City Council - Regular Meeting

Becky, are we good? Okay. Well, good evening and welcome to Brevard City Council, our regular meeting of July 20th. I want to welcome everybody that has come here in person. We are so excited to see such great family attendance and also everybody that's watching the live stream on their computer. I want to start by introducing everybody that's sitting up here. On my far right is our City Attorney, Mack McKellar. Next to Mack is Councilman Lauren Wise. Next to Lauren is Councilwoman Pamela Holder. Next to Pamela is Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Aaron Baker. I'm Mayor Maureen Kopeloff. On my immediate left is our city clerk, Denise Hodgson. Next to Denise is Councilman Gary Daniel. Next to Gary is Councilman Lyle, Dean Lytle, sorry Dean. It's been weeks since we had one of these meetings. I almost made it through, I almost did. And finally, on my far left is City Manager Wilson Hooper. And with that, I would like to ask Pastor Keith Thompson from Brevard-Davidson River Presbyterian Church to please give our invocation.

Let us pray. God of grace, we give thanks for this beautiful place that we get to call home. And as this council meets tonight, we are grateful for the variety of gifts they bring. We're grateful for their different perspectives. And we pray that by your guidance, they may make wise decisions and listen well to one another. We're grateful for all who showed up here tonight for their interest in this community. And we're grateful that this night is enriched by the swearing in of Allen and Tanner. Keep them safe, we pray, in their service. And guide them in their work. All these things I ask in Christ's name. Amen. Amen.

Pastor Keith, can you tell us a little bit about Brevard Davidson River Presbyterian Church?

I can. We have a community dinner. We do that once a month. We serve about 100 to 150 plates, including to-go. Tomorrow night is barbecue dinner. And everybody's invited.

Well, thank you. We are so glad to have your church, your congregation, and everything that you do for our community. It's a great partnership. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, if everyone would stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Attention, honor, pledge. I pledge allegiance.

with liberty and justice for all. Madam Clerk, do we have a quorum? Yes, Madam Mayor, you do have a quorum. All members are present.

Okay.

Council, you've got the draft agenda. Are there any proposed changes to the draft agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Agenda is approved. Council, you've got the draft minutes of the June 15, 2026 regular meeting. Are there any changes or corrections to those minutes? Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Minutes are approved. Okay, and we are going to move on to a very exciting part of this evening's meeting, something that we have all been looking forward to. And we have several oath of offices that city clerk is going to be administering.

Okay, Becky, you need to direct us. Well, we like to have

I, Alan Bonanno, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States. government thereof.

That I will endeavor?

Ellen, why don't you have all your family come up and introduce everybody. Tell us who's here.

Sure. My daughter, Mia. Our son, Joey, is at sleepaway camp, so he's not here today. My lovely wife, Katie. My sister, Carla. My mother-in-law, Ann. My mom, Linda. And my dad, Joe.

Okay.

Can I have a few of y'all come over to this side?

Okay.

Thanks, Alan.

Thank you all for coming.

Now we're going to minister the oath to Police Sergeant Tanner Green. I, Tanner Green, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the state of North Carolina and to the constitutional powers and authorities

The constitutional powers and authorities.

Which are or may be established.

Which are or may be established.

For the government thereof.

For the government thereof.

That I will endeavor.

That I will endeavor.

To support, maintain, and defend.

To support, maintain, and defend.

The constitution and laws of said state.

The constitution and laws of said state.

Not inconsistent with.

Not inconsistent with.

The constitution of the United States.

the best of my knowledge in the building.

And that I will faithfully discharge.

Faithfully discharge.

The duties of my office.

The duties of my office.

As a law enforcement officer.

As a law enforcement officer.

For the city of Brevard.

For the city of Brevard. So help me God. Oh, I got my wife, Katie, my daughter, Dinah, the terrible twins. They're not terrible. My mother and father, Kim, Connor, Green, and my mother-in-law, Billy, and Cindy. My goodness. My uncle.

All right. And Jim and Sue Fox.

All right.

All right.

And you all are welcome to stay for our entire meeting, but if you want to leave and go celebrate, we understand that too. Thanks. The room seems empty now. Yeah, Doug moved to the front. All right, we're gonna move on to public comment. The public is invited to speak during public comment at this time on any topic unless it is a public hearing item on this agenda. Anyone who wants to speak must register with the city clerk, the sign up sheet. When it is your turn, step to the podium in front of city council, state your name and address clearly, limit comments to three minutes or less, and avoid repetition. I will give you a warning when you have 30 seconds left. Direct comments to the full council, not to an individual council member or to staff. All right, and we have several people who signed up. The first one is Doug Powell.

Good evening. I trust everyone enjoyed celebrating their God-given civil and religious liberties during our historic semi-quincentennial anniversary of independence. I would like to publicly commend those on the dais who participated in the reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Main Street stage on July 4th. You all did a great job honoring the sacrifice of the 56 men who risked so much, and you embodied the true spirit of the occasion. I know it's against the rules to single anyone out, so I will refrain. Let's just say I felt transported into Independence Hall during those very hot summer days of 1776 and was reminded of many of the signers who were present. Right from the get-go, it seemed like I was watching the primary author of the Declaration himself, Thomas Jefferson, with his flowing red hair, read this remarkable document which transformed the world and shifted the balance of power from kings and queens to the consent of the governed. And soon after, I was reminded of Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution. Today, many associate the name Samuel Adams with a microbrewery. But what I heard on July 4th was the rallying cry of freedom and liberty in each syllable, where every word imbibed the spirit of the occasion. And then there was the voice of someone well versed in the Bible and accustomed to thundering from the pulpit. This reading made me think of signer John Witherspoon, who was the president of Princeton University and the only active clergyman at the time of the signing. Minister Witherspoon had a direct and positive influence on dozens of future congressmen, senators, and federal judges, and even a future president and father of the Constitution, James Madison. Then the elder statesmen of this group spoke with eloquence and wisdom, just like Benjamin Franklin. showing that he clearly understood why we had all gathered at this moment in time. Franklin was one of only six founding fathers who signed both the Declaration and the United States Constitution 11 years later. Franklin rarely spoke during these occasions, but when he did, his words carried much weight and respect. And speaking of being wise, the last speaker of the group reminded me of another architect of our new nation, Richard Henry Lee. Mr. Lee was the founding father who made the motion to declare independence from Great Britain, stating in part that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states.

30 seconds.

The reading of the Declaration firmly and clearly reminds us all of our civil and religious liberties that were established by God. The fact that our rights do come from God actually protect even those who do not believe in God. Why? Because if our rights come from the hand of man or from our local state or national government, then these rights may be quickly removed or rescinded. But if we declare and affirm that our rights are endowed by our creator and the purpose of government is to protect these natural rights, then our civil and religious liberties are permanent and unimpeachable. So thank you again for doing such a nice job of reminding us all of these foundational principles.

Thank you, Mr. Powell. Our next speaker is Rodney Locks.

