Brevard County Board of County Commissioners  
2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way  
Viera, FL 32940  
Minutes  
Thursday, December 12, 2024  
5:00 PM  
Zoning  
Commission Chambers  
A.  
CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM  
Commissioner District 1 Katie Delaney , Commissioner District 2  
Tom Goodson, Commissioner District 3 Kim Adkinson,  
Commissioner District 4 Rob Feltner, and Commissioner District 5  
Thad Altman  
Present:  
C.  
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
Commissioner Goodson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.  
The Board of County Commissioners acts as a Quasi-Judicial body when it hears requests for  
rezoning and Conditional Use permits. Applicants must provide competent substantial evidence  
establishing facts, or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the  
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts or  
provide expert testimony; whether they like, or dislike, a request is not competent evidence.  
The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility  
with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing rules in the Zoning Ordinance, property adjacent  
to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area. The Board  
cannot consider speculation, non-expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking  
those in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands. If a Commissioner has had  
communications regarding a rezoning or Conditional Use Permit request before the Board, the  
Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person,  
group, or entity, with whom the communication took place before the board takes action on the  
request. Likewise, if a Commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the  
Commissioner must disclose that fact before the Board takes action on the request. Each  
applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless the time is extended by  
a majority vote of the Board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for  
rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time  
to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak.  
H.1. RHR Construction & Development LLC requests a Small Scale Comprehensive  
Plan Amendment (24.012), to change the Future Land Use designation from PI to  
RES 4. (24SS00012) (Tax Account 2320049) (District 1)  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Items H.1. and H.2. are companion  
applications; the applicant was not present and did not attend the Planning and Zoning Board  
meeting; therefore, these two Items have to be continued; and they need to be re-advertised for  
a future date.  
Chairman Feltner commented he thinks there are three cards; and before the Board takes a  
motion, how does the County Attorney advise that it handle that.  
Morris Richardson, County Attorney, advised in this case because the applicant failed to appear  
at the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, and a continuance has been requested, staff  
generally recommends that the Board take up the issue of whether to continue it before  
opening the public hearing and calling the speakers, unless it has a card for the applicant; and  
the applicant may want to explain the reason for the continuance if the Board has any  
questions about that for the limited purpose of the continuance.  
Chairman Feltner stated the applicant is here; and he asked him to explain to the Board why  
this is being asked to be continued.  
Robert “Tray” Robinson commented they are continuing because they missed the previous  
meeting due to a death in the family, so that is why they are asking it to be continued.  
The Board continued a request by RHR Construction and Development LLC for a Small Scale  
Plan Amendment (24.012), to change the Future Land Use designation from PI to RES 4 to a  
future meeting.  
Result: CONTINUED  
Mover: Tom Goodson  
Seconder: Katie Delaney  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
Attorney Richardson asked if Mr. Ball stated the time and date for the meeting.  
Mr. Ball stated he did not; they are going to have to re-advertise for it because the P&Z Board  
was not sure when the applicant was going to be ready, so they will re-advertise both.  
Attorney Richardson noted this is not continued to a time certain, it is going to be re-advertised.  
Mr. Ball stated right.  
Attorney Richardson stated anyone who submitted speaker cards who is interested in this Item,  
sorry they came out tonight, but it has unavoidably been continued; and it will be re-advertised  
and notice will go out again, notice will be posted again before it comes back to a hearing  
before the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Board.  
Commissioner Delaney mentioned anybody who is out in the audience, he or she can get with  
her or her staff; she asked Kristin Lortie to raise her hand; she asked them to bring them her  
email address; and she will make sure to reach out to let them know when this is brought back  
up.  
H.2. RHR Construction & Development LCC requests a change of zoning  
classification from GU and RU-1-11 to RU-1-11. (24Z00042) (Tax Account  
2320049) (District 1)  
The Board continued a request for a change of zoning classification from GU and RU-1-11 to  
RU-1-11 to a future meeting.  
Result: CONTINUED  
Mover: Tom Goodson  
Seconder: Katie Delaney  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.4. Christopher Espanet (Kimberly Rezanka) requests a Comprehensive Plan  
Amendment to change the Future Land Use designation from RES 1 to RES 2.  
(24SS00013) (Tax Account 2963382) (District 3)  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, commented the applicant has asked for a  
continuance to the February 6, 2025, Zoning meeting for other options for this property.  
Chairman Feltner asked the applicant to explain the reason for the continuance of this Item.  
Kim Rezanka, Lacy Lyons Rezanka, on behalf of Christopher Espanet, stated because of the  
switchover of Commissioners, she was just able to meet with many of the Commissioners this  
week; in a staff meeting yesterday with Chairman Feltner and Morris Richardson, County  
Attorney, some issues were brought up that had not been explored yet, so they think there may  
be the opportunity that they do not have to go forward with the Comprehensive Plan  
Amendment; they are asking for time to explore those options; this is their first request for a  
continuance; and they ask that it be continued until February 6, 2025.  
Commissioner Adkinson advised she is happy with a continuance.  
Commissioner Altman stated when he was here before he never worked under the ex parte  
communication rule; he pretty much decided to live by that by the spirit as the Board has a  
requirement to disclose; he has chosen to handle that issue the way it used to be handled  
where he will not have any ex parte communication; he has listened religiously through the  
entire Planning and Zoning Board meetings, sometimes two and three times over; he will take  
any input on these zonings in writing; and this issue he is not going to have any ex parte  
communications, and let the applicant know where he is coming from and the Commissioner.  
He went on to say he is very committed to keeping densities low on the south beaches; he was  
here when the Board did the south beaches small area plan; he was involved with the area of  
state concern; but he does feel like this applicant does have a legitimate concern; it is .7 acres,  
nearly an acre of land; and they have a lot that is just unbuildable. He noted the County is not  
going to buy their land, it seems to be unfair to deprive their use of that land; most of those  
properties down there, the use is even higher than one unit per .7 acre; he felt in the sense of  
fairness the Board ought to hear the applicant and try to give them the best, and to listen to the  
community as a whole, so that is where he is learning; there is a property rights element to the  
County’s Comp Plan; he thinks depriving this person of the use of their land violates that  
component of the Comp Plan; but he wanted the public to know where he was coming from, as  
well as the applicant; he will be watching closely; he will watch the entire Planning and Zoning  
meeting if it comes back; and he is welcome to written input.  
The Board continued the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future  
Land Use designation from RES 1 to RES 2 on property located on the west side of Highway  
A1A, north of Casseekee Trail, to the February 6, 2025, Zoning meeting.  
Result: CONTINUED  
Mover: Kim Adkinson  
Seconder: Tom Goodson  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
Chairman Feltner explained he is sorry about this as some of these things are unavoidable; that  
will be on the February 6, 2025, meeting; and the Board will consider all of the public’s  
testimony then.  
Commissioner Adkinson expressed her appreciation to everyone from District 3 who came to  
the meeting.  
Mark Shantzis spoke from the audience.  
Chairman Feltner advised Mr. Shantzis that he was very sympathetic to that; and the dilemma  
that there is tonight is that a person gets one time to speak on this issue, so it would be better  
is he spoke on the issue when the Board is actually considering it.  
Mr. Shantzis continued to speak from the audience.  
Chairman Feltner asked everyone to take a pause; and he asked the County Attorney to weigh  
in on this.  
Morris Richardson, County Attorney, stated the Board has continued the Item; the Board is not  
opening the public hearing, so there is not going to be public input at this time; it will be taken at  
the February meeting; it is unfortunate; he expressed his appreciation to everyone for coming  
out; he noted unfortunately that happens sometimes; but Mr. Shantzis’ input will be taken; and  
if for some reason he is not able to make the February meeting, to please feel free to submit  
his comments in writing, or contact his Commissioner.  
Commissioner Delaney asked if the speakers are able to speak during Public Comment, Item  
G.  
Attorney Richardson explained this is a quasi-judicial item, and the record is very important; all  
of the comments that are going to be received have to be made during the Item, during the  
open public hearing, which is not going to take place today; Public Comments are for items that  
are not on the Agenda; and this is an Agenda Item, so the appropriate time for them to discuss  
the Item is going to be when they come back in February.  
Commissioner Delaney stated she would like to put on the record that she is a very staunch  
supporter of the First Amendment; she thinks that people drove all the way out here; and they  
deserve to have their voices heard.  
Chairman Feltner pointed out he thinks the entire Board shares that view; he again expressed  
his apologies that came here tonight; he stated this is not the preferred way, but it is the proper  
way; and the Board wants to get it right to make sure that the public is heard.  
Someone spoke from the audience.  
Chairman Feltner noted he believes the applicant explained that; and he asked Ms. Rezanka to  
clarify why this is necessary.  
Ms. Rezanka commented as there are new County Commissioners, she was not able to meet  
with any of them until this week; at the meeting with Chairman Feltner, Attorney Richardson  
and staff was there, and they brought up a couple of other options so they did not have to  
change the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; they need time to explore that; these just came  
up yesterday; and staff has not been able to come up with any other ideas, that is why they  
went through with the Comp Plan Amendment application, so this is not my fourth time here;  
this is here first time actually trying to do something with this property in front of the  
Commission.  
Chairman Feltner stated he wants to clarify one last thing; he asked Attorney Richardson to  
correct him if he is wrong; it has been the case in the past that the Board allows one  
continuance, so this will be settled at the February 6, 2025, Board meeting; that is the motion of  
the Board; and he asked if that is correct.  
Attorney Richardson replied right, that is correct; generally, almost as a matter of right, the  
Board has granted one continuance if anyone requests it; and beyond that, it depends on the  
circumstances and the facts related to the request.  
H.5. Mahasu Associates, LLC requests a change of zoning classification from AU to  
RU-1-9. (24Z00009) (Tax Account 2419409) (District 2)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request by Mahasu Associates, LLC  
for a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-9.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Item H.5. is Mahasu Associates, LLC  
requests a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-9; the application number is  
24Z00009; the Tax Account number is 2419409; and it is located in District 2.  
