invit. See, I'm confused. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Good evening everyone. At this time, I'm going to call the regular meeting for the board of adjustments and appeal for April 23rd,
2025. At this time, uh, let's see, where am I supposed to? Here we go. Wrong page. Uh, it's not on here. At this time, if you would all please stand if we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible with all. Thank you. You may be seated. Uh may we have a roll call vote, please? Chairman Taylor here. Vice Chairwoman Van Deven here. Member
Beckles here. Member Green here. Member Wheelis here. Very good. So, we have a full quorum tonight. Uh and welcome. Uh first order of business is approval of the minutes
from March 26, 2025. Uh first up, are there any corrections or additions anyone has noticed in reading them? None here. No. Not seeing any. Oh, I'm sorry. You have a something to the
minutes. Yes, sir. Oh, well, okay. Open this up to the public about the minutes. Anybody object? Okay. Go ahead, sir. Eric Page, Hudson Bowen, 4301 Boy Scout Boulevard, Sweet 300, Tampa, Florida
33607. And I am here on behalf of the permit holder, Apollo Gardens. My only comment is minutes are really hard to keep in an hour and a half, two-hour meeting. Um, and in looking at the minutes, it identified who spoke, but it doesn't identify what they said other than Miss Conklin and myself and and
members of the board. So, we've provided um a binder that includes behind tab 6 a verbatim transcript that was taken by a court reporter. So, I would ask that the minutes be supplemented by that transcript so that the record is clear
as to what all transpired during that hearing and what was said. Um I have no problem with the minutes as written other than they don't provide all of that detail as to what was said and taken down by the court reporter.
Are you asking? No, sir. Specific to exhibit six. I I believe that the entirety of what we've submitted should be in the record because it's been submitted before the hearing, but specifically I'm asked that asking that the board adopt the
transcript from that hearing that's attached behind tab 6 as a supplement to the minutes so that if someone goes back and looks at the minutes, they will recognize what was said in the entirety during that hearing rather than just the abbreviations that are included in there recognizing folks that spoke and their
address and things along those lines. Not asking for any alteration to the minutes. Uh this is new new territory for me. Simone chairman I believe that without ample time to review the document submitted we can't uh even address it.
And I would just say to that's taken by a certified court reporter. So uh it's it's the same as if we were in a court of law and they were sitting there uh during a trial in terms of its content. I I believe we could accept it as evidence. I don't believe we could accept it as the transcript of the of
the minutes without review. I understand your position and Okay, that's fine. It's in the it's in the record otherwise. So, I appreciate it. All right, sir. Is this is new to me. We've never had anybody outside objects besides
ourselves. If the board is inclined to incorporate exhibit six as a supplement to the minutes, that would be something you could include in your motion when you approve the minutes. Um, you're I'm not obligated to, of course, but the
um individual is of course allowed to ask you for that. Uh, well, seeing how nobody nobody up here has seen this before. Well, now I didn't even open the book up earlier. Um, is it attached as a document or is
it There's a binder in front of you. I I'm I'm holding it right here. But is do we say how do we reference it in a in a motion? I'm sorry. That's what I'm trying to get at. Mr. Page has also sent this material electronically. I would
reference it as a exhibit six. That's what he has provided here and referenced here. Okay. All right. Well, anything any other changes or anyone noticed? I didn't see any uh could I have a motion then with this
uh addition to the minutes? I make a motion to accept it as a supplement to the uh minutes. Okay. As exhibit six. Six. All right. I have a
motion and a do I have a second? Can you make a second and say like um upon review or some something because like like um like Richard was saying, we haven't even seen this. I mean, can you add something to
the motion to say like believe Mr. Page said it was a certified copy from the uh court reporter? Um, that's about as close as you're going to get to the minutes that are usually accepted. And we did note it as a supplement to
the minutes. Okay. So, do I have a second? I will second the motion. Is there any further discussion about this being a supplement to the maintenance from the uh March 26th
meeting? Mr. Chairman, I would I would stipulate that it be subject to further review. Accepted but you speak up in the right word. Accepted but u um subject to further review. All
right. Okay. Does your motion hold to that? Uh yeah. Motion to accept the uh exhibit 6 as supplemental uh recording uh certified copy of the minutes from the hearing and stipulate that um upon
it's accepted upon review. Okay. All right. And your second holds then? Indeed. Very good. Uh normally now I'm gonna have roll call. Roll call, please. Chairman Taylor, yes. Vice Chairwoman
Ben Deven, yes. Member Beckles, yes. Member Green, yes. Member Willis, yes. Very well. So, that is taken care of as a supplement, sir. All right. Um,
approval. Okay. Now, it's time for me to do a little reading. All persons who anticipate speaking on any public hearing item must fill out an oath card to be heard on that agenda item and sign the oath card oath contained on their own. The cards are
located on the table near the entrance to the council chamber or they may be obtained from the recording secretary. This meeting will be conducted in accordance to the procedures adopted in resolution number 24-1997. Those speaking in favor of a request
will be heard first. Those opposed will be heard second. And those who wish to make a public comment on the item shall speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. The representative for either side for or
against may cross-examine a witness. Anyone who speaks is considered a witness. If you have photographs, sketches or documents that you desire for the commission to consider, they must be submitted until evidence and be retained by the city. Please submit such
rec uh exhibits or record and to the recording secretary uh staff, have all the agenda items on tonight's agenda been properly advertised? Yes. Has any member here visited any of the sites in person or
had contact with anyone that is going to be speaking tonight? I've driven by several of the sites, Edington Drive sites, don't have the addresses, and the uh Apollo Garden site as well. Did you speak to anyone?
Absolutely not. Very good. and I have not had any comments outside of this DS for the last couple of months. All right. So, um that's that's over
here. Um at this time there is no consent agenda items. We have had a request to move up one of the items uh that are under new business. number
8B variance 9- 2025 at the request of the applicant for reasons of uh small a child. Do I have a motion to move this
to the beginning of the agenda? So moved. Okay. Second. I second the motion. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. All right. So, we're going to move staff. We're going to move variance
9-2025 for 1311 Wilderness Drive to the first item to be heard. And if you tell us what page to go to in the computer, please. Thank you. Thank you. Variance 9, beginning on page 152 of your packet. 152. Is that
correct? All right. Oh yeah, that helps. Thank you. You're welcome. Go ahead. Okay. Variance number 9-2025 for 1311 Wilderness Lane. Variance request is to land development regulations chapter 30
section 30-182 height and location requirements to allow a fence located in the front yard to exceed the maximum 4ft height for property located in the multifamily highdensity zoning district located at 1311 Wilderness Lane as
submitted by Alyssa Antilly's owner sorry to go over the powers of the BAA LDR section 34-226 Six states that the board shall grant a variance request when in the opinion of the bordon of adjustment and appeals owing to special
conditions. The literal enforcement of such ordinance or regulations would do manifest injustice to or unimpose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. In order to authorize any variance to the provisions of such ordinance, the board must consider the following criteria. A. special conditions and
circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same zoning. B. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. C. Granting the variance requested will not confer
upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. D. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district
under the terms of the ordinance. E. The variance is granted the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure. F. The granting of the variance will preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with its general purpose and intent. G
in granting the variance the public safety and welfare must be assured. an H in no trace shall granting of a variance result in a change of use which would not be permitted in that zone. Now for the variance analysis, land development regulations section
30-182 of the LDR states that the maximum height of a fence or wall in any required front yard setback shall be 4 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to the LDR to allow for the construction of a fence 6 feet in height within the front yard along Wilderness
Lane. The subject property was platted in 1986 as part of the Titus Woods townhouse subdivision. The property abuts tract a an ingress and egress drainage and utility easement operating as a private rideway. LDR section
30-181H states that no fence shall encroach encroach into a visibility triangle at an intersection or a driveway as determined by the city and the city engineer has reviewed the proposed fence and confirmed that it does not encroach into the visibility
triangle. However, the subject lot does not appear to exhibit any special conditions or circumstances that would necess necessitate a deviation from the standard 4ft front yard fence height. The applicant has the ability to provide privacy and screening through the installation of a vegetative buffer
along a 4- foot high fence, thereby achieving their stated goals without requiring a variance. Staff recommends denial of the variance. There are no special conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land. The literal interpretation of the code would not deprive the owner of rights
commonly enjoyed by others in the same zoning district. The plot plan for the fence is on page 175 if needed. And with that, if you have any questions, I am prepared to answer. Are there any questions of staff?
Anyone? We're we're asking staff right now. We haven't opened it up for public hearing yet. Um Okay. So this drawing on 175 that we have in our packet with the green is the location of the new fence. Is that
correct? Yeah, for the fence. There's no there is no fence now, but that would be the fence and that is a corner lot as we said. Yes. Okay. Any other questions of staff down here? Okay. We will open this up to the public hearing at this time. And our
first card, please, ma'am. It'll be the applicant. She's going to have to get me a card after she's done. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak on an item, you must fill out a card before the item is called before we get into the hearings in the future. Okay? So, if you've not filled out a card, please go
fill out a card. Bring it to the recording secretary. That's what I read earlier. I know it put everybody to sleep, but Thank you. Would you come to the come up please and give us your name and address for the record, please? My name is Alyssa Antilles and I live at
1311 Wilderness Lane, Titusville. Okay. Okay. You give us a reason for this extra footage that you're wanting need, ma'am. Yes. Um I know I put in the answers to the questions and put in an attachment. I thought that I could
either bullet point or read it. Yes. Um when it says, "Am I able to why am I not able to comply with the requirements? And what hardship am I injustice or am I in claiming? I need to put the fence in my front yard to protect my disabled child from elopement or risk of harm."
Um I have provided verification of his condition. I gave some um additional paperwork to your packet which has um government state medical doctor description of his condition. There exhibits A through E. Um I recognize
that the rule of the city is the 4ft fence which is too short for my son's height. Um he's 17. He's outside if you wanted to meet him. He's 5 foot 10 now. Therefore, I'm requesting a six foot of HOA approved PVC material, the same
fence I placed in my backyard. Um, my property to me, they're asking if it's special and what conditions um make it different than other properties. Um, my property is not special. The variance is not something I want. It's something I desperately need. I proposed to the city
to council to consider the special needs circumstances of my family and allow a six-foot fence to be placed rather than 4 feet for my son's safety. However, the property is unique and I recognize that the city engineer did go out and look at the triangle and I did provide
photographs and those photographs are showing the corners where it's not causing any difficulty for traffic or um obstruction um which I which was pleased to see um and therefore I it doesn't obstruct drivers from seeing each other
as they meet up on the corners of Wilderness Lane. I've provided photos which are also in the packet. Um is it am I asking for the minimum change requirements? I am asking for the minimum change. My hope is to just put the fence where the property line is and
where the walk path through the driveway meets the front door to safely transfer my son from car to home and then to have opportunity out in the front yard if you know he wanted to enjoy it. Um and leave a portion of the property unfenced. There is a large oak tree. Um that tree
has large roots and I intend to box around it which again I've provided photographs with a hologram um fence so that you can see where ideally I'm looking to place this. Um my property is an end unit. The fence doesn't cause any harm to anyone and I do have one
neighbor adjacent to me who did send in a supporting letter and um stating that it doesn't affect him whatsoever. Um, I did want to um touch on the response on the um the
uh the city where there they I did come into the office and speak with them and they politely helped me come up with solutions. However, those solutions don't meet the needs of security and safety. my son's my my goal today is to
achieve safety for my son um and secure him in that fence, the 4-foot fence with the greenery around it. I don't see how the gate would be um given that security. And we also have
um uh utility lines that are going throughout the um the front yard and putting the bushes. I don't even think they would grow if we tried and it would take years for them to grow. So that's not giving me that that security I'm hoping and really needing for my son. So
I'm asking you the council to consider the sixoot fence which is actually a fence that you can at height length see over because I'm using a specific decorative fence that you can it doesn't make it
seem like it's barricaded. It's stops at 4T and then the next two feet are decorative. So it gives the height but it doesn't give the appearance of a large fence. So I appreciate your consideration. Do we have questions for anyone want to ask
us applicant? Yes, ma'am. Um I noticed on one of your exhibits you say that your son has autism and it's an elopment kind of autism. What is alopment? Alopment is where the child for whatever reason in their minds decide to wander
and they're not doing it for any intention they're just curious. I did provide an exhibit a elopement is wandering or a common behavior among individuals with autism. It's when they a child with autism leaves a space safe
space with um without the caregivers's permission or supervision. Now, I keep my eyes on my son all the time, but the thing is, you know, what has he done in the past so far? He comes outside and within seconds, he's much faster than me
and I'm his only caregiver. So, he can just from one turn of a head go in the other direction and quickly. And that's the thing. And he could just be following a butterfly. He could be curious to go see a neighbor's dog. He could be doing anything that's going on
in his head that he wants to go see and that's the problem. It could it's by no means an in a a negligence on my part just from that one second. That's why I don't believe in um the no uh the shopping
experience where we all do our own shopping at the with the checkout with no checkout people because I can't do that without turning around to look where is he? That frustrates me, you know. So, thank you. That's it. Anyone else have any
questions of this applicant? Yes, ma'am. Has he had a history of climbing the fence with elopment? I said, "Has he had a history of climbing over the fence?" Oh, climbing over fences. He can climb. He can I
said, "Has he had a history of climbing over the fence?" We've never lived in a home to have a fence. This is my first home ownership. To have a a home with a fence to be able to know, can he climb over a fence? I wouldn't know because I he would never get to that point.
So I don't Could he climb a sixoot fence? No. Are there any other questions of this applicant? Thank you very much. You're welcome. Appreciate you. Do we have any other cards for this uh this item?
That was Elizabeth Parker. Okay. Welcome, Miss Parker. If you would give your name and address for the record, please ma'am. Elizabeth Parker. 3446 Trebino Circle. Um, I am in favor of this particular fence change as a
parent to a child with autism. My daughter did a all it takes is 30 seconds with your eye off your child and they can literally disappear. These kids are quick. A lot of them are non-verbal. And my daughter went a third of a mile
away and was found by a neighbor when she was nonverbal. if I hadn't brought around flyers to introduce my neighbors to my child and explained that she was non-verbal in where she lived and he was a good person and not a bad person, she
could have been very badly harmed. Additionally, children with autism are attracted to water. Drowning is one of the leading causes of death of our children. I think it's really important that although the property may not be specifically in need, the child is. And
in this community, in this world, these kids need to be protected because the only resource they have are generally us mothers. All it takes is us using a restroom at the wrong moment and our kids can be gone. And certainly, if all
it takes is putting up a six-foot fence to asssure that this young man can stay safe in his property, I can't see why the city would deny that. Thank you for hearing me. Well, thank you. Were there any questions of this
witness? Thank you very much. Do we have Do we have any other cards? No, sir. Okay, that ends the We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the uh board for discussion or a motion. Any questions of staff?
Have has everyone read the the exhibits that were supplied in the agenda? Yes. Related to this? Yes, it was in our agenda. Understand this is a a true disability. You need to pull that down so you can hear you, sir. So, this we all understand this is a true disability
and we have an opportunity to address it in a way that uh is helpful to everyone. Um, that being said, I make a motion. Well, I' I'd like to ask a question of staff. Uh staff, there you are.
Sorry. If we were to approve this but restrict it to this owner and the property changed hands, is there any way to resend it to a new property owner? Is that a I mean, is that a far-fetched
stretch or say the I mean I I don't know. I just just asking. I I don't think that's possible because I think that any variance that's granted would be issued to the property and runs with the land and I can't think of how
to craft any conditions that would restrict it to just one owner. Correct. When it comes to zoning, ownership is irrelevant. It's about the land, the conditions of the land itself. So, you can't make conditions on who owns the
property basically. So, it's really about the property itself is what you're supposed to consider. Just a question I had. All right, sir. You wish to make a motion? I move to allow the request for variance
um based on special conditions. Okay, we have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. All right, any other discussion? Okay, may we have roll call, please?