Beat that, Rodney. Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Rodney Locks, and I live at 187 South Rice Street. I only have three minutes, so I'm not going to talk about the property tax referendum that is on the November ballot. If approved, would require state legislatures to enact an official cap on the annual revenue a city and council can collect from property taxes. I'm not going to talk about Senate Bill 50, a measure to enact a freedom to curry law allowing concealed curry without a permit across the state. I'm not gonna talk about House Bill 437, the anti-homeless initiative banning unauthorized camping, which the governor vetoed, but the legislatures still have the votes to override it. I'm not gonna talk about the state budget, which you like, huh? That abolishes one office that supports minority-owned businesses and foes another focus on health disparities. in the broader public health division. The budget abolished the Office of Historically Underutilized Businesses. The bill also repeals several state laws intended to increase opportunities for businesses owned by minority groups to win government contracts. I'm not going to talk about the threats to the judiciary and state and local offices that are taking place and the many rule changes that make access to voting more difficult. But I am going to ask council to develop a plan of action to ensure citizens who want to vote that it is safe to vote and go to the polls in Brevard and Transylvania County. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lox. All right, that is everyone that signed up for public comment. We have no special presentations, so we will move into our public hearings. Our first public hearing is the proposed amendment to the City of Brevard Unified Development Ordinance, Chapters 9 and 19, and the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 38, Site Triangle Regulations. And I believe our Assistant Planning Director, Erin Bland, is going to present.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So this is a staff-initiated text amendment to, like you said, both the Unified Development Ordinance and the Code of Ordinances to clarify the requirements for what we call site triangles, which is the area that establishes a clear line of sight for vehicles at intersections and places where cars make turning movements into or off of a street or driveway or connections between them. Currently the language in the UDO and the language in the code do not match. They have different dimensional requirements which creates confusion for people trying to know what they need to do and also for us as staff trying to administer conflicting standards. The graphics are also inconsistent. They are not to scale and they just kind of add to the confusion and so these amendments look to clarify those issues and create some more nuanced site triangle requirements that are a better fit for Brevard. It's essential to have sight triangles regulated in a clear manner because they help drivers make safe movements onto and off of streets and driveways. The clear sight lines that are created by sight triangles reduce the likelihood of crashes by allowing drivers to judge the gaps, identify potential conflicts, and respond in time to avoid collisions. And so we're looking to establish and maintain these clear site triangles to provide predictable enforceable standards to support safe property access in protecting the general public of all road users. I'll pull up the amendments here. One thing that these amendments are trying to do is to make it clear that there's two different types of site triangles we're looking to regulate. One is intersections of actual streets and then one where driveways connect to streets. These are treated differently because they function differently for drivers as they enter these intersections. Driveways are a minor access point where the driver from the driveway is typically stopped or going very slow. They have to judge gaps in the moving traffic already on the street to enter that traffic. So this requires longer, more directional sight lines. So what you often see is that there's a longer distance along the road and a shorter distance along the driveway. So you have these long asymmetrical triangles. And our research shows that in North Carolina, you typically see 10 to 15 feet into the driveway or 50 to 70 feet along the road. The other type is the intersection between two streets. This is a shared public decision space where vehicles are already being directed to stop or slow by some sort of control like a stop sign or a signal. Drivers approaching these intersections already expect cross traffic. They are already slowing for other visual cues and design standards. So the site needs are not as extreme and they're typically more balanced. You almost always see symmetrical triangles at intersections. The typical sight triangles in North Carolina are between 20 and 35 feet on either leg. So what we have proposed is changing the driveway site triangle from the current 10 by 70 to 15 by 50 when a driveway connects to a public street. So that allows enough distance along the street, the 50 feet, to adequately see oncoming traffic for the driver entering the road. And then the depth in the driveway, the 15 feet, allows for like the entirety of a vehicle, a typical passenger vehicle, to be seen by the cars already on the street. So you can tell someone is approaching looking to enter the road. For the street intersection site triangle, we're proposing a standard minimum of 25 feet on both streets, but if the road is 40 miles per hour higher, that it would be increased to 35 feet. Basing it on the speed limit is, in staff's opinion, a better way to differentiate. Currently, it is based on the width of the street right of way, which is sort of a proxy for how fast cars might be going, but directly tying it to the posted speed limit is a better way to gauge how much time and distance cars might need to judge perceived conflicts and react in time. Currently there is a 10 foot tall clear zone starting at two and a half feet above ground to 12 and a half feet. We're proposing to maintain that to leave that 10 foot clear zone for you to see the entirety of a vehicle, but it allows some landscaping and things like that. And we're also suggesting that we add the potential to increase the site triangle if there is need based off of high volume and demonstrated history of crashes with the recommendation of a traffic engineer. We also have new graphics that are more to scale and will be consistent between the UDO and the city code. So this is an example of one of the new graphics that shows the 25 foot symmetrical triangle at the intersection of two streets, less than 40 miles an hour. So what you see in your packet is a complete rewrite of section 9.5 in the UDO, which is why you don't have the red and the blue, it's just completely new. And then the code section is sort of annotated as you're more used to seeing with just some changes that refer back to chapter nine of the UDO for the specific standards and includes the driveway, the new driveway graphic. Planning board discussed these at their May 26th meeting and unanimously recommended approval. They also submit to you the included consistency statement in accordance with state law. And tonight we are just doing the public hearing and not requesting any action at this time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. At this time, since this is a public hearing, we will open the hearing. Council, do I have a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

The hearing is now open. No one signed up to speak at the public hearing. Council, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Public hearing is closed. We will now open it for discussion and comments by council. And we'll start with Mr. Lytle.

Just a question I see with the clear, it's called the clear zone. When there's a property that kind of violates the clear zone, are we basically silent about it until there's a reason to go in terms of the volume of crashes or Get a complaint.

The height?

Yeah, the height, yeah. Because that's relative to what would be on their property, correct?

Yeah. I mean, for things like that, we're typically complaint-driven. We don't really have the capacity to drive around and look for these sorts of violations. Okay. So when we get a call about them or the police for the section that's in the nuisance code, that's when we go out and investigate.

Okay.

So go ahead.

Mr. Daniels?

Yeah, just for my own clarification. The first time I read this, it seemed to be that this was for permitting purposes going forward. But you just said that if there's a demonstrated need to change to enforce this on existing properties, is that correct?

Yeah, so it's both. So the UDO section, that's for permitting purposes and development review. But the section that's in the city code, that would be a violation of our nuisance ordinance that we could pursue.

Okay, that was my only question. Thank you. Mr. Baker?

Yeah, I'm just curious. I heard you say that, you know, there's kind of a range of other distances with other North Carolina municipalities, but I'm curious how these rules compare to, like, what the DOT has for their rules.

DOT standards are for they don't really have standards for small low volume streets they have their standards are for your large 45 55 divided highways like they're huge yeah they're hundreds of feet long it's just not something you could do in a neighborhood setting or a you know that sort of thing um okay so they're they're a lot different yeah yeah yeah and then on the

on the clear view zone or the height, the vertical, how does that interact with, I know we have some requirements in some of our code for street trees, so how does that interact with that? Does that restrict the size of street trees?

We're typically looking for them to plant those outside of the triangle altogether. The street tree requirement is a tree requirement is an on average. So we can kind of play a little bit with like the first tree or something like that to help them still put in the right number of trees, but stay out of the zone that would make it obstruct anything from a new street that they're in.

Okay, all right, that's all I have.

Ms. Holder? Tell me again what the current visibility range is. I missed that.

So for driveways, it's currently 10, let me make sure I say this right, 10 by 70, so 10 feet into the driveway, 70 feet along the road. And you're proposing 15 by 50? 15 by 50. And part of that reduction from 70 to 50 is based on the fact that some people's parcels aren't 70 feet wide. So it creates issues where you're essentially having to You can only control what's on your property, and it just kind of creates issues with some of those smaller lots when that triangle extends on the two or three lots.

Got you. And what are the repercussions for a violation? What are the repercussions for a violation?

I mean, the standard enforcement procedures, those are set forth in the UDO and in the city code. It eventually escalates into fines. Typically, people, when they hear about this, they comply. But it's just the standard. There's no specific enforcement procedures for these. It's just the normal procedures.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Wise? Yes.

I don't have any other questions.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Bland. Thank you. This will come back for a vote at our next meeting. We'll move on to our next public hearing. which is the proposed amendments to the City of Brevard Unified Development Ordinance, Chapters 6, 17, and 19, and the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 38, Stormwater Management Development Regulations. And I believe City Manager is going to open with some comments.

Yes, ma'am, I have some context setting comments before I throw to Emily to explain the proposed changes. Two years ago, Council, you set up the city's first stormwater enterprise fund and established a three-tiered impervious surface fee to fund it. Since then, we've used a little bit of that money to finish the Times Arcade Alley stormwater project, but most of it's gone to paying our engineering firm McAdams to update our 20-year-old stormwater master plan. David's not here today, but he's been keeping the Public Works Committee apprised of that firm's work. and they've actually submitted an early draft to us that we're reviewing. When it's done, it will have identified the most critical deficiencies in our existing system and what we need to do to correct them. With that said, a stormwater system works best when both public and private infrastructure are up to snuff. So a thoughtful stormwater plan, like the one we're putting together, has to include a look at rules governing private stormwater features. which is what we're bringing to you here. We've made these proposed updates in conjunction with McAdams. We are proposing some additional development requirements, but we heard your feedback from a few months ago on making sure these weren't too burdensome or costly. particularly on housing development, and we think our proposal has struck a good balance. The last thing I want to say before I throw to Emily is that I need to remind everyone that stormwater systems are a hodgepodge of public and private infrastructure, and that the private owners of private infrastructure are responsible for the upkeep of their infrastructure, even if those pipes and drains transmit water from public streets and other public properties. This notion is supported by decades of case law, and every time this notion is tested in court, it survives. And I bring that up because I know we've had some constituents ask us why they must be responsible for pipes that convey water from public streets, because the case law says so. And so with that in mind, I'll ask Emily to explain what we're proposing.

