Brevard County Board of County Commissioners  
2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way  
Viera, FL 32940  
Minutes  
Thursday, March 3, 2022  
5:00 PM  
Zoning  
Commission Chambers  
A.  
CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM  
Zoning Statement  
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.  
Commissioner District 1 Rita Pritchett, Commissioner District 2  
Bryan Lober, Commissioner District 3 John Tobia, Commissioner  
District 4 Curt Smith, and Commissioner District 5 Kristine Zonka  
Present:  
C.  
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
Commissioner Tobia led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.  
F.1. Committee Appointment RE: Public School Facility Planning and Concurrency  
Interlocal Agreement (ILA).  
The Board approved the request to appoint Brian Lock, Interim Assistant Director, as the  
County’s primary representative and Billy Prasad, Special Projects Coordinator IV, and Keith  
Neterer, Planning and Development Support Services Manager, be appointed as alternate  
representatives to ILA Capital Outlay Committee (COC).  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
F.2. Approval Re: Request #23 for Disbursement of Educational Facilities Impact Fees  
(Districts 1-5)  
The Board approved the request to appoint Brian Lock, Interim Assistant Director, as the  
County’s primary representative and Billy Prasad, Special Projects Coordinator IV, and Keith  
Neterer, Planning and Development Support Services Manager, be appointed as alternate  
representatives to ILA Capital Outlay Committee (COC).  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
F.3. Precinct Boundaries - Altered and Added  
(Chapter 101.001(1) F.S.)  
The Board approved the revised boundaries due to annexations by the Cities of West  
Melbourne and Palm Bay.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
G.  
PUBLIC COMMENTS  
Richard Heffelfinger stated he came to the meeting because he thought something had been  
tabled from the February 22, 2022, meeting to this meeting; he made some inquiries and does  
not see it on the Agenda; he could ask for clarification of why it is not; it was a result of the  
February 22, 2022, Regular meeting, where something occurred that distressed him greatly; a  
motion was brought forward by Commissioner Tobia to vote on a Citizens Oversight Committee  
(COC) board member removal, just procedural stuff, not to mention that he thinks everybody  
kind of realized it was identified as somewhat of a retaliatory response to a previous Agenda  
item; but the motion that was brought during that meeting was brought during an Agenda item  
that had nothing to do with the current motion. He added at the same time, someone should  
have made a call for order of the day, because it was out of order, and at the least, he thinks  
the motion should have been moved to new business during that meeting; another point, the  
process used to discuss the motion was disorderly; he has a recommendation that the Board  
find some guidance on how to handle motions fairly and with equity in mind; he believes that  
tabling the motion for the later time was appropriate, although he questioned why this motion  
was suggested to be moved to this Zoning meeting; and in his humble opinion, it is not zoning  
related and therefore is not appropriate in that forum. He mentioned he did not see the  
urgency that made it have to be put in this earlier meeting; that brings him to today and it is not  
on the Agenda, so he hopes no one is going to make a motion somewhere during this meeting  
to discuss it or vote on it; and if the motion is to be move to the Regular meeting on March 8,  
2022, he hopes it has an Agenda item allocated for it and it has information linked to the  
meeting details to include the text of the motion and some rationale for making the motion as  
was done, as an example, under the Item I.2. during the February 8, 2022, meeting.  
H.1. Brad A. Lange requests a change of zoning classification from BU-1 and RU-2-30  
to RU-2-4. (21Z00047) (Tax Account 2318704) (District 2)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request by Brad A. Lange for a change of zoning  
classification from BU-1 and RU-2-30 to RU-2-4.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated for Item H.1., Brad A. Lange requests a  
change in zoning classification BU-1 and RU-2-30 to RU-2-4, application number 21Z00047;  
and it is located in District 2.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request by Brad A. Lange for  
a change of zoning classification from BU-1 and RU-2-30 to RU-2-4.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Bryan Lober  
Seconder: John Tobia  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.2. Sunil Rajan, Sudhir Rajan, and Suresh Rajan (Kim Rezanka) request a Small  
Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.09) to change the Future Land Use  
designation from NC to CC. (21PZ00082) (Tax Account 2412234) (District 2) This  
item was tabled from the 02/03/22 meeting.  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request by Sunil Rajan, Sudhir Rajan, and Suresh  
Rajan (Kim Rezanka) for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.09) to change  
the Future Land Use designation from NC to CC.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Sunil RAjan, Sudhir Rajan, and Suresh  
Rajan request a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.09) to change the future  
land use designation from NC to CC, application number 21PZ00082, located in District 2; and  
just for the record, the applicant has provided a concept plan; and that concept plan is  
non-binding and has not been vetted to make sure that it meets the County Land Development  
Code.  
Commissioner Lober stated the only concern he has is with respect to the driveway, that it not  
be shared with the church, absent the church’s permission.  
