All right. Call to order the planning and zoning board meeting on the fourth day of March 2026. Would you please call? Are we okay? Vice Chairman Denny
>> here. >> Board member Jennore >> here. >> Board member Hartman >> here. >> Chairman Straoud >> here. >> Board member Ryder >> here. >> All right. Super. >> Oh, that's me. I'm sorry. Supposed to
take medicine right now. >> All right. >> Yeah. >> Some good music. let you kill that. >> Okay. Sorry. >> All right. Um >> I have one.
>> I guess uh we need to take care of some um old business. Um we need to vote on the minutes from the meeting of uh I've got two of them sitting up here. December 3rd, 2025. Need to vote on these minutes. Uh can I
have a motion to uh >> vote on these? I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. >> I second the motion. >> All right, Renee. >> Vice Chairman Denny >> for the motion. >> Board member Johncore >> for the motion.
>> Board member Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> And board member Reader Ryder >> for the motion. >> All right. So, uh, I'm being told by Anthony that we need to do have a formal election for
the first of the year for the, uh, chairman and the vice chairman, which is something that we did, uh, back in December. And, uh, I think the best way to handle this is, uh, go ahead and call for a motion to vote on this. Yeah, since you've done so recently, I assume
there aren't any changes, then I would just move to um approve the chair and vice chair that were elected in December. >> All right. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Second. Take a vote.
>> Vice Chairman Denny >> for the motion. >> Board member Jennor >> for the motion. >> Board member Hartman >> for the motion. Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> Board member Ryder >> for the motion. >> All right. >> Super deal.
>> Now we need to move on to new business. I don't think we have anybody uh in the audience to filled anything out. So it's just us and the city. Um first item of business is or actually third item of business is consideration of resolution uh number 2026
and that's the vacating uh a platoon in easement within the city of Cape Canaveral uh involving lot 31 and lot 32 recorded in plat book 15 page 81. Um I'm going to go ahead and let the city uh
direct us on this one. fly this one. >> Good evening. >> Hi. >> Uh my name is Tim Carla. I'm the capital projects director and storm water manager for the city of Cape Canaveral. Um it came to our attention during the uh
design of a pipe uh that went between lot 31 and 32 that there was no easement for the city to go in there and to remove and replace the pipe. The pipe was installed originally in 1966. It's kind of old. Needs to be replaced so
that Harbor Heights will continue to flow properly out of there. Um, with that being said, um, I spoke to the gentleman that lives in lot 31, Mr. Fields, um, which actually recently in the past couple months has bought lot 32 as well from a, uh, another, uh,
resident. Um, and he has uh expressed that he would not he does not mind v uh giving us the additional 10-ft easement which would be 5 foot on lot 31, 5t on lot 32. Uh considering that the pipe kind of crosses that border between both
properties. Um but with that being said, if we could possibly vacate a 10-ft easement behind his house that's the closest to his house. Uh we I I actually called FPL. Um I called all the all the utility companies uh that would be in
the 811 and uh all of them have confirmed I have confirmation from all of them, written confirmation that nobody has any easements in that area. The only easement conflict that we could see was a 7 1/2 ft. that's going to stay a 7 1/2 ft for FPL's overhead wires uh
that run along the east side running north and south of lot 32. So with that being said, we are asking for a recommendation to the city council for the next council meeting uh for a vacation of uh vacation of easement. Uh
within the resolution though uh without Mr. Fields signing the easement agreements. The resolution is not going to be passed until he signs that. So, he needs to go ahead and sign over the 5'5 easement for us to vacate the easement.
Tonight though, we just I need to get a recommendation from the planning and zoning board to be able to move it over to the next step, which would be council. uh for anyone that was looking at the plans in easement was kind of hard to look at because you had five foot down
one side and five foot down another. Now I've taken the uh liberty to uh print out and join together the two pieces so that you actually see the easement run there. If you want to pass that down to the board members, you can see where I've marked the easement on both sides.