Yes, thank you. As Wilson said, this is a staff initiated text amendment to improve the stormwater management requirements within our unified development ordinance as it pertains to new development and to existing development that is redeveloped in our ordinance language. The goal is to be more equitable, effective, and have it be easier to administer. Effective stormwater management is essential for us to mitigate the environmental impacts of development in Brevard's sensitive terrain and topography. As land is cleared and replaced with roads, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces, the natural ability of soil and vegetation to absorb that rainfall is lost, which leads to higher runoff volumes and higher flow speeds. So without proper stormwater controls for these developments, debris, sediment, trash, and other pollutants are then washed into neighboring properties and neighboring waterways. So we as a community can have and should have thoughtful stormwater design so that we're able to reduce the peak flows, slow down runoff, and preserve more of that natural hydrological function, even as development continues to occur. As Wilson said, staff worked closely with McAdams over the last couple of months to understand the complexities of stormwater management in Western North Carolina, review best practices in other communities, and most importantly, address the shortcomings in our current ordinance. We then reviewed this draft ordinance with Planning Board at their May 26th meeting, who recommended in favor of its adoption. Section 6.6 is our stormwater requirements for development. And I've got some, I'll summarize some of the major changes, but the whole thing is detailed at length in your packet. Probably the largest change is to the applicability section. What we have right now is that those standards apply to new large non-residential projects, residential developments with eight or more dwelling units, and any project where stormwater is required by a review board such as city council or the board of adjustment. With those smaller residential projects, redevelopment that doesn't have an increase in impervious surfaces and development in the heart of Brevard are all exempt from stormwater requirements entirely. These exemptions should be granted sparingly and strategically to ensure that environmental outcomes are still achieved and that certain types of development are still incentivized. The proposed amendments restructure that applicability standard so that the stormwater requirements are really built, are triggered by the amount of built upon area or the amount of disturbance work that's being done rather than by the number of dwelling units. Anecdotally, we've had people come in and say, oh, I don't have to do stormwater at, when I have seven units, I'll do seven instead of eight. And so instead, by focusing on what the actual development looks like and the amount of impervious surface that's being created, it becomes, this area-based approach is much more equitable and an effective regulatory tool because we're tying stormwater impacts directly to the amount of work that's being done in the impervious surface that's being created. A great example is that a large single family home with a huge driveway and a patio and all these different kinds of things could have a much greater footprint than if you were to have a quadruplex that's built on a smaller scale and things like that. So we're trying to really right size that work and ensure proportional mitigation and close the gaps where smaller scale projects cumulatively contribute to runoff and water quality degradation as well. We've also added applicability that all development in the steep slope areas, regardless of project size, are required to comply with our stormwater regulations. We do have higher standards for these developments, these projects as well. because they are up higher in elevation and have a steepness that make the terrain more challenging. We do have in our ordinance that they are required to provide a geotechnical analysis in order to develop on those steep parcels, and so this wouldn't be as challenging super onerous additional ask for those developments, but really would go a long way in ensuring that the runoff from the highest elevations do not contribute even more to that compounding flood and water degradation impact that comes with increased stormwater runoff. General design standards is the next section. This is a small change but an important change in how we administer this. These amendments include general design standards to really encourage storm water volume reduction prior to even discussing detention measures. So looking at how we can minimize the built upon area by clustering buildings, reducing road widths, including permeable pavers, releasing storm water on your property in different ways, is a really important kind of first step and part of the conversation that we're really missing in our ordinance language and have included that here. So then when we get into actual stormwater treatment requirements, they largely remain the same, but there are two exceptions. The first is that the existing ordinance requires a removal of 85% of the total suspended solids from the first inch of any rain event. exact terminology is pretty outdated and McAdams recommended that we not utilize this because many of the approved stormwater control measures can't accomplish this or it's hard to measure and so instead they proposed having it be one inch of rain event be treated in accordance with the North Carolina minimum design criteria which outlines all of the technical specifications for these stormwater control measures. The next major change is that the new ordinance includes an incentive for projects to use low impact development techniques. LID are stormwater control measures that are designed to mimic natural hydrology. And so this is utilizing things like permeable pavers and green roofs and bioretention cells instead of having, for example, a large detention pond that is strictly meant to contain the water so that it can then be be slowly distributed. So instead of designing for the two and 10 year storm event, projects that utilize LID will be allowed to control for the five year storm instead. Staff worked closely with McAdams in determining this and really LID, designing LID at a size necessary to address that 10 year storm is not feasible. so in working with their green infrastructure team McAdams recommended that the five-year storm is far more practicable and will manage the majority of that stormwater needs for the 10-year while really incentivizing more environmentally conscious and you know more green infrastructure practices instead of those built structures. We do believe that this will encourage developers to utilize LID techniques instead of relying on those. So that is something we're excited to be incorporating more clearly into our ordinance. The maintenance requirements in the current ordinance is definitely our weakest section, and so we wanted to make sure that we had, we're able to strengthen this so that the maintenance requirements and enforcement procedures were ongoing and we were able to ensure that they were in fact maintained and working properly. The new amendments require an operations and maintenance agreement that puts the responsibility on the owner entirely. These agreements would then be recorded at the Transylvania County Register of Deeds to ensure that any subsequent owner is then aware of their ongoing responsibilities. It then also requires inspection reports to ensure that they are appropriately maintained and functioning. Larger cities have a stormwater engineer on staff, and they typically, or sometimes they have a stormwater engineer a specific stormwater planner who requires annual inspection reports and monitors ongoing compliance. That's really not feasible for us as a small planning team and really is not common in small municipalities. It's really just the Charlotte, Raleigh, the big ones. And so we have instead written the amendments to allow the administrator to have the authority to require an inspection report at any time, particularly if there is a reasonable belief that the structure is not working properly. So a great example of that is we see storm water or we are looking at different debris that's coming in or we have a complaint And so we're able to go in and assess that. The applicant or the owner would then be able to submit a stormwater report to us that confirms that it is working accordingly or the engineer would provide some very specific requirements to us. but we also have the ability to ask for that inspection report if there's any proposed redevelopment on the property. So an example of this would be if, for example, Rivard College, large development. They have a lot of stormwater on site. If they're saying that a new project would fit into their existing stormwater, we would require them to show that they do have the capacity to be able to do that and the stormwater infrastructure that they have is working appropriately. So really making sure that we are not continuing to add on new impervious surface to a system that isn't working or we just need to make sure we check that out. Fee in lieu is one thing that really has been removed as an option for most projects. It is instead reserved for projects where it is impossible to meet the requirements of the ordinance. And even with that, the administrator would be required, will also require the project to comply with that stormwater chapter to the greatest extent possible. This is something that is recommended and is very common in other municipalities to have the stormwater fee in lieu really only being used when it's absolutely impossible to be able to build their own. It's a very important tool for us, and so allowing that option for a developer to pay that fee in lieu should be done sparingly. So at the planning board meeting on May 26th, we discussed this at length with them, but we specifically focused a lot on the impact for single family homeowners. The proposed development thresholds are designed so that the vast majority of single family projects are not subject to this ordinance. Typical projects, building a single family home, adding a deck, a garage, would not come anywhere near disturbing a one acre of land or adding 20,000 square feet of built upon area, which would then require compliance with the stormwater regulations. Instead, this is really intended to serve that larger scale development and redevelopment projects that have the potential to significantly increase stormwater runoff and affect downstream properties and public infrastructure. A single family homeowner would typically only be subject to those requirements if it's unusually large project that exceeds one of those thresholds or when it is developing in the steep slope area where they are at a higher risk and it is a much more sensitive terrain. To put that 20,000 square feet into perspective, this represents a very large amount of development. It is approximately equivalent to the entire Franklin Park pool complex, including the main pool, the baby pool, the surrounding concrete deck, the picnic shelter, the pool pump, and half of the bathhouse. It is also comparable to the entire fenced area containing three tennis courts at Silvermont Park. or the Silvermont Mansion and its surrounding driveway, like the whole driveway with the paths, or nearly the entire library building, excluding the Rogo Room expansion. When looking at a commercial property, a typical Walgreens store is approximately 15,000 square feet, and the Food Lion grocery store that we have over here is about 34,000 square feet. So you can think about how a building is 15,000, but then when you look at parking and all of those other things, it would certainly trigger that 20,000 square feet and those are in fact the projects that we wanna make sure comply with our stormwater requirements. The revisions to this ordinance align with many different aspects of the city's comprehensive plan and our recently adopted green growth audit addendum. So from the comprehensive plan, there's plenty of things, but primarily the goal number five, celebrate Brevard's natural resources through conservation of environmentally sensitive areas. And then we also have the entire, all of the activities strategy to, excuse me, the action to all of those items all pertain to stormwater and talk about a lot of these specifically, including refining the types of developments that are required to comply with the stormwater management provisions. So this really is a critical first step in us implementing the green growth audit and being able to sync this up, as Wilson said, with all of the work that's being done with the stormwater master plan. So this is for public hearing purposes. No action is requested at this time. And so I'm happy to answer any additional questions that you may have as we continue to work through this. Thank you.

Thank you, Emily. Council, I need a motion to open the public hearing.

So moved.

I need a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Public hearing is now open. No one signed up to speak at this public hearing. Council, I need a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. I need a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

The public hearing is now closed. We will now open it for comments and questions from council. And we'll start with Mr. Wise.

Well that was a lot. I don't, first of all I really appreciate the work that went into this. I'm on public works and we're doing a whole lot of work for stormwater and just trying to understand the systems we have. We've identified ten kind of key areas that we have problems with now and I think Stormwater is one of those things that probably don't seem super impactful except for the moment it's happening and you see streets flooding. But it has a huge impact on our infrastructure, wear and tear, and the lack of control of it to date we're still paying for. So I'm excited to see this. I do think the LID strategies are gonna be really important. not only because I think they're more efficient, but there's an aesthetic quality to our environment where we see, for example, the new Terminex building, they have this huge catchment basement, or at Lowe's they have a huge catchment basement. Trying to mitigate some of that and using just smart techniques, permeable materials to help control some of this runoff. We are seeing a lot more intense rain events. And then I also was happy to see the steep slope requirements and the geotech for that and removing the fee in lieu. I think those are both good moves. So don't really have any questions, just appreciate the work.