Member Beckles. Yes. Member Green. Yes. Member Wheelis. Yes. Chairman Taylor. Yes. Vice Chairwoman Ben Deven. Yes. Very well. Very well. You can get with the city now and they can give you that approval.
Okay. You're welcome. All right. All right. At this time, we will go back to the uh order of business. And first we have old business that we're going to. And again, this was
um this was for the appeal of 1- 2024 for the Apollo Gardens site development permit. Um our last meeting it was declared that Miss Conklin did have status.
uh or standing, excuse me. Correct. Thank you. Standing. So therefore, we're up to hear the appeal. Uh to hear at the at the last meeting, the board decided to reconsider the last motion that was
made at your previous meeting. Okay, that's so at the hang one second. At that previous meeting, member Green had made a motion to allow standing for Miss Conglin.
Correct. And the motion to reconsider would be to bring that motion back on the table. Okay. So tonight we're voting to So that's the first So the motion to reconsider would
reopen the motion that was previously decided by this board at your last meeting when that decision was made um in March. And so now what is on the table for the board to consider at present is whether you would like to
have discussion or hear anything on the motion that member Green made to grant standing. You can continue with that motion at this time. You can have discussion. Um but that's that was where the board decided to go at the last
meeting. Okay. I I thought we decided that. So, oh yeah, two. So, we've had So, what are we approving then? Then, I mean, that was approved. I'm sorry. So, there was a motion that was previously decided negatively. There
was a motion that failed three to two to three, correct? That member Green made to grant standing for Miss Conklin. This board decided that she did not have standing by a failed vote of two to three. And at your March meeting, you
decided to make a motion to reconsider the previous motion, which I just described, which is now where you are today. So, you are now at the point of deciding if you agree with me. Member Green's motion that Miss Conklin has
standing. Okay. Based on that, I based on that, you got it. I would like to I've thought very long and hard on this and it's the matter at hand is the determination of whether Miss Conklin possessed the requisite standing at the time she
submitted the original application. Upon review of both testimony and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the significant ambu ambiguity in the application's design may have contributed to any confusion regarding her representative capacity. Miss
Conklin consistently testified that at the time of filing she was acting in her capacity as an agent for the residents of Royal Oak. She further indicated that she herself is a resident of Royal Oak, reinforcing her connection and interest in the matter. While the application she submitted did not explicitly state her
role as an agent, Miss Conklin credibly testified that the application did not contain a designated section or prompt requesting the applica applica applicant's title or representative status. The only field required for execution was a signature, which she
provided in good faith. Her omission of the term agent was due to no express instruction or field requiring such designation. A review of the original application corroborates Miss Conklin's assertions. There is a notable absence of any requirement or field for stating
a title or representative role. This lack of clarity in the form itself cast doubt on whether it can be reasonably expected that an applicant would anticipate the need to unilaterally assert their capacity as agent in an unprompted manner. In further support, Mr. Severs, a retired attorney and
witness for Miss Conklin, testified to the following. The application should have explicitly required the title of the applicant if such designation was necessary for standing. In the absence of such instruction, it was reasonable for Miss Conklin to assume that her signature alone sufficed. In light of
the foregoing, Miss Conklin's consistent and credible testimony indicates she was acting as an agent at the time of filing. Multiple witnesses, including a qualified legal professional, confirmed her representative role. The original application's failure to request or provide space for a title, renders any
assertion of improper standing unfounded. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Miss Conklin had standing at the time of the of the application submission and that any questions regarding her representative capacity stem from deficiencies in the application form itself rather than any
omission or misrepres misrepresentation on her part. That's what we're here to decide. All right. So, now we are back to the original motion. Do we want to reopen the original motion? Is that correct?
Yes. I believe you are at that original motion now. Um and it would be appropriate for the board to either continue discussing or vote on that motion. All right. Not yet. We're going we'll discuss
first. Okay. Are there any questions anybody has up here first before we take input from anyone else about proceeding with this? I don't believe we need input from anyone else. Okay. At this point. Very good, sir. All
right. Then do I have a motion to proceed? The motion has already been made by Mr. Green. I believe we're we're calling the motion. No, that's what we voted on last time. Was that was two months ago? No, that was correct. It was two months ago. Mr.
Green made a motion. It was seconded. And that was that is the motion that you're now reconsidering. Okay. We're motioning that. Okay. Because the vote got changed. Okay. The vote is happening again. On standing. On standing. We had to do that again. All right. So, maybe I
have roll call on that, please. Sir, I'm sorry. I do have a point I'd like to raise that concerns for reconsideration where we are today. Just a moment, sir. You're not on the record. You're just speaking from the table. Um,
do I guess we have to open up everything we vote on. Is that right or not? I think that it is up to the board to decide whether at this point they would like to hear additional testimony
on stand. That's the question. Yes. Okay. This is on stand. I think what I think that's a procedural question that Mr. Paige is trying to make about the motion. Um and to avoid any legal arguments later, you may want to hear
what he has to say and then continue with your motion. Um, I would give him no more than three minutes. Is that agreeable with everyone for three minutes? Right.
Very well, sir. Come to the mic, please. I appreciate your indulgence. Eric Paige again on behalf of Apollo Gardens. Uh, the mo there's a motion in your packet that I'm going to amend a little bit. It was a motion to revoke the order granting the motion for reconsideration and to deny the motion for rehearing.
The problem we've got, and Attorney Pharaoh was good enough to point out to me that the city council rules number 13 says that a motion for reconsideration can be brought up at a subsequent meeting. That's different than Robert's rules. Robert's rule says it has to be within the confines of the meeting where
the decision up for reconsideration uh was made. So, it's different. So what what happened with raising the motion for consideration at the subsequent hearing? I am no longer arguing that that was improper. The problem is that the city council rules rule 18 also
adopts Robert's rules. And Robert's rules specifically say regarding motions for reconsideration. And this is in the the motion that's behind the first tab in the binder. And I quote, "If reconsideration is moved while another subject is before the assembly, it
cannot interrupt the pending business." And the pending business and the only pending business that day was the motion for re-haring. The motion for reharing should have been considered. It should have been voted on. And whatever that resolution was is that resolution. but to not address it when it was on the
agenda, it was the only noticed item would be improper as a matter of law. The motion for reharing, if addressed, would have failed because the motion for reharing and the motion for reconsideration were on the very same thing. They're on whether or not this board was going to reconsider Miss
Conklin's standing. And the motion for reconsideration passed 3 to2. Three votes is insufficient to grant a motion for rehearing. It should have been heard and it would have failed. Last point, and this is again in the binder that's presented. This is what
Mr. Severs presented a month ago. There's an article in here. The article's 15 pages long. He gave you five pages. Took out 10 pages. Here's what was on the first page that he admitted. This is the Renard
standard. The seminal case on standing in this non-applicant context, which we have here, is Renard v. aid county which identifies two different standards that depend on the nature of the challenge. One's procedural, one's substantive. I'm not going to talk about procedural because Miss Conklin's challenging
substantive. If the non-applicant here, Miss Conklin, is squarely challenging the substantive decision such as whether the local government correctly applied to the land development code and granting the landowner's development application, then only those suffering special injuries from the decision that
differ in kind rather than degree from the rest of the community have legally recognizable interest to support standing. Miss Conklin does not have that. any of the people who have tried to make her their agent do not have that. There's no competent substantial
evidence in this record for any of those folks or for Miss Conklin. And I'll just note that kind versus degree is further defined in that article. Thank you, sir. Somebody shut up. Excuse me. Just a moment, please. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Any questions? Are there any questions? No, no. Thank you. Thank you. More. This board has decades of history using rule 13 and the motion to
reconsider. And I do not agree that there's any problem with you all moving forward as has been previously um addressed by myself as far as you all have the ability to reconsider a previous decision at the same or the very next meeting which is what you have
done and it was put on the agenda for tonight with due process to provide notice to the community to attend tonight's meeting and move forward with your motion and decision. Thank you. All right, Miss Conklin, you still wish to address even though you've just what
you just heard. You also Vicky Conklin 2920 Royal Oak Drive, Titusville, Florida. I would just like to point out this is the dawn of an article. Um, and actually the whole thing was in your packet and it's a really good article because he's really really good at citing all of this. But
there is one portion that talks about and it's on page 110 of your packet and it says standing to challenge decisions not controlled by statute the Renard test. And that's what I believe that Mr. Page is referring to. That's not the
issue here because the challenge that we have today is according to statute and that would be page 120 of the same article and it's standing to challenge decisions covered by a Florida statute and that's statute 163. So I believe
that he's maybe confused about what we're doing here tonight and I have further comments on standing if you should want to hear those. No. Well, you'll be later. Yes. All right. So, do I have a motion
to reopen? Yes, sir. Or to continue with the motion previously denied. Is that correct? Is that what I'm doing? I think you're looking for a roll call. Okay. Roll call. Okay. We're down to roll call. So,
yes, sir. Right. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Yes. That was two months ago. Can we hear the motion? The very first motion that you were here uh failed 3 to2. It was brought back up
at the last meeting. But I want to hear the motion again is what I'm saying because you keep saying the motion it failed bl you weren't here. It blah blah blah. It what I mean I want to hear specifically what the motion says. Well, I've slept since then, but let me
know what page it was on and I'll I'll read it again. And this is to find that Miss Conklin has standing. And if you remember the first hearing, the issue was that she signed her signature. Can I hear the motion again? I'm asking to
hear the motion again. Okay. The motion is Does Miss Conklin have standing? Could we have the clerk read back the motion? I understand. Or do can can you tell us
what your motion said? We've had several meetings and a lot of motions and a lot of emotion in this room over this. The motion is to let Miss Conklin approach and hear the argument and hear the argument from or
the details of neighbors that are affected by this development to have their say to us. Chairman, the February meeting minutes state specifically member Green made a motion to approve applicant statement of
standing in this case. Member Van Deeon seconded. That's what I read and from the February meeting minutes. That's the motion. Thank you. Great. Okay, so we're doing roll call now, please. Member Wheelis.
Yes. Chairman Taylor, yes. Vice Chairwoman Van Deven, yes. Member Beckles, yes. Member Green, yes. Thank you. Thank
you. Okay. So, we're So, do we have all the exhibits and everything, counselor, to open this back up again tonight for the full hearing? Are both parties ready to go with this? All right. I see concession. All right. Staff, read us in. Get us started
again, please. And what page are you on? Page 14 of your packet. Thank you. It's a report to the board. Uh staff's recommendation is to concur with the administrative interpretation and deny the appeal. In summary and explanation, Apollo Gardens Department
site plan was approved on September 19th, 2023. On November 11, 2024, site development permit PSDP24-0000205 for project number J22-5424, the Apollo Gardens Apartments was issued authorizing on-site
construction. On December 5th, 2024, Vicky Conklin, appellent, submitted an application to appeal the approval and issuance of the site development permit. Prior to consideration of the appeal, the board must determine whether the appellant is an affected property owner, which you've already decided. On January 29th, the board
table this appellent's appeal to the February meeting. On February 26, the board determined that the appellent did not have standing. And then on March 26, you rehear you um the appellent requested a hearing and the board instead adopted a motion to reconsider.
And so you decided that tonight. So what you have what I'll start with is the staff report on page 31 of your packet. In the packet, you'll see the applicants um application and their exhibits. But I'm just going to start on
page 31 and just go right into our staff analysis. The location of the property is at 2727 Demerit Drive. Tax number 2207868, parcel 2235-160034. The zoning on the property
is multifamily high density which is R3. The administrative interpretation polar gardens site plan was approved on se September 29, 2023 consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan on November 11, 2024.
Site the same site development per which permit which I already issued stated for the Apollo Gardens Apartments was issued authorizing on-site construction. On December 5th, 2024, the appellent submitted an appeal pursuant to section 34-250. The notice of appeal shall be
filed in 30 days. All that was followed. The Polo Gardens project is a multif family apartment building with 84 residential units. The property is zoned again R3 multif family. The project is permitted in the R3 zoning district. The property is designated with the comprehensive plan highdensity
residential future land use dis uh designation. The property has frontage on Demerit Road which is a public rideway. According to the appellant, the Apollo gardens project is not a conventional multif family development and is not consistent with comprehensive
plan future land use element strategy 1.13.11, policy 1.14.5 and policy 1.14.6. We believe the appellent was referring specifically to uh policy
1.14.16 on that last one. The comprehensive plan and the land development regulations do not define a conventional multif family development. The LDRs define multif family dwellings as a mult building containing two or more dwellings per chapter 37 of the
city's definitions. The LDRs do not distinguish between an owner occupied condominium type multif family development and apartments for rent. Multif family dwellings such as duplex, triplex, quadriplex or etc are permitted in the R3 zoning district per section
28-54 of the city's zoning use table. The R3 zoning district is consistent with the highdensity residential future land use district or land use designation section 27-21 for the land use zoning consistency matrix.
Strategy 1.13.11 we believe is not applicable to the Apollo Gardens property. The strategy describes the US one quarter future land use district which is which was specifically created to implement the US one quarter master plan adopted
in 2007. Properties not located within the boundaries of the US one quarter master plan. Policy 1.14.5 is also not applicable to the Apollo Gardens property. The policy describes a medium-density residential future land
designation. Paula Gardens property is not designated medium density residential. The crux of the appeal is truly um specifically to policy 1.14.16 which is is applicable to the Apollo Gardens property. The policy describes the high density residential
future land use designation. In 1988, the city council adopted a comprehensive plan. The city council also designated several properties including the Apollo Gardens property with the highdensity residential land use district consistent with the comprehensive plan. The policy was cited as objective 10 policy 1D and
stated the following highdensity residential uses in parentheses 9.1 to 15 units per acre or mobile homes shall consider existing proposed land uses to ensure compatibility. Further, such density shall be located adjacent to at
least a minor arterial street. The city council determined consistency with the comprehensive plan, including the policy statement related to densities located adjacent to at least a minor arterial street, which we believe are Harrison Street and Barton Avenue are the only adjacent streets that would have qualified as minor
arterial streets. The appeal is based upon the current policy which was amended in 2007, 19 years after city council had determined consistency with the comprehensive plan and designation of the property is highdensity residential to state the following. Highdensity residential uses
parenthesis maximum 15 units per acre or mobile homes shall consider existing proposed land uses to ensure compatibility. Further such densities shall be located adjacent to at least a collector or arterial street unless the property is located along the following local road which already has a
multifamily development pattern and is capable of supporting higher density which is Rocket Road parenthesis from Tropic Street to South Street. Harrison Street and Barnet Avenue are collector roads according to the city's land development regulations. Property is consistent with the policy
statement related to densities located adjacent to a collector. The permit was issued consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the highdensity residential land use uh designation policy. Enclosed, we've included maps identifying the location of properties for the same land use designation for
your reference. The recommendation is to concur with the administrative interpretation and deny the appeal. That I'll try to answer any questions you have. Are there questions of staff at this time? and staff has concurred with council for
the city that this action is correct. Is that I don't understand the question. Did staff consult with council with the city that their interpretation is was the correct interpretation that the staff's
interpretation that well your you gave you just gave a staff's interpretation right here. This is the administrator of the code providing an interpretation and review of a site plan but we found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. You found it consistent. Okay. Thank
you. Any other questions? Okay. All right. Then uh I guess we open it up and Miss Conklin, I believe you'll be the first one as you are the applicant. Correct. Please come forward.