Kim Rezanka stated she is present on the behalf of the applicant and specifically Nick Rahal,  
who is the developer of the site; to answer Commissioner Lober’s question, there is a letter in  
the packet dated February 24, 2022, from the Diocese of Orlando which states they support the  
Dunkin Donuts on the property, but are not supportive of a shared driveway between the  
church; and the developer does not want to do that either, in fact, Florida Department of  
Transportation (FDOT) has tentatively approved the driveway as proposed in the concept plan.  
Commissioner Lober asked for a Binding Development Plan (BDP) just to say that any shared  
driveway use would require their permission.  
Ms. Rezanka replied affirmatively.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board conducted the public hearing and  
adopted Ordinance No. 22-05, setting forth the sixth Small Scale Comprehensive Plan  
Amendment (21S.09) to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood  
Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) (21PZ00082).  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Bryan Lober  
Seconder: John Tobia  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.3. Robert Griffith requests a change of zoning classification from RRMH-1 to TR-1.  
(21Z00035) (Tax Account 2102136) (District 1) This item was tabled from the  
02/03/22 meeting.  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Robert Griffith for a change of zoning  
classification from RRMH-1 to TR-1.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Robert Griffith requests a change of zoning  
classification from RRMH-1 to TR-1, application number 21Z00035; and this is in District 1.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request from Robert Griffith  
for a change of zoning classification from RRMH-1 to TR-1.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Bryan Lober  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.4. Scott Minnick requests a change of zoning classification from AU to RR-1.  
(21Z00025) (Tax Account 2102550) (District 1) This item was tabled from the  
12/02/21 and 02/03/22 meetings.  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Scott Minnick for a change of zoning  
classification from AU to RR-1.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Scott Minnick request a change of zoning  
classification from AU to RR-1, application number 21Z00025; and this is in District 1.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request from Scott Minnick for  
a change of zoning classification from AU to RR-1.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Bryan Lober  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.5. Lance C. Boncek requests a change of zoning classification from GU to AU(L).  
(21Z00046) (Tax Account 2403955) (District 1)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Lance C. Boncek for a change of  
zoning classification from GU to AU(L).  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Lance C. Boncek request a change of  
zoning classification from GU to AU(L); application number 21Z00046, located in District 1; for  
the record, in the Agenda Report there was an error in the variance request; if the Board would  
look at paragraph two where it says that the acreage of the property is 1.42 acres, it is only  
1.08 acres; that was the variance that was granted for the size of the lot; and staff comments  
are correct.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request from Lance C.  
Boncek for a change of zoning classification from GU to AU(L).  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: John Tobia  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.6. Jackson Family Trust; and C.B. Davis Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) request a  
Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.08) to change the Future Land  
Use designation from NC to CC. (21PZ00081) (Tax Account 2100183) (District 1)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis  
Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.08) to  
change the future land use designation from NC to CC.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Items H.6. and H.7. are companion  
applications and he will read them into the record simultaneously; and there will need to be  
separate votes for them; Item H.6. is Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis Family Trust  
requesting a small scale Comprehensive Plan amendment (21S.08) to change the future land  
use designation from NC to CC, application number 21PZ00081, located in District 1; Item H.7.  
is Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis Family Trust requesting a change of zoning  
classification from GU to BU-1, application number 21PZ00044, located in District 1.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board conducted the public hearing and adopted  
Ordinance No. 22-06, setting forth the third Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment  
(21S.08) to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to  
Community Commercial (CC) (21PZ00081).  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Bryan Lober  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.7. Jackson Family Trust; and C.B. Davis Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) request a  
change of zoning classification from GU to BU-1. (21Z00044) (Tax Account  
2100183) (District 1)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis  
Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) for a change of zoning classification from GU to BU-1.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request from Jackson Family  
Trust and C.B. Davis Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) for a change of zoning classification from GU  
to BU-1.  
Chair Zonka remarked she does not think people realize the amount of work that actually goes  
into getting to this point; obviously, everyone agrees and that is a good thing; and the  
applicants were able to work out any difficulties if there were any.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.8. Jackson Family Trust; and C.B. Davis Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) request a  
Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.10) to change the Future Land  
Use designation from RES 2 to RES 4. (No assigned address. In the Mims area.)  
(21PZ00089) (Tax Account 2100183) (District 1)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis  
Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (21S.10) to  
change the Future Land Use designation from RES 2 to RES 4.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Items H.8. and H.9. are companion  
applications and he will read them into the record simultaneously; there will need to be separate  
votes for them; the applicant has submitted a Concept Plan for the Board’s recognition; it is  
non-binding and has not been vetted to make sure that it meets the County Code; Item H.8. is  
Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis Family Trust requesting a small scale Comprehensive  
Plan amendment (21S.10) to change the future land use designation from RES 2 to RES 4,  
application number 21PZ00089, located in District 1; and Item H.9. is Jackson Family Trust and  
C.B. Davis Family Trust requesting a change of zoning classification from AU, GU, BU-1, and  
BU-2, to RU-1-7 with a Binding Development Plan (BDP), application number 21Z00043,  
located in District 1. The applicant has submitted a Concept Plan for the Board’s recognition;  
and it is non-binding and has not been vetted to make sure that it meets County Code.  
