WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=tlpbo6229no

Part: 1

1
00:01:00.239 --> 00:01:33.360
Good evening. Welcome to the uh July 22nd meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. Stand for the pledge, please. Americaisible. >> Roll call, please. >> Chairman Eton, >> here.

2
00:01:33.360 --> 00:01:48.159
>> Vice Chairman Scully >> here. >> Secretary F >> here. >> Member Rice >> here. >> Member Gerard >> here. >> Member Graham >> here. >> Member McDaniel >> here. >> Alter member Sidler here. Alder member Troutman >> here.

3
00:01:48.159 --> 00:02:03.840
>> We have not only a quorum but a full house. I think um first order of business is approval of the minutes of July 8th. Chairman, if I may, uh we found two corrections we'd like to to add to if uh to your motion tonight. >> Okay.

4
00:02:03.840 --> 00:02:21.760
>> Uh the first is on page six of 156 and [snorts] both of these are related to the smallcale amendment SSA number 1226 Canaveral Avenue. Uh on page six [cough and clears throat] it says member Grod made a motion to recommend approval of SSA number one and

5
00:02:21.760 --> 00:02:37.040
towards the bottom of the that paragraph it says that the request was for medium from medium density residential to urban mixed use and that was what the applicant had originally submitted on their application but the motion and the discussion was about the highdensity

6
00:02:37.040 --> 00:02:54.080
residential for the future land use. And on page seven discussing the zoning, you'll see on the first paragraph at the end there, it says single family highdensity R1C to urban mixeduse zoning. That also was incorrect. The applicant was requesting the R3,

7
00:02:54.080 --> 00:03:09.280
highdensity uh multifamily. Uh so just want to if you make your motion to approve the minutes to include those two corrections for us. Thank you. >> Great. >> Thank you for catching those. Yeah. >> Does anyone else have any corrections or comments on them?

8
00:03:09.280 --> 00:03:25.120
minutes. If not, is anyone care to make a motion with the um noting the changes? >> I'll make a motion to approve with the two uh edits from staff. >> Thank you. >> I'll make a second and thank staff for

9
00:03:25.120 --> 00:03:41.280
catching that. >> Um motion and second. Uh all in favor? >> I I >> Anyone opposed? All right. Uh, minutes are approved. Uh,

10
00:03:41.280 --> 00:03:58.879
city attorney. >> Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must be complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. These cards are located on the table in the front of chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation

11
00:03:58.879 --> 00:04:14.720
and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members,

12
00:04:14.720 --> 00:04:32.000
please disclose any exparte communications or site visits at this time. I don't see any. Thank you. Thank you. Um, first item is our uh first session of petitions and requests

13
00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:53.919
from the public present. If anyone's got anything to say, just come up to the podium. You don't have to fill out a card for this section. [snorts] Hi there. So, my name is Justin Dunap. Um uh thank you guys for uh presenting today and I'd like to take this

14
00:04:53.919 --> 00:05:09.600
opportunity to introduce myself and uh I just moved here from uh Feb or February this year uh and bought 7 and a half acres over off of uh North Singleton and uh parish basically the very northern edge of the county right before we

15
00:05:09.600 --> 00:05:25.280
turned into Mims basically. Um, and I don't know if you guys have heard or um heard anything about it yet, but we're we're uh attempting to put a uh reszoning from uh residential one on the property to general use for agricultural

16
00:05:25.280 --> 00:05:40.800
pursuit, which is in within the uh current uh zoning uh abilities of of the county. So, we're looking to get everything reszoned um to the be able to facilitate for agricultural uh facilities there. Um, and then also

17
00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:57.759
we're really interested in helping the city also implement agriculture into the zoning as well. Um, so if there's ever need to be a subcommittee or anything like that to go through all those documents and and see if that's an interest for the city of Tisville, um, I'd happily offer my time and and my

18
00:05:57.759 --> 00:06:13.520
information and knowhow on on on the matter. Um but yeah, so I right now we currently have uh the reasonzoning scheduled for October, November, and December. Um I would like that if we could um somehow get that pushed up

19
00:06:13.520 --> 00:06:28.319
sooner. Um I think it's a pretty straightforward we're just out there farming. Um and doing everything that's under far farm activities basically under Florida statutes, Bvard County statutes, all the rest of that. But um unfortunately right now the zoning is

20
00:06:28.319 --> 00:06:45.600
pretty uh the the words aren't a lot there for agriculture. So really it's just agricultural pursuit. This is the only thing that really binds to agriculture whatsoever in the city of Heightsville. Um so we would like to go into that general use from residential um but then in lie of getting

21
00:06:45.600 --> 00:07:00.800
agriculture as part of the county or part of the city as well. I think that'd be great to do. So I don't know if you guys have any comments on that or want to speak about it. I don't know. Eddie, do you have any color on I I I think I heard at the last council meeting there was some

22
00:07:00.800 --> 00:07:18.000
discussion about uh some form of agricultural zoning. Is that anything that planning's working on or any update? >> So, I understand Justin attended the city council meeting and presented uh the same had the same presentation as he has just presented for you all. Um we do

23
00:07:18.000 --> 00:07:34.560
have a complete application for his resoning request currently. Um, and so, uh, when that's ready, we'll bring it before you. >> Okay. >> Right. So, it sounds like as soon as you guys are able to get it done, we're able to get this thing moved in. So, awesome. >> No, they've been fantastic. We've had a

24
00:07:34.560 --> 00:07:50.479
couple of meetings kind of going over everything and and how everything's going to work. I know there's been a lot of confusion as far as um, activities of the farm. Agriculture is like farming is not just planting crops and doing That's a lot of community involvement as well.

25
00:07:50.479 --> 00:08:06.000
Um, and bringing people out, doing educational events and such. Um, and there was a lot of hard uh things that because there's no agriculture in the city of Titville, it's really hard for anybody that's in the engineering department or wherever to really grasp

26
00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:23.360
it where typically in like the county or state for which most things fall under those statutes. Um, it it's it's permanent exempt. Um there's a lot of uh support for agriculture in that manner to allow things to happen, you know, as a farm would because it's set up

27
00:08:23.360 --> 00:08:40.800
different than a house or a townhouse or a commercial operation, right? So yeah. >> Well, we look forward to seeing you back here whenever the application's ready. >> Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you guys. >> I have one question, chairman. >> Yes. >> Um for for this individual, is is the

28
00:08:40.800 --> 00:08:56.399
property uh what is it zoned for right now? Is it single family? Right now it's resz one. Um, and from my understanding it was reszoned back in 2001, uh, 2002, uh, to be split up to 25 units for that

29
00:08:56.399 --> 00:09:12.320
property. Um, but they were unable to, it was unfeasible to get water and sewage out there. Um, uh, so since then that it's been through multiple developers and all the rest of that over the years. Um, and then I kind of showed up and I was like, "Hey, I could, you

30
00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:27.760
know, 7 and 12 acres high and dry. It's perfect for a farm. I came from Locks of Hatchee. It was swamp land. So, [laughter] just not have to worry about the swamp anymore." And a nice cool breeze out here, too. So, it's pretty nice, you know. >> But, um, yeah, and the community is really involved. Uh, all of our

31
00:09:27.760 --> 00:09:42.959
neighbors really are excited for it to get it moved on, moved forward as well. Um, and I do want to mention kind of some of the urgency for us to get this kind of moved along, too. Um, you know, we're we're trying to get this developed as fast as possible so we can start getting animals in there. Um, and part

32
00:09:42.959 --> 00:09:59.680
of that process is kind of the cart before the horse. You have to have everything finalized with the city before you can get USDA loans. Um, and then, you know, be able to bring farm animals and those kind of things on the property. You have to kind of have those already on the property in order to get the bonafide farm certifications, which

33
00:09:59.680 --> 00:10:15.680
we have. Um, and all the rest of that. So, it's it's it's kind of carp for the horse, but faster we can get it moved along, the faster we can, you know, get things up and operating and, you know, be a healthy benefit to the community, >> right? So, >> great. Sounds like staff's kind of >> Yeah. No, we we'll definitely hear that

34
00:10:15.680 --> 00:10:32.000
next go around. I'm definitely um interested in this um seeing some kind of farming or, you know, nature. I don't know about animals and stuff like that, but um no, I was just curious what your zoning is now currently because >> Yeah. >> So, but no, we'll see. uh when you come

35
00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:46.160
back and I appreciate it. Thank you. >> No, I appreciate it. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else uh for petition requests? Seeing none, uh we have no old business.

36
00:10:46.160 --> 00:11:02.000
And our first item of new business is item 9A. Eddie, >> thank you, chair. This is item 9A, smallcale amendment number 2, 2026 at 1165 War Eagle Boulevard on page 10 of

37
00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:17.760
156 of tonight's packet. [clears throat] The subject property is a 1.1 acre unplatted parcel located north of Astronaut High School, south of Derry Road and adjacent to the current city limits in a predominantly residential

38
00:11:17.760 --> 00:11:34.160
area. The property is identified as Bvard County property appraiser tax account number 21106714 and partial ID number 213530 000769. The purpose of the annexation feature

39
00:11:34.160 --> 00:11:48.720
land use amendment and resoning is to allow the existing single family residents to connect to city utilities. City Code section 21-1 requires property owners outside the city limits to apply for annexation before receiving city

40
00:11:48.720 --> 00:12:05.920
water sewer or reclaimed water service. Code of Ordinances section 21-1 lots served by governmentallyowned water sewer/reclaimed water lines states every outofcity property owner who desires to be considered for water sanitary sewer

41
00:12:05.920 --> 00:12:21.920
service or reclaimed water service shall apply for annexation as a condition precedent to being considered for the service. If by reason of annexation laws the property can be annexed and the city in its discretion desires to annex the property, the property owner shall

42
00:12:21.920 --> 00:12:37.680
submit an application for annexation and pay the required advertising and recording fees and the annexation will be processed in accordance with applicable regulations. Most of the surrounding properties are located in unincorporated Bvoulevard County and are designated residential 15

43
00:12:37.680 --> 00:12:53.519
future land use with rural residential RR1 zoning. Two nearby single family homes within the city limits along War Eagle Boulevard are designated residential one future land use and residential estate re zoning. The

44
00:12:53.519 --> 00:13:09.680
applicant is requesting residential one future land use and residential estate re zoning to match the nearby city properties. Both designations allow a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. The proposed re zoning is consistent with the residential one

45
00:13:09.680 --> 00:13:25.040
future land use designation in accordance with the future land usezoning consistency matrix in section 27 of the land development regulations. This item scheduled to be heard by city council at the August 25th, 2026 meeting.

46
00:13:25.040 --> 00:13:42.639
Um just one comment actually I'll start with the maps. On page 49 is the aerial to give you some context. Uh this is War Eagle Boulevard uh north of Astronaut High School and south of Oak Park and Madison uh Oak

47
00:13:42.639 --> 00:13:58.240
Park Elementary and Madison Middle School. Uh if you'll turn to page 50, that shows you the future land use designations. On the left is the existing future land use and the areas that are in white are areas that do not have the city's future land use designation because they are in the

48
00:13:58.240 --> 00:14:16.320
county. And on the right hand side is the proposed future land use. Uh you'll see the the light blue color is um is proposed and is also found in nearby properties. On page 51 is the proposed the existing

49
00:14:16.320 --> 00:14:32.480
and proposed zoning map and again um currently is no designation and the request is for the re zoning district which can also be found uh nearby. One thing to consider is that the city council is not obliged to annex this

50
00:14:32.480 --> 00:14:48.320
property. This is a requirement because the applicant has asked for water service. And so if council decides not to annex the property, there is an alternative means. There's an outofservice uh utility service agreement that could be completed um

51
00:14:48.320 --> 00:15:05.600
whereby the applicant could still get water uh without being annexed into the city. And typically those agreements have a pre-anexation clause with them where the city could annex them in the future uh should this should the city desire to do so. Uh with that that concludes the presentation. Thank you.

52
00:15:05.600 --> 00:15:21.519
>> Thank you. Uh anyone have any questions? Member Gar. >> Thank you and welcome back Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Um Eddie has just described the concern I had when I looked at this. I sent an email earlier this afternoon asking a

53
00:15:21.519 --> 00:15:37.839
question and I would direct the state commission to look at page 16 of 156. If you go to there, as Eddie just described, this particular illustration shows the city limits. It shows the zoning districts and you can

54
00:15:37.839 --> 00:15:52.399
clearly see where zoning districts aren't designated. It's in the unincorporated county. Um, pragmatically speaking, uh, a city grows and shouldn't grow haphazardly and shouldn't grow in peacemeal fashion.

55
00:15:52.399 --> 00:16:08.000
That's why annexations are so concerning and there's statutory law and how you annex property. In this case, my experience tells me the annexation capacity is because it's across the street from the blue colored re lot.

