Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the July 22nd meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. Stand for the pledge, please. Roll call, please.

Chairman Aton. Here. Vice Chairman Scully.

Here.

Secretary Faison.

Here.

Member Rice.

Here.

Member Gerrard.

Here.

Member Graham.

Here.

Member McDaniel. Here. Alder Member Seidler. Here. Alder Member Troutman.

Here. We have not only a quorum, but a full house, I think. First order of business is approval of the minutes of July 8th.

Chairman, if I may, we found two corrections we'd like to add to your motion tonight.

Okay.

The first is on page 6 of 156, and both of these are related to the small-scale amendment SSA number 1, 2026 Canaveral Avenue. On page 6, it says, Member Grodd made a motion to recommend approval of SSA number 1, and towards the bottom of that paragraph, It says that the request was from medium density residential to urban mixed use. And that was what the applicant had originally submitted on their application. But the motion and the discussion was about the high density residential for the future land use. And on page seven, discussing the zoning, You'll see on the first paragraph at the end there it says single-family high-density R1C to urban mixed-use UMU zoning. That also was incorrect. The applicant was requesting the R3, high-density multifamily. So I just want to, if you make your motion to approve the minutes to include those two corrections for us. Thank you. Great. Thank you for catching those.

Does anyone else have any corrections or comments on them? If not, does anyone care to make a motion with the noting the changes?

I'll make a motion to approve with the two edits from staff.

Thank you.

I'll make a second and thank staff for catching that.

Motion and second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, minutes are approved. City Attorney?

Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi-judicial item must be complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. These cards are located on the table in the front of chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches, or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city.

Members please disclose any ex parte communications or site visits at this time Thank you Thank you first item is our first session of Petitions and requests from the public present if anyone's got anything to say just come up to the podium You don't have to fill out a card for this section. I

Hi there. So my name is Justin Dunlap. Thank you guys for presenting today. And I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce myself and just moved here from February this year and bought seven and a half acres over off of North Singleton and Parrish, basically the very northern edge of the county. right before we turn into MIMS, basically. And I don't know if you guys have heard or heard anything about it yet, but we're attempting to put a rezoning from residential one on the property to general use for agricultural pursuit, which is within the current zoning abilities of the county. So we're looking to get everything rezoned. to be able to facilitate for agricultural facilities there. And then also we're really interested in helping the city also implement agriculture into the zoning as well. So if there's ever need to be a subcommittee or anything like that to go through all those documents and see if that's an interest for the city of Titusville, I'd happily offer my time and my information and know how on the matter. But yeah, so right now we currently have the rezoning scheduled for October, November, and December. I would like that if we could somehow get that pushed up sooner. I think it's pretty straightforward. We're just out there farming and doing everything that's under farm activities, basically under Florida statutes, Brevard County statutes, all the rest of that. But unfortunately right now the zoning... is pretty, the words aren't a lot there for agriculture. So really it's just agricultural pursuit is the only thing that really binds to agriculture whatsoever in the city of Titusville. So we would like to go into that general use from residential, but then in lieu of getting agriculture as part of the county or part of the city as well. I think that'd be great to do. So I don't know if you guys have any comments on that or wanna speak about it.

Eddie, do you have any color on? I think I heard at the last council meeting there was some discussion about some form of agricultural zoning. Is that anything that planning's working on or any update?

So I understand Justin attended the city council meeting and had the same presentation as he has just presented for you all. We do have a complete application for his rezoning request currently. And so when that's ready, we'll bring it before you. Okay.

So it sounds like as soon as you guys are able to get done, we'll be able to get this thing moved in. Awesome. No, they've been fantastic. We've had a couple of meetings kind of going over everything and how everything's going to work. I know there's been a lot of confusion as far as... Activities of the farm agriculture is like farming is not just planting crops and doing our stats a lot of community involvement as well And bringing people out doing educational events and such and we had there was a lot of hard Things that because there's no agriculture in the city of Titusville. It's really hard for Anybody that's in the engineering department or wherever it's a really grasp it word typically and like the county or state For which most things fall under those statutes It it's it's permit exempt. There's a lot of Support for agriculture in that manner to allow things to happen You know as a farm would because it's set up different than a house or a townhouse or a commercial operation, right? So yeah

Well, we look forward to seeing you back here whenever the application's ready. Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

I have one question, Chairman, for this individual. Is the property, what is it zoned for right now? Is it single family?

Right now it's Res 1. And from my understanding, it was rezoned back in 2001, 2002, to be split up to 25 units for that property. But they were unable to, it was unfeasible to get water and sewage out there. So Since then, it's been through multiple developers and all the rest of that over the years. And then I kind of showed up and I was like, hey, I could, you know, seven and a half acres, high and dry. It's perfect for a farm. I came from Loxahatchee. It was swamp land. So just not have to worry about the swamp anymore. And the nice, cool breeze out here, too. So it's pretty nice. But yeah, the community is really involved. All of our neighbors really are excited for it to get moved on, move forward as well. And I do want to mention kind of some of the urgency for us to get this kind of moved along to, you know, we're trying to get this developed as fast as possible so we can start getting animals in there. And part of that process is kind of the cart before the horse. You have to have everything finalized with the city before you can get USDA loans and then, you know, be able to bring farm animals and those kind of things on the property. You have to kind of have those already on the property in order to get the bona fide farm certifications, which we have and all the rest of that. So it's, it's, It's kind of cart before the horse, but the faster we can get it moved along, the faster we can get things up and operating and be a healthy benefit to the community. Great.

Sounds like staff's kind of... Yeah, no, we'll definitely hear that next go-around. I'm definitely interested in this, seeing some kind of farming or nature zone about animals and stuff like that. But no, I was just curious what your zoning is now currently because... But no, we'll see when you come back, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate it. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Yeah. Anyone else for petition requests? Seeing none, we have no old business. And our first item of new business is item 9A. Eddie? Eddie?

Thank you, Chair. This is item 9A, small-scale amendment number 2, 2026, at 1165 War Eagle Boulevard, on page 10 of 156 of tonight's packet. The subject property is a 1.1-acre, unplatted parcel located north of Astronaut High School, south of Derry Road, and adjacent to the current city limits in a predominantly residential area. The property is identified as Brevard County property appraiser tax account number 2106714 and parcel ID number 2135300769. The purpose of the annexation feature land use amendment and rezoning is to allow the existing single family residents to connect to city utilities. City Code Section 21-1 requires property owners outside the city limits to apply for annexation before receiving city water, sewer, or reclaimed water service. Code of Ordinances Section 21-1 lots served by governmentally owned water slash sewer slash reclaimed water lines states, every out-of-city property owner who desires to be considered for water, sanitary sewer service, or reclaimed water service shall apply for annexation as a condition precedent to being considered for the service. If by reason of annexation laws the property can be annexed and the city in its discretion desires to annex the property, the property owner shall submit an application for annexation and pay the required advertising and recording fees and the annexation will be processed in accordance with applicable regulations. Most of the surrounding properties are located in unincorporated Brevard County and are designated Residential 15 Future Land Use with Rural Residential RR1 Zoning. Two nearby single family homes within the city limits along War Eagle Boulevard are designated Residential 1 Future Land Use and Residential Estate RE Zoning. The applicant is requesting Residential 1 future land use and residential estate RE zoning to match the nearby city properties. Both designations allow a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. The proposed RE zoning is consistent with the Residential 1 future land use designation in accordance with the future land use slash zoning consistency matrix in Section 27 of the Land Development Regulations. This item is scheduled to be heard by City Council at the August 25th, 2026 meeting. Just one comment. Actually, I'll start with the maps. On page 49 is the aerial. To give you some context, this is War Eagle Boulevard, north of Astronaut High School and south of Oak Park and Madison, Oak Park Elementary and Madison Middle School. If you turn to page 50, that shows you the future land use designations. On the left is the existing future land use and the areas that are in white are areas that do not have the city's future land use designation because they are in the county. And on the right hand side is the proposed future land use. You'll see the light blue color is proposed and is also found in nearby properties. ON PAGE 51 IS THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING MAP. AND, AGAIN, CURRENTLY THERE'S NO DESIGNATION, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR THE RE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH CAN ALSO BE FOUND NEARBY. One thing to consider is that the city council is not obliged to annex this property. This is a requirement because the applicant has asked for water service. And so if council decides not to annex the property, there is an alternative means. There's an out of service utility service agreement that could be completed whereby the applicant could still get water without being annexed into the city. And typically those agreements have a pre-annexation clause with them where the city could annex them in the future should the city desire to do so. With that, that concludes the presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone have any questions? Member Garad.

