Minutes Planning and Zoning Board / Local Planning Agency

3:00 PM

Call To Order - 3:00 p.m.

Approval of Minutes - April 18, 2022

Motion by Bruce Moia, seconded by Ben Glover, to approve the P&Z/LPA minutes of April 18,

2022. The motion passed unanimously.

Jeffrey Ball stated the board has some handouts that include the Section 62-1255 Future Land

Use consistency table, as well as the administrative policies, which are the guiding principles of

what the board should be looking for, and they include policies for rezoning and conditional use

permits. The other handouts are the code requirements of the LPA and P&Z boards as far as

duties and responsibilities, and a copy of the Uniform Advisory Board Ordinance that was

adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on May 3, 2022. He further asked that when

staff emails the board members to ensure there is a quorum for meetings, the members should

only reply to the sender and not reply to all in the email, to avoid any potential Sunshine Law

issues.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Bruce Moia

Seconder: Ben Glover

Public Hearings

H.1.

Charles K. Donaldson requests a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (22S.04) to

change the Future Land Use designation from RES 1 to RES 4. (22SS00001) (Tax Account

2416959) (District 2)

Kim Rezanka, Law Firm of Lacey, Lyons, Rezanka, 1290 U.S. Highway 1, Rockledge, stated

the Donaldson’s have owned the property, which is part of a larger parcel, since 1975. She

stated there are two homes on the property; one has been there since 1901, and the other has

been there since 1950. The entire parcel is 7.66 acres, split by North Tropical Trail, and the

portion west of North Tropical Trail is the subject property being considered today, consisting of

5.5 acres. The subject property is EU and is next to quite a bit of EU; almost everything to the

south is EU and there is also some EU to the north. She stated the request is for RES 4 and

there is other RES 4 not too far from the subject property. She explained the entire area was

once RES 15 until 2009 when the small area study was done. At that time, when the County

administratively changed the Future Land Use, they left the EU zoning, which is inconsistent.

She said the Donaldson’s would like to sell half of their property, creating two lots of 3.25 acres

and 2.26 acres each; one will be kept as their homestead, and one is under contract to sell.

She stated surveyor John Campbell originally submitted the application, but staff disagreed with

him and said it should have been a zoning application, but she believes it could be solved with

a BDP (Binding Development Plan), and she doesn’t even think they need to change the Future

Land Use. She noted there is recent precedent for a BDP with the Dunkin Donuts application

because when she took it to the County Commission, the District 2 Commissioner asked for a

BDP on the land use amendment to define the access. There is precedent, even though

Section 62-1155 doesn’t seem like there could be. Mr. Donaldson does not want to change his

zoning, and that’s why they are requesting RES 4. The zoning is site specific and has specific

details as to what can be done with setbacks, the size of the homes, and things like that, but

they don’t want to make any more inconsistency by changing the zoning. The issues are

whether a 2 and 3-acre lot is consistent with what is in the area, then there is the issue of Policy

1.2C, which states that in the RES 4 land use, centralized potable water and wastewater

treatment shall be available concurrent with the impact of the development. The impact with the

development is still only two units on 5.5 acres, it’s not like the request the board heard last

month where they wanted to do three or four units in an area that didn’t have potable water, this

project will still be consistent with the development. She said she doesn’t agree that this

requires central water and central sewer, it just says it shall be consistent. She stated Policy 1.7

talks about a step-down in density, and when there is RES 15 on the east side of North Tropical

Trail, it is a step-down to RES 4. She noted under Policy 4, the character of the neighborhood,

the land use change will not materially or adversely impact the established surrounding

neighborhoods. She said the staff comments ask the board to consider if the request is

consistent and compatible with the surrounding area, and she believes the answer is yes. She

stated she proposes a BDP for the future land use, and because it is different she added

language to it to explain why. The proposed BDP explains that the land use was changed in

2009 resulting in an inconsistency between the Future Land Use and zoning; the property is

now nonconforming due to no fault of the property owner. The recitals in the BDP limit density

to two units per acre. She said the intent is just to allow them to subdivide their property and to

sell it consistent with everything in the area.

Bruce Moia asked if the density will be limited to two units total, or two units per acre. Ms.

Rezanka replied it is limited to two units total on 5.5 acres.

Liz Alward asked if Ms. Rezanka is suggesting that the BDP replace the comp plan change

amendment. In other words, put the BDP on the zoning that is already there.