56
00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:25.440
annexations across rights of way allow you to be considered contiguous as opposed to all the other lots you see that aren't identified as zoning that are in the unincorporated county. They're neither across the street nor contiguous with incorporated properties.

57
00:16:25.440 --> 00:16:41.519
That's all good and fine. It sounds like I'm a city manager talking, but the reality is when you start peacemealing in stuff, you potentially create enclaves unintentionally. You kind of box in the perimeter and what you leave in the center is an unincorporated

58
00:16:41.519 --> 00:16:58.160
enclave. If you're law enforcement and you get a call, imagine driving up Oral Boulevard and the city police respond across the street from you, but they won't respond to you across the street in the reverse sense of it. These are reasons annexations are concerning to me

59
00:16:58.160 --> 00:17:14.480
as a citizen because you are paying the taxes for citizensry and you're paying to support that service and that service can become a little dicey. Now I do recognize that you have interlocal agreements with law enforcement and that they can make a call that they have to have a response because of the

60
00:17:14.480 --> 00:17:31.120
immediacy. If it's not in that ball involved matter, it still becomes difficult here. The property is also on a septic tank and I think there's been a lot of discussions in this part of Bvard County and adjacent to the inter coastal and the Indian River Glon Lagoon that

61
00:17:31.120 --> 00:17:47.520
septic tanks aren't your best sewage disposal method in the bigger picture of trying to improve the Indian River Lagoon. You can solve that by extending water and sewer lines to properties and then by law creating annexations by agreement. As Eddie said, the alternative would be consigning an

62
00:17:47.520 --> 00:18:03.840
agreement that says when I when it's ripened for annexation, I have to annex. Ripening was the question I had for uh Eddie. There's no sewer uh on this property and there's no sewer on War Eagle Boulevard. If I look at the map,

63
00:18:03.840 --> 00:18:20.480
I'm imagining that there's a sewer line that comes, I guess, from the south and it stops at the subdivisions that are at the bottom of that page uh 16. I suppose because those are very small lots and probably don't have septic tanks. And I suppose that when they develop, they

64
00:18:20.480 --> 00:18:37.760
developed with water and sewer. If there's no line extending beyond that, you'd have to plan that line. So the question I had for Eddie was what does the city's public works department have for their capital improvements program since we know by the fact you can see these spots of resonings and I'm again

65
00:18:37.760 --> 00:18:53.280
supposing they came in the same fashion lot by lot as opposed to categorical resonings on these separated and somewhat non-ontiguous properties. The answer is public works has no 20-year horizon in their plan for extending

66
00:18:53.280 --> 00:19:10.400
sewer lines up Wargill Boulevard. I'm guessing if you're not providing sewer to those lots, there's going to be a reluctancy to go annex properties, which is an alternative city governments have to force annexations. You usually find that happens when you've boxed in a

67
00:19:10.400 --> 00:19:25.600
neighborhood as you see this pattern book doing and you box it into the point where you've already got water and sewer services back to that police and fire uh response and you realize for the best of the citizens in the community you need to annex all those properties that are

68
00:19:25.600 --> 00:19:42.080
otherwise an enclave and city government I believe has the right to do that eventually depending on how you look at the property's continuity. my story about creating a box in the center that's an enclave de facto by process. So my point to this and the commission's

69
00:19:42.080 --> 00:19:57.600
consideration would be in lie of annexation where you continue this pattern which appears to be the pattern that's set that alternative to that agreement would provide the applicant with the water they seek. Their argument is they lost their well, it's polluted

70
00:19:57.600 --> 00:20:13.600
from flooding and they seek central services because of portable water concerns. That can be provided without annexation. You're going to raise the tax base of the city because you're going to get taxes if you annex. But I can't believe with the homestead exemption world that we're looking at

71
00:20:13.600 --> 00:20:30.080
that taxable value coming to the city is going to be negligible if any. And that doesn't off to me offset the potential creation of this peace meal annexation to seek water up that street War Eagle Boulevard until what we create is a de

72
00:20:30.080 --> 00:20:46.559
facto enclave. You can probably see that best illustrated on the property called Parkland Circle, Parkland Place maybe. And you see the two re lots in the middle of unincorporated property. Is water and sewer to that subdivision?

73
00:20:46.559 --> 00:21:02.480
is water to those two lots only. And I can't imagine that a water line would be extended in that culde-sac design to just that one lot and the adjacent properties aren't having central water. If you're looking at a big picture of the city, I would certainly think the

74
00:21:02.480 --> 00:21:18.559
best interest is served by providing uh portable municipal water to residents in the city limits of Titus. That's what cities provide. counties let you have big lots, septic tanks and wells and you grow into the city. So this in my

75
00:21:18.559 --> 00:21:35.039
opinion doesn't really fit the pattern book for annexations. And if an alternative exists, it would be my opinion that the alternative would be better suited for everybody. Better suited for not creating the peace meal annexation where there's no plan in the

76
00:21:35.039 --> 00:21:52.000
next 20 years to extend the sewer line up War Eagle Boulevard. So this repeats itself potentially if all those residents suffer for the same problem that their portable water wells, private wells have subject to deterioration caused by time, caused by flooding or

77
00:21:52.000 --> 00:22:08.960
whatever. So my two bits on here is I wanted I'm glad you introduced that. I was going to ask do you have a alternative and that alternative is better in my opinion than annexation for both parties. That's all I have to say on that. >> Okay. [clears throat] I I I tend to

78
00:22:08.960 --> 00:22:26.159
agree. Before we move off of that, Eddie, do we know are there other agreements, whatever the term is you used, um along any of these houses along War Eagle have that same agreement if they were colored in. And my thought is because of the the

79
00:22:26.159 --> 00:22:42.720
the right to annex, at some point you may hit a tipping point where enough houses along here have an agreement and it does make sense to annex it and potentially put a sewer line in. Do we know is if we do that with this one, will this be the first or are there others already there or we just don't

80
00:22:42.720 --> 00:22:57.919
know? >> There are there [clears throat] are many other properties in the areas surround the unincorporated areas surrounding the city limits that have utility service agreements. I don't have the information as far as War Eagle Boulevard. Um, I don't believe that this would be the

81
00:22:57.919 --> 00:23:12.880
tipping point that would cause that annexation, but it would end up being um a clause in the utility service agreement that if council felt that this was the appropriate time to annex, then they the owner has voluntarily agreed to that in the future.

82
00:23:12.880 --> 00:23:29.679
>> Right. No. Okay, great. Thanks. Um, member Sidler, >> thank you. Um like you said the sewers it's 420 ft away and the city has no plans of building and I kind of had the

83
00:23:29.679 --> 00:23:44.960
same question the surrounding properties did they also suffer um from the flooding is are their wells contaminated have and any of their equipment destroyed and and on the application that's why they're seeking for the water

84
00:23:44.960 --> 00:24:00.480
hookup. My question is what are they using now? >> I would have to let the applicant speak to that. I don't know u maybe bottled water, but uh to answer your question about surrounding property owners, we have not heard from any of the other

85
00:24:00.480 --> 00:24:16.320
surrounding property owners interested in um this process yet. >> Okay. And then my next question is because it is in an area of critical concern, does annexation itself trigger any additional storm water or environmental requirements for or would

86
00:24:16.320 --> 00:24:32.880
those apply only if the properties redevelop because it is in the area of critical concern? >> Right. So this is an existing single family home and the property owner is um is not proposing any new development. So there's nothing um no new development as far as uh what would be reviewed against

87
00:24:32.880 --> 00:24:49.600
the code at this time. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, member Rice, >> was was the applicant given the option to just sign the the water sewer service annexation agreement and not not

88
00:24:49.600 --> 00:25:03.919
actually join the city right now, but sign that agreement? Was that option afforded to him first? >> Uh, no. So, unfortunately, that option does not appear to meet the code that the code requirements. Um, if I can find

89
00:25:03.919 --> 00:25:20.640
the section. One second, please. 21-1. >> So, so, so basically, if you said no, you're saying the only way he can get water is to annex. He can't just sign the water through service agreement. >> He has to apply for the annexation.

90
00:25:20.640 --> 00:25:37.520
>> Correct. The the application for annexation, it doesn't require that the applicant or the homeowner annex into the city. It's on page 15 of 156. Uh the second paragraph in the first staff comment. It says, "The city's code of ordinances section 21-1

91
00:25:37.520 --> 00:25:53.039
requires out of city property owners seeking water, sewer, or reclaimed water service to apply for annexation before service can be considered. So unfortunately, we we can't sign the agreement until the applicant >> Okay. So if he got if he got denied for

92
00:25:53.039 --> 00:26:09.600
the annexation, then he could sign the agreement. [snorts] >> Correct. Okay. Um next thing with area critical concern the only thing that would impact him in the future would be his impervious surface if if he was going to expand any impervious surface on the lot. There are

93
00:26:09.600 --> 00:26:25.600
limitations in the area of critical concern with the amount of impervious surface. >> Correct. >> I mean he he's under the that threshold with this the survey I saw. So that's not a big deal. But why did you pick or did he pick RE versus RR?

94
00:26:25.600 --> 00:26:39.679
And the reason I asked it's non-conforming under RE and it's conforming under RR and the non-conforming meth things in in RE the side setback is 20 ft and a survey shows

95
00:26:39.679 --> 00:26:56.159
us one at six 16.3 for principal structure now is accessory structure meets the code the other thing that the code says for RE is that the minimum house size living area is 2,000 square

96
00:26:56.159 --> 00:27:12.960
feet. The property appraiser uh has them at 1724. So those are two non-com but if he were to be zoned as RR he meets all those standards or within the limits of the RR zoning. The only

97
00:27:12.960 --> 00:27:29.360
difference is you get two units per acre for RR and only one unit per acre for RE. So, is it better to make the house conforming but get two units an acre or keep the density at one

98
00:27:29.360 --> 00:27:48.480
and then you have a non-conforming property? >> Right. Both both of those are are equally plausible scenarios. Uh the reason it was chosen was simply for consistency with the other large uh large lots, single family lots in the area that have the re zoning on page 51.

99
00:27:48.480 --> 00:28:03.760
um because those are the the larger lots. If you go further north, there's RR zoning. So, it could be consistent with the area as well. >> Well, it it could. I mean, going from RE to RR isn't a big leap between those two. I just I think the applicant needs

100
00:28:03.760 --> 00:28:21.279
to understand if he accepts the RE that he has a non-conforming lot, okay? And that that those things more than likely will never be an issue. Okay? But if his house is destroyed and he has to rebuild, he has to move it

101
00:28:21.279 --> 00:28:38.000
to 20 foot setback and he has to build at least 2,000 square feet. Okay? Because that you have to bring it up to code for a non-conforming lot if your if your house is destroyed, I believe 51% or more.

102
00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:53.200
>> So there are several u types of nonconformities in the code. There's non-conforming structure, which if a structure is not meeting a setback, it's a non-conforming structure. >> There's a non-conforming lot. If the lot is undersized or doesn't meet the minimum lot width, right?

103
00:28:53.200 --> 00:29:10.559
>> And there's um non-conforming use. If a single family home is not permitted in the zoning district that applies to the property, then the use cannot be rebuilt if it's damaged or destroyed. So, I was just looking at section uh 34-346 in the code. This is the non-conforming

104
00:29:10.559 --> 00:29:28.720
structures rebuild and repair. Uh there are exemptions for single family structures. Um a structure notwithstanding the above a single family or multif family residential structure which is non-conforming and

105
00:29:28.720 --> 00:29:43.840
that said structure does not meet the minimum necessary minimum square footage requirements or lot and building or setback requirements may be rebuilt or repaired in the same configuration as before damaged even if damage is in excess of 50% of the assessed value. So

106
00:29:43.840 --> 00:29:59.360
there are exemptions for single family and multif family structures under 34 346. >> Is the exemption automatic or or does he have to apply for an exemption >> under that scenario? >> Uh so there's no there's no permit or

107
00:29:59.360 --> 00:30:14.159
request for that. It would just be reviewed based on that code. >> It's a staff review, >> right? At that point, if you came in for a building permit to rebuild exact same footprint, staff could say you're exempt under this code. >> Correct.