Sam Sebaali, Florida Engineering Group, commented he is here on behalf of the applicant;  
they agree with the staff recommendations; he will be glad to address any comments the Board  
may have; in a brief summary, what they are doing is there is a small strip of land which serves  
to provide access for the property behind it; and they are changing the zoning for that strip of  
land to be consistent with the property behind it. He went on to say the requested zoning is  
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets all of the requirements; they did have to go  
through a variance request because the strip of land is only 50-foot wide, and for the zoning  
there has to be a minimum of 60-foot width; that was granted by the Board of Zoning  
Adjustment; and they are working with the surrounding owners, who were not opposed to the  
request.  
Commissioner Delaney explained this one is a really tough one for her, because the matter at  
hand she is not too worried about, but as far as what the County is looking at down-the-pike  
with the approving of this, pretty much the whole property is wetlands that this is connecting to;  
she is really concerned about adding density to North Merritt Island; and the flooding issues the  
County is already dealing with is pretty difficult, so she is very aware and concerned about it.  
Mr. Sebaali stated the property does look like it is all wetlands, but it is not; they have had an  
environmental review of the site; they do not have any intention to impact any of the wetlands;  
they do not have any intention of impacting any flood storage; if they do, they will have to  
mitigate for it consistent with the County’s requirements and the Water Management District  
requirements; but he reiterated they did have an environmental review of the site; when they  
came in with the preliminary subdivision plans, the Board will have an opportunity to address  
any concerns with that; but at this point, they do have a conceptual plan which does not impact  
any wetlands. He pointed out they do have one area they are going to put a park around it; in  
the other wetland area, they are going to put a retention pond around it; but that is the plan.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved a request from Mahasu  
Associates, LLC for a change of zoning classification from AU to RU-1-9, on property located  
on the south side of Bevis Road, south of Lucas Road.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Tom Goodson  
Seconder: Rob Feltner  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.6. Ross and Dawn Buck request a conditional use permit for a private residential  
boat dock. (24Z00044) (Tax Accounts 2953085, 2953257) (District 3)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request from Ross and Dawn Buck  
for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a boat dock.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, commented Item H.6. is a request from Ross and  
Dawn Buck for a CUP for a private boat dock; the application number is 24Z00044; the Tax  
Account numbers are 2953085 and 2953257; and it is located in District 3.  
Steve DeFillips, East Coast Docks, stated he is representing Ross Buck; they have been hired  
by the folks who own the property to build a dock; these properties are unique as they are small  
and non-buildable; it gives people who are not on the water to have water access; a person has  
to have a property that is deeded in the same subdivision to use it; this is kind of a formality  
getting this approved; and with that being said, they would just like approval to have a CUP for  
a dock.  
Commissioner Adkinson stated for people who do not know, this community has access to their  
docks not actually attached to their property, so this is a formality; and as she understands it,  
just associates that small parcel of land for the dock to the new owners property.  
Mr. DeFillips advised one has to live in the same subdivision to be able to own and build a  
dock.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request of Ross and Dawn  
Buck for a CUP for a boat dock on property located on the north side of Ross Avenue, west of  
Seiler Street.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Kim Adkinson  
Seconder: Katie Delaney  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.7. 3101 Gannett Plaza Ave, LLC. is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) for  
Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises consumption. (24Z00045) (Tax Accounts  
2602423 & 2602422) (District 4)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request by 3101 Gannett Plaza Ave,  
LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, remarked Item H.7. is for 3101 Gannett Plaza Ave,  
LLC, which is requesting a CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption; the  
application number is 24Z00045; the Tax Account numbers are 2602423 and 2602422; and it is  
located in District 4.  
Kevin Saltsman stated they are looking to increase their 2COP to a 4COP license on this  
premises.  
Commissioner Goodson asked where the location is this going to be at.  
Mr. Saltsman replied 3101 Gannett Avenue, the old Florida TODAY building.  
Commissioner Adkinson stated she knows there was issues with utility and easements; and  
she asked if someone could talk to that for her.  
Edward Fontanin, Utility Services Director, stated staff has fulfilled, and they have had ongoing  
communications; they have shared information; there are no guarantees; but he is optimistic it  
is going in a positive direction.  
Chairman Feltner stated approving this tonight, he will continue to talk with staff; he thinks there  
are four things staff wanted to talk to him about; the Board is not asking him to commit to that  
tonight; but it is just a conversation with staff on lift station utility easement; and he asked if he  
will continue that conversation with Utility Services staff.  
Mr. Saltsman advised he has bridged that conversation back with the owner of the property.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request of 3101  
Gannett Plaza Ave, LLC for a CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption on  
property located on the southwest corner of Gannett Plaza Avenue and US Highway 1.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Katie Delaney  
Seconder: Thad Altman  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.8. William M. Braselton, III requests a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to  
RU-1-11. (24Z00050) (Tax Account 2800475) (District 5)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request by William M. Braselton, III  
for a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, commented Item H.8. is William M. Braselton, III,  
requests a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11; the application number is  
24Z00050; the Tax Account number is 2800475; and it is located in District 5.  
William Braselton stated they went in for a building permit, and during that process,  
development came back with a comment that their current zoning was inconsistent with their  
Future Land Use for this property; and they are just requesting a rezoning to RU-1-11 requiring  
a larger lot size, larger setbacks, and larger home, so that they are consistent with their  
underlying Future Land Use in that area of West Melbourne.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request of William M.  
Braselton, III for a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11 on property located  
on the north side of Miami Avenue, east of Wood Street.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Thad Altman  
Seconder: Katie Delaney  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.9. Jorge & Olga Carolina Tabush (Clayton A. Bennett) request a change of zoning  
classification from GU to EU. (24Z00054) (Tax Account 2605989) (District 2)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request of Jorge and Olga Carolina  
Tabush for a change of zoning classification from GU to EU.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated this Item is for Jorge and Olga Carolina  
Tabush requesting a change of zoning classification from GU to EU; the application number is  
24Z00054; the Tax Account number is 2605989; and it is located in District 2.  
Jayson Clayton stated their civil engineer asked him to attend tonight; essentially, he is just  
echoing staff’s comments from the Planning and Zoning meeting; and they are basically  
lowering density and going from three rental properties on one piece of property to one  
single-family residence.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request of Jorge and  
Olga Carolina Tabush for a change in zoning classification from GU to EU on property located  
on the east side of North Highway US 1, north of Portofino Lane.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Tom Goodson  
Seconder: Thad Altman  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.10. Keleon Watkins requests a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to  
RU-1-11. (24Z00048) (Tax Account 2110707) (District 1)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request of Keleon Watkins for a  
change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, commented this is Item H.10. for Keleon Watkins  
that is requesting a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11; the application  
number is 24Z00048; the Tax Account number is 2110707; and it is located in District 1.  
Keleon Watkins advised he is trying to change his property from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11 for land  
use matters, or whatever, so he was trying to see if he can get a change.  
Commissioner Delaney stated she hopes Mr. Watkins builds something beautiful.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request of Keleon  
Watkins for a change in zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11 on property located on  
the west side of Orange Avenue, north of Cypress Avenue.  
Result: APPROVED AS AMENDED  
Mover: Katie Delaney  
Seconder: Thad Altman  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.11. KVK Management & Remodeling Services LLC (Keleon Watkins) requests a  
change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11. (24Z00049) (Tax Account  
2103672) (District 1)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request by KVK Management and  
Remodeling Services LLC for a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated this is KVK Management & Remodeling  
Services LLC requesting a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-11; the  
application number is 24Z00049; the Tax Account number is 2103672; and it is located in  
District 1.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved a request by KVK  
Management and Remodeling Services LLC for a change of zoning classification from RU-1-7  
to RU-1-11 on property located on the west side of Orange Avenue, north of Cypress Avenue.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Katie Delaney  
Seconder: Kim Adkinson  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.12. The Viera Company (Jose Pazmino) requests a CUP for Commercial  
Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises. (24Z00047) (Tax Account 2631510,  
portion of) (District 4)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request of The Viera Company for a  
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Item H.12. is requesting a CUP for  
commercial entertainment and amusement enterprises; the application number is 24Z00047;  
the Tax Account number is 2631510, a portion of; and it is located in District 4.  
Jose Pazmino commented he is here on behalf of Top Golf as the applicant for Agenda Items  
11 and 12; they had a short presentation prepared; but admittedly, he does not see it on the  
screen; it is for a state of the art golf entertainment center; they are proposing west of I-95 and  
east of The Avenues Viera; a conditional use is required because of the amusement use; and a  
few variances are also required due to the use. He went on to add there is a driving range with  
golf balls that will require containment; they are asking for a variance for signage due to the  
weird, unique shape of the building; and lastly, they are asking for a variance for range lighting  
due to unique fixtures needed for the technology.  
Chairman Feltner stated to see what the pleasure of the Board is; he only has cards for the  
applicants; this is in his District; and he is fine with it.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request of The Viera  
Company for a CUP for Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises on property  
located on the north end of Bromley Drive; approved the applicant will provide signed and  
sealed documents by a Professional Engineer (P.E.) demonstrating that the lighting  
configuration does not adversely affect conditions for traffic traveling along I-95 during the site  
plan process; and approved the applicant shall meet all local, State, and Federal regulations  
regarding lighting, unless expressly waived.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Katie Delaney  
Seconder: Thad Altman  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.13. The Viera Company (Hassan Kamal) requests ADS for the Central Viera PUD,  
Parcel 3A. (24PUD00005) (Tax Account 2631510, portion of) (District 4)  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request of The Viera Company for  
ADS for the Central Viera PUD, Parcel 3A.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Item H.13. is a companion application for  
the ADS; The Viera Company is requesting an ADS for the Central Viera PUD, Parcel 3A; the  
application number is 24PUD00005; the Tax Account number is 2631510, portion of; and it is  
located in District 4.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request of The Viera  
Company for ADS for the Central Viera PUD, Parcel 3A; approved the applicant will provide  
signed and sealed documents by a Professional Engineer (P.E.) demonstrating that the lighting  
configuration does not adversely affect conditions for traffic traveling along I-95 during the site  
plan process; and approved the applicant shall meet all local, State, and Federal regulations  
regarding lighting, unless expressly waived.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Katie Delaney  
Seconder: Kim Adkinson  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
H.3. Schwa Inc. (Kimberly Rezanka) requests a change in zoning classification from  
BU-1 to RA-2-4. (24Z00051) (District 2)  
Meeting went into Recess  
Meeting Reconvened  
Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing to consider a request from Schwa Inc. for a  
change of zoning classification from BU-1 to RA-2-4.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Schwa Inc. is requesting a change in zoning  
classification from BU-1 to RA-2-4; the application number is 24Z00051; and it is located in  
District 2.  