Thank you, and welcome back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Eddie has just described the concern I had when I looked at this. I sent an email earlier this afternoon asking a question, and I would direct the commission to look at page 16 of 156 if you go to there. As Eddie just described, this particular illustration shows the city limits. It shows the zoning districts, and you can clearly see where zoning districts are designated. It's in the unincorporated county. Pragmatically speaking, a city grows and shouldn't grow haphazardly and shouldn't grow in piecemeal fashion. That's why annexations are so concerning. And there's statutory law on how you annex property. In this case, my experience tells me the annexation capacity is because it's across the street from the blue-colored RE lot. Annexations across rights-of-way allow you to be considered contiguous. as opposed to all the other lots you see that aren't identified as zoning that are in the unincorporated county. They're neither across the street nor contiguous with incorporated properties. That's all good and fine. It sounds like I'm a city manager talking, but the reality is when you start piecemealing in stuff, you potentially create enclaves unintentionally. You kind of box in the perimeter and what you leave in the center is an unincorporated enclave with your law enforcement and you get a call. Imagine driving up or Eagle Boulevard in the city. Police respond across the street from you, but they won't respond to you across the street in the reverse sense of it. These are reasons annexations are concerning to me as a citizen because you are paying the taxes for citizenry and you're paying to support that service and that service can become a little dicey. Now, I do recognize that you have interlocal agreements with law enforcement and that they can make a call that they have to have a response because of the immediacy. If it's not in that involved matter, it still becomes difficult. Here, the property is also on a septic tank. And I think there's been a lot of discussions in this part of Bavard County and adjacent to the intercoastal Indian River Lagoon that septic tanks aren't your best sewage disposal method in the bigger picture of trying to improve the Indian River Lagoon. You can solve that by extending water and sewer lines to properties and then by law creating annexations by agreement. As Eddie said, the alternative would be consigning an agreement that says when I when it's ripened for annexation, I have to annex. Ripening was the question I had for Eddie. There's no sewer on this property. There's no sewer on War Eagle Boulevard. If I look at the map, I'm imagining that there's a sewer line that comes, I guess, from the south, and it stops at the subdivisions that are at the bottom of that page. 16, I suppose, because those are very small lots and probably don't have septic tanks. And I suppose that when they develop, they develop with water and sewer. If there's no line extending beyond that, you'd have to plan that line. So the question I had for Eddie was, what is the city's public works department have for their capital improvements program? Since we know by the fact you can see these spots of rezonings and I'm again supposing they came in the same fashion lot by lot as opposed to categorical rezonings on these separated and somewhat non contiguous properties. The answer is public works has no 20 year horizon and their plan for extending sewer lines up Wario Boulevard. I'm guessing if you're not providing sewer to those lots, there's going to be a reluctancy to go annex properties, which is an alternative city governments have to force annexations. You usually find that happens when you boxed in a neighborhood as you see this pattern book doing and you box it into the point where you've already got water and sewer services. back to that police and fire response. And you realize for the best of the citizens in the community, you need to annex all those properties that are otherwise an enclave. And city government, I believe, has the right to do that eventually, depending on how you look at the property's continuity. My story about creating a box in the center that's an enclave de facto by process. So my point to this in the commission's consideration would be, In lieu of annexation, where you continue this pattern, which appears to be the pattern that set that alternative to that agreement would provide the applicant with the water they seek. Their argument is they lost their well. It's polluted from flooding and they seek central services because of potable water concerns that can be provided without annexation. You're going to raise the tax base of the city because you're going to get taxes if you annex, but I can't believe with the homestead exemption world that we're looking at that taxable value coming to the city is going to be negligible with any and that doesn't off to me offset the potential creation of this. Piecemeal annexation to seek water up that street war Eagle Boulevard until what we create is a de facto enclave. You can probably see that best illustrated on the property called parkland circle. Parkland place maybe and you see the 2 lots in the middle of unincorporated property. water and sewer to that subdivision is water to those two lots only and I can't imagine that a water line would be extended in that cul-de-sac design to just that one lot and Jason properties aren't having central water if you're looking at a big picture of the city I would certainly think the best interest is served by providing Portable municipal water to residents in the city limits of Titusville. That's what cities provide counties let you have big lot septic tanks and wells and you grow into the city. So this, in my opinion, doesn't really fit the pattern book for annexations. And if an alternative exists, it would be my opinion that the alternative would be better suited for everybody, better suited for not creating the piecemeal annexation where there's no plan in the next 20 years to extend the sewer line up Oreagle Boulevard. So this repeats itself potentially if all those residents suffer for the same problem, that their potable water wells, private wells, Have subject to deterioration caused by time caused by flooding or whatever. So my two bits on here is I wanted. I'm glad you introduced that. I was going to ask, do you have an alternative? And that alternative is better, in my opinion, than annexation for both parties. That's all I have to say on that.

I tend to agree before we move off of that. Eddie, do we know? Are there other agreements, whatever the term is you used, any of these houses along War Eagle have that same agreement if they were colored in? My thought is because of the right to annex, at some point you may hit a tipping point where enough houses along here have an agreement and it does make sense to annex it and potentially put a sewer line in. Do we know if we do that with this one, will this be the first or are there others already there?

Or we just don't know? There are there are many other properties in the areas around the unincorporated areas surrounding the city limits that have utility service agreements. I don't have the information as far as War Eagle Boulevard. Um, I don't believe that this would be the tipping point that would cause that annexation, but it would end up being, um, a clause in the utility service agreement that if council felt that this was the appropriate time to annex, then they, the owner has voluntarily agreed to that in the future.

Right. No.

Okay. Great.

Thanks. Member Seidler?

Thank you. Like you said, the sewers, it's 420 feet away, and the city has no plans of building. And I kind of had the same question, the surrounding properties. Did they also suffer from the flooding? Are their wells contaminated? Have any of their equipment destroyed? And And on the application, that's why they're seeking for the water hookup. My question is, what are they using now?

I would have to let the applicant speak to that. I don't know. Maybe bottled water. But to answer your question about surrounding property owners, we have not heard from any of the other surrounding property owners interested in this process yet.

Okay. And then my next question is because it is in an area of critical concern, does annexation itself trigger any additional stormwater or environmental requirements for, or would those apply only if the properties redevelop because it is in the area of critical concern?

Right. So this is an existing single family home and the property owner is, um, is not proposing any new development. So there's nothing, um, no new development as far as, uh, what would be reviewed against the code at this time.

Thank you. Member Rice.

Was the applicant given the option to just sign the water sewer service annexation agreement and not actually join the city right now, but sign that agreement? Was that option afforded to him first?

No, so unfortunately that option does not appear to meet the code requirements. If I can find this section, one second please. 21-1.

So basically if you said no, you're saying the only way he can get water is to annex. He can't just sign the water service agreement.

He has to apply for the annex. Correct. The application for annexation, it doesn't require that the applicant or the homeowner annex into the city. It's on page 15 of 156, the second paragraph in the first staff comment. It says, the city's code of ordinances section 21-1 requires out-of-city property owners seeking water, sewer, or reclaimed water service to apply for annexation before service can be considered. So, unfortunately, we can't sign the agreement until the applicant...

Okay, so if he got denied for the annexation, then he could sign the agreement? Correct. Okay. Next thing, with area of critical concern, the only thing that would impact him in the future would be his impervious surface. If he was going to expand any impervious surface on the lot, there are limitations in the area of critical concern with the amount of impervious surface. Correct. He's under that threshold with the survey I saw, so that's not a big deal. Why did you pick, or did he pick, RE versus RR? And the reason I ask, it's non-conforming under RE and it's conforming under RR. And the non-conforming things in RE, the side setback is 20 feet. And a survey shows one at 16.3 for its principle structure. Now its accessory structure meets the code. The other thing that the code says for RE is that the minimum House size living area is 2,000 square feet the property appraiser Has them at 1724 so those are two number but if you were to be zoned as RR and he meets all those standards are within the limits of the RR zoning. The only difference is you get two units per acre for RR and only one unit per acre for RE. Is it better to make the house conforming but get two units an acre or keep the density at one and then you have a non-conforming

Right. Both of those are equally plausible scenarios. The reason it was chosen was simply for consistency with the other large lots, single family lots in the area that have the RE zoning on page 51. Because those are the larger lots. If you go further north, there's RR zoning. So it could be consistent with the area as well. Well, it could.

I mean, going from RE to RR isn't a big leap between those two. I just... I think the applicant needs to understand if he accepts the RE that he is a non-conforming lot. Those things more than likely will never be an issue, but if his house is destroyed and he has to rebuild, he has to move it to 20-foot setback and he has to build at least 2,000 square feet. Okay, because you have to bring it up to code for a non-conforming lot if your house is destroyed, I believe, 51% or more.

So there are several types of non-conformities in the code. There's non-conforming structure, which if a structure is not meeting a setback, it's a non-conforming structure. There's a non-conforming lot if the lot is undersized or doesn't meet the minimum lot width. And there's... nonconforming use. If a single family home is not permitted in the zoning district that applies to the property, then the use cannot be rebuilt if it's damaged or destroyed. So I was just looking at section 34-346 in the code. This is the nonconforming structures rebuild and repair. There are exemptions for single family structures. Notwithstanding the above, a single-family or multi-family residential structure which is non-conforming and that such structure does not meet the minimum necessary minimum square footage requirements or lot and building or setback requirements may be rebuilt or repaired in the same configuration as before damaged even if damage is in excess of 50% of the assessed value. So there are exemptions for single-family and multi-family structures under 34346. Is the exemption automatic? Or does he have to apply for an exemption under that scenario? So there's no permit or request for that. It would just be reviewed based on that code language.

So it's a staff review.

Right.

At that point, if he came in for a billing permit to rebuild exact same footprint, staff could say you're exempt under this code.

Correct.

Okay. That helps. Okay. Thank you.

Got member grads like but real quick before we move off that and just curious on if we go the other way with the utility service agreement and there's the annexation clause and the city chooses to do that is it administratively rezoned as part of that and and then what's it administratively rezoned to since there's discussion about our versus re

Sure. So in that case, if the clause is being acted upon by city council, the applicant, the homeowner doesn't need to come forward or pay an application fee. They've already signed off that they agree to this process. And so city staff will just initiate it and bring it before PNZ and council for approval. As far as which zoning districts, staff would look at consistency, look at lot sizes and standards and propose something, propose a specific zoning district and a future land use district designation. But, of course, that's open to discussion at P&Z and Council as well.

