Okay, I'm going to call this May 21st 6 p.m. meeting of the planning and zoning commission to order. If you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One
nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we have a quorum. Uh, roll call. Lori. Chairman Eton. Vice Chairman Childs here. Secretary Grant here. Member FA here.
Member Gad here. Member Scully here. Member Gellen here. Alternate member Finler. Alternate member Rogers. Okay, now we have a quorum. Sorry, one off. Geez. Um, all right. The minutes.
Any questions or comments about the minutes? Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Member FA. I move that we approve the minutes as written. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. All those
in favor say yay. I. All those opposed. They are approved. All right. Quas judicial confirmation procedures. Thank you. this evening. Um, this evening's agenda states that 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 contained thereon. These cards are located on the table near the entrance to the council chamber or 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 will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. A
representative from 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 into evidence and will be retained by the city. Please submit such exhibits to the recording
secretary. Thank you. Thank you. So, next item is positions and requests from the public present. So, this is for anything that's not on the agenda. And you don't need a card to come. Just come up and start to speak and say your name and address for
the record, please. Good evening, Tony Shupelo, Historic Norwood House. I'm here today to invite you to the Joinerville and Beyond workshop that the Historic Preservation Board is putting on tomorrow evening. Now, you might say,
"What does that have to do with me on the PNZ?" Well, Joinerville is ground zero for the tsunami that is coming to West Titusville. They're going to be lots of issues that come before planning
and zoning. I'm sure with infill and all the vacant properties in that area, the area west of the railroad tracks down to Sycamore up to Garden Street. We're having a workshop tomorrow evening to build further on our report. I'm sure
you've seen the book, have you? Our Joinerville and Beyond report where we uncovered the history of the African-American business and residential district just west of the railroad tracks. And this year we're hoping to do
more if budget if grants aren't cut. We're um asking to get one to do further definition and signage in the Joinerville area to point out on this spot was John Smith's barber shop. Here
was Maddie Sue's hair salon. Um and we're also going to do a new project that we're doing um historic recognition without designation. Not all owners of older properties wish to be designated
on the historic um either the local historic or the national historic register because there are a lot of restrictions that go with that. But there are a lot of older buildings that people have taken pride in and have maintained and taken care of. And so our
recognition without designation is to honor those. For instance, one of the recipients at tomorrow night's workshop will be the um Moonlight Diner with its historic and wonderful neon sign. So,
I'd like to invite y'all. It's at 5:30 tomorrow, 5:30 to 8 over at the neighborhood services center, the more on on Leon. And unlike all these other meetings, we serve refreshments. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Tony. Anyone else
for petitions and requests? My name is Stan Johnson. I'm a registered professional engineer. I live at 860 Poinsetta Avenue, Grand Titusville. Been here for over 53 years and uh I've also been an employee in the city of Titusville reviewing plans and
I've also I've also uh been the engineering record of over a dozen subdivisions. Uh you you I've showed this to you guys before and this is uh sheet four of uh SNJ Oaks plans in 2021. It came to my
attention. This is a pro this is a project that I used to own. My wife and I used to own the property. Uh, and it has a uh a dirt road which uh traverses the the um the property and it has
houses on that road, dirt road. And the uh the city of Tyusville has a ordinance is is for a flag lots need to be 25 ft wide for a flag for a stem of the flag and uh uh
for uh fire protection on this on another sheet of this plans it shows it to be 20 ft wide. However, the sketch plant approved it for being 8 foot wide. eight first. How? How? How? I don't know how in the world. I've presented this a number of times to the
city and to the city attorney's office and I get no answers. How can you do this? So, you guys are on the PNZ and I don't know how you can tolerate this nonsense. So, um, they changed it to 10 foot wide
for the for the next plans and for the plat, but I talked to the fire department and the fire department said, "Well, our our code is 20 ft wide as the minimum, but but but the the fire department, the fire chief told me, he said, "Well, we've chosen to have it 12t
wide, which is in compliance with the state code." I'm thinking, "Well, so now it's 10 foot wide. Uh, I can't get any I can't get any sense about what's going on with the city of Titusville. No sense whatsoever. And not only that is that
now they they've said they put an easement in there, a 10 foot wide easement, and from the very beginning they said the people who are homeowners on this on Mockingbird Lane have no legal access to their property. No legal
access to their property. So now they put a they put a a plat and an easement in there where the last house has no access whatsoever to their home. No
access. So I I would like you all to look into it and I'm here to receive any questions that you have. So, the the last thing I saw when you went to I think you brought it up probably one of the last times the city council was that they were looking they
were read the city was looking at some of the markers or something or I think they were reviewing something. I don't know if anything came of it, but I I mean, as far as your issues, the city council is well well aware of your your
issues with it, and I don't know that there's anything that we could make them more aware of, you know, as a as a planning and zoning commission, but Okay. Well, may I say is that that it has been visited by uh Mayor Diesel and
also uh Vice Mayor Joe Robinson and uh they just throw their hands up in the air can't believe what's going on because we have it's that's what you talk about markers is is another issue. Uh, I have I have
over 50 red lines on this sheet. And as a as an a someone who reviews projects, there shouldn't be one red line on it when it's approved. And I'm having over 50. I wish we could help, but Okay.
Well, it's a problem that I think you all should look into. It's your community. You can drive by it, see it. I've been trying to follow whenever they talk about it or wherever whenever you talk about it, too. So, all right. Thanks, Dan. Okay. Thank you. Any other petitions and requests from
the public present? Seeing none, we'll go on to the next item. No old business. So, we have new business. Uh 9A synthetic turf Eddie
or whatever. Can't remember your name. Thank you, Tabitha. Okay. Tabitha. Uh yes. item 9A beginning on page 8 of your packet for ordinance number 21-2025 for synthetic turf. And before we get started, I want to clarify that the
version of the proposed ordinance that's included in your packet is not the most current draft. Um each of you should have been provided with a um hard copy of the updated language for your review. Uh the main revision was the removal of the word developed from the description
of single family lots. Um, the change was made to provide better or clarity and consistency in the proposed code language. The original phrasing may have inadvertently limited the application of synthetic turf to existing homes only. And by removing the word developed, the
revised language helps that the allowance for synthetic turf would apply equally to both existing or developed lots or future and proposed single family lots. And then when making any motion tonight, I would ask that you reference the most recent version of the ordinance, meaning the updated copy,
hard copy that you guys have. All right. And with that, um, on August 27th, 2024, the council approved advisability directing staff to evaluate the use of synthetic turf or artificial turf in lawns and to propose an amendment to the
land development regulations where applicable and provide clarity on the existing code regulation. The Titusville Environmental Commission has recommended prohibiting synthetic vegetation using the following language in section 30-321F. Synthetic plants prohibited
synthetic or artificial material in the form of trees, shrubs, ground, vines, or ground cover, including artificial turf, are prohibited in landscaping and yards. Now, on April 23rd, 2025, Florida House Bill 683 was approved by the
legislature. Page 18 of your agenda packet contains a House bill analysis that outlines the legislative intent and expected impacts. The full text of the House Bill 683 is provided for you starting on page 31. The bill requires that the Department of Environmental
Protection or DP to adopt minimum standards for the installation of synthetic turf on single family residential areas that are 1 acre or less in size. The standards must consider material type, permeability, storm water management, portable water
conservation, water quality, proximity to te trees and other vegetation, and other factors impacting environmental conditions of adjacent properties. Upon D's adoption of a rule containing these standards, the bill prohibits local governments from adopting or
enforcing any ordinance, resolution, order, rule, or policy that prohibits or is used to prohibit a pop property owner from installing synthetic turf on his or her land if the turf complies with the standards adopted by D. The bill also
prohibits a local government from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, order, rule, or policy that regulates synthetic turf that is inconsistent with the standards adopted by DP. The bill defines synthetic turf to mean a manufactured product that
resembles natural grass and is used as a surface for landscaping and recreational areas. The bill requires that the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt rules to implement the prohib prohibitions on local government synthetic turf regulations. Now, since
the D rulemaking process may take some time, staff recommends adopting the ordinance, the ordinance can be amended um in the future to align with any new D rules. So, in summary, you can see in the whereas section of the ordinance, this was developed in response to um the
following items. There's negative impacts of artificial turf, including landfill waste, micropractics, and chemical release. There's research that highlights concerns such as increased surface temperatures and poor storm water absorption. Locally, we've seen an
noticeable increase in the variance requests for artificial turf um installations and city council provided us with an intent to establish clear and consistent regulations for artificial use. So, as a result, the proposed ordinance introduces minimum standards
for installation, performance, and maintenance. Um, to pull a few of those key standards from section section six, which is page four on your hard copy, subsection D addresses permeability and storm water compliance. Subsection E would address manufacturer warranty
requirements, and subsection D means they need to have disposable materials. Um, so the ordinance would give us a starting point and can be updated later as state regulations evolve. And that's all I have. Any questions?