Again, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your patience the past four months as we've navigated this appeal together. I think that the BA mainly deals with variances and that's been my experience from all my municipal experience as well with people asking
for permission for things that are outside of the city code to do. But today we are asking for an appeal and that is we're simply asking the city to follow the city's comprehensive plan. We're not asking for variance. We're not asking for resoning. We're not asking
for any changes. We're just asking to adhere to the comprehensive plan, the Florida statutes, and thereby avoid placing the city in legal jeopardy. We're not here about merits of the affected property. Whether you think it's worthwhile or not worthwhile,
that's really not why we're here. Our appeal is with the city of Titusville. We live here, we work here, we play here, we pay taxes here. This is our chosen community. We're residents with limited income. Many of us on fixed
incomes. We're not a large corporation. Being able to bring in multiple attorneys, pay them $4,000 or more uh to be able to send threatening letters to whoever opposes us. We can't do that. Like I receive threatening letters from
the opposition's attorney. That doesn't seem to be a right thing to do. We paid $625 to come before you all as a board to present what we believe to be the facts. Regard regarding uh Mr. Page's comments, I I feel a need to address
them at the March 26th meeting because he challenged the significance of the eight authorized uh people who signed naming me as agent. He challenged the significance of the 33 residents who attended the meeting and spoke to you
all. He challenged the significance of 27 new authorization letters that were submitted for the March meeting and those were letter letters of residents adjoining 2727 demerit. their property actually abuts it and joins to
it. And some of those records that we submitted to you were the HOA presidents that represent Spanish Oaks condos, which is 84 units, and one was a Village Square HOA condo representing 104 units. So, when we add all of those together,
it's a lot of people that are very concerned about this development. Mr. Page also challenged whether the new authorization letters could have been presented earlier instead of waiting and that seemed very important to him. And I feel a need to answer that just for the
record. Uh my 94 year old mother died on February 21st, 5 days prior to our March meeting. I spent those five days making funeral arrangements with phone with my family and familiarizing myself with our
presentation because it was important to me. The very next day I flew to St. Louis, Missouri for the funeral of my mother with my family. Upon my return to Titusville, I began meeting with other residents and they urged me. They wanted to sign this to authorize me to be their
agent. And so that's the reason for the delay. That's why I had to wait till I got back from my mother's funeral to get more documents. I hope that's satisfactory to you and any of you who have lost a a loved one recently can identify with that. I don't feel any
burning obligation to explain anything to you, Mr. Paige. My appeal is to the city staff decision, not your project. But in the interest of transparency, honesty, and with no hidden agenda, I'm choosing to share this personal information. and I hope you can
appreciate that. So, I'd like to clarify the city's appeal application process. The document as as I appreciate Miss Van Divven saying is for the applicant and so I appreciate the fact that that was reviewed because I did the best I could with the form that I was given. Uh, I
also believe that the BA's role is to consider applicants requests for variances on appeals and to determine if the request follows or doesn't follow the state statutes and the city code. It's not whether you like the project, don't like the project, but it's a yes
or no. Does it meet code? Yes. Does it not meet city code? No. And so that seems to be the very issue at hand. Does it follow the chapter 163 which we'll be sharing? If not, then that appeal must by law be approved and the staff uh should uh rescend that development
permit that they issued. And I do have a presentation if you would allow me to do that now or if you choose to wait, that's up to you. Whatever you'd like me to do. I have a small PowerPoint presentation. And I did provide that is
on your laptops and I did provide it with uh with Kim. Okay. are want to hear that Dan okay with everybody can you tell us what it's about first the presentation specific specifically
addresses why why would I want to do the presentation what does the um PowerPoint specifically address it addresses um the justification for uh this appeal and the justification of why the state statutes
that should be followed and the importance of the comprehensive plan according to state statutes. So, it's the law, the law of the land. All right. Go ahead, please. Okay. Thank you very much. And so, Kurt has been
helpful with starting. And Kurt, if you could start that one first, sir, is to show you what happens on a typical trash day on De. And that's on Thursdays. And this is what happens. The trash truck
arrives and you can see it's pretty tight. The road is 22 feet wide. Yeah. Ooh. We cringe when we see that each time. And they see that every Thursday. The road is only 22 feet wide. And so there's not enough room for many
cars to park. Some do have to park on the road or in their yards and they prefer to use the pavement instead. That's what you see on Thursdays if you go to Dear Drive. In addition, there were street sweepers. There were uh landscaping fellows trying
to get through. So, this is what happens every Thursday. I just thought the visual might help you to see what we're what we're dealing with. Now, I believe that Kurt has this set up as the overview. So, this is the
overview. it. The appeal is for the site development permit and name aim the project which Brad is very well described and it conflicts with the city of Titusville comprehensive plan. And so what we have here is the Florida law and this law is really
critical is the Florida state statute of chapter 163 part two and I wanted to make sure that you had a copy of that if you had not had a license for that. The comprehensive plan is the primary policy document. It establishes a long-term
vision, goals, objectives, and policies for the city's future growth and development. And just as stated, 163.3194 legal status. After a comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof has been adopted in conformity
with the act, all development undertaken and all actions taken in regard to development orders uh shall be consistent with the plan or the element as adopted. This is important as well. The Titusville land development regulations. This is tied to Phil's forms chapter
2712 section J. In the event of a conflict in these regulations and the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan shall prevail. It's the intent of the city to have the more stringent regulations prevail in the event of any
conflict. And what we have here, there's a conflict between with the way the property is zoned, which was done years ago, and we'll speak about that in a moment, as well as what the comprehensive plan. So they're in conflict with with each other and the charge tonight is to decide which one
weighs more heavily. We are merely requesting that the city adhere to its own comprehensive plan. The next is strategy 1.13.1.1 and that's the US quarter land
use district and Mr. uh Mr. pair spoke to that. Uh I think it's important he believes that this isn't as critical with this development and so we'll move on to the next which is policy 1.14.6 and this is critical. Highdensity
residential uses with our mobile homes consider existing and proposed land uses to ensure compatibility. The density shall be located adjacent to at least a collector or arterial street. Well, Dear
Drive is a local residential road. The closest roads that are arterials or collectors, as Mr. Parish stated, are Bara and Harrison and neither one, they're six at least 625 ft away from
this development. And so, Dearra Drive, a local residential road, is what's being considered for their ingress egress, their only ingress egress. So now we have the issue between comprehensive plan versus zoning. So
decades ago according to to Brad uh a previous city council designated 2727 Demerit Drive for multifamily zoning and that was confirmed. We we met with Brad in person on November 26th and he shared that information with us. The
comprehensive plan restricts multifamily access to local residential roads and nobody disagrees about that. But here we come again to Florida law chapter 163 which is like the bible here. This is the legal status of the
comprehensive plan. It's the primary policy document. Thus the comprehensive plan inherently holds greater weight balance because it dictates the overarching policy within which all development must occur.
So the background as as Brad described very well is the zoning classification that was established many years ago by a city council that's no longer in power and what they established was that 2727 dear could be a zoning of multif family
and the previous city employee Peggy Bisaka uh she certified compliance of Apollo Gardens multif family project with the zoning and land use regulations. This is critical. She certified that it met zoning and land
use regulations. It did not certify compliance with the comprehensive plan. That's a critical element. It did not certify compliance with the comprehensive plan when she signed that in June of 2022. We're concerned that this is setting a
precedent. If we deviate from our comp comprehensive plan, it affects all subsequent development in our rapidly growing city. And this really is not an issue just about 2727 demerit. This is an issue for the future growth of our
city. in violating chapter 163. If we continue to violate that and say the comprehensive plan doesn't matter, what will we end up with as a city in terms of any growth that we should be having? Lots of local residential streets are in our city. And if they all then get get
subjected to having multif family on them, we've really changed the character of any development that we have. and it puts the city of Titusville in legal jeopardy per Florida statute 163 part two comprehensive plan. And so people wonder why what's
the difference in a local residential road? Well, we did go out and measure as I believe I described to you before. The width of Demerit Drive and Tranessa are 22 feet. The width of an average car or truck is about 6 or 7 feet depending on the large mirrors of course. The width
of a lawn care rig is 8 feet and 10 in but 40t long. Many residents do park on the private street. The trash truck requires 11 ft to maneuver through as you saw. And then the yard trash truck that has the alarm arm arm on it. Yeah,
that of course requires even more space. And so the question is what about construction trailers trying to get down? What about fire engines trying to get through to get to a multifamily project at the very end of the road? I think they're going to have a hard time. And just so you see that visual
again, it's typical trash pickup day on Dear Drive. Now, this is the center of the road. And so there was the lawn maintenance uh gentleman and you can see the part of his trailer down. If you see to the left of the screen, you can see that's the center of the road. So
there's not much more space for anybody to get through. Multif family zoning at 2727 Demerit. It does not align with the neighboring zoning. Demerit and Tanessa residence consists of single family residences. Spanish Oaks condos they have access for
to Harrison Street which is the arterial collector. Village square condos have access on Harrison Street. The collector the arterial. The nearest three-story building standing at 35 ft is located more than a mile away and that's on Knox McCrae. A section of Demerit Drive has
been deeded to Spanish Oaks condos just for emergency access, allowing them to install and maintain a locked gate on the southern side, and that would remain in place. I think this is important. This situation is not a hardship for car 4 or
Apollo Gardens. It's self-imposed. They knew about this prior to purchasing, prior to getting involved with this project. So any kind of hardship they might claim is one that they imposed themselves. The comprehensive plan policy was in place prior to car for
purchasing the property and that was in January of 2023. So my summary is approve the appeal and rescend the site development permit for Apollo Gardens LLP. It violates the Titusville
comprehensive plan. It sets an unlawful precedent for future multif family developments. Multiple residents have submitted public requests to city officials in the past 22 months asking them, "Please review this issue. This isn't right. It's violating the comprehensive plan." For 22 months,
we've been asking and there has been no response at all. Perhaps a few meetings, but nothing nothing really has come of substance. So, we're asking the city to follow the comp plan. So, this is what it came to. It compelled us to gather our
$625, pay the fee as the only way that we could come to you to explain what a crucial situation this is. We're merely asking and requesting that this board and city officials and staff adhere to the Titusville
comprehensive plan. And the final slide, which I know Brad is familiar with from going to the different planning things, he might have even written it. I'm not sure. But the comprehensive plan is king. It does carry more weight than what that uh
zoning of that 2727 demerit um does. Any questions? I hope that helped Miss Beckles to to show you. Sometimes the visual helps a lot more. Brad did give you some examples. I'm sorry. Just 30 seconds more here,
sir. Uh he gave examples and and I think that what we have to look at is what's happening in the city as a whole. This rule has been violated quite a bit. In fact, not this last council meeting, but the one before. And so we see that local residential roads more and more the
developers getting getting permission to use local residential roads for multif family, but it violates the code. And so we can cite past instances of approvals, but they were still illegal then, they're illegal now. What are we going to do moving forward? Are we going to go
for what's legal? Are we going to say we made some decisions before that probably were illegal, but we'll just keep making the same ones. And we're saying, please stop, take a look. We're going we're growing quickly. Let's follow the law and let's listen to the residents as well. I believe we have some compelling
reasons. Thank you. Miss Conklin, you've made mention of other projects that were approved. I've never heard an address or anything. Can you give me an actual location or a project that you consider that was illegal or not following the
comprehensive plan? Uh uh yes sir. um on Windover, not last night's meeting, but the previous meeting uh that uh Cole Oliver was granted approval to go on Windover Way, which is a local road and he's got a business there, but he wants to come out on the local road and those
residents were here to say that they didn't think that was legal and it violates the comprehensive plan. That didn't get approved, though. It did. Did it not, Brad? You're referring to resoning where Mr. Cole Oliver asked for
the removal of conditions of a zoning ordinance on a property on uh Windover Way and Cheney Highway and that was approved by city council to remove the conditions of that reszoning ordinance and the property was zoned
commercial residential regional commercial still against the comp plan. I I will add though the city the findings from staff the council concurred. They are the final arbiter of what is consistent with the comprehensive plan and they
determined that that request was consistent with the comprehensive plan. That's why it was approved by council. We have a lot of respect for Brad. I believe that he was caught in a hard place here with zoning done by somebody else long ago. Nobody here anymore with that and and there was just a lot of
conflict there. I think he's been we really respect this guy a lot. He's got a tough job. Thank you. Any other questions of Miss Con? Thank you, ma'am. Thanks. Yes, sir. I believe you're up next. Thank you again. Eric Page Shuts and
Bowen representing the permit holder Paulo Gardens. Um I just want to get on the record. I confirmed with um attorney Frell, but still party status in this proceeding. Correct. Okay.
Um, and I I' I'm actually got a representative of my client with me here today who I'm going to bring up in a few minutes to speak a little bit, but I would like to just address first. Um, a couple of points. The some and and first rebutted a few things that Miss Conklin
said. Um, the letters that I challenged were based on them being appropriate evidence for rehearing. I'm very sorry for her loss. I lost my mother in December. It's terrible. So, I'm sorry. uh the chapter 163 that we're seeing up there and that we're hearing about
that's different. This is a quasi judicial proceeding in front of a board that is specific to the city of Titusville that follows those rules. A chapter 163 proceeding used to go to circuit court. Now it goes to the department administrative hearings. I was in one last year. I was in one the
year before. That's where they go. So what we're dealing with here is what does the common law say about how this proceeding is conducted and who has standing in this proceeding. And on that point, I did not misstate what was provided to this board. What was provided to this board in terms of that
article from Mr. Severs who made quite clear that he used to represent this board as a city attorney was five pages of that article. I asked for it from the clerk. I got it today and there's only five pages. Excuse me. Would you put down
your Would you put down We're not going to have displays in in here. You can put it down, please. I'm not allowing displays while we have until you are speaking. Please put this I'm asking you to place place them down. You too,
ma'am. I am requesting that you not put displays on then you may ma'am leave the leave the property or leave the building if you're not going to comply. You have a choice,
officer. Hey, you can keep your sign up and we'll call you. You can come back, but I'm not going to allow you to stay in here with a sign. All right, we're going to take a fivem minute recess. Good. There has been a correction. I've been
informed that there is not a rule from holding signs and therefore the lady that was asked to leave has returned and I cannot Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Sit down, please. Thank you. I wasn't finished speaking.
So there I apologize to you ma'am. I I made a misstatement and uh I was informed there was no official rule set by the city at this time. So we will continue with your here your part sir please.
Thank you. Um, I was asked to speak louder, so I apologize if I speak too loud for you, but some folks behind me, I guess, didn't hear me very well. So, I'll try to do better. Um, addressing some of the points that Miss Con um,
Conklin raised, uh, and and I, forgive me, I don't recall exactly where we left off, so I may repeat just a tiny bit, but the the article that was presented by Mr. Severs as part of his package uh only had five of those 15 pages of that article from uh my law school classmate
and law reviewview uh colleague Christopher Donovan. The remainder of that article very clearly states what the appropriate standard is uh in guard in regards to standing here. I'm going to let that article speak for itself. I'm not up here to argue standing
anymore. I'm going to respect the decision of the board. I'm going to move forward. But I did want to clarify that point. Uh I will object for the record. I'm not expecting a ruling on this, but for the sake of the record and potential appeal, I will object to the audiovisisual display that was put up
there. I don't think a foundation was laid for its admissibility. Don't know who took it. Don't know when they took it, etc., etc. Um as well the reference to the executed document
from Peggy Busaka. Uh it is actually the first page of tab 7 of the binder that I provided and I pulled it out from the remainder of what is tab 7. uh that involved the application to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and part of
that process required that my client and it's on uh it's page 103 of the full document behind tab 7. It's also just by itself the first page behind tab 7 because I try to make it easy. Um but at the time Miss Busanka executed this, she
was the community development director for the city. Uh, and this is a this is a representation from the city's community development director that my client relied upon uh in pursuing uh its entitlements both with the city and with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
It's a very important point for us and as well your current community development director Brad Parish has testified today that this building permit is in complete compliance with the comprehensive plan. And as I understand
it, having party status, I'm allowed to cross-examine a witness. So, I'd like approval to do that briefly. The witness, I believe, would be Miss Conklin. No, it would be Mr. Parish. Um, so that is a question for the board
to allow him to ask Mr. Parish questions. Um, typically an applicant or a speaker can only address the board. So with your permission, he will have the permission to speak directly to the community development director as the expert who's provided the reports.