Okay.

Great. Thank you. Member Caron?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things on Mr. Rice's comment and your response about it seemed similar if that was the recommendation for RE or RE in lieu of RR. But if you'd use the DMZ as War Eagle Boulevard, RR is the predominant zoning that's changed along the east side of that boulevard. So it would certainly be arguable to me that RR, which would be more compatible with the existing structures, would be more consistent with what's along the street if along the street is east of War Eagle Boulevard. The flag lot subdivisions that exist west of War Eagle look to be what they are, flag lot subdivisions and estate homes and unincorporated county. So certainly I think you're on line for what zoning would fit best or eliminate potential nonconformities. Whether you pick one or the other is a matter of opinion probably rather than any real tangible evident thing you can come up with. To the comment that I had regarding the agreement being signed as opposed to annexation. It accomplishes the goal for both parties. The city provides services, revenue, and the applicant is receiving services, potable water. When and if the county or city ever agreed to extend the sewer line and then create sewer connectivity. I think there's rules of budding sewer availability that makes annexations potential war and make services sign those agreements. You have to hook up and you have to sign this agreement. I've seen that done before where you don't have the continuity. For example, you extend the sewer line tomorrow and you don't have the ability to annex any of those properties that aren't touching another city limit boundary or across the right of way. You could see many examples. In that scenario, if the water and sewer were available to those sites, is there law in the state that says the city can require abutting property owners to connect? Regardless of annexation.

I'm not familiar with the statutes off the top of my head, but I can look into it.

If you can, because my... recognition than past was if the water and sewer became available as public health considerations to hook you up, not annexation issues, you annex the property at a timely manner, which would be when you have contiguous property boundaries or you do a categorical annexation because you can meet the pattern book for an enclave. That's why I went through that exercise and enclaves just to try to explain it. And in the case of experience, it was called the donut hole, of Saint Cloud and the city went through forced annexations because they provided services. Some residents had signed service agreements. Some had not, but they got annexed nonetheless because the city had a right to do that. That's what someday will happen here to the way this pattern book looks. That's why I spoke my opinion in the case of. The agreement, I think it benefits everybody better than annexation. Back to my story about services. It's something to think about when you consider what you might do on the vote. Thank you.

Member Rice, your light's on. Did you have something else? I'm sorry? Your light's on. All right. Seeing no more questions up here, I'll open the public hearing. Do we have a card or the applicant here?

I HAVE NO CARDS.

OKAY. THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRINGING IT BACK HERE, SOMEONE CARED TO MAKE A MOTION, SO I GUESS based off what we said, if, if, if we were leaning toward the service agreement, we should didn't have a motion for denial, right?

Correct. You, you would recommend denial of the annexation. Um, if you want it to go ahead and recommend denial of, uh, or I guess it would make the other two motions moot at that point for the future land use in the zoning.

So, uh, member ice or sorry, by denying it, it by no means, hinders them from the annexation agreement and still getting water.

Is that a correct statement? That's correct. The applicant could still complete a utility service agreement that would have a pre-annexation clause in it where signing over the rights to voluntary annex at a future date whenever the city chooses. And that would give them the utilities that they are seeking.

I'm assuming we can actually make that part of the motion of denial, right? The reason we're denying it, I guess we'd say that anyway. So we'll... We can say that. Member Graham.

That's the exact question that I had was whether or not if we denied this, if it's going to be more or less automatic for the applicant to still be able to have access to water. Yes, sir. That's correct.

Member Garag. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It just dawned on me, as I mentioned about the donut hole, having worked for unincorporated governments and cities, That process which you're referring to where you have to request annexation in order to be allowed to sign the service agreement in lieu of annexation. If you were a county government and you didn't want cities to absorb your properties. You wouldn't get notice on service agreement signatures, but you get notice on annexation agreement annexation request. So in this instance, if I'm incorrect, please correct me. The county would be notified of the potential loss of their property from the jurisdiction because of annexation. But all that stood between providing water in the case of sewer would be to sign with the city in agreement to annex when you were available. The county would be advised that service agreement.

So I would agree with the 1st part of that as far as this request included in annexation. So Brevard county was notified that this is being considered as far as whether a Pre annexation clause if the city does at a later date. Let's say there's a utility service agreement in place that, um. agrees to allow the city to annex the property at a future date. I am not clear on whether there are notification requirements for the county at that time. Um, I would imagine so because we would still bring it before P&Z and council. And so I imagine we would follow the same process as we did with this application tonight. But that's a possibility.

That's kind of where I was going was it makes sense to me, even though it isn't sensible. It makes sense because it's a de facto way of letting the county recognize you're seeking annexation. That's important for the logistics of comprehensive planning and all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. But if it was the way that the other agency I referred to earlier created a donut hole, everybody that came in had to sign an annexation agreement, and the county was never aware of that. And they created this huge donut hole in the city jurisdiction, which was providing services, but it was in the unincorporated county. So in this instance, a city was receiving the revenue generation service. from water and sewer service fees and tap fees and all that, but not providing any other service. And the county had to respond to this donut hole like the Vatican is to Rome whenever they had a call for service. But it was a difficulty that could have been eliminated had everybody recognized annexations, which The way this works makes sense if this was a county, but since the city's got it, maybe they worked an agreement out with the county years ago that said, we won't let that happen because we'll make you try to annex, but if you can't annex, you still can sign this agreement and get water and sewer, but everybody was advised to where we're headed. So in that vein, it makes real good sense to me why you would ask but be turned down, but still be able to get the water servicing you. Does that make sense to anybody, what I just tried to describe? Hopefully it does, a little bit. Did you have something else? Member Graham?

Eddie, a perfect example of what he's speaking of is in Imperial Estates. There's two streets there, basically almost in the middle of Imperial Estates that are in the county. So my question would be, is these houses have both water and sewer on them, but they're still in the county because I have to pull county permits whenever we do work there. What makes this automatic, if you're contiguous or not, that they... Don't forever keep it the county. What makes it bring it into Titusville, because I'm using that as an example, surrounded by Titusville on all sides, there's two streets. It's Robain County.

Yes, I'm familiar with the area that you're speaking about. That would be considered an enclave. So the Donut Hole example, a portion of unincorporated Brevard County that is entirely surrounded by the city limits. And that's what the current Florida state statutes prohibit. When we annex, when the city annexes property, we are not able to use the voluntary annexation process in a way that would create any new enclaves. This request does not appear to create an enclave, but over time as more and more properties either annex or are subject to a pre-annexation agreement, that could eventually need to be evaluated. I think your question is how do we prevent that from happening?

The question is, if this is automatic, if you want it to be, why hasn't the city of Titusville annexed those two streets? Why does it remain the county?

Because that's an old neighborhood and before annexation agreements. I mean, that would be my gut instinct of why that happened. They got water and sewer. There was no annexation agreements in place, and they didn't voluntarily want to come into the city.

I actually seem to recall that there comes a point where forced annexation may be required of cities because you have to eliminate Because that service problem is always there. And in the case of imperial estates, it may sound like nobody ever got around to doing what they could otherwise do, is force annexation. Because if they're completely surrounded and provided with those services that they're provided, annexation could be done. But most people don't want to do that in a local government level because the word forced annexation or involuntary, I think it's actually called involuntary annexations. Doesn't sound good.

It's like gridiron versus baseball field Remember facing so that neighborhood did you guys talk or those streets that you're talking about? That was my first house was was was there on on Scotty Drive and I was in Port St. John my dogs got loose one night and the neighbors called the police on my dogs being loose and And I just happened to be in Port St. John with sheriff deputies who had to respond to my house in Titusville. So I got behind the sheriff's deputies and we left Port St. John, came to my house because the city didn't respond there. The county did. Same thing on trash day. The county, you'd see trash trucks go up and down the street every day and pick up the streets in front of Scotty Drive, but not on Scotty Drive until the county came around and picked up. So there is a lot of that happens when you have these enclaves. But as you said, this is not creating an enclave. But it gives the appearance of one, although it's not creating one. So, yeah. But anyways, that was my two cents. Member Graham.

Thanks for all the input from everybody. With that being said, I'd like to make a motion of... Mr. Chairman?

Yeah. We now have a card from the applicant.

I'll reopen the public hearing.

Good evening. I appreciate the technical lesson I got in home ownership. I didn't quite expect this. I had read the recommendation of the board, and I thought this was going to be a no-brainer. I'd be home for dinner in no time at all. Like I said, quite an education about zoning and the good work that you're doing. I really do appreciate the thoroughness of the process, and thank you. It would have been a very dramatic presentation if I'd have brought you a glass of water, though. Can't even let the water sit in a toilet without it staining. It's unlivable. And this area has been evolving over time. The great flood of September finally put it over the edge, and the well field was pretty much ruined. It's no longer potable water in any shape or form. A lot of the trees that were old-growth trees have died in this same flood. channel that's behind War Eagle there. So there's been a dramatic change environmentally. I'm not sure if it's the flooding or what the case is but I am stuck with a property that my wife and I were planning to use for our retirement with undrinkable water. So that's the nature of the request and it is pretty dramatic for us of course and very technical for you guys, and I appreciate that very much. What I'm hoping is, and the only reason I filled out a card, I heard the word denial, and I said, well, I better say something if it doesn't work out. From my perspective, I would think that a recommendation is, instead of denial would say we approve but we understand it would not be in the best interest of the city to approve the annexation that gives it forward momentum instead of being a negative it turns it into a positive I have no desire to be annexed any more than you guys want me to be annexed but like that water to be hooked up though that is for sure so I thank you for your time and appreciate your consideration all right well I think

Don't fret about our terminology. We're kind of stuck with doing it a particular way, and so the attorney's here, and we'll make sure, but that's our goal, to get you clean water as well. So, Member Rice?