Any questions from the commission? Mr. Grod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions. I'll try to keep them sink and brief and I'll move the microphone closer so that everyone can hear me. Um, as you explained, the
genesis of this is really a statutory change that's providing for it. Reading the statute, I noticed most of it's an environmental concern, more so with everything evolving from microlastics to other whatnotss. Um but
it doesn't appear the statute is predicated on uh visible impact wherein the city ordinance has tried to in several cases address what would be I guess perceived by some I presume it may have been also
a genesis out of the TEC where in the section on residential homes there seems to be some overwhelming need to buffer the view between neighbors of one neighbor's choice to have artificial turf which kind of seems contradictory
in a way to uh one of the matters I had read in the um I guess the predicate for using this it quotes in section five as a um a definition for artificial turf meaning this visual impact someone has
because their neighbor has this other green stuff instead of grass. So you put a wall or a fence up so they won't have to look at it. But the definition says a surface that closely replicates the look and feel of natural grass. And
throughout the rule making there's requirements that manifest themselves in standards how it's going to look and maintain itself protecting its integrity by enforcing warranty requirements and manufacturing techniques to ensure that
it's got survivability where it won't fade out. And unlike a yard that might become infested with overgrowth and weeds that the artificial turf neighbor blocks the view of his errant weedinfested neighbor's yard, he has a
fence to make sure that the weedinfested neighbor's yard doesn't see this replication, the look and feel of natural grass. And then later the maintenance is spoken of and the benefit of this because it's not going to deteriorate because your standards are
all written around warranty longevity uh uh engineering I guess as somebody might call it or certainly manufacturing technique. So I found that interesting why on the one hand you want to promote something you're going to demand it meets rigorous criteria so it won't look
bad but you want to buffer it from an adjacent neighbor. And then I thought in the circumstance where it might be utilized on a commercial sense where you have commercial locations, the criteria oftentimes require it to be at intersections. So a sideyard is going to
be on an intersecting street and now because someone chose to use artificial turf, you have to put a wall up so you can't see it in the passing cars. And I am just challenged to understand the gravity of not having two adjacent neighbors side by side. one, having a
natural grass allowing it to be less than maintained or allowing an aid environment like we have here oftentimes to die and turn into nothing more than sand and weeds. On the other hand, someone trying to beautify their yard
goes out and spends a lot of money and they also are told by staff, well, you have to put a fence up so your neighbor doesn't have to look at that expensive, real looking and feeling grass. Can you help me understand why that came? Yes,
sir. So, on page um 17 of the packet, you'll see kind of a history of the variance requests. I do believe that the positioning of the turf in the side and rear yard kind of came from those. Um throughout the variances that we've seen, um any uh at the beginning, the
push back came from neighborhood associations saying that they didn't want it in the front yard and that was a lot of what we were hearing. So, the conditions that were placed on some of those um beginning variance approvals were that it would not be located in the front yard. And so, with that trending,
I believe that's kind of the the genesis that provided that language in the ordinance for those side and rear only. And then they would need to seek a variance to have it in the front yard so it could be evaluated on a case- by case basis. Well, then to expand on the the fence portion of it, um some of the
feedback we had heard is that if it wasn't visible, then what from from this is the feedback that we heard during the uh BAA hearings. Um if it were in the in the rear yard and out of sight, then what really who is it bothering? And so it's a chance to minimize the visual
impact of the um artificial turf. But if you feel that it's um unnecessary because we've addressed the warranty and and other quality conditions, then you could recommend that that not be added. I think you're following the line of thought I have. For example, again, so
two adjacent neighbors with a budding rear yards when I as long as I'm abudding the rear yard, I don't have to fence the visibility of it. It's only when I put it on the sideyard. And when you speak about variances, and I've mentioned that several times during
other discussions, I have perhaps a different opinion of what variances are predicated on. Again, they're predicated on a hardship, not a hardship in which the rule says no. So, I have to ask permission to get yes. It has to be cause and effect. If during the
development of ordinances you find that there's seeking of variances for good reason that it's based on hardships and there really is more than I can't have it but I want it so I'll ask for the question. It's I can't have it in my sideyard or you're making me put a fence
up in my scenarios that I gave you. uh variances that routinely see predictable problems with ordinances are usually grounds for amending the ordinance. So you don't have a replication of variances which deviates from the point of having an ordinance whatsoever. The
rule says this and you follow the rule. If it's a bad rule, rewrite the rule. If often times you find variances are being requested, it should be somewhat above and hand effect to say we perhaps and I believe that's what you were saying you indicated happened. But in this case,
you may be overbuilding the uh the protection if you're protecting it by warranty, by design, by all those standards. I just don't see where it's so uh visually impacting a neighbor as to cause you to have to put a fence up on
your sideyard, but you don't have to put one up on your backyard. That just doesn't smell too good to me. It means you're going to have a variance and then somebody's going to say one day we should take that out of the ordinance. So, that's one comment I made. The other one, which I'm I'm again, I'm not trying
to find fault with something that's environmentally protecting and in an area where an esttoarial waterway is, I got it 100%. Um, I'm just trying to figure out how you put artificial turf on a pvious surface. Most artificial turfs are in are are constructed to be
an application over top of something that perhaps cement's the wrong word to use, but artificial turf is not something you would lay down like you might do with indooroutdoor carpet as I've seen yards in my own experience where someone decides to go get the green grass carpet from Lowe's and lay
it out on their lawn, not really affixing it to the lawn, just laying it over it. and uh that would be compliant with the intention of the code because it's pvious right over top of the dirt. But if a person came in and wanted to do it the correct way, uh, preparing the
surface, the subsurface, and installing this like you might say a football field is designed to be, I'm having a hard time seeing a neighbor be told, "Well, now you'll have to get a storm water management permit, get a engineer of record, design a storm water pond to
contain the runoff from my imperous surface, subsurface of the u of the turf." Um and and what this what this says up here, it says artificial turf. It's subsection D, page 50 of six of the
draft ordinance we were handed. Uh on D, it says artificial turf shall be installed um um yes um installed at minimum permeability of 30 in per hour square yard. That's not something I could calculate. I assume I could hire an
engineer to do that. Uh artificial turf that does not meet the permeability minimum requirements shall be considered 100% impervious area and required to receive stormwater management permit consistent with a subsection. I'm sure is an engineer of record. I can't design
that. I'm not an engineer. Someone is. And all these people who would choose to have this maybe there's only one and maybe there's a hundred. But the first thing they're going to be told is well no you'll have to get an engineer of record because you want to make it like this. I'm using my own example. I have a
pvious and imperous surface for a driveway. I ripped out when I moved back here the concrete driveway, widened it and installed pavers. And it's quite pvious. I can't get water to wash my car to go to the curb because it's absorbed through the pavers. The pavers
absorption is on top of 6 in of compressed limestone, which was the subbase. I don't think the limestone's very pvious. I would almost say the limestone compacted to 6 in in depth. The city required that by the way under their permitting for my driveway
improvement. The pavers are pvious and the water probably continues along along the route of the limestone and disappears somewhere but isn't seen in the in the in the in the valley of the of the gutter. But it's not going through six inches of compacted
limestone. I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty sure that's right. It is going through the material on top of the limestone, my pavers. Turn that into artificial turf which is in which is pvious. It's on top of the same material and now I have to dig up my front yard
to put a retention pond in after it's been designed by an engineer. I would think I probably don't want to use artificial turf because it's going to cost $200,000 by the time I'm done. So, I've got a bit of a problem with engineering something so much so when I can't even imagine that that that the
that the potential for installation of that and the runoff would be catastrophic to the environment. Why I believe that is there is no requirement that I know of in Titusville under the code for a single family homeowner to have a driveway improvement meet storm