Ms. Holder? I don't have any questions. Thank you for the work. Mr. Baker?

Yeah, just a couple things. I wanna thank you and all the work that went into this, particularly on the side of just making it more equitable. I think that makes a ton of sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to be punishing a multifamily home when a single family home could conceivably be bigger and have a larger impact. I do have a... question on that though I think this might be for the city manager though I believe a part of the stormwater master plan was also taking a look at the fees and making sure those are equitable as well as that is that correct yes sir I think that's really important because I think right now we have sort of a small medium and large fee but that you know that doesn't seem to closely align what the fee should be you know with the impact that a certain building might have certainly we have a large range of large buildings so they shouldn't all be charged the same in one box so I'm looking forward to when we get to that point. My main question has to do with the low impact development. And there's, you talked about sort of the giving credit for that. I don't really, and maybe I missed it, but I don't really understand the mechanism for how we will incentivize developers to actually choose those.

Sure. The incentive is in the requirement itself. Instead of designing for the two and ten year, which you can see the actual numbers, the numbers that I have in the staff report are the 24-hour event reign for two, five, and ten year at. like at City Hall right here, and what that looks like. And so the idea is that by designing for the five-year, you're actually designing for a much smaller structure instead of designing for the 10-year. And so from an ordinance perspective, we're still significantly covering the rain or the precipitation that we would be receiving. I mean, just looking at this, it's 5.7 versus 6.5. inches in a 24-hour rain event. And so we are covering the majority of it, but really trying to incentivize people. The incentive is that they just don't have to build it as large.

Right. Okay, so if you're not incorporating those types of things, then you would have to build for a 10-year.

That is correct.

So you would have to build a very large catch basin or something. Okay, I understand that. Okay, that's all I have.

Mr. Daniel? I don't have any questions. I just think this makes a lot of sense. And as others have said, it's fair, and that's the way it should be. So thank you. Mr. Lytle?

Thank you. Nothing to add.

Okay. Thank you, Emily. All right. We will move on to our third public hearing. It is the proposed amendments to the City of Brevard Code of Ordinances, Chapter 42, Loitering, Trespassing, Public Intoxication, and Hours of Operation. And I believe Brevard Police Chief Wenzel is going to present this.

I'm going to make some introductory comments on this as well, and then I'll ask the Chief to talk about how the proposed updates will help her folks do their job better. but also about some of the strategies they plan to use when they use these new tools if we offer them to her. But first, for the benefit of our viewers, the offenses under discussion here were either listed as civil offenses in our code or were intended to be misdemeanors but didn't contain the required legal language to have them be enforceable as such. And the offenses are consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages in a public place. I'll add parenthetically that this is not social district participation. This is brown bag type consumption. Trespassing on public property, loitering in general, loitering for the purposes of engaging in drug-related activity, assemblages obstructing streets, carry concealed weapons on or near city property, and failing to vacate city property when properly notified by a city agent. And while we're updating the code to include these misdemeanor penalties, I also propose doing some housekeeping and adding city facilities that didn't physically exist last time the code was updated to the section of the code prohibiting concealed carry on city properties. And so, for example, it didn't list Mary C. Jenkins Center. It didn't list 132 Commerce Street. And so I just want to close the loop by adding those new facilities to the list where concealed carry is prohibited so chief if you'll tell us a little bit more about how your folks will be able to work with these new tools yes sir before we talk about the police department's

perspective in regard to these ordinance changes. I wanted to comment that the proposal that is before the council is more about addressing behavior and applies equally to everyone. Whether we look at someone who's trespassing on closed business properties, if they're remaining in city park after hours, obstructing sidewalks, violating the alcohol restrictions outside of the social district, or refusing to leave city properly after being lawfully asked to do so, our response is based on the behavior, not the individual. The expectation is the same for everyone. If somebody chooses not to comply after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so, our officers at the Brevard Police Department need appropriate enforcement options to resolve the situation. These proposed changes do not require officers to make arrests. They do not change the overall philosophy of policing or of the Brevard Police Department. It simply restores an effective enforcement option when education, warnings, and repeated efforts to gain voluntary compliance have been unsuccessful. Right now, our officers have been responding to a multitude of complaints or calls for service over these underlying issues, whether it's loitering in general, open consumption of alcohol, and by restoring these ordinances under North Carolina General Statute 14-4, you will be able to provide the officers with a legally recognized enforcement option when it is appropriate. Ultimately, I believe it's important to note that this proposal is not about making more arrests. It's about giving the police officers the ability to effectively resolve recurring problems, protect our businesses and public spaces, and ensuring those who visit and live and work in Brevard remain safe and welcomed. And then, finally, I would like to note that the UNC School of Government, provides guidance on a lot of these issues, notes that it's still best practice for law enforcement agencies to enforce general statutes over local ordinances. So in terms of trespassing or carrying concealed weapons, we still have the ability to use state statute as opposed to local ordinance.

Thank you, Chief. All right, we will open the public hearing. Council, do I have a motion to open the hearing?

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

The public hearing is now open. Okay. the public is asked to adhere to the following guidelines for the public hearing. Register with the city clerk by printing your name, address, and phone number on the sign-in sheet. When it is your turn, step to the podium in front of city council. State your name and address clearly. Be concise, avoid repetition, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. And I will give you a warning at 30 seconds. Direct comments to the full council, not to an individual council member or to staff. This is a time to provide your comments, but not to ask questions. A public hearing is not an appropriate venue for a question and answer session. All right, and we have one individual who has signed up, Mr. Doug Powell.

Good evening again. I'd like to speak tonight on compassion and fairness. I believe everyone in this room has deep compassion and empathy for any of our fellow citizens who are faced with life on the streets. For most of us, this kind of life is unimaginable and completely foreign to our experience. A reasonable response is to do something to help. For many years before arriving in Brevard, I did just that. Whether you call these dear people homeless or unhoused or any other term, they have names and often horrific stories. In my many years of ministry work with these children of God, I learned a lot. One of the most distressing lessons that I learned was this is not at its core a housing issue. Homelessness is the effect, not the cause of the situation. The fact is in almost every single case, there is a mighty struggle of addiction and mental health going on. which can stem from a myriad of reasons. I remember vividly in several cities, including the 50 plus blocks of LA Skid Row, where on any given night there were plenty of empty and safe beds available at the midnight mission, if only one decided to get clean and sober. Yet thousands decided to live in their own filth and drug-induced haze. And the more services a city or town provides, the more people flock to that locale. Many confided in me that as long as they were free meals available and the police left them alone, there was no real reason to change. So what I saw was the subsidizing of these homeless communities that helped slowly and surely allow them to commit suicide. Since there was no incentive to change their destructive behavior, this is not compassion. I'm sure everyone in this room would agree that we should lift those up who have fallen on hard times that grew up in Brevard or Transylvania County, but I'm puzzled why the good citizens of Brevard are responsible for those flocking here from other cities, counties, and states. We need to make that distinction and focus on helping our own. This is where fairness comes in. Throughout the country, the unhoused often account for well below 1% of the population, yet in almost every case, they constitute anywhere from 20 to 50% of the emergency calls from police, fire, and EMT. I do not believe it is fair for a person in Brevard who pays generously in property taxes to not have those life-saving emergency services available to them in their urgent time of need because a transient person arrived here a few weeks ago from Tennessee or South Carolina. I am not Carnac the Magnificent, but I do know that how this all ends in Brevard if we continue to subsidize this community's drug habit and they pay no price for their lawlessness in the form of public urination, defecation, drug use, theft, vagrancy, and littering. I have seen it all firsthand several times over. You do not want to see this. The good news is that I've also witnessed many success stories of those who sincerely wanted to get their life back on track. But this took a willingness to get clean and sober and become a productive member of society, including seeking employment. There is no other way. The successes that I have witnessed are always predicated on good citizens deciding to make it uncomfortable for their fellow man to not make a change of behavior in their life. This is true compassion and fairness.

Thank you, Mr. Powell. All right, that is everyone that signed up to speak. Council, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

We will now open it for questions and comments from City Council. And we will start with Ms. Holder.

Um... This is a tough issue for me, and like I said a couple weeks ago, or whenever we last met, the however, as our friend has pointed out, we call it, whatever we call it, homelessness or transitioning, It's not just their problem. It's something that we need to look at seriously. And Dean Lytle has tried to bring that to our attention and even have a committee to focus on the unhoused in our community. I know that there are times that you know, the law enforcement must be brought in in situations. I'd like to hear maybe a description. You don't have to bring it out now. We can talk later of what has taken place that would constitute that. And what's the data? How big is the problem that we're talking about when we're speaking of arresting someone? And if they're in the social district, how do you determine how to navigate that?