Kim Rezanka, Lacey Lyons Rezanka, commented she is present on behalf of Schwa Inc.; she  
is requesting a rezoning from BU-1 to RA-2-4; with her is Dan Dvorak, the representative, who  
will speak during her 15 minutes of time; as the Board is aware, the RA-2-4 zoning would allow  
townhomes; because this is Community Commercial next to a Residential 2 Future Land Use,  
density is already four units to the acre, so what they are asking is to define how those four  
units to an acre will be done and how it will be developed; and if there are concerns about the  
setbacks, then that can be addressed in a Binding Development Plan (BDP) if that is something  
the Commission would like to do, but they have not proposed it. She went on by saying they  
are two-story townhomes; if the Board wants more specifics in the BDP, they are happy to  
consider that, and Mr. Dvorak can make those decisions; this is a commercial area, but it is all  
residential; if one knows the area, there are very little commercial there; there is nothing to  
support the commercial there; she did a rezoning not too long ago to the south of the  
commercial center that had an ice cream shop, a billiards hall, and a fitness center; those all  
went out of business; and it is now a park and ride for cruise ships. She explained the 3,000  
commercial building, which has small units and a diner, there are many vacant units in there as  
well; Mr. Dvorak will explain why he bought this in 2005, and what he hoped to do with it; it just  
has not been able to work, so he would like to do nine townhomes on this project; the packet  
she provided to the Board is a little bit different than the one that was presented to Planning  
and Zoning; and part of that is because she learned new information talking to staff recently.  
She noted on page one is the property; the Board will see to the east is Egrets Landing; to the  
south is the manufactured homes, Island Lakes; to the northwest of Courtenay are the  
townhomes that recently had been purchased; they are single-family platted; her understanding  
is they are indeed being used for rental, but are brand new and single-family; she did not look  
up the rent; but she presumes they are not cheap. She mentioned they are certainly not  
affordable housing by any stretch; the residents are concerned about having rental property,  
but any of these residents could also rent their houses, as it is not prohibited by law; page two  
is the concept plan; it has not been engineered, it has not been reviewed by staff; it is just an  
idea of what her client could do; when he came to me, she told him to talk to an engineer to see  
what he could do to make sure it even makes sense to try for this rezoning, and that is what he  
did; and Jim Trotter has drafted something that her client likes and would like to build. She  
pointed out page three is Island Lakes; as the Board knows from the zoning map, it is a TR-3,  
but it also says it is Residential 2; it is actually four units to the acre; there are over 300 units in  
this 71-acre parcel; page four is the Zoning Code for EU-2, which is Egrets Landing; she just  
provided that to the Board because they are 9,000-square foot lots, and their structures are  
allowed to be 35 feet, just as this BU-1 property would be allowed to be; she is not saying it  
would be, it is going to be two-story townhomes; but the BU-1 does allow 35 feet height as well.  
She stated page six is a little strip owned by the Homeowners Association (HOA) that the  
Board will hear some people call a spite strip; it is an HOA property that is allowed to be done  
that way as they wanted to buffer it from any other uses she presumes; she actually knows as  
she zoned that property; and they did not want anyone accessing the road, so that is why that  
strip of land is there. She went on to say page seven, the Future Land Use Policy 2-10, which  
she stated was in the staff report; this states residential development is permissible in  
commercial land uses as a density of up to one category higher than the closest  
residentially-designed area on the FLUM at the same side of the street; that is RES 2; that  
makes this RES 4, four units to the acre; and they are just trying to define what is in and how it  
is going to be developed at four units to the acre, because commercial is not something Mr.  
Dvorak’s is interest in doing. She remarked on page eight, this is often forgotten and rarely  
used, if ever; Mr. Ball cannot remember it ever being used since he has been here; it is Section  
62-2106, Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential use; this allowed residential uses in  
commercial at a higher density; in theory, this could be done if there is a commercial  
300-square foot building on the property; then there would be commercial uses next to  
residential, which is less practical, less friendly, and less transitional than single-family homes  
next to single-family homes; and because it does say the total residential flare area of each  
residence shall adhere to the minimum plural area requirements of the RU-2-10, so 62-1372 is  
RU-2-10, just to give the Board an idea how these Codes play together. She explained this is a  
request for four units to the acre, RA-2-4 zoning; otherwise, with BU-1, there could be a litany  
of things that are not as compatible with single-family homes; there could be a bed and  
breakfast, a coin laundry mat, a funeral home, or it could be a hospital; it does indeed allow  
single-family residences; it allows tobacco stores, dry cleaning plants, tourist efficiencies and  
motels, and a treatment facility; and one may or may not like that, but it is something that could  
go there. She stated the rear setbacks for BU-1 shall be 15 feet from the rear lot line; there is a  
perimeter setback of 25 feet from the property line; the interior setbacks and spacing between  
the buildings are to be not less than 20 feet, so there is going to be much more of a distance of  
separation from a setback to the rear with RA-2-4 than there would be with motels or  
residences in a BU-1 zoning; as stated in the staff report, a single-family attached dwelling  
residence can be used as a traditional buffer from higher intensity impacts to the lower intensity  
of the 9,000-square foot units; and the predominant Future Land Use is commercial in this  
area. She noted this request is consistent and compatible with the existing and emerging  
development in the surrounding area, as stated in the staff report; the staff report supports this  
rezoning based upon all of the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; this will  
generate less traffic; Mr. Dvorak did indeed have a commercial site plan developed with 17,000  
square feet; it required 88 parking spaces, which is not feasible; it is not usable there; that  
would be much more intense than nine single-family homes; with that, she would ask Mr.  
Dvorak to speak; she is happy to take any questions; but she does not want to eat into her time  
with questions, so Mr. Dvorak will speak, and then they can take questions.  
Dan Dvorak stated he is the owner of the property on North Courtenay, and the applicant for  
the rezoning; in 2005, as a young father of three and an Engineer at Kennedy Space Center  
(KSC), he was driving home from work one day and thought of stopping somewhere to buy a  
bottle of wine for dinner; the only problem was that there were very few retail stores north of the  
Barge Canal, and none were in the wine business; it seemed like a great opportunity to create  
a retail plaza and attract businesses, so he and his wife bought this lot; and it had already been  
mostly cleared of trees and was being used to store commercial trailers and industrial tools. He  
went on to say by looking at the picture closely, one can see a series of light colored rectangles  
near the center part of the lot; those are actually concrete slabs over a foot-thick each put there  
by a previous owner to make a good working surface for his construction business; it really was  
an industrial site; the first thing they did was pay to have the industrial trailers and tools hauled  
away, then they started working on designing and permitting; they ended up taking out a  
second mortgage on their home to pay for the surveying, engineering, design, and permitting  
and had a completely approved site plan and permits needed for construction; but during that  
permitting process, they watched the Commerce Plaza get built just south of them and sit  
mostly empty for a long time. He pointed out the same thing happened with the Go Port plaza,  
which is now a cruise parking lot; it turns out there just is not enough traffic on State Route  
(SR) 3 north, the residents north of the Barge Canal, to support a healthy retail environment  
there; fortunately, they did not build the commercial plaza because it would have bankrupted  
them; they have put out a lot of money onto that lot from the purchase price, hauling off junk,  
permitting and for the commercial plaza, and almost $48,000 in property tax over the 20 years;  
they intend to develop something on it; and their intent is to build nine homes. He explained  
their intent is to build nine homes; the thought is that 1,200 people moving to Brevard County,  
or Florida every day need places to live; building nine homes provides more of a solution than  
building fewer; there is opposition to their plan, and some of it coming from people that live in  
brand new homes on what used to be the orange grove right behind their lot; he thinks that is  
ironic; some of the opposition believes the choice is rezoning or leaving it as it is; but they are  
mistaken, they will develop something. He stated they could pursue a wide variety of uses,  
including a hotel, but he believes that single-family housing is the most compatible with the  
neighborhood, and the best option; other opponents believe they should put detached homes  
on the site; he has studied that option and his calculations show that they would lose an awful  
lot of money doing that; and he appreciates the Board’s consideration for their rezoning request  
with an eye towards their property rights.  
Chairman Feltner asked if there are any questions for the applicant.  
Commissioner Delaney stated she is not sure who can answer this for her, but she asked how  
wide the property is from that line Ms. Rezanka had mentioned to the other side of the property,  
on page six.  
Ms. Rezanka replied about 15 feet.  
Commissioner Delaney advised the rest of the property, like the buildable area.  
Ms. Rezanka responded that property is about 155 feet.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if it is 155 feet, and the driveway is 75 feet from the spite strip  
headed north, had she thought about getting a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)  
permit to access SR 3, because usually they do not like driveways right beside each other.  
Mr. Dvorak replied they have considered that; and he thinks the engineer that drew that feels  
that they could get that.  
Commissioner Goodson inquired if Mr. Dvorak wants to build nine units.  
Mr. Dvorak responded affirmatively.  
Commissioner Goodson pointed out the Comp Plan is one per acre, which would be four, at  
least that is his understanding.  
Mr. Dvorak noted he thinks the Comp Plan is four per unit.  
Commissioner Goodson stated the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association would agree  
to four, but Mr. Dvorak wanted nine; and he asked if that is correct.  
Mr. Dvorak advised the economy dictates that with the price they paid for the lot, the  
engineering it would take to do it, and everything else.  
Commissioner Goodson mentioned that was in place when Mr. Dvorak bought it; and he asked  
if he were aware of that then.  
Mr. Dvorak replied they were intending to build a commercial plaza when they bought it.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if Mr. Dvorak then switched it totally 180 degrees to residential.  
Mr. Dvorak responded right, but the reason for that is because the commercial . . .  
Commissioner Goodson stated he hears him.  
Mr. Dvorak remarked commercial goes to die north of the Barge Canal.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if the Planning and Zoning staff voted unanimously for this.  
Commissioner Delaney stated no.  
Chairman Feltner noted it was 5:5.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if they had two votes.  
Mr. Ball explained yes, but the final vote was 5:5; and there was no motion for approval or  
denial of the application.  