Ms. Rezanka replied that is what she’s asking in an abundance of caution. She mentioned the

recent Dunkin Donuts application and stated she doesn’t think the future land use needs to

change if there is a BDP, but she would prefer a recommendation of both to go the County

Commission and let them figure out what they prefer.

Mr. Moia stated if the land use changes, then Policy 1.2 becomes a problem, potentially. He

asked Ms. Rezanka if it has been done before, where the land use is kept the same, but the

BDP is put in place to make it consistent. Ms. Rezanka replied no, not in this particular

circumstance, not with the potable water, but there is Cocoa water there and sewer is coming

that way. Mr. Moia stated that may or may not help, whether it’s in the future or it needs to be

there now. Ms. Rezanka replied the residential development proposal is not for density of 4

units per acre, so she believes it’s still okay with Policy 1.2, with the BDP.

No public comment.

Ms. Alward asked staff if what Ms. Rezanka is proposing something that the County Attorney

could support.

Alex Esseesse, Deputy County Attorney, stated Ms. Rezanka is referring to is Dunkin Donuts,

but that BDP dealt with access that the Board limited; this application was advertised as a small

scale comprehensive plan amendment, so if the board is going to take a different route, the

application would have to be readvertised with the BDP.

Ms. Rezanka stated the request is for a comprehensive plan amendment with a BDP that’s

come about because of the request in the staff comments, and she doesn’t see it’s any

different than when there is a rezoning.

Bruce Moia asked if BDP’s go with rezoning and not land use. Jeffrey Ball stated the reason

BDP’s came about was to provide consistency, so BDP’s are used to cap density, but for a

rezoning, not for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. He said his professional

opinion is that a BDP cannot provide a consistency for the comprehensive plan. The application

would have to be readvertised because it was advertised for a small scale plan amendment,

and a BDP is not a small scale plan amendment.

Mr. Moia asked, if they put aside the BDP and just look at the land use request, does 1.2

propose a problem, and also asked if there are plans to re-develop. Ms. Rezanka replied the

property is under contract to sell half of it.

Mr. Moia stated it can’t be divided because it’s inconsistent. He noted there are already two

houses on the property, so they are just selling one of the homes and not developing anything.

Ms. Rezanka explained that one of the homes is going to be torn down and re-built. She said

her only point in bringing up the Dunkin Donuts is that it was used in a future land use

amendment, which is unusual, but it’s done in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Ball stated the intent of Policy 1.2 was to require, when developing at 4 units per acre,

water and sewer, because 4 units per acre is a quarter-acre lot.

Mr. Moia stated the way he reads the policy, one requires that it be available, and the other

requires to be connected. Ms. Rezanka noted that is if the development is 4 units per acre.

Mr. Moia stated the first part is that if the land use is approved, it has to be available, so if water

is in front of the property and they build a new home they have to connect to that water system.

If the sewer is far enough away that they’re not required to connect and it’s not considered

available by State definition, then they don’t have to extend sewer to get to it, but if they are

developing more than 4 units per acre, which is a development standard, then they would have

to connect. He said basically, if the board approves it as RES 4 and they build a new home,

they would have to connect to the water but they don’t necessarily have to connect to sewer if

it’s considered available by State definition.

Ms. Rezanka stated she agrees with that.

Mr. Moia stated maybe the BDP isn’t necessary. He asked the minimum lot size of EU. Ms.

Rezanka replied it is 15,000 square feet. Mr. Moia asked with the lot width and everything else,

is it even possible to develop more than two units on the property, and asked the minimum lot

width in EU. Ms. Rezanka replied, the frontage is 125 feet, so they can’t build more than two

homes.

Mr. Moia stated because they need a flag stem to do this, they can’t build more than two units,

so the whole density thing is really a non-issue.

Ms. Alward stated a BDP is not necessary because RES 4 will allow two units.

Motion by Liz Alward, seconded by Bruce Moia, to recommend approval of the Small Scale

Comprehensive Plan Amendment from RES 1 to RES 4. The motion passed unanimously.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Liz Alward

Seconder: Bruce Moia

H.2.