There being no comments or objections, the Board conducted the public hearing and adopted  
Ordinance No. 22-07, setting forth the fourth Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment  
(21S.10) to change the Future Land Use designation from RES 2 to RES 4 (21PZ00089).  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.9. Jackson Family Trust; and C.B. Davis Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) request a  
change of zoning classification from AU, GU, BU-1, and BU-2, to RU-1-7 with a  
BDP. (21Z00043) (Tax Account 2100183) (District 1)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Jackson Family Trust and C.B. Davis  
Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) for a change of zoning classification from AU, GU, BU-1, and  
BU-2, to RU-1-7 with a Binding Development Plan (BDP).  
There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request from Jackson Family  
Trust and C.B. Davis Family Trust (Kim Rezanka) for a change of zoning classification from  
AU, GU, BU-1, and BU-2, to RU-1-7 with a BDP.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Rita Pritchett  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.10. John Louis Freeman (Pamela McCarty) requests removal of a BDP in an RU-2-12  
zoning classification. (21PZ00090) (Tax Account 2520101) (District 2)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from John Louis Freeman (Pamela  
McCarty) for the removal of a Binding Development Plan (BDP) in a RU-2-12 zoning  
classification.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Item H.10. is John Louis Freeman  
requesting a removal of a BDP in an RU-2-12 zoning classification, application number  
21PZ00090, located in District 2.  
Commissioner Lober mentioned taking a look at this, and this was one of a group of six that  
were in a prior meeting as well where another one of the six was dealt with; looking at the map,  
the concern was that the BDP that existed before limited the group of six to 13 units; to divide it  
up fairly without getting into the ownership of the six units, it looks like by acreage or by land  
area that all but the northwestern-most of the six, would be able to build two units, based on the  
zoning, and then the northwestern-most would be able to build three; this one looks like it is  
only able to build two, anyway, with that particular zoning; and he does not have a problem  
removing the second condition from the BDP, but he would like a new BDP that limits to a  
maximum of two units. He added he did not think they could build more than that anyway; but  
in order to save the folks that live nearby any potential that there would be more than two units,  
that is what he would ask.  
Pamela McCarty responded, in all fairness to the client, one of the concerns brought up at the  
last meeting, and this is not something she and the applicant are experts on, was what the  
need for the BDP is, when the permitting process itself and the zoning regulations that would  
be followed, would not allow for anything resembling two, probably, but a maximum of two; and  
she asked what were the benefits.  
Commissioner Lober replied safety for the neighbors in case there is something that the Board  
is misunderstanding; he thinks they are in the same boat in terms of their understanding with  
his; and he asked what she meant by authorized representative.  
Ms. McCarty replied she signed papers to speak for them and she has been speaking for them;  
they are joining her as the owners; and she asked what the BDP serves in the absence of the  
density issue that is trying to be addressed that is, in essence, fully resolved in the permitting  
process through the County; and she is trying to understand what the purpose of the BDP.  
Commissioner Lober responded it is a safety factor for the folks that live nearby; he is trying to  
be fair with respect to the original BDP that applied to the six lots and divide it up so there is no  
ambiguity; with any comparable request that the Board gets, looking at this, the fair way to do it  
is all but the northwestern-most lot would get two, and the northwestern-most lot would get  
three; and he is not doing this differently for her Item versus H.11., as he will ask them the  
same.  
Ms. McCarty asked if there is any downside to the property owner who builds a single-family  
residence, as that is the intention, and they know their neighbors could build two, as that was  
their decision to build the lot; in terms of bureaucracy or red tape permitting, when one goes to  
sell, she asked what the BDP does if one is already in compliance with what it is trying to  
restrict, or the conditional use of the property.  
Chair Zonka asked staff if the BDP is necessary.  
Tad Calkins, Planning and Development Director, replied the original zoning was approved with  
a BDP that restricted the development of the property to 13 units in luxury townhomes; the  
request before the Board is to remove that condition and remove this property from that BDP;  
he believes Commissioner Lober’s concern is that once you cut a hole in the pastry, what  
happens to the remaining part and to the 13 units; in this case, the property has been split so  
there is underlying ownership and property size that would have to comply with the density  
requirements of both the zoning classification and the land use; he thinks it is a matter of what  
Commissioner Lober is proposing is just a clarification for the other property owners to know  
that the net sum of what is happening is exactly what was had before, with or without the BDP;  
and he thinks it is more of a matter of tracking.  
Ms. McCarty stated the BDP has no relevance as long as one is conforming with code, it has  
no relevance; she asked in other words, if one’s intention is to build one property, in the  
applicant’s case, only one could be permitted, it does not circumvent the proper permitting  
process; and she asked if it does not change the density or anything like that.  
Mr. Calkins replied it does not; the BDP is a mechanism for individuals to present mitigating  
circumstances to help lessen the impact of the development being proposed with the Board.  