Yes, ma'am. That's something in terms of the data, I will have to compile that and bring that at a later date.

All right.

Thank you. Completely transparent and accurate with the numbers.

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Baker?

Yeah. Obviously, as the chair of the Public Safety Committee, we've looked at this, and I you know a lot of these or all of these I think were previously had misdemeanor penalties attached to them is that correct before a change at the state level that's correct that's correct and the state several years ago essentially wiped out all local level misdemeanor penalties unless cities reinstated them. And we did reinstate some at that time, but not all of them. So some of this is just reinstating things that were previously in existence. Chief, I appreciate what you said about this not being about making more arrests. I do have a suggestion or potentially a requirement that we could take care of at the Public Safety Committee level. And I want to be sure that this is not about our police officers or a you know, any observation of mine that there's any sort of over arresting happening, but when we're talking about things like loitering, I think it's just a fact that that potential is there because loitering is, it's hard to make that a black and white issue. We do our best with the language we've got in here, but It can be awfully gray, and with any sort of gray issue like that, the potential for essentially over-policing exists. And so I do think that we could implement some additional reporting at the Public Safety Committee level where we hear more often, I think annually we get a report on like what what the crime stats are, what arrests have happened. I think we could potentially take care of that quarterly or more often, just so that we hear, you know, if there's just an overwhelming number of loitering arrests happening, then I think city council would have an oversight obligation to be like, okay, well, what's going on there? And with an annual report, it's just harder to catch those things as they're happening. So again, I'm not saying that our officers or our department would be involved in that at all, but I think when we're implementing new things like this, we have to look at where additional oversight comes in so that we can mitigate some potential negative side effects. So that's just a suggestion. We can talk about it more at the committee level.

Yes, sir. And I would agree with the quarterly reporting in the sense that as we look to implement changes in ordinances and having that level of oversight, one, it allows us also a greater snapshot of what the issue is, what the underlying issues are. And then also, is it also a seasonal thing? Is it something when summertime is out, we're going to see loitering more as opposed to the winter? And so that kind of gives us data-driven results for our police efforts as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Weiss.

I'm going to ask a technical question first because you guys confuse me with your ordinances and laws. So there's general statutes at the state level and then we have ordinances here. I guess this is incredibly naive. There are no state ordinances that determine some of the things we're talking about or that we just aren't allowed to... and force them as misdemeanors, is that?

So we have state statutes that address some crimes, such as the carrying concealed weapon, the trespassing. Loitering alone, for example, is not a crime under a North Carolina general statute unless they're loitering on a state highway, which then is a class three misdemeanor. So that's where cities are able to come in and use somewhat of their authority, for lack of better terms, is to be able to put regulations or ordinances in place that can address certain behaviors that may be causing public concern or unsafe conditions.

Okay. I know it's been said a couple of times, I do want to emphasize that this is not a response to the homeless issue. I think this is something we've been talking about. And when you look at this kind of list, I would even argue the vast majority of these are done by many, many people, not just one small portion of our population. I mean, I've witnessed some of these things myself. So I think that is important to keep in mind because this is a very sensitive topic we're trying to navigate. And I find it confusing. I think getting more data from you, as Aaron mentioned, because I don't really have a clear picture of how much is happening and how to understand it before I can really make a decision about it.

Yes, sir. Mr. Daniel?

Yes, so for clarification again, we spoke about an issue not too long ago, and there seemed to be, my perception was that there seemed to be not able to act because of property ownership. Is that correct? Do you recall?

So in looking at trespassing, whether it is on city property or whether it's on private property. So it's the determination of whether or not in that instance was that individual on city owned or leased property versus private property and who's able to give trespass warnings based on who has rights to the property.

Does this change that in any way or address that ambiguity?

No, sir. We would still have to clarify who has the right and authority to trespass somebody from the property, whether it's somebody on their private property, and we would have a letter from either the business owner or homeowner versus from the city.

Okay. So then my concern is that the list of city-owned properties that's included in this is incomplete. Okay. I mean, we've got the lot right across the street next to the barbershop that we rent. We've got the parklets. We've got the public alleyways. So I think, and I mention that because we could just say, you know, all city properties, but I think it's important that you know what those city properties are because this incident did take place in a parklet. which was leased property. The city leases it, I think. So I just, that would be my one comment about the wording of this. It seems to be a little bit incomplete and vague on location. Because, again, this was a fairly serious incident that, you know, If you didn't know that that was city property, then you would have not been able to deal with it quite as effectively as you were able to.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Mr. Lytle?

Thanks for the clarification. And with Councilman Baker at the Public Safety Committee meeting, we discussed this at length. One thing I will say is that when we do speak of unhoused, we have to be sure that we don't make the issue too small. We'll have to attack the issue from many different aspects and some could be punitive remedies and some are It could be just more larger societal issues that we have to attack. So when we speak of that overall issue, let's make sure we keep it large enough for the actual problem that it is. And in saying that, I think that this doesn't just speak to those folks. It speaks to anyone that's in violation. I think that also leadership is really, really important. If we didn't have leadership, you know, the leadership in place that we were confident in. I wouldn't be as confident in giving this ability back to the officers. You know, I think that the reporting was a good suggestion. I think it's really important that we understand if this were to pass, did it... Did it solve the intended, you know, have the intended consequence? So what does enforcement or lack of enforcement look like now? And what does it exactly look like after this passes if it is to be passed? Did it work? And if it didn't, maybe there's other ways that we need to address some of the issues. And if it did, we need to be able to tell that story to the public. but otherwise, thank you, and I know that the last thing I'll say is I know our officers do a lot more than, you know, get to the scene of the crime and addressed and want to arrest right away. I know that in conversation and I think providing ways to actually tell that story as well because there's lots of protocols that we do use to help people when we do encounter them. And so I think the public would be interested in knowing those methods that we use and some of the resources that we utilize. along with some of the punitive things that we need to be able to do. That's all. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Chief. All right. We will move on to our fourth public hearing. Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing, Pro-Housing Federal Grant Application. And Emily Brewer will be presenting this.

Yes, ma'am. This should be pretty short. So the US Department of Housing and Urban Development 2026 pathways to removing obstacles to housing or pro-housing grant program will provide 50 million dollars in competitive funding to help state and local governments remove barriers to housing production and preservation this they're expected to range excuse me grant amounts are expected to range between 5 million and 10 million And this is the third round of funding, third round of pro-housing competition. And in this round, they will be emphasizing implementation and prioritizing communities that have already taken steps to adopt housing supportive policies and practices. So there is a wide range of eligible activities, but emphasis is on the creation of for sale affordable housing units. Communities can demonstrate recent regulatory reforms and measurable housing outcomes to be the most competitive applicants. And furthermore, Transylvania County is identified as a priority geography and can receive additional preference points that are given to rural areas. So we are submitting an application in partnership with Housing Assistance Corporation for approximately $10 million to support their development of a affordable home ownership community on Cashers Valley Road. The project proposes 26 affordable homes, including 10 single-family homes and 16 townhomes, and includes funding for the infrastructure and site improvements that are necessary for that development to occur. The proposed grant application will also include approximately $500,000 for affordable housing preservation activities in the Rosenwald community. This would be for home repair assistance and would serve an estimated six to eight low-income owner-occupied homes in order to preserve existing affordable housing stock and allow residents to safely and affordably remain in their homes. Pro housing does not require any matching funds, but the project leverages significant local investment and partnerships. Last year the county, excuse me, last year the city transferred the property to HACC as an in-kind donation, valued at approximately $600,000 to support this project. We then will also provide staff time to support implementation and coordination to extend sewer along Cashers Valley Road to be able to serve that property. The county agreed to fund the utility extension into that neighborhood through a Dogwood Health Trust grant of approximately $400,000. So we have leveraged a lot of different partnership opportunities to be able to get this project done. So we are excited about that opportunity. This project is currently in its design phase and the required environmental review is underway to ensure the development is positioned to move forward if funding is secured as part of this. The application deadline is August 3rd, and the awards are expected to be announced in November. So it's a very quick turnaround. But we believe that this proposed project aligns closely with the goals of pro-housing by removing barriers to affordable housing development, increasing the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities, preserving existing affordable housing, and leveraging public investment in order to address those local housing needs. Just for one second, I would love to highlight some of the things, the ways that we have taken steps to remove barriers to housing creation in the last three years, and they will be included in our application. They range from things like our recent ordinance changes for allowing cluster homes by rights and having an additional 50% density bonus and other things to create actual housing, but also we've taken other steps to improve transparency and efficiency, which then have a direct impact on the cost of housing that's being constructed. So things like publishing our schedule of fees and switching to our online permitting platform to leverage technology for those expedited reviews and the streamlined permitting process for that has really improved our, has gone a long way in removing our obstacles to housing and we're excited to be able to participate in this competitive funding cycle and be able to highlight all of the recent activities that we've taken. So no action is requested at this time. This is for public hearing purposes only. A public hearing is not required as part of the grant application, but is something that is optional and has been used, has been required for other CDBG funds in the past. And so we wanted to have this public hearing, but I'll also include any comments that are received as part of our application and we'll continue to, as we continue to refine our submittal.

Thank you, Emily. Council, do I have a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

The public hearing is now open. No one signed up to speak at this public hearing. Council, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Public hearing is now closed. We will now open for... Questions from council. Mr. Daniel.

I don't have any questions, but this is very exciting. This is something that when I served on the housing committee, we explored this not successfully at the time. So I'm very happy to see this at this point, making this kind of progress and my fingers crossed. Mr. Lytle.

I MIRROR THE SAME COMMENTS. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, NOT TO BE TOO GREEDY, BUT THE CASHES VALLEY PROGRAM IS A GOOD ONE. IT'S ONE THAT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY AND DESIGNED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER programs that we can take advantage of this now for this round? How does that work? Are we only, you know, advised or allowed to submit, have one submittal? And if not, are there any other projects that we might seek funding for now?

We can submit more than one application. That is a difference from last year. To be 100% honest, it's due August 3rd. That would be an extremely tight turnaround, but we did discuss this for a couple of other projects, but it was determined that the way that the... The funding opportunity is written to prioritize home ownership and has an expedited timeline where it would be, we would find out in November, start utilizing the funds in January or February. We would, be hard pressed to find a project that fits that kind of a timeline. But we did think about it pretty strategically. I will also say we talked about it with the housing committee and they expressed that they were very excited about having this opportunity to submit for this project and especially a partnership project that we've already supported in the past. So I think in a number of ways this checks a lot of boxes. It is also a very quick turnaround on the actual application. It was like six weeks. for it to be fully done, which is extremely fast for a federal grant. So I'm glad we're able to look at this opportunity for this funding source, and we did consider others as well.

Answers the question. Thank you.

Mr. Baker.

Yeah, we discussed this at the Housing Committee, and so I don't have questions, just a couple comments. I think what makes this one really exciting, and thank you, Emily, for reciting just some of the changes that we've made to our ordinances to improve housing production in the city, but that is built into the grant. They wanna see a city has already made some changes And I think it sounds like they only want it back to 2023, is that correct? Because I was reading through the list and I was like, well, this isn't everything, we've done more than that. But we certainly started in earnest, I think, around 2020, 2021, really looking at this issue and making changes to our ordinance. And these aren't just like, oh, we're changing things on paper. There are actual developments that we can point to today that would not have been allowed three, four years ago that are being constructed now because of things we did in the city. It's great to have a grant that sort of lines up with that. We already have some momentum and this would really add to a lot of the things that are already going on. The emphasis on home ownership, I think, It should also be highlighted because that certainly is a part of tackling affordable housing, but we also have projects underway in the city that are focused on renters. So it's just great that we have momentum on multiple fronts with affordable housing and it's not for lack of trying. We have been at this for several years and it's exciting to see see some momentum and things start to be built and actual homes for families coming to fruition.

Ms. Holder.

As housing chair, I should know the answer to this question, but I don't, so I will ask. Is Cashier's a cluster housing development or not?

They will not be developing it as a cluster development. It will be what we call a group development, so it will have some of those requirements, or excuse me, it will have some of those benefits and efficiencies that come from a group development. This is the first time that they have done townhomes, and so they're excited to be able to utilize our new ordinance changes to be able to build those on their property as well.

All right, thank you.

Mr. Wise?

Yeah, third time's the charm. We're going to get this one. We keep kind of, you know, sharpening the pencil. I'm very confident. This is very exciting.

Okay. Thank you, Emily. Thank you. All right. And that was our last public hearing. All right. Following items are on the consent agenda. One, the Tax Settlement Report of June 2026. Two, City of Brevard Annual Tax Collection Settlement Report. Three, Capital Project Amendment Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade, $8,575,000. Four, Downtown Master Plan Committee Meeting Minutes, February 11th of 2026. Five, Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee meeting minutes May 20th, 2026. Six, Public Safety Committee meeting minutes of May 28th, 2026. Seven, Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting minutes June 3rd, 2026. Eight, Finance and Human Resources Committee meeting minutes June 4th of 2026. Nine, Housing Committee meeting minutes June 9th of 2026. Ten, Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee meeting minutes June 17th of 2026. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Consent agenda is approved. Okay, well, before we move on to unfinished and new business, we will take a five-minute break. All right. All right, we are back, an official session, and we are moving on to unfinished business. Our first item of unfinished business is the proposed amendment to the official zoning map of the city of Brevard, two parcels on Deaver Road to PGX. I believe Aaron Bland is going to present. Yes.

So this is the follow-up to a public hearing that you held on June 15th for another PGX rezoning, and I'm going to bring up the map to refresh your memory. It's currently, well, it's been... It was previously split-zoned. It's these two parcels in the hatching. You can see the green is the current PGX that rezoned the purple, which was corridor mixed use, but it left it split-zoned between residential mixed use and the PGX district. And so now they have changed these lot lines around, and there's a house on that back corner that will remain residential mixed use, and then the remainder of the larger... piece of the two parcels combined will be fully rezoned to PGX, and so that's the request this larger lot two, if you can make that out on the plat, is totally rezone that, eliminate the split zoning and have two different parcels, each fully zoned the two different districts. So that's the request. Again, you held a public hearing on June 15th. Planning Board discussed this at their May 26th meeting and unanimously recommended approval. And so tonight we are asking you to take action to either approve or reject or table for further discussion or information.

Council, do I have a motion concerning the amendment as presented?

I'll make a motion that we approve the amendment as presented.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I will open it up for comments. Mr. Baker?

I have no comments.

Mr. Wise?

No comments.

Ms. Holder? No comments. Mr. Daniel? No comment. Mr. Lytle?

I'll make a unanimous no comment.

All right, then I'll call for a vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes. All right, we will move on to new business. The first item of new business is the proposed Bracken Trail name. And it is Mr. Bland again.

Yes, so as with the other new trails on the Bracken Extension property, we are coming to you for an official name designation. What we're talking about tonight is the yellow trail on this map that was added as a change order to the scope of work of the trail builder he graciously added that on essentially to no at no additional cost so a trail we thought we were going to have to do in the future we already have now and so coming to you for an official name this was heard by parks trails and recreation committee in june and they recommended the name mountain rush which is a rare plant that's found in the kind of boggy wet seep areas on bracken and so that was what is what they recommended and we're coming to you for an official designation

Council, do I have a motion about a new name for the Bracken Trail?

I'll make a motion that we approve the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee's recommendation and name this trail Mountain Rush.

Do I have a second?

I will second.

Mr. Baker, any comments?

I don't have any comments.

Ms. Holder?

So you guys know, I have a bike, but I haven't been on the bike on a trail. I have tennis shoes and I haven't even walked on the trail. So I'm going to ask a question because I just don't know. All right, Bracken Trail, which is where we were Monday? Friday. So are you talking about naming a trail off that trail? Renaming that? Is that what happens?

It's a new trail. It's this yellow one that's on the map here.

Oh, who's talking? Go ahead.

We were at this trailhead marker here at the ceremony on Friday, and so it's not the trail that you would have seen there. We're not renaming it something that already had a name. This is a new trail that needs a new name.

Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you. Mr.

Wise.

Yeah, we did have a ribbon cutting on Friday to open this. Oh, it's Friday. It's okay. Monday, Friday, I mean, what's the difference? To open, and I think, I don't have any questions, but just to say, what's really great about this edition, it is very beginner-friendly, unlike other parts of Bracken, which will kill you if you look at it too hard. So I think this, even I... can walk and ride around this, so it's great to have this new asset.

Maybe I could, too.

You definitely could. We'll go together.

All right. Mr. Lytle?

Mountain Rush sounds fine to me.

Mr. Daniel?

I would agree.

All right. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? We have a new name for the trail, Mountain Rush.

Thank you.

All right. Moving on to our second item of new business, the food vendor pilot program. And Emily is back again.