108
00:30:14.159 --> 00:30:29.520
>> Okay, that helps. Okay, thank you. So, um, got member GRA's light, but real quick before we move off that, I'm just curious on if we go the other way with the utility service agreement and there's the

109
00:30:29.520 --> 00:30:46.000
annexation clause and the city chooses to do that, is it administratively reszoned as part of that? And and then what's it administratively reszone to? Since there's discussion about RR versus

110
00:30:46.000 --> 00:31:01.279
RE. >> Sure. So, in that case, if the clause is being acted upon by city council, the applicant, the homeowner doesn't need to come forward or pay an application fee. They've already signed off that they agree to this process. And so, city staff will just initiate it and bring it

111
00:31:01.279 --> 00:31:18.399
before PNZ and council for approval. as far as which zoning districts uh staff would look at consistency, look at uh lot sizes and standards and and propose something, propose a specific zoning district and a future land use uh district designation. Um but of course

112
00:31:18.399 --> 00:31:34.960
that's open to discussion at P&Z and council as well. >> Okay, great. Thank you, member Karan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um a couple of things on Mr. Rice's comment um and your response about it seemed similar that was the recommendation for RE or RE in

113
00:31:34.960 --> 00:31:51.360
lie of RR but if you use the DMZ is War Eagle Boulevard RR is the predominant zoning that's changed along the east side of that boulevard. So it would certainly be arguable to me that RR, which would be more compatible with the existing structures, would be more

114
00:31:51.360 --> 00:32:08.799
consistent with what's along the street if along the street is east of War Eagle Boulevard. The flag lotions that exist west of War Eagle look to be what they are, flag lots and estate homes and unincorporated county. Um, so certainly

115
00:32:08.799 --> 00:32:25.440
I think you're on line for what zoning would fit best or eliminate potential nonconformities. Whether you pick one or the other is matter of opinion probably rather than any real tangible evident thing you can come up with [snorts] to the uh comment that I had regarding the

116
00:32:25.440 --> 00:32:42.240
agreement being signed as opposed to annexation. Uh it accomplishes the goal for both parties. The city provides services, revenue, and the applicant is receiving services, portable water. When and if

117
00:32:42.240 --> 00:33:00.000
the county or city ever agree to uh extend the sewer line and then create sewer connectivity, I think there's rules of budding sewer availability that makes annexations potential and makes services sign those agreements. You have

118
00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:15.279
to hook up and you have to sign this agreement. I've seen that done before where you don't have the continuity. For example, you extend the sewer line tomorrow and you don't have the ability to annex any of those properties that aren't touching another city limit

119
00:33:15.279 --> 00:33:32.799
boundary or across the rideway. You can see many examples in that scenario. If the water and sewer were available to those sites, is there law in the state that says the city can require abudding property owners to connect

120
00:33:32.799 --> 00:33:48.720
regardless [clears throat] of annexation. >> I'm not familiar with the statutes off the top of my head, but I can look into it >> if you can because my my my recognition in the past was if the water and sewer became available as public health considerations to hook you up,

121
00:33:48.720 --> 00:34:04.320
not annexation issues. you annex the property at a timely manner which would be when you have contiguous property boundaries or you do a categorical annexation because you can meet the pattern book for an enclave that's why I went through that exercise in enclaves

122
00:34:04.320 --> 00:34:20.879
just to try to explain it and in the case of experience it was called the donut hole of St. cloud and the city went through forced annexations because they provided services. Some residents had signed service agreements, some had not, but they got annexed nonetheless

123
00:34:20.879 --> 00:34:37.520
because the city had a right to do that. That's what someday will happen here too, the way this pattern book looks. Uh that's why I spoke my opinion in the case of the agreement. I think it benefits everybody better than annexation. Back to my story about

124
00:34:37.520 --> 00:34:56.240
services. It's it's something that to think about when you consider what you might do on the vote. Thank you. >> Member Rice, your lights on. Did you have something else? >> I'm sorry. >> Your lights on. Did you have >> All right. Uh seeing no more uh

125
00:34:56.240 --> 00:35:13.359
questions up here, I'll open the public hearing. Uh do we have a card or the applicant here? >> I have no cards. >> Okay. Um then I will close the public hearing. Uh bringing it back here. Um someone

126
00:35:13.359 --> 00:35:29.280
care to make a motion. So I guess based off what we said if if if we were leaning toward the service agreement, we should den have a motion for denial, right? >> Correct. You you would recommend denial

127
00:35:29.280 --> 00:35:45.760
of the annexation. um if you wanted to go ahead and recommend denial of uh or I guess it would make the other two uh motions moot at that point for the future land use and the zoning. So member Ice or sorry

128
00:35:45.760 --> 00:36:01.280
>> by denying it it by no means hinders them from the annexation agreement and still getting water. Is that a correct statement? >> That's correct. the applicant could still complete a utility service agreement that would have an a

129
00:36:01.280 --> 00:36:18.320
pre-anexation clause in it where signing over the rights to voluntary annex at a future date whenever the city chooses and that would give them the utilities that they are seeking. >> I'm assuming we can actually make that part of the motion of denial, right? That because the reason we're denying

130
00:36:18.320 --> 00:36:33.200
it, I guess we'd say that anyway. So, we'll we can say that. Um, member Graham, >> that's the exact question that I had was whether or not if we denied this uh if it's going to be more or less automatic for the uh applicant to still be able to

131
00:36:33.200 --> 00:36:49.359
have access to water. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. [clears throat] >> Member Gar. >> Thank you again, Mr. It just dawned on me as I mentioned about the donnut hole >> having worked for unincorporated

132
00:36:49.359 --> 00:37:05.440
governments and cities that process what you're referring to where you have to request annexation in order to be allowed to sign the service agreement in lie of annexation. If you were a county government and you didn't want cities to absorb your

133
00:37:05.440 --> 00:37:22.240
properties, you wouldn't get notice on service agreement signatures, but you get notice on annexation agreement annexation requests. So, in this instance, if I'm incorrect, please correct me. the county would be notified of the potential loss of their property from the jurisdiction because of

134
00:37:22.240 --> 00:37:38.240
annexation. But if all that stood between providing water in the case of sewer would be to sign with the city an agreement to annex when you were available, the county wouldn't be advised of that service agreement.

135
00:37:38.240 --> 00:37:52.800
>> So I would agree with the first part of that as far as this request included an annexation. So, Bvard County was notified that this is being considered. As far as whether a pre-anexation clause, if the city does at a later date, let's say there's a utility

136
00:37:52.800 --> 00:38:08.240
service agreement in place that um agrees to allow the city to annex the property at a future date. I am not clear on whether there are notification requirements for the county at that time. Um, I would imagine so because it

137
00:38:08.240 --> 00:38:25.040
would uh we would still bring it before P&Z and council and so I feel I imagine we would follow the same process as we did with this application tonight. U but it that's a possib that's that's kind of where I was going was it makes sense to me even though it isn't sensible. It

138
00:38:25.040 --> 00:38:41.520
makes sense because it's a deacto way of letting the county recognize you're seeking annexation. That's important for the logistics of comprehensive planning and all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. But if it was the way that the other agency I referred to earlier created a donut

139
00:38:41.520 --> 00:38:58.320
hole, everybody that came in had to sign an annexation agreement and the county was never aware of that and they created this huge donut hole in the city jurisdiction which was providing services but it was in the unincorporated county. So in this instance, a city was receiving the

140
00:38:58.320 --> 00:39:14.800
revenue generation from water and sewer, service fees and tap fees and all that, but not providing any other service. And the county had to respond to this donnut hole like the Vatican is to Rome whenever they had a call for service. But it was a difficulty that could have

141
00:39:14.800 --> 00:39:30.480
been eliminated had everybody recognize annexations, which the way this works makes sense if this was a county. But since the city's got it, maybe they worked a a agreement out with the county years ago that said, "We won't let that happen because we'll make you try to

142
00:39:30.480 --> 00:39:46.960
annex, but if you can't annex, you still can sign this agreement and get water and sewer." But everybody was advised of where we're headed. So, in that vein, it makes real good sense to me why you would ask but be turned down but still be able to get the water servicing you. Does that make sense to anybody what I

143
00:39:46.960 --> 00:40:02.400
just tried to describe? >> Hopefully, it does a little bit. >> Did you have something else? >> Eddie, uh, a a perfect example of what he's speaking of is an imperial estates. There's two streets there basically almost in the middle of Imperial Estates

144
00:40:02.400 --> 00:40:20.000
that are in the county. So, my question would be is um these houses have both water and sewer on them, but they're still in the county because I' I have to pull county permits whenever we do work there. What makes this automatic if uh

145
00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:36.160
if you're contiguous or not that they uh don't forever keep at the county? What makes it bring it into Titusville? Because I'm using that as an example. surrounded by Titusville on all sides. There's two streets. It's Rebain County.

146
00:40:36.160 --> 00:40:52.240
>> Yes, I'm familiar with the area that you're speaking about. Um that would be considered an enclave. So the donut hole example, a portion of unincorporated Bvard County that is entirely surrounded by uh the city limits and that's what the current Florida state statutes uh

147
00:40:52.240 --> 00:41:09.119
pro prohibit. when we annex when the city annexes property, we are not able to use the voluntary annexation process in a way that would create any new enclaves. Um, this request does not appear to create an enclave. Uh, but over time as

148
00:41:09.119 --> 00:41:26.000
more and more properties uh either annex or are subject to a pre-anexation agreement that could eventually uh need to be evaluated. The I think your question is how do we prevent that from happening?

149
00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:43.280
>> The question is if this is automatic um if you want it to be why hasn't the city of Titusville annex those two streets? Why does it remain the county? [snorts] >> Because that's an old neighborhood and before annexation agreements. I mean

150
00:41:43.280 --> 00:41:59.760
that would that would be my gut instinct of why that happened. They got water and sewer. There was no annexation agreements in place and they didn't voluntarily want to come into the city. >> I actually I actually

151
00:41:59.760 --> 00:42:16.319
seem to recall that there comes a point where forced annexation may be required of cities because you have to eliminate >> enclaves because that service problem is always there. And in the case of Imperial estates, it may sound like nobody ever got around to doing what

152
00:42:16.319 --> 00:42:33.520
they could otherwise do, is force annexation. Because if they're completely surrounded and provided with those services that they're provided, annexation could be done. But most people don't want to do that in a local government level because the word forced annexation or involuntary

153
00:42:33.520 --> 00:42:50.240
annexation. Uh doesn't sound good. It's like grid iron versus baseball field. >> Remember we're facing. So that neighborhood that you guys are talk or those streets that you're talking about, that was my first house was was was there on on Scotty Drive and um I was in

154
00:42:50.240 --> 00:43:07.440
Port St. John. My dogs got loose one night and uh the neighbors called the police on my dogs being loose and I just happened to be in Port St. John with sheriff deputies who had to respond to my house in Titusville. So I got behind the sheriff's deputies and we left Port

155
00:43:07.440 --> 00:43:23.280
St. John came to my house because the city didn't respond there. The county did. Same thing on trash day. The county uh you'd see trash trucks go down on the street every day and pick up the streets in front of Scotty Drive, but not on Scotty Drive until the uh county came

156
00:43:23.280 --> 00:43:37.280
around and picked up on. So, so I mean so, so there is a lot of minutiae that happens when you have these enclaves, but as you said, this is not creating an enclave. Um but it gives the appearance of one although it's not

157
00:43:37.280 --> 00:43:54.319
creating one. Um so yeah I but but anyways that was my two cents. >> Member Graham [snorts] >> thanks for all the input from everybody. Uh with that being said I'd like to make a motion of uh >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah.

158
00:43:54.319 --> 00:44:15.040
>> We now have a card from the applicant. Oops. Uh I'll reopen the public hearing. Good evening. I appreciate the technical lesson I got in home ownership. I didn't quite expect this. I I had read the recommendation of the board and I thought this was going to be a

159
00:44:15.040 --> 00:44:31.119
no-brainer. I'd be home for dinner in no time at all. Uh I u like I said, quite an education about the zoning and the good work that you're doing. I really do appreciate the thoreness of the process and uh thank you. It would have been a very dramatic presentation if id have

160
00:44:31.119 --> 00:44:47.760
brought you a glass of water though. Can't even let the water sit in the toilet without it staining. You uh it is unlivable. And this area has been evolving over time. Uh the great flood of September uh finally put it over the edge and the well field was uh pretty

161
00:44:47.760 --> 00:45:03.440
much ruined. It's no longer potable water at any shape or form. A lot of the trees that were old growth trees have been uh uh died in this same channel that's behind War Eagle there. So, there's been a dramatic change environmentally. I'm not sure if it's

162
00:45:03.440 --> 00:45:19.359
the flooding or what the case is, but I am stuck with uh a property that my wife and I were planning to use for our retirement with undrinkable water. So, that's the nature of the request and uh it it's pretty dramatic for us, of course, and and very technical for you

163
00:45:19.359 --> 00:45:35.760
guys and I I appreciate that very much. But I'm hoping is and the only reason I fill out a card, I heard the word denial and I said, "Well, I better say something if uh if it doesn't work out." Uh uh from my perspective uh I I would think that a recommendation uh instead

164
00:45:35.760 --> 00:45:52.880
of denial would say uh we approve but we understand it would not be in the best interest of the city to approve uh the annexation. Uh that gives it forward momentum instead of being a negative. It turns it into a positive. I have no desire to be annexed anymore than you guys want me to be annexed. Would like that water to be hooked up though. That

165
00:45:52.880 --> 00:46:08.000
is for sure. So I thank you for your time and appreciate your consideration. >> All right. Well, I I think don't fret about our terminology. We're kind of stuck with doing it a particular way. Um, and city attorneys here and we'll make sure, but that's our goal to get

166
00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:23.599
you clean water as well. So, member Rice, >> you you understand that denial doesn't say we're denying you water? No. >> Okay. We're just a good listener. >> We're sending you basically down a different path is what we're doing. >> I get it. And my next door neighbor who

167
00:46:23.599 --> 00:46:39.440
has city water uh turned me on to this process. in the first place and he he it was denied the annexation by the council though at that time and then was given given an opportunity to get the city water. So I am aware of the the process. It's just better to have forward

168
00:46:39.440 --> 00:46:55.920
momentum than a negative right in front of you. That's what my suggestion is. So I appreciate that. >> So you want to be annexed? >> Yeah. I don't need to be annexed water. >> He wants water. >> Okay. >> Appreciate your time though. Thank you. >> Right. >> Yeah. That's That's where I was going.