Actually superimposed one on top of the other. >> Yeah. >> And then there we had the opportunity to take a look at it. Mr. Chairman, would you please be sure that I get a copy of that? >> Yes, >> absolutely. >> I've got both digital and uh I have a
paper copy of it, too. More than happy to share it with the city. There's the easement right there. It's 5 foot and 5 foot. Okay. And there's a drainage uh pipe that runs down through that. What's the size of that drainage pipe through there?
>> That's what I was actually looking for and I still couldn't find it. Hold on. Let me look. >> 30 in the back, but it's >> Let me help you out there. If you'll come grab this set of prints from me.
I've got full scale and it'll be a lot easier to see than you have on the computer. You can play that out. >> I didn't mind it. >> Did you? >> Yeah, but I'll take this. What I'm seeing is a 12 by 18 ECMP pipe
from the type-C inlet out by the road. probably about maybe halfway up it changes into a 12inch ECMP and then drains into a 30 inch RCP. >> Yeah, that >> a 30 heading west. >> Yes. >> 18 heading north. Yes.
>> Or east. I'll get it right. >> Hit yourself. >> So, but they both the the the ones they drain into are both uh RCPs. So, Gotcha. Okay. All right. At this time, I'm going to open up uh for the board to uh make any
comments or or any uh any input that you want to give to us. >> I just have a question. Do you have to get the gentleman's signature before it goes to the city council? >> I believe that is how the resolution is worded. Yes.
>> Yes. It's kind of a give or take thing. So, we we really need that easement to replace that last part of the pipe. Um, and for for us to be able to vacate the easement, he needs to give us that easement. >> Okay. >> No comments on this, right?
>> No comments. >> No comments. >> I No comments, but I'm just curious. Do were any of the neighbors approached about this or is there any input from them or I mean it really doesn't affect them >> for the pipe itself or the construction or the >> well for the changing the easement or anything like that? Um, believe it or
not, if you go down further to the west, those lots have uh those lots have already vacated the 10-ft easement that we're looking at vacating. So, it seemed like it was kind of a as needed basis as people wanted to extend like a shed or something or wanted to put something in
that easement. Uh, they evidently came to the city at an earlier date and asked for the vacation of the same easement um that I could see and I was like, "Oh, we'll just continue doing it on an as needed basis." Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that somebody wasn't come going to come two years from now and
say, "We didn't know you were going to do this." >> Right. Yeah. >> Understood. >> All right. Board satisfied. >> Mhm. >> I've got one item I'm going to bring up uh on this. Um
so, if you go to the I'm going to call this the narrative. Uh the city staff recommend the board take the following action. And I'm going to read a little portion out of this. Um, as recorded at plat 15, page 81, public
records of Bvard County, uh, and a portion of said an easement lot 32. Therefore, on the condition that the subject property owner grant the city a public drainage and utility easement along the common boundary between 31 and
32 in a size and form deemed acceptable to the city. Now, that's what it reads in the narrative. But when we go in and actually read the uh actual uh resolution itself, uh nowhere does it state that
grant the city a public drainage and utility needs, but nowhere in this does that say that. So it says it in the narrative, but it doesn't say it in what's uh going to actually turn out to be the code. My question is,
should that be in there so that the city has the ability to go back in there and maintain or service that without any future issues? >> You're talking about the newly signed 10-ft easement, correct? >> Yes.
>> I have I have those easement agreements as well. >> Mhm. >> Um once they are signed over, they will be permanent. It will be a permanent 10-ft drainage easement which we will be allowed to go on there and and do what we need to do if if there's a clog or anything like that.
>> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, >> if that's what you're asking, >> I can make a comment. Um, in the first, second, third, whereas it talks the owners have granted the city a new utility easement. So, it's basically
saying that this is based upon them having granted a new utility easement. say >> they won't take this to the city council until he's given us the 10T >> utilities. >> All right. >> So, I think we're covered.