You understand a denial doesn't say we're denying you water. I know. We're sending you basically down a different path is what we're doing.

I get it. And my next-door neighbor, who has city water, turned me on to this process in the first place. And he... It was denied annexation by the council at that time, and then it was given an opportunity to get the city water. So I am aware of the process. It's just better to have forward momentum than a negative right in front of you. That's what my suggestion is, so I'd appreciate that. So you want to be annexed? I don't need to be annexed. No, he has water.

He wants water. Okay.

Appreciate your time, though. Thank you.

It's worth a motion.

Right?

Yeah, that's probably. No, no. One second.

Hey, sir, just to be honest with you, right? A denial actually gives you just what you asked for.

I understand.

Okay. Okay.

The ones that are going to be doing the final denying will be the city council.

Yes. Yeah. But it gives it the exact thing that you asked for. No annexation and yet still clean water. All right. And you could just call the sheriff's department for their dogs.

All right. Member Graham, sorry we got interrupted. If you want to go ahead and finish your motion.

I would like to submit a motion of denial based on not to intentionally create another enclave with the understanding that the applicant will have a direct avenue to be able to get clean water for him and his wife.

I'll second that. Member Rice seconds. Any comments before we vote? Seeing none, roll call please.

Secretary Faison?

I think it's yes to deny. Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes.

I'm an alternate. Am I voting on this? I don't think so. I'm not voting on this. Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Girard?

Yes.

Chairman Aton?

Yes. All right. We unanimously denied you, which is normally not a good thing, but I think it is a good thing. Well, hopefully I get clean water soon here, so... Moving on at 9B. All right, I'm assuming since the applicant's name is familiar to this board and he's moving to the audience that he's recusing himself of this. Is that correct, Member Rice?

Yes, I'm Woody Rice, 505 Indian Road Avenue, Titusville, Florida. And I think, I don't know if it got passed out, but I filled out Form 8B, which is a conflict of interest form. I'm representing my client. I'm a paid consultant as a civil engineer, and this was part of the duties I had in my contract with them. So I have financial gain from this topic tonight.

So, Member... Seidler, since you got denied voting on that last one, we're going to let you vote on this one.

Thank you, Chairman.

All right. Eddie, you want to take it away? Or whoever. Sorry.

Sorry. Christy Anderson, senior planner. The applicant is Mr. Woody Rice with Epic Consultants of Florida on behalf of the National Association of Chiefs of Police Incorporated and Riverfront Center Incorporated is requesting to amend the development order for the vector space development of regional impact, also known as Riverfront Center. by allocating 124 hotel rooms to tract A5 of the master plan, having Brevard County personal ID number 23-35-01-25-A.3. The Riverfront Center master plan is provided on page 77 of your packets. The purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a hotel west of the former Police Hall of Fame Museum. The applicant proposed concept plans are provided starting on page 89 of the packets. The state's Developments of Regional Impact, a DRI program, reviewed large developments to address regional impacts. Changes to the DRI were originally reviewed by the state and regional agencies before city approval, but law changed in 2010, 2011, and 2018, eliminating that review for most amendments. The original vector space development order was issued by Brevard County, the East Coast Central Regional Planning Council, and the state. The city approved an annexation agreement in 1988 that made the city and the property owner subject to the original development order. Although the DRI has subsequently expired, the development order remains in effect. Any amendments are now reviewed and approved by the local government under its normal development review process. The proposed conversion methodology is consistent with a prior conversion approval in 2007 and in 2019. The proposed hotel rooms either need to be added to the existing total allocation for the entire development converted from the existing commercial office and or industrial uses or reallocated from another parcel. The applicant is requesting the transfer of 28 hotel rooms from tracks F3 through 4 and will also convert 71,352 square feet of industrial uses into 96 hotel rooms for a total of 124 hotel rooms allocated to track A5. The DRA currently has a total allocation of 770 hotel rooms for tracks G, F, D, and M. Track G is allocated for 110 rooms, which is the Hyatt Place, built in 2020. Parcel track D is allocated for 160 hotel rooms, which is Courtyard by Marriott, built in 2022. Tract M and F are allocated for 250 future hotel rooms each. And note, hotel rooms are currently allocated for the subject tract. A chart summarizing the cumulative development within the Riverfront Center is provided on page 62 of your packets. And staff is respectfully requesting that you consider the request and provide a recommendation to city council for the transfer of 28 hotel rooms from track F3 and the conversion of 71,352 square feet of industrial uses into 96 hotel rooms for a total allocation of 124 hotel rooms to tract A5. This is scheduled for public hearing by city council on August 11th, and I would be happy to take any questions from staff at this time.

Member Heron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chrissy, two questions. Background shows vector space. DRI was developed in 1986 in the county, and then I presume annexed to the city. Does the city have more than this DRI? Do they have DRIs, plurality?

I believe that this was the only one that the city currently has, and it's definitely a little bit different than most of our master plans, so it has a history.

Yeah, I suspect it as such. And the second question is that, and based on my experience, so I apologize, once the state allowed DRIs to determine themselves as, I want out of the DRI world, and there were a lot of developments of regional impact that chose for good reason, on their interest to go ahead and ask for the DRI to be dissolved. You mentioned earlier that it's not voided, but you referred to it expired. I don't know what the terminology you used.

Yeah, I believe that through historical documents, that's kind of how it was referenced as the DRI. The previous DRI is expired, and then the development order is the governing tool for the development.

My suspicion again would be that the annexation at the time absorbed the DRI and with it absorbed the development order. Correct. My assumption is the development order prevails regardless of the status of the DRI. From my experience, if you ask to terminate a DRI, most governments upon the request would then ask to incorporate the development order. which then serves, frankly, as a zoning code. It says this for that. It's flexible, and you can move A to B and B to C if it doesn't exceed D, which is what the applicant's done. And I thank you and staff, whoever prepared the summary table, because it's real easy to see what's being requested and what the history was. A very useful table. So my point in question is, has anybody... asked the provocative question, if it's a DRI that isn't in effect anymore, it isn't a DRI. It might be formally known as a DRI, but the relevancy of the DRI wouldn't be there. The development order would be, and the zoning that's in effect would be. So I just question, it gets confusing to talk about all this being done to a DRI that begins with, it's not in effect. And so my question is, what is the city's approach to the one and only DRI they have is to maybe the answer is it isn't in effect. So it really is not, other than the history, a DRI. And eventually, perhaps development requests will reflect what it is, is a zoning of this and a development order of that. And that's what regulates it. And just kind of skip to the chase that it used to be a DRI. That's my question and comment.

I believe that statement would be correct it was once a DRI no longer is and now it's subsequent to the annexation agreement and City zoning Correct Seeing no other lights I will open the public hearing I'll open the public hearing

Woody Rice, 505 Indian River Avenue, Tysal, Florida. And to answer your question, it was a condition of the annexation that sort of ties the hand of staff saying we need to follow all the uses, all the requirements, all the landscaping, everything that's in that DRI because that's what was agreed upon during annexation to the city. I think that's really the bottom line. So it's kind of redundant. Yeah. So basically really what we're here tonight for is just allocating room nights and shifting them from other properties to this property. In the original DRI, when it was planned out, I don't know why they did this, but they basically said you can have hotels on this lot and this lot and this lot, but none of the other ones. So it sort of tied the hand. Well, now you look forward 30 years and... No, times change. So they tied the DRI, and it wasn't where the market won at the hotels. In fact, there's been three hotels that have gone through this process just because they didn't have that right on their property. So we had to, one, get River Center to agree. that the POA, that we could do this and allocate hotel rooms from other lots or do the transfer of industrial. One of the lot owners agreed to only transfer 28 rooms. So that means we had to do the transition of industrial for the other 96 to be able to go to lot A5. So that's really... All other codes, all other regulations of the city of Titusville and the DRI will be followed. It's just about hotel room nights. There's a lot of information in your packet. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have, but I'd appreciate your support.

Thank you. Any other cards?

No, sir.

All right. With that, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. I don't see any, oh, Member Chapman.

Question, do we have anything that's gonna track, I guess, these rooms that are gonna be taken from partials if approved and all this that, so like later on, someone doesn't come back to those partials and say, hey, we wanna grab up like kinda something that we saw down here a little?

Yes, so that chart that's referenced previously is part of an exhibit tied to the resolution. In addition, the development's required to submit a biannual report with all updates of construction within the development, so that would be noted. And then that master plan currently would be also updated on that plan as well, noting that change.

Thank you. Member Seidman.

Thank you. The engineering review stated that converting the $71,000 352 square feet of industrial entitlement to the 96 hotel rooms it resulted in approximately 226 additional daily trips and they recommended considering a reduction factor of 2.5 or 2.8 Did that did you guys accept that did you what happened with them so the original request I believe was around 28,000 square feet of industrial space after review by the city engineer he determined that the

Increase in daily trips determined a higher transition factor. So rather than it being 28,000 square feet of industrial, based on the traffic impacts from industrial uses to hotel, that would be consistent with the proposed change. So the city engineer did determine that that 71,352 square feet was a more appropriate number to have a like-for-like change.

And the 71,000 of industrial came from a different piece of property? Is that right? It's like we're borrowing. Did we borrow from an industrial, or where did we convert that from?

As the applicant stated, there are specific tracks on the master plan that were allocated for hotels, and then the rest of the development is allocated for industrial office and commercial.