169
00:46:55.920 --> 00:47:12.160
Go right ahead. >> One sec. Hey, sir. >> Just to be honest with you, right, a denial actually gives you just what you asked for. >> I understand. >> Okay. Okay. >> The ones that are going to be doing the final denying will be the city council. >> Yes.

170
00:47:12.160 --> 00:47:31.200
>> But it gives it the exact thing that you asked for. No annexation and yet still clean water. >> All right. >> And you could just call the sheriff's department for the dogs. [laughter] All right, Member Graham, sorry we got interrupted. If you want to go ahead and finish your motion.

171
00:47:31.200 --> 00:47:48.640
>> Uh, I would like to um submit a motion of denial based on not to uh intentionally create another enclave with the um understanding that the applicant will have a direct avenue to

172
00:47:48.640 --> 00:48:02.960
be able to get clean water for him and his wife. I'll second that. >> Member I seconds. Uh, roll. Any comments before we vote? Seeing none, uh, roll call, please.

173
00:48:02.960 --> 00:48:23.680
>> Secretary FA. >> I think it's yes to deny. >> Yes. >> Member Rice. >> Yes. >> Member Graham? >> Yes. >> Member Sidler? >> I'm an alternate. Am I voting on this? I don't think so. >> I'm not voting on this. >> No, sorry. >> Thank you.

174
00:48:23.680 --> 00:48:40.023
>> Uh, member McDaniel, >> yes. Vice Chairman Scoly, >> yes. >> Member Gerard, >> yes. >> Chairman Eton, >> yes. >> All right. We unanimously denied you, which is normally not a good thing, but I think it is a good thing.

175
00:48:40.023 --> 00:49:09.520
[laughter] >> Well, hopefully you get clean water soon here. So, uh, uh, moving on at [clears throat] 9B. >> All right. I'm assuming since the uh, applicant's name is familiar to this board uh, and he's moving to the

176
00:49:09.520 --> 00:49:29.119
audience that he's uh, re recusing himself of this. Is that correct, Member Rice? >> Yes. Woody Rice 505 Indian River Avenue, Titusville, Florida. And I think I don't know if it got passed out, but I filled out form 8B, uh, which is a conflict of

177
00:49:29.119 --> 00:49:46.079
interest form. Um, representing my client. I'm a paid consultant as a civil engineer, and this was part of the duties I had in my contract with them. So, I have financial gain from this topic tonight. So, member

178
00:49:46.079 --> 00:50:01.280
Seedler, since you got denied voting on that last one, we're going to let you vote on this one. >> Thank you, chairman. >> All right, Eddie, you want to take it away? >> Or whoever. Sorry. >> Sorry. Uh Christy Anderson, senior

179
00:50:01.280 --> 00:50:18.720
planner. Um the applicant is Mr. Woody Rice with Epic Consultants of Florida on behalf of the [clears throat] National Association of Chiefs of Police Incorporated and Riverfront Center Incorporated is requesting to amend the development order for the vector space development of regional impact, also known as Riverfront Center, by

180
00:50:18.720 --> 00:50:40.079
allocating 124 hotel rooms to tract A5 of the master plan having Bard County personal ID number 23-35-01-25-8.3. The Riverfront Center master plan is provided on page 77 of your packets. The purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a hotel west of the

181
00:50:40.079 --> 00:50:55.839
former Police Hall of Fame Museum. The applicant proposed concept plans are provided starting on page 89 of the packets. The state's developments of regional impact uh DRRI program reviewed a large developments to address regional

182
00:50:55.839 --> 00:51:12.640
impacts. Changes to the DRRI were originally reviewed by the state and regional agencies before city approval, but law changed in 2010, 2011, and 2018, eliminating that review for most amendments. The original vector space development order was issued by Bvard

183
00:51:12.640 --> 00:51:28.480
County, the East Coast Central Regional Planning Council, and the state. The city approved the an approved an annexation agreement in 1988 that made the city and the property owner subject to the original development order. Although the DRA DRRI has uh

184
00:51:28.480 --> 00:51:44.000
subsequently expired, the development order remains in effect. Any amendments are now reviewed and approved by the local government under its normal development review process. The proposed conversion methodology is consistent with a prior conversion approval in 2007

185
00:51:44.000 --> 00:52:00.000
and in 2019. The proposed hotel rooms either need to be added to the existing total alloc allocation for the entire uh development converted from the existing commercial office and or industrial uses or reallocated from another parcel.

186
00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:16.800
The applicant is requesting the transfer of 28 hotel rooms from from tracks F3 through 4 and will also convert uh 71,352 ft of industrial uses into 96 hotel rooms for a total of 124 hotel rooms

187
00:52:16.800 --> 00:52:35.040
allocated to tract A5. The DRRA currently has a total allocation of 770 hotel rooms for track G, F, D, and M. Track G is allocated for 110 rooms which is uh the Hyatt Place built in 2020. Uh parcel track D is

188
00:52:35.040 --> 00:52:52.640
allocated for 160 hotel rooms uh which is Courtyard by Marriott built in 2022. Uh tract M and F are allocated for 250 future hotel rooms each and note hotel rooms are currently allocated for the subject tract. A chart summarizing the

189
00:52:52.640 --> 00:53:08.319
cumulative development uh within the riverfront center is provided on page 62 of your packets. Uh and staff is respective respectfully requesting that you consider the request and provide a recommendation to city council for the transfer of 28 hotel rooms from tract F3

190
00:53:08.319 --> 00:53:26.480
and 4 and the conversion of 7 71,352 square ft of industrial uses into 96 hotel rooms for a total allocation of 124 hotel rooms to tract A5. Uh, this is scheduled for public hearing by city council on August 11th and I'd be happy

191
00:53:26.480 --> 00:53:42.160
to take any questions from staff at this time. [snorts] >> Member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Christy, two questions. Background shows vector space DRI was developed 1986 in the county and then I

192
00:53:42.160 --> 00:53:58.240
presume annexed to the city. Does the city have more than this DRRi? Do they have DRIs plurally? >> Uh I believe that this was the only one that the city currently has and it's definitely a little bit different than

193
00:53:58.240 --> 00:54:14.319
most of our master plan. So have a history. >> Yeah, I suspect it as such. And the qu second question is that u and based on my experience so I apologize. uh once the state allowed DRIs to determine themselves as I want out of the DRRI

194
00:54:14.319 --> 00:54:30.960
world uh and there were a lot of developments of regional impact that chose for good reason on their interest to go ahead and ask for the DRRI to be dissolved. You mentioned earlier that it's um not voided but you referred to it expired. I don't know what the

195
00:54:30.960 --> 00:54:46.400
terminology you used. Um, yeah, I believe that through historical documents that's kind of how it was referenced as the DR the the previous DRRI was is expired and then the the the the development order is the governing

196
00:54:46.400 --> 00:55:02.880
uh tool for for the development. >> So my suspicion again would be that the annexation at the time absorb the DRRI and with it absorb the development order. >> Correct. And my assumption is the development order prevails regardless of the status of the DRRI. From my

197
00:55:02.880 --> 00:55:19.599
experience, if you ask to terminate a DRRI, most governments upon the request would then been asked to incorporate the development order, which then serves frankly as a zoning code. It says this for that. It's flexible and you can move A to B and B to C if it doesn't exceed

198
00:55:19.599 --> 00:55:35.599
D, which is what the applicants done. And I thank you and staff whoever prepared the summary uh uh table because it's real easy to see what's being requested and what the history was. A very useful table. So my point and question is has anybody

199
00:55:35.599 --> 00:55:51.040
asked the provocative question if it's a DRRI that isn't in effect anymore? It isn't a DRRI. It might be formally known as a DRRI but the relevancy of the DRRI wouldn't be there. the development order

200
00:55:51.040 --> 00:56:06.880
would be and the zoning that's in effect would be. So I just questioned it gets confusing to talk about all this being done to a DRRI that begins with it's not in effect. And so my question is what is the city's approach to the one and only

201
00:56:06.880 --> 00:56:24.000
DRRI they have is to maybe the answer is it isn't in effect. So it really is not other than the history a DRRI and eventually perhaps development request will reflect what it is is a zoning of this and a development order of that and

202
00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:40.960
that's what regulates it and just kind of skip to the chase that it used to be a DRRi. That's my question and comment. >> Um I I I believe that statement would be correct. Uh it was once a DRRI, no longer is, and now it's subsequent to uh

203
00:56:40.960 --> 00:57:02.240
the annexation agreement and um city zoning. >> Correct. Uh seeing no other lights, I will open the public hearing. >> I'll open the public hearing.

204
00:57:02.240 --> 00:57:19.280
uh Woody Rice 505 Indian River Avenue, Tyville, Florida. And to answer your question, it was a condition of the annexation that sort of ties the hand of staff saying we need to follow all the uses, all the requirements, all the

205
00:57:19.280 --> 00:57:33.920
landscaping, everything that's in that DRRi because that's what was agreed upon during annexation to the city. I think that's that's really the bottom line. >> So it's kind of redundant. >> Yeah. So, um, basically really what we're here

206
00:57:33.920 --> 00:57:51.280
tonight u for is just allocating room nights and shifting them from other properties to this property. In the original DRRI when it was planned out, I don't know why they did this, but they basically said you can have hotels on this lot and this lot and that lot, but

207
00:57:51.280 --> 00:58:07.280
none of the other ones. Okay? So, it sort of tied the hand. Well, now you look forward 30 years and no things times change. So they tied the DRRi and it wasn't where the market wanted

208
00:58:07.280 --> 00:58:24.480
the hotels. Okay. And in fact, there's been three hotels that have gone through thiso this process just because they didn't have that right on their property. So, we had to one get River Center to agree uh that the the POA that

209
00:58:24.480 --> 00:58:40.720
we could do this and and allocate hotel rooms from other lots or do the transfer of industrial. One of the lot owners agreed to to only transfer 28 rooms. So, that means we had to to do the transition of industrial for the other

210
00:58:40.720 --> 00:58:57.599
96 to be able to go to lot A5. So, that's really it. All other codes, all other regulations of the city of Titusville and the DRRi will be followed. Um, it's just about hotel room nights and uh there's a lot of

211
00:58:57.599 --> 00:59:12.799
information in your packet. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have, but I'd appreciate your support. >> Thank you. Any other cards? >> No, sir. >> All right. With that, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the

212
00:59:12.799 --> 00:59:29.359
commission. Uh I don't see any up member Troutman. >> Uh question. Do we have anything that's going to track I guess these rooms that are going to be taken from partials if approved and all this that so like later

213
00:59:29.359 --> 00:59:45.200
on someone doesn't come back to those partials and say, "Hey, we want to grab up like kind of something that we saw down here a little." >> Yes. So, um that that chart that's referenced previously is part of an exhibit tied to the resolution. In addition, the development's required to

214
00:59:45.200 --> 01:00:01.760
submit a bianual report with all updates of construction on within the development. So that would be noted. Um and then that master plan currently would be also updated on that plan as well, noting that change. >> Thank you,

215
01:00:01.760 --> 01:00:17.920
>> member [snorts] Sidner. >> Thank you. The um engineering review stated that converting the 71,352 ft of industrial entitlement to the 96 hotel rooms, it resulted in approximately 226

216
01:00:17.920 --> 01:00:33.520
additional daily trips and they recommended considering a reduction factor of 2.5 or 2.8. Um did that did you guys accept that? Did you what happened with that? Um, so the original request I believe was around 28,000 square ft of industrial

217
01:00:33.520 --> 01:00:50.000
space. After review by the city engineer, he determined that the increase in daily trips uh determined a higher uh uh um transition factor. Um so rather than it being 28,000 ft of

218
01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:06.960
industrial the um based on the traffic impacts from industrial uses to hotel um that would be consistent with the um proposed change. So, um, the the city engineer did determine that that 71,352

219
01:01:06.960 --> 01:01:22.160
ft was a more appropriate number to have a like forlike change. >> And the 71,000 of industrial was came from a different piece of property. Is I'm It's like we're borrowing. Did we

220
01:01:22.160 --> 01:01:37.680
borrow from industrial or where did we convert that from? Um so the like uh as the applicant stated so there are specific tracks on the master plan that were allocated for hotels and then the rest of the development is allocated for

221
01:01:37.680 --> 01:01:54.640
industrial office and commercial. So, and kind of piggybacking on James here when he said, "So, we have 28 rooms from this parcel, so that gets reduced and will they come back later and ask for an increase. This 71,000 ft of industrial

222
01:01:54.640 --> 01:02:10.079
that came off of this parcel that was borrowed and we're >> so the 71,000 is from the total total development. It wasn't specifically taken from another parcel." >> So, how do we allocate or determine where the 71,000? So, somebody in track

223
01:02:10.079 --> 01:02:26.559
A wants, well, they don't want any of the 71,000 to come out of their their bucket. Can they push it over to somebody else's bucket? How do we >> Yeah, it's my understanding that they have more industrial uh uses than they would ever need to develop. So, they

224
01:02:26.559 --> 01:02:44.559
have an an excess of industrial square footage allocated to the original development. >> Okay. So, um, >> and I do really appreciate this cumulative develop in Riverfront that the the table that you gave us on page 62. I have a question on how did the

225
01:02:44.559 --> 01:03:00.559
room growth occur. There was the original DRRi and I know now the DRRi is expired so I get that. But it it maintained 500 rooms until 2004. And then it was amended in 2007 and they

226
01:03:00.559 --> 01:03:16.799
added 110 rooms. And then in 2019 they added another 160 rooms. We're up to 770 rooms. Um and then we had some development. So it's reduced down. We have 508 rooms remaining.