>> I The only thing I I I missed on that was was the fact that uh it's referred to as a public drainage utility easement. And I just wanted to make sure that the city that we as a city are covered on that. You're saying it you want it
labeled as a 10-ft public drainage utility easement? >> Well, I just uh the property owner grant the city public drainage utility easement on that common B boundary. >> Well, I don't have the easement in front of me, but it's I think we we styled it
as a utility easement. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, that's it's not I don't think it's I can't recall, but I don't think we limited it to drainage, did we? I'm looking right now. >> I believe it's just listed as a utility easement and that kind of provides the
city more flexibility. >> Yeah, we've drafted a a complete easement document for the uh property owner to consider executing. So, I mean I that that specificity doesn't need to be in the resolution,
but it is an exchange in exchange for granting the city the new utility easement. Uh the city's agreeing to vacate um the 10- foot platted easement at the rear of um of the two lots with the exception of that seven and 7 and
1/2 foot that Tim mentioned which is occupied by um by um electric line. >> Mhm. Yep. >> So >> again, my only concern was was the city to have the ability to go back and uh be able to uh get access to that that drainage.
>> Yeah. I think once we get the >> it does provide ingress and egress and maintenance authority and all that stuff and the in the easement document itself >> the easement document itself is very comprehensive on the rights that are being granted to the city. >> Mhm. >> Okay.
>> What I've learned while being here and correct me if I'm wrong Anthony is that if something is called a 10-ft utility easement multiple utilities can go within that easement. If something is called a 10-ft drainage easement, normally the drainage is only allowed in
that easement. Is that correct? >> Absolutely agree with that. >> Not necessarily. No, this this easement is actually being granted to the city itself. It's not a general utility easement. >> Okay, I see what you're saying. >> I got the platted easements that were
one of them that we're vacating is a general utility easement that's dedicated to the to the public. >> Okay. What this gentleman would be conveying to the city is a city easement for the city's use. >> And that's what we are getting. Correct. >> And that's what we're getting for your
for all the needs that you expressed. >> Okay. >> Right. To run the uh the drainage. >> Um >> correct. >> From the inlet that's um on the road >> and connect. >> All right. Well, that pretty well answers my question on that. Um uh at
this time I'm going to ask for a motion to consider resolution number 2026-03 for vacating a plat 10 foot in utility easement within the city of Cape Canaveral lot 31 lot 32.
>> So moved. >> All right. I have a second on that. >> I'll second that motion. >> All right. Call vote. Vice Chairman Denny >> for the motion. >> Board member Jonor >> for the motion.
>> Board member Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> Board member Ryder >> for the motion. >> All right. A little piece of business done there. >> Thank you, Ken.
>> All right. Yep. Thank you. >> All right. The next item on our agenda is uh ordinance number 01-2026 city of Cape Canaveral of Ford County protection and enforcement of beach
dunes native vegetation on public property providing uh for appeal of inconsistent ordinances resolutions. >> All right, Connor, you want to want to drive this one? >> Yeah, I'll give you guys a brief introduction to it. So, you've already
read the subject, but the key of this is that it relates to beach vegetation on public property. Um, we already have, you know, uh, protection ordinances or, you know, regulatory ordinances on private property, but, uh, this is
specific to public property within the city, especially the beachfront vegetation and dune systems. Um it, you know, is really public infrastructure that we have. You know, you can tell from, you know, with our seed events to
prioritation of sea grapes and our dune lines that it is something that's really important to the city of Cape Canaveral. And we found that we needed to tighten up our procedures as it relates to maintaining these privately maintained areas, uh, privately owned areas,
especially along the beach crossovers. Um we've had instances of cgate trimming in those areas in some instances by the city in some instances by condo associations. Um and even though it's public property it's important to
outline what can and cannot be done on public property with you know very clear provisions. So, it aligns with our comprehensive plan. Uh, a number of goals and objectives, but specifically it amends the city code to
address the protection and enforcement of these resources. The state of Florida and D has their CCCL, their coastal construction control line, and that um has power over pretty much all construction
uh east of Ridgewood. It's within that range. And so there are certain provisions that have to be put in place as it relates to state permits and the state is also very involved in the protection of coastal um you know vegetation. But what this is is giving
the city the authority to adopt local measures governing the activities that are in addition to the D restrictions. Um that way we can make sure that our you know code enforcement and our local mechanisms are in place to prevent the
unauthorized removal. Um like I said giving us a system to do this as a government with city manager approval but also in the instance in which anyone else attempts to or requests to uh trim our coastal vegetation and dunes. So
yeah, we are happy to hear any questions that you have about the ordinance. I noticed down here that you said pre uh preservation of systems on public lands. >> Public lands. Does that include uh any land that's owned by a condo association
by a private uh citizen? Uh when you say public lands, is that >> When I say public man lands, it would exclude those. It would not encompass that. >> Right. All right. So, this is specifically to our to walkovers that the public can access and and uh and those types of areas.