And kind of... Piggybacking on James here when he said so we have 28 rooms from this parcel So that gets reduced and will they come back later and ask for an increase this 71,000 square feet of industrial that came off of this parcel that was borrowed and we're 71,000 is from the total total development. It wasn't specifically taken from another parcel or Determine where the 71,000 so somebody in track a wants a Well, they don't want any of the 71,000 to come out of their bucket. Can they push it over to somebody else's bucket?

Yeah, it's my understanding that they have more industrial uses than they would ever need to develop. So they have an excess of industrial square footage allocated to the original development.

And I do really appreciate this cumulative develop in Riverfront, the table that you gave us on page 62. I have a question and how did the room growth? Occur there was the original DRI and I know now the DRI is expired so I get that but it it maintained 500 rooms until 2004 and then it was amended in 2007 and they added 110 rooms and then in 2019 they added another 160 rooms that were up to 770 rooms and Um, and then we had some development, so it's reduced down. We have 508 rooms remaining.

How did we add in an area that didn't have development and we just, so those changes were made through this same process, same process to where they were requesting the same type of request to allocate hotels to a certain track within the development.

Yeah, if I can add real quick, just in the rows above that, the industrial row and the office row, if you look where, let's say, amended DRI 2007, that column, there's 110 rooms that were added in the hotel row. But in the industrial and office rows above that, there are some areas that have been subtracted from the overall pool for the DRI.

I see no more questions for staff. Does anyone care to make a motion? Member Faison.

I recommend approval of the master plan MP1-2026 as requested.

Member Graham.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any comments before seeing none? Roll call, please.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Secretary Faison?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Gerard?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes. Member McDaniel? Yes. Chairman Aton?

Yes. Passes unanimously. Moving on, I guess. Member Rice is coming back to the podium. Thank you for your service, Member Seidler.

Item 9C, please. Yes, sir. Item 9C is the Administrative Approval of Platts and Replats Ordinance. This is page 128 of 156. Chapter 2025-164 of the Laws of Florida amends Section 177041 Florida Statutes in connection with how local governments review and approve platts. Specifically, the bill requires local governments to review, process, and approve PLATS or re-PLATS submittals without action or approval by the governing body through an administrative authority and official designation by ordinance. The administrative authority must be a department division or other agency of the local government and includes an administrative officer or employee which may be a city administrator or manager or assistant or deputy there to or other high ranking city department or division director with direct or indirect oversight responsibility for the local governments land development regulations housing utilities or public works programs. The effective date of the new law was July 1st, 2025 and closed for review is chapter 2025, 164 and the Senate bill analysis report. City Council hold a public hearing on this item on August 25th, 2026. On page 130 is the beginning of that bill analysis that kind of summarizes what's changed here. And if you'll scroll down to page 132, there's a section describing the effects of the proposed changes. And it reads, the bill amends Section 177 Florida statutes in connection with how local governments review and approve plats. Specifically, the bill requires local governments to review, process, and approve plats or replats submittals without action or approval by the governing body through an administrative authority and official designation by ordinance. The administrative authority must be the same titles that were described earlier, high-ranking officials, department heads. Under the bill, the authority must provide written notice in response to a submittal within seven days, acknowledging receipt. Identify any missing documents or information required and providing information regarding the approval process, including requirements and timeframes. Unless the applicant requests an extension, the authority must approve, approve with conditions or deny the submittal within the timeframe identified in the initial written notice. A denial must be accompanied by an explanation of why the submittal was denied, specifically citing unmet requirements. the authority or local government may not request or require an extension of time. And the bill took effect July 1st, 2025. Um, so on page 140 we have, uh, the draft ordinance striking where plats are reviewed by planning and zoning and city council. And moving forward, we'll be reviewed administratively, consistent with state law. This is a new law, and we are changing the code to be consistent with that state law. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone have any questions for Member Garad? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may take a few minutes, and I apologize. I wrote an email earlier to staff with some questions that are solely based on my experience and my professional capacity, and they're going to be about the word plat, as shown and illustrated in the summary on page 130, where it says, in Florida law, a plat, quote-unquote, is a map or delineated representation of the subdivision of lands, period. It goes on to say it is a complete and exact representation of the subdivision and other information in compliance with state law and any local ordinance. I believe you may recall on many occasions I've put a point forward that the word plan, as connotated in local government such as preliminary plan or the word sketch, preliminary sketch, preliminary subdivision plan, are not interchangeable with a plat. My experience, my opinion is that the plat is a very prescribed and very exacting, very complex and very regulated document. It's regulated by many facets to the size of the paper, to the dimensions of the boundary, to the dedication blocks, language and et cetera. Those matters are technical and left best to surveyors and engineers, as somebody referred to me earlier in life as a bureaucrat, not bureaucrats, wherein you might know that over time we've seen plans come in here, preliminary subdivision plans. I've made a point on several occasions where it appeared to me that good design considerations where elongated residential streets should be eliminated wherever practical, that impasses should be placed so you don't have long straightaways. Some members weren't here when I brought up those points. I brought them up on several subdivisions where the result was, assuming that it got approved that way, they would amend that plan to create a dogleg in the road or improve a cul-de-sac or connect to a cul-de-sac, several of those along my history here. with the city in my capacity. I've made comments to none of those comments were comments that would have come from the technical review of a plat where the state law requires it to exhibit certain criteria exacting performance of that or it doesn't and can't be recorded and then the recordation of it. And you've got a subdivision and you sell lots. But when you start with an egg and you jump to the chicken feathers, you've missed an integral part, the hatchling. You miss being able to design a community, how you feel, and whether in some cases, technical standards may be considered, but common sense practices prevail. And so this commission, city council inclusive, may find need to put conditions on subdivisions that eliminate those concerns. Perhaps it leads to one day, changing the code so you incorporate standards so you don't have to continue conditioning approvals to something that can be codified. That's the end of my story. My point is, I, when I read this statute being prepared for adoption and signature, watched it morph through the legislature, knowing forthright that a lot of the legislation is coming to eliminate local government authority. This commission's had many discussions about that. You've seen one after the other topple the apple cart down where they've changed local government laws. This is one more example to eliminate any local government review. And in this instance of a plat I myself didn't read the proposed statutes, iteration, generation, and the adoption and the signature as eliminating the review of plans, not plats. And so on one hand, I agree the statute makes sense because I've seen that final instrument be something that gets discussed. And when you tell a surveyor, and we have an engineer on board too, that it's When you tell an engineer, we just want you to change that cul-de-sac, bend it right 20 feet, and it's like, I have to re-engineer the whole site, and you cost me a lot of trouble for no good reason. I completely agree with that. At that late stage, that's a plat. You come here with a document ready to record and get signatures, and somebody says, oh, but I need to change. Too late. That's where the statute aimed at. But to read the statute that it eliminates total review of any aspect of any kind of sketch or plan that local government For good reason, and I believe the state government would agree that we don't want conditions whereby you impact people adversely, where perhaps design considerations should reduce that impact. You've seen it where you might say, we want you to have a larger backyard on these lots because those adjacent lots have closer proximity. So we need your lots on this street to be a little bigger. And you tell that to the engineer of record on the preliminary plan, and he makes an amendment. It's not costly. He changed a few descriptions, and out it comes. It's illustrated, and then you engineer it. Then you bring the final subdivision plat in for signatures. That's the ebb and flow I understood when I read what the statute started with, what the intention was, and I have to close by saying opinions, as they say, are like noses. I'm neither an engineer nor an attorney nor a surveyor, but I can watch what happens and read between lines and also read the lines, and I just do not agree that the categorization of removing local government review included even plans that emanate from conceptual colors, residential yellow, commercial red, and then it goes into tracking corners and lots and squares and roads that illustrate where they're going, all in that early phase of development where a preliminary subdivision plan exists. I don't myself agree with the changes proposed. I don't myself, my opinion agree that that was what was intended. And I have a question that may need to be researched as to what have the other 60 Two counties and all the cities there in done by handling this. Is there any kind of barometer out there? How all governments have thrown away any advisory commission committee review, thrown the baby out with the bathwater and illustrated this to be no review of anything. Just bring us the plat. The administrator says it's good and go down the road. That's one question. The second question is later in this, and I've made this comment also, and I apologize. There's a requirement here in which the administrators has to review the deed of restrictions and the covenants that affect private property and the rights within that private property covenant area. I can't imagine how an administrator, put myself in those shoes, I would read a covenant and it might say something like, All houses in my subdivision will be green. The good covenant. We all want symmetry. Now, when the building permit comes in, how am I going to know what color the house is? But when I'm a resident owner in the neighborhood and I'm guaranteed that you're going to enforce my covenants because you made me write them the way you approve them. Any Any touch of that covenant other than just a box of legality to an administrator, what's the decision? What decision is the administrator going to make on private property covenants and restrictions? Color of house is a restriction, peak of the roof. I could go down a litany of things that you see illustrated in covenants and restrictions. If that's presented to the administrator, and I'm the administrator, for example, What am I going to say? Am I going to disagree and say, oh, no, houses and titles will have to be red. So you have to change your covenants to mean red houses, not green. And I said so. So back to my story. You made me make it red instead of green in the covenant. You were the administrator. You had the decision. You made me do this. I reviewed it and approved it. You recorded your plat. I'm another owner in the subdivision. Someone paints your house green. I'm going to come knocking on the administrator's door and say, you've got to go do code enforcement and make them paint the house red. And the rationale is you approve those covenants. You tied yourself to them. So I have the opinion local administrator really doesn't have a reason to review covenants and restrictions. Or conversely, and I hate to be absurd and abstract, imagine in some line of the paragraph 10 and line 9 in word 17, I use some off-camber word that won't allow somebody or some person to be in that subdivision, and the administrator who approved them missed it. And so now I have this covenant that local government, the administrator, reviewed and approved that contains unconstitutional rule and somebody comes in and says why did the administrator approve an unconstitutional rule well I didn't catch it I didn't see it I didn't I didn't dawn on me whatever it doesn't change the effect so my point to make is my opinion is I don't agree that the local administrator and the authority they're taking if my first questions answer you're wrong if the second The answer is, but that's something to think about. Does the local administrator really have a need? And should they, in fact, review covenants and restrictions that are private? And under what authority would they review it? What's their call on it? Is it zoning? Is it land use? Is it color of houses? Is it what? Where do you stop? That's my two points.