Ms. McCarty remarked even though it is already enforced by the permitting process, this would  
be another level of enforcement to make sure there would not be a density increase because of  
some kind of building permitting change.  
Commissioner Lober replied exactly, just double enforced; it is basically requiring what is  
already required, but if the requirement that exists that serves to actually impose that obligation  
were to be changed or relaxed to allow more units, this would serve to basically be a function to  
catch this parcel and still require it to not be beyond the two units.  
Ms. McCarty asked, because she is really uninformed on this, is there any consideration of  
taxation differences or fees that would affect a property that is within the restricted use of the  
BDP, versus not.  
Mr. Calkins replied none that he is aware of.  
Commissioner Lober asked Mr. Calkins if he would be striking the correct condition, and asked  
if the BDP is a condition two.  
Mr. Calkins replied affirmatively; and he added he would be requesting a new BDP removing  
condition two, revising that language limiting it to two units.  
Ms. McCarty asked if that is the only conditional use definition of this BDP on this lot, other than  
the permitting rules; this is just an add-on; she asked does it affect the timeline for permitting;  
and would there need to be anything special to get his home permitted.  
Mr. Calkins replied the County would need the actual BDP document itself and staff could work  
with them outside of this meeting to get it back before the Board; he does not believe that it  
would be very difficult in this case because it is very minor what the Board is asking; and he  
would help with this after the meeting.  
Ms. McCarty asked if that could be done within the permitting process because if this were  
successful, it has been a really long time; neither of these people purchased the lots knowing  
the BDP was there, so everything is lingering; and she asked if it could be done within a month.  
Mr. Calkins replied probably within 30-45 days.  
Commissioner Lober asked if the applicant is okay with it now.  
John Freemen stated he thought at the last meeting it was said that the BDP would be  
removed and it made sense.  
Ms. McCarty stated there was a discussion; when she came up just saying that is cool; then  
she was like, why have the BDP; she heard that was very smart; that was the first Board  
meeting she had ever been to; and there seemed to be a consensus that it did not make sense.  
She added they have come back kind of predisposed to it being a good point, as there is no  
need for it since he can only build one anyways; anything that creates a delay is a problem, as  
these people have been really compromised to the degree that there may have been  
misrepresentation on behalf of the seller; they want the BDP removed, as a lot of that comes  
from the last meeting; and then there is another document and there does not seem to be  
anything that protects it more than the building regulations themselves.  
Commissioner Lober stated as far as the not understanding that it was there, he apologizes,  
but that comes with due diligence; he has bought property before and it is one of those things  
that if he missed something, it is not this Board’s doing; realistically, he does not have a  
problem if staff or the Board wants to put it on the soonest Agenda, even if it is not a zoning  
meeting, just to get this done a little quicker; and he asked Mr. Calkins what he thought the  
turnaround would be if this were expedited.  
Mr. Calkins replied he thought it could probably be done in a 30-45 day time frame but it  
depends on them executing the documents and who has the authority to execute the  
documents, as far as a mortgage or the like, associated with the property.  
Commissioner Lober asked Mr. Calkins if he was able to allow them to submit what they  
otherwise would submit to keep that rolling in the meantime; and he knows it is just a month.  
Mr. Calkins responded he believes there is probably some flexibility to help them with their time  
frame.  
Commissioner Lober stated if the applicant is going to submit what they are going to submit, if  
the BDP is going and the other process is going as it ordinarily would, he does not know that  
this will add any time to it.  
Ms. McCarty mentioned she will have them speak for themselves on this because they left here  
being convinced by their own governmental authority that this would make more sense; it was  
kind of just dismissed; and she added that nobody is a victim here, but it has become so  
perilous and costly.  
Commissioner Lober remarked they are very close to being able to build what they want.  
Ms. McCarty asked what the delay would be if it was not acceptable to not have the BDP  
removed and replaced with a new BDP.  
Commissioner Lober replied the Board would either vote to approve it, deny it, or continue it  
without it.  
Chair Zonka asked Mr. Calkins for the worst-case scenario if the BDP is removed altogether.  
Mr. Calkins replied if the BDP was removed then they would have to comply with the RU-2-12  
zoning classifications and be limited to that exclusively in the land use, which would be RES-12  
and two units.  
Ms. McCarty remarked they would obviously be satisfied with that, since they only want one.  
Chair Zonka asked what could potentially happen at this property and why the encouragement  
to put a new BDP in place.  
Mr. Calkins replied for some reason, when the Board changed the zoning, it felt the need to put  
the BDP in place; he is not sure why, as that was in 2005; now with removing the BDP, the  
remaining six properties are going to have a BDP on them saying they are limited to 13 units;  
the underlying land use and zoning will not allow them to build 13 units because it is less than  
that; and taking this property out of the BDP will have a result that they can build two units  
because of the size.  
Chair Zonka remarked okay, so it grossly impacts the other property.  