>> Correct. Just wanted to make sure that I was able to get that defined and I'm totally in agreement that we need to have something in there to >> Yeah. that I believe that that section E on page 204 of the ordinances an
important one. Section E speaking about, you know, how the city can conduct maintenance uh if only if it's pursuant to a written maintenance plan approved by the city manager. and you know the things that we're going to be doing are limited to the minimum necessary to
achieve the purpose um and also complying with state laws. So it's all about making sure that we keep these you know vegetative assets in a in a in a way that benefits the city and keeps us safe. And and the purpose of the ordinance
specifically states that public property is essentially city property. >> Yes. >> Along the dunes and um and the beach area. >> You know, every time we go down one of these avenues on this and I I I start to study uh I'm always learning something
new. And uh when I came upon the CCCL, I was aware of his existence, but I had no idea how far inland that line extends. Mhm. >> That line extends much further inland. It doesn't stop at the dunes. >> No, >> that uh that jurisdiction comes
>> uh a good maybe almost a good block within into the uh >> Yeah. In some instances it's west of Ridgewood. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I actually like I like I always do printed a map of it so I could actually see where the line was >> and I was shocked. I went, "Wow, I just
thought this thing stopped at the dunes." Mhm. >> So, it's always a learning process every time we get one of these and I start to do the due diligence on it. Uh, board, I'll go ahead and start with Susan and see if we have any comments or anything that somebody wants to put out there.
>> Yeah. No, I'm I'm all for it. I think we need to protect our our property. >> No comments on this one either. >> Yeah. No comments for me either. I agree with it. No comment. >> Good. All right. This is pretty easy. Easy one. We blew through this fairly
quick. Uh, at this time, I ask for a motion to, uh, vote on ordinance number 01-2026 to establish local regulation to protect and maintain the native beach vegetation dune system located on public property.
I have a motion. >> So, move. >> I'll second that motion. >> All right. Go ahead and call the role on that. >> Vice Chairman Denny >> for the motion. >> Board member Jennore >> for the motion.
>> Board member Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> Board member Ryder >> for the motion. >> All right. So, on to our last piece of business here. Subject's going to be consider ordinance
number 02206 amending subp part B of land development code chapter 110. Purpose of the ordinance is to establish a formal administrative procedure for review and approval of reasonable accommodations requested pertaining to the city's land
use and zoning regulation. The amendment is mandated by Florida statute uh section 397.487 487 as amended by the Florida State Senate Bill uh 954 dated 2025 which requires the city council to
adopt procedures for reviewing uh certified res recovery residents. Get that out and the request for reasonable accommodations from regulations that might prohibit their establishment. >> Yes, sir. I'll give a brief introduction
on this one as well. So, as the chairman said, um this ordinance is really to make sure that the city is complying with Florida statute section 397487 and the uh recent Senate bill that was
passed as it relates to certified recovery residences. Uh Florida statutes define certified recovery residence as a recovery residence that holds a valid certificate of compliance and is actively managed by a certified recovery
residence administrator. Um there are a number of subclassifications of these but you know it's you know from anywhere from people that have 9 months of sobriety and you know reside in the home together or you
know situations where there's a house manager that has experience and is kind of serving as the administrator. Um and the state brought this forward in a way that's pursuant to the federal housing act, fair housing act and ADA as
well. Um the the intent of the state was not to necessarily say, hey, you must allow this certified recovery residence in any particular zoning district or all of your zoning districts. But what it requires from us is that we uh whenever
we receive a request for such residents that it be reviewed for approval and like a standardized reasonable procedure. So this creates that procedure if anyone wants to come forward with a certified recovery residence. Um it would not follow the
typical approval process. It would follow a process that was specifically in alignment with that recent Senate bill. Gotcha. All right. Um Anthony, I'm going to turn to you and
see if you can possibly give the Reader Digest condensed version of this. Uh stated in here, there was uh this uh seemed to have come about with a lawsuit that was filed between Jeffrey O and the city of Boca Raton. Do you have any
knowledge of that suit and that process that went through that you could educate us a little bit on? >> Um I don't don't I think we cited that case but I don't remember the um complete details off the top of my head
at the moment. Um but the the point is that um with respect to um disabilities um under the and and under the fair under the American Disabilities Act and
the Fair Housing Act um there are times where um individuals um need to be afforded a reasonable accommodation and under the general reasonable accommodation