You're seeing any objection to him speaking. I see no I said I have no objection. No objections. We have no objection, sir. Thank Do I have to vote on that or just I think that consensus is fine. Okay.
Thank you. I appreciate it and I'll be brief. Um, Mr. Parish, you heard the presentation of Miss Conklin, correct? Yes. And what you presented earlier to the board uh was was predominantly your
January 29th, 2025 memo uh to the board as the community development director. Is that right? Yes. My question is pretty simple. Having heard Miss Conklin's presentation, is anything that she said change your conclusions in your January
29th, 2025 memo to the board? No, our conclusion is the same. Uh, city council determined the consistency the land use and zoning on this property and we are not in a position to reinterpret that, litigate what council has already
determined. So, we applied the comprehensive plan, the code consistent with what the applicant um submitted and we reviewed it consistent with those those regulations and those policies and found that the application was consistent and issued the permit. Thank you. I don't have any
other questions for Mr. Parish. I do have a couple other things to touch on before I bring up Miss Burman. Um basis for board decision making. This is in resolution number 24-1997. I'm at 6.2 to subp part B. The board must have before it competent
substantial evidence to support its findings and judgment, which must also be in accord with the essential requirements of local, state, and federal law. And part C states the beginning of it, while the board should hear the objections of interested parties, the board's judgment must be
based on the facts aduced and not on the mere polling of interested parties. And I believe that this board is going to follow the law. I believe that this board is going to look at whether or not it has confident substantial evidence. I believe that the law is very very clear
and Mr. Parish has stated it in his memo and has now restated it to this board that this building permit that my clients hold that my client holds is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. This isn't a resoning. This is an interpretation of whether it's compliant with a comprehensive plan. And the the
one person in this city who's designated with making that determination is Mr. Parish. and he's made it and he's just affirmed it twice. Once when he presented and once when I cross-examined him. There's simply no basis, no basis to take away this permit
based on a failure to comply or not be consistent with the comprehensive plan. If this board does that, it will be a taking. It will be a denial of my client's constitutional equal protection rights. And if it's done for the wrong reasons, it could be a violation of the Fair Housing Act. I don't want any of
those things to happen. I want the permit to stand. I'm going to bring up Miss Burman to introduce herself and speak for a few minutes. Stephanie Berman, 1398 Southwest 1st Street, Miami, Florida 33135. Thank you for your time this evening and over the last couple of
months. I know those seats are not easy seats to be in, especially on a night like tonight. and I thank you for your time. I am the president of carfor supportive housing. I would like to take a few moments to clear up misinformation that has been circulating regarding car for and Apollo Gardens. Over the past
two years, a false narrative has been created about who we are and what we have or have not done. I want to correct that misinformation. Carforce supportive housing is a mission-driven not for-profit organization that builds affordable and supportive housing. We
have served over 10,000 men, women, and children since we were created 35 years ago. Our team of over 150 include social workers, case managers, and property management professionals, each committed to transforming lives through stable housing. Our residents are our mothers,
fathers, sisters, brothers, and children who for a variety of reasons found themselves in need of affordable housing to support them in living meaningful, healthy lives. Our residents are also the hardworking men and women of this community who serve food at your favorite restaurants or the nurses aids
at your hospitals but cannot afford skyrocketing rents. Our housing is not a treatment center, not an ALF or a shelter. It is permanent multifamily housing where residents pay rent, sign annual leases, and are expected to abide
by the leases they sign. Unfortunately, we have been targeted. We have been the target of a sustained misinformation campaign. Carfor has been portrayed as a greedy developer. Even tonight, you heard that. And our residents have been publicly described as dangerous criminals who wander the
streets preying on widows and children. These portrayals are untrue and offensive. Much of the early opposition to Apollo Gardens, including from Appell and Vicky Conklin, focused not on land use or zoning, but on who would be living in the building. At a city
council meeting in May of 2023, Miss Cochland stated, "We have read a 132page document submitted by Carfor. That is where it described the kind of tenants that will be there. No criminal background checks would be done. So, we kind of wonder are there going to be
sexual predators, burglars, thefts, and histories of assaults. We are fearful." She did not mention any concerns about Apollo Gardens's consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. Another resident said the following. I am here to state my objection to the proposal to
construct Apollo Gardens. Some very troubling unintended consequences could occur from having this marginalized population living next door to us. Adults will be at liberty to wander through our community without supervision that could lead to public drug use and intoxication, drug dealing
and drug overdoses, increased criminal activity, home invasions, and possible gun violence. Council member Moscoso said the following at the same meeting. Apollo Gardens will serve high utilizers, which she then goes on to describe in detail and then says, "As a
mother of a kindergartenner and a third grader and a neighbor to many elderly neighbors and widows, this project is of great concern." Again, no mention of concerns regarding our consistency with the city's comprehensive plan.
Resident after resident made similar comments at public hearings for many months. During these months, a website was created, a GoFundMe page was started where money was collected for an attorney. There were many social media posts and neighborhood meetings, all with the primary goal of stopping us
from building Apollo Gardens with a strong focus on who would be living in the building, not on whether the building and its use are legally per permissible. The opposition was deeply rooted in classic not in my backyard sentiment. This fear-based rhetoric
dominated the conversation for months until carfor raised concerns about potential violations of the Fair Housing Act. Only then did the website and social media post disappear and the opposition pivoted to the legal arguments about consistency with the city's comprehensive plan that they now
claim support the appeal of our permit. Let me also clarify another important point. From the very beginning, Carfor has communicated openly and frequently with city staff about Apollo Gardens. In 2022, we first approached the city about our plans to apply for funding to build
Apollo Gardens. We were told in July of 2022, both verbally and via a signed certification, which you've seen tonight, from the city's community development director, that we had proper zoning and that our development was in compliance with the city's land use regulations. We had several
conversations and email exchanges with the city in the months that followed. Then in January of 2023 before we purchased the land, we met with the city to again confirm compliance with zoning and land use regulations. And again, we received confirmation from the city that we were in compliance with zoning and
land use regulations. Based on this confirmation from the city, we moved forward to purchase the site. We were transparent and have responded to all requests made by the city. Another misrepresentation is that Carer has not been responsive to neighborhood questions or concerns.
During 2023 and 2024, Carur had many exchanges with neighbors, several of whom are in this room. We did our best to answer all the emails and questions we received. I have counted over 50 emails that I alone sent to neighbors in response to their questions about car and Apollo Gardens. We also invited a
group of neighbors to meet with us to answer questions and listen to their concerns. We had a productive meeting and made several changes as a result of their requests, including removing a health clinic that we had envisioned in the building and saving trees that they told us were important to them. At the
end of that meeting, one neighbor looked at me and said, "You do amazing work. Can't you just do it somewhere else?" This type of not in my backyard sentiment and the discriminatory statements that have accompanied it is the reason carfor has had to and will continue to defend itself and the people
we serve with the Fair Housing Act and are also the reason why we feel this board has no legitimate basis to reverse car force permit. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this background and to clear up any misinformation. Thank you. Are there any questions for this
witness? All right. Seeing none. No. Thank Thank you very much. Thank you. I won't be too much longer. Promise. Um, Miss Burman spoke about uh GoFundMe page and and things along those lines.
You will find in the materials that we presented an affidavit from Miss Burman. It's behind tab 3. Uh it states that she located those GoFundMe pages, those GoFundMe pages and and other uh screenshots that she took indicate who
was trying to raise money, who was opposing this project and why. And what she said in terms of the why before there was a pivot to supposed challenges with the comprehensive plan is exactly right. And to further illustrate that, we have submitted behind tab three
quotes from various speakers at three different public hearings. Those include Miss Conklin, those include uh council member Miss Caso, those include other members of the public. I'm not going to read them, but I can tell you that they focus on the type of tenants. They focus
on fear. They focus on crime. They focus on drug dealing. They focus on things that are not legitimate bases to say that a permit is not consistent with a comprehensive plan. That is the law. And they disclose
what the real reasons are that a lot of people oppose this project. And those can't be legitimate reasons to oppose this project. So, we've provided the videos. There are quotes behind that tab, too. If you want to fact check me on the quotes, you're more than welcome to, but I can assure you that they are
accurate. as well. Uh if behind tab, I believe it is five. Forgive me if I'm incorrect about that, but it is the hearing transcript from the February 26th, 2025 hearing before the board. As you all
know, we've had a court reporter at every one of these. And that again is a verbatim transcript certified by a court reporter of what transpired. That's the hearing where there is a 3 to2 vote to deny Miss Conklin standing. Soon as that 3 to2 vote came through,
y'all probably remember how the crowd reacted and there was a recess and that was the only thing on the agenda that day was that appeal. So, it then went up for public comment. If you want to read through that transcript, you'll see some really interesting comments. You'll see people literally saying the phrase not
in back my backyard. You'll see people talking about criminals. You'll see people talking about drugs. You'll see people talking about all of their fears. I get it. But it's not the law. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. The permit is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. You've heard that across the board. You've not heard anything from Miss Conklin to dispute that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. They they talk about inconveniences. I understand garbage trucks are big. People park on both sides of the street. I get it. But the
roads are what they are. The comprehensive plan is what it is. And this permit is appropriate. The other thing I'd like to point out that has been there all along, but I don't think it's really been noted, and this is in your packet today.
It's page 16 of 245, and this is the actual handwritten appeal from Miss Conklin. First line, proposed development is not a conventional MF development. Multif family development proposed development is not a conventional multifamily development.
What's conventional mean? Well, Brad Parish has told you there is nothing that is conventional or non-conventional regarding multifamily use in your city under the comprehensive plan. Conventional folks don't want this there. Not in my
backyard. This is a legally permissible use. This is a absolute entitlement. Both of your community development directors have said that under zoning under the comprehensive plan. It is a scenario where my client if they do not get to go forward with this, they are
having their equal rights violated. They are having their property taken and I believe there would be grounds for a fair housing act action. I don't want to do any of that. Just want the permit to stand. My client just wants the permit to stand. I appreciate your time. You've been you've been very kind to me. You've
been very understanding. You've let me speak at times that were unconventional and you've considered arguments I've made, including today, that you know weren't on the agenda. I really appreciate it. Thank you. And any questions?
I just want to make sure did Miss Burman fill out a card? Thank you. She did. Okay. Hear I don't see any questions. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, we have some cards
available, right? Uh, Jill Sterling. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Ma'am. Good evening, everyone. I'm Jill Sterling at 3514 Nelson Place. Um, I've read about the Florida housing pilot in South Florida and the improved outcomes car for and
others have had for residents of their facilities and I appreciate that greatly. I know it is important work. I've also read the application provided by car 4 to the city that states at least what I was provided just a few
days ago perhaps it has been changed. There will be on-site behavioral and health staff to support residents. Um, the use of the facility in in this capacity is beyond the R3
zoning description, at least from what I've found in MUN code. Um, that requires a conditional use permit in R3, which drives a planning and zoning board meeting, which I think city council should have asked for many, many months ago.
Um, so I submitted a public records request today to ask the city to identify if they have or will request a conditional use permit and if not to provide rationale for the decision. There are 16 instances of the word
treatment in carfor's application to the city and the description provided in the application meets the description of a residential treatment facility. Um I am I'm not the MUN code expert but at least
what I found chapter 28 article 5 division 2 section 28-79 standards for conditional uses the Apollo Gardens facility is not even it doesn't meet conditional use uh
it's not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and it exceeds what's stated as 45 units for the entire project. Um I you know I I'm I'm all for I think everyone here
is all for the success of car 4 and all their partners. It's just that I I do feel that the fact that these two small streets, Tresa and Demerit, are the only access for what may be, you know, many
support vehicles um coming uh u at least, you know, fire, rescue, ambulance, police potentially. the the the South Florida pilot had numbers
listed um that were great uh as far as um their success. The days residents spent in jail were reduced by 72% but what about the other 28%. Um arrests were reduced by 65%. What about the other
35%? So, I think the the residents along these two residential streets it it's been stated not in my backyard. Um, you know, it it's just not a suitable place for this type of
facility that needs this type of support on residential streets. Um, it's going to be an extreme hardship to the community. So, that is why I decided to speak this evening. Um, I do wish Carfor
and all their partners success, but I honestly don't know why they and even why Florida housing would continue to pursue this location. Just does not seem appropriate. Thank you very much.
Thank you. We have another card, please. Dwight Severs. Welcome. Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Dwight Seavers. My focus tonight is solely upon the law and the record in this proceeding. I
certainly wasn't present at the February 26th meeting and by the name my my name is Severs, not Severs. As shown on page two of the staff report, the comprehensy plan adopted in 1988 said, "High density residential use
such density shall be located adjacent to at least a minor arterior according to staff's report that was amended in 2007 to read high density residential uses and I would want my report and
documents a part of the record. Such density shall be located adjacent to and at least a collector or tourist street unless the property is located on the following local roadless rock pit road. I was the city attorney at that time in
2004 2006 and conferred with the development director and I was highly involved in drafting the comprehensive plan reviewing and implementing parts of it. I worked with development director senior planner Courtney Barkley and then
the city and council was approached by a notfor-profit entity housing for homeless who wanted to build housing for homeless veterans. Habitat humanity owned property on Rockpit Road, a local street and working with them uh and
Habitat Humanity and Housing for the Homeless. They had a multif family existing unit there and they wanted to expand that and build housing for the homeless. See exhibit A attached. You'll see the location on Rocket Road, a local street. Because of the comprehensive
plan did not allow highdensity residential on a local street and pursuant to chapter 1631 194 a development order could not be issued. The decision was made to amend the comprehensive plan to allow
highdensity residential on rotick road and rock pit the road only a local street. This is how the project got built. The mayor drive and is are local streets. It's not listed here in your
comprehensive plan. In addition, section 2712J of the LDRs provides in the event there's a conflict between these regulations and the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan prevails. I provided a copy attached to the
documents. The language of the highdensity residential shall be located on at least a collector or arterial. Skipping on down, the comprehensive plan likewise does not define adjacent to,
but your LDRs do. And interesting enough, adjacent adjacent parcel in question shall be located no more than 100 ft and easily accessible. I need a little bit more time. Finish my report.
We have a copy of your report, sir. Do you need to read it word for word? because it's multiple pages. Well, it's only 20 pages. The rest of this one page I'm on. The others are the documents.
In addition, I'd like to respond to Mr. Page. You gave him additional time. You did not. He talked a great deal about me and standing, which wasn't the issue before you. That was the earlier issue.
And I would like to simply say that if you'd like to finish reading this, read it, sir. But let's not go on the other topics because witnesses do not witnesses, if I'm not mistaken, are not allowed to cross-examine. Is that
correct? I'm not asking to cross-examine anybody. Well, you're commenting on his comment, sir. Would you finish reading what you were reading, please? Sure. Based upon a review of the property appraisers record and the recorded plat
of Royal Oak property uh unit three, the Apollo property is 5 approximately 587 ft from the collector street. That's far in excess of being adjacent as
defined in the city code. Clearly the code says what it says. To the extent that Paulo may have relied upon this certification by Peggy Baka, please look at it. It doesn't certify as
to the comprehensive plan. It may certify as to zoning. If if the applicant would if if the property owner wasn't smart enough to ask for that, shame on them. They should have asked for that certification.