Yes, this is my last one for the night. So today before you, I have the food vendor pilot program. The city of Brevard currently accommodates food vendors through permitted special events, temporary uses on private property, and permanent food vendor sites that are located on private property. There's currently no process that allows food vendors to operate on city-owned property outside of those circumstances. Mobile food vendors have become an increasingly popular amenity in communities across North Carolina and provide flexible dining options while supporting local entrepreneurs and small businesses. The Finance, Human Resources, and Citizen Appointment Committee has considered allowing food vendors on city property for nearly a year. A previous program to allow only non-motorized vendors or push carts was brought before council upon its recommendation. City Council then referred it back to the committee for further consideration. And we then brought this food vendor pilot program to the committee in June where they unanimously recommended in favor of its adoption. So by doing this, rather than establishing a permanent program, staff is proposing a five-month pilot program that will allow the city to evaluate the benefits and potential impacts of a mobile food vending on public property before considering long-term policy changes. The goal of this pilot program is to activate public spaces, provide additional food options for residents and visitors, support local business opportunities while maintaining appropriate operational standards to protect public facilities and the surrounding neighborhood. The pilot would apply to both motorized mobile food carts, food trucks, trailers, airstreams, et cetera, and non-motorized vendors, which are push carts or similar equipment like that. Vendors would be required to obtain a permit from the city which is proposed at $100 prior to operating and provide documentation demonstrating compliance with all applicable health department regulations, business licensing requirements, and insurance standards as well. The proposed pilot program would operate from August 1st through December 31st of this year, with vendors being permitted to operate only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays between 11 a.m. and 9 p.m. Vendors would be required to remove all of their equipment and vacate the property at the end of each operating day. To minimize conflicts with existing public uses, staff has identified several city-owned locations that we believe could reasonably accommodate food vendors while maintaining adequate public parking, pedestrian circulation, and park operations. We then discussed these with the Finance Committee and came up with a couple of options. So the motorized food vendors would be permitted at three different locations, the Jordan Street parking lot, which has an electrical hookup, the Sports Complex parking lot, which would require a generator, and the Silverstein parking lot, which would be available for operations beginning in October after we're done with the construction in the area, and that would also require a generator. The non-motorized vendor locations would be permitted at Clemson Plaza, the Dog Park, Franklin Pool, Silverstein Park, the Skate Park, and the Soccer Field. Vendor locations would operate on a first-come, first-served basis, and we'd only allow one vendor per location. And if there's ever a special event or a facility reservation, that would take precedence over any vendor usage of that property. The policy also has a number of operational standards and requirements for them. And again, vendors would be required to maintain a minimum of $100, excuse me, $1 million in liability insurance, naming the city as an additional insured to utilize this program as well. The pilot program will require a few small expenditures for signs at the food truck parking spaces and electricity at the Jordan Street parking lot. We estimate that this would be less than $400 in total with signs and electricity. We are requesting that action take, that council take action on this item tonight. You can adopt the attached resolution authorizing the food vendor pilot program as presented, revise and then adopt the resolution authorizing the food vendor pilot program as amended by you, reject the or table the matter for further discussion and consideration. And I have specific locations and things like that in the packet. I'll just show them briefly. So as I said, we have this electrical hookup for a food vendor site in Jordan Street parking lot. Then we have the sports complex, Silverstein parking lot, and then the non-motorized vendors like those push carts, ice cream, hot dog cart, things like that that you would think of can set up in Clemson Plaza, the dog park, Franklin Pool. Skate Park, Silverstein Park, and the soccer field. So we have identified specific locations where we would meet, would not interfere with parking, would not interfere with pedestrian flow, and would not be, for example, like near a fire hydrant or something like that. So we did vet all of these locations for those reasons as well. I am happy to answer any questions and talk about anything further.

Council, do I have a motion concerning the proposed resolution? So moved.

What is your motion? Oh, I'm sorry. To adopt what she has presented.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. We'll open for comments. Ms. Holder.

I think it's a great idea for this trial period. It will help more business owners who have the ability to present the food trucks and vendor spots. I'm kind of partial because I serve on the committee. I just think it's a great idea. When I was in Charlotte and worked for the Chamber of Commerce, successful in Uptown Charlotte, but I think it's a great idea for our city.

Mr. Weidel.

The same. Mirror the comments. I would say let's make sure if this does pass that we as much as possible get the word out so we actually have vendors to do the pilot program and learn from it and make sure that folks understand that they're able to do that and the opportunity right away should this pass. But I think it's great.

Ms. Daniel.

Yeah, I agree. I think it's a good idea to have the pilot program. It makes a lot of sense as well. I do have a question. I'm not sure, is the Jordan Street parking lot in the MSD?

It is within the MSD, it is not within the fire district, which is different. Yes, and part of the reason why we have all of these electrical hookups in this area is so that we would not need to use a generator, which poses a greater fire hazard.

Well, my concern is we're putting a business in the MSD and it's not going to be paying the MSD tax. Is that correct? That's correct. How does that work? I don't really understand how we can do that.

I consider that to be a policy question that's up to you all. They would be using city property. City property is tax exempt. And so if you all wish to permit them to use it in that way, it's a decision that's up to you.

Well, Obviously, I have a concern about that, but as I said, considering it's a pilot program, there are two brick-and-mortar restaurants across the street from that site that that would be in direct competition with. Both of those businesses will have their... as well as their taxes raised, which these folks will not be paying. I find that location questionable. I'm not sure I agree with that, actually. That's all I have.

Mr. Baker.

Yeah, I think the last time this came up, I may have been the one that torpedoed it, so I'm very glad it's back because I do think that it's a great idea in principle and activating public spaces I think should be something that we're focused on. In terms of the concerns that were just raised, I can understand that. I also feel there are There are restaurants that rent downtown that aren't directly paying the MSD tax. Property owners pay that tax, and you could argue that that gets passed down, but it's still not a direct, there's certainly restaurants that aren't directly paying the MSD tax. We don't know what these folks are gonna do with their cardboard, If they're a food truck, they're operating out of a commissary kitchen, which may be in the city limits, which would be required to pay the cardboard fees. So they're certainly being collected in other ways. But I can understand the hesitation. I know downtown business owners are certainly protective of our downtown. but I think activating public spaces especially places like Clemson Plaza which I you know if you ask me is just like begging for a hot dog cart or something you know a popsicle stand whatever it is because I you know it's a it's a beautiful space and and it could really use you know something like that to make sure it's taken advantage of I do have just a couple questions. The $100 fee, I know this is a pilot program that's shorter than a year, but is the intention for that to be an annual fee if this was fully implemented?

Yes, that would probably be how it ends up looking because we would make sure that they have all of their updated documentation and things like that every year. to participate, that is a pretty common model is to have an annual fee for some of these kinds of permanent programs.

And then the, I know there was mention here of some, the city would have to purchase some signage sort of designating these spaces. And I originally had a question Like, well, what happens if somebody shows up to vend from one of these spaces and there's somebody parked there? But I assume the signage will say something about that, correct?

Food truck only Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays. So I'm able to clarify that.

Okay. The last thing I'll say is, you know, I think we should be ready to Councilman Lytle's point. I think it was Councilman Lytle. Like, if this is... successful, we should be ready to make it permanent. Also, if we don't quite have the participation that we would like for the first few months of the pilot program, we should be ready to extend it for another period of time, be it eight to 12 months, so that we can get full participation. It can take people a while to get a business together, even if it is a relatively low overhead business. So yeah, let's just be ready to extend it if we need to. But I want to thank the committee. Again, I feel like I was the one that, the first time this came up, kind of sent it back for more work. But I think that time was well spent, and this looks like a great idea, and I'm excited.

CHRISTIE WOOD. Mr. Wise.

Yeah, I don't see a provision saying the city council can choose what kind of food truck goes there, which has a huge oversight. I'm going to allow it. No, I'm also sensitive to what Gary had said. We had looked at this on finance. over a long time ago, and we actually thought that not doing motorized food trucks in MSD, that's kind of where we landed on it. I do think since this is a pilot program, I would just really love to see not only like how active it is with the trucks, but to hear from our local businesses and what they feel the impacts are. So I think making this pilot is a great idea. And then I wasn't sure, for the permitting, we had also talked a little bit about if we have a huge demand, if multiple, like is this, if you get a permit for a year, can you stay there for a year, or is there a rotating policy to move trucks in and out?

As of this moment, I can't imagine that we would have that huge of attendance and participation. I'm optimistic. But what... Of all the programs that I looked at when putting this together, the only one that I've seen that actually has a schedule and does rotations, well, I guess there's two. There's the one in Raleigh where you have to go in and reserve your exact dates, but they have a separate app system for those dates not to be used. like it's a separate system from their permitting process where you can go in and see when people have already snagged your dates five every three months, or I don't know exactly what it looks like, but the idea is that you have to then have a second step to make the reservation of the space. And then the Asheville program, they have three food truck sites, and they have so much participation that they actually have the dates already established for like six months out. And the staff assigned those dates because there was so much interest and participation. So as it stands right now, that's not included in this. We also wanted to make it as easy as possible for somebody to participate. And most of the programs that we've seen do utilize a first come first serve.

Sure. And I don't disagree with that. I would just as another metric to look at to see if we get complaints.

I think I should also say that the committee talked a lot about how we could position these in different types of areas and how we could utilize specifically the food truck sites to get information to say having one that's more in in downtown but not on main street and and kind of being able to the committee did discuss bringing activity and activating jordan street a little bit more and how that might be able to be an interesting point of of discussion as part of this pilot program as well as what it looks like for the sports complex and then in a more residential neighborhood with the Silverstein parking lot. So there was a lot of discussion around how to utilize, be strategic about what food truck locations there were. And so that will certainly be one of the feedback points that we'll be looking to assess as well.