OBC Realty, LLC requests a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (22S.05), to change the

Future Land Use designation from RES 15 to CC. (22SS00002) (Tax Accounts 2521003 and

2521005) (District 2)

Rochelle Lawandales, FAICP, representing the applicant, stated the request is a result of an

inconsistency that occurred in 1988 when the original Future Land Use Map was adopted. The

request is to create a consistent situation between the FLUM and the zoning by changing the

land use so that her client can redevelop the property. She noted under the CC land use, the

BU-1 zoning classification, which is currently on the property, will allow him to do a mixed use

project that will most likely include a mix of commercial retail, restaurant, and some residential.

She said because the site is so small, all of the footprints will be small as well. The area is a

mix of uses that have peacefully co-existed since the beginning of the space age, and what is

being proposed will allow for redevelopment of a site that is currently derelict and ripe for

redevelopment. She said currently, there is no open space, and no stormwater management,

so it’s all sheet-flowing into the Indian River; the redevelopment of the property will allow for

stormwater treatment, pre and post; new defined access on A1A; new site landscaping and

greenspace; new waste management; and a sidewalk along A1A with pedestrian safety

features. The developer will have to conform to all of the site design standards within code and

get site plan approval. She said the site cannot be brought up-to-date with modern day

standards and some environmental sustainability without creating this consistency.

Henry Minneboo asked if the City of Cocoa Beach requires the property to be annexed into the

City if using their wastewater treatment. Ms. Lawandales replied not to her knowledge, and the

property is quite a distance from City limits.

No public comment

Bruce Moia stated redevelopment is always a good thing, especially an eyesore like the subject

property.

Motion by Bruce Moia, seconded by Henry Minneboo, to recommend approve of the Small

Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from RES 15 to CC. The motion passed unanimously.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Bruce Moia

Seconder: Henry Minneboo

H.3.

Clifton Thomas (Clayton Bennett) requests a change of zoning classification from BU-1-A to

RU-1-13, with a BDP limited to 1 unit. (22Z00012) (Tax Account 2954089) (District 3)

Clayton Bennett, Bennett Engineering and Consulting, 4940 Ranchland Road, Melbourne,

stated similar to the previous items, his client has a zoning and future land use that are not

consistent. The subject parcel is zoned BU-1-A and is currently vacant. To the north is a

business development; to the west are single-family residences; to the south is a vacant parcel,

and then A1A to the east, across the street, is a motel and restaurant. BU-1-A zoning is along

A1A; to the west is RU-1-13, which is what his client would like to bring to the subject parcel in

order to develop a single-family residence. Currently, BU-1-A would allow for the commercial

development of 6,534 square feet; the proposed development will be limited to a single-family

residence, which would be a reduction in intensity. He said his client agrees to a BDP because

of the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, which was done with the change of future

land use in the early 1990’s, changing the south beaches to RES 1. He stated the parcel to the

south is currently vacant, but the owners submitted a building permit application on May 2,

2022, through Militano Construction. The neighbors’ plot plan shows a setback to the common

property line of 9.9 feet; the BU-1-A setback allows for a setback of 5 feet from the side

property line, so there is a timing issue because if his client’s zoning were to be approved, the

setback would change. He noted in BU-1-A, when abutting residential there is a 15-foot

setback, but when abutting a non-residential zoning classification there would only be a 5-foot

setback. Currently, there is a 5-foot setback, but when the parcel is rezoned it would go to 15

feet. Since the neighbors have already submitted the building permit application, his client has

agreed to ask that his rezoning request be tabled from the May 26th County Commission

meeting to the August 4th County Commission meeting in order to allow sufficient time for the

neighbors to apply for their building permit.

Ben Glover asked if Mr. Bennett wants the board to vote today and then table the item for the

County Commissioners to delay it. Mr. Bennett replied he would like to see where the board is

on the request, so he would like the board to vote on it today, and then he would request to

table to the August 4th County Commission meeting.

Public comment:

Kim Rezanka, Attorney with Lacey Lyons Rezanka, 1290 U.S. Highway 1, Rockledge, stated

she is representing Tom and Paula Haughey who are the property owners to the south. She

said the Haughey’s object to the rezoning from BU-1-A to RU-1-13 because of the impact it will

have on their property. She said her clients started the design process on their home in

November 2020, and the rezoning request by Mr. Thomas will impact their ability to build their

house. She said the rezoning is not necessary, because Mr. Thomas can build a home in

BU-1-A, and the rezoning is simply changing one inconsistency for another inconsistency. She

stated the proper avenue for Mr. Thomas to change his setbacks is a variance, or if it’s a

nonconforming lot he can use the CUP request under Section 62-1190. Mr. Thomas is seeking

relief from the front and rear setback, which her clients are abiding by, they are abiding by all of

the setback requirements in BU-1-A to develop a single-family home. She said it is not a timing

issue because if they get the building permit and that vests them to build their home if the

zoning is approved, it then becomes nonconforming once it’s built because the setbacks are

too close to the property to the north. She said if the house is torn down by a hurricane or a

flood, they can’t re-build if it’s more than 50% destroyed. Her clients will lose 5 feet of their

home, five areas of living space and about 1,000 square feet, and even if they are vested, they

will be immediately inconsistent when Mr. Thomas’s zoning is approved. She noted there is a

procedure for mitigating a non-conformity, so perhaps it could go through a CUP process or a

variance process, but having a rezoning that immediately causes a neighboring property to be

inconsistent is not the purpose of the zoning code. She said she is asking the board for a

recommendation of denial.

Henry Minneboo stated that has never been the case on hurricane disasters, and asked if it has

changed. Jeffrey Ball replied as far as he knows it hasn’t changed.

Bruce Moia stated the inconsistency is on the other property. He said there are two properties

with the same zoning and the same land use, and the same engineer; they are both building

houses, but only one is asking for a rezoning.

Ms. Rezanka stated that is because the Haughey’s meet the setbacks, and Mr. Thomas wants

better setbacks than BU-1-A requires, which is 50 feet from the front and 25 feet from the rear,

whereas RU-1-13 has 20 in the front and back, so they can build a bigger house with RU-1-13

than with BU-1-A.

Mr. Moia pointed out it may result in a difficulty in getting a variance if it’s a self-imposed

hardship.

Ms. Rezanka stated it is not the purpose of the zoning code to create inconsistencies, it is to fix

inconsistencies. She stated Mr. Thomas has agreed to postpone to the August 4th County

Commission meeting, so tabling them to July 18th P&Z to find out the answer of replacement of

a nonconforming structure due to destruction is possible.

Mr. Moia asked if Ms. Rezanka’s clients would need a conditional use to become

nonconforming. Ms. Rezanka replied yes, and that is what she did with the South Banana

Marina many years ago. Mr. Moia stated there is no guarantee it will be approved. Ms. Rezanka

stated the Haughey’s are complying with the zoning code as-is, but it may be an option for Mr.

Thomas if he has a nonconformity.

Mr. Moia asked if the subject property meets the lot requirements for RU-1-13. Mr. Bennett

replied he believes it does, but he needs to confirm. He said the rezoning does take the

commercial element out of what can be built there. Right now, there can be professional

offices, or whatever is allowed in BU-1-A. A use could be built there 5 feet from the side

property line, even if the neighbor builds a single-family home it’s based on zoning, so the

subject property would currently have a 5-foot side setback to the common property line, and if

it is rezoned it would move to 7.5 feet. The 50-foot front setback in BU-1-A is set in order to

provide sufficient space in the front for parking for a business, but for a single-family home, that

is not needed. He said there becomes this excessive front setback when developing based on

use, for a single-family home.

Mr. Moia stated if the plat is correct, the lot is 69 feet wide, and it needs to be 75 feet. He asked

if the board can create a nonconforming lot with a zoning action. Mr. Ball replied no, it cannot.

For the proposed zoning classification, it has to meet the minimum requirements for the zoning,

and in RU-1-13, the minimum lot width is 75 feet.

Tad Calkins, Planning and Development Director, stated it is a nonconforming lot of record, and

the applicant is requesting a zoning change. In the code, when there is a nonconforming lot of

record it allows applicants to ask for any zoning classification they wish to develop the property,

and that is what the application is today. The fact that the new zoning classification, that the lot

does not meet that standard, is kind of irrelevant as long as they don’t exceed the density

requirements, which is why they are submitting a binding development plan.

Robert Sullivan stated it appears A1A is the BU-1-A classification for transportation purposes

and speed of vehicles coming off of the highway. The RU-1-13 is residential, so traffic speeds

and traffic delays are much less. He asked if that would be a fair assessment.

Mr. Ball stated RU-1-13 is strictly a residential zoning classification; BU-1-A is the first transition

from a single-family to a commercial use. Typically, BU-1-A provides a buffer between a

transportation corridor to a residential area. Mr. Sullivan asked if it would be an inconsistency if

it went to RU-1-13. Mr. Ball replied he wouldn’t classify it as an inconsistency, because there

are areas that have residential zoning adjacent to A1A.

Mr. Sullivan stated the entire west side of A1A is all zoned uniformly. Mr. Ball stated from Heron

Drive south to Pelican Drive, it’s predominantly RU-1-13 with most of the properties along A1A

zoned BU-1-A. There are some properties that are RU-1-9 and RR-1, which are both residential

zoning classifications.

Ms. Alward asked how it impacts development on Ms. Rezanka’s clients’ property, by saying

they are losing 1,000 square feet of building footprint because of the applicant’s rezoning

request.

Mr. Ball stated when looking at rezoning requests staff doesn’t have the opportunity to look at

building permits that come in. From a zoning classification standard, each one has setbacks,

and depending on when they come in, and if they come in before it gets rezoned, they have

one set of setbacks versus another. BU-1-A specifically has setbacks for those uses, which are

lower intense commercial uses, where RU-1-13 is strictly a residential zoning classification

requiring 7.5 feet versus 5 feet. He said staff will look at the building permit and make sure the

appropriate setbacks are enforced.

Mr. Moia stated the board has probably done this 100 times, where it has rezoned residential to

commercial and vice versa, not even considering how it affects the neighboring properties as

far as setbacks or if there is an existing structure, or if it is nonconforming or not.

Mr. Ball clarified the BU-1-A is 15 feet and RU-1-13 is 7.5 feet, because the BU-1-A abuts

residential.

Mr. Moia stated that is definitely injurious to the neighbor.

Ron Bartcher stated he doesn’t quite understand why the lot size is irrelevant. If he wants to go

with an RU-1-13 and the lot width is only 70 feet, he can’t do that.

Mr. Moia stated it is similar to what the board does in Canaveral Groves when someone needs

a 1- acre lot but they only have .9 acres, and they ask for a BDP to be able to build a house.

Even though the lot size is inconsistent, it’s nonconforming, and there is a nonconforming

clause for existing lots that were created prior to a certain date.

Mr. Ball stated that is correct, and it means that the nonconforming is the size of the lot, but

they still have to meet the setbacks for the zoning classification. He said the nonconforming lot

of record would be the last resort. The first remedy would be a land use change, and the

second remedy would be a rezoning request to provide consistency, or in some cases

variances to that.

Ben Glover asked if the applicant can apply for a variance to build the house up, so they can

both build. Mr. Ball replied the applicant can apply for a variance, but he doesn’t know that it

would be the appropriate remedy.

Motion by Bruce Moia, seconded by Ron Bartcher, to recommend denial of the change of

zoning classification from BU-1-A to RU-1-13, with a BDP limited to 1 unit. The motion passed

unanimously.

Result: DENIED

Mover: Bruce Moia

Seconder: Ron Bartcher

H.4.

William L. (Jr.) and Sharon R. Feagan) request a change of zoning classification from AU to

RR-1. (22Z00010) (Tax Account 3022409) (District 1)

Bill Feagan, 4835 Lyon Lane, Mims, stated the property is zoned AU and he would like to

rezone to RR-1 in order to get a building permit, because AU requires a minimum of 2.5 acres.

No public comment.

Motion by Bruce Moia, seconded by Ben Glover, to recommend approval of the change of

zoning classification from AU to RR-1. The motion passed unanimously.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Bruce Moia

Seconder: Ben Glover

H.5.

Heath and Shannon Morgan request a change of zoning classification from RU-1-9 to SR. The

property is 0.69 acres, located on the north side of Miami Ave., approx. 200 ft. east of City

Acres Rd. (22Z00011) (Tax Account 2863495) (District 5)

Heath Morgan, 203 Charles Drive, Melbourne, stated they purchased the property in 2005 with

the intention of building a single-family home. The property had been parts of different lots and

it was re-subdivided, and they learned they could not get a building permit because of the

inconsistency between RU-1-9 and RES 4, and because the lots were subdivided it can’t be

grandfathered-in. He said they are trying to sell the lot and the potential new owners found out

they could not get a building permit, so he is trying to rectify the situation.

No public comment.

Motion by Bruce Moia, seconded by Henry Minneboo, to recommend approval of the change of

zoning classification from RU-1-9 to SR. The motion passed unanimously.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Bruce Moia

Seconder: Henry Minneboo

H.6.

PR Corporate Holdings, LLC; and AkBlue Holdings, LLC (Kim Fischer) requests a change of zoning

classification from AU to RU-1-11. (22Z00013) (Tax Account 2105549) (District 1)

Kim Fischer, 1614 White Dove Drive, Winter Springs, stated there is an old dilapidated building

on the property that has a residential home that will be torn down along with a couple of

garages. She stated the Future Land Use is RES 4 (Residential 4), and they would like to have

a zoning that is consistent. She noted the City of Titusville Fire Department will be utilizing the

land next year for training. She also noted there is City water available and the development will

be on septic systems.

Public Comment.

Eva Goins, 3120 Diamond Road, Titusville, stated most of the homes on Diamond Road are

one acre or more. She said she purchased her house in 2019, on .91 acres, and she

purchased it because there was a lot of privacy and similar homes on the road. She said she

called the engineering company because she received a letter from them that said there was

going to be a meeting to change the zoning. She said it was explained to her that a subdivision

is planned to on the 4.36-acre property, and because Titusville will only allow 75’ x 75’ lots, they

will put a house on 75’ x 75’ lots, so up to 12 - 15 homes are going to be on 4.36 acres on an

established country road. She said the development will create 12 houses at a minimum, and

every house has 2 - 3 cars, so that’s over 20 cars coming in and out of the L-shaped street that

goes from Dairy Road onto Old Dixie Highway. She said the proposed development will greatly

impact her quality of life, and it is not consistent with the current community.

Ms. Fischer stated she sent out letters to the neighbors and Ms. Goins contacted her along with

a couple of others who contacted her wanting to sell their property. She said the Future Land

Use is RES 4, which is 4 units per acre, and noted the County requires the lots to be 75’ x 100’,

not 75’ x 75’. She said they can get approximately 13 homes on the parcel, and they will be

consistent in size with the subdivision to the north and west. She said to the east is commercial,

so the only residential is across the street. Diamond Road has two access points, not one, and

traffic should not be of any significant increase considering people can exit onto Dairy Road

and Old Dixie Highway. She concluded by saying the request is consistent with the surrounding

area and what is built will have to be consistent with the neighbors.

Ben Glover stated there is RU-1-11 all around the property, but it seems like they are on more

major roads, and Diamond Road seems to be more like a country road.

Bruce Moia stated Diamond Road ties into Old Dixie to the east and into Dairy Road to the

south. The development to the west is 80’ x 100’ lots for the most part, but all of the lots that

front Diamond Road, except closer to Old Dixie, are large lots of an acre or more. He said he is

surprised they are not annexing into the City of Titusville. It’s almost transitional between the

large lots and the small lots, so he wouldn’t say it’s inconsistent because it does match what is

to the west, but there is not a transition from very large lots to very small lots, they abut each

other.

Robert Sullivan asked if water and sewer will be brought to the development. Ms. Fischer

replied water is directly in front of the property, so it’s not a rural area. She said the City of

Titusville’s code is very specific that you must connect to their sewer system and their sewer

system is what is not readily available. She said Titusville has agreed to allow them to utilize

their water without annexation.

Mr. Sullivan stated the level of service for the road, from Dairy Road to S.R. 46 is Level D,

which is not very good. Ms. Fischer stated with a level of service of D there is some capacity;

with 13 homes there will be a peak trip of one per home, so there is still capacity, it just means

wait times are a little longer.

John Hopengarten asked if the neighborhood to the west is also on septic. Ms. Fisher replied

they are not septic, but their connection is in the opposite direction.

Mr. Glover stated based on the location of Diamond Road, it doesn’t sit well with him.

Motion by Ben Glover, seconded by Liz Alward to recommend denial of the change of zoning

classification from AU to RU-1-11.

Ms. Alward stated she doesn’t think the board should be increasing densities if they aren’t

going to be able to connect to sewer.

Mark Wadsworth called for a vote on the motion and it passed 9:1, with Bruce Moia voting nay.

Result: DENIED

Mover: Ben Glover

Seconder: Liz Alward

H.7.

Health First, Inc.; and Health First Shared Services, Inc. (Kim Rezanka) requests a change of

zoning classification from BU-1 and BU-2 to PUD, with waivers. (22PUD00001) (District 2)

Kim Rezanka, Law Firm of Lacey Lyons Rezanka, 1290 U.S. Highway 1, stated this 15.05-acre

rezoning request has been a two-year process, and the project is still in preliminary stages. She

stated they do not have a final traffic impact analysis yet, but the developer will do whatever the

County requires in order to make everyone at the facility and the surrounding neighborhoods

safe. She noted there was a community meeting on April 25th, 49 people attended, and the

meeting lasted approximately two hours. She said the project was also heard and unanimously

approved by the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency on April 28th.

Jonathan Flyte, Health First System Vice President of Facilities and Construction, 1575 W.

Nasa Boulevard, Melbourne, stated the northern one-third of the parcel is dedicated toward the

new Cape Canaveral Hospital, and they’ve developed the concept so that all of the patient

rooms have a view of the wellness village park, or the Indian River Lagoon, or the rookery

conservation area to the west. The remaining two-thirds of the wellness village is comprised of

a medical office building, a child daycare, a concierge, a wellness retail facility, juice and coffee

bars, a healthy food hall, a spa, an education center, and a fitness center. He stated the

concept allows them to make a dramatic change in the character of the area by providing a

significant new greenspace and landscaping in addition to the facilities. The hospital itself is

planned to be 300,000 square feet, with 120 private rooms, it will be designed to withstand a

Category 4 hurricane, and it will be elevated 13 feet to address the possibility of storm surge.

He stated in conjunction with the hospital there is a 90,000 square-foot medical office building.

The floors of the hospital and medical office building open onto a park-like setting of the village,

and it sits on top of a two-story parking garage. On the north end, there are three connections

to Merritt Avenue; from left to right, there is a service entry, the ambulance entry, and the

emergency department patient entrance. On Borman Drive, from north to south, there is a

same-day surgery discharge, an entrance into the garage, and a public transportation drop-off

and pick-up spot, and a second entrance into the garage. The main entrance is off of S.R. 520,

and as people enter the campus, they will either proceed into the south end of the parking

garage, or they will travel along the west perimeter drive to the hospital’s main entrance. There

is a total of 19 elevators planned within the project and they are positioned to give good access

to all of the services being provided. A glass connector will provide access between the hospital

and the medical office building. He mentioned the community meeting that was held on April

25th and stated most of the concerns were about traffic and noise. He noted they are in the

middle of a traffic study, but will comply with what is required for traffic in the area. He added,

the noise will be addressed by an acoustical engineering consultant, and stated they are very

interested in a quiet and peacefully facility.

Ken Good, P.E., Atkins, 2671 W. Eau Gallie Boulevard, Melbourne, stated in the Preliminary

Development Plan, the center part of it has a lot of waivers, which his staff and County staff

spent a lot of time developing. The waivers are centered around two key components, which

are building height and building setbacks. He noted they are not asking for waivers on density

or trying to increase the building square footage. The traditional zoning that it is under now

could be developed with the same uses, but it encourages lots of pavement and broad

buildings, and this allows them to cluster the buildings together and create the greenspace that

wouldn’t be possible with the traditional zoning. He stated the two key areas the waivers are

focused on is the hospital, allowing them to build a taller hospital and positioning it on the site in

a manner that works with the whole village concept. The second group of waivers focus on the

podium and park concept, allowing them to increase the heights and push some things out to

the setbacks to create that park in the middle. He said a lot of the existing site doesn’t have

stormwater components on it right now. They going to comply with all of the current stormwater

codes. There are three points of discharge already on the site; one to the north that goes under

Merritt Avenue; one to the west that goes into an existing pond; and one to the south that goes

into the S.R. 520 system. All of the treatment attenuation will be done onsite, much of it will be

done in underground chambers and systems so the greenspace on top of the site can be

maintained.

Public comment.

Kitty Fletcher, 800 Del Rio Way, Unit 204, Merritt Island, stated she and her neighbors are not

against the hospital, but they think there is poor planning. She said they took the worst street

coming into the hospital and made it the emergency entrance. They have three entrances

coming off of Merritt Avenue, which already has a lot of accidents. They put the hospital’s

central processing plant at the back, which is the closest area to Harbor Del Rio that houses

115 units. She stated Merritt Avenue cannot be widened because of the conservation areas.

She asked that the hospital work with the neighbors and that they not put the loudest

equipment within 480 feet of the Harbor Del Rio property.

Helen Parry, 811 Del Rio Way, Unit 503, Merritt Island, stated she bought in Harbor Del Rio

because of the 62 protected acres to the east that is a rookery with over 2,000 birds that nest

there every night, and she is worried that the rookery is next to the hospital because it needs to

be protected from light and noise from the power plant.

Pete Vanderhagen, 801 Del Rio Way, Unit 404, stated his concern is communication between

the developer and the community. He said he’s heard about waivers, but doesn’t know what

they are or what they mean. He said he’s heard about traffic studies, but they haven’t been

done and he wants to know the results of those studies when they are done, and he wants an

opportunity to react to them. He said moving the ambulance entrances from Merritt Avenue to

Borman Drive will eliminate traffic trying to get in and out of the parking lot. He said the

neighbors at Harbor Del Rio would like to be involved in the process; they want to be

supportive, but they need communication.

Henry Minneboo stated the vast majority of residents of Merritt Island are excited about the

addition of Health First on the subject property. He said Harbor Del Rio could have aligned with

what was already there; it is the only driveway that is skewed from the other driveways that

were already there. He said the applicants have done a great job, and he supports it.

Robert Sullivan asked if the waivers are for FAA requirements for the height of the building for

the helipad. Mr. Good replied the waivers are zoning waivers; there is a separate process for

FAA waivers.

Mr. Sullivan asked if the applicant knows how it will address noise abatement. Mr. Flyte replied

that he is overseeing the engineering for the entire mechanical plant, and he can assure the

board that it is not a challenge with today’s technology.

Ron Bartcher asked if the entire project will be raised 13 feet. Mr. Flyte replied the site just

under the hospital and the central utility plant will both be raised 13 feet. Mr. Bartcher asked if

the other buildings will also be raised. Mr. Flyte replied the first floor of the village is higher than

the first floor of the hospital, so they are protected and elevated.

Mr. Sullivan commended the applicants for doing the storm surge analysis.

Ben Glover thanked the applicants for putting together the packet, and stated the project will be

an amazing improvement to the area.

Mr. Hopengarten asked how the pedestrian traffic from the mall to the hospital will be handled.

Mr. Flyte replied they have talked to the owners of the mall to discuss how people will cross

520. There is a stop light there, and once they get on the campus, there are elevators that go

to the village on the south side of the site.

Mr. Hopengarten mentioned the concerns from the public about noise abatement, and asked

about sirens from ambulances coming in from Merritt Avenue. Mr. Flyte replied it is standard

practice that the sirens are turned off as they approach the hospital.

Bruce Moia stated by meeting the performance standards on lighting, that will address the bird

issue because the standards are strict. He said the applicants have done a great job and he

doesn’t see any negative issues.

Liz Alward stated she appreciates the presentation, this is what Merritt Island has been waiting

for and preparing for, for over 12 years. It improves the infrastructure and aesthetics for the

community. Currently, the property is blighted and has no stormwater regulations or treatment.

The rookery will be benefitted by the project because the water will be treated that goes to the

rookery. She stated MIRA has worked to redevelop that part of the community to stimulate

growth and maintain a safe and prosperous community. She said she believes Health First will

be a good partner to continue the long-term goals of revitalization and economic benefits to the

community. She applauded the applicant’s team. This is what CRAs do, they improve a

community and bring in quality investments and businesses. She thanked the applicants for the

investment and doing it right, and working with the neighbors.

Motion by Liz Alward, seconded by John Hopengarten, to approve the change of zoning

classification from BU-1 and BU-1 to PUD with waivers. The motion passed unanimously.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Liz Alward

Seconder: John Hopengarten

Public Comment

Adjournment

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26, Florida Statutes,

persons needing special accommodations or an interpreter to participate in the proceedings,

please notify the Planning and Development Department no later than 48 hours prior to the

meeting at (321) 633-2069.

Assisted listening system receivers are available for the hearing impaired and can be obtained

from SCGTV staff at the meeting. We respectfully request that ALL ELECTRONIC ITEMS

and CELL PHONE REMAIN OFF while the Planning and Zoning Board is in session. Thank

You.

This meeting will be broadcast live on Space Coast Government Television (SCGTV) on

Spectrum Cable Channel 499, Comcast (North Brevard) Cable Channel 51, and Comcast

(South Brevard) Cable Channel 13 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99. SCGTV will also replay

this meeting during the coming month on its 24-hour video server nights, weekends, and

holidays. Check the SCGTV website for daily program updates at http://www.brevardfl.gov.

The Agenda may be viewed at: http://www.brevardfl.gov/Board Meetings