In addition, I attach for your consideration an expert dealing with variance hardship in particular. I would simply like to point to one section and though I have not included all the pages because they're not some of them are not
applicable. On page eight of the exhibit D, it says all development orders, including variances, must be consistent with the duly adopted comprehensive policies, objectives, and goals under Florida
statutes 163.3215. This is not consistent with the plain language of your comprehensive plan. It's that simple. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next card, please. Tony Shifila, Tony Shuffalo, Tropic Street.
I'm here tonight because I believe I have standing as a resident of Titusville to be concerned about multi-unit property, multi-unit developments dumping onto local streets because Tropic Street is a local street
which the city of Titusville planning department through Mr. parish is trying to change the category so that what happens when streets are in different categories from local then they're allowed to have multi-unit
things setbacks are different right ofways are different the whole plan for West Titusville where Tropic Street is is to turn it into something looking like Winter Park according to Kimley Horn so I feel that
I have standing to speak about this because the comprehensive plan which is the dream book for the town says that multi-unit pro de developments must be
adjacent to arterial or collector streets and that little demerest street is definitely a local street like little tropic street is a little local street and therefore or I don't know why this lawyer and Brad can say that it's
consistent with the comprehensive plan which says that multi-unit developments must be adjacent to arterial or collector's streets and one of the things that Miss Conklin spoke of that you asked her about was that windowover
and yes it's adjacent to a collector it's it's adjacent to I95 exit ramp and you know that the do will not allow them to have access to a an an exit ramp from
an interstate, but yet that is the adjacent to a collector road that allowed that developer to get the zoning changed. We're not even talking about zoning here. It's zoned multi-unit,
okay? But it has no access to the type of road that it needs. And I don't know why we're standing around debating this. It's a very danger dangerous precedent to just willy-nilly ignore the fact that
oh, we're going to build um more than 50 units that's going to dump onto this little local street when the comprehensive plan says that multi- units must be on collector and arterial
streets. And you can see the reasoning behind that. Traffic. Traffic. Traffic. Thank you. Next card, please. William Balent. William Ballot. 2756 to Merit.
As Vicky Conklin and Mr. Severs and others have so eloquently argued, the proposed site to build Apollo Gardens requires a clear and undeniable violation of the city of Titusville's comprehensive
plan and hopefully will be enough to convince the board to reject Carfor's plan. On another note, I would like to respond to a previously stated suggestion that our community's objection to the Apollo
Garden site is somehow based upon a rejection of the Fair Housing Act. That could not be further from the truth. Every person I know who has worked so hard to preserve our community's current
quality of life is an individual of compassion and integrity who rejects all prejudice and bigotry as ignorant, inexcusable, and morally reprehensible.
We believe the mission to find homes for the homeless, mentally ill, and all others in need, regardless of race, color, creed, or religion, is a noble
one and one we wholeheartedly support. As a former counselor of abused children and youth in trouble with the law, I know firsthand how deserving they are of assistance and firmly advocate that our
government and society should care enough to adequately respond. However, the bottom line unfortunately is that carfor has chosen the wrong site to build.
We reject the notion that it is necessary to harm one community in order to help another. It's really simple. Numerous concerns about the potential negative impact on our community have been previously
stated. Rather than consider other available sites more appropriate for their project, Carfor has stubbornly dug its heels in and refused to even look at other options. Another developer owning the land
adjacent to Carforce had expressed an interest in possibly purchasing it from them. Rather than negotiate in good faith and consider selling the land for a reasonable price, Carfort chose instead to inflate the price far above fair market value
and preemptively reject any chance to make a deal. Just a couple more words. If car 4 stands to lose any money. Sir, we're going to cut you off. Just a couple m It's just two minutes. No, sir. No, sir. We have how many more cards
tonight? We have many more cards to and a lot of people to be hurt. Sir, I'm stop stopping you now. Thank you very much. I just ask you to please put yourselves in our shoes. Consideration. Next card, please. Mike Dwire.
Michael Dwire live on the Merit Street across from this project. I have some issues with one the comprehensive plan that it doesn't fit it for using a local road to use access to get to this
facility. Two, you have a lot of seniors, young kids, and people that are older and just wouldn't be a good thing to do. I don't have a problem with them
building but not at this location. I think it's not the right place to do it and just feel this needs consideration to be moved to another place and not be built on deer merit off of Demerit Street. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Janet Davis. My name is Janet Davis. I live at 1614 Turnessa Drive, which is at the corner of Dear and Tessa. So, I am the Just a moment. Uh, just a clarification. You did sign a paper for Miss Conklin to be
your representative, but do you still wish to talk anyway? Yes. Very well. Continue. Uh, mine is the closest house to the proposed Apollo Gardens project. Their property abuts mine. All traffic going in and out will
have to thread through the piece of demerit between my house and my neighbors across the street. For a bit of history, there was a proposed apartment project on this parcel. I think it was a one-story one and I think in the '9s the city denied it for the same reason we are opposing this one
access. Um I don't know the legal terms so I'm not going to use any of those. I'd be out of my depth. Anyway, I remember Tom Mariani who was either councilman or mayor at the time coming to our house to tell us the city was going to deny that project. And my uh
one of my neighbors remembers Truman Scarbor coming to her house to tell them the city was going going to deny the multif family apartment project because there was not good enough access. I didn't know any of the words. But anyway,
um, two local streets, Demerit and Tanessa, which are the only routes to a more through through street are not nearly adequate to handle the additional traffic from both construction and normal functioning that Apollo gardens will surely generate. Carfor themselves
have divide have described their population uh that they plan to house as high utilizers which I assume means high utilizers of services which would generate extra traffic. seems to me uh these two small streets Demerit and Teresa cannot handle all this extra
traffic. They can barely handle the traffic they have now. Now on an average day, Demerit is often difficult to navigate in a regular car because of parked and service vehicles. I think Carfor made a mistake in choosing the location. They were probably so thrilled it didn't need zoning change that they
failed to notice the negatives. Um someone in the city council passed it. that person was gone from from not city not from city council city P planning and zoning who was gone before we even learned about the project. Um but they passed it through
early on without looking carefully enough to see the negatives. Apparently no one checked to to notice these or no one looked at the property and saw that it was a dead end. We the residents are asking this board to please correct these mistakes and to
stop the development of Apollo Gardens at this location. Thank you. Thank you. The next card, Elizabeth Parker. Miss Parker. Elizabeth Parker, 3446 Jino Circle, back
for a reprisal of my appearance. Uh, quick comment, Florida statute drives the requirement for the city of Titusville to have a comprehensive plan. And further, Florida statute requires that we follow our comprehensive plan
that we have created and submitted to the state for approval. So any argument that that is irrelevant to this proceeding is insane. Um that aside, uh this development is, as you know, seeking to access a 22 foot wide
residential road. Uh the comprehensive plan's transportation element protects our neighborhoods. Policy 1.1.1 demands safe access that m minimizes residential impacts. This road is narrower than our city's average road, which is 24 to 26
ft. And we have driveways on both sides of this roadway. Residents face risks from both congestion and limited visibility and risk in pedestrian traffic as well. Policy 1.1.3 requires hightraic uses like
multifamily developments to access collector or arterial roads, not local roads. This plan violates that by overburdening this driveway latent street. Policy 1.1.5 mandates a traffic study for significant traffic generators. I would like to point out
that the traffic study submitted with this project sites roads that do not are not even close to adjacent to this property and unless it's been changed sites one road that's over by US1 and in case anybody is curious that's over a
mile away from this project. So the traffic study itself is flawed. The applicant failed to disclose the purpose of this development which is more institutional in nature than it is multifamily. Um I agree with a previous
speaker. This if it was going to go forward should probably have a cup. Um anyway, future land use element policy 1.4.1 protects resident residential neighbors from neighborhoods, excuse me,
from excessive traffic. Um policy 1.1.3 ensures compatibility with neighborhood traffic patterns. This plan is incompatible with a low traffic residential single family home neighborhood. Um development regulations too supposedly this is in compliance
with them but according to LDRs this needs to have a 24 foot wide driveway on a 22 foot wide road. I don't know how we could be in compliance there. Uh that's in section
30-152. Uh we ask that the board deny the local road access and require a collectoral or collector or arterial road access, reject their flawed traffic study, and uh consider the safety of this neighborhood. Thank you.
Thank you. Next card, please. Carl Hansen. expect to be called so soon. Carl Hansik 1705 Harrison number 147. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer and a businessman. May I ask a question
of Miss Berman? No sir. Okay. I'm f in form of statement. Carfor is getting funding for this from state dollars, but I'd like to know if they've ever created a project that exists today that is self-
sustaining under its own tenants or does it continue to be a draw. Follow the money. Years from now, somebody's going to be supporting this.
And it won't be this fell that's the lawyer over here. It'll be us. And we'll still be dealing with it because we've lived here. I've watched Titusville grow since I first moved here in 1989. This is one of the first times
it's ever grown without it being tied directly to a space project. We have several examples in front of you and most of us have seen the problems. We worry about service trucks
getting through. Think about EMS vehicles. What's going to happen when there's a tragedy for one of these residents because EMS cannot get to them in a timely fashion?
Titusville already has enough bad publicity going on. You all see the news. We don't need more of that. When that happens, I don't want to say I told you so. I want you to have
had the forethought and foresight to say this is a bad idea that will lead to trouble because human nature will prevail. And the bumper sticker is theologically correct. They use the
sword happens. It always does. I don't want to see anybody get hurt because we didn't have the foresight to see what everybody else will see. and look back and go, "What were they thinking?" Thank you. Stan
Johnston, Stan Johnston, 860 Poinsetta Avenue. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you. I'm going to have I have two objections. One is the use and the second is the threats. So, uh uh I'm a professional
engineer and I've worked with Bvard County and land development and I want to be recognized as an as an expert witness on these matters. And I believe I have standing because just like going over a bridge and the bridge has got a fault that needs to be reported, I
report it. So, in this case, um, uh, I've been the engineer of record of many subdivisions plant here in the city of Titusville, and I've, uh, run across some things like conditional use permit, and I believe there's some similar, uh,
facilities that have people that have are like the uh, women's uh, uh, uh, residential uh, complex that may have several people in it that that are
um may be on drugs and and that what happens is that these are conditional use permits allowable. In this case, I want to question what has been said about nonconventional residential
use and I want to clarify that indeed this is a non-conventional. None of my family will be able to reside here. None of the people in my Sunday school class will be able to reside here. many people that that I know will not be able to reside here. It's a special
situation. In fact, is is that is that I I I I think is a possibility that in that actually there are some communities would I can't name them but will have this as a as a hospital type of
facility. It has special people there. So, uh this um uh acceptance by the city, Mr. Parish and and Mrs. Busaka is um I don't think is correct. I don't believe it's
correct. And uh what you have listened to is Mrs. Davis talk about Truman Scarboro, Tom Mariani, there there's city attorney Severs. I believe he knows quite a bit more than than Parish and and Busaka. in fact is uh I wanted to
make a complaint about Mrs. Busaka and there was no professional organizations that she's a member of that I can make a complaint to although Parish did have one. So she's u uh she's on her own in many in many ways. Um this is a not
conventional a not conventional residential use. It is not conventional and I'm explain it to Mr. page that way because like I said is that only certain people can there I don't have much time threats $27 million going to people's uh elders and
complaining about them that's not very hospitable $27 million I don't I I I I just wouldn't want to work with people like that as far as I'm talking about you being representing the city and the and the city being here that's ugly. It's not It's not called for and I think
you should should uh not approve this project. Thank you. Here. What's the last one on this item? Okay, that's our last card this point. Um do we have anyone else wish to
speak or is there any rebuttal? Yes, sir. Do you wish to rebut, ma'am? Of course. Okay. I don't understand why he gets to rebut. It's our case and it's against the city. But okay. So, I want to thank you again
for your time. Thank for everybody, the residents who come to support and let you know from them. It's not just me, it's from all of us. Again, it's a local residential road. It's a dead-end road. It's 22 feet wide. It violates the comprehensive plan for this project to
develop right there. Uh sister facilities of that particular project had 436 emergency calls in the first year. And so we foresee that's a lot of extra traffic on demerit in addition to what it's currently encountering. Uh so
it's not capable of handling that excess traffic that's generated. uh it's not an arterial, it's not a collector, it's far away from art arterial collector. Uh adjacency is not equal to access. So just because the collector road and the
arterial road of Barna and Harrison are adjacent, it's not the same thing as being right there for access. Uh the comprehensive plan requires access and it states that very very clearly. So this is a very obvious violation of our comprehensive plan as well as the
Florida statutes. 163 which is very applicable to this. Mr. Page, the BAA must rule to uphold this appeal and to avoid placing the city in legal jeopardy. This is not about the merits of the affected project. It is about adhering to the rule of law, the
comprehensive plan, and it's about the adverse effects to a neighborhood whose residents believe that they have a right to the protection of the city for the comprehensive plan. Thank you.
Um, I don't know whose this is. I want to take it. Is that somebody's yours? Uh Eric Paige again on behalf of permit holder Apollo Gardens. Um I'm going to be relatively brief.
Heard a lot of uh comments there that have nothing to do with the appeal. What's the appeal is what's in the appeal. It's the three comprehensive plan provisions that Miss Conklin say are not consistent with this development permit. And you've heard from Brad Parish both
in writing and in his presentation and on cross-examination that this permit is consistent with those comprehensive plan provisions and that's the only issue here today. Um I do have I would like to address a couple of points that were raised from the perspective of asking
Mr. Parish his opinion on those. So I would again ask for the indulgence of the board to let me do that. It will be just a couple of quick questions. Just a couple of questions and that's all. Please don't. Mr. Parish, there is a comment made that this site is only
zoned to have 45 units on it. Is that correct? The site is zoned to have 15 units per acre. So, the proposed site plan with the believe 84 units is consistent with that. Okay. And the only other question
um and I apologize if I pronounce it incorrectly, Mr. Severs. Sever. Thank you. Uh Mr. Severs provided uh some testimony and he as well um provided a report. Have you reviewed that or at least listened to
his presentation? I did. Any of the information that he provided change your position in terms of your written report to the board or what you've spoken to the board about today? No, Mr. Severs is referring to an amendment which I already described in my report to that particular policy
that's most relevant to this case and that is the locationational criteria. But our our position is that that is locationational criteria that was added in there for requests to put a land use on a piece of property. This property has been designated with this land use
for several decades by council. So they made the determination that's consistent. CH staff is not in a position to reinterpret that. And just speaking to some of the comments made, um, comments like, "Don't know why my
client wants to pursue this location. Well, my client was told this location was suitable for its use and they have every right to do so." Uh there were comments made from some folks who are quoted behind Tab 2 and the quotes from
those prior public hearings are very clear that their issues with this project have nothing to do with a comprehensive plan. They have to do with fear of drugs or violence or crime. Uh I'm not going to quote those folks and read it, but they are behind tab 2 and
the videos have been provided if you want to check the accuracy of those statement was made. Carfor has chosen the wrong site to build, but again it's their legal entitlement. There was a lot of comments about another location and other issues and other places. None of that's
competent substantial evidence. Uh I'm sorry with audience you're going to have to be quiet while he's speaking please. Thank you. A comment I wrote down was that my client failed to disclose the purpose of this development and yet we've got folks coming up here that are quoting from
their disclosure that uh or from their application that included all of these disclosures. So it's kind of like we can't we can't win here. My client did at all points in time disclose to the city and to the state authorities what it was that they wanted to do and it was
approved across the board. I I wrote down this quote. This is a bad idea that will lead to trouble because human nature will prevail. That has nothing to do with the comp plan. I'm sorry. Does not. If Mr. Um, Stan Johnston is going to be accepted by this board as an
expert. I would request the opportunity to fordire him on his qualifications to be an expert on this subject. So, I would ask is the board going to consider him an expert? That was his comment, sir. We did not take an action on that. Thank you.