227
01:03:16.799 --> 01:03:35.200
How did we add in an area that didn't have development and we just >> So those changes were made through this same process. >> Same process. >> Yes. >> To where they were requesting the same type of request to allocate hotels to a

228
01:03:35.200 --> 01:03:51.119
certain tract within the development. >> Yeah. Yeah, if I can if I can add real quick just in the rows above that, the industrial row and the office row, if you look where uh let's say amended DRRi 2007, that column, um there's 110 rooms

229
01:03:51.119 --> 01:04:13.039
that were added in the hotel row, but in the industrial and office rows above that, there are some uh areas that have been subtracted from the overall pool for the DRRi. Thank you. >> Thank you. I see no more questions for staff. Uh,

230
01:04:13.039 --> 01:04:33.359
does anyone care to make a motion? >> Member FA. >> I recommend approval of the master plan uh MP1-2026 as requested. >> Member Graham. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay, we have a motion, a second. Any

231
01:04:33.359 --> 01:04:50.720
comments uh before seeing none? Roll call, please. >> Member Graham, >> yes. >> Secretary Fen, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Scoly, >> yes. >> Member Gerard, >> yes. >> Member Sidler, >> yes. >> Member McDaniel,

232
01:04:50.720 --> 01:05:11.359
>> yes. >> Chairman Eton, >> yes. Passes unanimously. Um, moving on. I guess member Rice is coming back to the podium. Uh, thank you for your service, members Sidler. Um,

233
01:05:11.359 --> 01:05:26.400
item 9 C, please. Yes, sir. Item 9 C is the administrative approval of plats and replats ordinance. This is page 128 of 156. Chapter 2025 164 of the Laws of Florida

234
01:05:26.400 --> 01:05:43.839
amends section 177041 Florida statutes in connection with how local governments review and approve plat. Specifically, the bill requires local governments to review, process, and approve plat uh submitts without action or approval

235
01:05:43.839 --> 01:06:00.799
by the governing body through an administrative authority and official designation by ordinance. The administrative authority must be a department, division or other agency of the local government and includes an administrative officer or employee which may be a city administrator or manager

236
01:06:00.799 --> 01:06:16.559
or assistant or deputy there too or other high-ranking city department or division director with direct or indirect oversight responsibility for the local government's land development regulations, housing, utilities or public works programs. The effective

237
01:06:16.559 --> 01:06:32.160
date of the new law was July 1st, 2025. Enclosed for review is chapter 2025 164 and the Senate bill analysis report. City council will uh hold a public hearing on this item on August 25th, 2026.

238
01:06:32.160 --> 01:06:48.799
Um on page 130 is the beginning of that bill analysis that kind of summarizes u what what's changed here. And if you'll scroll down to page 132, uh there's a section describing the effects of the proposed changes. And it

239
01:06:48.799 --> 01:07:04.079
reads, "The bill amends uh section 177 Florida statutes in connection with how local governments review and approve plat. Specifically, the bill requires local governments to review, process, and approve plats or replat submittals without action or approval by the governing body through an administrative

240
01:07:04.079 --> 01:07:21.119
authority and official designation by ordinance. The administrative authority must be uh the same titles that were described earlier. Highranking officials, department heads under the bill. The authority must provide written notice and response to a submittal within 7 days acknowledging receipt.

241
01:07:21.119 --> 01:07:36.559
Identify any missing documents or information required and providing information regarding the approval process, including requirements and time frames. Unless the applicant requests an extension, the authority must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the submitt within the time frame identified

242
01:07:36.559 --> 01:07:52.079
in the initial written notice. A denial must be accompanied by an explanation of why the submitt was denied, specifically citing unmet requirements. The authority or local government may not request or require an extension of time. And the bill took effect July 1st,

243
01:07:52.079 --> 01:08:06.079
2025. Um so on page 140 we have uh the draft ordinance striking where plats are reviewed by uh planning and zoning and

244
01:08:06.079 --> 01:08:22.319
city council and will um moving forward will be reviewed administratively consistent with state law. This is a new law and we are changing the code to be consistent with that state law. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you.

245
01:08:22.319 --> 01:08:38.960
Um, anyone have any questions for staff? Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this may take a few minutes and I apologize. I wrote an email earlier to staff with some questions that are solely based on my experience and my professional capacity. and they're going to be about

246
01:08:38.960 --> 01:08:56.159
the word platt as shown and illustrated in the summary on page 130 where it says in a in Florida law plat quote unquote is a map or delineated representation of the subdivision of lands period. It goes on to say it is a complete and exact

247
01:08:56.159 --> 01:09:13.040
representation of the subdivision and other information in compliance with state law and any local ordinance. I believe you may recall on many occasions I've put a point forward that the word plan as connotated in local

248
01:09:13.040 --> 01:09:29.759
government such as preliminary plan or the word sketch preliminary sketch uh preliminary subdivision plan are not interchangeable with a plat. My experience, my opinion is that the plat

249
01:09:29.759 --> 01:09:48.080
is a very prescribed and very exacting, very complex and very regulated document. It's regulated by many facets to the size of the paper to the dimensions of the boundary to the dedication blocks language and etc.

250
01:09:48.080 --> 01:10:03.920
Those matters are technical and left best to surveyors and engineers as somebody referred to me earlier in life as a bureaucrat, not bureaucrats. Um, wherein you might know that over time we've seen plans come in here,

251
01:10:03.920 --> 01:10:19.280
preliminary subdivision plans. I've made a point on several occasions where it appeared to me that good design considerations where elongated residential streets should be eliminated wherever practical that impasses should be placed so you don't have long

252
01:10:19.280 --> 01:10:35.679
straightaways. Some members weren't here when I brought up those points and I've brought them up on several subdivisions where the result was assuming that it got approved that way. they would amend that plan to create a dog leg in the road or improve a culde-sac or connect

253
01:10:35.679 --> 01:10:51.360
to a culde-sac. Several of those along my history here with the city in my capacity I've made comments to. None of those comments were comments that would have come from the technical review of a platt where the state law

254
01:10:51.360 --> 01:11:07.040
requires it to exhibit certain um criteria exacting performance of that or it doesn't and can't be recorded and then the recordation of it and you've got a subdivision and you sell lots. But when you start with an egg and you jump

255
01:11:07.040 --> 01:11:24.640
to the chicken feathers, you've missed an integral part, the hatchling. You miss being able to design a community. How you feel and whether in some cases technical standards may be considered, but common

256
01:11:24.640 --> 01:11:41.600
sense practices prevail. And so this commission, city council inclusive, may find need to put conditions on subdivisions that eliminate those concerns. Perhaps it leads to one day changing the code so you incorporate standards so you don't have to continue

257
01:11:41.600 --> 01:11:59.440
conditioning approvals to something that can be codified. That's the end of my story. My point is I when I read this statute being prepared for adoption and signature watched it morph through the legislature knowing forthright that a

258
01:11:59.440 --> 01:12:14.400
lot of the legislation is coming to eliminate local government authority. This commission's had many discussions about that. You've seen one after the other topple the apple cart down where they've changed local government laws. This is one more example to eliminate

259
01:12:14.400 --> 01:12:31.360
any local government review. And in this instance of a plat I myself didn't read the proposed statutes interation generation and the adoption and the signature as eliminating the

260
01:12:31.360 --> 01:12:49.440
review of plans not plat. So on one hand I agree the statute makes sense because I've seen that final instrument be something that gets discussed and when you tell a surveyor and we have a engineer on the board too that when you

261
01:12:49.440 --> 01:13:05.360
tell an engineer we just want you to change that culde-sac bend it right 20 feet and it's like I have to re-engineer the whole site and you cost me a lot of trouble for no good reason. I completely agree with that at that late stage. That's a plat. You come here with a

262
01:13:05.360 --> 01:13:20.719
document ready to record and get signatures and somebody says, "Oh, but I need to change." Too late. That's where the statute aimed at. but to read the statute that it eliminates total review of any aspect of any kind of sketch or

263
01:13:20.719 --> 01:13:38.000
plan that local government for good reason and I believe the state government would agree that we don't want conditions whereby you impact people adversely where perhaps design consideration should reduce that impact. You've seen it where you might say, "We

264
01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:53.520
want you to have a larger backyard on these lots because those adjacent lots have closer proximity. So, we need your lots on this street to be a little bigger." And you tell that to the engineer of record on the preliminary plan and he makes an amendment. It's not

265
01:13:53.520 --> 01:14:09.520
costly. Change a few descriptions and it out it comes. It's illustrated and then you engineer it. Then you bring the final subdivision plat in for signature. That's the eb and flow I understood when I read what the statute started with,

266
01:14:09.520 --> 01:14:25.280
what the intention was. And I have to close by saying opinions, as they say, are like noses. I'm neither an engineer nor an attorney nor a surveyor, but I can watch what happens and read between lines and also read the lines. And I just do not agree that the

267
01:14:25.280 --> 01:14:41.840
categoralization of removing local government review included even plans that emanate from conceptual colors, residential yellow, commercial red, and then it goes into tracking corners and lots and squares and roads that illustrate where they're

268
01:14:41.840 --> 01:14:58.400
going. All in that early phase of development where a preliminary subdivision plan exists. I don't myself agree with the changes proposed. I don't myself my opinion agree that that was what was intended and I have a question that may need to

269
01:14:58.400 --> 01:15:16.000
be researched as to what have the other uh 62 counties and all the cities therein done by handling this? Is there any kind of barometer out there? how all governments have thrown away any advisory commission committee review

270
01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:32.239
thrown the baby out with the bathwater and illustrated this to be no review of anything just bring us the plat the administrator says it's good and go down the road that's one question the second question is later in this and I've made this comment also and I apologize

271
01:15:32.239 --> 01:15:48.719
there's a requirement in here in which the administrators got has to review the deed of restrictions and the covenants that affect private property and the rights within that property private private property covenant area.

272
01:15:48.719 --> 01:16:05.360
I can't imagine how an administrator put myself in those shoes. I would read a covenant and it might say something like all houses in my subdivision will be green. The good covenant. We all want symmetry.

273
01:16:05.360 --> 01:16:21.040
Now, when the building permit comes in, how am I going to know what color the house is? But when I'm a resident owner in the neighborhood and I'm guaranteed that you're going to en enforce my covenants because you made me write them

274
01:16:21.040 --> 01:16:39.040
the way you approved them, any any touch of that covenant other than just a box of legality to an administrator, what's the decision? What decision is the administrator going to make on private property covenants and restrictions?