Mr. Calkins replied affirmatively; and he apologized that he may not have explained that portion  
clearly.  
Chair Zonka stated the applicant is in an unfortunate situation only because he had no idea;  
and she would definitely go after the seller of the property for misrepresenting; but he will still  
be able to do whatever it is that he wants to do on that property.  
Ms. McCarty asked Mr. Calkins again what the disadvantage would be if the BDP was removed  
from these two; and she asked if he is saying that the other neighbors could be harmed if it was  
removed because why.  
Mr. Calkins replied he is not saying that they would be harmed; and he is saying there are 13  
remaining units that would be limited for those other properties.  
Ms. McCarty stated people could put the properties together again and there could be 13 units;  
someone like the homeowners could be harmed by a multi-family going into their luxury  
housing community; and she asked if that is what was meant.  
Mr. Calkins replied in a way, yes, but they would be limited to the zoning classification that they  
are constructing.  
Ms. McCarty asked if they could not just limit themselves to the zoning classification and the  
building regulations.  
Mr. Calkins replied they have to be limited to the zoning classification and the building  
regulations.  
Ms. McCarty inquired what would be the downside to the community, as that matters, and she  
wants to understand.  
Mr. Calkins thinks that the downside is that there is an accounting purpose of the BDP, as it  
applies to the whole six lots, is 13 units; and now buyers are coming in and cutting those out;  
does the lot have a greater density opportunity than what is had; and he thinks what the Board  
is asking is to ensure that they do not have a perceived density grab.  
Ms. McCarty stated anyone who would go by these lots would not be concerned about these  
properties; she know that is not the law and is irrelevant, but the persons that could be more  
concerned would be these guys, because there are six lots, three of which are individually  
owned now; they are getting ready to construct their primary single-family residences; the  
people that could be harmed if it is those other lots glued together, formed a new BDP; but the  
zoning regulations would no longer allow the 13. She added that would be her client’s downfall  
because it is perceived their luxury home might be better off amongst other luxury homes; she  
just wanted to make sure she understood that; she can see the downside to her clients  
because if the other people do not do it and they cluster those lots together, there could be a  
nice big whatever is allowed in zoning; she asked if she is understanding that; but in terms of  
the downside to everyone else by being restricted to the zoning regulations only, they cannot  
change their mind on their home, because their prices went up, and then sell it to one of those  
people and create a worse problem. She continued by saying she could argue that now they  
could just sell it to the other person and now they could go back to maybe 10 units in between a  
$2 million and $1.5 million homes.  
Chair Zonka stated the Board did not make the purchase decision for her client.  
Ms. McCarty remarked her clients are willing to take the risk; she wanted to know why, if they’re  
okay with that, that any downside would not be in their favor; that is what she meant; she stated  
nobody here is a victim as they all love their lots; and she asked what the downside is that  
would require or suggest that two regulations are needed on a lot that is already regulated to  
everyone’s satisfaction by reducing density.  
Commissioner Lober remarked respectfully, he thinks this is going in circles; he apologized and  
stated he did not mean to cut her off; and if she wants her 15 minutes to present, the Board  
would give it to her.  
John Freeman asked for clarification because when Mr. Calkins highlighted that, he did say  
that the density would be two units per lot, which is pretty much what it is right now.  
Commissioner Lober replied the problem is that BDP that is in existence that has 13 across that  
smattering of six lots; taking pieces of that out serves to complicate the whole issue, assuming  
the zoning classification would allow, are they able then to build at higher densities in the  
remaining lots; he does not want it to happen to Mr. Freeman or the others; and he is trying to  
apply the same standard to everyone.  
Mr. Freeman remarked he thought that is what was just said; and it would be two units with the  
rezoning.  
Commissioner Lober stated that is his understanding, and he thinks that is Mr. Freeman’s  
understanding; in case anyone is missing anything and also to account for this out of the BDP,  
considering there is a BDP right now; he is happy to take that condition off of his back, so to  
speak, but this provides a safeguard for everyone that is next to him; and the next Item up, he  
is going to ask to do the same thing, which stands to benefit Mr. Freeman.  
Mr. Freeman stated the middle lot has already had the BDP revised.  
Commissioner Lober replied he would have to look, as the Board gets a lot of them.  
Mr. Freeman stated he is just not clear what is best for him.  
Ms. McCarty asked if it comes to a vote at this point.  
Commissioner Lober replied either they want the BDP or not; and a decision needs to be made  
as to whether or not the client is willing to go with the BDP.  
Ms. McCarty stated she guessed they are asking for the BDP to be removed; and if the vote is  
against that, then it would be there.  
Commissioner Lober replied he is not going to have it go down and then reconsider, as he will  
not do that.  
Ms. McCarty remarked she does not know how this works; it was a question; and she is sorry.  
Commissioner Lober stated he is just trying to help get everyone through this.  
Ms. McCarty stated Mr. Freemen will do the new BDP.  