water requirements. I don't see retention ponds on every single family home that has a driveway. The runoff goes to the street. Is that usually the case? And if that's usually the case, if I took my driveway out and it was on the side of
my yard and I put my fence up so you can't see that art ugly artificial turf. If I wanted to put it over the compressed limestone subbase that represents the same material that composition-wise pavers are put over, someone may opine if it doesn't meet the
30-inch requirement. That's impervious. So, you'll have to get an engineer. But if I put the pavers in, I did not have to do that. If I poured a concrete driveway, no one's going to tell me to get an engineer to put a retention pod in. And I'm sure a concrete driveway is impervious. So I hopefully can get
someone to explain how that's a beneficial code right there. Sir, the engineer uh for the city of Titusville is the one who provided the criteria in letter D on the 30 in per hour. We discussed that and my understanding based on our conversations
is that the manufacturer specifications provide that detail and the purchaser or property owner could easily provide the product specifications rather than actually testing what's on site. If showing what is purchased to be
consistent with the 30 inches per hour of permeability rate and deeming that as to not be a per um an imperous surface. And so it's not treated as an impervious calculation for that property. The driveway when
somebody establishes a new home in that single family lot calculates the footprint of the property include and plus the driveway to be part of the impervious area that is then calculated and adjusted for in the storm water. You don't see storm water ponds on individual lots but it's addressed in
the development and when it's um built in mass. And if a single family home is calculated, then yes, that site plan is going to be looked at for the storm water impact. And if there's um drainage improvements that need to be made in the form of swailes or whatever that is that
needs to go on that site because of the amount of impervious surface from the house and the driveway, then that would be addressed in the engineering. I don't see the likelihood of every property that's in putting down artificial turf needing to go through
that sentence that requires you go through the storm water management per permit because there should be a regular production of that manufacturing specifications to prove what it is now everything up until and then I also wanted to point out you said what goes below it. Letter H says the infill
materials for the artificial turf. That's what you lay down below it. Um, you asked that question. It's not concrete because that would be impervious. I understand the answer and the background. I don't agree with it because I believe it would be fair for
me to reason that a 6-in compaction of limestone base by order of the city engineer. For my example, I live the example so I can use it. that 6 in of compacted limestone base in replacement
of concrete driveway is no more or less pvious than the concrete it replaced. However, my driveway widened. So, the imperous surface in my scenario, my example became twice as much as the concrete that preceded it. Nowhere in my
process did somebody tell me I needed a storm water management engineering plan because I was increasing the imperous surface area of my single family lot where in runoff calculated for the subdivision goes to the street and the overall calculation provided by approval
of accounted city engineer has taken into effect the design of the subdivision the value of imperous surfaces roadways driveways and there's usually some scale by which they determine you're not going to have 100% impervious on every single family lot
when a homeowner has the choice to pour concrete because they don't want to mow the lawn. I just want to pour concrete. I don't want to put any artificial turf on it. And if I call the city and I say, "I would like to pour concrete in my
yard because I'm tired of mowing weeds." I don't believe I understand the city's code's going to require me to get a permit and a stormwater management engineering plan to create a 100% imperous surface for concreting my yard.
If however I low put artificial turf on it now I have to get an engineer and I'm I'm not finding that a beneficial code. It's got too many ways around it otherwise provided. And for the person that chooses to look at this nice lawn, they first get told to put a fence up so
the neighbor doesn't see it. But the neighbor in the back who doesn't want to see it doesn't get a fence. And the person who wants to put it in has to hire an engineer because he chose to put it on top of an imperous surface like compacted limestone. Now, the engineer for the city will tell me that I'm
wrong. I certainly am willing to listen. I just don't believe that six inches of compacted limestone is impervious. Go ahead. Yet it doesn't require retention engineering. There may be a difference uh based on what the
intended uh surface is. So in that example that you're providing, that's a imperous driveway that's being installed. And so at that point, if you're proposing an imperous surface, the crushed limestone being an an additional imperous surface beneath it
doesn't impact the permeability over the driveway area. Whereas in this case, the intent is to provide standards for a permeable astroturf or artificial turf and to provide a similarly pvious surface beneath that based on uh
subsection H talking about the infill material being organic um organic or sand which would not be which would not include limestone. Now, if your if your suggestion is that um the requirement for a storm water
management permit be removed, um it sounds like that's the the the heartburn is that you would not prefer there to be a storm water management permit when an artificial turf is being installed over an imperous surface. Is that correct? Why I use my example and bear with me
gentlemen, ladies, if you will, is when I read this and I put myself in my shoes where I was and I'm familiar with these standards and codes and reasonable person acting reasonably. I wanted to improve my property. I wanted to rid myself of broken up concrete and
reinstall pavers. And I understand the benefit of pavers. They're certainly aesthetic. They're permeable. They cost a little bit more than concrete, but I'm very happy with them after 10 years. Uh, on the flip side, unless I'm wrong, and
I can be wrong, and I certainly may be wrong in this instance, but my experience and my experience, including a wee bit of engineering stuff, I was told in order to have the driveway throat abut the rightway
and improve the rideway because that's what it is. It's not the two-lane street. It's the right of way. The city engineer required that section, the throat as they call it, of the driveway flared at a 45 degree angle. It had to
be set back about 10 ft from the pavement edge within the rideway. That area was required to be compacted limestone 6 in subbase. the rest of the area 20 foot 20 probably 25 feet wide uh
probably 50 feet in length. The rest of the area was 4 in of compacted limestone. The reason was that's the city's code for utilization of pavers for a driveway. That had to meet the code. Had to meet the standards. The 6 in for sure. I know that one. The permit
was obtained by a professional company that did all the work. So when they said you got to get four inches of subbase and the city requires six inches in this section of the rideway, I said sure. Now when I take a hose or rainwater and I
put it onto that pvious surface, the pavers I know the water dissipates through it. Now where did the water go? It went through the pvious bricks. It would have gone down until it reached that subbase
6 inches compacted limestone. I do not believe that's pvious. But my point is not to talk about pvious or impervious. My point is you don't require no one mention to me that oh wait a minute if you're going to put this impervious surface for example I want to concrete
my yard and I want to put pavers. I want to put artificial turf on it. I'm gonna have to go to a professional engineer because it's impervious and it doesn't drain and it's it's a big problem and I'm going but the problem isn't being addressed where the same scenario just
chooses a different surface material. I chose pavers if I chose to have astroturf and have a green driveway. I could have been told by this requirement I have to get a civil engineer to design the plan. And I wouldn't think we want to tell folks that want to make their
properties improved value by expending a lot of money that on top of a lot of money, you got to spend a lot more money potentially because wherever you put this down on top of a surface that's impervious. Well, this doesn't say you cannot. It's if you do, you have to do
this. So I I I'm talking out loud by asking the questions. Obviously, Eddie, Tabitha, you guys got the background, but where this came from probably did come from an engineer for good meaning reason. You don't want that water to run
off. But I'm going, but the subdivisions are often times holistically designed for that potential. That's why there's retention ponds and lakes and easements and swailes and underground conduits for conveying storm water. All that's in the ground. the poor guy woman comes in and
says,"I want to put my astroturf on my driveway instead of pavers." And the city engineer says, "Well, you got to have six inches of compacted limestone subbase." Oh, and because that's there, you're going to need to get a civil engineer to give us a design for storm water, and where's your pond going? So,
talking out loud, I don't see the benefit of that section whatsoever. Not in the big picture. I see it as a big pain, and I see it becoming that other comment I made. Well, they'll just have to get a variance. The city's making the hardship, not the owner. The hardship's
I would argue the hardship is you don't make this person do it that way, but you make me do it this way. There's the hardship. Treat it differently. Equal parts. Subsurface is impervious. I just can't go with it very well. So, thank you. That's the end of my questions.
