M WRONG. SHE TYPES UP ALL THE MINUTES. YOU KNOW SHE'LL KNOW SOMEBODY. THE STAFF WILL SAY YOU REMEMBER THIS PROJECT FROM 2004 WHEN WE APPROVED IT, AND IT WAS OWNED BY A DIFFERENT COMPANY. SO I'M I'M DEFINITELY AGAINST. I'M AGAINST THIS. SO, ANYWAY ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE BOARD WISH TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE ALL OF THOSE IN THAT AGREE TO NOT APPROVE T26 DASH ZERO TWO INDICATE BY SAYING I. I. ALL OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOT SEEING ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE EVENING, I'M GOING TO HEAD TO. UNLESS THERE'S ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE BOARD THAT SNUCK UP ON US LAST TIME. OKAY NOT HEARING ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE BOARD, WE WILL ADJOURN OUR MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.