Member Rice.

Well, a couple things to piggyback on what you said. First of all, yeah, it would be devastating to make a change at a final process. I mean, if you just look at the design process, you know, have you purchased the land, you've paid a surveyor, you've paid an architect, you've paid a civil engineer, your environmental services, your geotech services, and all these things had to come together into a plan that you're going to construct. and then you come along and do a final plat, and someone says, oh, well, you need to move the cul-de-sac. That just can't happen. So I agree with you from that standpoint. I guess my question, because when I read the ordinance, it talked about final plat. That's it, correct? I mean, that's all I saw in there. We have a preliminary plat process, so too, but I don't think the preliminary plat process has to follow that statute. I mean, is that a correct analysis?

So the definition that Member Garrard quoted earlier comes from Section 177031 sub 14 Florida statutes that refers to plat or replat as an exact representation of the subdivision. So legally, our office's position that we've taken is that that does not encompass a preliminary plat.

Right.

This ordinance has gone through a lot of different iterations. I think the last version I reviewed was version 20. Some of the original versions had preliminary plots remaining with council approval through the process of the ordinance being drafted. It was changed to all administrative. So that was the position that staff took. But legally, if this board wanted to recommend to council to retain preliminary plots as reviewed by council, the new Florida statute does not inhibit that.

Okay. And I thought, you know, because that's the way I read the ordinance too. It really was just about final plat. And the game is over at final plat stage. You're just documenting the document, the Bible that people are going to sell land and trade land and do what they would with that. The key to all this is to get these reviews where you may have major changes up front in the design process, not in the rears. It's sort of like with site plan, it's the pre-application meeting. Well, you do a pre-application meeting for subdivisions too, but you typically don't provide a preliminary plat because you haven't really engineered anything yet. And you can't really say, well, this lot's not going to shift or we're not going to change this. But there is a point that you can lock things down when you had your first review and you get the city comments or the state comments, the St. John's comments and all the other comments and you put them all together and now you start finalizing the design of the project. That's the time... At that stage, that's when you need to have somebody in preliminary plat from the city that at this point, I'm done and then we're going to proceed on and the final plat will be just like this, but I need your input now and that's what we need to get to.

So I don't know if this ordinance really does that, Eddie. Well, I think it's important what our council has said, because that would at least, I guess you're concurring with what I thought, my experience, that you could regulate preliminary sketches or plans, as they call it, and still follow the statute by what removes the platting process to be administrative. That was what your...

That's correct. And just kind of some extra background. I don't know if this research has been ongoing. The last I saw it looked into was January of this year. There's a small chart. Alachua County, Brevard County. Cocoa, Melbourne, Orange County, Osceola, Seminole, and West Melbourne retained P&Z or council control over preliminary plats while moving final plats to administrative. A number of other cities moved the other direction and went administrative wholesale. So there's kind of a mix out there in the state at this point.

And I would add, and I really appreciate Woody bringing that, and I've had conversations professionals cry when they get that last-minute stuff. What's important is to also look at this. The administrator is going to review a plat. That one document is written out. He sees they see something, like I mentioned as an example, well, this large stand of trees, and we really would like that as a buffer. There's nothing in the statute that's going to say the administrator can just come up arbitrarily and say, we need to make those lots a little deeper. Turn that around on the other side and say, now you're into a sketch mode. You come in, the ebb and flow of how something designs to community standards, and you accept that you can make those changes at a preliminary sketch level or preliminary plan, whatever word you describe it as. You can make those changes, reasonably speaking, without added cost, but When you do it at the final plat, it makes all the sense why the statute stepped in. And I'm sure there's communities, and I do appreciate council having the examples. Look at Florida categorically, and there's probably some places in Florida where you could come in with the thing ready to sell, and somebody say, you know, I just don't want to approve this subdivision. And worse than move the cul-de-sac, you just get told you're denied for your proposed subdivision after you had all that data done to create a plat. I won't say that has happened. I will say it could happen. And that's why they want to try to stop the ability to make it very difficult to do what's the last step. The document that ends up being recorded as an instrument has to look just right, has to be perfect. sketches and plans, they're imperfect by the nature of them. They can be changed. And I think it's in the best interest of the community to retain the authority to review preliminary plans and sketches and do not throw the baby out with the bathwater with that. Thank you. Member Faison.

So the definition of plat was, or the definition here being used for plat is interesting. especially when we've had SNJ Oaks in front of us very often saying how the plat is wrong as far as what's being built. And so if the plat is supposed to be something that is exact, perfect, near perfect, the question I then have is what about the teeth and forcibility? Because we've had somebody before us on a number of occasions talking about a plat that is wrong. And we've all heard him, we've all listened to him, but no one's made any move to talk about a solution. So as we talk about this here, right, so the question then I have is if we go through this motion to do what the state wants to do and approve this ordinance in this way, which is fine, the question then happens about enforceability. What happens when the developer doesn't build according to the plat? What happens when the plat is wrong? Who then makes it right? And how do you make that right?

There's a process in Chapter 177 for resubmitting or re-recording plats to make corrections to them. Okay. And that's the answer. Thank you.

Member Seidler.

Thank you. Well, if the plat was approved... And then the builder didn't build appropriately or did not build according to the plot that was approved administratively. It sounds like the solution is you just change the plot. I mean, what are the consequences to the developer and everybody around who everybody did go through the preliminary. They did work on the sketch. Everybody had their input, and they finally came for the final plot, and that was administratively approved. Because you don't want to move a cul-de-sac at the final stage because then everybody cries. So your question being, what happens when the plat isn't followed?

Well, so the premise to my question was about a particular project that's being built here in Titusville where we've had somebody before this board on a number of occasions who has brought up that the plat is not accurate. And so I was using that as a premise to the question.

Right, but it sounded like they just said, well, just change the plat. Yes. But is the fact that it wasn't built according to the plat, did it have, what if the impacts were negative, changing the plat, and you have a negative build or something that is nonconforming or whatever the problem is? So as I am reading this, so it is my understanding that this Chapter 2025-164 require final plat approval to be administrative. So one question I have is, who's being designated as the city's administrative authority? Is that one person? Is it a group of people? And who is it in this city that is going to take on this responsibility? And then secondly, what can we retain, as you were talking about preliminary plat sketching and all of that, is that fall underneath In this, that is all administrative or as council has stated, other counties have retained where the council, city council, planning and zoning and whomever else, they still have input in those pre-stages. Do we have to state that or is this just for final plat? And who is the administrator who is doing the approving?

Sure so for your first question who would be signing as the administrator that would either be the city manager or the community development director as the heads of those divisions of the division and of the city as far as it sounds like the consensus so far from the discussion is that you're interested in retaining. the preliminary plat coming before P&Z and council for approval. And it sounds like other communities have been able to do so without violating the statute. Since there are numerous references that would need to be updated, I was just looking through and there's already page 140, 141, 142, 143. Rather than going line by line, I think you could make your motion that you recommend approval of the ordinance with that change in general that preliminary plat Approval will be retained at PNZ and council level and then if council approves the ordinance in that fashion Then it would be drafted to effect such so just to make the motion simpler Member writes your lights on yeah

First of all, contractors don't build plats. They build construction plans. The plat is generated by a licensed surveyor. Engineers can't even do plats. Because they go out and set the corners of every lot that gets sold. So when you buy the lot, you can go out there and verify that there's a monument set at each corner of your lot so they know where your boundary is for every lot. That's really what the plat does more than anything. It designates easements, it designates right-of-ways, lot lines, all those. It has really nothing in there to build. Okay? It's a document. You just record it to solidify how property is transferred. And when you buy a lot, this is what you're getting. And then the other things attached are the easements. But the other thing that gets recorded is covenants and deed restrictions and things like that. But those aren't built by the contractor either. Okay, now what the contractor does have to do that he has to build in accordance with the construction plans Okay, and that means put the if there's a pipe that goes down the center of a lot line Okay He needs to put that pipe in the center of the lot line if he doesn't put it in the center of the lot line Now that's an easement problem. Okay, so you might have to adjust the easements, but that's why you do the plat and At the end, the final document that gets recorded is at the end, okay? So you can make certain adjustments. Before, because the last thing you want to do is go back through a replat, okay? I think I, in 30 years of doing this, I've done a replat I think one time, okay? Because you just don't want to go that path, okay? And it was just because of a mistake that was done by a surveyor in the field, okay? And keep in mind that the plat, when it comes to addressing errors and things like that, these plats are designed or laid out by a licensed professional surveyor in the state of Florida that has a license. I'm not a surveyor, there's no one in here that's a surveyor, so when someone comes up and says my plat wrong, I don't know, it could be. but that's why you have a surveyor look at it and determine whether it's wrong, okay? It's not something that a board can look at or even consider because we don't know the planning, we don't know the survey requirements. They have very specific requirements for distances and errors and means and methods and all those things as a surveyor that they're, that's why they're licensed as a professional. So that all comes into play, okay? I think retaining the preliminary plat idea I think is probably a good way. I'll ask the attorney, with what you have reviewed, when they retain that, have they always called it a preliminary plat or have they called it a preliminary plan or have they changed the name to get away from the word plat?