All right. Any other questions from the commission? Uh, all right. I'll open the public hearing. Are there any cards on this? Yes. Tony Shifflo at Tony Shot Tropic Street. Um, I've been following this issue through
many sessions at the board of appeals and city council. What needs to be said again and again about how bad synthetic turf is for the environment and the people who live with it? the heat effect, the harm to the earth beneath
it, the degradation of the plastic allowing microlastic particles flowing into storm water runoff, the non-esthetics of large areas covered in plastic. People don't really want to look at that. Put up the wall. 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 and have had to defend some particularly egregious crimes against the environment by paying large fines, making massive physical
corrections or spending large sums of taxpayer dollars on outside legal counsel to protect the positions that they took. But the ordinance against synthetic plants is one of the soundest environmental 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, I don't know if it's still valid, 3321F said, "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 in this section." And yet again and again, our state legislature shows its hate for the residents of Florida by passing
legislation that harms the environment and the people that live here while aiding and abetting the developers and their tangent industries, makers of artificial turf. staff has devised an ordinance that complies with the state's
synthetic turf law, but still stands strong against the use of any other plastic plant materials. I don't like it, but you know, state preeemption. And I'd like to disagree with you, sir,
about making it easy for people to come in and get this horrible plastic synthetic turf. I think you ought to make it as hard as possible under the state law because the state law is coming in to change everything that we
locally want to do to save our Indian River Lagoon. Thank you. Thank you. Any other carts? No, sir. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing, bring back to the commission.
Um, I'll just comment. I My brother lives out in Arizona. I go out there every once in a while and um like all the they don't they don't have enough you know the waters to water your grass would be totally too expensive to water the grass but some of their their
artificial grass looks looks like the looks like a grass uh on a golf course by the by the hole what do you call that right near the hole what's that called the Huh? Yeah, the green on the green, you know, on the green, the putting green,
right? So, I mean, some of it looks realistic, but um they put it right on the ground, but they have a different ground there, but you know, it's more it's mostly clay and um but uh uh some of it looks really nice, but obviously I
think um all plastic will degrade in the sun, even out in Arizona. Um, it's it I think it upkeeps pretty well out there, but I think they use some really high-end artificial turf. It's not like they're going to Walmart and getting some, you know, off the shelf there.
But, um, any uh any discussion from the commission here? Member Gar? Uh, well, I I I I agree with your observation of other areas treat things differently and that's the nature of being in a different environment. Um,
if I got the short of this, the state of Florida is going to prelude local government as they have been doing from having too much to say with a bigger picture than Titusville, Bvard County, for that matter, East Central Florida, the Indian River Lagoon. They're looking at the entire state and the state has
decided for what it's worth that artificial turf is cool stuff as long as you do it a certain way. And quite honestly, the other important message that I would like to convey is that the I think it's on page five of
the agenda where we have our current code. No, I think it's 12. Let's see. under section 30-321 section F that section as you heard recently synthetic
plants prohibited that sentence is has been difficult to interpret um because of different conflicts in our code and regardless of the outcome we would like to have an
ordinance that clarifies this section because before the changes in this proposed ordinance the way that the first sentence of F reads synthetic or artificial material in the form of trees, shrubs or ground covers or vine ground covers,
vines, artificial or artificial turf shall not be used in lie of the plant requirements in this section. So red as a whole sentence, it doesn't actually say that you can't have synthetic plants. It says
that you can't have them in the plant requirements that are required for that lot or the development. And so that's been an issue that we are looking to resolve. And then the state legislature
came out with a law that said HOAs can't prohibit artificial turf unless there's a code in the municipal government that says it's prohibited. So that's when we started receiving variances two years ago and we will continue to receive them
unless we have a better code that gives better direction to the residents of our city whether or not they can have artificial turf on this property. So regardless of what the endg game is on the permeability rate and the storm
water management permit reference, I really would like to see this ordinance passed in one form or another. And so if you have recommendations to change it, please include that in your motion and it will be considered. City council is going to hear this item for the second
reading next week and if they need to, they will table it. But if you propose um passing it, then you know that will be helpful for city council. But staff really needs to have better direction for the residents looking for variances on this matter. So really that's the so
both things because I've seen some of the variant um I watch the meeting sometimes. I've seen that they they approve sideyards and backyards because it's you know no one can see it and no one really sees it. But um so instead of just waiting for Florida
to this the state to finalize or FD the where was it? Um uh what? Yeah. for the standards to come out because is there a time frame for when that if when that comes out then you have to be compliant or I will tell you
that um both the house and the senate passed it unanimously but that the governor still has to sign it and so the law is not effective until we get that governor's signature and then the law is not triggered until those rules are enacted and we do not have a timeline I can tell
you that it may take a year could take a little more or less but that would be my asked that it's going to take quite some time um to for FDP to come out with those regulations that will apply statewide. Okay.