um princip principle. Um, local zoning rules may have to yield somewhat to afford that accommodation to a person that's legal should legally be given that accommodation. So the I the
general gist of the case involving Boca Ratan was about that that principle that a person um required reasonable accommodation from um land use regulations
and um so the as Connor indicated when it comes to the certified recovery residences um on the Florida statute under the new statute um The city's required by law to have a process under which this
reasonable accommodation can be considered and under the law um there are certain minimum requirements that that process must have. This ordinance provides that process and meets more than meets the minimum requirements by
state law under the certified recovery residence statute. Additionally, um, as I noted, reasonable accommodations can come in a different context under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and, uh, the Fair Housing Act that are not related to a certified recovery residence. This process would apply in those cases as well. So the process is broad enough to just deal with the the whole principle
of uh reasonable accommodations may have to be provided and land use regulations may have to yield to provide that accommodation. >> Now this is uh that makes sense for the city of Cape Canaveral preemptive. This is in preparation in case we have to
>> well the under certified recovery residences were required to have the process in place by January 1, 2026. We're a little bit behind schedule. >> Gotcha. >> So, we do have that statutory deadline to get the process put in place. And then doing and in preparing this
ordinance, this process will also be available for situations where other reasonable accommodation issues come up. So it actually kills two birds with one stone rather than having to deal with the reasonable accommodation. Just ad hoc generally, you know, and
just deal with the law with the principles of federal and state law and that this this actually adds some structure to dealing with that issue and and and for other reasons other than um the recovery residences. I did read the suit uh and don't claim
to understand everything that was in involved in the suit and everything, but I understand the pre previs where where this came from and stuff. So, uh personally, I don't have any more questions about it, but I'd like to give the board an opportunity to ask questions or
>> How about you, Susie? >> I'm fine with it. I think you all did a great job uh commenting on it and giving us some background. and it certainly helped me out, but uh it sounds reasonable. >> Board member Hartman. >> Yeah. Um I just had a couple questions
um for for staff and for the attorney. Um on page four of the ordinance under 4A, should that be worded medical records or letter from a medical professional? >> It says or letter of a medical
profession. >> Yeah. Should that be from a medical professional? Would that be better wording? >> Um, actually, yeah, that would be. >> Yeah, I I think that would be the
preferred wording as well. >> Got it. >> Medical records or record >> or letter from a medical professional. >> Yep. >> And number eight on the same page. Um, I
just know that, you know, having had hundreds of documents notorized, it can sometimes be a little bit of a problem. I don't know if we could add the words after it says where it says the notorized I was going to say or witnessed signature
of the applicant. I don't know if if having a witness witness it as opposed to having it notorized is is legally acceptable or not. Well, it's it's more it's more formal and reliable to have a notorized signature rather than um just
a witness where you don't know the witness. Right. >> Right. A notary is required to be, you know, licensed and the state of Florida. So, their reputation and their licenses >> on the line. So, that's why we have notorized. >> Okay, that's fine. It's just that, you
know, number one, we got banks shutting down. And I tell you what, I never had a problem finding a notary because we had somebody in our office who always kept the notary >> and and and if somebody actually came to city hall, the the city would offer that service. >> Okay. >> Anyway,
>> all right. On page five of nine in the second paragraph, it talks about the last sentence. The community and economic development director, their design shall be permitted to include a condition of approval. the current evidence of disability provided to the city at
regular intervals no more frequently than annually. And I guess my question was once the property is built with the accommodations, is this even really applicable? Because are we going to go back after that
person moves out and say, "Oh, you've got to modify your property back to the way it was." Or >> this this does this is not limited to the construction. This could also apply to situations like I don't know hypothetically um a certain animal that
would be prohibited under the code generally but this person needs to have a service animal of some kind. >> Okay. All right. So >> then that's fine. I was just thinking just from the the construction standpoint. >> Right. >> Um
then that's my only comments. You've answered all my questions. Thank you very much. Good job. I Good. I >> Good job, >> M. Miss Reader. >> Um, Ryder, but um I have no comments on this. >> No comment. >> No comment. All right.