Chairman Feltner advised there are about 10 cards; and when one says homes, he or she is  
talking about townhomes just to clarify.  
Mr. Dvorak stated yes.  
Chairman Feltner asked if Mr. Dvorak would be the owner of those and rent them out, or who  
will hold the title to those.  
Mr. Dvorak replied his intent is to sell most of them to homeowners; he believes in home  
ownership; and it is part of the American dream to own a home.  
Chairman Feltner inquired if Mr. Dvorak would maybe sell five with five separate titles, and then  
he will hold on to four, or something like that.  
Mr. Dvorak replied it is more like seven and two; and he does not have the money to float this  
for the rest of his life.  
Chairman Feltner stated he understands.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if everyone understands that selling something does not  
necessarily mean that it will not be a rental.  
Mr. Dvorak responded that is correct, like any home; and he does not want to be a landlord for  
the rest of his life.  
Chairman Feltner mentioned he does not aspire to be one either; and he asked would this  
zoning change allow for short-term rental of those.  
Mr. Ball replied yes, sir, it would.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if it would.  
Chairman Feltner responded it would; the rest of Ms. Rezanka’s time will be reserved; and he  
will go to the cards.  
Jack Ratterman commented when he got ready to come to the Commission meeting he looked  
in the mirror and thought, man, there is the big, fat guy in the mirror; he wanted the Board to  
know he did not always look like this; he went to a university on a cross country and track  
scholarship, he ran for four years; at one time had enough athletic ability to run a half-mile in  
one minute and 58.8 seconds, so at one time, he was thin and did not look like this; but over  
time, age makes a difference. He continued by saying the townhomes they are proposing, they  
always reference the ones just north of this, the 88 units; those 88 townhomes were  
unanimously voted against by the HOA and the Special District Board; they did not want them;  
when they were first told about them, they were not for sale, they were all for rent; and he has  
been told that only two of them had been rented so far, so the idea of renting them and letting  
them go that way is not the way. He pointed out the applicant has talked about property rights;  
it is like anybody’s rights, one has as much rights as long as they do not infringe on his; it goes  
back to a person cannot say he or she has freedom of speech and then jump up in a theatre  
and yell fire; he has his property rights, but there are other people already around him; Island  
Lakes are an example right there next to him; Egret’s landing moved in; and now all of those  
folks in Island Lakes are looking at the bottom of the house pads of Egret’s Landing, so every  
time it rains just a little bit, they flood, and the people are going to do the same thing. He stated  
Mr. Dvorak suggested nine units; he wants to make a killing on this; if he makes a bad decision  
on the commercial, it is not the community’s fault; maybe his decision on what he does with his  
property was not the right thing; but he is not going to punish the community; and he can get  
four units and be compatible with the neighborhood, but he does not think he really wants to do  
that. He noted whether he makes good or bad decisions financially, it is not up to the Board to  
make the bad turn into good.  
Spryos Alvonellos stated he believes the Board has the exhibits; their house is right there; this  
lake right there, or pond, that is where they live; he does not begrudge anybody for trying to  
take their property and make it better; the only problem with that is they are already flooded;  
Mr. Ratterman talked about that; his wife will come up later and talk about the flooding; and she  
has some pictures to show the Board. He remarked the reality is all of that Egret’s Landing  
building, before they had no flooding, especially not like that; they had to pump it out; they  
currently pump it out every single time it rains; if there is a hurricane, and they do not pump out  
that pond, then they are going to flood; the flooding comes nearly 15 yards to the pool and their  
home, so all of the water from Egret’s is coming down here; and what overflows goes into the  
pond and onto their property. He explained he understands this is a difficult decision for the  
Board, but they live there; he hopes the residents’ presence makes a difference today, because  
they have to live with whatever the Board’s decision is, Mr. Dvorak’s plans are, and whatever  
happens after he leaves; they do not think it is fair to the residents; he served 24 years in the  
Air Force; this is their forever home; they are not leaving; they are going to carry him out of  
there; and he is not going to sell, he is staying here. He advised he lives there, so he would like  
the Board to consider what they are talking about; there are plenty of people here that will talk  
to the Board about their feelings; his feelings is if anything else is built there, no problem, as  
long as it does not have raised homes that will allow rainwater to come towards them; this will  
aggravate it even more because there are two retention ponds put there; one has to wonder  
where all of that water is going to go; it is going to come to them, except it will ot come from this  
side, it will come literally from this side; and they will not be able to walk out of their garage door  
by the time this is over. He concluded by saying they do not know if they can survive the  
elevation; that is what he wanted to talk to the Board about; he appreciates its time and  
consideration with its decision; and it is going to impact the residents.  
Commissioner Goodson stated Mr. Alvonellos made a comment that he did not care what they  
built there as long as it is not nine townhouses; and he asked if that is correct.  
Mr. Alvonellos replied he is concerned more about whatever is built there not causing flooding.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if Mr. Alvonellos would agree that if townhomes or a strip center  
is built that they are going to raise the elevation of the land.  
Mr. Alvonellos responded then that will cause flooding, and that will be a problem for them.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if Mr. Alvonellos would also agree that they have a plan that  
shows where the water’s going, and it cannot adamantly just be all funneled to him.  
Mr. Alvonellos replied he would agree to that.  
Commissioner Goodson remarked he would, too.  
Mr. Alvonellos mentioned he would like to have some help pumping out the water.  
Commissioner Goodson advised he understands Mr. Alvonellos’ concerns, he hears him, but at  
the same token, he wanted to make sure he understood that there are civil site plans that have  
to be done whether it is an out-house or a home.  
Mr. Alvonellos replied yes.  
Commissioner Goodson inquired if Mr. Alvonellos would agree to four units; he stated the  
Comp Plan is one acre; he asked Ms. Rezanka if she would like to come up and answer that;  
and he stated he does not want her to come up as she is distracting his good thoughts about  
her.  
Mr. Alvonellos stated he is not sure, he has not seen the plans.  
Commissioner Goodson noted nobody has seen the plans, because it is all conceptional.  
Mr. Alvonellos advised he would say no, he would not agree to that.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if he knew the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association  
agreed to that.  
Mr. Alvonellos stated they may have, but he lives where he lives, and they do not live where he  
lives.  
Commissioner Goodson mentioned he understands.  
Mr. Alvonellos pointed out he lives with flooding.  
Commissioner Delaney asked staff if Egret’s Landing has a civil plan to make sure that water  
stayed on their property and all that good stuff.  
Tad Calkins, Planning and Development Director, replied yes, Egret’s Landing was done with a  
subdivision plan just as all developments would be.  
Commissioner Goodson asked during a hurricane everyone suffers flooding because the ponds  
fill up and overflow, and then the water finds the lowest point to go to; and he asked if Mr.  
Calkins agreed to that.  
Mr. Calkins responded yes, water gets collected; and he is not sure if there has been water in  
any particular homes out there.  
Commissioner Goodson stated he hears Mr. Calkins, and he agreed with him.  
Mary Hillberg stated she is speaking for the North Merritt Island special advisory board, which  
is an elected, zoning advisory board specific for the North Merritt Island area concerning its  
rezoning request by Schwa Inc; their board was first to hear this Item and several residents  
spoke; all of them were concerned that an increased residential density on 2.45 or 2.47,  
whichever it is, acres would negatively impact them in terms of stormwater flood, traffic  
congestion, and in their main entrance and reduction of their property values; and  
Administrative Policy 7 states that proposed uses shall not cause or substantially aggravate  
any substantial drainage problem for surrounding properties, or significant adverse effects on  
natural wetlands, water bodies, or habitat for listed species; and this proposed development  
would likely violate Policy on both counts. She remarked the property was rezoned from AU to  
BU-1 in 1990 when the commercial corridor was established; the FLU is Community  
Commercial in a designated commercial corridor; this BU-1 classification does not allow  
warehousing or wholesaling; the North Merritt Island advisory board unanimously  
recommended denial of this request suggesting four units total, which is two units per acre as  
most of the surrounding area reflects, and would be an acceptable density increase; and they  
did that not asking the residents whether they approved or not. She went on to say they did that  
because the property owner has a right to develop his property efficiently and competently, and  
so forth; they respect all of the property owners whether they develop or not, so they would try  
to find a compromise that is adequate and that will cause the least amount of problems; the  
Planning and Zoning board weighed in all aspects and voted 5:5, which is a tie, which it means  
no; keeping the property’s family values and safety of the residents is their primary goal; and  
they are not about keeping property owners from fully-utilizing their property, but it cannot  
happen at the detriment of the people who already live there. She asked the Board if it was  
aware of the latter study that was done in 2008 or 2009 after Tropical Storm Fay, because they  
used to be all X, which is designated X, and is a non-flood zone, one never gets a flood;  
obviously, that was an incorrect designation for North Merritt Island, so they did a study; the  
light green is a trough that goes through the middle; they do not want to call it a trough, they  
like to call it a bowl, and it goes all the way down there; this property is on the edge of that; that  
is why everybody there is going to flood; and if it is overdeveloped, it will flood. She stated it  
does not mean that nothing can be built; but it does mean that the properties that are already  
there should not be hurt; and she asked if the Board has any questions.  