Um but you're saying just just because we're also having to people ask for variances is a a good reason just go ahead and pass it then to give direction. I mean it makes sense to me. Um I I mean it's unfortunate that
they're, you know, going to drag the ball on getting the standards out, but um that's what they have to go through for comments. Um Secretary Grant or let's see, Member Ground was first. Go ahead. You first. I
and I I think the explanation for the fusing of of the statute and the local government's authority to regulate it makes sense trying to hedge that before it comes. I still go back to this position I'm going to take. I I don't get
the kind of LZ fair approach to board of adjustment variances that if you just can't do it just get a variance and you're here because you kept hearing a number of impasses that created what was perceived or determined to be by the board of adjustment a legitimate
hardship and the rule gets massaged out to change rules that aren't working because you have variances that are reasonably speaking evident you have a add ordinance. So you adopt a change in the ordinance, you reflect that and you
eliminate the need to ask for variances. But I find it interesting that within the body of the ordinance, you basically wave a flag and say, "But if you can't do it, just go get a board of adjustment variances." I myself I understand the legitimate right of a property owner to
appeal a decision under the board of adjustments authority but it's kind of interesting that it's written into the ordinance for a variance predicated on a hardship that no one's got yet as opposed to what more typically is done conditional uses that you can do
something but the conditions warrant something else special circumstances I myself think that the the development of this to the board of adjustment as an appelllet procedure for not complying with the rule shouldn't be that there must be hardship. It should be there's
exceptional circumstances like my neighbor's yard is full of weeds and I have a fence because I don't want to look at the weed and filled lot. The other neighbor says, "But I want you to make sure you have your fence up because my weed-filled lot. I don't want to look at your $10,000 artificial turf yard
that doesn't have any weeds. It's engineered to last for 30 years. It won't deteriorate. It hopefully will eliminate runoff and pollution. And and look, it's even engineered with a retention pond for it. That is where I'm having a real problem with fusing the
statutes forthcoming rule with local government's authority. Some of these sections I just don't see. So, I'll leave that. part. Are you are you saying you're so you're against the fence part and or the I don't see the applicability of buffering a sideyard where you're going to permit someone to put a very
expensive material composition in. But on the other hand, if it's in the backyard, you don't have any protection for the adjacent neighbor. The backyard doesn't matter. It's only the sideyard. Remember, is there a place in the ordinance that says you have to put a fence or wall up? I thought that's where I read this. I may have made that up in
my mind. Maybe it was from the board of should be seen I believe right? No adjustments and appeals and that might be what you're saying Mr. um chairman child because um that is one of the conditions that was in the variance. So that might have been where that pulled from but it is
not itself. It probably was about the variant. So there was variance conditions that the fence remains as long as the turf or that it's not shown. It's section 3321 paragraph F synthetic plants prohibited. Chelsea, you mentioned that that that's what I
had read that it's not prohibited unless you you can use it as long as all the plants you planted are real plants and meet the minimum requirement for planting. Exceptional plantings could be synthetic. I I understood that. But this goes into what I said beginning on the second sentence. Um artificial turf
shall not be used in le of plant requirements in the section as you mentioned. Synthetic artificial turf may only be used on single family lots. Synthetic artificial turf may be placed in the side or rear yards of single family lots when concealed from view
from the adjacent ride ofway and consistent with the requirements. How do you obscure the view? Staff, would you object to a recommendation from this board to modify that language? Yeah. What's concealed mean? Yeah, that's a good point. What does concealed
mean? I guess that the section talks about section 3325. somewhere it's going to say concealment's a fence or a wall. That's kind of typical. I don't know how else you maybe put smoke and mirrors up there, but I I think that it's I think consistent with the requirements just
says that it's tying it to 30-325 where all of the details about art artificial turf are located. And in that sentence, it's saying if you're going to do it, this is how you do it. Put artificial turf in because in that beginning of F, it's called synthetic plants prohibited.
Okay. But then it goes into artificial turf in the second sentence. Synthetic or artificial turf. I'm I'm presuming that that's allowed and it's allowed on single family homes if it's placed in the side or rear yards when it's
concealed from view of the adjacent right of way. So if you think about a typical home, you got a driveway out to the right of way. So you're probably going to have a sideyard perpendicular to the street. And if you can see the sideyard artificial turf, you've got to
put a fence up or conceal it. I don't know what concealment is, but I I just don't even understand why you're making. And now you would simple scenario. I agree with that. Weedinfested yard is ugly, a public eyesore, but it's mowed and it's less than 12 in tall, so it's
okay. Code enforcement can't come make it look better. The homeowner with the artificial turf has to put a fence up so nobody can see it or a wall or something that conceals it. So, I don't see the benefit of concealment in that section.
Okay. Secretary Grant, I'm inclined to um agree with TEC. That's just my personal uh feelings on this thing, but I'm smart enough to know that the decision has already been made.
Um but I have I would like to play devil's advocate if I may. I'm going to put up I'm going to put up uh put down um synthetic turf in my yard, but I would in my front yard for aesthetics. I mean, isn't that why for the main reason
why most people use this? Because they wanted to look good. I mean, why you got Tell me if you can why only the side in the rear yard? Going back on that topic again. What was the rationale behind that choice if if I may ask? I believe that it mainly
stemmed from the variances when um neighbors or HOAs would come out to speak about like that was more of the push back in the beginning was the placement of it and not being in the front yard. Um and then for hardships outside of the look of it, we've had people with medical issues to grass that
need the um turf or their storm water, the runoff and such. The um artificial turf was more permeable than the way that they've had it before. But the side and the rear, I do believe mainly came from the feedback we received during the
variance process from all the ones that we've had. Um, there was a consistency of not having it in the front yard. I think it's because a lot of the turf that some people use is not good-looking. Not like like like they use out in Arizona like the really nice
turf some people use awful. And that's why I think when you were watching some of those variance meetings, they were talking about how bad it looked. You know, they're like, "Look at this looks awful." So, I think it was just looks, but and you can't tell. I mean, unless
we make standards for what it looks like. Can we make standards for what it looks like? But I don't know how you on on um section six uh subsection zero, excuse me, you talk about how it should be maintained
um like new condition, free of weathering and fading. How you going to enforce that? Is that going to be a code enforcement job? But if it's behind a fence that can't be seen, code enforcement is going to come in your yard and and to inspect
your yard. So, under letter Q, the only part of the ordinance that addresses artificial turf that actually requires a permit is when it's associated with a building permit. So, if you're putting it down by itself, you're not required to go and get that permit. But the
criteria, everything before Q is basically code enforcement responsive to complaints for neighbors having issues with storm water, neighbors having issues with their neighbor putting it in their front yard. And I think to your point about the front yard is that what it comes down to is that you either love
it or you hate it. And there's a lot of people that love it and there's a lot of people that hate it. And there's really no in between. And I think that the put it in your side in rear yards is the compromise to let people who love it have it and to let the people who hate it not see it. I think that's how it de
developed the way that it is today. Do you think D is going to come in with any type of restrictions on where you can have it on your property? I mean, you you'd have no way of knowing, but how do you feel about it? I I would be surprised if they got that specific.