Commissioner Lober asked Mr. Calkin to please double-check to make sure it is condition two  
that everyone is looking at so there is no mistake or complication for anyone; he will strike  
condition two and the new BDP will have a maximum of two units on this particular parcel; and  
he asked if that was correct.  
Mr. Calkins answered it is condition two that he wants to affect.  
Commissioner Lober asked Ms. McCarty if that is her understanding as well.  
Ms. McCarty replied yes; and she asked if the County would work with them on the paperwork.  
Mr. Freeman stated he has the smallest parcel and cannot have two units; and did not know if  
that mattered.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the removal of an existing  
Binding Development Plan (BDP) in an RU-2-12 zoning classification; and approved the  
addition of a new BDP to remove condition two, and limited to two units.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Bryan Lober  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
H.11. Michael R. and Malena C. Stewart (Pamela McCarty) request removal of a BDP in  
an RU-2-12 zoning classification. (21PZ00091) (Tax Account 2521132) (District 2)  
Chair Zonka called for a public hearing on a request from Michael R. and Malena C. Stewart to  
request removal of a Binding Development Plan (BDP) in an RU-2-12 zoning classification.  
Jeffrey Ball, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated Item H.11. is Michael R. and Malena C.  
Stewart requesting removal of a BDP in an RU-2-12 zoning classification, application number  
21PZ00091, located in District 2.  
Commissioner Lober stated if Michael Stewart was okay with it, he could make this really quick  
and easy for him.  
Mr. Stewart replied absolutely; he stated the Board could refer back to the minutes from the  
February 14, Planning and Zoning meeting where Bruce Moia made a motion to strike this  
mention of adding a BDP and he thinks there is some logic there; it may be moot but he would  
prefer to not have the BDP because he has been through hell and back on this process, but it  
is his fault, not the Board’s; and he asked if there was any empathy for him.  
Commissioner Lober responded he has to treat everyone the same and this essentially is the  
same as the prior one, other than being next door; he reiterated to Mr. Stewart if staff is flexible  
enough that they can go ahead and accept everything he would be submitting anyway, while he  
is dealing with the BDP process, as this is something that he is already restricted to doing; and  
he mentioned even if it takes 30 or 45 days, if staff is still processing everything else at the  
same time, it may not delay him a minute.  
Mr. Stewart stated the other concern he has, from a cost perspective, is would he have to come  
back before the Board and have additional fees.  
Mr. Calkin replied the only fee would be the recording fee of the BDP through the Clerk of the  
Court.  
Mr. Stewart stated any consideration to waive those fees, given what he has been through,  
would be much appreciated.  
Commissioner Lober stated if he is good with the BDP, he is fine with it.  
Mr. Stewart stated he is really trying to make this area really nice; he is going to put a  
wonderful house on there; and he knows it is Commissioner Lober’s district.  
Commissioner Lober stated he is good with the BDP and he will give the same conditions as  
the prior item.  
There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the removal of an existing  
Binding Development Plan in an RU-2-12 zoning classification; and approved the addition of a  
new Binding Development Plan to remove condition two, and limited to two units.  
Result: APPROVED  
Mover: Bryan Lober  
Seconder: Curt Smith  
Ayes: Pritchett, Lober, Tobia, Smith, and Zonka  
K.  
PUBLIC COMMENTS  
Robert Klimkowski stated he comes today to speak to the Board; last time he spoke as well,  
impromptu; he was appalled at the last meeting about what happened between Item J.1. and  
J.2., he thinks it was; nobody knew what was going on; he sat through the meeting and nobody  
said the name of the Citizen’s Oversight Committee (COC) member that was being removed;  
he asked others if this was about a lobbyist; and then he believes it was the Co-Chair that said  
it was Ms. Hodgers that was being removed. He added with that, he is asking for anybody that  
is on the COC to be reviewed and for the Board to weigh the possible removal of anybody that  
might have a conflict of interest serving on the Save Our Indian River Lagoon (SOIRL) COC; he  
is also asking for and audit for 2020 to be done, the Internal Audit for SOIRL; he does not  
believe that was done per the referendum and that needs to be completed; he mentioned in  
recent weeks, he has seen a lot of deflection and redirection about this issue; he has seen the  
COC member, Ms. Hodgers and another board member go at this issue one way, and the  
Board react another; and with that it was three different aspects of this last week. He stated  
number one, a conflict of interest in the SOIRL COC that had to do with dredging and the septic  
to sewer; number two, this is textbook redirection and deflection; it seems that when the COC  
is doing exactly that, providing oversight, that instead of promoting Ms. Hodgers, which she  
should be, she is being removed; and number three, he believes this entire issue is a $750  
million slush fund and that is really what needs to come to light, as the best disinfectant is light  
and this needs to be brought out into the light.  