Mark Burns advised he and his wife, Olive, live in the property located at 206 Norwood Street,  
which borders the proposed rezoning; they are the house on that map that is to the east; he is  
a retired, disabled veteran; he served 28 years in the Air Force with Mr. Alvonellos; and he  
moved 15 times before finally settling in Merritt island. He continued by saying he cares for his  
granddaughter, Rosie, and his 101 year old Aunt Judy; an issue came up just prior to the  
meeting, which took priority, so he is glad he was able to make it here on time, because his  
dear Aunt needed him to buy her some Klondike Bars and some Devil Dogs; she gets whatever  
she wants, so the Board almost missed him, but he is here and he is blessed; the last two  
meetings he argued how the rezoning and proposed development would affect him and his  
neighbors; this included flooding, traffic, and wildlife to name a few; and he realizes that all of  
these issues are important, especially the increased water damage that will affect him and his  
neighbors to the north. He noted he is going to be a little greedy now and focus on comments  
that affect he and his family; his primary concern can be spelled out in the following questions;  
he asked what the exact setback is for the proposed stormwater treatment pond; will the hole  
be far enough from him where it will not propose a danger to his granddaughter or his family;  
will there be a fence constructed along the property line he continues to have, or will there be a  
natural barrier with shrubs and trees like there are now; and what kind of material would be  
used if they did construct the fence. He inquired would it be a chain-link fence; would it be  
white, picket, or a black picket fence; how many trees would be removed; what will be his new  
view from the east; will he still have some semblance of privacy, or will he be able to look  
straight out to Courtenay and watch the traffic go by; and finally, will the proposed development  
change the overall look of the community in Egret’s Landing. He stated some guidelines that  
the HOA enforces on him are unbelievable; the irony would be getting cited by his HOA for a  
weed growing through his  
Commissioner District 1 Katie Delaney , Commissioner District 2  
Tom Goodson, Commissioner District 3 Kim Adkinson,  
Commissioner District 4 Rob Feltner, and Commissioner District 5  
Thad Altman  
Present:  
sidewalk, and 20 feet to his right there will be no enforceable restrictions; his hope is that the  
Board will make its decision today contingent with answering some of the questions that he  
does not think have been brought up; a couple of them have setbacks; this pond troubles him;  
when the pond fills up and then goes away, the vegetation dies and it starts to stink; his wife  
and he have a bunch of apple trees back there; she is from the Philippines, and she enjoys her  
gardening; and they have seen the water come in. He pointed out they have seen the water  
dissipate, and all of the shrubbery and everything dies; it stinks, and it is not enjoyable; he is  
very concerned about all of the other issues that Mr. Alvonellos brought up, especially the water  
runoff and the potential flooding; but at the end of the day he just wants to be happy, safe, and  
reside in a community that his family and he can be proud of.  
Wendy Alvonellos stated she has nothing against this man who bought this property; everyone  
at times in life set out to have endeavors to better his or her quality of life; she feels for him in  
her heart, she really does; but her problem is not with him as much as it is with the building  
commissioners in Brevard County; obviously, he had never seen any of the houses flood; and  
they are paying right at $6,000 a year in taxes. She went on to say they bought an over  
$500,000 house, and they worked hard; her husband sacrificed his family for 24 years to serve  
the country; they finally got to the opus, their retirement; this is where they are going to go; they  
looked, searched, and checked out those stats of where a hurricane would hit right there; and  
they had no idea as normal citizens to go to the building department and find out how high they  
were going to build these houses on this other street, because they are right there in the center  
of that. She noted they have the pond and the two houses on the piece of property; his property  
connects to theirs; those are pictures of her yard when it rains hard; that is not a hurricane; they  
first come in with Egret’s Landing; they finished that last L going across the back side; that is  
what it looked like when it rains; if they have a hard rain, that is what it looks like; her husband  
is in his 60s; and she is closely approaching behind him, but every time there is a hard rain,  
they have to watch that pond, along with her neighbors. She advised there is a five-acre tract  
there; all of them have to get out there and haul this heavy pump down to the lake, hook up  
fireman hoses to a ditch that runs up their side all the way to the road to that ditch, and they  
have to pump this pond down in order to have it not flood their house; they had alligators no  
further from her to the Board, big alligators; they had a 13-foot alligator out there, because the  
water came that far to their door; as Mr. Burns said, when the water goes away, it stinks; she is  
allergic to leaf mold, so she stays stopped up all of the time because it floods and it takes so  
long to go down; and it is just a rotten, stinky mess. She concluded by saying to think that they  
have put their entire life savings in their property, this is where they live, not invest in; this is not  
an investment property, this is where their home is, and because the Planning Department is  
building so much higher, they did not know they were going to do that; that is all she wanted to  
say; she reiterated she is not against the property owner or what he is doing; but she is against  
the fact that nobody is paying attention to those who are already there.  
Commissioner Goodson asked when her home was built.  
Ms. Alvonellos replied in 1995.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if they built the home from new.  
Mr. Alvonellos responded no, they bought it.  
Commissioner Goodson pointed out a lot of times Florida people do not want to spend money  
for dirt to raise their house, but as things change, laws change, and other developments have  
to  
raise up by law, it creates problems for everybody; and he expressed his apologies to Ms.  
Alvonellos.  
Marie Volland stated she and her husband reside on North Courtenay Parkway, where they  
have lived for the past 20 years; they live next door to Mr. and Mrs. Alvonellos who previously  
spoke; she is here this evening to voice her opposition to the building of the townhome  
complex, which would be located on the front, left side of their residence; she would like to  
make some key points; and they have talked about the flooding quite a bit, but the opening of  
Egret’s Landing was the first issue that significantly flooded the residents nearby. She  
continued by saying Hurricane Irma in 2022 was when they incurred the worst once that  
development was fully-completed; the pictures that she has shown the Board will show her  
backyard on a normal day, and it will show what it looked like post-Irma; those are not even the  
worst of the pictures that she could be bringing; most residential properties in this vicinity sit  
lower; their property is lower than Egret’s Landing, thereby causing a lot of issues with water  
placement; many senior citizens in the area are on a fixed income; they cannot afford  
reengineering their landscape with fill dirt or other modifications to try to build up their land to  
protect it from the flooding; fill dirt is very expensive, as she happens to know; and it could be  
$50,000 to $60,000 if a person wants to build up two acres. She explained the ditches in their  
area is another issue that she would like to speak about; in 2004 when they went through the  
four hurricanes, she recalls the County coming and clearing many of the ditches; they dredged,  
they did a wonderful job, all down North Courtenay, north of Hall Road; it has not been done  
since; now, the past two years, her husband and she observed the County doing a beautiful job  
clearing ditches north and south on Courtenay up to Hall Road and down Hall road; and they  
stopped there and no activity has ever been done north of Hall Road on Courtenay. She  
pointed out overgrown and clogged ditches prevent water flow, retention ponds are overflowing,  
and additional building is just placing more strain; the other topic she wanted to talk about is  
infrastructure; at the last meeting that she attended where this topic was presented, they stated  
that there was a traffic study done in 2021; it is almost 2025 and she can attest, the traffic flow  
is significantly increased; this is not due to just the residents that lived in this area; there are  
new properties; the townhomes across from her are not fully-occupied yet; there are other  
developments down Crisafulli that are not fully-occupied, so they are not even at full-capacity of  
the residential properties; and it is not just residential traffic, there are commuters on Courtenay  
for the space programs. She added, it is significantly busier; she knows people that commute  
from Orlando, so there is other traffic on the road; the other thing is all the U-turns are  
becoming very dangerous; the townhomes across from them where they have to come out,  
they have to go out and then do a U-turn; the U-turns on the Parkway is also becoming  
dangerous and causing more accidents; she understands and appreciates that the individual  
who owns this land desires to utilize it; however, a townhome complex is not a fit or appropriate  
for this small lot, which is embedded in primarily single-family; she believes a townhome  
dwelling such as this would potentially cause more flooding to their home, traffic congestion,  
disruption in privacy, noise levels, visual obstruction, and potentially a devaluation of their  
property value; and therefore, she opposes it.  
Sandra Sullivan commented first and foremost, in the County Ordinances one cannot put fill on  
properties and raise it if it floods their neighbors; she asked the Board to check its Ordinances;  
she pointed out she is at a loss on Egret’s; the other thing she wanted to talk about is North  
Merritt Island Special District formed by referendum, by the people; they are elected officials;  
when reading that Ordinance that replaces the P&Z board, the board that meets, that is in  
place of; and she asked the County Attorney to review that Ordinance, because it should not  
have gone from North Merritt Island Special District Board zoning board, then to P&Z board,  
and then to the Board of County Commissioners. She went on by saying the North Merritt  
Island board was a no vote, the P&Z board was a tie vote, which is a no vote, and that should  
have been stated by the Planning and Zoning Department to clear up that ambiguity; there has  
been a number of small area studies and studies done in North Merritt Island; the studies that  
talked about the zoning was one unit per one acre; the issue with that zoning was it was  
causing more flooding as the properties were getting developed, so when former  
Commissioner Lober was in office, he did an additional study in 2018, and the recommendation  
was made to change the zoning in North Merritt Island from one unit to two and a half acres;  
this room was filled more times than any other issue by the people of North Merritt Island,  
because of the increased flooding; and in response to that study changing it from one unit to  
two and one half acres, Mr. Crisafulli hired Ms. Rezanks’a firm to push back on that, and  
successfully stopped it. She stated what the Board has before it is an even further density, as  
the problem with North Merritt Island is former Commissioner Lober did a study, a half a million  
dollar study, that found that it is in the 10-year flood plain, and there are huge flooding issues;  
the response to that was this Commission recently, not the new people, passed a  
Comprehensive Plan change to remove the density cap on the flood plain; now, she does not  
know about the Board, but the State has an insurance crisis, and if they do not protect the flood  
plain, they are never going to be able to get insurance under control; not to mention people  
who have existing property have property rights as well; and their property rights is that their  
homes should not flood because of irresponsible development. She noted the bottom line is  
that North Merritt Island is a giant bowl that floods; in the fall the river is high, which just  
happens to coincide with hurricane time; with a high river and storm events, there is no place to  
pump the water, so there is a problem; the County has a problem and it should really take a  
look at this, or start with this; she asked again for the Board to review its Ordinances that it has  
and to at least follow the law; she advised when it says North Merritt Island Special District  
does the zoning for North Merritt Island, it should not then send it to the P&Z board; she asked  
the Board to start respecting its Ordinances; she stated it spend a lot of money with this  
flooding problem in North Merritt Island; and she asked the Board to make the responsible  
decision today.  
Commissioner Goodson asked the County Attorney to elaborate on all of that.  
Attorney Richardson stated the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District has the power  
and duty to review and provide the Planning and Zoning board with an advisory  
recommendation upon rezoning application made for property located within the District; with  
such an application, if approved, it would increase residential density on the property that is the  
subject of the application, so Section 98-145, the Ordinance specifically provides for North  
Merritt Island recommendations to go to the Planning and Zoning board, and to come to the  
County Commission when there is an application that would increase such density, such as is  
the one before it; the County does have an Ordinance; and the Board has to read the  
Ordinance.  
Commissioner Goodson asked the County Attorney to explain to him the Community  
Commercial Comp Plan in reference to this piece of property.  
Attorney Richardson replied with the Community Commercial under the same Comp Plan  
designation, the maximum they can get is RES 4, which is four units to the acre, but the density  
in a Community Commercial is going to be driven by the zoning that they have, so currently,  
they have BU-1, which would only allow one single-family residential if they did the residential  
use; the proposed use would allow up to four units per acre; and the Board could determine  
something in between as more appropriate.  
Commissioner Goodson inquired if staff could tell him how many units per acre south of Egret’s  
Landing.  
Mr. Calkins responded their Future Land Use is RES 2, but he does not know what the yield  
would be on their development; he would have to look at that and see; and he would have to  
look at their plans.  
Michaela Murphy remarked she is a resident of Egret’s Landing, so she certainly does not want  
to come here as a hypocrite; she understands that Egret’s Landing may have been the cause  
of some of these issues that these residents are facing; she is like a lot of the young families  
that built a house in that neighborhood looking for a safe place to raise their kids; and she is  
primarily concerned about the traffic. She went on to say right now one can only turn north to  
go to the Space Center which is where her kids go to daycare; they drive them every single  
day; they are a little concerned about the crashes; there has been a lot of crashes on  
Courtenay recently, some deadly, and it is really scary; she is sorry for getting choked up, but  
she was rocked by the crash on I-95 that happened a couple of days ago that killed someone;  
and she is worried about additional people living there, and it is not just for them, but for the  
potential people who may live in those condos. She noted if there is not a study done on the  
traffic, especially how one would enter and exit that property, that she does not think they could  
possibly in good conscience move forward; it is not safe for the folks that are exiting from their  
neighborhood; a lot of folks have to turn north and then do a U-turn, which is incredibly  
dangerous; there are thousands of folks that use Courtenay to get to Kennedy Space Center  
every single day; frankly, they are just trying to work and get back home every day; and  
unfortunately, some of them seem to treat it like a racetrack, and it is really scary knowing that  
is right outside a person’s neighborhood. She pointed out she does not think in good  
conscience, the Board can add more people driving right there; if the driveway is right next to  
theirs, she is worried about visibility and cars pulling out right in front of a person; with the  
U-turns, they would look to have to redo the intersection or create a stop light, or something;  
but from what she can see, that has not been part of the plan, or it has not been studied; she  
does not know what the requirements are, but she thinks that is something that has to be  
looked at; additionally, hearing that the Board has said that there is a potential with this new  
zoning that it could be utilized as short-term rentals; and a lot of North Merritt Island has been  
turned into short-term parking for the cruise lines. She explained she would be very concerned  
that if this is allowed to be short-term rentals; folks would use that who are rowdy, people they  
do not want right next to a single-family or single-home community utilizing that right next to  
long-term cruise parking; it would not make sense if they did that; again, she does not want to  
sound like a hypocrite, but truly the flooding is a problem, even for the folks in Egret’s Landing;  
she has two kids; she is scared that during a hurricane or even during a bad rain storm that  
they could have significant flooding; and that is really scary.  
Nancy Minerva stated she agreed with just about everything that was said, so she will not  
repeat that; she wanted to say that she believes that the Board Members took office to help the  
residents of this community; she knows he or she does not all represent District 2, but the  
entire Board does represent the community; she asked that the Commission would think about  
the good of the people who are living in the community, not only in this decision but in all  
decisions, because past Commissioners did not pay attention to the residents and all of the  
things that people said; there is so much history of flooding there; they have had tours of the  
flooding areas, of how the water flows; they have had people from Public Works come up and  
work with them; and she has been there since 2012, so she has seen how it has changed. She  
advised the Commission is welcome to come; she is sure the residents would show him or her  
all of the flooding that has happened; they have collected photos, and done all kinds of stuff;  
she asked the Board to please make a good decision; she is looking for a Policy, that says the  
proposed use shall not cause or substantially aggravate any substantial drainage problems;  
she is sympathetic of Mr. Dvorak; she asked the Board to think about the people who live in  
North Merritt Island, their property rights, and do not make them leave and then have property  
they cannot sell because a person is not going to be able to sell flooded property to someone  
else; and she asked the Board to make a good decision for everybody.  
Chris Minerva commented he represents the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association; the  
Board has heard everything already, but he will just say that the North Merritt Island  
Homeowners position on this rezoning is to object to the request, because under Brevard  
County Administrative Policies, this rezoning would diminish the enjoyment of the quality of life  
in the surrounding existing neighborhoods; he asked the Board to picture putting apartments  
next to his or her home; and why should future buyers pay the same amount of property taxes  
next to an apartment complex. He went on to say it is just common sense; Section 3C is  
inconsistent with the local land use patterns; Section 4, it is inconsistent with decades of rural  
character of the surrounding areas; Section 5G, generally it causes more traffic impacting road  
safety and road services; inside North Merritt Island commercial corridor and areas for  
commercial buildings and development is designated to not have residential development,  
especially not high-density residential; and there have been several successful commercial  
developments over the past two years on North Merritt Island, so commercial is possible if  
reasonably priced. He noted they see that commercial development has overall less impact on  
surrounding properties than high-density housing; Merritt Island is low; it is already flood prone;  
it is much more environmentally-sensitive and not the place for apartments and townhouses;  
they keep hearing the argument from developers that their stormwater will be, by law, held on  
their property more and more when they experience the typical summer and fall rains, and then  
big storms come in; and all of those promises go out of the retention areas and flood the street  
and properties while new development sit up higher and runs more water onto them. He stated  
this property is currently zoned so that it could have four residences built on it to lower their  
harmful impact on the surrounding residents, people who have invested their life and savings  
into their homes; they request that the applicants honor the current zoning and put their  
commercial, or four residences, on that property; and he expressed his appreciation to the  
Board for its time and consideration.  
Commissioner Goodson inquired if Mr. Minerva would agree to four.  
Mr. Minerva responded yes, that is what was agreed to.  
Commissioner Goodson asked of the Homeowners Association.  
Mr. Minerva replied correct, four on the property. He pointed out before it was North Merritt  
Island it was Mosquito Island.  
Chairman Feltner asked if there is anyone else who wants to speak on this Item; and he asked  
about the short-term rentals, so he is going to assume that the nearby neighborhood, their  
HOA, would not allow that, but their zoning, would it allow that for Egret’s Landing.  
Mr. Calkins advised Egret’s Landing is residentially-zoned; the zoning classification for that is  
EU-2 he believes; it is does not allow for short-term rentals as a permitted use.  
Chairman Feltner asked if this parcel would allow for that through that which the Board is  
considering.  
Mr. Calkins replied both the proposed zoning and the current zoning would allow for short-term  
rentals; he stated he would like to speak to Commissioner Goodson’s question; and it appears  
that Egret’s Landing is about 1.5 units to the acre development.  
Ms. Rezanka stated again, she wants to clarify it is not Residential 1, it is Residential 2, but it is  
in the area; everything yellow is Residential 2; the Small Area Study did want to change  
everything that was undeveloped to Residential 1; she was indeed hired by about 15 property  
owners to keep their properties out of the Small Area Study, not to fight the Small Area Study;  
and there is a distinction there. She went on to add they just wanted to be kept out as has been  
done in prior Small Area Studies, so this is 2.47 acres seeking nine townhomes under RA-2-4;  
because it is Community Commercial, Future Land Use Policy 2.10 allows for one density  
bump, so it is technically four units to the acre; looking at the staff report, it states that clearly  
on page three, four units to the acre potential; the other issue in the staff report, on page five, is  
that there is no material violation of relevant policies have been identified; that is all the  
Administrative Policies that the Board heard in conclusory fashion that this project will violate.  
She stated there is no evidence that any of these will be violated; and in fact, they do meet, by  
staff’s report, there is no adversity to those Policies. She explained regarding traffic on page  
seven of the staff report, she is not sure where the 2021 traffic study information came from but  
this does say that the maximum acceptable volume is 41,790; this currently operates at 36.83  
percent, so it is not even at 40 percent of capacity, and this would only increase the utilization  
by .21 percent, so there are only nine units, which usually townhomes have about seven trips  
per day; this is not going to be a substantial impact; and they cannot help the traffic design with  
the U-turns. She noted the lady who is concerned about the U-turns says they have to, but that  
is not something this development is necessarily going to cure nor would it warrant a traffic  
study with only nine units; it may be an issue for Brevard Traffic to look at in the future; this is  
nine units; according to the Future Land Use, it is permissible; and they are not apartments,  
they are townhomes. She stated BU-1 zoning currently allows for resort rentals; BU-2 zoning  
currently allows hotels and motels; by the mixed-use Ordinance that she cited to the Board  
earlier, they believe that it can be more, because it says residence is plural; it is something that  
has not been used, but if this is denied, they will certainly look at doing that and having a  
mixed- use facility there with townhomes; that is not what he wants to do, because then BU-1  
setbacks would apply; BU-1 setbacks are only 15 feet; and if one has the RA-2-4 zoning, they  
have setbacks of a perimeter of 25 feet, and they are willing to agree to a BDP to increase the  
buffers to leave natural buffers, if possible, to prevent the proximity to the residence in egress.  
She mentioned the flooding comes up every time a new development comes in; North Merritt  
Island is actually very special because of flooding; about three or four years ago, there was that  
massive study; there is now additional compensatory storage required in North Merritt Island;  
she does not know that it has been used yet, because it is a model that all of this data has to  
go into, so it ensures that there is not going to be flooding from a new development; and an  
engineer has to certify, basically, based upon his license, this is not going to impact, and there  
have been engineers that have been very concerned about that. She added, there are stricter  
requirements in the past four years for North Merritt Island than there have been in the past;  
this is single-family townhomes to single-family townhomes, as they are not apartments;  
regarding the current setback from Egret’s Landing, the person closest to this property, his side  
setback is only 10 feet; then there is that 10 to 15-foot strip of HOA property, then there would  
be a perimeter setback of 25 feet, so one would be looking at 45 feet from that person’s  
property; and again, the perimeter setback for RA-2-4 is greater than BU-1. She pointed out  
circumstances change; Mr. Dvorak bought this in 2005; the space shuttle was up and running;  
the space shuttle closed down in 2011; she reiterated that things change; that traffic has  
diminished from the space shuttle traffic; property that one built, he or she may not be able to  
build what they wanted to; he should not be faulted for wanting to do something, then not being  
able to do it because of change of circumstances; and the property has not been developed.  
She stated she is not aware of any successful commercial area in North Merritt Island other  
than the Dollar General; Mr. Minerva did not give any indications of what that was; but the  
commercial that is there is not thriving; in fact, it has been repurposed; again, they were not  
faulted for that, and they had a lot of people come out against the rezoning for cruise parking;  
there are four units to the acre already at Island Lakes, as she has mentioned, the mobile  
home community; and she did briefly want to discuss the Administrative Policies, because the  
Administrative Policies do indeed support this rezoning. She continued by saying Policy 3 talks  
about the use of single-family; 3C talks about emerging or existing patterns of development;  
actual development over the preceding three years is the townhomes to the north; adopted  
levels of service will not be compromised; the County staff report has said that; this is  
consistent with the written Land Development Policies and the Future Land Use Element; and it  
will not cause substantial drainage problems. She noted it is not allowed to by the County’s  
Code; it is not going to have an adverse impact on wetlands, natural bodies, or habitats; the  
character of the land use surround is single-family, and this is single-family; the change of  
conditions of the land use being considered, it is not being developed as commercial because it  
is not feasible to do so; and there would be more vacant land, more vacant buildings, as they  
are already vacant in commercial buildings up there. She stated with that, they believe that this  
is compatible with the area; it is a transition from the substantial parkway, so there is  
residential, then there is more residential further to the east, and it does meet the County’s  
Comp Plan and the conditions of the Code; and most of those issues raised are site plan  
issues that County staff will address as well as FDOT.  
Commissioner Altman asked if the applicant has looked at the size of the lots in Herring’s  
Landing.  
Ms. Rezanka asked Egret’s Landing.  
Commissioner Altman replied yes, Egret, wrong bird.  
Ms. Rezanka replied right, it is single-family plotted.  
Commissioner Altman asked but, the size of the lots.  
Ms. Rezanka advised they can be 9,000 square feet; but she does not know what they all are.  
Commissioner Altman stated he was just looking and the first one he looked at was .23 of an  
acre, which is greater than four units per acre; and if Ms. Rezanka does the math on her  
client’s proposal, the total acres divided by the number of units is 3.6 acres.  
Ms. Rezanka stated yes, sir.  
Commissioner Altman stated it is less dense than the subdivision to the back; he was  
wondering if she had looked at that; and he asked how she got that number of lots at the lower  
density than Egret’s Landing; and is it because of the buffer areas that she is providing.  
Ms. Rezanka responded it is just the way that the subdivisions have to work; and one takes a  
third of a subdivision, which is generally used for drainage, infrastructure, and things like that.  
Commissioner Altman advised when looking at the drainage and infrastructure, Egret’s Landing  
density is lower; it is interesting when looking at the actual size of the lots of how comparable  
they are; he asked how that was, and if she is willing to agree to the site plan she submitted in  
terms of the number of units.  
Ms. Rezanka responded to the number of units, yes, and her client is willing to agree to  
additional buffers on the east side if that is a requirement or a request of the Commission.  
Commissioner Goodson mentioned if the applicant would agree to a Binding Development Plan  
of four units, he would be all for it; they have heard that the homeowners of North Merritt Island  
would accept four; if that is the case, he will vote for it; and if it is not, he is a no.  
Chairman Feltner asked if Ms. Rezanka would like to take five minutes.  
Ms. Rezanka replied no.  
Commissioner Goodson stated if that is the case he will make a motion to deny it, because he  
does not hear an offering on the BDP.  
Ms. Rezanka explained no, he cannot do that feasibility.  
Chairman Feltner stated for the record, he thinks the owner said no.  
Ms. Rezanka advised yes.  
Commissioner Delaney stated she would like to second the motion.  
Chairman Feltner stated the Board has a motion for denial by Commissioner Goodson, and a  
second by Commissioner Delaney.  
Commissioner Altman explained he is going to vote against that motion, and he wanted to state  
why; he appreciated the neighbors concern, but he is not a fan of strip commercial, and when  
looking at this corridor going up to the Cape, he would hate to see it just become another  
corridor like is seen throughout the County that are tic tacky strip commercial; the Board has  
not even talked about the impacts that BU zoning could have on the neighborhood in terms of  
the lighting at night, not to mention some of the heavy uses the applicant’s attorney has  
brought to its attention; he thinks it is reasonable, and thinks what the Board is hearing is  
economical, it is going to be developed at BU-1 eventually, because the four units for the total  
site, the size of the site is not feasible; and the actual impact of the proposal is very similar to  
Egret’s Landing in terms of the land that is used and the number of lots on the land, because  
those lots in Egret’s Landing are less than a quarter of an acre. He pointed out it is a good  
request; he thinks it is better for the community; he thinks that housing is always single-family  
housing, always is much more compatible with the existing housing; it can provide a nice buffer  
between the housing and Egret’s Landing; and he is going to vote against it because he  
supports the applicant’s request.  
Commissioner Goodson commented that is great.  
Commissioner Delaney stated her biggest concern is that Egret’s Landing that the engineers  
had to certify that there would be no flooding; regardless, they had to basically give the County  
plans that said that there would be no flooding, which is seen time-and-time again; it is part of  
the reason why she is on the Commission, because developers get to come in and do whatever  
they please on their property, because of their own property rights, and it does not matter what  
happens to the existing homeowners; the County cannot continue to do this; he heart breaks  
for the applicant’s situation, she is sorry; but she reiterated the County cannot continue to do  
this.  
Attorney Richardson asked Commissioner Goodson is he can ask that in the event his motion  
passes, it can be included that he directs the County Attorney to develop a resolution setting  
forth proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the action taken to be returned to the  
Board at a future regular Board meeting as a Consent Agenda Item.  
Commissioner Goodson replied yes, by all means.  
Chairman Feltner asked Commissioner Delaney if she is still a second on the amended motion.  
Commissioner Delaney replied affirmatively.  
Chairman Feltner called for a vote on the motion.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board denied the request for a change of  
zoning classification from BU-1 to RA-2-4 on property located on the northeast corner of North  
Courtenay Parkway and Norwich Street; and directed the County Attorney to develop a  
resolution setting forth the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and actions taken to  
be returned to the Board on a future regular meeting as a regular Consent Agenda Item.  
*The Board adjourned at 6:51 p.m. and reconvened at 6:58 p.m.  
Result: DENIED  
Mover: Tom Goodson  
Seconder: Katie Delaney  
Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, and Feltner  
Nay: Adkinson, and Altman  
J.1. Request for Executive Session re: Labor Negotiations  
Commissioner Adkinson stated this is a request to waive the County’s normal Policy, and to  
request to schedule a closed executive session of the Board to discuss collective bargaining  
negotiations; and Policy BCC-97 limits actions at Board zoning meetings to land use items,  
unless the Board finds, by a supermajority vote, that it is in the public’s interest for the Board to  
consider a non-land use item.  
Chairman Feltner commented he wants to clarify; he thinks the Board needs four votes to  
consider the Item; and he asked if that is correct.  
Morris Richardson, County Attorney, replied that is correct.  
Chairman Feltner asked if the Board needs a motion and a second.  
Commissioner Adkinson stated the purpose of this executive session would be to discuss with  
staff, related to the negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters Local 2969;  
the executive session is related to bargaining negotiations that are permitted by Florida  
Statutes; the prior Board had the benefit of an executive session regarding the same contract  
negotiations in May of this year; this Board has not; and she believes it is prudent and  
reasonable that the current Board receive the same opportunity, particularly with three new  
Board Members. She went on by saying the request is that the executive session occur  
immediately after the regular Board meeting scheduled for December 17, 2024; the importance  
of this issue necessitates making the request at a zoning meeting; and postponing the  
executive session into the New Year would delay any new direction to staff, and potentially  
delay the conclusions of negotiations.  
Sandra Sullivan expressed her appreciation to the Board for bringing this forward, because  
there has been a loss according to the news, 108 personnel; she commented the concern is  
the County is moving towards a critical service failure; the County had a critical service failure  
in 1997; there was a report done with recommendations; there were two recommendations in  
that; and as the Board goes into this executive session, she would like it to consider a couple of  
things. She went on to say the recommendations from that study, which is on the Federal  
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) page by the way, recommended that the impact fees  
be increased to the surrounding counties; as the Board knows, impact fees have not been  
updated in nearly 35 years; with massive increases in costs of some things, some of the  
vehicles have doubled in cost; the second recommendation they made was an Emergency  
Medical Services (EMS) assessment; and she read the assessment that the County Manager  
wrote up, and it is not consistent with facts. She advised the study that was done  
recommended an EMS assessment; what the County did back then was did a Multiple Service  
Taxable Unit (MSTU); of course, it was sued by the City of Palm Bay; and as a consequence of  
that, the findings of that one cannot have an ad valorem tax for EMS assessment, because it is  
not related to the property. She stated by the Attorney General (AG) legal opinions, and by that  
case, which she has sent all of the Board Members a screenshot from that, that clearly states  
this out, that this has to be an EMS assessment, so as the County goes into the negotiations, it  
has to find money to pay the firefighters; the couple of things she would like the Board to  
consider is one, taking the money it just got from the Constitutional Offices and dedicating that;  
two, addressing impact fees; three, looking at the County’s billing system; the County wrote-off  
$13 million in write-offs; and that number is skyrocketing. She pointed out she is not talking  
about Medicare, because nothing can be done with that; she is talking about writing off people  
who do not pay for transport; in looking at other counties and what other counties do, one for  
example, does its billing in-house, so a person goes to the county website, put in the billing and  
insurance information, and it processes it; she asked if the Board is aware that Brevard County  
does not, through the Contract that they have with the company in Orlando, does not process  
insurance payments; if an analysis was done of other surrounding counties and how much they  
bring in more as a percentage, because they process that, so there is multiple ways to bring in  
additional revenues to solve this; and also to please evaluate whether a fire district, an  
independent fire district, would be helpful.  
Chairman Feltner advised the Board voted to introduce the Item; the Board did not have any  
questions; it listened to the comment card; and now he is going to entertain a motion on the  
Item to have the executive session after the Commission meeting on Tuesday.  
Commissioner Delaney expressed her appreciation to Commissioner Adkinson for bringing this  
forward.  