>> Other than it's good. >> All right. Unless you have something else to add to it. >> No. >> No. Chair, I think we are we are >> with this. All right. Um, get the right document. All right.
And I have a motion to vote on uh ordinance number 022026. Um amending the I the right one here. >> Yeah. Amending uh the subp part B land
development uh code chapter 110 zoning. >> I'll make a motion to approve 02206. All right. Have a second. >> I second the motion. >> All right. Rene call the roll.
>> Vice Chairman Denny >> for the motion. >> Board member Dennocor >> for the motion. >> Board member Hartman >> for the motion. >> Chairman Straoud >> for the motion. >> Board member Ryder for the motion. >> All right, that takes care of that piece
of business. And I think that's uh everything we had on our agenda. Does uh anyone else have anything? >> I I do have one quick note. Uh just as a disclosure to you guys, there were two ordinances that you guys heard toward
the end of last year and recommended for approval. One being the repeal of the board of adjustment and the other being the site plan procedure. Just wanted to make you all aware that both of those ordinances did pass through council and are now part of our law.
>> Fantastic. Is that why the uh uh community appearance board agenda was uh >> so the community appearance board still does exist. That was a scheduling conflict. Um obviously the community appearance board had those changes thing changing changes where they no longer
look at like the height exceptions and all that. But that board continues. Uh it was the board of adjustment that got shut down. But we are going to brief the cab on all of the changes that involve them. All right. Do we have anything else?
>> I just have one question. I was wondering if you have any input on the database or the management of the Airbnbs. We put so much work in on that. And >> so that is within the community and economic development department. It's within our code code enforcement
division. We have an employee named Mike Perkins who manages a lot of that alongside our BTR technician, Kelly Bowen. Um if you ever >> are they tracking it? Um >> yeah. Yeah. So Mike's actually gotten a large number of properties in
compliance. He works with Decard to track all of them. And I think we are at record highs in terms of compliance and in terms of the uh you know short-term rental application fees and compliance fees that the city's receiving.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Sure. >> So, he did send out an email this morning stating that as of October 1st of last year, the beginning of the fiscal year, that we now have an
additional 117 Airbnb or short-term rentals registered. And he just now also found 93 that were without BTRs and has um communicated that with our BTR technician, Kelly Bowen. So since
October 1st of 2025, there's been a 45.5% increase. So hopefully that will generate some more revenue coming up soon. >> Good. >> Yeah, >> it's at least we're now at least now we know.
>> We know. >> He's doing a He's doing a great job. >> Yeah, I hear you. All right. Uh anything else? >> All right. Okay. Uh, can I have a motion to adjourn this meeting? >> I move that we adjourn this meeting.
>> All right. And I'll say I in favor. >> Any nays? Yep. >> We are. Thank you so much. >> I think this is the shortest meeting we've ever had. >> Now I'm feeling bad. >> I know. I looked at this and I thought, "Oh my gosh."
>> I don't know. I think there was