275
01:16:39.040 --> 01:16:55.520
Color of the house is a restriction. Peak of the roof. I could go down a litany of things that you see illustrated in covenants and restrictions. If that's presented to the administrator, and I'm the administrator, for example, what am I going to say? Am I going to disagree and say, "Oh, no. Houses in Titus will have

276
01:16:55.520 --> 01:17:11.760
to be red. So, you have to change your covenants to mean red houses, not green." And I said, "So, so back to my story. You made me make it red instead of green in the covenant. You were the administrator. You had the decision. You made me do this. I reviewed it and

277
01:17:11.760 --> 01:17:26.800
approved it. You recorded your plat. I'm another owner in the subdivision and someone paints her house green. I'm going to come knocking on the administrator's door and say, "You got to go do code enforcement and make them paint the house red." And the rationale is you approve those covenants. You tied

278
01:17:26.800 --> 01:17:42.480
yourself to them. So I have the opinion local administrator really doesn't have a reason to review covenants and restrictions. Or conversely and I hate to be absurd and abstract. Imagine if some line of the paragraph 10 and line

279
01:17:42.480 --> 01:17:58.880
nine in word 17 I use some off camber word that won't allow somebody or some person to be in that subdivision and the administrator who approved them missed it. And so now I have this covenant that

280
01:17:58.880 --> 01:18:14.880
local government, the administrator, reviewed and approved that contains an unconstitutional rule. And somebody comes in and says, "Why did the administrator approve an unconstitutional rule?" Well, I didn't catch it. I didn't see it. I didn't I

281
01:18:14.880 --> 01:18:30.800
didn't dawn on me. Whatever. It doesn't change the effect. So my point to make is my opinion is I don't agree that the local administrator and the authority they're taking if my first question's answer you're wrong. If the second

282
01:18:30.800 --> 01:18:47.280
question's answer is but that's something to think about. Does the local administrator really have a need and should they in fact review covenants and restrictions that are private and under what authority would they review it? What what's what's what's their what's their call on it? Is it zoning? Is it

283
01:18:47.280 --> 01:19:07.360
land use? Is it color of houses? Is it what? Where do you stop? That's my two points. >> Memorize. >> Well, a couple things to piggy back on what you said. First of all, yeah, it it would be devastating to make a change at

284
01:19:07.360 --> 01:19:24.480
a final PL process. I mean, if you just look at the design process, you you not only have you purchased the land, you've paid a surveyor, you paid an architect, you paid a civil engineer, your environmental services, your geotech services, and all these things had to

285
01:19:24.480 --> 01:19:41.920
come together into a plan that you're going to construct. And then you come along to do a final plat and someone says, "Oh, well, you need to move the culde-sac. That just can't happen." Okay. It just

286
01:19:41.920 --> 01:19:58.400
it just So I I I agree with you from that standpoint. I guess my question because when I read the ordinance is it talked about final plat. That's it. Correct. I mean, that's all I saw in

287
01:19:58.400 --> 01:20:16.719
there. We have a preliminary plat process though too but I don't think the preliminary plat process follows has to follow that um statute. I mean is that correct analysis?

288
01:20:16.719 --> 01:20:34.159
So the definition that member Groad uh quoted earlier comes from section 177031 sub14 Florida statutes that refers to plat or replplat as an exact representation of the subdivision. So legally our office's position that we've

289
01:20:34.159 --> 01:20:50.719
taken is that that does not encompass a preliminary plat. >> Right? >> This ordinance has gone through a lot of different iterations. I think the last version I reviewed was version 20. Some of the original versions had preliminary plats remaining with council approval

290
01:20:50.719 --> 01:21:07.040
through the process of the ordinance being drafted. It was changed to all administrative. So that was the position that staff took. But legally, if this board wanted to recommend to council to retain preliminary plats as reviewed by PNZ council, the new Florida statute

291
01:21:07.040 --> 01:21:24.719
does not inhibit that. >> Okay. And I thought, you know, because that's the way I read the ordinance, too. It really was just about final plat and the game is over at final plat stage. You're just documenting the document, the Bible that people are going to sell land and trade land and do

292
01:21:24.719 --> 01:21:41.840
what they would with that. The key to all this is to get these reviews where you may have major changes upfront in the design process, not in the rears. Okay? And it's sort of like

293
01:21:41.840 --> 01:21:57.440
with site plan, it's the pre-application meeting. Well, you do a pre-application meeting for subdivisions, too, but you typically don't provide a preliminary plat, okay? Because you haven't really engineered anything yet, and you can't really say, "Well, this lot's not going

294
01:21:57.440 --> 01:22:13.280
to shift or we're not going to change this." But there is a point that you can lock things down when you had your first review and you get the city comments or the state comments, the St. John's comments and you know all the other

295
01:22:13.280 --> 01:22:27.920
comments and you put them all together and now you start finalizing the design of the project. That's the time at that stage, that's when you need to have some buy in and preliminary

296
01:22:27.920 --> 01:22:44.920
platform from the city that at this point I'm done and we're going to proceed on and the final plat will be just like this. But I need your input now. And that's what we need to get to.

297
01:22:46.880 --> 01:23:03.199
So I don't know if this ordinance really does that, Eddie. Well, I think it's important what our council has said because that would at least I guess you're concurring with what I thought my experience that you could regulate preliminary sketches or plans as they call it and still follow the statute by

298
01:23:03.199 --> 01:23:19.760
what removes the platting process to be administrative. That was what you're >> That's correct. And just kind of some extra background, uh I don't know if this research has been ongoing. The last I saw it looked into was January of this year. There's a small chart. Um,

299
01:23:19.760 --> 01:23:36.400
Elatchua County, Bvard County, Cocoa, Melbourne, Orange County, Oyola, Seinal, and West Melbourne uh retained PNZ or council control over preliminary plats while moving final plats to

300
01:23:36.400 --> 01:23:53.280
administrative. A number of other cities move the other direction and went administrative wholesale. So, there's kind of a mix out there in the state at this point. And and and I would add is and I really appreciate Woody bringing that and I've had professionals cry when they get that last minute stuff. What's

301
01:23:53.280 --> 01:24:09.920
important is to also look at this. The administrator is going to review a plat that one document is this is written out. He sees they sees something like I mentioned as an example. Well, this large stand of trees and we really would like that as a buffer. There's nothing

302
01:24:09.920 --> 01:24:26.320
in the statute that's going to say the administrator can just come up arbitrarily and say we need you to make those lots a little deeper. Turn that around on it other side and say now you're into a sketch mode. You come in the eb and flow of how something designs to community standards and you accept

303
01:24:26.320 --> 01:24:42.639
that you can make those changes at a preliminary sketch level or preliminary plan whatever word you describe it as. you can make those changes reasonably speaking without added cost. When you do it at the final plat, it makes all the sense why the statute stepped in. And

304
01:24:42.639 --> 01:24:58.719
I'm sure there's communities, and I do appreciate council having the examples. Look at Florida categorically, and there's probably some places in Florida where you could come in with the thing ready to sell and somebody say, you know, I I just don't want to approve this subdivision. and worse than move

305
01:24:58.719 --> 01:25:16.320
the culde-sac. You just get told, you're denied for your proposed subdivision after you had all that data done to create a plat. I won't say that has happened. I will say it could happen. And that's why they want to try to stop the ability to make it very difficult to

306
01:25:16.320 --> 01:25:33.040
do what's the last step. The document that ends up being recorded as an instrument. It has to look just right. Has to be perfect. Sketches and plans, they're imperfect by the nature of them. They can be changed. And I think it's in the best interest of the community to

307
01:25:33.040 --> 01:25:48.800
retain the authority to review preliminary plans and sketches and do not throw the baby out with the bathwater with that. Thank you, >> member Fas. So the definition of plat was or the definition here being used

308
01:25:48.800 --> 01:26:05.920
for plat is interesting especially when we've had yolks in front of us very often saying how the plat is wrong as far as what's being built and so if the plat is supposed to be something that is

309
01:26:05.920 --> 01:26:22.560
exact perfect near perfect um the question I then have is what about the teeth enforcability because we've had somebody before us on a number of occasions talking about a plat that is wrong and we've all heard him we've all listened

310
01:26:22.560 --> 01:26:40.560
to him but no one's made any move to talk about a solution so as we talk about this here right so the the question then I have is if we go through this motion to to to to to do what the state wants to do and approve this ordinance in this way which is fine the

311
01:26:40.560 --> 01:26:56.600
question then have is about enforcability What happens when the developer doesn't build according to the plat? What happens when the plat is wrong? Who then makes it right? And how do you make that right?

312
01:26:58.480 --> 01:27:16.320
>> There's a process in chapter 177 for uh resubmitting or re-recording plats to make corrections to them. >> Okay. And that's the answer. Thank you, >> Member Seedler. >> Thank you. Well, if the plat was approved and then the builder didn't

313
01:27:16.320 --> 01:27:31.040
build appropriately or did not build according to the plot that was approved administratively, it's sounds like the solution is you just change the plaque and then I mean what are the consequences to the developer

314
01:27:31.040 --> 01:27:47.360
and everybody around who everybody did go through the preliminary they did work on the sketch everybody had their input and they finally came and for the final flat and that was administratively approved because you don't want to move a culde-sac at the final stage because

315
01:27:47.360 --> 01:28:04.639
then everybody cries. So your question being what happens when the plat is unfollowed >> and I >> well well so my so the premise to my question was about a particular project

316
01:28:04.639 --> 01:28:21.120
that's being built here in Titusville where we've had somebody before this board on a number of occasions who has brought up that the plat is not accurate. >> And so I was using that as as as a as >> but it sounded like they just said we'll just change the plat. Well, but is is

317
01:28:21.120 --> 01:28:34.960
the the fact that it wasn't built according to the plat did it have what if the the impacts were negative changing the plaid and you have a negative build or something that is non-conforming or whatever the problem

318
01:28:34.960 --> 01:28:51.360
is. So I am as I am reading this so it is my understanding that this chapter 2025-164 require final plat approval to be administrative. So, one question I have is um who's being designated as the

319
01:28:51.360 --> 01:29:08.080
city's administrative authority? Is that one person? Is it a group of people? Is it who and who is it in this city that is going to take on this responsibility? And then secondly, what can we retain? Um, as you were talking about

320
01:29:08.080 --> 01:29:23.679
preliminary plat sketching and all of that, is that fall underneath in this that is all administrative or as council has stated other um counties have retained where the council, city

321
01:29:23.679 --> 01:29:40.400
council, planning and zoning and whomever else they they are still have input in those pre-stages. Is do we have to state that or is this just for final plat and who is the administrator who is doing the

322
01:29:40.400 --> 01:29:56.480
approving? >> Sure. So for your first question who would be signing as the administrator that would either be the city manager or the community development director um as the heads of those divisions of the division and of the city. Um, as far as

323
01:29:56.480 --> 01:30:10.960
it [clears throat] sounds like the consensus so far from the discussion is that you're interested in uh retaining the prelim preliminary plat u coming before PNZ and council for approval. Um, and it sounds like other communities have been able to do so without

324
01:30:10.960 --> 01:30:28.400
violating the statute. Since there are numerous um references that would need to be updated, I was just looking through and there's already page 140, 141, 142, 143. Rather than going line by line, I think you could make your motion that you recommend approval of the ordinance with that change in general uh

325
01:30:28.400 --> 01:30:45.159
that preliminary PLA approval be retained at PNZ and council level and then if uh council approves the ordinance in that fashion then it would be drafted uh to affect such. So, just to make the the motion simpler,

326
01:30:45.600 --> 01:31:02.159
>> member rights, your lights on. You have >> first of all, contractors don't build plats, okay? They build construction plans, okay? The plat is the plat is generated by a licensed surveyor.

327
01:31:02.159 --> 01:31:18.480
Engineers can't even do plats, okay? It's because they go out and set the corners of every lot that gets sold. So when you buy the lot, you can go out there and verify that there's a monument set at each corner of your lot so they

328
01:31:18.480 --> 01:31:35.840
know where your boundary is, okay? For every lot. That's really what the plat does more than anything. It it designates easements, it designates rightways, lot lines, all those. It has really no nothing in there to build.

329
01:31:35.840 --> 01:31:53.199
Okay? It's it's it's a document. you just record it to solidify how property is transferred and when you buy a lot this is what you're getting and then the other things attached are the easements and to the other thing that gets recorded is covenants and deed

330
01:31:53.199 --> 01:32:08.800
restrictions and things like that but those aren't built by the contractor either. Okay. Now what the contractor does have to do they have to he has to build in accordance with the construction plans. Okay. And that means put the if there's a pipe that goes down

331
01:32:08.800 --> 01:32:25.199
the center of a lot line, okay, he needs to put that pipe in the center of the lot line. If he doesn't put it in the center of the lot line, now that's an easement problem, okay? So you might have to adjust the easements, but that's why you do the plat

332
01:32:25.199 --> 01:32:41.120
at the end. The the final document that gets recorded is at the end. Okay? So you can make certain adjustments before because you what the last thing you want to do is go back through a replat. Okay. I think I in 30 years of doing this I've done a

333
01:32:41.120 --> 01:32:56.480
repat I think one time. Okay. Because you just don't want to [laughter] go that path. Okay? And and it was just because of a mistake that was done by a surveyor in the field. Okay? Um, so and

334
01:32:56.480 --> 01:33:14.880
and keep in mind that the the plant when it comes to addressing errors and things like that and PL these plats are are are designed or laid out by a licensed professional surveyor in the state of Florida that has a license. Okay, I'm

335
01:33:14.880 --> 01:33:31.280
not a surveyor. There's no one in here that's a surveyor. So when someone comes up and says my plat wrong, I don't know. It could be. But that's why you have a surveyor look at it and determine whether it's wrong. Okay? It's not something that a board can look at, you

336
01:33:31.280 --> 01:33:49.120
know, or even consider because we don't know the platting. You we we don't know the survey requirements. They have very specific requirements for distances and errors and means and methods and all those things as a surveyor that they're like that's why they're licensed as a professional. So that that all comes

337
01:33:49.120 --> 01:34:04.560
into play. Okay. Uh so I think retaining you know the the preliminary plat idea I think is probably a good way. Now I'll ask the attorney with with what you have reviewed

338
01:34:04.560 --> 01:34:19.440
when they retain that have they always called it a preliminary plat or they called it a preliminary plan or have they changed the name to get away from the word plat. >> So I think it's kind of a mixed bag. A lot of municipalities seem to still

339
01:34:19.440 --> 01:34:38.159
retain um preliminary plat or you'll see some that use sketch plat as well. >> Okay. >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I would like to explain why I have a affection for this plat plan etc. I I had the distinct

340
01:34:38.159 --> 01:34:54.320
pleasure of working in Oyola County and I've mentioned that several times in my career not because it's important it's just a pleasure of doing it. One of the pleasurable parts is my history in that county was Oyola County was one of the first counties in Florida in 1967. It's important to recognize what happened in

341
01:34:54.320 --> 01:35:12.239
1967 in central Florida had two ears on top of it and a tail. And Ocola County adopted by special act subdivision regulations and it was one of the very first counties in the state to regulate subdivisions under a special act within

342
01:35:12.239 --> 01:35:28.719
a local government jurisdiction. So, I became very aware of having to regulate subdivisions by a county standard that was actually well in advance of some of the state rules that later became incorporated in the statutes and

343
01:35:28.719 --> 01:35:45.360
amendments to statutes that require how land is subdivided. So, that's where this interchangeable word has always irked me, plan. And you'll see communities put the word platt from the be. You'll give me a preliminary plat. You'll give me a final plat. And what's

344
01:35:45.360 --> 01:36:01.360
a plat? Well, you had three. No, you only have one. The other ones are plans. I've kind of gone off of my tirade on that. And this is really kind of a coincidence that it's come to roost with what this is being interpreted to require the city to do when my opinion

345
01:36:01.360 --> 01:36:17.199
and apparently legal counsel has an agreeable opinion and found examples of other communities who have said, "No, no, no. We don't want to stop having the ability to make changes as best afforded. So, that's where I'm coming from. And my comment about the covenants

346
01:36:17.199 --> 01:36:32.560
and restrictions. Um, if I'm making a motion, I'm going to have that included because I've tried to at least explain my thoughts on why I don't think an administrator, the city manager, or the community development director, or Joe, the janitor, has business reviewing

347
01:36:32.560 --> 01:36:49.119
somebody's proposed private covenants. I can't see that as benefiting anybody at any point. You could miss something or you can include something or you could create problems that then what happens is somebody comes in and you get the juxosition.

348
01:36:49.119 --> 01:37:04.800
I'm arguing because I'm complaining you painted your house green and not red or red not green and you were the administrator that allowed that to happen. You put the restriction on me so you have to enforce it. And when somebody says, "Oh, I have to call code

349
01:37:04.800 --> 01:37:22.080
enforcement." I would hope I'm right. Somebody's going to say, "Code enforcement can't enforce a private covenant." You'll have to go to your HOA, litigate the matter, and resolve it. And I'm still going to go to the voting booth and click the button that says, "But you made the rule that said

350
01:37:22.080 --> 01:37:39.360
you approved it. Why aren't you responsible for it?" And no matter how many times you try to explain that to somebody, if you were the so unlucky administrator, you're never going to win favor. You're not going to convince them otherwise, and they're going to go out angry with you. So my opinion is private

351
01:37:39.360 --> 01:37:56.480
covenants don't have any business reviewed by an administrator other than legal administrative review. That would be so you don't have some covenant that has some unnecessary language. We'll call it that. >> So are you ready for a motion? >> Memorize. I I think we still have to do

352
01:37:56.480 --> 01:38:11.280
a public hearing although I don't think there's any cards but member Rice >> to the city attorney there again in this legislation and maybe I missed it but I don't see where it it does it says that it just says

353
01:38:11.280 --> 01:38:26.560
final plat doesn't say covenants and deed restrictions is that >> that's language that's already in our code right now it has council or council approving those right so as part of the switch to administrator we just switch those words out but that would have to be pulled out of our code, but no, the

354
01:38:26.560 --> 01:38:44.239
state um law does not require that as far as I know. >> So, you're saying that still cannot it has to be revised can still be reviewed by city council those items or no? >> Under current ordinance right now, under

355
01:38:44.239 --> 01:38:59.280
this new law, >> under the new law, it doesn't require that to be in there if that's what you're asking. >> So, the only thing >> So, part of your recommendation could be to remove that review process. All right. >> All right. Uh clerk, do we have any cards? >> No, sir.

356
01:38:59.280 --> 01:39:19.920
>> All right. I'll open and close the public hearing just for process uh bring it back to the commission for additional questions or a motion please. Member Gar surprise surprise. Um having

357
01:39:19.920 --> 01:39:36.800
interest in this great interest, I I would like to make the recommendation along the lines of the discussion which is the proposed ordinance should be amended recommended to the city council to amend it in which they provide for the continued review of preliminary

358
01:39:36.800 --> 01:39:54.960
subdivision plans which are codified in city code to look a certain way and they are not a plat. and also recommend to the city council that the continuation of having now a administrator as it would be now currently city

359
01:39:54.960 --> 01:40:12.320
council review to approve covenants and restrictions since it's not a state law requirement I can't see a benefit to that I can't see any jurisdiction for it in my opinion I see a conflict later potentially and so I would recommend that the proposed ordinance also remove

360
01:40:12.320 --> 01:40:28.560
the language regarding review by the administrator of covenants and restrictions as part of the subdivision plat review regulated by the statute. >> Okay. >> Did I understand that your [clears throat] motion is to recommend

361
01:40:28.560 --> 01:40:44.159
approval of the ordinance with two changes? Uh, one to um to not remove of the preliminary plat or plan um by PNZ and council and to

362
01:40:44.159 --> 01:41:00.560
remove review of the restrictions and covenants of subdivisions from the administrator andor city council. >> So, I'll I'll let I'm trying to clarify here. It would seem that we want to because we're referring to a red line

363
01:41:00.560 --> 01:41:17.760
attachment here. We want to restore the original language for the deeds and restrictions and the preliminary plat. The only red lines we want are related to the final plat and conformance with the new statute. Does that make sense,

364
01:41:17.760 --> 01:41:35.679
city attorney? I the portion about the platting and referring to the red line does, but I believe the um motion as proposed by uh member Grod was to remove the review of covenants which is currently in code. So that would be an

365
01:41:35.679 --> 01:41:51.600
additional change that would be there. It wouldn't just be removing right >> uh the change out from the red line. You have to take that out of the ordinance now. So it would be an additional strike through >> only because it's in the ordinance now. their changes to remove it, but if you

366
01:41:51.600 --> 01:42:06.000
put it to where it was, it's going to be back to the city council reviewing it. And and so my idea was just when you revise this um local ordinance for compliance with the statute for review

367
01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:23.119
of plats by an administrator. that that ordinance, however you embellish it, to do it, allows for the the continuation of review of preliminary subdivision plans through the process that's in existence

368
01:42:23.119 --> 01:42:39.520
today. The second recommendation was just to remove the review by the administrator of covenants. The way I see it is they're going to go back and word press it and when it comes out, it's going to be add and deletion. What will exist is the

369
01:42:39.520 --> 01:42:56.000
city will continue reviewing preliminary subdivision plans as part of a development analysis process that when a subdivision gets to the point of a final plat amended ordinance is going to follow the statute and it'll be an administrative review and however that

370
01:42:56.000 --> 01:43:10.800
administrative review won't be of the covenants and restrictions. That's what I'm thinking. Now I think the summation is two conditions of it. one, keep the preliminary plan subdivision process in effect and remove

371
01:43:10.800 --> 01:43:26.000
the covenant restriction review by the administrator and change the ordinance accordingly. Is that simple enough to follow? >> Well, but who reviews covenants then? >> No one. It's a private matter. Unless there's a legal binding reason that you

372
01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:42.080
would review a covenant other than it's on the page. What legal review of a covenant would occur? or what administrative planning, zoning, public works, flood plane management, name a million things. What would an administrator

373
01:43:42.080 --> 01:43:59.199
say in review of a covenant? Would he say take that sentence out that says all homeowners will flood their neighbor? Or conversely, uh, all homeowners will paint their house red. What What's the administrator possibly going to do? Is

374
01:43:59.199 --> 01:44:15.040
he going to say, "Well, that's okay." or is he going to say that's not okay. I don't like red houses. That's why I said that has I don't see any legal review of anything an administrator could do with that. >> So, chapter 177, which governs the plat process, does not require that that be

375
01:44:15.040 --> 01:44:30.320
included in the ordinance. So, legally can be removed. My guess, and I wasn't around when that was put in there. My guess was in there, that that was put in there. Um, so that if somebody was trying to put unconstitutional restrictions in their deeds, that that could be caught beforehand and removed

376
01:44:30.320 --> 01:44:47.280
because it does get changed in this ordinance. But up until now, the city attorney's office reviews any of the plats going out. So, my guess is that's how that was meant to work originally. Um, but that's speculation. >> I I I think this is a really important attribute to my concern. So I don't know

377
01:44:47.280 --> 01:45:03.360
this answer. Once the plat is recorded, the covenants and restrictions are in effect. Is the city bound by those covenants and restrictions? And therefore any subsequent amendment to covenants and restrictions by those governed by the

378
01:45:03.360 --> 01:45:20.639
covenants restrictions, the parties within the subdivision, they want to amend it. Is the city get in the fray? Does they do they have to say, "Well, we don't want you to amend the covenants." >> Yes. >> Is that Is that what this provides for? Or in my opinion, once this process is

379
01:45:20.639 --> 01:45:37.199
done, statutory platting process has been done, the plat's recorded, the houses are built, everybody gets together in a meeting and says, "We want to amend the covenants that said all houses will be red. I want all our houses to be green in 2027."

380
01:45:37.199 --> 01:45:53.760
Does that action get reviewed by the city in this ordinance? Is there an ordinance that says that amendments to covenants and restrictions get reviewed by the city administrator, city manager, community development director, city council?

381
01:45:53.760 --> 01:46:09.360
>> I I don't believe the city would have any jurisdiction to review them once they've been placed in the private deeds and the plat's been approved. That's an entirely private process unless some input on that. It sounds like >> and and for example, let's just and I think that was a good point about reviewing the constitutionality. I I

382
01:46:09.360 --> 01:46:24.400
could imagine that would be a good administrative reason. But if you could amend them and not be subject to review, that infers that I could put an unconstitutional statement and an amended covenants and restrictions and it get recorded and not be worth the paper it's written on and not be

383
01:46:24.400 --> 01:46:41.119
enforcable. It could be a violation of civil rights. All the above is true. But the pure act is I amended them and I recorded the amendment. I win. And that's my point. I just don't think local government administrators have a business and apparently the statute

384
01:46:41.119 --> 01:46:57.520
which is what we're doing amending this ordinance to reflect the statute and since the statute doesn't require that to be reviewed I can't imagine why you would want to review it. >> I I guess my point would be it seems

385
01:46:57.520 --> 01:47:13.520
like we're introducing a different issue. I think we could in the past I've seen that we would tell or recommend a staff to recommend a city council to investigate the covenant the way the covenants are handled in the

386
01:47:13.520 --> 01:47:30.514
ordinance rather than to try to fix it as part of the intent of this effort was to make the ordinance in compliance with the final plat issue. It seems to me they're two separate issues, but I'm I'm

387
01:47:30.514 --> 01:47:46.880
[snorts] open to trying to address it in >> I think that's I think that's a very good observation of what is going on. I would comment that, however, this ordinance has that paragraph in it. If this ordinance is drawn, drafted, and

388
01:47:46.880 --> 01:48:02.960
adopted, that's what the administrator is going to do. And it's going to be a day late and a dollar short in my opinion that in one week I come in with a covenant. And I said, "Brad, I want all my houses to be red." And Brad says, "Well, I can't enforce that. I'm not going to have that. You can't have that.

389
01:48:02.960 --> 01:48:18.560
I have covenant. I want all houses to be red." What's the debate then? Is a debate don't have a covenant that says that. Make them green. Make them red. It's a debate that doesn't necessarily or actually need to be done. Private's over here, public's over here. Looks

390
01:48:18.560 --> 01:48:34.320
like the statutes recognize public and private separation. This ordinance right now is the opportunity to eliminate that conflict which I don't myself my opinion my motion to remove that envisions this ordinance would remove the authority and

391
01:48:34.320 --> 01:48:56.560
when this ordinance is adopted whatever used to be goes with it too >> member Ice I'm halfway there but not completely I I think where as I'm going to use LI as an example.