That's more of a local decision. And right now, our local decision says no front yard artificial turf, right? That's the way that the ordinance is drafted. But if planning and zoning felt that it was appropriate to allow it in the front yard, you could recommend that to council and council would consider
it. Member Gar, two questions for staff. The first in the um the current code and then the statute that's forthcoming, Titusville does not permit the use of artificial turf currently
restricts it in some fashion. Correct. It prohibits it. Yes, sir. And the variances you've talked about have been people subject to saying you can't have artificial turf, but if you get a variance, you may. That's how it's been applied. That's
interesting. So now we have a statute that's proposed to say local governments, behave yourselves. Don't regulate things that you shouldn't concern yourselves with. I hesitate it, but that's the reality we live in. So, we're going to write an ordinance
that's codifying how we'll do artificial turf in anticipation of a statute. There's a few rough edges in this document. I'd like to try to steer us from creating just more variances even though I would suggest it would sound more of a conditional use than a
variance. It's not a hardship. The rule says no. No is no. It's, you know, just my opinion. So, having the rule says do it this way. There are circumstances where hardships would exist, but I think it's more targeting the way you're
looking at this to be a conditional use. It's not a hardship. I can't or I don't want to put a fence up on my sideyard or a wall or that you someone on staff said, "Yeah, a board on board fence obscures the artificial turf in the side." That's my administrative decision
because there's no definition of obscuring or whatever the words uh uh used. Um, I lost it again where the section is, but um, conceal. Okay. But you would agree that it is subjective. Someone on staff has to determine if it obscures
the view. You're going to get a permit. So obscurity is by what measure? Smok and mirrors, wall, fence, burm, you know, artificial turf, burm. Um, I just don't see that as the real direction. If the direction is to say here's this
codified set of standards and where special circumstances owe to whatever your pleading is, I see that more of a conditional use than a board of adjustment. My opinion um and and I'll speak to that. That's a good point. Member Gro, you've mentioned conditional
use permit a couple times and so I want to um just clarify for the board that um that's one of our processes for allowing uh a use. So, in our use table, we have our our list of zoning districts and our list of uses. And you'll find letters. P means permitted by right. You can come
in and get a permit for it today. L means it's permitted with limitations. And so, there's some standards that if you can meet those, you can get your permit today. C is conditional use, which is a public hearing process similar to uh plan bringing it before planning and zoning and then to city council. And then if it's blank, that
means it's prohibited. The way that this ordinance operates, it operates very much like a limited use by providing those standards that if the applicant can meet those standards, uh the city will issue a permit for it. However, it also allows that no permit is required
um unless it's it is found to be a code violation and it needs to be you need to demonstrate that you meet all of the conditions otherwise be removed. So in some ways it does act act act as a limited use with some oversight with some standards uh rather than just allowing it cart blanch or prohibiting
prohibiting it uh cart blanch. Um so we find this to be a a reasonable compromise can follow that that idea. I'm just still not convinced that that setting up a standard. I mean,
to me personally, I I find it hard to believe that a prohibitation can be accepted by variance. That'd be like saying, I have a zoning district that only will allow a hospital. That's a hardship. I want to build a house there. That's a whole
different argument in my opinion than to say that you have zoning districts that have flexibility. You have a right to use your property certain ways. In this case, single family home. You have a right to use it as a single family home. And with this ordinance, you have a right to choose to artificial turf your
sideyard or your backyard, but not your front yard. But in circumstances where the applicability of the standard is exceptional, special circumstances prevail. There's a forest between me and my adjacent neighbor and he lives two
miles in the forest. I don't see the benefit of obscuring my artificial turf from my wooded neighbor's lot. Special circumstances to me is what you do if you can't meet the code. Special circumstances can be eliminated by conditional use as opposed to I have a
hardship. What's the hardship? Buy a fence and put it up. What's the reason to give a variance when the use is prohibited? I'm I have a hard time with that. So, my feelings on this is I don't particularly see that section I'm referring to in um D about storm water
management impervious services I've mentioned and I don't think the idea of obscuring view on sideyards but not rear yards makes any real sense to me if it's been that's the measure by the board of adjustment that we got a feeling that's
how it went I think and I respect that that's how ordinances are adopted I mentioned that but in rendition. I don't see it as the best option. I I just don't see the need to tell somebody after you. And I presume, and I'm going to ask the question, too,
sideyard doesn't go all the way to the street front in the definitions. I believe the sideyard begins at the building setback. So, you have a point where the sideyard begins and ends and the front yard begins and ends. So somewhere along the side of the house,
you stop having artificial turf and you go back to a weedinfested front yard, sand spurs and sand, but you've got this really nice looking uh uh $500 a yard carpeting in your backyard in your sideyard, provided
nobody sees it behind a fence. So I'm not in favor of the fence. I'm not in favor of the stormwater design for this. I think that's killing a bumblebee with a cannon or a fly with a cannon. And uh I I don't see the board of adjustment as a as the route preferred. I would think you should turn this into a conditional
use where if you don't meet these standards, then you have to have an approval of a conditional use. That's just an opinion that may not fly well with everybody else, but that's my opinion. Thank you, Secretary Grant. I agree with that because
um I was sitting here thinking when you mentioned conditional use, if you are required to obscure your sideyard to keep anyone from seeing it, don't you need isn't that a condition and the only way you can do that is to put up a
fence. Isn't that a You have to correct me if I'm wrong, please. That would operate more like a limitation. A condition would be something that we're confirming through the public hearing process. you wanted to put up a um uh artificial turf on your sideyard and the only way you could do
that is to uh put up a fence. I I I it smells conditioned to me and you say is is not the differences are um so like I was explaining with the limit limited use and the conditional use permit. Yeah, those are two different approval processes in our code. Okay, I
understand that. So what we call a limitation is different from a condition because it has to be approved. If it's a condition, it has to sh the applicant has to demonstrate that they've met the condition before it can be approved. Whereas a limitation, it can be administratively approved if the
applicant provides the the needed information. So it's really about the approval process. And to go back to member Grod's point, the city has received a number of variances for uh artificial turf. And so this is a reaction to reduce the number of variances to implement a code to allow
certain applicants that are requesting this material to do it in a way that the city feels would be uh satisfactory if they meet these limitations. Um by changing it to a conditional use permit, you've reduced you you've eliminated the BAA meeting for the variance, but you've
now added a P&Z meeting and a city two city council meeting or I'm sorry, one city council meeting. So you've added an additional public hearing meeting to approve astroturf and I think the intent is to reduce the number of meetings for these uh this material.
I think cut out the red tape in what you say. Okay. That's city. He said to cut out the red tape is what this is for then. But and I think that was the intent of city council from what I've watched the meeting was they they saw that so many
variances were being approved and they didn't have they didn't seem to have a problem with the board of adjustments and appeals approving the variances either. So that's why I think they wanted this done. But Ember Grod and I I
understand the I can understand opinions of the board of adjustments a quicker route and I can understand the opinion that that seems the way to do it. My opinion however doesn't change. The board of adjustment grants exceptions or variances predicated on an established
hardship. Something that's beyond your control. I don't want to put a fence up is not beyond my control. However, when you look at conditional use, when you hear requests for conditional uses as this commission has, and you have a
circumstance, for example, my scenario, I have a 40 acre lot next to my residential home. It's wooded, so obscure I can't see through it. Person comes in with the permit for the sideyard artificial turf and staff says,
"Well, you'll have to obscure the view of that artificial turf." Well, no. I have all these woods. Well, they could be cut down. They're your neighbors woods. You're responsible for obscuring the view. So, you have to put a fence up. So, you go to the board of adjustment and you explain to the board
of adjustment, I was told I have to put a fence up even though I have woods because my neighbor can cut the woods down and then it's not obscured. So, I need a hardship grant my variance. I The hardship isn't there. You put the fence up. The absurdity of
the rule might exist that much I go with. But hardship, put the fence up. Period. So if you were to write this so that you have a set of standards where exception to the standard is only approved by conditional use, you have a different form. Sorry for the red tape
in the two meetings, but you have a more correct path. It's a condition. It's specific to the event. There's something more to it. It's not a hardship related matter. my opinion. Are you saying the conditional use permit would just be for
the for hiding the sideyard or is that when it's Let me just ask is that what you're saying or are you saying for the whole thing? If I ask the question, every member here tell me what obscured view is to you. You know, I'm obscuring my view. Not very visible. Yeah. Well,
you just have you have the inspector come to the site and give him some really dark glasses and say, "It's pretty obscured, isn't it, inspector?" So I that there's a lack of definition and I think that the intention I get the intention. I think the intention is better served under the predicate of a
conditional use than it is a hardship. I mean if I was the administrator and you came in and said, "I don't want to put the fence up because my neighbors got woods." I said, "I'm really sorry, but you need to put a fence up anyway because it's good for you." I'll let that be. I'm sorry. Why don't you just say they can have it anywhere they want
to then, you know, or because I mean I don't I don't know about having them jump through more hoops just for the sideyard because if it's obsc, you know, not so are you saying like just take out that requirement? I mean, yeah, might be a good Let's not care if just sideyard
period. Unless sideyard cuz like the sideyard could be right up against the the street though I guess in some cases like in my neighborhood there's this whole house on the on the corner now but their sideyard is right there on the you
know on the street. I I suppose if I was a neighbor and didn't want to see that ugly looking $10,000 lawn on my sideyard my neighbor has I would put a fence up. Okay. So where we at then? Does anyone want to make a motion?
Um, any motion or discussion anywhere? At the sake of being verbose and I'm sorry, these these things bother me sometimes. Um, as I mentioned, I I I'm in favor of what's a good meaning ordinance for good reason and trying to merge that with the with the statute that's forthcoming. So I would like to
make a recommendation for approval of the ordinance 202025 as presented in the document on our table with the changes that were provided with exceptions by eliminating
a couple of sections in here. um or and I'll just leave it as eliminate the sections rather than define obscure um in the um section 3325 artificial turf um
subsection D. I I see that as an unnecessary matter for a residential single family lot if someone wants to put it over concrete as opposed as I said I think they should be able to do that and not engineer it. So I I would say I really believe that's an unnecessary overkill. So remove section
D. And where you have any deviation from these standards uh subsection J, I would recommend that be approached by a conditional use as opposed to a variance by the board of adjustment. And under the last comment section about the
obscuring the view, if you're going to plan it where you're allowed on your side or rear yard, remove that standard for obscuring the view. Yeah. Yes, sir. Um, on D, what if uh D comes back and says they like it the way
that is written or that's the way DP, excuse me, um defines the stricter standard would control. Say again. The stricter standard would control the state's regulations. Um
would we we wouldn't be able to lessen the state's regulations. Well, I know, but M Mr. Gerard said he wanted to get rid of deed, did you say? And so we would have to go back and redo the ordinance again if that's the case. If we accepted what Mr. Gerard said, am I
right? The intent is to amend this ordinance again when the D rules are finalized anyways. So regardless of whether any of the conditions are removed or added or amended, okay, we will go through that exercise. All right. All right. So is that it? So just
approve it the document that we have striking uh D from what was it section 6 30 30 uh 30-325 yes and then also and then making J a
conditional use permit standards as a conditional use and then I believe the last section was where the section requires the buffering by obscuring the view from the side. All right. And rear yard, which I think is
in the beginning. Section 3321, sub paragraph F. Um, fourth last sentence, synthetic artificial turf may be placed inside rear yards of single family lots when concealed from the view of the adjacent
rightofway and consistent with the requirements of section 3325 artificial turf. I don't see that as I don't see that striking Strike that section. Strike that at least that that whole section or just that part? Just that section beginning in the second sentence
or third sentence of sub paragraph F begins synthetic or artificial turf. Just strike that. It says I believe it's wants to you want to keep synthetic artificial turf may be used on single family lots. Okay. Synthetic artificial turf may be placed inside or rear yards of single family lots. Period. Period.
Just the rest of strike the wing concealed from view. Yeah. One more time. Got it. the whole thing. Subsection F, strike the sentence that I think it's the fourth sentence, synthetic or artificial turf may be placed inside or rear yards
of single family lots, enter a period and then strike the remainder of that sentence which says when concealed from view from the adjacent right ofway and consistent with the requirements of section 325. Just remove all of that. Yeah.
Is the recording secretary got that? You guys got that? All right. Thank you. Second. You guys understand that? All right. Second from Grant. We have a motion and a second. Uh, any discussion on it? All right. Roll call, please. Lori,
member Groad, yes. Member Scully, no. Vice Chairman Childs, yes. Member Gellan, yes. Secretary Grant, yes. Member FA.
Yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. Before moving on, member Scully, can you tell us why you said no? I like section J. Yeah. J. Uh, yeah. You like it to be a variance?
Yeah, I know. Yeah. I just city council probably. I Yeah, that's what they did. True. let them talk about it. Um, all right. So, next
is conditional use permit. So, 9B, conditional use permit for 5195 South Washington Avenue. Go ahead. Thank you, chair. So, conditional use permit item 9B beginning on page 46 of your agenda
packet and click. All right. for CUP1-2025 for Kingdom Builder Child Care located at 5195 South Washington A. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a child care
facility. The property is 1.54 acres in size and is currently zoned community commercial. Now, within the CC zoning district, a CUP is required to establish a child care facility when the property is located on a local street or abuing a property with a single family zoning or
use. The subject property is located along an arterial roadway. However, it abuts the Indian River Landing subdivision to the east which is zoned single family highdensity R1C. The current request is for the operation of a 24-hour 7-day a week
childcare facility. The applicant states that the extended hours are intended to support parents working night shifts, weekends, or attending evening or weekend educational programs. The property is located off an arterial roadway and the outdoor play area meets all LDR requirements for setbacks from
the adjust adjacent residential properties. The applicant has provided a scaled site plan and an interior concept plan. These are located on page 59 and 60 of your packets. The southern access to the site is provided through a right-of-way and utility easement um
agreement with the property to the south, which is used for access to the site's designated pickup and drop off zone. A second access is located toward the north on South Washington Avenue. Now staff are recommending approval of cup number 1-2025 to allow a child care
facility at 5195 South Washington A consistent with the approved concept plan along with the following condition. That a phototric lighting plan shall be submitted demonstrating that the exterior exterior lighting is fully shielded and designed to prevent glare or spillover onto adjacent single family
residential properties. Um and that's all I have. So, any questions? Any questions? Uh, let's see. Member FA. Oh, okay. Member Gallen. Yes. Um, I would like to disclose that I consulted with the city attorney earlier earlier
last week regarding this um agenda item to ensure there would be no conflict of interest. Based on the information that I provided, there is no conflict of interest and I can still, you know, move forward. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you.
Any any questions for staff? Secretary Grant. um this lighting that uh you included as a condition, would that answer the questions of some of the letters that we've gotten from uh some of the res uh from the residents
concerning um yes, the phototric um plan would help to ensure that you know all the code requirements are um met um because they're already governed and set and standards in section 30-192 for site
lighting. Um, this just helps to kind of ensure that we're addressing those concerns that we've received. One person said that they um they would like that the lighting be shielded from their I guess from their view of something. That's not possible, is it?
One of the items in um the site lighting standards, the code that's already there does require that fixtures are shielded so that the light source is not visible and that it cannot exceed two foot candles at the property line so that they're down lit and not spilling over
into adjacent properties. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay, I will open up the public hearing. Um, is the uh is there a card for the applicant or Yes, I believe Lisha Brown.
Go ahead. Name and address for the record, please. Well, I am Lisha Brown. Uh, address 4553 Retreat. Sorry, but this was bothering me. No problem.
Uh, I am the applicant and I'm new to this, so I didn't know if I needed to write um fill out a card or not. But to address the lighting issue, um I've already been on the property. First of all, um the issue is in the back of the
building. We'll be utilizing the front of the building where there's lighting. So, there wouldn't even be a need for the light to be on in the back at night for to interfere or cause problems to our residents behind us. Um, that's
basically all I wanted to let everybody know that there's plenty of lighting in the front. Parents will drop off and pick up children in the front of the building so as to not disturb
uh the neighbors behind us. However, if For some reason, we need to use the lighting. There is already shield there and the light um goes towards the building, not the neighborhood. That's all I have.
Thanks. And thanks for waiting, Zoe, for this. But uh is there any questions for her from the commission? Member FA. So, thank you for coming. Uh, who else provides this type of service and how close is the nearest one to you
if if you know that information? Well, I do know that parish, excuse me, no one that I'm aware of provides this service for 24 hours. Correct. And that's what I'm asking. I will be the only one. Thank you.
Yes, Secretary Grant. There were there have been some inquiries about the age limit of the children involved here. Do you um have any idea? We uh we go up to age 12. 12. Take care. Okay. The person who would uh inquired would like for it
to be cut off at 14. So, thank you. Well, okay. I didn't see that email. What was it? What was the concern about that? Isn't an email that was provided? I thought I read all of them, but I must not have more of the last ones.
Oh, weird. It's just that just that there's not like why why they Okay, that's weird. I don't know. Uh any other questions? Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. We have any other
cards? Yes, sir. Tommy Hicks, Jr. Name and address for the record, please. Tommy Hicks Jr., 1111 South Central Avenue. Um, just here to support uh I'm for the approval of conditional use permit number 1-20254
uh 5195 South Washington Avenue in support of uh Kingdom Builders Childcare Center. Cool. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none. All right. Thank you. Oh, thank you very much. Any other cards?
Uh, Seymour Evans. Name and address, please. Yes, my name is Simone Evans. My address is 4566 Sleepy Oaks Lane. Um, I am in very much support of the Childc Care Kingdom
Builders. I was a single parent at the age of 15 and I didn't have a support and Miss Lisha Brown provided that to me. Her facility being open for 24 hours
allowed me to parent my son. So when he slept I could work but when he was awake I could be there because of that service. And that is why I have the utmost respect for her and
support. So hopefully, please allow this to go through for any other parents like me. He's grown now, but that really helped me. All right, any questions? N thank you very
much. Any other cards? Uh that was my last card. Okay, going to close or waste. Uh yeah, there's no opposition, so there's no response, right? So can ask her if she wants to rebut any of the comments. You want to rebut anything? You want to say, "No, you're wrong.
We're not that good." Okay. All right. All right. Good. Well, that's that's a relief. Um All right. Well, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to commission. Any uh discussion? Member uh Secretary Grant, I would like to
recommend approval if that's okay. All right. I'd like to recommend approval for conditional use permit uh 1-2025. I'm sorry. One dash Oh, Lord have mercy. I got Yeah. Okay. You got it. At
5195 South Washington. Is there a second? Well, before I second, um I did want to do a little If there's a motion, you can say motion second or um you you second for discussion. You can say that. Second for discussion. Second for discussion. Okay. Go ahead. All right.
So, I did I do want to go on record and say that, you know, as our as our community grows, this is going to be a a well-needed service, which is the reason why I asked, are there any others in this area? Um, you know, people need to work all times of days and nights and and there needs to be somebody to watch
the kids that is certified and licensed and and keeping our kids safe. And so I'm I'm hopefully that we are all in ingredients on what's going on here. Um, this is something that our community desperately needs.
Sounds good. Yeah. I was I have three adult children and then I have a six-year-old and I remember when I was uh uh when they were my my oldest were um you know younger it was impossible to like we my I had to work nights and my
wife had to work days or vice versa because we didn't have that option. So that would have been great to have. Um, not that I could have afforded it, but you know, um, so, uh, that's like eventually like one of us stopped working for a partner at the time, just take care of them.
But, uh, yeah. So, I I I agree. I think it's a great, uh, and it's not a bad location either for I don't think it's going to cause any problems with anyone. I think it was just the lighting stuff that we got emails on and and anyone over 14, I guess, for some reason. Um,
okay. We have a motion and a second. Um, any other discussion? All right, Lori, please call the role. Secretary Grant, yes. Member FA, yes. Vice Chairman Childs, yes. Member Scully, yes. Member
Grod, yes. Member Gellen, yes. All right, it passes. Congratulations. Thank you. It will I think it'll be heard at city council when? Um, do you guys know? On the 27th next week. On the 27th. Next
week. Yes, next week. All right. Thank you very much. Um, I just lost my place. Here we go. Partitions and requests from the public president is our next item.
Anyone from the public? Oh, wait. Did I miss one? Oh, sorry. I It's like a little letter. Yeah, it's not bolded. It's not bolded. All right. 9C Odyssey Ridge Final Plat. Yes, sir. Chairman, thank you. This is
item uh 9C, Odyssey Ridge Final Plat, beginning on page 69 of 187 of tonight's agenda package. Odyssey Ridge, formerly known as Sisen Road Town Homes, is a proposed 91 lot town home subdivision located north of Timber Trace Apartments along Sison Road that is currently under
site construction. The sketch plat for Odyssey Ridge subdivision was approved by city council on February 14th, 2023. The following are attached and required for approval. The final plat covenants performance bond and sidewalk performance bond. The final plat is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The preliminary plat and final plat requirements described in chapter 34 article 3 division plat of the code. Staff reviewed the final plat for consistency with the comprehensive plan development regulations and recommends approval. Staff also reviewed the
covenants and performance bonds and recommends acceptance. City Council will consider this item on June 10th. So if you remember the platting process again, sketch plat, preliminary plat, final plat. Um in the middle process, preliminary plat is also when
they apply for their site plan, which is their uh once they get their site development permit, they're allowed to make the um site construction, the pipes, roads, things like that. final plat is when the city formally accepts those as public infrastructure and they
can begin the process to start selling off the lots. So, this is what uh formalizes the subdivision, but the subdivision is well under construction. Okay. Um member Gad, just a question. This is the subdivision under construction that has the massive
retaining walls. Yes, sir. Yeah. This is right by my house. Yeah. Uh, any questions from the commission for staff? Nope. All right, I'll open up the public hearing. Are there any cards on this
item? No cards. No cards. I will close the public hearing. Um, or yeah, this is um All right, commission. Any any discussion of this item? Any
questions? Any motions? Anything? Uh, member FA? I move that we approve the Odyssey Ridges final plant as presented. I second that. All right. It's been
motioned and second. Um, roll call, please. Member FAC, yes. Member Gellen, yes. Member Grod, yes. Member Scully, yes. Vice Chairman Childs, yes. Secretary Grant, yes. All right, passes.
Um, for anyone watching, it'll be considered on June 10th, right? June 10th. City Council. All righty. All right. I'm not missing another one. It's petitions and requests, right? There's nothing. All right. All right. Good. petitions and requests from the public present for nothing for anything that's not on the
agenda. There's only one public, so I don't think All right. Um, next item, reports from city staff. Yes, sir. Just another reminder that on June 4th, the next P&Z meeting, we'll have a 5:00 pm workshop, right? Um and
that's to discuss the ear the amendments to amend the comprehensive plan consistent with any changes that have been made made since the last seven years to state statute. Um so we're finalizing that report for you and we look forward to the workshop then. So the workshop will just go over it uh
just talk about what the what the updates are and then will we have another hearing or another um agenda will it be on our agenda discussed later? It will. Yes. Okay. But not that meeting, right? No, this is just a workshop, public engagement opportunity
to get some feedback. Okay. And will we be I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. And will we be notified prior to that because I forget things, you know. Sure. Absolutely. Thank you, man. I think so. Yeah. Me, too. Member Gar, I was going to suggest if Eddie could check with the
woman that was speaking earlier, she have some food left over from the meeting that maybe we can have. Uh, and the city actually congratulations. You're the city attorney over here. No longer the assistant city attorney. Temporary. Temporary at least.
I was going to ask you that question. Whether you are the real dog now for I'm the temporary real dog. Temporary. Now she has double duty. She's having to do these two. There's no assistant to take over for her. You deserve to be the big dog. Yeah. Crazy.
Is there any report from you, please? I have no update. Thank you all. All right. Uh I have no update. Um any member have an update or report? I mean All right. Um well, we're adjourned. Thank you very
much.