So I think it's kind of a mixed bag. A lot of municipalities seem to still retain preliminary plat, or you'll see some that use sketch plat as well.

Okay. Member Gerard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to explain why I have a... affection for this plat plan, etc. I had the distinct pleasure of working in Osceola County, and I mentioned that several times in my career, not because it's important, it's just a pleasure of doing it. One of the pleasurable parts is my history in that county was Osceola County was one of the first counties in Florida in 1967. It's important to recognize what happened in 1967 in central Florida had two ears on top of it and a tail, and Osceola County adopted by Special act subdivision regulations, and it was 1 of the very 1st counties in the state to regulate subdivisions under a special act within a local government jurisdiction. So I became a very aware of having to. Regulate subdivisions by a county standard that was actually well in advance of some of the state rules that later became incorporated in the statutes and amendments of statutes that require how land is subdivided. So that's where this interchangeable word has always irked me, plan. And you'll see communities put the word plat from the beginning. You'll give me a preliminary plat. You'll give me a final plat. And what's a plat? Well, you had three. No, you only have one. The other ones are plans. I've kind of gone off on my tirade on that. And this is really kind of a coincidence. That it's come to roost with what this is being interpreted to require the city to do when my opinion and apparently legal counsel has an agreeable opinion and found examples of other communities who have said, no, no, no, we don't want to stop having the ability. to make changes as best afforded. So that's where I'm coming from. And my comment about the covenants and restrictions. Um, if I'm making a motion, I'm going to have that included because I've tried to at least explain my thoughts on why I don't think an administrator that city manager or the community development director or Joe, the janitor has business reviewing somebody proposed private covenants. I can't see that as benefiting anybody at any point. You could miss something or you can include something or you could create problems that then what happens is somebody comes in and you get the juxtaposition. I'm arguing because I'm complaining you painted your house green and not red or red, not green, and you were the administrator that allowed that to happen. You put the restriction on me, so you have to enforce it. And when somebody says, oh, I call code enforcement, I would hope I'm right. Somebody's going to say code enforcement can't enforce a private covenant. You'll have to go to your HOA, litigate the matter, and resolve it. And I'm still going to go to the voting booth and click the button that says, but you made the rule that said you approved it. Why aren't you responsible for it? And no matter how many times you try to explain that to somebody, If you were the so unlucky administrator, you're never going to win favor. You're not going to convince them otherwise, and they're going to go out angry with you. So my opinion is private covenants don't have any business reviewed by an administrator other than legal administrative review that would be so you don't have some covenant that has some unnecessary language. We'll call it that. So are you ready for a motion?

Member Rice. I think we still have to do a public hearing, although I don't think there's any cards. But Member Rice?

To the city attorney. There again, in this legislation, and maybe I missed it, but I don't see where it says that. It just says final plat. It doesn't say covenants and deed restrictions.

that's language that's already in our code right now it has council or the council approving those right so as part of the switch to administrator we just switch those words out but that would have to be pulled out of our code but no the state law does not require that as far as I know so you're saying that still cannot it has to be revised it can't still be reviewed by City Council those items or no under current ordinance right now under this new law under the new law it doesn't require that to be in there if that's what you're asking so the only thing so part of your recommendation could be to remove that review process all right all right uh clark do we have any cards

No, sir.

All right. I'll open and close the public hearing just for process. Bring it back to the commission for additional questions or a motion, please.

Member Garad. Surprise, surprise. Having interest in this, a great interest, I would like to make the recommendation along the lines of the discussion, which is the proposed ordinance should be amended, recommended to the city council to amend it in which they provide for the continued review of preliminary subdivision plans, which are codified in city code to look a certain way. And they are not a plat and also recommended the city council that the continuation of having now administrator as it would be now currently city council, review to approve covenants and restrictions. Since it's not a state law requirement, I can't see a benefit to that. I can't see any jurisdiction for it in my opinion. I see a conflict later potentially and so I would recommend that the proposed ordinance also remove the language regarding review by the administrator of covenants and restrictions as part of the subdivision plat review regulated by the statute.

Did I understand that your motion is to recommend approval of the ordinance with two changes? One, to not remove review of the preliminary plat or plan by P&Z and council and to remove review of the restrictions and covenants of subdivisions from the administrator and or city council.

So I'll let I'm trying to clarify here. It would seem that we want to, because we're referring to a red line attachment here, we want to restore the original language for the deeds and restrictions and the preliminary plat. The only red lines we want are related to the final plat in conformance with the new statute. Does that make sense to the attorney?

The portion about the plotting and referring to the red line does, but I believe the motion as proposed by Member Grodd was to remove the review of covenants, which is currently in code. So that would be an additional change. It wouldn't just be removing the change out from the red line. You have to take that out of the ordinance now, so it would be an additional strikethrough.

only because it's in the ordinance. Now they're changing to remove it. But if you put it to where it was, it's going to be back to the city council reviewing it. And so my idea was just when you revise this, um, local ordinance for compliance with the statute for review of Platts by the administrator that that ordinance however you embellish it to do it, allows for the continuation of review of preliminary subdivision plans through the process that's in existence today. The second recommendation was just to remove the review by the administrator of covenants. The way I see it is they're going to go back and WordPress it, and when it comes out, it's going to be add and deletion. What will exist is the city will continue reviewing preliminary subdivision plans as part of the development analysis process that when a subdivision gets to the point of a final plat, the amended ordinance is going to follow the statute and it will be an administrative review. And however, that administrative review won't be of the covenants and restrictions. That's what I'm thinking now. I think the summation is two conditions of it. One, Keep the preliminary plan subdivision process in effect and remove the covenant restriction review by the administrator and change the ordinance accordingly. Is that simple enough to follow?

But who reviews covenants?

No one. It's a private matter. Unless there's a legal binding reason. that you would review a covenant other than it's on the page, what legal review of a covenant would occur? Or what administrative planning, zoning, public works, floodplain management, name a million things, what would an administrator say in review of a covenant? Would he say, take that sentence out that says all homeowners will flood their neighbor? Or conversely, all homeowners will paint their house red. What's the administrator possibly going to do? Is he going to say, well, that's okay? Or is he going to say, that's not okay. I don't like red houses. That's why I said that has, I don't see any legal review of anything an administrator could do with that.

Chapter 177, which governs the plot process, does not require that that be included in the ordinance. So we legally can be removed by guess. I wasn't around when that was put in there. My guess was in there that that was put in there. Um, so that if somebody was trying to put unconstitutional restrictions in their deeds, that that could be caught beforehand and removed because. It does get changed in this ordinance, but up until now, the city attorney's office reviews, any of the plots going out. So my guess is that's how that was meant to work originally. Um, but that's speculation.

I think this is really important attribute to my concern. So I don't know this answer. Once the plat is recorded, the covenants and restrictions are in effect. Is the city bound by those covenants and restrictions and therefore any subsequent amendment to covenants and restrictions by those governed by the covenants and restrictions, the parties within the subdivision, they want to amend it. Is the city getting the fray? Do they have to say, well, we don't want you to amend the covenants? Yes. Is that what this provides for? Or, in my opinion, once this process is done, statutory platting process has been done, the plat's recorded, the houses are built, everybody gets together in a meeting and says, we want to amend the covenants that said all houses will be red. I want all our houses to be green in 2027. Does that action get reviewed by the city? In this ordinance, is there an ordinance that says that amendments to covenants and restrictions get reviewed by the city administrator, city manager, community development director, city council?

I don't believe the city would have any jurisdiction to review that. Once they've been placed in the private deeds and the plot's been approved, that's an entirely private process. Thank you. And for example, some input on that, it sounds like.

And for example, let's just, and I think that was a good point about reviewing the constitutionality. I imagine that would be a good administrative reason. But if you could amend them and not be subject to review, that infers that I could put an unconstitutional statement and an amended covenants and restrictions and it get recorded and not be worth the paper it's written on and not be enforceable. It could be a violation of civil rights. All the above is true. But the pure act is I amended them and I recorded the amendment. I win. that's my point I just don't think local government administrators have a business and apparently the statute which is what we're doing amending this ordinance to reflect the statute and since the statute doesn't require that to be reviewed I can't imagine why you would want to review it I guess my point would be it seems like we're introducing a different issue I think we could

In the past, I've seen that we would recommend a staff to recommend a city council to investigate the covenant, the way the covenants are handled in the ordinance, rather than to try to fix it as part of The intent of this effort was to make the ordinance in compliance with the final plat issue. It seems to me they're two separate issues, but I'm open to trying to address it.

I think that's a very good observation of what is going on. I would comment that, however, this ordinance has that paragraph in it. If this ordinance is drawn, drafted, and adopted, that's what the administrator is going to do, and it's going to be a day late and a dollar short, in my opinion, that in one week I come in with a covenant and I said, Brad, I want all my houses to be red. And Brad says, well, I can't enforce that. I'm not going to have that. You can't have that. I have a covenant. I want all the houses to be red. What's the debate then? Is the debate don't have a covenant that says that? Make them green. Make them red. It's a debate that doesn't necessarily or actually need to be done. Private's over here. Public's over here. Looks like the statutes recognized public and private separation. This ordinance right now is the opportunity to eliminate that conflict, which I don't myself, my opinion, my motion to remove that envisions this ordinance would remove the authority. And when this ordinance is adopted, whatever used to be goes with it to Memorize

I'm halfway there, but not completely. I think where... I'm going to use LID as an example. LID from an administrative standpoint and an enforcement standpoint is going to be hard to police because it's very site-specific, and when you do it in a subdivision, you may have certain lots that have pervious concrete and you're using it that way or a rain garden and the homeowner doesn't know that that rain garden is part of the approved plans. So you have a tendency to put those things in a covenant and restrictions that you're not allowed to touch this. You have to maintain it. You have to do those things to protect the approval process of what you approve with the LID.

LID is a local ordinance.

I'm sorry?

You're inferring LID is a low intensity development, right? Right. So you're saying that this local standard gets plugged into a company.

needs to be a neck making it because it's no type of things that get put in these covenants that the city wants to see again if you try to change them okay so you put a deed restriction in you can't remove these trees you can't do this you can't do that because the site plan approval process was predicated on protecting those trees or protecting the LID or doing those things. So what process do you use if you don't use the covenants and deed restrictions?

And I think that's right in line with my whole point and that is that would imply to me that a deed restriction to preserve those trees, when the trees start getting cut down, I'm calling Mr. Parrish and I'm going to say to him, you need to enforce this deed restriction. Question for our council. Is the city bound by deed restrictions to the extent it enforces deed restrictions?

Not entirely sure I understand the question. The deed restrictions bind whoever is the holder of the deed. The city wouldn't be holding the deed. The city has enforcement rights in certain circumstances depending on what the restriction is. So generally, deed restrictions are not the easiest in the world to enforce. They have to kind of be in favor of the party seeking to enforce them. There's a whole bunch of convoluted case law on that. A lot of times your neighbor would have a right, but not always, but Whether the city had a right to enforce a restrictive covenant would depend on the nature of that covenant itself.

Yes. And that's that's perfect. I appreciate that sincerely because that's the whole upshot. If I were the administrator, I would not want to be posed with the question. You should enforce it. I need to talk to our council. I'll need to find out. I have a meeting with the city manager. It just blows up into a mushroom cloud on something that. The law doesn't support the city interfering with private covenants. It's between the people and the covenant. Conversely spoken, the city is not a joinder to those covenants. They're just approving them.

Yeah, and I just want to add quickly for clarification. Under no circumstance would the city be required to enforce the covenant. It would be discretionary on the city's part. Nobody could force the city to bring suit to enforce it or anything like that.

And again, all this is, is to try to remove an angst from a future event, which I would suggest has probably occurred in the past. My scenarios are from my experience. I would submit there's a future there that someone's going to come in or a neighborhood of people are going to come in. and infer and imply or suggest that because you were the administrator that approved this, you need to fix it, Mr. Administrator. And you're going to be able to have all the law behind you that says otherwise, but it's not going to change that room full of people that want to have you do their job, which is private covenant enforcement. That's what lawsuits are for, not the city code enforcement. So I stay with my point, just trying to explain it as thoroughly as I can. Member Rice.

Well, I agree with the one thing. Putting the administrator in that position is not good policy.

There's no doubt in my mind.

Because of It's a burden that's going to be there that one person should not bear.

Okay, I agree with that.

But on the other hand, in covenants and deed restrictions, I think it's important, and I'm not saying all the whole document, but maybe there's a section that says city required or something tagged to the city. These are the only ones that the city can, you have to get city approval to approve or change. It's things to protect, you know, low-impact development it's things to protect trees because right now our ordinance says a homeowner can cut a tree they want if they're in the house for at least one year they can cut anything but if but if we have a strict I guess we could put it in a conservation easement and that would restrict it We could do with that, but that would be on the plat, though. The conservationism would be on the plat. That's what we would have to do to protect the trees. But there's a lot of things that are in there, and I don't know, I just, I need a lot of thought before I can buy in completely of getting rid of something.

Yeah, that's my point, is I think we're trying – this was advertised and expected to be one thing, and we're trying to turn it into something else. I have no problem with the recommending direction to staff to research this, but I think I'm uncomfortable with all the ramifications of this being – Discussed, you know along with what we started to do which was make this ordinance conform with the final plat in the state legislation That's that's my two cents in my recommendation that we would separate the two issues I'm not saying that the issue is not valid just that it shouldn't be addressed without further review of staff and an input and

Just to make a point to counterpoint, this ordinance is proposed to unify the local government's regulation on subdividing land at the level of a final plat to simplify it and make it follow Florida statute. Our council has said Florida statute doesn't have anything about local government reviewing covenants and restrictions. We've heard the local government has the allowance to do review of preliminaries from example governments that are doing that already subsequent to the adoption of this statute. So we dovetail similarly with the idea of putting the preliminary plan review as it is and amending the ordinance. But this is an ordinance and that section is in it. And that section is subject to this review, my recommendation. We don't have to debate it. I'm not angry with it. I'm just saying you're going to, what is it the transmission person said? It's pay me now or pay me later. This issue will arise. It won't be a good time for it. So I'm staying with my recommendation. It's mine. It's on the table. I hope everybody understands my opinion of how it should go and my recommendation. I'll close with that.

Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'm going to second with discussion.

Member Rice seconds. Have your discussion. Okay. I think it dawned on me. I get it now.

We're taking it out just for the final plat process, the covenants and deed restrictions, so the administrator doesn't have to do those things. Okay? When you come back and change the preliminary plat process, covenants and deed restrictions, whatever may be in there. Okay, that's the place if we're going to retain them, that's the place to retain them. Is that what you're saying?

Any place other than putting the person responsible for the poop has got my back. You see the difference? If you are the final authority that allows the plat to record, then I'm going to accuse you of approving my requirement. You have to enforce it. Or inferring that or suggesting or quagmiring all the administrative staff down with the question, as you said. So yeah, if you want to have it so that covenants and restrictions are submitted for review during the process, so be it. I just don't want the administrator to be, you cannot go forward because this covenant isn't what I want it to say.

It's like my thumb blocks the Sun, but that's just a little thumb and that's a big Sun The staff understand the intention of that Because you've got to make the red lines a reread line this Understand the direction I He said he did so we're gonna take his words the only thing I saw in there that I was gonna comment on that hasn't been

The legislation says the administrator only has seven days to basically say, hey, I didn't see that in the ordinance, the seven-day thing. Maybe it was there, I just missed it, but I read it a couple times. I just didn't see the seven-day notation in there. So you might want to double-check on that.

All right, I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call, please.

Member McDaniel?

Yes.

Member Girard?

Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Secretary Faison?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Chairman Aton?

Yes.

With the narrowing, and Member Rice's clarification. We're sorry, Eddie. Get out your eraser that erases red underlines. All right.

We're down to item 9D. Yes, sir. The longest item of the night, 9D, Urban Forestry Trust Ordinance. This item begins on page 150 of 156. On June 9th, City Council adopted the Urban Forest Management Plan. The plan recommends the City amend the Landscape Trust Fund. Enclosed for review and approval is an ordinance to rename the Public Trust Fund to the Urban Forest Trust Fund. A separate resolution was considered by City Council amending the use of fund revenues obtained from tree mitigation efforts to allow the planting, establishment, and maintenance of trees on public and eligible private property, with priority given to canopy replacement, low canopy neighborhoods, and rights of way, and providing for an effective date. The resolution is consistent with the recommendations found in Appendix J of the adopted Urban Forest Management Plan, It is recommended that city council adopt the ordinance amending the land development regulations by renaming the public landscape trust fund in sections 30-32 and 30-34 to the urban forest trust fund consistent with the resolution. And on page 155 is the strike through an underlined version showing the name change. And really the intent of this is to provide additional flexibility to improve tree canopy in areas of the city that are currently bound by the public landscape trust fund. Thank you.

And just changing the name does that?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Any questions? Member Rice.

Just what's eligible private property mean? It was in page 150, I believe, Eddie. It said it can be used for, under summary explanation, the second paragraph. I see it. The third line now says public and eligible private property.

I would have to refer to the Urban Forest Master Plan to give you more specifics on what eligible private properties. I can tell you that that's currently not permitted in the Public Landscape Trust Fund. Okay.

Okay. Do we have any cards on this, head clerk?

No, sir.

All right. I'll open and close another public hearing. Bring it back for a motion or any additional discussion. Member Face.

I move that we approve the Urban Forestry Trust Ordinance with the changes as written. Thank you. Do we have a second?

Second. Oh, I'm sorry. Member Scully.

That's okay. My fault. My fault.

All right.

Roll call, please.

Member Gerard.

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Yes.

Member Graham.

Yes.

Member McDaniel. Yes. Member Rice.

Yes.

Secretary Faison. Yes. Chairman Aton.

Yes. Okay. I see no public presence. I'm assuming there's no need for a second petitions and requests. Any reports, city staff?

No reports, sir. Thank you.

City attorney? No report. Thank you. My only report is to thank Vice Chairman Scully for bailing me out on two meetings. Who else we got here? Any members have anything? Seeing none.

I do want to thank everybody for my ability to confuse people and accepting that you can follow through my confusing comments. But I definitely will say in my personal opinion, this matter of subdividing all of what we talk about has been a bug for me since I joined the club here. And I'm glad that everybody found it beneficial to make recommendations changes. Thank you.

And we're glad we have Member Rice to help interpret some of that. All right. We will stand adjourned. Thank you.