Uh, it was stated that what my client wants to do is a nonconventional residential use. you do not have conventional versus non-conventional in your code. It doesn't exist. The tenants were also called special people. I don't know what that
means, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the comprehensive plan. The last thing um as a point of order, there was a motion submitted uh that I discussed a little bit previously about revoking the decision on the
motion for reconsideration and denying the motion for rehearing. Um there also was a pending motion for reharing at the last hearing. I'm quite certain what the outcome is going to be, but for preservation issues, I would appreciate
if the board would please take a roll call vote on those two motions so the record is clear as to their disposition. And I would ask attorney Frell to counsel the board in that regard. But I believe you understand what I'm asking for and I'm happy to clarify it if you don't. So what I'm
hearing you ask for is the board to entertain your two different motions. the one that is in tab one. I'm asking that they entertain that and just do a roll call vote on it so there's a final determination. And I'm asking that the other one also being the vote on
Could you just articulate and I'm asking that they do a roll call vote on the motion for reharing that was never called up for a vote at the last hearing. And and I asked that because if I don't ask that I'm afraid I haven't preserved an issue. So, I'm not trying to drag this out. I know what the outcome's
going to be. Uh, I just need it in the record or I need to at least have asked for it and been uh denied that opportunity. Did we not do a roll call vote last meeting? You did one on the motion for reconsideration, but not on the motion
for re-haring that had been um on the agenda and noticed. I I do believe that that would be a moot point since the agenda item was brought back up, but it would you you have the right to ask the board whether they
would like to entertain that motion, which you have just done. Um it's up to the board to decide if one of the board members will make those two motions that Mr. Page has asked for. And if your legal council has determined that a ruling on those from the board
would be moot and that's the legal position of the city, then in my opinion, you don't want to vote. So, but I would ask for one or the other. Either they're from legal counsel, they're declared moot, or I would ask for a roll call vote on those two motions.
I do believe that the motion for rehearing is moot having had the motion for reconsideration and brought bringing the appeal back up before the board this evening. And I do believe that I've also advised this board that the motion for
reconsideration was appropriate based on the precedent and the prior history of this board and other boards allowing a motion for reconsideration at subsequent hearings. Um because you do not have consecutive board meetings one day after
another and I do not believe that rule applies for this board. And as to the motion for reharing, is that rendered moot in your legal opinion? Yes. I I appreciate it. I have nothing further. Happy to answer questions. I see no questions. Thank you.
Appreciate it. Okay. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and bring him back to the to this board to discuss. And uh I have one comment that was made
earlier about presidents of the city council is doing things and I wish the city council well I'm just say I wish excuse me I see the city council is the one
that makes the rules. You're asking us to interpret what staff and our own lawyers have decided or have come up with that this is a permitted
event. If you feel that things are wrong in the city code, I would suggest you have city council adjust the code. We are not elected here. We are volunteers. We are professions and our
professionals in our different fields. But to have us come up and set precedent and make rules that will account, I think that's the city council's job. It's my personal opinion and I feel that we would be
doing that if we started to set this precedent. That is my thoughts. Any other thoughts? All right. I see no other calls or anybody to speak. Do I have a motion on this matter?
Uh, my motion is to agree to the appeal number one- 20224 Apollo Garden site development permit. Approve the motion.
Do I have a second? Could you just clarify? Clarify the motion. Motion is to agree with the appeal number one 2024 Apollo Garden site development permit repeal. Just a moment, please.
Is that correct wording, counselor? He is making a motion to um agree with the appeal that was filed by Miss Conklin. Is there any additional basis that you'd like to provide? No. I have a question. Yes, sir. There are three particular
policies that are being uh appealed basically. Is the appeal motion you're making related to all three together or individually? I don't don't understand your question, Brad. The applicant in the
application stated, yeah, give us a page number, please. Page 16 of your application of the packet 68 16 16 16 grounds for appeal. This is what the opponent stated. Ground proposed development is not a
conventional multif family development and is not consistent with strategy 1.13.11 and policies 1.14.5 and 1.14.16 which should say six of
Titusville comprehensive plan is your motion related to all of that together or each part individually specifically 1.14.16 six of the Titusville comprehensive plan. He said that was six, not one six.
I'm reading off the page. Yeah, I know what he he said that was incorrect. Is that correct? You said it's six, not one6. Correct. The correct policy is 1.14.6. Correct. So, your motion is only related to that particular
policy and not the others that other statements that were stated in Miss uh in the appellent application. Yes. Is there a second? Not hearing a second. Is there another motion to be made? counselor. What happens if there's no
motion? for or against. Well, then I would presume you guys have discussion to help you come to a decision. This board does require four votes to overturn the decision of an administrative official. So to grant the
appeal requires four votes of this board. Well, let me try it again. Motion to accept all three components of the appeal of appeal number
one-2024 Apollo garden site development permit will broaden the horizon. I have a question on the application again page 16 you said all three parts are you referring to all three the strategy and
the two policies because there's also the statement that this is not a conventional multif family development I'm reading the appellets all three proposed components the proposed development is not a conventional mult multifamily
development and is not consistent with the strategy 1.13.11 and policies 1.14.5 and 1.146 of the Titusville comprehensive plan.
Your motion includes everything that's stated here on grounds for appeal on the application on page 16. Yes, indeed it does. I've had another motion. Do I have a second or discussion? You won't just wondering I can't hear
you. I'm just wondering what the difficulty is in all of us being able to come up with a a decision. Second for discussion. Haven't had a second yet. Oh, for discussion.
In order for the board to continue to talk after a motion's made, there needs to be a second for discussion. So that somebody is seconding the the motion or you just wait for the motion to die for lack of a second. Anybody want to have a discussion? All
right. Motion for discussion. No, you have you have to second for discussion. Okay. A second for discussion. You're second again. Yeah. Okay. We have a second. Now we can discuss. I've given my opinion. Do we have any other opinions to share?
Well, if we we take each one of the uh the items in the grounds for appeal, we can look at them individually. Sorry about that. I said if we take each each of the um of the aspects of the grounds for
appeal from the from the application, we can start with the proposed development is not a conventional multif family development. Um, given the uh testimony of Mr. Parish, we understand that there is no
such thing as a non-conventional multif family. Can we agree on that? I agree. There's no such thing as unconventional or conventional. Any disagreement? No, everybody agrees on that. Yes. Let's
move on to this second uh item. Strategy 1.13.11 was not applicable according to Mr. Parish and also policy 1.14.5 was inapplicable. I agree with that. Did we Are we all on
the same page for that? Okay. The last item is 1.14.16 or six. It's actually 6. Yeah, six. um uh addressing the Titusfield comprehensive plan and we've heard Mr. Taylor's opinion on that. I tend to agree with
him that council sets presidents. They set the rules. They determined that the the zoning was applicable for the comprehensive plan and have done it actually several times over the decades and I can't see us changing that.
With that being said, I move to deny the appeal. You can't do that until there's a vote on the motion. I'm sorry. There's a motion on the table that you guys are discussing and there needs to be a roll call vote before you
can make another motion. I'm sick. that currently that motion includes all four aspects of that grounds for appeal which you have just stated that the first three parts are not relevant at least that's what I understand you said that's correct there's no other discussion here we'll
take a roll call on the motion and it will take a four vote to approve we have roll call please vice chairwoman Van Deven Um I I I don't agree with the motion. So
no. No. Member Beckles. No. Member Green. Obviously. Yes. Member Wheelis. No. Chairman Taylor. No.
So the motion has failed. Okay. So, that's is that not it or Mr. Member Willis, now you can make a motion if you'd like to. So, the effect of unless the board would like to just accept that the motion to grant the appeal failing being the end
of the item and that's fine. Okay, that's it. Okay, this is over with then, right? Yes. Okay, thank you. We're going to take a five minute recess at this time.
All right. Where am I? I'm on page who knows page this. We're back to the first. Yeah. Yeah. But where is it? Okay.
Where? Yeah. Where is it on the pile? Maybe sometimes shall What was it? Okay, everybody here now? Good. Okay, we'll call this meeting back to order. Um, now we're going back
to uh new items. And I believe the first one up is variance number 7-2025 for 702 Lucky Street. Is that correct, staff? Yes, sir. All right. Would you continue with us, please? Yes,
sir. Variance number 7-2025 for 702 Lucky Street, beginning on page 126 of your packet. Yes, ma'am. Experience request is for land development regulations chapter 28 section 28-305 single family high density to
allow less than the required 20ft side corner yard setback for a primary structure for property located in the single family highdensity R1C zoning district located at 702 Lucky Street as submitted by Jeremiah Ofor registered agent for Gold Coast Developers
Developers of Florida LLC owner Uh, should I read the powers of the BAA again for the criteria for the variance? Thank you. Does anyone want to hear that? Okay, we had it already. I know it's been a bit so want to make sure. The applicant is requesting a
variance to the land development regulations chapter 28 to allow the construction of a single family residence with a side corner setback of 10 ft instead of the required minimum of 20 ft. The subject property is a non-conforming 5,000q ft corner lot with
50 ft of frontage along Lucky Street and 100 ft of frontage along Second Avenue. These dimensions do not do not meet the minimum 6,500 square foot lot area and 65 ft lot width outlined in the single family highdensity R1C zoning district standards. The surrounding area is
primarily composed of single family homes and vacant residential parals, many of which share similar dimensions and configurations with the subject property. The lot was originally platted as part of the Reed and Alliden subdivision in 1913, well before the administrative resoning in 1993 that
established the current dimensional requirements for the development of the site. The applicant has indicated that the narrow width of the corner lot creates a constraint in meeting the required 20- foot side corner setback. Although a detailed concept plan has not been provided, if the variance is
approved, all remaining setbacks will need to comply with the dimensional standards of the R1C zoning district in accordance with LDR section 28-305C. Given the non-conforming width of the lot and its corner location, these const these conditions may
constitute a hardship that supports the request for a reduced side cornerard setback. The staff recommend approval of the variance to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a side corner setback of 10 ft instead of the required minimum of 20 ft. In granting the variance, special conditions and
circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The reduced loft width presents a hardship to the applicant. and granting the requested variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. The plot land showing
the um setback request is shown on page 175 of your packet if you'd like to look at that. And with that concludes the staff report and I'm available for any questions you may have. Okay. Does anybody have any? Okay. Cuz this was like you say
earlier, this was plotted way back before all the rules changed for setbacks and everything. All right. No other seeing no questions. Staff, do we have any cards on this? No, sir. All right.
Uh then we'll close the public hearing part. Um had you had any contact with the applicant saying they would would or would not be here for this? No, I had not. Believe he is here. He's here. Oh, he's
here. What? I don't have a card for him. Did you want to speak to this, sir? That you would want to do this or what? I do want to do this. Well, have you not heard me say to fill out a card so that you can be called up
for different events or to talk? We would like to hear your thoughts on this. Why you want to do this, sir? I said my piece, but I will. Yes. Well, that's that's part of our hearing process. If you would just fill this out
after you talk, please. Sir, you can speak first and then fill it out after first and then fill out the the card. Thank you very much. Your name and address for the record, please, sir. Jeremiah
for Okay, it's on. Thank you. Jeremiah Fory of Gold Coast. Address 852 Oldberry Hoover Road. Um, this is a non-conforming lot um that has been um back since 1913. We plan on building a
single family home on it. We are taking in some of the infield lots throughout the city and trying to build single family residential homes on them. And this is one of the ones that we came in contact with. Um, currently the non-conforming lot if we go by the 20
foot setback would not allow a conventional standard house to be built. So requesting the requesting the 20 foot uh the 10 foot instead of the 20 foot would allow us to put in a normal uh spec home is what we call them. Okay.
Very good sir. So this is not your first property to do on a non-conforming lot. No sir. We're I think we're up to about 26 right now throughout the city. Wonderful. Uh any other questions from anybody
here? I assume you're having success because you keep building more. You're selling them. Uh not all of them we're selling. We're renting some of them. Um so, but it is housing. Yes. Yep. All right, sir.
Any questions? Anyone else? I have one. How large is the house going on the lot? It's going to be 1,700 ft. Okay. So, roughly 59 by by 29. I see. And the setbacks of the existing homes
around it are set back 10 ft. Yes. Or this home fits the neighborhood in the criteria. This is just uh only because it's a corner lot as we're asking for this variance. All the other lots nearby. We understand. Thank you. All right.
All right, sir. Thank you very much for coming up and if you would fill that out and and give it to the sec secretary, please, sir. All right. Uh, you said there's no other cards, right? That's correct. Okay. So, we'll close the public hearing. Is there uh anything any discussion or questions
of staff from anyone here? I see none. Do I have a motion, please? I move to approve the request for variance. Can you give us the number? No, it's um 7-205 for variance
72025 702 L Lucky Street. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. Maybe I have roll call, please.
Member Green. Yes. Member Wheelis, yes. Chairman Taylor, yes. Vice Chairwoman Van Deven, yes. Member Beckles, yes. Congratulations, sir. You've been approved. All right. Now, we move on
to get past these others. What's the page number for our next one? Page 190 for variance 10-2025. 1 190. Right. 1 190. Yes, sir. Uhhuh. Okay. Okay. So, this is here we go. Uh yeah.
10 variance number 10- 20 25 uh 3041. And isn't the next kind of the next one also the same issue? Uh yes, they are neighboring properties. they are neighboring. Uh would it be
acceptable to this board that we discuss the merits for both of these items at one time, but we will vote separately on them? Good idea. Very good. All right. Would you lead us off, please? So, just for my
clarification, read the staff report for 10-2025 and then move on to 11-2025 for you then to discuss them both. that yes because I believe they're they should be identical as far as it's different applicants but the same different applicants but the yeah we're looking at
the request slightly different okay I will move forward thank you for variance 10-20225 for 341 Edington drive the request is for land development regulations chapter 30 section 30-321 plant materials to allow the use
of prohibited material in the form of artificial turf for property loc located located in the single family medium density zoning district at 3041 Edington Drive as submitted by Matthew Buffo and Maggie Buffo trustees for Matthew S and
R Bafo trust owners the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the use of artificial grass in place of the natural grass section 30-321F of the land development regulation states synthetic plants prohibited synthetic or artificial material in the form of trees, shrubs,
ground covers, vines or artificial trough trust turf, excuse me, shall not be used in lie of the plant requirements in this section. The Bvard County Property Appraiser website shows the single family dwelling was built in 2021 as part of the country club estate subdivision. The lot contains a 10-ft
public utility easement along the front, a 5-ft public utility and drainage easement along the sides, and 10-ft public utility and drainage along the rear. As shown on the submitted site plan on page 197 of your packet, the owner is requesting to place the turf in
the front and rear yard. The property is not located within the area of critical concern and does not have a maximum impervious coverage standard. Since there are no code standards for artificial turf, staff cannot evaluate its impact on the subdivision's approved storm water plan. The lot does not appear to have any special conditions or
circumstances that are peculiar to the land that would create a hardship that would prevent natural landscaping. Staff recommend denial of the variance. There are no special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the land which would make it different from similar lots in the subdivision. The applicant can meet the literal
interpretation of the ordinance and denying the request will not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. Now for variance 11-2025 at 3042 Edington Drive, the request is to the same land development
section 3 30-321 plant materials to allow the use of prohibited material in the form of artificial turf at 3042 Edington Drive as submitted by Michael Bafo, trustee for the Michael A and Nancy M. Bafo Trust owners.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the use of artificial graph grass in place of natural grass and the section 31-321 states again synthetic plants are prohibited synthetic or artificial material in the form of trees shrubs or ground covers vines or artificial turf shall not be used in lie
of the plant requirements of this section. Bard County property appraiser website shows the single family dwelling was built in 2020 as part of the country club's estate subdivision. The lot contains a 10-ft public utility easement along the front, a 5-ft public utility and drainage easement on the sides, and
a 10-ft public utility and drainage on the rear as shown on the submitted site plan for variance 11, which is on uh page 232 of your packet. The owner is requesting to place the turf in the front and rear on only one side of the property. The property is not located
within the area of crit critical concern and does not have a maximum pvious coverage standard. Since there are no code standards for artificial turf, staff cannot evaluate its impact on the subdivision's approved storm water plan. Staff recommend denial of the variance. There are no special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the
land that would make it different from similar lots in the subdivision and the applicant can meet the literal interpretation of the ordinance. Denying the request will not approve the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. And with that, that's the staff report for both variance 10 and variance 11. And I'm welcome to take
any questions you may have. All right, let's call up uh any uh questions of staff on uh this for before we go to public hearing. Yes, we've uh recently discussed this
uh same issue with a couple of other properties on Edington. Uh has anything changed in the in the ordinances related to or LDRs related to use of artificial grass? No, they were h the council had the one they were looking into amending
for the turf ordinance that has since been stopped because of the um potential Florida statute that is in um consideration now right now at the house um to allow um installation of synthetic turf in single family residential areas
um and to where um the bill would prohibit local governments from adopting or enforcing any ordinance that prohibits or is used to prohibit it. So, and staff have kind of stopped working on that ordinance and waiting to see what the Did you get today's update? I
didn't have a chance to talk with you. As of today, the house voted a unanimous approval of that bill. So, it'll be sent to the governor. And what the bill does is it proh prohibits local governments like um the city of Titusville from
prohibiting any synthetic turf with any reg or disallowing anything that meets the state's regulations that will be set by rules set by D. Those rules have yet to be set of course and this is all contingent
upon the governor signing this bill. Yes. So the D will need to create standards for evaluation of turf and then as long as the synthetic turf meets those standards that are created by the DP um local government will not be allowed to prohibit the use in single
family zoning should they meet those standards. again as council state if the governor signs that bill, but it was guess passed through the house today. Where would that leave us? Uh by denying the request, I believe that you have the ability to
approve or deny the variance as was presented to you. I think that the potential um change in legisl legislation would provide for different avenues for the property owner going forward depending on the outcome. So the property owner would still have
the ability to appeal if once that new decision is No, they would they wouldn't have to appeal if they wouldn't have to appeal. It'll be long. If the law changes, if the law changes, then it would be a
change set of um regulations where I think that at that point in time, they would the city would not be able to prohibit. Okay. Correct. All right. Got it. Thank you. Additional question for staff. Yes. Uh are the owners under any kind of code
enforcement action because of this? Yes, I do believe so, but they can speak to that more. and those in they have paused for the hearing. Um I'm unsure depending on your the denial was what that would do for the code enforcement.