Sandra Sullivan stated there is both a lack of transparency and accountability for the Save the  
Indian River Lagoon (SOIRL); the optics are not good for public trusting the oversight; Matt  
Reed wrote in 2016 “Don’t burn our trust on the Indian River, all we can do is trust these people  
for every good step one Florida politician has made recently, another has done something that  
shakes the trust. It’s more of a problem of optics. The people in charge must act better if they  
want our votes and tax dollars to see this cleanup through”; the people of Brevard have a  
problem with optics now; they have a problem with transparency; a problem with getting public  
records; and a problem with conflicts of interest. She added promises were made to the people  
of Brevard; the people trusted the Board to provide oversight; they are watching who will be the  
bad actors who obstruct oversight; there is a problem that 19 entities told the Board in 2020 of  
a conflict of interest issues; and the Board did nothing. She stated the Board’s lack of action in  
2020 and recently obstructing transparency undermines the very trust that was the primary  
concern when voters approved the SOIRL tax; this is half a billion dollars over 10 years, plus an  
intent to double with State and Federal grants; Virginia Barker, Natural Resources Management  
Director, was put in charge of the Lagoon in 2008 and again promoted to the Director of  
Natural Resources Management in 2015; and it appears that this Lagoon tax is a slush fund for  
friends and families of the insiders under her management of the Lagoon Plan, starting with not  
disclosing family tied to Florida Institute of Technology (FIT). She went on to say since the  
Board was told in 2020 alleged conflicts of interest have been allowed to continue is a violation  
of trust; now she understands why people were promised and not delivered, and instead got  
the muck tax in 2018; the letter of 2020 signed by 19 entities highlights issues with dredging  
and conflicts of interest that asks the Brevard County Commission for: one-new and better  
management of the SOIRL program, two-removal of any Citizens Oversight Committee (COC)  
member with a conflict of interest, and three-external expert review of SOIRL projects by  
individuals who are not paid consultants or otherwise, from institutions receiving SOIRL  
funding; she agrees with these requests and has one more to add; and she respectfully request  
this Commission to put on the next Agenda a vote for an external audit of the SOIRL tax and  
State and Federal grants. She exclaimed the genie is out of the bottle and trying to skirt this  
issue will only serve to degrade public trust.  
Chair Zonka remarked she had a question; she stated she sees as part of Ms. Sullivan’s  
conspiracy theory, there is a picture of herself and Courtney Barker; and she asked why the  
other two in the picture were blocked out.  
Ms. Sullivan replied because this is pertaining to this conversation.  
Chair Zonka stated this did not fit the agenda that you are trying to push now because…  
Ms. Sullivan exclaimed Ms. Barker serves on the COC.  
Chair Zonka explained that this is Senator Mayfield and Bruce Moia; this is a Home Builders  
and Contractors meeting; and she asked if this is some sort of, what are we having a party.  
Ms. Sullivan replied no, it has to do with what has been going on.  
Chair Zonka stated she had no more questions.  
Commissioner Lober called Ms. Sullivan to return as he feels people should have an  
opportunity to finish and asked her to finish the sentence she was on.  
Ms. Sullivan remarked just that the genie is out of the bottle and the public trust now is eroded;  
and if the Board does nothing, when the County wants to renew this tax again, because the  
Lagoon is a long-term interest and if it does not do this audit, it is undermining the trust and the  
funding coming into the County; and it is actually in the County’s interest to do the external  
audit, given the questions that have been raised, not by herself, but many other entities.  
Chair Zonka stated she has a card for Rick Heffelfinger, but if he would read the meeting  
Agenda, the process was changed because there were people speaking at two public  
comments segments and people are supposed to choose one; she would love to have him  
come up here and speak again but she does not want to violate the rules because the Board  
does not allow Ms. Sullivan to speak twice; and sometimes there are a gazillion cards so that is  
kind of why it is a little bit more in order.  
L.5. John Tobia, Commissioner District 3, Re: Board Report  
Commissioner Tobia stated this is dealing with a technical issue; this is not getting into any  
specifics, but it does deal with much of the purchase card situation going on; it is dealing with  
Policy BCC-47, the one that was unanimously passed; Directives II.B.4. says Brevard County  
purchasing card monthly reconciliation report for Commission Office shall be included on the  
Brevard County Board of County Commissioner’s Agenda in the bill folder; and it looks as  
though, based on this next Agenda, that it is being put on Consent. He asked his fellow  
Commissioners, as he made this mistake or what he assumed to be a mistake right off the bat,  
where the requested action is, just as he changed his, to an acknowledgement of receipt; he  
does not want to put any of his charges and responsibilities on anyone else here; he thinks the  
purpose of this is to bring all the Board’s purchase card purchases to light; initially it was asking  
for more than acknowledgement approval; he is not comfortable asking anyone else up here for  
approval; and he is not comfortable in voting for anyone’s approval. He added he amended his  
to say acknowledgement of receipt; he is more than willing to vote for anyone’s as long as it  
says acknowledgement of receipt, because all that is doing is saying that the Board had access  
to see it, not necessarily that it is approved; if that is the case, he is more than willing to do that;  
but he would like it further down and not under Consent and then it would have his full support.  