392
01:48:56.560 --> 01:49:12.560
NID from administrative standpoint and enforcement standpoint is going to be hard to police because it's very sightsp specific. And when you do it in a subdivision, you may have

393
01:49:12.560 --> 01:49:29.920
certain lots that have pvious concrete and you're using it that way or a rain garden and a homeowner doesn't know that that rain garden is part of the approved plans. So, you have a tendency to put those things in a covenant

394
01:49:29.920 --> 01:49:45.679
and restrictions that you're not allowed to touch this. You have to maintain it. You have to do those things to protect the approval process of what you approve at the LI. >> L is a local ordinance. >> I'm sorry.

395
01:49:45.679 --> 01:50:01.280
>> You're inferring LI is a low inensity development, right? So you're saying that this local standard gets plugged into a covenant. >> Well, there needs to be a ne mechanism because it's no type of things that get put in these covenants that the city wants to see again if you try to change

396
01:50:01.280 --> 01:50:17.760
them. Okay? So you put a deed restriction in, you can't remove these trees, you can't do this, you can't do that because the site plan approval process was predicated on protecting those trees or protecting the LI or

397
01:50:17.760 --> 01:50:34.080
doing those things. So what process do you use if you don't use the covenants and deed restrictions? And and I think that's right in line with my whole point and that is that would imply to me that a deed restriction to preserve those trees when

398
01:50:34.080 --> 01:50:50.400
the trees start getting cut down. I'm calling Mr. Parish and I'm going to say to him, you need to enforce this deed restriction. Question for our council. Is the city bound by deed restrictions to the extent it enforces deed

399
01:50:50.400 --> 01:51:07.520
restrictions? Not entirely sure I understand the question. The deed restrictions bind whoever is the holder of the deed. The city wouldn't be holding the deed. The city has enforcement rights in certain circumstances depending on what the restriction is. So generally deed

400
01:51:07.520 --> 01:51:24.239
restrictions are not the easiest in the world to enforce. They have to kind of be in favor of the party party seeking to enforce them. There's a whole bunch of convoluted case law on that. A lot of times your neighbor would have a right, but not always. But whether the city had a right to enforce a restrictive covenant would depend on the nature of

401
01:51:24.239 --> 01:51:39.040
that covenant itself. >> Yes. And that's that's perfect. I appreciate that sincerely because that's the whole upshot. If I were the administrator, I would not want to be posed with the question. You should enforce it. I'll need to talk to our council. I'll need to find out. I'll

402
01:51:39.040 --> 01:51:53.679
have a meeting with the city man. just blows up into a mushroom cloud on something that the law doesn't support the city interfering with private covenants. It's between the people and the covenant. Conversely spoken, the

403
01:51:53.679 --> 01:52:10.080
city is not a joiner to those covenants. They're just approving them. Yeah. And I just want to add quickly for clarification. Under no circumstance would the city be required to enforce the covenant. It would be discretionary on the city's part. Nobody could force the city to bring suit to enforce it or anything like that.

404
01:52:10.080 --> 01:52:26.320
>> And again, all this is is to try to remove an angst from a future event which I would suggest has probably occurred in the past. My scenarios are from my experience. I would submit there's a future there that someone's going to come in or a neighborhood of

405
01:52:26.320 --> 01:52:43.599
people are going to come in and infer and imply or suggest that because you were the administrator that approved this. You need to fix it, Mr. Administrator. And you're going to be able to have all the law behind you that says otherwise, but it's not going to

406
01:52:43.599 --> 01:53:00.080
change that room full of people that want to have you do their job, which is private covenant enforcement. That's a that's what lawsuits are for, not the city code enforcement. So, I stay with my point just trying to explain it as thoroughly as I can. >> Memorize.

407
01:53:00.080 --> 01:53:14.480
>> Well, I agree with one the one thing putting the administrator in that position is not good policy there. There's no doubt in my mind because of

408
01:53:14.480 --> 01:53:30.800
it's a burden that's going to be there that one person should not bear. Okay, I I I agree with that. But on the other hand, in covenants and deed restrictions, I think it's important and and I'm not

409
01:53:30.800 --> 01:53:47.119
saying all the whole document, but be there's a section that says city, you know, city required or something tagged to the city. These are the only ones that the city can app you have to get city approval to approve

410
01:53:47.119 --> 01:54:03.280
or change. It's things to protect, you know, low impact development. It's things to protect trees because right now our ordinance says a homeowner can cut any tree they want if they're in the house for at least one

411
01:54:03.280 --> 01:54:19.599
year. They can cut anything. But if but if we have a restriction, I guess we could put it in a conservation easement and that would restrict it. Um we could do with that, but that would be on the plat though. >> That's right. the conservation easement would be on the plat. That's what we

412
01:54:19.599 --> 01:54:34.320
would have to do to protect the trees. Um, but there's a lot of things that are in there and I don't I just I need a lot of thought before I can buy in completely of getting rid of something like that.

413
01:54:34.320 --> 01:54:50.239
>> Yeah, that that's my point is is I think you know we're we're we're trying this was advertised and and expected to be one thing and we're trying to turn it into something else. I have no problem with the recommending direction to staff

414
01:54:50.239 --> 01:55:06.880
to research this, but I think there I I'm uncomfortable with all the ramifications of this being discussed uh you know along with um what

415
01:55:06.880 --> 01:55:22.080
we started to do which was make this ordinance conform with the um final plat in the state legislation That's that's my two cents and my recommendation that we would separate the two issues. Don't

416
01:55:22.080 --> 01:55:38.080
not saying that the issue is not valid, just that it shouldn't be addressed without further review of staff and and input. Just to make a point to counterpoint, this ordinance is proposed to unify the

417
01:55:38.080 --> 01:55:54.960
local government's regulation on subdividing land at the level of a final plat to simplify it and make it follow Florida statute. Our council has said Florida statute doesn't have anything about local government reviewing covenants and restrictions. We've heard the local government has the allowance

418
01:55:54.960 --> 01:56:11.280
to do review of preliminaries from exampled governments that are doing that already subsequent to the adoption of this statute. So we dovetail similarly with the idea of putting the preliminary plan review as it is and amending the ordinance. But this is an ordinance and

419
01:56:11.280 --> 01:56:25.840
that section is in it and that section is subject to this review. My recommendation we don't have to debate it. I'm not angry with it. I'm just saying you're going to what is it the transmission person said? It's pay me now or pay me later. This issue will

420
01:56:25.840 --> 01:56:42.320
arise. It won't be a good time for it. So, I'm staying with my recommendation. It's a it's mine. It's on the table. I hope everybody understands my opinion of how it should go and my recommendation. I'll close with that. >> Okay. So, we have a motion. Do we have a

421
01:56:42.320 --> 01:56:56.880
second? >> I'm going to second with discussion. >> Remember, I seconds. have your discussion. >> Okay. I think it dawned on me. I get it now. We're taking it out just for the final plat process,

422
01:56:56.880 --> 01:57:12.719
the covenants and deed restrictions, so the administrator doesn't have to do those things. Okay. when you come back and change the preliminary plat process, covenants and deed restrictions, whatever may be in there.

423
01:57:12.719 --> 01:57:28.239
Okay. That's the place if we need to if we're going to retain them, that's the place to retain them. Is that what you're saying? >> Any place other than putting the person responsible for my got my >> You see the difference? If you are the

424
01:57:28.239 --> 01:57:43.760
final authority that allows the plat to record, then I'm going to accuse you of approving my requirement. You have to enforce it or inferring that or suggesting or quagmiring all the administrative staff down with the question as you said. So yeah, if you want to have it so that covenants and

425
01:57:43.760 --> 01:57:59.599
restrictions are submitted for review during the process, so be it. I just don't want the administrator to be you cannot go forward because this covenant isn't what I want it to say. >> Okay, I understand. It's like my thumb blocks the sun, but that's just a little

426
01:57:59.599 --> 01:58:16.199
thumb and that's a big sun. The staff understand the intention of of that because you've got to make the red lines a reread line this >> unread line. I think I understand the direction.

427
01:58:17.679 --> 01:58:34.080
>> I He said he did. So, we're going to take his word for The the only thing I saw in there that I was going to comment that hasn't been the um legislation says the administrator only has seven days to basically say, "Hey, I didn't see that

428
01:58:34.080 --> 01:58:52.719
in the ordinance, the 7-day thing. Maybe it was there. I just missed it, but I read it a couple times. I just didn't see the 7-day notation in there." So, you might want to double check on that. >> All right. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

429
01:58:52.719 --> 01:59:13.440
Seeing none, roll call, please. >> Member McDaniel. >> Yes. Member Gerard. >> Yes. >> Member Rice. >> Yes. >> Member Graham. >> Yes. >> Secretary FA. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully.

430
01:59:13.440 --> 01:59:32.960
>> Yes. >> Chairman Eton. >> Yes. >> Thank you. with the with the narrowing I uh I and and member Rice's clarification. I'm >> and we're sorry, Eddie. >> Yeah, get out your uh

431
01:59:32.960 --> 01:59:50.560
>> get out your eraser that erases red underlines. Um all right, we're down to item 9D. >> Yes, sir. The longest item of the night, 9D, Urban Forestry Trust Ordinance. This item begins on page 150 of 156. On June

432
01:59:50.560 --> 02:00:05.520
9th, city council adopted the urban forest management plan. The plan recommends the city amend the landscape trust fund. Enclosed for review and approval is an ordinance to rename the public trust fund to the urban forest trust fund. A sep separate resolution

433
02:00:05.520 --> 02:00:21.280
was considered by city council amending the use of fund revenues obtained from tree mitigation efforts to allow the planting, establishment and maintenance of trees on public and eligible private property with priority given to canopy replacement low canopy neighborhoods and

434
02:00:21.280 --> 02:00:37.599
rights of way and providing for an effective date. The resolution is consistent with the recommendations found in appendix J of the adopted urban forest management plan. It is recommended that city council adopt the ordinance amending the land development regulations by renaming the public

435
02:00:37.599 --> 02:00:54.719
landscape trust fund in sections 30-32 and 30-34 to the urban forest trust fund consistent with the resolution. And on page 155 is the strike through an underlined version showing the name change. And really the intent of this is to

436
02:00:54.719 --> 02:01:09.440
provide uh additional flexibility to improve tree canopy in areas of the city um that are currently bound by the um the public public landscape trust fund. Thank you.

437
02:01:09.440 --> 02:01:32.440
>> And just changing the name does that or? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. [snorts] Any questions? Member Rice >> just what's eligible private property mean?

438
02:01:39.040 --> 02:02:04.880
It's It was in page 150, I believe. Eddie say it can be used for in the under summary explanation the second paragraph. >> Mhm. >> Third line down it says public and eligible private property. >> I would have to refer to the urban

439
02:02:04.880 --> 02:02:24.080
forest uh master plan to to give you more specifics on what eligible private properties. I can tell you that that's currently not permitted in the uh public landscape trust fund. >> Okay. Okay. Uh we have any cards on this clerk? >> No, sir.

440
02:02:24.080 --> 02:02:43.520
>> All right. I'll open and close another public hearing. Uh bring it back for a motion or any additional discussion. >> Member Face. >> I move that we ex uh we approve the urban forestry trust ordinance with the

441
02:02:43.520 --> 02:03:00.400
changes as written. Thank you. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Member Scully. >> That's okay. My fault. My fault. All right. Roll call, please.

442
02:03:00.400 --> 02:03:16.719
>> Member Gerard, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully, >> yes. >> Member Graham, >> yes. >> Member McDaniel, >> yes. >> Member Rice, >> yes. >> Secretary Face, >> yes. >> Chairman Eton, >> yes. Okay,

443
02:03:16.719 --> 02:03:33.679
I see no public present. So, I'm assuming there's no need for a second. Petitions and requests. Any reports, city staff? >> No reports, sir. Thank you. >> City attorney, >> no report. Thank you. Uh, my only report is to thank Vice Chairman Scully for

444
02:03:33.679 --> 02:03:53.040
bailing me out on two meetings. So, uh, um, the who else we got here? Any members have anything? >> Seeing none. Oh, me. >> I do want to thank everybody for my ability to confuse people and and

445
02:03:53.040 --> 02:04:09.760
accepting that you can follow through my confusing comments. But I definitely will say in my uh personal opinion, this matter of subdividing all of what we talk about has been a a bug for me since I joined the club here and I'm glad that everybody found it beneficial to make

446
02:04:09.760 --> 02:04:25.159
recommendations changes. Thank you. >> And we glad we have member Rice to help interpret some of that. [laughter] >> All right. Uh we will stand a journ. Thank you.