Are there any um homeowners here tonight? I have not met them in person so I'm unsure but thank you. Talk to them on the phone. Okay. So we'll open up to the public hearing then to answer any questions. All right. Shall we have So it's the public hearing for first the
first one varies number 10. Yes. And whose card should for that please? Matthew Buffo. Welcome sir. If you please give your name and address for the record. Good evening. Matthew Buffo 3041
Edington Drive. Um and I guess before I start, just so it's very clear, this turf has been down for nearly two and a half years. and I'll explain through what I'm going to state. So depending on what the outcome in of this is, there
would be other avenues that we could take. Uh with that, first thank thank you to the board of adjustment and appeals for the opportunity to speak today. We're not here simply to request approvals for a variance, but also to explain why our decision to install a
permittable artificial turf was a thoughtful, responsible, and environmentally conscious the choice. We want to begin by respective respectively acknowledging that we are unaware of any city code prohibiting artificial turf in
resident landscaping. We did not intentionally violate any audience. In fact, we consulted with three professional landscape companies, all of which included artificial turf as part of their recommendated solutions. The project began as a small putting area in
the backyard for our children, which involved a border turf installed due to the excuse me in involved a border turf installed due to our growing appreciation for the functionality and aesthetic value. At no point any did any
contractor suggest that the mun municipality review was required as this type of landscape project typically does not require any permitting. In response to ongoing issues with our yard, including poor
builder grades, substandard landscaping and irrigation, low water pressure issues, sandy soil erosion, and inadequate drainage. We made the most informed and responsible decision available to us at that time. We've selected a professionally installed
PASTF free leadfree UV stable turf system that was permittable and drainage conscious. We continue to use our existing irrigation system now with upgrades to support exterior planters in Florida landscape. Our yard is
maintained entirely without the necessary with excuse me maintained entirely without unnecessary chemicals aligning with Florida's friendly landscaping principles. This request is not about correct or this request is not just
about correcting a misunderstanding. It's about a seeking approval to continued support of a sustainable, well-maintained, and beautiful property that contributes positively to our home, our neighborhood, and the beauty of our city. I'd like to point out some other
items uh through this process that we went through within our review. This was a very costly um project that we looked at from every avenue. I was born here. I left. We come back to raise a family. I'm very well aware of all the issues
surrounding water runoff, tons of chemicals, everything that the city has faced for, you know, 40, 50, 60 years. Permeable turf improves drainage and reduces erosion. The installation of crush stone drainage base, which ours
is, the turf allows water to filtrate through instead of pooling or running off. It resolves previous issues with standing water, supports healthy soil, and prevents erosion. This design reduces stress on
the city's storm water infrastructure and approve and improves sustainability at all residents levels. Artificial turf reduces pollution overall. No mowing means lower carbon emissions and noise pollution. No need for pesticides, herbicides, or
fertilizers. zero chemical runoff into our storm drain and waterways. The yard includes Florida native plants, planters, and pollen friendly uh features that support a biodiverse aligning with the city and state's goals. We created a
lowmaintenance green and sustainable land safe without sacrificing aesthetics or functionality. Artificial turf is often blamed for microlastic pollution. However, highquality UV stable turf fibers essent es especially in
residential settings rarely degrade or mitigate this measurable quantities. According to Dr. Chris Darmit, a global recognized PhD polymer chemist and founder of phantomplastics.com which is a great site to go to, there is no scientific
evidence that microplastics at the environment realistically levels causes harms to human or the ecosystem. Most alarming microplastic studies are based on unrealistic laboratory conditions, not real world scenarios.
Dr. Darmmitt has over 20 years of experience, holds multiple patents and has consulted on major global companies like Apple, Lego, HP, and PNG. He has peer-reviewed research whose work is grounded in the field, not media
narratives. His mission is to replace feard-driven mis misinformation with evidence-based misunders with evidence-based understanding. He clearly states microplastics fear are largely unsustainable by scientific
evidence. Our turf is made from UVA UV stable polyethylene, a product that is safe in food packaging, water systems, and medical devices. It is chemically inert, meaning that it does not react to water, soil, or sunlight in any way that
causes harm. UV stabilizers added to the turf protections to break down and extends it life it lifespan, minimizing any potential for fiber release. Dr. Dearmit affirms that UV stable polyethylene is not a forever material.
It can degrade over time in a controlled predictable manner unlike many fertilizers or chemical lawn treatments. Compared to traditional lawn care practices, polyethylene turf has a low environmental impact in terms of emissions, water use, and chemical
exposure. In closing, our request is not to minimally need or resolve to protect our investment. We are not requesting a change to zoning or seeking special treatment. Rather, we are asking for a modic exemption to accommodate what is
already installed. We acted responsibly and in good faith, making decisions based on professional recommendations that were environmentally sound practices. Our turf our turf installation was not a shortcut, but a very carefully planned upgrade that
addressed long-standing issues with sustainability, attractiveness, and load impact means. We are part of a neighborhood where most of the residents take pride in their homes. Our decision reflects those same values. beauty, property values, and long-term care. We
believe homeown homeowners deserve smart, sustainable choices. In addition to traditional options, especially those where choices reduce water usage, avoid chemical exposures to our water or exposures to
our water uh pollution, and promotes biod diversity. This variance supports individual responsibilities, environmental alignment, and community standards, not an avoidance of code or accountability. We respectfully ask that
the board to consider our circumstances, our proactive choices and the clear commitment to our city. Approving this variance is not just a fair resolution. It's a win-win for our home, our neighborhood, and the city of Titusville. I have a question. Sure. Yes. Um you
mentioned that polyethylene correct but on page 214 um from the uh I guess where you the installers of this let's see it's key fe key features of
vistapet it says it's actually polyropylene which is harmful and that's what the it says strong woven polyrop propylene base and then nonwoven
polyropylene middle layer. Polyropylene is is known to cause microlastic pollution. And I wanted to ask you how long from the installers did you were given for this for this turf to last? 16
years. I'm looking at the I'm looking at the actual flyer that was submitted. And after 16 years, you're going to tear this up and it's going to go into a landfill and it's nonbiodegradable, which means it's going to sit there for years and years and years. Those are
some of the things we that we have to consider. So, I know that I've heard that polyethylene is a little less harmful, but what you're proposing is polyropylene. Both polyropylene and polyethylene, you
know, are plastic bases just like PET. But the pro polyropylene is is worse. I mean, if you go to any site on the internet, you you put that in versus the polyethylene. And I know that some of the woven features of yours do have the polyethylene according to the flyer.
Correct. But it has more polyropylene than anything else. So that's where the concern is. We all need to educate ourselves the difference in you know what the turf is made of but in this particular instance what you provided
shows it could be a danger to the environment. I didn't hear you mention polyropylene only polyethylene and polyropylene is the major component of this and you know that it's a mixed
component just like many other components in plastic. Excuse me. It's a mixed component like many other components in plastic. So I I am actually in the packaging industry. I deal with PET, PE, PP, all of that. Right. To say that one is more harmful
than the other. You're you're discussing really a narrative based on what additives have been placed. I'm a layman. I'm only I'm only reading, you know, what's in this and then I'm just did a little bit some research. I mean, as a layman on on the internet and I
know uh everywhere that I looked, it it it listed all these different things and poly I'm only referring to polyropene. And I would highly recommend that you go to phantomplastics.com. He is a leader in the plastics industry based on
narratives that are being discussed of what is harmful, what is not harmful. Especially when we're talking about forever chemicals, the breakdown of microlastics, you're talking about parts per million, parts per billion. Is it biodegradable? This this turf,
everything is biodegradable based on time span. I don't know specifically what that's going to take. nor does anyone else. You could look at a Popl shopping bag, right, which is a PE material. It It has less additives put into it. It can biodegrade in about 9
months. It depends on how it's put together. I'm not a scientist that's going to break down. And I'm just a layman, so I'm only reading, you know, what the ingredients are, where it came from, uh where the lifespan of it is. So maybe
uh some other people who a little bit more knowledgeable might have some more information but from what I know um it's harmful. That's just myself. I would like to defer. Thank you. It's harmful not just because of the materials but it
also interferes with the evac evaporation precipitation process. It it it's terrible for wildlife all of that. So it's not just the materials but it's just bad. It's there are other alternatives. If you had a good landscaper, they can come up with better alternatives than artificial turf.
That's all I have to say. But why would the state then be recommending it? I can't speak for the state. I can only speak for what my knowledge what my knowledge base is. Are there any other questions of this witness?
Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any other cards? Maggie Buffalo. Okay. All right. He has spoke for you. Is there another card? Tony Shifel. Well, Tony Shifel, the historic Norwood House.
Um, this may be a moot point now with what the state, but you know, the state legislature hates the residents of um Florida, especially if we're not developers. And um I feel like I'm living in an
alternative universe after hearing Mr. Bafo come up and make all the statements that he made which I just kept gasping at that's not true. That's not what I've read. That's not what science says. That's not good for the environment. So
after careful consideration, the TEC was uh decided not to pass an ordinance permitting any use of artificial or synthetic materials as plants or ground cover, thus necessitating that an applicant has to apply for a variance which allows review of each individual
situation and its accumulative effect on our environment. Today, these two uh requests from the same person um for artificial turf, which is not allowed by our city ordinance and land development
regulations. Consider the accumulated effect of higher heat, microlastic particles flowing into storm water runoff, the aesthetics of large areas covered in plastic, and the rules, the ordinance. Ignorance of the law is not
justification. Titusville has not got a lot of things correct over the years. They've passed ordinances that favor developers over the rights of citizens many times in the past and have had to defend some particularly egregious crimes against the environment by paying
large fines, making massive physical corrections and spending large sums of taxpayer dollars on outside legal counsel to protect their positions. But the ordinance against artificial turf is
one of the soundest environment protection laws on our books. It states simply and often that artificial turf and synthetic plant material is not allowed. Period. Stop. End of
discussion. Code section 30-321F. Synthetic plants prohibited. Synthetic or artificial material in the form of trees, shrubs, ground covers, vines or artificial turf shall not be used in lie of the plant requirements. The plant requirements in this section
called for in section C, ground cover and D, lawn grass, real plants. Last year, the issue came up before city council as staff sought clarification on the use of any artificial or synthetic plant material.
It was decided to prohibit the use of anything artificial and to encourage the use of native plants throughout our city. This is not the first time I've stood before this board to shed light on the harm of artificial turf to our endangered environment. It breaks down
into nonbiodegradable chemicals which leech into groundwater. It's not friendly to pollinators. Its heat absorption raises the temperature creating problems for pets and children. And I have another paragraph, but I'll stop now. Thank you very much. And I've
heard you deny this. All right. Do we have any other cards? Michael My. Good evening, sir. Name and address for the record, please. Good evening. Michael Mjack, Titusville, and I'm your chair for our Titusville Environmental Commission. I've spoke to you on several
occasions before, although some of you are newer. Um, I'm going to say the same thing that we said before. There is no place in Titusville for artificial turf. It really doesn't need to be in our environment. It breaks down into things that are not biodegradable. Uh, we've
talked about this on a couple of occasions. The difficulty here is what the state is attempting to do. And while we made a good change, a good faith change to our city's ordinance, our staff has not moved it forward to city council yet because of what the state's trying to do. Now, if they go and do the
same thing that they did with plastic bags and single-use plastic and say that we are not allowed to deny it, then we have to figure out how we're going to allow it. And I would recommend that if we're going to allow it, it would need to be with a complete lee field so that
the lee can be maintained and captured just like you would with a lined landfill, which is where this stuff goes after we're done with it. Any polyethylene, polyropylene, it ends up in the landfill where it takes up space and it does so in a way that's not going to interfere with the rest of the
environment. That's not the case here when it's laying out on the land and you guys know that. So, please deny this variance. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Stan Johnson. Stan Johnson. Yes, sir. Uh Stan Johnson, 860 Poinsetta Avenue.
Um I want to first thank you for your uh your unselfish dedication to serve on this board. I know it's a sacrifice on your part part. Thank you very much. Uh I've listened to both sides of this and uh I'm not going to speak further. Uh
I'm concerned about uh even if it's a law even if it's a law of the city of Titusville, there's an expost facto situation here and in that they were allowed to uh put it down and uh I'm sympathetic with the with the uh with
the owners also. So I I won't speak any further. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That's the last one on that item. Uh, do we want to go ahead and call up the witnesses for the next issue or the
next uh or should we vote on this first? I I would recommend concluding the item variance number 10-2025 before you move on to the next item. Okay. discussion or
comments. The last meeting we declined, of course, that was for putting it down before. Uh I am sympathetic with the uh owners in a way that sympathetic that they listen to people selling grass or
selling the artificial turf and not coming to the city and asking was this a rule. Uh, we've had this come up several times and we asked for clarification and the city is still waiting. So, I don't know what to do about
something that's already in place. If I may um ask council Ian the status of the of the statute u that's moving through. Where is it now? It completed its cycle through the House of Representatives for the state of Florida
and it will go before the governor for a signature and that's what we would be waiting for um to see if the state law changes. Okay. But how long would it be before they
set I know there's a law and then there's time for staff to make well the s the legislative session has conclude well the legislative development of this bill has concluded but I believe that the governor has until the end of June to sign the bills
but does it set the standard I mean it standard would be established by rules set by D. That's how the legislation has been drafted. And then D would then need to engage in rule making which has not started. So I don't know how long that
would take. But then what it says is the state the the local jurisdiction cannot regulate or prohibit anything that is regulated that is allowed by D. So we kind of have to wait and see what those
rules are. And I'm sure that staff will be evaluating the proposed legislation and informing council of their recommendations for any um code changes. But aren't we but aren't we supposed to
consider whether at this point in time if he's in compliance or not? That's what we're voting on, not on what's coming down the road. Right. That's right. Yeah. So, that's future legislation that we've talked about because of the proposed code change. And that's the the reason why the code
change hasn't moved forward is because of the state legislation. What is before you tonight is whether or not the property located at 3041 Edington Drive is allowed to have the artificial turf as it was
presented before you tonight based on our current code and not considering the legislation that may or may not change in the future. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion or
thoughts on this? I don't think it leaves us a lot of room to do anything other than deny. Okay. He they can't hear you, sir. I'm sorry.
My apologies. I don't think this the the advice from council gives us much room to do anything other than evaluate and see that it's not allowed. And is is another
option available where they could withdraw their um their request or like we did with the last hearing the other four properties where he withdrew waiting. Of course, the the the turf
wasn't installed. This was on the other properties. Yes. four properties. Oh, the four properties in the right way for the previous turfs was already installed. So, would it be an option for these two
homeowners to withdraw their request? So, that's just admitting they're out of compliance. Yeah. At any point before the motion is made, a applicant can withdraw their application if that's their desire. I
don't see them expressing that desire. Okay. Thank you. The problem being it's already in code enforcement. That's correct. It's a code enforcement action. Yes, that's correct. So then it's up to code enforcement if
they want to go forward with it. Okay. Do I have a motion, Mr. chair chairman the applicant would like to make another comment if that's possible. The applicant will speak again both of our houses.
Sir, if you want to speak, you have to be up at the podium. You're allowed to chance a rebuttal. There's there are other property owners within our development that are here. They would all attest to the way that we installed ours versus the way that the
developer did are totally different. The pictures that you have within your packet show that this was not a fly by night, throw it down, rake it out, try to solve a problem that he created with a very poor irrigation system that put
drip lining underneath the sand that all it did was erode the sand and create puddles in all of our yards. It was horrible if you would have seen the mold pipe sticking up all the time. And of course, once you bust one of those or they run them over with lawnmowers, all
it is is geysers and all your, you know, city water is being spewed out everywhere. This was a correct installation of the product. We we did not look to break an ordinance. I would the other thing I would bring up if this was prohibited
materials, why does the city not mandate a permit for it? That would have stopped all of this because it's denied. We don't It's denied. Period. So, there is no permit for it. There is no permit. They don't they don't allow it.
Did you ask for permit? We asked all three contractors that we were working with. I understand you asked the contractors. I I understand where you're going with that. All I'm saying is if we look at this, the other thing I would request then is with legislation that's coming down, you look in other counties,
you look in Vieiraa, the entire sports complex, 15 or 16 soccer fields are done in this. If we're worried about leeching of materials and everything else that's happening, which way does St. John's run? South to north. All of that offflow that's coming from there would be coming
here. You go up to Chain of Lakes. Guess what's behind the concession stand under the pavilion? Anyone know? I'm up there with my boys. They play soccer. It's artificial turf. This is spread more throughout the county and throughout the
state than probably what you realize. And it's most of it is installed properly. We are we were the only reason this even came up was because the way the contractor in our development just came and threw stuff down willy-nilly
and tried to pass it. He came to us and asked, "Hey, how did you have this done?" We explained to him, we explained the tens of thousands of dollars spent to put this down properly. And he's like, "I'm not doing that. I'm raking out the sand and let it be." I'm like, "You're probably going to create a
bigger problem for our entire community. We happen to be the victims now of something that we didn't realize was going to happen. So, if anything, I would ask for at least a pause on this until there is better information allows
the city to do more research on the harms or not harms of this product versus making us pull up something that cost between me and my parents close to $70,000 to install. This was not a cheap circumstance and this will create a
hardship on a citizen or citizens and some that are on you know fixed incomes. Well, that was our request earlier. Did you would you prefer to withdraw this before we make a ruling? If I withdraw it, then what happens? Then I'm in uncompliance with city have to call for
city code enforcement people and and every month. What does that look like? I I can't answer that question. It's an option I would encourage you
to consider. Okay. As opposed to digging up your whole yard, Mr. chairman. Um, we could consider tableabling the issue for 30 60 days time certain till the
next meeting. You can't continue it beyond one month with the current advertising. It would be a consideration one month. If you were to continue the item greater than uh 30 days, it would have to be readvertised. It's 30
days. We we it may shine a clearer light on it by then. I'm I'm fine with it. That's just everybody else. I didn't hear he said tableabling for 30 days to see if there's a clearer light from this legislature on this. I kind of He's out
of compliance. I think we need to find that and then let he's out of compliance period. and and I think our job is to answer whether he's out of compliance or not. Not to base on what we think is coming down the road,
but let um code enforcement deal with that if the if the rules are changed later or whatever, but I don't think I'm for um you know, give continuing it. Thank you, sir.
I don't see how we could have allowed at the last hearing for that contractor to be allowed to withdraw his request um for us to approve it or deny it
because he felt like it was going to be denied. We allowed that. Um how could we not allow him to withdraw his withraw it. What he's saying he won't withdraw. Better for him to withdraw it
than continue. We can't force somebody to withdraw. He would like to have a decision made by this board. Okay. No, you're right. You're right. My recommendation would be to table this for 30 days and
engage a different agency um and talk to them about it. But that's me. All right. Do I have a motion from anyone? I move to table the
motion table the variance request for 30 days. I second it. We have a motion. We have a second. Do we have any other discussion? May I have a roll call, please? May I interrupt before that? Is there
any additional information or specific information that you're looking for from either the applicant or the city in the meantime? Looking we're looking for information from the state as as a result of their their activity related to the item.
So the city can provide um the legislative analysis for the proposed bill. I I can't think of anything else, but we can include that in your agenda packet. Um if you would do end up tableabling it, I propose that would enable the code enforcement
group to talk to the applicant about moving forward. This board has no jurisdiction over code enforcement. They're completely separate departments. And what happens with code enforcement is separate from your decision. Okay, we had a motion to table. We had a
second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Chairman Taylor, yes. Vice Chairwoman Van Deven. Yes. Member Beckles. No. Member Green. Yes.
Member Wheelis. Yes. Okay. We've tabled it till our next meeting. Certain uh for ev for context on what happens with the legislature is new information which
will be on our packet hopefully. And that will be on what's the date? May 28th. May 28th. 2025. Yes, sir. All right. So that was for variance number 10. You still have to make a motion for variance number 11-2025.
All right. Yeah. So that was the first one. Do I have a motion on the other variance 11 2025? Uh, I have a a motion to table
it for 30 days on variance number 11, 2025 at 3042 Edington Drive. Do I have a second? I have a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call. Chairman Taylor, yes. Vice Chairwoman
Van Deven, yes. Member Beckles, no. Member Green, yes. Member Willis, yes. Okay. So, both these have been tabled at this time for next month's meeting and hopefully
the state will have some definitive answers to go forward with that. Okay. All right. Uh two. All right. That completes our new business. At this point, we are open to petitions
and requests from the public present. Yeah. Good evening. Um, my name is Katie Delaney. I am not here tonight to speak to you all as the county commissioner for district 1. I'm putting on my other hat as the um Bvard
County chairperson for Moms for America. For who? I'm sorry. Moms for America. Moms of Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. And um I wasn't going to speak tonight. I was here to support the residents of Royal Oak. Um, but what I saw happen
tonight, the clear violation of somebody's first amendment rights, I could not sit by and not say something. And I just had to say, while you may not be elected officials, you have decided to accept the responsibility of being on this
decision-making board. This is not an advisory board. You are decision makers. And that is huge. Your decisions affect your neighbors with no input required from the current elected officials. So
yielding to board's decisions from years ago should not be your practice in my opinion. With that being said, I'd like to shift my comment to the larger issue I witnessed tonight, the violation of a
citizen's first amendment rights. And I would like to direct you to the 11th Circuit Court decision on October 8th, 2024 regarding the reinforcement ruling on free speech. I was a named plaintiff on a lawsuit regarding free
speech against a governing body of this county. And we got this decision. It was three years of fighting to get this decision to reinforce free speech in this county.
Not only did you violate someone's right tonight, but you also put a Titusville police officer in a horrible situation to either deny an unlawful order or violate a citizen's right, which they
swore an oath to uphold the constitutional rights and the constitution of this great country. I implore you to look up that lawsuit. It's it's fresh only since October. And with you all being decision makers here,
it's important that you understand the laws of this land. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else wishes to speak? Yes, sir. Just real quick, I'm just gonna ask uh James Troutman, uh 1705 Barna Avenue.
Um I'm actually coming to ask for a motion. Uh I guess that would be the correct verbiage. Correct. Um all of our other boards minus the planning and zoning as far as that I am aware um allow for the alternate members uh not
to partake. Um I guess as far as conversation goes, things of that nature. Um planning zoning does allow they had uh adopted something in their uh verbiage that allows them to have their um alternates be able to
uh be able to pretty much partake, but they don't have the ability to vote or anything of that nature unless they are sitting on the dis. Um what I'm asking is a motion to see if uh alternate members on this board can have that same
ability that the planning and zoning has as far as their alternates being able to partake and educate and you know pretty much be a part of the situation. So when they do sit on these boards, they're a little bit more
um seasoned, so to speak. Their interaction, sitting up here speaking, nerves, all that goes into play, right? So more interaction with that that that helps with that. Um and just the education of it all. So, what I'm asking
is if uh y'all could make a motion to allow alternate members to partake, but not have the ability to um make a decision, approve or deny unless they are sitting on the dis.
If I may, um what Mr. Troutman, alternate member Troutman is asking for is an amendment to the bylaws. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Is that something we are allowed to do or is that city council? So, Mr.
Troutman knows that the bylaws for planning and zoning commission were amended to allow the alternates to participate in discussion and provide input on agenda items as a member. Um, I'm reading from the planning and zoning commission bylaws now. It says that um
when they're not officially appointed by the chairman to fill in as an at for a absent regular member, then they may participate. Um but alternate members may not be permitted to vote unless appointed as a voting member and participation shall be in compliance
with resolution number 24-197. So, if this board would like to modify its bylaws to include that language, then Mr. Troutman's asking you to make that motion so that it will be put on
your next agenda to discuss that content. But again, is that something we would vote on to recommend a city council to make because we can't change our Yes, the board of adjustment and appeals can change its bylaws. We can by motion. by
a motion. So when you say to participate but not vote, does that mean sitting up here or sitting down there at a computer with a microphone? Right. Being able to have communication back and forth. So say if something came up and and I have
background or experience in something, I might be able to talk upon that a little bit or bring some advice or or anything of that nature that that might give context or or uh helpful insight. I think maybe I'll take off next month and you can sit right
here. That I mean that's the best trial by fire. Sure. And I'm trying to uh allow for members uh or um alternates to be able to have that dialect a little bit prior to sitting on that board as as it was
brought that you know y'all are decision makers. We would also be decision makers as well. You say fire uh trial by fire. Um, but would that be setting up somebody for success? Um, probably your background. You're already set up for success.
You're already set up for success. I mean, they appointed you because of your background and how what an asset would be to the board. So, um, I just I'm just not sure how that would work back and forth. It would be like the way we
talked to Mr. Parish or Correct., you know, I I don't know how that would work. Well, my background, you know, I had to gain that background. I gained the OJT on the job training experience. So, that's that's what I'm asking is experience is is by having that communication that builds that
experience to where when those alternates are asked to sit on the board, they have a little bit of experience from it because they have partaked into that communication. I That's what I'm asking for. Okay. How about I ask that we put this
on the agenda for next month's meeting to discuss? We're looking for a motion. We're looking for a motion to put it on the agenda for next month. I'll second that. Well, I had made I can't make the motion. I move to put the item on the agenda for
next meeting. All right, we have a motion. Do I have a second? A second. Yeah. All right, got a second over here. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Member Beckles. Yes. Member Green. Yes.
Member Willis. Yes. Chairman Taylor. Yes. Vice Chairwoman Van Divven. Yes. Thank you. Now you have to come back next meeting. I I'll be here. Thank you so much. All right. Tony Shuffle, member of the Historic Preservation Board. I get to sit up
there. But for two years, I sat over there and the chairman of our historic preservation board, which has done magnificent projects, Joinerville and Beyond, the historic tours that are online and on your phone.
Um, we have little booklets. We have a lot of We have several projects that in the years I've been sitting over there or up here that we've accomplished. Our chairman always let our alternates partake in the
discussion because what if one of us got sick or our child was called out of school or you had to leave, you couldn't be there and they're not up to speed. Um, our alternates always attended every
meeting and they always get to speak because it's they're part of the group and if something happens to one of us and the alternate has to take over. They need to be aware because our joinerville project didn't happen. Your projects
happen in one meeting. It's somebody gets up. You either accept or deny. Our projects we talk about it this month. Next month we get a little research. the month after we analyzed the research and finally six months later. So our process goes on. I realize it's different but
I'm speaking I think it's really important that the alternates attend the meetings and participate as well. Thank you. Yes sir. Petition request Stan Johnson 860 Avenue. Thank you again for your uh
dedication and service on this board. And again, I'd say it's a sacrifice. Um don't like to talk about this, but uh the city of Titusville has done some things that are crooked, that are fraud, that are just horrible. I didn't bring
it with it tonight, but I have a poster sign that I've I've expressed many times and says fraud. $70,000 fraud. What's that about? In 2019, our our mayor Johnson was
behind where you guys are and he had all these books spread out and he said, "You know what this is? We've had us we've had a study by engineering company to study uh Mr. Johnson's me corresponds from 2012 to 2019 and say Johnson just
about done everything wrong, said everything wrong, wrote wrote everything wrong and they paid $70,000 for it." Well, it was all hoax and a scam. It doesn't exist. The report
doesn't exist. City manager agreed with it and so forth. So, I'm just telling you, give you an example of a hoax that happened open and notoriously right here, city hall in this chamber. Let me speak about Brad Parish. Brad Parish has done some things that
are dishonest that are false reports and so forth like that. M Mr. Parish has approved a survey that's in construction for SNJ Oaks fully knowing that the survey has a three-foot bust in the
rightway. Right now, if you go to the site and you look for the northwest corner, the southeast corner, and the southwest corner, you can't find them. Neither can the survey that's doing the stakeout. It's all So that's Brad
Parish. Brad Parish and and Peggy Bisaka approved for that project SNJ Oaks an 8 replacement of Mockingbird Lane to become 8 foot wide. 8 foot wide. Whereas city code for the fire department is
20T. City code for a flag lot is 25T flag stem. That's what M Mr. Parish has done. What I'm saying is he's crooked. He's dishonest. He's openly and notoriously that way. Just like councilors. I'm going say, and by the
way, I came through here in 1952. I moved here in 1971. This is my hometown. And what they're doing, the city of Taon is doing is what? It stinks. It's fraudulent. It's corrupt. Any questions? Thank you. God bless
you. All right. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak tonight? All right. Seeing none. Um staff, do we have uh well now we have one we have a continuence there on two
of them for next month. Do we have other items on agenda? Yes, we have we have three variances currently that will be for new business. Three three variances. Okay. The application period ends on this Friday. So, there could potentially be more. It could be
potentially more. All right. Anything else to report to us? Um, no, sir. All right. Councelor, anything from you? Uh, members, anything except it's late. We want to go home.
All in favor say I. I. All right, we're heading home. Thank you.