Chair Zonka replied okay and maybe the item is on the Agenda as an acknowledgement of  
receipt as well, so it is pretty clear to the public.  
Commissioner Tobia remarked this was the first go at things and the Board is just trying to  
keep everything straight; if approval is wanted, by all means, leave it at that; he is just not  
willing to put anyone else in that position for what he puts up there; and he certainly does not  
want to do that for anyone else. He stated it is just a request and he does not want to surprise  
anyone at this upcoming meeting and pull it to do it that way; and he would rather just air his  
opinion here ahead of time.  
Commissioner Lober asked if Commissioner Tobia was trying to put that on for this coming  
meeting or on Consent for the next meeting, as he is trying to understand the schedule.  
Commissioner Tobia replies yes, Policy BCC-47 says all purchase cards prospectively would  
be brought to the Board; it looks as though, based on the Agenda that was just put out, this is  
on Consent, so the it is uniformly voting for this; he only feels comfortable for voting for an  
acknowledgement of receipt, that he has seen it; he does not feel comfortable voting for  
anyone else’s that he approves of it; he does not think that is his role as a Commissioner; and  
he thinks that is probably the Clerk’s role and the public to see that and judge those purchases.  
Commissioner Lober stated he is on board with this but he is trying to understand because he  
has not heard a motion; he asked Commissioner Tobia if he is going to make a motion; and he  
just does not understand what mechanism he is going to put in place to effectuate what he is  
suggesting.  
Commissioner Tobia remarked he is not making a motion; he is just telling the Board, unless it  
says acknowledgement of receipt or something similar in nature, he is not comfortable voting  
for it; if it says something other than just acknowledgement of receipt, he will vote in the  
negative for it; his report, under F.16. simply says acknowledgement of receipt, so should it be  
voted on, it is not voting for his purchases, just that it has had access to the purchases; and for  
instance, the Board is not liable for any of his purchases, but only saying that it has seen the  
purchases put forth on the Agenda. He added he is just asking that under requested action,  
when voting on Consent, it says acknowledgement, not approval.  
Commissioner Lober asked just to be clear, if there was a motion today.  
Commissioner Tobia replied Commissioner Lober could do what he wants, he is just telling the  
Board that in the future, he will only vote for things that say acknowledgement.  
Commissioner Pritchett remarked that was a very good catch; she guessed that it could be  
moved to a different area that the Board is just acknowledging it; that is really smart and a good  
catch; and she wanted to bring up that she may bring back another idea of doing that same  
thing with the purchase orders, that it will go into the same kind of system.  
L.6. Curt Smith, Commissioner District 4, Vice Chair, Re: Board Report  
Commissioner Smith stated he takes issue with some of the comments that were made at the  
end of the meeting because he is part of the public and he trusts the process; he has been  
involved in this since the beginning; himself, Virginia Barker, and Jim Barfield marched up and  
down the County and gave the people the pros and cons of this tax and it was left up to them;  
the public was not told they should or should not vote for it; one of the key things that was  
heard at all those meeting was, how do they know that if this tax if voted on, that the politicians  
are not going to subvert the funds and do pet projects; and that is where the idea for the  
Citizen’s Oversight Committee (COC) came from. He added there is a group of people on the  
COC, and he does not remember how many, but he read that somebody said something to  
tune of they are not oversight, they are lapdogs for the Commissioners; he takes issue with that  
as well because he does not influence them or call them on the phone; he takes what they say  
and either agrees with it or he does not; the COC gives their advice and thoughts after they get  
direction from the Director of Natural Resources Management; and that is two entities, and then  
it comes to the final authority which is the Board. He added the Board makes the final decision;  
it takes everything that has been heard by the COC and the Director of Natural Resources  
Management and then makes the final decision; that means there are three different groups  
with lots of different eyes; for anybody to step up here with a straight face and say there is  
some kind of conspiracy, well, one can guess how absurd he thinks that is; and he just wanted  
to point that out. He stated he is a member of the public and trusts the process; he could give  
an update on his river right in front of his house; he has seagrass growing in front of his house  
now which he hasn’t seen in a long time; the water is clear, not crystal clear, but he can see the  
bottom; that was not the case five and six years ago; and that is his perspective.  
L.7. Kristine Zonka, Commissioner District 5, Chair, Re: Board Report  
Commissioner Zonka stated she did not have anything to speak of; she would say if everybody  
took pictures of the Board members at events…; she remembered running into Sandra Sullivan  
at a republican liberty caucus event, after she had been to these chambers for a year, and Ms.  
Sullivan thought she was Debbie Mayfield; she thought that was interesting; she will never  
apologize for the people that she socializes with; being in politics for as many years as she has,  
she has come to know a lot of really great people; and some grand conspiracy sounds exciting,  
but it actually has to be true.  
Upon consensus of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:59 p.m.  
ATTEST:  
_________________________  
RACHEL M. SADOFF, CLERK  
_____________________________  
KRISTINE ZONKA, CHAIR  
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA