Foundation Park recycling center project splits planning board; rezoning and conditional‑use moves forward while comprehensive‑plan amendment draws no board‑set

The Planning & Zoning Board considered three linked applications from Foundation Park Future Investments LLC for a proposed tree and landscape recycling facility on a 36‑acre property in the Foundation Park area: a small‑scale comprehensive plan future‑land‑use map amendment (CP2400011) to change the south 15.4 acres from Low‑Density Residential to Industrial, a rezoning (CPZ24‑00007) of that same area to Light Industrial and Warehousing, and a conditional‑use application (CU24‑00008) to operate a tree and landscape recycling facility.

Why it matters: The project would consolidate industrial use on a large site near Foundation Park Boulevard SE and provide a local processing option for land‑clearing and landscape debris that proponents say reduces the need to truck material long distances or burn debris. Opponents — nearby residents who live in rural/suburban lots with private wells and woodlands — raised concerns about noise, dust, spontaneous combustion fires at similar operations, impacts to wetlands and wells, truck traffic on Babcock Street and the potential for off‑site contamination.

Board actions and outcomes: - Comprehensive plan amendment (CP2400011): Board members deadlocked on a motion to recommend approval; the motion failed on a tie and the item will proceed to City Council with no recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Board. - Rezoning (CPZ24‑00007): The board recommended approval of rezoning the 15.4‑acre parcel to Light Industrial and Warehousing. Staff said the rezoning and future land‑use requests were submitted with a conceptual plan, environmental delineation and a proposed mitigation/preservation area. - Conditional use (CU24‑00008): The board recommended approval of the conditional use to operate the tree and landscape recycling facility, subject to conditions the board recorded, including: no on‑site burning; prohibition on accepting construction or pressure‑treated wood; daily street sweeping on Foundation Park Boulevard; compliance with the city noise ordinance; and a deed‑restricted conservation area of approximately 12 acres (to preserve wetlands and upland buffers). The applicant also agreed to buffers, a required 8‑foot opaque fence and operational hour limits in the code for such facilities.

Staff and applicant presentations: Principal Planner Tanya Ramos and other staff reviewed permitting, Saint Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) environmental permitting requirements, and code criteria. Staff noted the site includes wetlands and identified a 12‑acre area proposed for conservation and stormwater management; SJRWMD permitting will set final wetland buffer lines. Bruce Moya of MBB Engineering and Michael Grama (operations) represented the project. The applicant said the recycling facility would employ about 15–20 people, would be subject to DEP and SJRWMD permitting, and would operate under the city’s conditional‑use standards and the specific site criteria in section 174.048 of the Palm Bay code.

Public comment and concerns: Multiple nearby residents spoke in opposition, citing prior fires at an existing out‑of‑city facility used by the applicant, dust and odors from mulch piles, diesel emissions from equipment, risks to private wells, effects on children at nearby schools and traffic safety. The applicant and operator responded that the current off‑site operation had passed an unannounced DEP inspection the day of the meeting and that the proposed site would include hydrants, regular on‑site operations to minimize pile size, buffers, wetland conservation and site controls; the applicant also offered additional measures such as berms, landscaping and streetsweeping.

Next steps: Because the board deadlocked on the comprehensive‑plan amendment, that application goes to City Council with no recommendation. The rezoning and conditional‑use recommendations will also be forwarded to council; if council approves the land‑use map amendment, the accompanying rezoning and conditional use would be effective as conditioned. If council denies the plan amendment, the rezoning and conditional‑use approvals would be contingent on final land‑use action.

Ending: The board’s conditional‑use recommendation includes the list of conditions recorded in the meeting and will be forwarded to City Council for final action and for incorporation into any site‑plan review and SJRWMD/DEP permitting obligations.