Okay, thank you.

I'd like to make one other comment, if I may. Yes, Mr. Dyer. In response to Mr. Baker's comment, I'm pretty sure that if a restaurant is renting a property in MSD that they are paying the tax to the owner who may be writing the check. But they are paying the tax. But I will say also that this is a pilot program. if this is an issue, we can remove it. I think that's the way I'm gonna look at this, is let's just see what the reaction is with our business owners and see how it goes. I also wonder, if you have a food truck like the one that's over at the depot, there's nowhere for their, The tow vehicle to park. I mean, that is pulled. So you've got, well, anyway, I'm just.

They'll need to detach from their tow vehicle and relocate it somewhere else.

To a parking space downtown.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, boy, that's great. No, that's all I have to say.

All right, you have a motion and a second all in favor aye opposed motion passes All right, moving on to our last item of new business appointment of the ABC board member and I believe Mr. Lytle who is the chair of the HR committee is going to present this I

Yeah, we, a few days ago, held interviews for two open positions on the ABC board. It's a five-member board, and they serve staggering three-year terms, and so Mr. Ron Brewer had initially filled a vacancy, and he was reappointed in 2023, and Lisa Connor has served also a three-year term since August 23 and is eligible for one more term, and she's also the board chair for the past two years. So after our interviews, we recommend, and we held interviews with city manager, councilman Holder, and myself, that we reappoint Lisa Connor for another three-year term. But what we also determined was that the numbers of the board, we're seeing a decrease in revenue, a significant decrease. We know that our budgets are tight. We're going to need as much revenue as possible in the future, and so we need to really look at all of our sources. and make sure that we maximize all sources of revenue. To that end, we recommend that we direct the staff to recruit an individual that has retail advisory board experience or restaurant experience to really bring a little bit of strategic thought to the board to make sure that we can maximize that revenue and do it in a responsible way, of course. and make sure that our service is up to par as well. So that's what our committee's recommending is that we go ahead and reappoint Ms. Connor and we direct our staff to do some recruitment of someone that brings lots of expertise to the board.

And Mayor, I can tell you that since last week when we conducted these interviews, I've had a discussion with a couple of downtown stakeholders, and we brainstormed a few potential applicants, and so we'll reach out to them and gauge their interest. And just this afternoon, right, Becky sent a press release to the newspaper asking them to include some content on this and other board vacancies in the hopes of eliciting some additional applicants.

Okay. Council, do I have a motion to approve the resolution reappointing Ms. Connor and directing staff to re-advertise and extend the recruitment of another member with specific experience as mentioned? So moved. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. We'll open it for discussion. Ms. Holder?

Of course I was involved with the interview process and still stand by what Councilman Lytle has presented so that we can get someone who is retail experienced and may be able to bring more expertise. And all three of the candidates were great. We just need more specific expertise in those areas given where the retail industry with ABC stores are right now, so that we can make wise decisions, or they can make wise decisions going forward.

Mr. Wise?

No comment.

Mr. Baker?

Yeah, I have no comments.

Mr. Daniel?

No comment.

Mr. Lytle?

No comment.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes. All right, that was our last item of new business. We will go to remarks and future agenda considerations, and we will start with Mr. Daniel.

I only have one thing. I did attend the Friday opening of the McMorrow Trail, which I'm sure others who were there will speak further on as well, but it was quite an impressive turnout. It was great seeing folks come down the trail while the ceremony was going on, actually using it. as we were speaking. But one of the things that I took a lot of satisfaction is the recognition that city staff, Aaron Bland, received in the comments. He got a lot of recognition, and I would like to commend him as well at this moment. So thank you, Aaron, for that. And thanks to all of our staff for the great work that they do. So thank you.

Mr. Lytle?

No comments tonight. Thank you.

Mr. Baker?

Okay, I'll be quick, but I do want to talk about Bracken, too, and it was a great day on Friday. It was great to see the turnout, and it's just great to, you know, I think Bracken as a city project, you know, might get some people questioning, well, we're surrounded by a national forest. Why do we need Bracken? But when I was there, you know, I rode actually up there It was insanely hot. I did not ride any trails, but I rode from my house up that hill by the music center. Just the fact that you can access it that way, straight from people's houses, straight from downtown. It's a very unique thing about Brevard that I think took vision and follow through from a lot of people. Mack Morrow, obviously, prime among them. But a ton of city staff hours and time as well. And I was thinking about once the Acosta Trail is finished and that heads downtown and we've got this great natural amenity downtown, it's just everything's centered around the heart of Brevard. It's a great vision to see come to life, and it was validating to see so many people show up on a Friday to celebrate that. So thanks to everyone who participated. Obviously there's a ton of people to thank, so I'm not gonna go into it, but just really exciting to see a project like that that takes a lot of people, a lot of years of service and dedication, it's exciting to cut a ribbon. And so I look forward to more of those to come.

Ms. Holder.

This is our first meeting since Juneteenth and July 4th, and so I just want to say publicly thanks to everyone here and there who attended those two events. Very impressive attendance for both, and I was proud to be a part of both activities. Regarding Rack and Trail, which was on what you said is Friday and my Monday, i thought who who would ride their bike up here and there were a lot of bikes there and our city manager rode his bike up there and was can i say it it was almost the end of me It was almost what?

The end of it.

It was, it was. We didn't shake hands or hug or anything that day. But it was impressive that people would do that. And I felt really good riding up in the van. I think even Aaron was surprised with how many numbers there were there and impressed. But you guys did a great job and handled it well. Thank you so much.

Mr. Weiss.

I'm going to keep it pretty brief and have no comments.

Mr. Attorney.

Just a reminder that we do have three closed sessions. And that's why.

How can we possibly forget three closed sessions? Okay. Madam Clerk. I didn't forget we had three closed sessions. Mr. Manager.

I yield my time to Chief Winsell.

Obviously, I think, can you donate?

If you'd like to donate, can you do it in favor of the provider fire department? I mean, just kidding.

Fire department.

No, but we'll be out there all day.

If you guys want to come and give blood, it is a great cause.

Okay. And I will just say that, yes, please do sign up for the blood drive. I got an email from the executive director of the Red Cross for the western area of North Carolina about the extreme shortage of blood that we have right now. So it's very, very important. And I will just say, Chief, that I got, after I signed up to donate this afternoon, I got a phone call from the sheriff trying to pressure me to vote for him. Really? I know. I mean, really? Yes, so feel free to call all his folks and get them to vote for you. Fair is fair. Anyways, yes, if you can, please donate blood. Yes, Friday was incredible up in Bracken. I think Aaron said he started working on that in 2018, trying to get that additional 34 acres. And so that's... eight years, if my math is right, eight years from the concept, the vision, to actually making it be complete. And it was wonderful to see so many people up there that had worked on this for so long. It's a great amenity for our community. It's two more miles of, I'm not gonna say easy trails, because there's still hills up there. It's not flat. But easier trails. And it's also a great amenity for visitors, which is important. So Bracken, it was great to be able to take it another step forward. And it's something that the city had the vision back, I think it was 2004, we put it in the conservation easement. About 20 years ago about 20 years ago There was the vision from the city from the mayor and council to put it in a conservation easement so that this precious Natural resource would be available not only to us but for all the future generations and I was able yesterday to go see mayor Jimmy Harris former mayor Jimmy Harris and to tell him that part of the vision and part of what he started 20 years ago, we were able to build and to complete and to open those trails. So I'm very proud to be able to continue to build on a legacy that our predecessors had put in place. And of course, as Mack Morrow stated at the end, there's a whole batch of more stuff that he wants us to do so staff I'm sure you wrote it all down max suggestions on where we go next because because we're not finished we've just reached a new plateau but it's not the end end line so anyways if you haven't been up to Bracken go up there even if you're just walking part of the trails it's beautiful it's wildflowers and trees and nature and animals and... Animals? Animals. Rabbits.

Squirrels. Oh no, just little animals.

Anyways, Bracken. A couple of upcoming events. My Meet the Mayor is this Thursday from 1130 to 1 at Mary C. Jenkins. Again, if you want to come and talk about whatever, you are welcome to do that. I vary the time. One month I have it at noon and the next month I have it in the evening. If you can't make the noon one, the one in August is in the evening. But we have lots of opportunity for you to give input. And also, I want to point out, there's some flyers over there. We are having a seminar, our age-friendly working group is sponsoring one, on how to prevent falls. So falls are how to reduce the risk of falling, what to do if you do fall, and I'm sure the police and the fire department would be very happy have fewer calls to help rescue people that have fallen but this is really important and so it's again a service to our community it is on august 13th from 10 to 12 30 in the rogo room and it's free for anybody so fall prevention and with that i think i need a motion to go into closed session for economic development is that right mac

Theodore's choice, yes.

Economic development first, all right.

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right, we are in closed session. Please stop the broadcast and please clear the room. Thank you.