The Board approved the scheduling of an execute session to occur immediately following the  
December 17, 2024, Regular Board Meeting, for the purpose of discussing negotiations with  
the Firefighter’s Union.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Kim Adkinson  
Seconder: Katie Delaney  
Ayes: Delaney, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman  
Nay: Goodson  
K.  
PUBLIC COMMENTS  
Sandra Sullivan stated she wants to say citizens demand to fire Abbate now; the reason for this  
is this public service crisis being faced in Brevard County has been largely created by Frank  
Abbate, County Manager; a motion was made to extend his Contract until this new Board came  
on; and in fact, the suggestion was made by Chairman Feltner. She continued by saying the  
trust is lost; while there is a new Board of County Commissioners, she read this report  
yesterday, she frankly, could not believe it as Mr. Abbate is being paid $275,000; that report  
that was put out yesterday is garbage; there is no way to sugarcoat it; it says to restore the  
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) assessment Countywide; apparently, Mr. Abbate does not  
understand that the City of Palm Bay lawsuit against the County in 2004 determined that ad  
valorem taxes for EMS were not legal, so hiding the tax under the General Fund is still an ad  
valorem tax; EMS assessment was under non-ad valorem tax prior to 1998, and should be  
Countywide; and that is what the referendum in 1998 was, to vote for a Countywide EMS  
service because of the critical service failure at that time. She noted it was very extensively  
studied, so the fact that 2004 the County got sued, as it cannot be an valorem tax, it has to be  
a non-ad valorem tax; by reading the Attorney General legal opinions, the most recent done in  
2012, it says it has to be non-ad valorem assessment; just like where the County has its fire  
assessment, it has an EMS assessment; then it is pulling it out of General Fund, which is an ad  
valorem tax; and the amount that is in ad valorem tax is not enough to cover the 47 percent of  
the County’s Fire/EMS budget that is EMS. She advised it is not enough to cover the  
percentage, so the cities are not paying their fair share; this needs to be fixed; those things  
cannot be fixed until next year, so money has to be found in the meantime fix this; she asked  
why Mr. Abbate did not address other issues, like to do a report on fire assessment that is not  
going to bring in any money for a year; does the Board know how long it takes to maybe an  
EMS and fire impact fee study, probably six weeks to two months; and she asked the Board to  
get some money in to address fire.  
Stephanie Maduskuie stated she realizes the Board already took a vote on this, so she hates to  
beat a dead horse, but she just wanted to say her piece about that zoning request; she  
expressed her appreciation to those who voted against the zoning; she stated she lives in  
Egret’s Landing, and this proposed rezoning is . . .  
Morris Richardson, County Attorney, advised those Items have to be considered at a public  
hearing and their due process consideration, so other parties have to be present so they can  
hear and respond to what is said; the Board has already denied the requested action; and if  
Ms. Maduskuie does this now, it will complicate the record and potentially create an error in the  
record.  
Ms. Maduskuie asked so she should not speak during the Public Comment.  
Attorney Richardson replied not on a public hearing, quasi-judicial Item.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if that applies if he asked Ms. Maduskuie about her drainage in  
Egret’s Landing.  
Attorney Richardson explained Commissioner Goodson is welcome to ask Ms. Maduskuie  
about her drainage in Egret’s Landing, just not about the specific zoning request heard earlier.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if Ms. Maduskuie is familiar with her drainage of Egret’s  
Landing.  
Ms. Maduskuie replied she is not an expert in that area.  
Commissioner Goodson noted he knows her and thought she was an expert in everything; and  
he asked if it drains to the front of the lot, back of her lot, or both.  
Ms. Maduskuie responded both.  
Commissioner Goodson inquired if she has one or two ponds.  
Ms. Maduskuie replied they have two.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if she ever noticed even with the worst, like a hurricane, do they  
overflow.  
Ms. Maduskuie advised they get very high, yes.  
Commissioner Goodson asked but as far as overflowing.  
Ms. Maduskuie replied she honestly stays in doors; when it is that bad, she does not go out  
inspecting for her safety.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if the outflow of those two ponds is Hall Road maybe.  
Ms. Maduskuie responded affirmatively.  
L.1. Frank Abbate, County Manager  
Frank Abbate, County Manager, stated he just wants to just respond a little bit to some of the  
comments the Board heard tonight as it relates to the fire assessment report; staff is going to  
be presenting to the Board next week; he is very proud of the document they put together; it is  
a very accurate document; it is very comprehensive; and he reiterated the Board will hear it  
next week when it is presented. He went on to add it was put together by five senior staff  
members who all wrote separate parts, including the County Attorney and the Budget Director;  
he is very confident that what they put together is an accurate representation; and he looks  
forward to presenting it to the Board.  
L.2. Morris Richardson, County Attorney  
Morris Richardson, County Attorney, stated he would echo Mr. Abbate and encourage the  
Board to forget everything it just heard about the validity of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)  
ad valorem and non-ad valorem assessments, because it is exactly reversed of what the cases  
say; but that is in the Board’s report; and going forward, he has no other report.  
L.3. Katie Delaney, Commissioner District 1  
Commissioner Delaney commented she just wanted to bring a couple of things forward; she  
does not know if she is allowed to do this; but for the record, she just wanted to state that she  
did meet with Ms. Rezanka; she did bring forward the public disclosure; for everybody listening,  
she thinks it is fair to meet with everybody; and she did meet with her. She went on to say the  
other thing she wanted to talk about this thing regarding the wastewater treatment plant; she is  
very concerned that this issue is dealing with District 1 and District 2; she feels very passionate  
that both District Commissioners deserve a seat at the table when speaking to these people;  
and she just kind of wanted to see if this could be opened for discussion to see if there are any  
options to have maybe a rotating Commissioner, or if Commissioner Goodson wanted to kind  
of a do a back and forth.  
Commissioner Goodson advised the Chairman has been going.  
Commissioner Delaney stated right.  
Commissioner Goodson asked if Commissioner Delaney wants someone else to go other than  
the Chairman.  
Commissioner Delaney advised she just feels like this is really affecting her District.  
Commissioner Goodson asked how it could be affecting her District.  
Commissioner Delaney replied because the long-term plans are dealing with the regional . . .  
Commissioner Goodson stated right, and that will probably be 10 years, and unless she  
extends the term limits, she will not be here.  
Commissioner Delaney pointed out the plans leading up to that will greatly affect her people.  
Chairman Feltner noted he is certainly very sensitive to that; he will tell her that while each  
Commissioner advocates for his or her District, he is very mindful of everything in this County,  
so he can commit to her today that he is looking out for the rate payers in this arrangement and  
what is being looked at in terms of infrastructure, so he thinks there may be a Sunshine  
challenge; but at this stage in where the County is in talking with Space Florida and others,  
nothing will be agreed to until it comes back to the Board; and he promises Commissioner  
Delaney will have ample opportunity. He went on to say at this point it is a question and answer  
period; he wishes he could come back to her and say there are three definite things that will be  
seen in the very near future; but it is not there yet.  
Commissioner Delaney advised she is concerned about the question and answer piece of it  
though; she is concerned because her District elected her to work on behalf of their interests,  
and in this situation, she is not able to do that; she feels like the planning of the Q&A, that is  
what brings forward the plan to come back to the whole Board; maybe Commissioner Goodson  
does not feel this way, she does not know; but she is concerned.  
Commissioner Goodson explained he is very concerned about everything Commissioner  
Delaney said, but he is not getting in the middle of it sitting at the table with her when he gets  
charged with a Sunshine violation; if she cannot trust her staff, and in the preliminary stages  
the Board instructed staff to go back to them and then come back to the Board; he asked does  
Commissioner Delaney want to be there every time they meet; he stated he just thinks the  
Commission should trust its staff; and he asked if not, why does it have staff.  
Commissioner Delaney stated she is not asking for all of the Commissioners to be there at the  
same time; she does not know if it still violates the Sunshine Law if there is a rotating  
Commissioner; and as far as trusting staff, and she says this with all due respect, her people  
did not elect staff, they elected her.  
Commissioner Goodson noted that is good, and he agrees; but one does have to trust staff.  
Chairman Feltner stated if the Board rotates Commissioners, he thinks that eliminates the  
Sunshine issue.  
Commissioner Altman stated he definitely understands where Commissioner Delaney is coming  
from; historically, a Chairman is elected for the purpose to represent the Board as a whole; he  
is convinced the Commission has a good Chairman; he knows Chairman Feltner will look after  
her interests, his interests, and he will play the balancing act; that is one of the duties of a  
Chairman; and the Chairman is there to present the Board as a whole when the rest of the  
Board is not able to be there. He continued by saying secondly, he thinks there are certain  
issues that transcend District boundaries; for example, beaches; regarding beach access,  
re-nourishment, and parking, that each Commissioner deserves a seat at the table; Space  
affects all of the Districts, the State, and the country; he will fight for Titusville as much as he  
fights for Melbourne; the Commission is all in there together; this is a huge issue for them all;  
and he reiterated he knows the Chairman is going to represent the other Commissioners well.  
Chairman Feltner explained he will continue on it now; when some substance is gotten, he will  
yield to Commissioner Delaney; he does not see any problem with that; right now it is  
conceptual but nothing is concrete, it is just not there yet; and he asked if she will agree to that  
when they get to some kind of conversation with them; he thinks he knows the level she is  
looking for; and he is happy to step aside when it gets to that point.  
Commissioner Delaney pointed out she did not mean any disrespect.  
Commissioner Altman advised Commissioner Delaney can meet and engage with staff or  
Space Florida at any time; and her impact is really important.  
Commissioner Delaney stated she thinks everybody can understand, when all parties are at the  
table, it is a much different conversation than the one-on-ones; at the end of the day, she has  
the residents of District 1 to face; and she has to do what she believes is right.  
Chairman Feltner commented the entire Board votes on Items; tonight it voted on every zoning  
item whether it is in his or her District or not, so that is never lost on him; and he suggested to  
her that she has been well-represented so far. He went on to add he thought it was quite  
something that there were four Commissioners at Transportation Planning Organization (TPO);  
he does not know if that has ever happened before; and he wished his Chief of Staff, Carol  
Mascellino, a Happy Birthday today.  
Upon consensus of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.  
ATTEST:  
______________________  
RACHEL SADOFF, CLERK  
____________________________  
ROB FELTNER, CHAIRMAN  
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA