Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the April 8th meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. And if everyone will stand for the pledge.

United States of America to the stands one nation indivisible and justice for all. Roll call, please. Lori. Chairman Eton here. Member Graham here. Secretary F here. Member Rice here. Member Gar here. Member Scully here. Member McDaniel here. Alternate member Sidler here. Alternate member Troutman here.

Nice. I have a full docket tonight. Yeah. Uh we have a quorum for sure. Um I need the approval of the minutes if anyone has any comments or cares to make a motion. Member Gar. Uh comment, Mr. Chairman, on page 456, uh I believe I was absent on the 18th. I was not here. I was in Sebring watching cars race around the track. Good for you. Any other corrections or comments? If not, anyone care to make a motion? Member Rice, I'll move for approval. I have a second. Second.

Member Scully seconds. Uh, all in favor say I.

Any opposed? Minutes are passed. All right. Next thing, city attorney, could you read the quasi judicial procedures? Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. The cards are located at 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 exparte communications or site visits at this time which for ordinances I assume there are not many.

Thank you. Uh, next I'm moving on um to our petitions and requests from the public present. Uh, Stan Johnson, I'm almost completely unprepared because I picked up the wrong black bag and brought it here. So, I'll try to do it. Any I sent I sent you an email. It was a part of an autobiography that I'm writing about uh how to make enemies and uh lose most of your friends and tell and tell the truth. Anyhow, this this I'm going to talk about is about a project that is uh been approved by the city and it's called SNJ Oaks, also known as Elizabeth Oaks. It's here in town and uh it's uh it has a street called Mockingbird Lane. Well, the surveyor and the engineer worked together to delete that from the survey. They took away the stop sign. They took away the street sign out of the survey and also the width of the cleared way for two-way traffic. They did that illegally to enhance and increase the the number of uh units that the project can service townhouse units. So that's what we have today. Something that's illegal. And if you go look at it now, you'll see that the driveway is designed and constructed to run directly into a new fence. That's a bad thing. Uh it's uh designed to uh change two-way traffic to oneway traffic with no turnaround. It was promised to be designed that it was going to serve the six R3 properties. Six R3 properties,

but serves only five as a driveway, not as a street. Uh and the last house at 1155 Mockingbird Lane, there was no access. No access. So, uh, I encourage you to sometime go by there. You see all the trees are gone. The tree that's supposed to be in the back of the, uh, subdivision, uh, when they finally did the, uh, plans and the fencing, it's outside the fence. So, the survey was so bad that the tree that was to be saved is not on their property. Uh so uh this the um chief of police together with the fire department approved this crash hazard that I spoke to you about. I think it's interesting to see it because it's it's going to be be coming up again not to you but council for a review for the um errors made in the sketch plat. It was approved by PNZ and council in 2021 and also the other issues that it's a street not a driveway. Any questions?

Okay. It's a big deal. Thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you. I don't see any other audience members. Uh we have no old business. Moving on to new business. Item 9A.

Thank you, chairman, and good evening, commissioners. Um, as David alluded to, tonight we have two ordinance for you, so we don't have uh any applicants. And this first ordinance is item 9A, the certified recovery residences ordinance, which begins on page 7 to 56 of tonight's agenda packet. Chapter 2025182 of the laws of Florida require counties and municipalities by January 1, 2026 to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences, including a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from land use regulations that that otherwise prohibit such establishment. The ordinance may establish additional requirements for the review or approval of reasonable accommodation request, but may not require public hearings beyond the minimum required by law to grant the requested accommodation. The ordinance may include provisions for the revocation of a granted accommodation for cause such as a violation of conditions or failure to maintain certification. The effective date of the new law was July 1st, 2025 and closed for review is chapter 2025182 in the Senate bill analysis report. If you'll turn to page 15 of tonight's agenda packet, page 15 is the bill analysis. And I'll just read u the first paragraph of section one, the summary. It says, "This bill requires local governments to adopt an ordinance subject to certain restrictions to formalize and streamline the process for applicants seeking reasonable accommodations from land use regulations in order to open a certified recovery residence. Page 19 of the agenda packet includes um the definition at the very bottom. Recovery residences, also known as sober homes or sober living homes, are alcohol

and drug-free living environments for individuals in recovery who are attempting to maintain abstinence from alcohol and drugs. These residences offer no formal treatment and are in some cases self-funded through resident fees. continues on. A recovery residence is defined as a residential dwelling unit. The community housing component of a licensed day or night treatment facility with community housing or other form of group housing which is offered or advertised through any means including oral, written, electronic, or printed means by any person or entity as a residence that provides a peer-up supported alcohol-free and drug-free living environment. On page 23, section three is the effect of the proposed changes. U floor statutes require cities and counties by January 1, 2026 to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences, including a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from land use regulations that otherwise prohibit such establishment. The bill requires that the ordinance be consistent with state and federal law. Establish a written application process, require the local government to date stamp each application upon receipt, and request additional information within 30 days if required, giving 30 days for such response. require final written determination within 60 days which either approves in whole or in part with or without conditions or denies the request stating with specific specificity the objective reasons for denial and process for reconsideration. Provide that an application which does not receive final determination within 60 days is deemed approved unless the parties agree to extension and require the application application to include the name and contact information of the applicant, the property address and partial identification number and a description of any accommodation

requested. The ordinance may establish additional requirements for the review or approval of reasonable accommodation requests, but may not require public hearings beyond the minimum required by law to grant the requested accommodation. The ordinance may include provisions for the revocation of a granted accommodation for such for such as a violation of conditions or failure to maintain certification. The bill also clarifies that the ordinance does not supersede covenants or restrictions related to condominiums or homeowners associations. Lastly, if you'll turn to page nine, page nine is uh the beginning of the draft ordinance. The bottom uh you'll see the additional language is in red and underlined. And so we've included the definitions, the applicability in subsection B. Subsection C, application for reasonable accommodations. Subsection D, the review criteria. Subsection E includes distance requirement. A certified recovery resident shall not be located within a radius of 1,200 feet of another existing certified recovery residence. And subsection F revocation and reinstatement. And I'll just read those. The first revocation. An accommodation granted under this section may be revoked by the city if the certified recovery residence one loses its certificate of compliance under Florida law, two closes or vacates the premises, three causes a nuisance, or four is in violation of the business tax receipt. The second reinstatement if certificate of compliance is reinstated within 180 days of revocation, the accommodation may be reinstated administratively by the city manager or his design. Three, appeal. Any certified recovery residents who is adversely affected by the decision made concerning a request for reasonable accommodation or revocation of accommodation shall have the right to appeal such decision to the code of code enforcement special magistrate by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 10 days of the applicable

decision along with stating the specific basis of the appeal. The city council will conduct the quasi judicial hearing on the appeal within 60 days of the filing of the appeal unless otherwise agreed to by the city manager or designate and the certified recovery residents. So, so in short, a lot of this is from the state statute. Um, we do have the distance requirement that's included in there and that's certainly up for debate if you feel that that needs to be increased or decreased. Um, but this is something that we are required to adopt in some form or fashion. And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, uh, member Gar.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions for for Eddie and perhaps the attorney as well. U, I found it interesting on the appeal process that the code enforcement special magistrate was chosen. If I understand the city's special magistrate, they're practicing licensed attorney. They're serving in a judicial matter, hearing code enforcement violation cases. Understanding the relationship of the lawyer judge to an appellet process I get. Is there any other case in Titus that the code enforcement magistrate is an appellet body?

The code magistrate sits in the appellet capacity for um appeals of trespass warnings. Is that something that was gleaned not from the statute but from other example communities where they have a special magistrate as opposed to perhaps a code enforcement board in lie of that? Uh that's correct. Sometimes they refer to them as hearing officers or other similar things but it's common throughout the state that municipalities will have it doesn't have to be the same person as the code magistrate. They could have any you know competent attorney serve in that role but that they have a internal quasi judicial appeal process. But since we have one, it makes natural sense to pass it the torch so to speak to the special magistrate as your first level of appeal. That's correct.

Lawyer to lawyer kind of in the case of the appellet process to the city council. Question begs now you throw it into an elected body of people as opposed to the legalistic part of it. And I kind of felt that that was kind of surprising either surprised me that the special magistrate isn't the terminus of the appeal and then if you appeal that I guess you'd have to go to a writers I think they call it where you file a lawsuit and explore that. It just seemed odd that you would go to the lawyer law oversight review training experience for the appellet process, but then turn around if they deny you and you throw it back into a group of people like ourselves. It seemed to me you probably ought to cut to the chase and throw it from the city council and skip the special magistrate if the appeal process is going to be with the city council ultimately. I just thought that was interesting. I'm not trying to find fault with it, but I just find it kind of an interesting appellet process.

Um, my understanding is that the uh appeals to the special magistrate in this instance would then be appealable to circuit court, not to council. So in the sentence, it says, "City council will conduct a quasi judicial hearing on the appeal within 60 days of the filing of the appeal unless otherwise agreed to by the city manager or designate or certified recovery residents. It looked like a cascade that you you ask the special magistrate for appeal. If they don't side with your appeal, the appeal goes to the city council." Or am I misreading that?

I'll defer to Eddie on the policy choice. I think originally in the ordinances drafted council was to hear the appeal entirely and we moved it over to the special magistrate. So there might be some mismatch in there but um I don't want to speak on behalf of policy for staff.

That's right. And and if that in your opinion if the board if the if it would be cleaner to send it to council first um or only to council um you can certainly make that suggestion moving forward to council make that recommendation. Well, using the example of the board of adjustment as a terminology, if you file a case for appeal to the board of adjustment, at least in my experience, and the board of adjustment denies your your appeal, you can file a writ to overturn that appellet process, but you oftenimes wouldn't want to go from the board of adjustment to the city council, and if everybody agrees to say no, you then get to file a writ. It it it seems cleaner if the answer is either the the magistrate's the final decision or if more preferred it is a city council decision then just skip the magistrate go to the city council and if you fail in your appeal you then have your legal recourse. It's more that's more common I think than than less common at least my experience

both board of adjustment and trespass warning appeals are appealable only to circuit court. They don't go then to council. So that would be I think in line with what you're saying here.

Yeah. Yeah. Does do the other council members have anything to think about on that? That's the first question. The second second question, um you said you could increase the 1200 foot radius from one to the other. Is that not statutoily required as a distance separation or does the statute envision these recovery things could be next door all the way down the street? So the intent of the statute was to make to was not to was to streamline this um accommodation in order to accommodate this use. And so if you were to suggest an unreasonable number, I think that would be easy to challenge. Like 5,000 miles would be unreasonable. Correct.

But some rational nexus exists where you don't want to have a street full of recovery houses and 1,200 ft seems to be sufficient. Correct. And I I compliment it that it's radial. I've seen ordinance written where they make the mistake to say distance and somebody says it has to be on the traveled way and it gets interpreted. So I appreciate adding that to it. Um I think that concludes my two questions. Thank you. Uh member Chapman.

Uh yeah, my question here uh Eddie. So I see that um it talks about uh revoking. Is there any verbiage in there that states like so if they uh fall out of line uh with the with what they're going with what they're doing there, right? The revocation. Um, does it state in there what the steps are to like I guess evacuate the house and say you're going to go through the the law side of stuff when they do that or does it so it talks about the law side but it doesn't talk about I guess if say something happens right like they're not following the rules or whatever do they come in put an eviction notice and does there need to be verbiage in there of like what that process is or

well enforcement uh I believe would fall to the state first because they would be losing their certificate under Florida law to operate the facility and they get their license from the state to operate the facility. So if they're not meeting their conditions uh under the state certificate then uh they shouldn't be operating per the state. Um as far as how they notify the residents um I don't that's not included in the ordinance. No.

Okay. So, I guess that's kind of where I'm getting at is does there need to be some kind of verbiage that if anything, you know, falls short of this, it gets deferred to the state as far as um I guess how enforcement gets involved like for this to be enforced, you would have to reach out to state for that and then start your does do you follow what I'm asking? There would also likely be recourse with code enforcement if they're violating any occupancy rules in the city. I'm sorry, say that again.

Code enforcement would also have jurisdiction to impose fines if they're violating any um or occupancy minimum or maximums uh by virtue of losing their state certification. So it would be an uh code enforcement to say that there there's an issue and then to reach out to the state to say that there's an issue. The state would have their own parallel process, but code enforcement could levy fines on the property and eventually a lean and foreclose if it came to something that severe.

Okay. Yeah. I don't think I was trying to go that far into I was just curious on if someone were to look up into like, all right, you know, I was shut down. What is my step? I guess if it says, you know, hey, state um deals with this, I don't I don't know where it says in here. I guess uh for someone to say this is the steps that you need to follow, I guess, as far as if this gets shut down. I was just curious on that as well. So, I don't need to take this any longer than it needs to be, but remember Croftton. is that that's on my it's on my display, but I wanted wanted to make sure. I think it's member Seedler, but

Oh, thank you. Um, a a few things here. So, right now the application requirements are minimal and the 60-day clock can start basically without a clear defined completeness standard on this. And I'm curious if we can establish a structured checklist so that the city's not put into position of like unintentionally approving an incomplete application. So for example, like um define when the 60-day clock starts. For right now, it's kind of unclear. And can we put something in there where the city city formally says this application is complete and then the 60-day clock starts. That's similar to how our current applications work. So, uh the list of what would be required is under C1 on page 10 is the the form of application which includes their name, mailing address, parcel ID number, specific regulation that they're seeking relief from. So those are all the things that they would have to identify to us. If let's say they did not in include everything that's incl issue an incomplete application letter saying we don't have everything we need at this time and so that would not start the 30-day clock at that at that point.

Okay. Um, also in this, if there is a issue within the community, um, can we require that a responsible local contact be on file? Uh, we have the applicant's name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address. I don't know that we can require that that applicant be uh someone that lives within the city limits.

Well, just that there is somebody. So, in case there is issues, usually if the applicant perhaps they're not even in the area that there is somebody that is local or there is a number. Um, that was just one of my questions. And then the force acknowledgement of the rules. Right now, everything is implied. Do they sign anything that they must follow the nuisance laws? And um if they don't follow them uh can it be revocation if the violated? Is that clear in there or is that a

So on page 11 at the top uh subsection one revocation item number uh three it says cause a nuisance. So if uh if the certified recovery residents were to be found to be causing a nuisance uh then yes they could be found uh the the accommodation could be revoked in that. Can I ask what defines a nuisance? Is there definition for that? We have a nuisance section of the uh code of ordinances and that includes noises, sounds, um smells.

Okay. And then I know we can increase or ask for the increase. There's a 1200 foot rule exists. Um is how's that verified? is that so like if you're in a resident residential neighborhood and you have one home that is designated for this use skips a home then it can go to another home skips a home and can go to another home is that we is when you were talking about the distance I know we can't limit you know how many are in there that they do have that right but 1,200 feet is is that something I'm not a aware of how this works in a residential or in a neighborhood in of itself. So is 1,200 ft enough seem to be happy with that. And I'm just curious

to to respond to your question, there are group homes have gone through transition over years where local government gets pitted against the state in my experience where the state writes rules that impede local government of arbitrarily having distances when I mentioned I've seen distances written where they don't get clearly defined so they become linear instead of radial. I was also when you spoke I was reminded myself of another point of view. What is the,200 foot uh debarcation point? Is it the property boundary or the house? If I had a 50 acre farm and I had one of these houses, I wouldn't go 1200 ft and still be on my property. So, you would in effect have one next door potentially as opposed to point of bearing being the home that's used for that purpose would be your measurement criteria, not the property on which the home is located. Sure. To clarify, that would be from the property boundary and that would be as the crow flies. And what what that means is um when you're looking at an aerial, you don't take into consideration the lots and blocks and go 1,200 ft um inclusive road rights away,

right? So, you're just going from the property boundary, draw a line, 1200 ft um using scale. And and that's kind of why I mentioned that when you make a criteria like that and you know look at a rural community or even look at Titusville in some of the rural areas like along um Carpenter Road you have lots out there that in some cases are 500 ft in width and 1,200 feet you in your mind's eye staff's confronted with the question uh where's 1200 feet measured from and you say the property boundary and I'm next door and go why am I getting this thing next door to me when it was 1,200 ft and the response is well we have to begin at the property boundary where in fact the use is more akin to the house they're residing in the building and structure than it is the property the house resides on. So, in my humble opinion, I'd rather make the criteria be really definitive. Start the 1,200 or if it's more 15 or 2,000 or whatever seems to be the best distance, but make the criteria from the building, not from the use of land. Or you could potentially get the the issue of I meant to have 1,200 ft between them, but because one's on a large lot, I I absorb the,200 feet within my own property. Next door is another house, I want to put one there, too. If the objective is not to let them be side by side or down the street from one another, am I making myself understandable?

No, not not to me because I the property boundary is the larger Yes. the greater of the two. So, one other thing to consider is that this is a a home um and so people do spend time outdoors. The the tenants or the residents are not limited to staying within the confines of the home, right? they could um enjoy the rest of the property. So, sure. Um that's just an addition additional thing to consider, but that could be part of the recommendation to council.

I I I mean, they could be wandering all over 15 acres of property, but I think the objective was to separate the buildings being used for the purposes of a of a substance abuse recovery. So if you measure the property boundary, you have to accept the fact that that gives you a a a free board of distance from where the activity is, the residential activity, the group home. And you don't refer to it, for example, as group land. You refer to it as a group home. Albeit you can go in the yard and play, but at night and the facilitation of a multiple nonrelated residents to me would be better served if you measured from the building as opposed to the property. Uh if I may, I had one more question. I I'm on a roll so I apologize. Um now I may have forgot my question today. I'll try to come back with that.

Member FAC. So, continuing with the distance part of the conversation, um I remember at some point in time not too long ago, group homes and this fell under group homes. The distance between the group homes was 500 ft. I've noticed with this here when we're talking about and again I recovery residences um we've gone to 1200 between the recovery residents, but does that 500 foot of group home still apply?

I'm not familiar with the 500 feet. Do you know more about where that was in the code? I can look. Um, so some time ago I was looking up somebody start a an ALF and I knew that the ALF could not be within 500 feet of another style of group homes. Um, and so we had to do some research to make sure that we weren't within proximity of another whether it's, you know, women's children's shelter or albeit a group home. Um, and so now I'm just wondering if that 500 ft for the group homes also now kind of how does that how does that apply with this 1,200 feet for the sober living?

So I'm looking in assisted living facility and the limitations and conditions and I I could be mistaken but I remember 500 ft

and I'm not seeing it yet. It it could still could still be here, but just for the sake of of the argument, let's let's assume it is in the code. Uh this is a new state law that supersedes that is about overriding what our current uh regulations have. So this would um preempt whatever we have as far as areas where a uh certified recovery residence could not happen. Um, and so if they're applying for this waiver, if you will, from our land development regulations to establish this use, then that distance requirement would work. If they are working under our existing code where they are permitted, then that minimal 500 uh lesser 500 feet distance requirement would apply.

Well, here in in this case here, I'm just saying let's say that there's a certified recovery residence in one location and then let's say that there is a a children's home nearby. Which distance would you go with? Would it be the 1,200 from the children's residence or 500? Let's just say for the 500 from the children's residence. In this case, the distance requirement says a certified recovery residence, this is the proposed language, shall not be located within the radius of 1,200 ft of another existing certified recovery residence. And so if that other home was not a certified recovery residence, the 1200 feet would not apply.

Okay. All right. So I again so my question would be we need to look and see what the group home distance was and see how that aligns with the certified recovery residence distance

member McDaniel. Hi um okay so about how many of these residences do we currently have in Titusville? Do we know? So, this is a new process that we would be establishing where someone could petition the city to um to grant to grant this waiver. So, we currently don't have any. Okay. Um and then with the 1200 foot rule, how would that be tracked and enforced? We would have to maintain a new map. Thank you. Member Rice.

Yeah. Um couple things. One of the things that this document says is that it may not require public hearing beyond the minimum required by law to grant the requested accommodation. So it doesn't say you can't go through a public process. This is the minimum required by law. So why isn't this a conditional use or something like that instead of let instead of just isolated to the administrator? Why aren't we doing a public process here so a neighborhood can can come and support or have concerns about it? Why aren't we doing that process or is that not allowed? Because the way I read it says the minimum allowed by law and conditional use process is currently a process that we use. That's in this in the statute that says that.

I see it. It says I'm looking at page 23.

This is the paragraph after the bullet points. The ordinance may establish additional requirements for the review or approval of reasonable accommodation requests, but may not require public hearings beyond the minimum required by law to grant the requested accommodation. So they're requesting accommodations to allow this use where it otherwise wouldn't be prohibited or wouldn't be permitted. And so our understanding was the intent was to the intent of the legislature was to streamline these and to allow these um and not throw up administrative burd uh hurdles like public hearing processes. So, we do not I my understanding unless David can um correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that that was in the spirit of what the legislator legislature intended with this uh new law.

Well, I mean, it clearly says may and shall means you have to do it. May means you may do it. Okay. I would just add that the um reasonable accommodation section limits the reasonable accommodations to areas that would uh otherwise be violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Housing Act. So subjecting that to a public process when it's really a a legal question of is there an impediment here under the FHA or or the uh ADA seems kind of like okay unnecessary to use that word, but that's not the correct word. I'm looking for.

Okay, I can accept that. I think the the other thing that that is such an ambiguous word, a reasonable accommodation that that opens the door to everything. Okay. I mean, and I think it it's going to be the administrator that gets to decide what is a reasonable accommodation. Okay. But there's no guidelines for him to in which to do that. And and you know it's just boy that's that's a tough word to to overcome as as an administrator. It could be ch it will be challenged I think. So but the other thing with when it comes to administrator I think on page um that it says it's on page 10 I believe it is. Just make sure I got it right. It's left up to the administrator, the community development department director. Okay? And typically, even with the LDRs, the administrator of the LDRs is the city manager or his designate. That's the way the code reads. And even later on in this same ordinance, it says, you know, with the u um u challenge, if it was denied, is the city manager is designate. Okay. Why don't we use the same philosophy here and let the city manager decide who is the best department head to oversee this program? And more than likely it will be the administrator. But why tie the city manager, the head of of our government that we operate? Why tie his hands to saying no, it has to be the community development director?

Is there another department head that you think would be able to answer? No, I'm going to leave that up to the city manager to decide because I mean that certainly could that change could be made, but I don't think it would make a sub substantive uh

Okay. Then the other thing that um the application I mean you you put the bare minimum and and that's what's required is the bare minimum by the state statute. But if you if you look on I think it's page 21 of our agenda, um there's a whole list of things that this applicant has to do um to get his certification. Okay. Um and yeah, it's on page 21. It says cred credential entities must require prospective recovery residents to submit the following information. Well, why aren't we asking for the same information? Because you only have basically 60 days to give an answer or it's automatic. Okay. So, why not request as much information as you can so the administrator or the city manager designate can can make an intelligent informed decision fairly quick instead of asking for additional documentation all the time because you're just asking for the minimum. You know, I would say that you would need to include everything on this list with the exception of the fee schedule and the refund policy. I don't think the city would really cares too much about those items. Okay. Um so that's going to be one of my recommendations with this ordinance. The other thing is for I think for the city of TR or for you um with the revocation, why can't we say that if the facility is either closed, abandoned or lose their certification, it's an automatic revocation of the certificate of of the request. Don't make them go through a process. We don't make a formal request that you

have to go through to revoke it. It's automatic because they didn't comply, they abandoned the property, they lost their certification, um or or they or they closed the facility. Why leave it open? Why not make it automatic that it's revoked? I don't think that's against state statute from what I read. No, I mean It is a policy option that could be recommended. Okay. Um and then that's it. Those are my my items. Everything everyone else covered everything else. Thank you. Member Graham.

Uh I had a couple of questions here. Uh some of them have been visited. Um just as an example, uh the IRC that um you and I talked about, uh they have restrictions in place for that. and this new rule would override that. One of the reasons why that development committee come into play was in those neighborhoods um these um type of houses and structures were bought up and used for this and they they started buying apartment complexes like uh they would split up a four or five building apartment complex and they would sell one building to them and next thing you know you got 15 20 units in that area. So my concern um would be on if some of these administrators can have up to 300 people uh 12,300 ft you know is is not a lot. So, you're looking like every 10, 12 houses, per se, depending on the neighborhood, uh you can have another one of these. And I know they're going to be subjected to the occupancy uh load of the house, but alls it takes is one of these apartment complexes uh to start breaking up and the next thing you got, you know, 30 units that are full of this. And in that area of the IRC, uh we're talking about Coina and uh the road right behind there. Uh none of these people drive. Uh generally all those privileges are taken from them. And you know, uh they just meander through the neighborhood. And I I wonder the way it's written or the way the state has if the distance that we have all have concerns with is even remotely

um far enough away to keep where you got 300 people dropped in the middle of some you know residential subdivision. So my thought would be um we would have to increase this to at least somewhere around a half a mile to a mile. Um if you read what some of these administrators I mean 300 people is a lot of folks and alls it takes is one building like that that they can get their hands on or build or whatever it is in a residential and next thing you know you got a vast majority of this in a residential neighborhood. Member GR.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I was a going to ask a question of is try to make sure I get this in sync. The state's licensing procedures for the operation of group homes, more particularly this style of group homes. In my experience, there are licensing regulatory group. It's not like you just have DCF or you just have uh um the state fire marshall as an example. Uh the state is going to say you provide us what we need to see and and you're licensed. The local government saying that if you're licensed you have to be allowed to be built constructed 300 occupancy apartments. It's like my large property in the small building. But it's the fact that in each of the instances that I've had group housing as a zoning issue arise because it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission is the building construction. And you you just spoke on that. Uh you can't just turn a house or an apartment into a group home and say, "Well, how many people fit in the bedroom?" Because if you look at the building codes for how many people are in a square foot of a house, it's a lot of people. you you can densify that and then it becomes a nuisance so to speak because everybody's clamoring about what's this going on. I said hey they were licensed by the state they're okay. Did the building get constructed to the occupancy requirements of a group home? And that was the part that I always saw missing. Unless you require the building permitting process to go in and explore the way the home that you're going to buy to use for that purpose is examined for fire codes. And here in this in the requirements, you have to proof of satis as a page 21 you pointed out proof of satisfactory fire safety and health inspections.

Who implements that? Who who requires that? If the person comes to the community development department and pres presents a application, the time clock's already started. You've stampdated it. You've got to make a decision. How does that request for use of land merge with the occupancy, fire, safety, and health inspections that should occur before you let the people occupy the group home? Regardless of whether the state has prohibited you from regulating it other than a licensing procedure because all of this is about licensing, not about the dynamics of the building. Did it have fire announcers? I mean, it's like a motel. You have to have a unified fire alarm system in a motel room. If you have a home, you have a stick on there with a 9volt battery in it. Does this group home get ninevolt batteries with 10 men living in one bedroom? Because 10 men in one bedroom that's 100 square feet meets the occupancy load of the building code. You can actually have 10 people in 100 square feet and be compliant. I'm not factually knowing that, but I think it's pretty close to close to true. It's a really large number of human bodies can go into a building before it trips the scale of a building occupancy load or a fire load. But if you don't have a regulatory process identified that before you can ask for a license, you have to have compliance with the building's occupancy. Where is that merged into this ordinance? So, the bill analysis, um, again, this is a state law that was handed down to cities to implement, um, only talks to accommodations from land use regulations. And so, my understanding is that there would still need to be compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code and any other standards with the Florida Building Code. I'm I'm good with that. My question isn't that

that the state law or the fire code or NFPA regulates it. How do you implement that regulatory authority? who goes and inspects that home on a licensing request. I've shown you all my licensing request uh applicable standards. It's all spelled out the form. You've date stamped it. The clock is running. Who's going to go in there and say, "Wait a minute. You can't operate a group home with 9volt battery nonunified fire announcing systems. In some cases, could actually trigger a sprinkling requirement. You mentioned apartments and all of that really comes to a head when the first application's submitted and nobody knows how to implement the inspection process of the use of the land not not the occupancy inspection for the use of land

and therein is my question is they're going to be in the standards by which an application is made before you can timestamp it. you mentioned about is there a threshold criteria you've been reviewed to be compliant with so we can accept your application as opposed to I'm just arbitrarily turning you down or I'm not moving fast enough. That's excellent. Most of the codes have that in there that you have a minimum and you said you did have that. How do you get an applicant for one of these at the community development department consummate a requirement before you issue the license that the building meets satisfactory fire safety and health inspections. So typically the fire inspection is tied to the business tax receipt which also known as the occupational license. So maybe including that uh the business tax receipt be applied for at the same time that the request for accommodation be submitted.

I'm kind of good with that. But then business tax receipts why they don't call it an occupational license anymore because now you're remitting a tax. That's really all you're doing. That's why it used to be you could revoke an occupational license and then the state came through and says, "No, no, no. We're not going to call them occupational license anymore. We're going to call them business tax receipts." And the fact of the matter is if I'm willing to pay the tax, you have to accept my tax payment. I want to do this use, I have to pay this tax. Give me my license, quote unquote. Well, we do have feefree BTRs uh for uh I believe nonprofit uses, for example. Well, I'm trying to imply that if an application's deemed sufficient, compliant, and is submitted time, date, and stamped, and my clock is running, has an inspection been made that says, "Oh my gosh, you're going to have to do about six months worth of uh construction in this home. So, we're not going to issue you your approval in the 60 days. You need to go fix the house up." As opposed to, "No, I'm running the clock. You accepted it. You have to give me my license. I'll get around to fixing the house up later." I I don't I see a disconnect between those standards which you I believe most people would commonly frankly think that's what government does. They make people safe. Government provides life safety codes. You do inspections for that. But nowhere in this licensing procedure, and certainly not from the state, did they ever go into the weaving of well, I gotta I gotta have a a review that this building suffices for my proposed use before you can accept my application. It's the cart and the horse, I think, because if the reverse is true, I have the cart. I go find the horse. I just get a license and I go ride my horse and cart down the road as opposed to I have a horse, but what my need is is to pull a cart. Well, I need to inspect the cart you're pulling. And and that's where it

typically that is a crack that occurs at the local level because there isn't a way to implement a license procedure or a land use process from a building code inspection where no alterations proposed. I'm I'm not proposing to do anything. So, do I need a building permit if I'm not going to do anything? The question is not what you're proposing. It's what you have to do to propose what you want to do. And I would almost think it's inherent nature for occupancy requirements that an inspection ensues of the building, the apartment, the single family home, the mobile home. There's nothing in here that says it has to be a single family home. It could be a mobile home being a mobile home park and can you imagine having a mobile home a single wide and 30 people living in it? I I just right there's one of my points is I think there there needs to be a connection between the application's timing and the procedural requirements to issue the applicant's request in a timely manner and the fact that before you begin that clock, you've got to have an inspection that the building you're proposing to use is satisfactory for the proposed use or you're certainly going to get the cart before the horse. You get the license and you don't have the building code in compliance. And it's okay to say you can go to the code enforcement to remediate the issue, but that doesn't seem like the right process either. Start right, end right, not start wrong, and continue to be wrong. That I hope that makes sense to other people than just me.

Member FA

interesting piece of legislation or policy that we're here to to to discuss. uh one of the things that I see that is probably one of the biggest issues that we have no advocates speaking on behalf of this process. So one of the things that member Gario brought up um one of the things that we didn't take into account is the servicing populace of these of these homes. So whereas in ALF there's a special need there. So there's some regulation that covers that special need populace. We're looking at children there's another special need populace that also needs special needs care there as well. In these homes, we have people that are are recovering. They are in essence okay otherwise. And so this is just a roommate situation. And so we don't have legislation that that governs roommates or subleting a room to a another individual to make sure that that room that's being sublet meets a certain standard or conditions. We don't we don't have that. But yet in this recovery house, that's kind of essentially that's what it is. roommates that are in their room while they recover along with other folks who are also recovering. So when I look at the servicing populace, I'm looking at what are their needs. What do I need to make sure that they're that they're cared for like an ALF where a sprinkle system is necessary or an outside generator is also necessary just in case power goes out. These people that are are medically um disadvantaged may need some some care. So when I look at this populace, I don't see the need for overregulation. Um, and so that's one of the things I want to kind of bring up as let's let's look at who we're serving. The next thing is NIV, not in my backyard, is huge in this community. Um, again, the these are people that are recovering. Um, and if we again, bad things happen next door neighbors. I mean, we all live in communities that someone is addicted to some kind of drug and or has some kind of mental health just down the street. Okay. But we don't say that we want

those those addicts to be further over down the street. No, they're they're our neighbors. You know, we we care for our neighbors. They're across the street. They're they're behind us. So, um just because there's a house full of recovering people doesn't make it less attractive than your neighbor next door who may be struggling with another issue. So um the reason why again I asked about 1200 feet was because I just want to know if they're allowed to be next door to any other group homes that are sensitive in nature uh because the regulation said between each of those and so my question was could there be essentially another group home in between at 500 feet right say it's children family whatever women and children's whatever it doesn't matter what it is but a group home in between the 21200 not that it's a problem I I just wanted to make sure that that that's okay.

Yeah, with the languages in the proposed ordinance, it would not prevent a different type of group home from being within that 1,200 ft. If I could find the standards uh with the 500 ft that you're referencing, I could review the language and see whether it's written in a way that it applies to any type of uh recovery residents or just limited to neighborhood group homes. Those are different definitions. So, I'd have to review that. I don't have that for you tonight. And and the other last thing I I I I would like to ask is that if we have an opportunity there there are homes here that service this populace, right? That they also have some input on this legislation on this piece of, you know, policy that we're trying to pass today. Um only because we don't have any true advocates for this policy. Um we're we are great at trying to make suggestions, right? But unless we've been in that process, we really don't know how to best serve these individuals. And so I I think it would be nice just to have some input from that industry. If I could just add real quick while we were on the topic of the question or statement before that one, the 500 ft um rule that you were referencing earlier is earlier is from uh section 419.011 and is specific to ALFs. All right. I I don't see any more lights. Uh from my standpoint, I I agree with member Rice. Um I I tend there's a couple pretty important things. um especially with the health and safety and inspection side of things that rubber stamping it because the state did it and signed off on it and not um having our our staff or our our or

community also do it um is um might be a little dangerous. Uh so having it be part of our application process as well uh as kind of a a backup uh on on a on the important points especially the the fire safety and health and and those seems to make a lot of sense to me. Um other than that um I assume we don't have any cards Lori since we have no people no cards. So I'll open and close the public hearing and then bring it back to members for anything additional. Member Gar,

I guess I should because this will be interesting. We're just discussing this amongst ourselves and that is how do you feel on the discussion points we've had already? You mentioned a couple. Um, and if I can ask Eddie, um, if I categorize my concern that, for example, the appellet process is something that could be streamlined and in my opinion more consistent with most of the appellet processes I've been familiar with in my experience to go from a board of adjustment to a ridicers to a ridicers following the city commission's decision. having this magistrate in the middle of it that doesn't to me make a lot of sense. So that's my one recommendation to consider. The concern about distance is one that I used an example and it's like your 300 unit apartment. What you meant to say and what you say are different. But I I myself think that should be a measurement criteria from the building as opposed to the land to uh prevent that capacity to have something next door to another one. Um, the idea about inspections, what I'm envisioning is that the application process would in fact codify a requirement that an applicant has to provide for a fire, whoever the appropriate staff is, as you said, it could be the community be the city manager's designate, whoever that would be needs to I turn my application in for my use, but it concurrent I have to make an application for a building inspection. I had the inspection performed and I know now what I've got to do. I can't get my license issued unless that building is conforming. I think that's fair because this rule and statutory requirement of it is and do Tom Petty comes to mind. Damn the torpedoes. Um that you're going to have to process this. And I think that's that's the statute. That's the law and

that's what you're doing. Doesn't mean back to your comment earlier too about u what does the statute say? It doesn't say you can't require an applicant to provide for an inspection to determine if the building's capable of the proposed use. And that's a building code, not a zoning code, not a it's a life safety code. And that way, if the applicant is told, you got to fix this and do that and do this. Go do all of that and we'll process your application. When you show us that you've complied with the required improvements, then we can issue your license. Does that work within the statute? Do you think

I don't believe there's anything that prohibits us from adding additional requirements as far as the completion of an application. Um the only rub that that could possibly get into is any potential conflict with ADA or Fair Housing Act, which I'm not seeing immediately, but I would want to think about a little bit more before I say absolutely. But I don't see any quick impediment to that right now. No. Yeah. What what I'm envisioning is that depending on how many people occupy one of these homes, that maximum occupancy is a building code or a fire or life safety code. It's not a zoning code, it's not a city ordinance, it's NFPA 101 or whatever the code is. If you were to give a person a license first and then they go occupy the building without doing improvements that were required because it's just a license that compromises the whole intention and I think that that's fair. It seems to me to be logical. I think it's a good nexus that before I issue your license, since I have to, you can't turn me down on a zoning land use issue, but I can turn you down because the building's not fit for occupancy under your proposed use, building code, life safety code, and just codify that right within the process. Something you could do, I think, without putting a code. I don't want a conditional approval is what I'm trying not to do.

Yeah. Because our interpretation is that the last bullet point on um on page 21 is that in order to get their credentiing, they had to provide that to the state. But we're taking the state's interpretation and their follow through and all that that that happened. And I think it's better that we back that up. I mean, they may may or may not have done it to the state, but we make sure we did it. that that's kind of why the local governments provide those inspections and that's why that is because the state's really not in that ballpark. Right. Uh member Seedler,

thank you. I do like the idea that you suggested about re revoking instead of going through this process if you you fail to your credentiing or you lose your license or you have whatever have you. I think that if if we can revoke it, um I like I like that idea. I don't know if we can require that. I also do like the idea that you're suggesting of all of these things, safety and before prior to occupancy, the ask for forgiveness and is tends to be what we see a lot of and I would like to prevent that as much as possible for our staff and everybody else. I also like the idea of it coming to the community in a committee of some sort. So, we do get some say in it because that 60-day stamp is a 60-day stamp and it gets put through. So, I don't know what we can again asking for these things prior to the beginning of the clock. I would like to see us get as much information is prior to that clock starting because once the clock starts the hands kind of get tied. And then my distance thing if you could just clarify you're asking building as opposed to land. So in my mind 1,200 ft from a building and you want it from building to building versus let's say this building is on an acre. I would prefer to see it property to property. It gives more space in between. And and the way you're telling me is you would prefer it. Let's say we have an acre and there is a home there and so that basically the 1,200 ft would be absorbed in that acre and then therefore they could have another one right next

door on this piece of property. Am I understanding that correctly? Eddie responded. I think that you are measuring from property boundary. So, if I had a home on your acre and was in the middle and there's 200 feet to my right and 200 feet to my left and 200 feet behind me and 200 feet in front of me and my house is in the middle of that acre, 1,200 feet begins from the property to the next potential recovery home and you're measuring from property to property. So, there would be a farther distance, not a lesser one. I may have misspoke that if you measured it from house to house. I was thinking you could absorb the 1200 ft within your property and the next lot be available to develop one. Measuring and then I misspoke. If you measure from property to property, it won't matter where the house is located in the property. It's the boundary extends out 1,200 feet from that boundary. So, how big the property is, you're going to be successful at keeping them from being close to it. I I misspoke. I probably got turned around in my own mind.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's why we're all here. Keep me mindful. I was having problems with that one as well. All right. Member Member Rice. Um ask a couple questions about the inspection portion. Can we without breaking state statute say before we accept your application, you have to have the place that you want inspected by the building official and the fire marshal. before we accept your application. Is that allowed by state statute? That way the clock doesn't start now. Is that doable?

The state statute only replies or only references a completed application. So the statute itself again does wouldn't pose an impediment to that. My and what I was trying to think through a minute ago only hesitation is if we're making specifically recovery residences recovery residences as opposed to any other type of group home go through these extra stages that the other group homes aren't just by virtue of the fact that they are seeking to house people who qualify as disabled under the ADA and Fair Housing Act and are seeking accommodations only on that basis. it might start to look like discrimination at some point depending on how harsh the walls we put up prior to the application process starting is.

So you're saying we shouldn't do that? I would have to do a little more extensive research, but it's just something to consider at this point. But but with then with regard to distance, can we have a graduating distance based on the size of the facility? So if you have 1,200 people or 300 people, whatever it is, that distance graduates out. Sure. Absolutely.

Okay. And then um the other thing I didn't notice in here, there's nothing mentioned about an application fee. Member Rice, one thing to consider with the graduated uh distance requirement is that if a home were to grow over time, then it would be subjected to different standards over time and that may make implementation of that. Well, I think your certification your your reasonable certification would dictate that,

you know, we did this process now and it's good to up to 200 people or 20 people or 100 and then you have to go back through the process if you want to expand beyond that maximum limit. Okay. And then about fees, is there a fee associated with the application?

No, we have no if he included at this time. Okay. We probably should create that the same time we create the the ordinance should we not? So if you get a an application that you know what the fee will be and it doesn't seem we collect anywhere. M member Rice brought up the target occupancy. I don't think we ask that question anywhere. Do we? I don't see it on the application that you know are you creat

how big are you? Are yeah are you creating this for the five or eight people or whatever or for the 300 certainly it also would come into play with the fire inspection and everything else. That's correct sir and I think that would be covered by what uh I believe member Rice suggested as far as requiring the same information that's being provided to the uh to the state. But is it I didn't even see it on the states list. Is it

on the states list? There's a $100 application fee that can't be exceeded and an annual reertification fee of $100 that can't be exceeded no matter the facility size.

That's correct. I was going to follow up with what Mr. Rice is talking about here that um um if it might be predisposed to be unfair that we would require that inspection and I should have footnoted that's for an existing building. You wouldn't go through this problem for new construction. I would submit maybe group homes in general alfs and anything that's multiple occupant residential where that same scenario happens whether it's 10 people who all believe in one thing or 10 people who all like each other whatever group housing is that the building inspection is done before you can give them a license or even and I think it's appropriate to say you haven't made an application until you have an inspection so that you know what you have to do and maybe that has to be applied to all of them in the code, not just this one. That would counter the potential singling this out.

Standardization definitely gives me less heartburn. That's something to do another day. I imagine I guess we can still make a part of the recommendation which I I this the mo this motion is going to be interesting. Uh let's see who is next. memor

uh in regards to standardization here and you know can we Woody's uh topic about have a graduating um scale based on you know how large or how many people the people apply for. You would think that you have to base it on the property they're using. So, you know, let's say that the property they're using has a maximum capacity of 10, but they just say, "Oh, we only have five." You have to charge it off as 10. Because there'll be no way to regulate it. They may start at five and then they got 10 before it's there. So if we do somehow end up in that direction, you may want to standardize, you know, is it based on the square foot of the property that they're looking at using?

Yeah, it seems like the revocation maybe should include something about occupancy standards or fire codes or violation of um member FA. So from from my commissioners, um I don't know how much you guys know about group homes, but but there there are standards of of occupancy. There are requirements um that group homes must meet. Um I I think that the general consensus is that these types of homes ought to fall under group homes as well and inherit those inherit those um same requirements. You know what I mean? And and with that again standardizing I I I too agree. Um and but again that that would require us to to vote on that right and and have staff go back and do the research and bring those bring those requirements back to the board and ask is this sufficient. Does that make sense?

Okay. Member Chapman.

Yeah. So I want to commend all y'all for actually bringing this up. It was kind of something what I was trying to go for. I pretty much picked a specific topic, but pretty much the regulation, the standardization of of this, like I'm seeing the licensing. This is what we're going to do for licensing. But that's what I was really trying to get at was I'm not seeing the regulation of what all we're talking about, right? We're not we're not seeing that verbiage of what's going to happen. How is that going to be looked at? So, so yes, I want to commend all y'all for for bringing that up, talking about it because it is a hard topic to talk about and bring up. Um, because we need to get it right. You know, we need to make sure that everything's on board, right? Um, but yes, with the uh you had said something about gosh, I keep forgetting I'm like Mr. regard. I keep forgetting the last thing,

but but um and I I'll I'll come back to if if if we even have time left, but yeah, it was the last thing. Okay, I don't see any more lights. What's the pleasure of the commission? It seems like we could member Rice, I have one more question. How timesensitive is this? Well, it said it was supposed to be in place January 1st, which was a question I didn't ask, but January 1 of next year? Of last year? This year? Of this year. Wow. Okay. All right. So, I think I remembered now.

All right. Um, what I was going to ask was, so this is being voted on by you guys, um, and ladies, um, that is it something that needs to be asked that they need to go back and find out what all this is and then come back to you guys to vote on this? That's where we were headed, but we may be out of time, too. So, all right,

that's where I was going with that last one. So, it seems like we can either make a very extensive motion with a lot of suggestions and uh recommendations or send it back and let staff consider the hour we've spent providing recommendations and bring something back that has that corrections. What's the pleasure? Member Gar, you hit first. Would you like a recommendation on that regard?

Sure. Since we'll throw that out there, I would follow the suit of the chairman's comment that we allow staff to bring this back after you take our comments manifested as a change in this proposal and then bring it back to us. Hopefully, then we can move it on to the city council. How does that continue this? The fact that we're already two weeks, three and a half months late based off of the first sentence in your thing. How does that uh

how does that fly? So, uh, just to clarify, this is scheduled to be heard by city council on April 28th. And so, they will hear hopefully they will have a chance to hear the breadth of conversation, excuse me, and the numerous uh concerns that everyone's brought up tonight. Um, if the recommendation tonight is that there needs to be some additional tweaks to the uh draft ordinance that's been presented here tonight, the city council could consider that and decide to table it at that April 28th meeting until there's been time to make those changes and bring it back to PNC uh for an additional vote and then make a vote on it. Or they may decide that they have enough information at that time and may vote to adopt it at that at that April 28th meeting. So just u want to make you aware of that.

So So did I hear they're going to hear it whether we come to a decision tonight or not? Correct. Okay. At this stage this body's procedure is either to approve, deny, or approve with recommendations. They can't withhold it from going to council. Thanks for the clarification. Member GR your lights on. Do you have I guess I'd withdraw that uh that motion since we can't do it. I myself think staff's capable of taking the comments and reconciling it against the draft and send it to city council. I guess if any of us don't see what we're hoping to see,

I I I would suggest somebody start with the motion and then be able to accept a bunch of friendly suggestions if you forget anything. Member Rice has volunteered to do so. I I will start with the motion. Um let me ask one legal question first though. If my motion is to recommend to city council that they table it, not us, but they table it and give staff time to address our concerns. Can I do it and recommend that without tableabling it here? That's a recommendation that can be made. Yes. Okay, I can do that. Okay. But we should probably still list all our concerns, right? Pardon?

We probably still need to list the concerns as part of

I'm going to Okay. All right. So, I'm going to make a motion that we recommend to city council that we table this ordinance at the city council level so staff has time to address our following questions or concerns. One is graduating distance for size of the unit. One is to add in the form um those requirements on page 21 with the exception of the fee and u ones including certific uh certification entity is it the FR the C the fee uh FCB or the DCF uh the what certified recovery level are they are they one two three or four uh type of services offered Are they 24-hour, just day, just night? Um along with those items in there also include provisions for inspections and fire marshall. Um come up with and include in the ordinance the fee schedule for the application. And that's my motion. I'm I'll open it up to any friendly amendments for sure. I need a second version, I guess.

Okay. I don't see any lights. My recollection also I that I liked was the automatic revocation that member Seedler did as well as potentially tying that revocation to violation of fire safety, health inspection, automatic revocation of of that side of it. Um, if that's your amendment, I accept that. Okay. Okay. And then member Gad, did you have

u in terms of the two concerns I remain you think you've woven the idea of the fire inspection before you get the license and the two concerns would be first the the um um criteria by which the measurement is made to place that in there so there's no debate. If it's the property boundaries, so say it. Um and the um um appellet process, whether having this be heard by city council and then the appeal process is already there provided for in the statute. Uh and remove the the intermediate appeal to the code enforcement magistrate.

You accept that one too? Yeah, I accept that. Okay. Whoever the scribe is, do you have what you need? I guess did y'all bring I have the recording. Okay. Did y'all bring up occupancy? Sorry. Did y'all bring up occupancy levels on the house or was that part of something else? I think you all touched base on some about the occupancy levels of I think that'll be covered by the fire inspection piece. Yeah. And then my other um the provision for inspection and fire marshall is that prior to stamping the license and starting the clock. That would be my intention. Okay. Because that wasn't clear. So that would be clear.

It it kind of reads that they can't even get their credentiing until proof of satisfactory fire safety and health inspections. But that's my interpretation of that and I'd rather not leave it up to that. So I think the application should be accompanied by satisfactory fire safety and health inspection documentation which would imply that you don't start the clock until the all that information's provided. So with that, do we have a second? Member Graham,

I'll second our very, very large motion. We have a motion and a second. Uh, any comments before vote? Member FA. All right. So, here's my question. Are we voting to approve with these additions or are we voting to deny because of these additions? I believe the correction. So, so what is the motion that that we're that we're that we're because he only gave us three options, but he also said that we can also send this and and ask the council to table. But the question is what is our actual motion that we're actually going with? Is this approval or denial? What are we going with?

My understanding of the motion made is that it is a recommendation of approval with the condition that council postpone hearing the ordinance so that staff can address the concerns that were raised in the remainder of the motion. And that's the question I'm asking because I believe it should be a denial, right, as written because of that. I still understand it as an approval with with condition. I mean

I get but that that was my question. So are we going approval with conditions or denial and then these are reasons why because at the end of the day right it's it's six and a half six and one half does the other. Well, I think well I certainly others can comment, but the way I read it is we're approving it with conditions. If somehow staff can work miracles and get these conditions before city council considers it and council adds those conditions or puts those conditions in, we're good with it. That's my take on it. Thank you.

All right, member Steler. So in addition to that, but the initial request is that we're asking city council to table it. Is that number one? And and then number two, we're approving this with all of these conditions and therefore letting city council then go forward and they don't need to table it and they can approve it. They'll decide. So but what what the motion is is there's two separate things in there, right? as as I'm understanding one for them to table and then two we're approving based on all these conditions. So am I understanding that? I mean that's I guess for city attorney does the tableabling part of it complicate things

or not? Definitely. Okay. Not to not to a point that it becomes impossible. But I mean I think from my understanding of what the will of the board is if you approve with the conditions you've listed it essentially notifies council in the same manner as if you recommended tableabling as well. member Rice motion or so I I think what you're saying is I can't sort of hang on the fence I have to decide either table or denial okay so because of all the questions I don't think there's really much of an option except for recommend denial unless these things can be addressed

okay without having these addressed I don't see how this body can recommend something to city council that we have so many questions about. And that was my point. That that was the reason for my question. I just I would struggle. I wouldn't pass this ordinance myself without having some of these questions if I was on city council.

You know, city council always has the ability to um you know, to take our recommendation, don't take our recommendation or what. And that's fine. That's why they sit in the big seat. Okay. Um, and you know, they have a lot more on their plate that they have to consider, staff time and cost and and all the other things that's that PNZ doesn't have to worry about. But I I think we just need to we've done our due diligence tonight. Okay.

So, at this time, there is motion and a second hanging out there. So, a vote does need to be taken on what was motioned, which I guess if now denial is what the board wants to do, you would deny the current motion and then make a motion to deny and approve that. Okay. So, if we want to, we have to start over. We got to vote no on this one to start over.

And chairman, if I could clarify, typically the board would would recommend denial on an ordinance that you couldn't salvage, right? Uh, in this case, you're saying that in the current state, you wouldn't recommend approval, but you found ways that you would accept it, which is, I think, what David's trying to get at is you're recommending approval with changes to certain sections. Um, in this case though, you've identified that you'd like to see the ordinance again at a future PNZ meeting, which is I think the hangup is that if council does accept the ordinance with the changes you've recommended, it wouldn't necessarily have to come back to PNC,

which I think is fine. I I mean I think I think at least my sense is we a lot of times put in our like to haves and we're okay with it and council kind of looks at it like that and in in this instance some of these we consider have to haves and that's I think the message that we would like to send and what the best way to send it is the challenge here. Um, so what was the original motion second?

Yes, Larry second it. So we I it sounds like we should vote no on this one and then take another run at it, but I'm not going to tell anybody how to vote. But that sounds that's that's how I read it anyway. Uh, roll call, please. Lori member Grod. I have to recommend no member Scully. No. Member Graham. No. Member McDaniel. No. Member Rice.

I have never voted against my own motion before. No. I was just thinking that same thing. Did you vote no? Who did? Secretary F. No. Chairman. No. Okay. Start over. So you can say very strongly suggest. Oh, come on. Member Gar. Oh, I'm Well, no. I thought you are. Okay. Larry, you're going to take a run at it? Well, you were looking for a motion, right? We're looking for a motion. Yes. The right motion, which was to recommend denial of the request. Uh,

I thought you were we we heard two opinions on that. I don't know that we heard. Um, so if we recommend approval, if I if my motion is to recommend approval and the stenographers and staff can get this all written up. I I think there there's one jump in here if anybody's got exception with this, but I think there's two modes. One is to to keep everything we said at the last one just without the table, and we recommend approval for that. Or I think we do that exact same thing and recommend denial for that. We could do it either way. I think Eddie's sense is the approval way would be the better way to go.

I I think I I think that's probably fair. I believe Eddie can get this codified and spellch checked and repageated for the city council in the next what 10 days, two weeks, something like that. Will they say exactly what we saw tonight?

28th. So, we would present the version that you saw tonight and then if we can get it done, the version that you're you're proposing with the changes that that have been identified tonight. Um, that way they can see a draft version with the PNZ changes. Can't guarantee that that would happen. And so, again, if it gets to uh city council and they see that your recommendation and they don't have the version with your changes incorporated, they may choose to table it at that time to give staff more time to to get a version like that. They're not likely to watch the whole hour, but you might give them a couple pointers into the video. Start here and listen to this section.

So, it sounds like the best recommendations, the one where in we deny the request with the reasons to have the ordinance changed for purposes of our comments, discussions, and then the city council wants to approve it without those or wants to implement them or table it, they're they can do that. Well, I don't know. Well, Eddie, is it more likely that they'll see our comments with the approval and the and if assuming you could get the changes done or because will they see if we do the denial route, do they see as much on that side too or not?

If the recommendation tonight from PNZ is denial, they will see that P&Z recommended denial for the reasons that you state and that's it. Um, so again, typically PNZ recommending denial means that something is beyond salvageable. You don't recommend how to you don't recommend how to make it approvable. Gotcha. So I Yeah. So I think approval with um So we can try alternative B. This is like playing blind darts. Um I think if we take exactly what Woody said but without the tableabling part, we'll will work. Okay. I'll reiterate Mr. Rice's recommendation and go with that as a motion.

I need a second. I had a comment. Okay. Member Graham. The comment was did we ever come up with a distance if um between these establishments because you said with conditions that did as a group did we ever come up with a distance? We've talked about several different lengths other than the 1,200 ft I think they got here. So, how does uh council deal with that or staff rather? As I recall, we at least got the 1200 property boundary to property boundary. I don't know. Did it incorporate the graduated? I did say.

Okay. Okay. But but there's that's what I thought that staff would try to look at cabling the the occupancy to u the use um distance is is there any don't want to continue this out but is there any other graduated distance tables anywhere else in the city in the code that you can recall any for any kind of thing or is it always I I can't think of an example graduated. Maybe Woody might former former citrus or anything in the code that you can recall. No, but it's called thinking outside the box.

I I I get it. But we're we're also not giving him any guidelines to the to the milestone or the fence post guard rails of that graduation, but we'll let them figure it out. So, okay. So, that's the motion. Do we have a second? Can you please state the motion?

I'm I'm Well, the first motion that got denied was to approve it subject to implementing the concerns as new standards within the ordinance that were discussed. And one of those was creating some type of graduation distance based on occupancy. 1,200 feet appears to have come out of the air. I asked the question, where's 1200 feet come from? And nobody else said it said 500 feet. Where did that come from? And I think the answer was we just thought that was a sufficient distance. The state does not require distance separation. Correct.

That's correct. I believe that's from the other uh assisted living facility distance requirement. So there is already a codified separation between those and this is the same as those. Correct. Okay, Woody's going to go at it again.

Okay, I'll go ahead and make the motion and I'll reiterate and then everyone else gets to reiterate so it's clear for the secretary. I'm going to move for approval with the following recommendations. That we include a fee in the application in the ordinance. We include a graduated distance based on the number of occupants. We uh address inspections by both uh the building department and the fire department. We include in the application everything that's on page uh 21 of our packet with the exception of fee schedule and refund policy and the following items. The certifying entity is which one is it? Is it FA or R FCB or DCF? The certified recovery level. Is it a level one, two, three, or four? Types of services offered. Is it a 24-hour facility, just day or just night? Um, uh, staffing levels and security. and the uh cleaning up the um the appeal process with the magistrate um or the going to the circuit court. What what we need to address there? Um

revocation and revocation. always the uh automatic revocation if closed abandon um the facility or they lose their certification. It's an automatic revocation. Okay. And that's my motion. We have a second or a any additional amendments. Member Gar. I second that. All right. We have a motion, a second. Any more discussion before we call the vote? Seeing none. How about at it, Lori? Member Graham.

Yes. Secretary Fa. No. Member Rice. Yes. Member Scully? Yes. Member Grod? Yes. Member McDaniel? Yes. Chairman Eton? Yes. And you need a reason for member facily.

Yeah. Once again, um my my my know is based on um this piece of policy in my opinion needs to mirror what we already have for group homes and make it a lot easier uh than all these additional requests that we guys are doing. Um and so for that reason I say no. Okay. Member Ice.

Well, I think I I I agree with your polling. Okay. But I think staff realizes that too. And I think they're going to look at the 500. They're going to look at things and make sure we're being some of the recommendations with distance will be will be decided because I think we do have to make it uniform across the board to some degree with inspections when it comes to inspections and everything. But that's a whole different ordinance. Tonight we're just dealing with this ordinance, not the ACLF ordinance, not the group home ordinance.

No. No. No. But but in respect to this this ordinance, this ordinance should mirror the others. So we've asked things for this ordinance that we don't ask of the others. And in that in that respect, there's a no. And so um I understand this is going to go to the board anyway and they're going to vote on it irrespective of of what we vote. They're still going to see it. So, I would have rather sent to the board the answer of a no and have uh staff go back and mirror the other the other ones because otherwise this body is saying that we approve this ordinance as it is knowing that it does not match any other group homes and and I I didn't want to stand on that. Okay.

Okay, Eddie, I hope you got what you need. You got a got a little bit of work ahead of you. Uh item 9B, please.

All right, we gave you the hard one first. Item 9B begins on page 27 to 56. This is trucks on local roads ordinance. On December 10th, 2024, the council provided an advisability to restrict heavy vehicle equipment from having access to residential areas. Discussion included the concern of moving and delivery trucks and limiting construction vehicles. On January 28th, 2025, the city attorney provided a memo with examples of local ordinances. Council directed staff to bring back additional information on the site plan review process. In addition, council requested the memo prepared by the city attorney be sent to PNZ to review and make recommendations. Council also directed staff to prepare an ordinance to establish no through truck zones that will prohibit trucks from traveling on certain local roads when an alternative route is available. On February 19th, 2025, the PNZ provided comments on the city attorney's memorandum. The ordinance will create a new section to the land development regulations 1734 titled restrictions on truck use of streets. Describes how no through truck zones may be established by the city council through the adoption of a resolution designating the specific right of way on which through truck traffic shall be prohibited and where signs shall be posted. In addition, the ordinance requires a site plan to include information describing the proposed routes for heavy trucks to be utilized during construction. If you'll turn to page 45 towards the bottom, these are the PN meeting minutes from February 19th, 2025. And you'll see that the motion that was made u to recommend to city council uh was supporting moving forward with an ordinance to address truck traffic on local roads. So, this is a topic that's been brought before you in the past and a motion was made in support of this ordinance. On page 38 is the memo by the city attorney's office establishing the city's right to

identify no truck zones. So this is our our legal um our legal right to identify these no through uh truck zones. On page 42 is a copy of the code of uh Bonita Springs as an example and you'll see they have uh established definitions. No through truck zone a street or road or segment thereof on which trucks are prohibited except trucks traveling to or from a place abudding the zone which place would otherwise be inaccessible by truck and a truck is defined by Florida uniform traffic control law. Establishment of zones. No through truck zones shall be established by the city council through the adoption of a resolution designating the specific ride of way on which through truck traffic shall be prohibited and where sign shall be posted as provided for in subsection E. Then they have considerations and guidelines. Um so they establish that um if any of these conditions apply then a no through truck zone can be established where the traffic lanes are less than 12 ft wide. The street or road cannot adequately carry truck traffic because of damage to the surface or to abudding structures. Land use on both sides of the street or road is predominantly residential or four the character of greater right of way is pedestrian in nature. E is signage. No through truck zones shall be signed at the beginning and end thereof and at other places as the city may be determined made determined as necessary in accordance with the manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways published by the US DOT Federal Highway Administration. F prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to drive a truck in a no through truck zone unless the person unless the driving of such truck is within the exceptions specified in the definition of no through truck zone in subsection B. And then exceptions which is their section 4061.

The first exception is any truck making a delivery or providing services to or from a location in or abuing the no through truck zone which location would otherwise be inaccessible by such vehicle. The operation of a truck where necessary to reach the truck driver's personal residence. However, it doesn't authorize the parking of the truck at the residence. Three, public service other governmentowned vehicles. And four, emergency vehicles. So that's the Bonita Springs example ordinance. On page 30 is the beginning of the draft ordinance and the proposed new language. And you'll see that a lot of it models the Bonita Springs example has the definitions, establishment of the zones, consideration and guidelines which are the same signage prohibitions and exemptions as well. Uh with that I'll take any questions. Thank you

member Chapman. All right, Eddie. Um, so I used to be in the trucking industry. Uh, I used to own the trucking company. A lot of this, uh, with regards to local truck traffic, I saw this come across. Um, I think there was, uh, something being built on the north side of Titusville and there was trucks going through, people were coming through talking about, uh, kids playing in the roads and things like that. They were concerned, right? Um, at that point in time, I was just a citizen. I came up uh, gave my three minutes. Um, I spoke on uh weight. So, a lot of states that I've driven in, they have truck restrictions based off of weight classifications. Like if you're uh one thing I just looked up, so this says truck, right? So, truck definition by what they have in here um is uh anything 5,000 pounds or below. So, if we say truck then and it's a note through truck zone, some heavy I don't want to say heavy because that's some vehicles that are say 250 350 above um or 3500 2500 are are the numbers that are rated by these vehicles uh quarter tons things like that are our regular vehicle trucks would if it just said no through trucks I think that would encompass these vehicles that would be a truck as just a regular truck not for uh commercial use, right? They do have a definition in there for heavy truck. So, would it be best to put some verbiage in here to state any heavy truck on our local roadways? And then that would give it that 5,000 lb and above rating to where or do we want to look at each road and see what can that road weight maintain and then let the

engineering of that road say okay this road needs to be hey 12,000 lbs or lower this road's a little you know more dense. However they built this road, it can withstand 19,000 lbs or higher or something, you know, I guess we need we need to look at it like that or or so truck is a defined term in the Florida uniform traffic control law. If you're going to change the term to heavy truck, we'd have to come up with our own definition and establish different weights and how we would uh come up with that and compare that to how it's uniformly um outlined in the Florida uniform traffic control law might create some conflicts.

So, the heavy truck under the uniform classic control law um does state vehicles above 5,000 lbs is what I just looked up here. So, our heavy truck is defined as a motor vehicle with a net weight over 5,000 lb registered. So, your suggestion is that um the no through truck zone should only apply to heavy trucks and above.

I would think that if you just say truck that are, you know, a normal board F-150 would be classified in that, oh, hey, there's a truck driving down the road and through a no truck zone. You know, as simple as that might be like it's it's normally something that maybe something one might not look at it, but the verbiage is there and say, "No, that's a truck driving down a note through truck zone." Someone ignorant to what truck means. But if it says heavy truck, then okay, now we're thinking, okay, someone outside of the realm of trucking or anything like that, a heavy truck would say to them would picture more of a commercial style truck that would put you in the 5,000 lbs. But at the end of the day, it really depends on the load that that road can take and then what you're willing to allow for a certain period of time before you got to reconstruct that road. you know, how often does that those style of trucks come up and down that road, right?

The structural Sorry to interrupt. No, you're good. The the structural integrity of the roadway is only one consideration. Like you'd mentioned, one of the concerns when this ordinance was first um the idea for this ordinance was first came about was the children um that might be impacted by playing in the roadway near heavy equipment. And so that doesn't necessarily have a bearing on how much weight the roadway capacity can can hold as much as limiting traffic on local roadways when there are alternatives.

Okay. So they're they're really trying to like just redirect the traffic instead of saying we will allow it as long as it's uh a certain weight or not. I guess I believe that was the intent.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, cuz they I know when they first started talking about it, they were wondering how they were going to like say no truck can come through this road, but can go through that way. And I think that's what like I was offering the weight thing. That's what I see in most states. They'll say either weight or or axles, however many tandem axles you have or are or the common ones that I always saw as that's how they would restrict a road. So, that's all I wanted to put on that. Member GR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What does the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law define a truck as? I see a reference, but I really don't know what what it says. It

It's def defined as any motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. So, it's a a intent of use rather than weight or axles, which you might see in other states. So that leads to the question. I live on a street amongst streets um five streets that have no through truck signs posted on each end of the road. I didn't post them. I don't know when they got posted, but there they are. And um yeah, I've walked down a couple of commercial businesses from where I live. I've walked down to catch the delivery vehicle with all the kegs of beer in it going to the local restaurant and go up and walk to the driver and I said, "Did you notice the sign that says no through trucks?" And usually the next thing is, "I'm going to have to call the police if you come back here." Code enforcement. That was the comment I've made back when, who do you call when you see a truck go down a posted road? And the answer is code enforcement. That's not very efficient. It does work. Um, but I was shocked to find that another vehicle goes down my street quite regularly. I took it upon myself to contact the school district and ask them the question, why is it the 40 foot long school bus goes past the no truck through truck sign and isn't considered they don't consider a bus to be a truck. I guess it is carrying chattles of property, but they're human beings or they're vacant. That's the reason I always get upset because the buses that use the through are the buses that take a shortcut for their own reasoning, not observing the signs. Nothing's going to happen because it's a school bus. It's as big as a big truck. It probably weighs more than 5,000 pounds. when it's gross vehicle weight includes 52 children I kind of imagine it's going to be a large truck heavy truck or a truck

by definition but it's not if the definition is chattles of property so where does this apply to for example in continuing on it when they built Titus Landing the um bus system made the shortcut for the same reason but there is an exemption for public service and government owned vehicles.

Public service including buses. But it goes back to the what you asked which I remember the genesis of this was the development proposal that everybody's worried about the cut through was the shortest distance for all the trucks bringing fill to the site. And that was the development proposal that was uh north of the hospital. And so it was all about not letting those trucks filled with the stuff you're going to build a development site with going through the neighborhood as a shortcut. That was where this whole thing started as I recall. Is that kind of correct? I believe that's correct.

So it's the it's the through truck and that's what get kind of I'm just speaking out loud that it just can't kills me that you don't want a big vehicle going down the street routinely when it's for shortcut purposes, but a school bus and a public bus that did this for weeks on end can scoot by the sign. So I submit what goods this do other than it's a nice language and a law. Hopefully at least gets rid of the big dump truck. So, okay. Um, thank you. Any other comments? I me

I do have a question. You were saying that the trucks were going down your street to deliver to a let's say the beer to whatever have you and you go up there and you ask them, "Well, was there an alternate route or was that the only No, the alternate route is these roads that are designed for heavy vehicles. traffic signals. Got it. Thank you.

So my question is when you have a truck that comes through these neighborhoods that are taking a shortcut through, it's like almost driving through the parking lot of some facility to get the shortest distance to bypass the lights. Other than the language in here, who's monitoring this and what do we what

exactly? Okay. Thank you. Member ice.

All right. This is a feel-good ordinance because it's impossible to enforce. It does nothing. Do you think adding a site plan requirement say, "All right, Mr. Construction guy, you can only drive down this road, this road, and this road, and we do it for every site plan." Do you really think a construction crew, a framing crew, a plumbing crew, any crew is really going to pay attention to that note on the plans? Do you really think it's going to solve the problem? No, it's not. It's just a It's just checking a box. We did something. We're checking the box. And I will tell you with the load limit if and I drive a fairly big truck. If I got stopped in my pickup truck road and got fined or something because I was on that, I'd be pretty upset. Especially if I lived on that road and my truck is get trying to get to my house. Okay. But if even if I was going to visit someone, I went down this road, I wouldn't be happy the happy camper. So, I think it it just there's got to be a better way. Okay. And and if I were, you know, if you want to put a note on a site plan, you put on a note that you that construction crews have to take the I I'll I'll read what I had as a note. If I was going to submit a sub site plan to the city of Titusville, I'd add note on site plan that specified that only collectors and arterial designated road shall be used as the primary route to a construction site. If a site cannot be accessed via a collector or arterial, then local road usage is allowed providing the local road is the shortest and most direct path from the collector or the arterial road. If the shortest most direct local road is designated

with a signage no trucks, then the next shortest most direct path may be used. If there are no other possible routes to the site other than a no truck path, then the local road may be authorized. Okay? I mean, that's what you're basically saying. Don't don't waste an engineer's time to sit there and do a site plan saying, "All right, here's here's this here's the road. You're allowed to go down this one. you're allowed to go down that one. You can't go down this one on every site plan. Really, the biggest enforcement is you put is you can add a just a simple note on a site plan if that's what you guys want to do. Okay? And then post signs, okay? And instead of saying no trucks, maybe maybe there's load limit signs, you know, to address the load limit. instead of a no trucks, it's just no vehicles over 10,000 lb, 15,000 lb, whatever the rating is for that road or for the whatever reason you don't want. If we're really talking just about semis, let's talk about semis then. Okay, I I just you're you're trying to get too much in one basket and make it simple and there's no enforcement action. I I noticed in the Bonita Springs um ordinance, they actually had a penalty provision But I didn't see it in our ordinance. I'm not advocating that, but I mean, they're actually trying to do some enforcement over it. Okay. So, I just I just the way it's written, I I can't support this at all.

It did say you could you could cite the driver, didn't it, somewhere? I thought I heard you and when you read it, that they could issue citations to the driver for driving through it. Just some housekeeping things real quick. I did notice just so uh you guys have this on page uh 33 Eddie. Okay. Um you you crossed out section 14.4-.3 which is a reserve. Okay. You're getting rid of that. But then your numbering got fouled up right after that. It should be 14.4.3. 4.3 instead of five. Okay. So, that was just some housekeeping. And the other thing at the the initial part of this um ordinance, let me get to it real quick. It says, maybe it's the staff report that it says under the summary on page 27, it says land development regulation 17-34. Well, there is no land development regulation 1734. It's the code of ordinances that has the 1734, but the only thing that's addressing site plan is the technical manual, which is really only chapter one of the um development review procedure manual. So, it never includes the LDRs. It only includes those two documents. See, this just another housekeeping thing. Okay. member Graham.

Um my concern with this um not to come in on the the last hour is it it just adds another level of bureaucracy to the um development building process. Um, it already cost an enormous amount of money and and most of these civil engineers are very very far behind because they can't keep up. And we're asking them to provide another page. They just don't provide that page for free. It's to me it's a feel-good type law to make um obviously there was a situation to kind of quiet that down but when you have no teeth to it and um I think member Rice is correct most of these people are going to ignore it and eventually that little project whatever it is will be done and then the problem will go away and everybody will forget about it. I just uh worry that we just keep adding the bureaucracy to it and um you know unfortunately the people end up footing the bill for it.

So I guess I have a question. Um Eddie is member Grod mentioned that there are already no through truck zones and signage and all that in the city. Is is this is that zones already there and there there's an ordinance to protect that side of it and this is strictly an add-on for the land use and site development piece or is this everything to to add no truck zones throughout the city and and to give the enforcement people some teeth to be able to enforce that?

That's a good question. I I don't know the background on that specific zone. Um there must be a process in place already if there is one. Uh we didn't see that in the LDRs in this section where we're trying to add it. Um but this would give us the the means for implementing additional no truck zones and give us some criteria. um similar to Bon Bonita Springs, how they identify if you're going to establish it in this area, you must meet one of these um criterion.

Yeah, because I I I mean I certainly see the need for note through truck zones from a safety and all that and being able to implement that through the city. Complicating it as part of a site development process and all that is where I think things go astray. uh at least from my point of view um it's more you know just should should areas of the city not have through truck zones and I certainly think the intention is not there to prohibit um non-commercial pickup trucks to be able to go through those zones whether we're saying that properly or not or if there's a way to to to do that and maybe it's just commercial vehicles maybe you know it's um but whether you say that on the signage and you know the the whole thing is I don't like this the thought of somebody getting ticketed for something um that's not clearly defined as to what they're what law they're breaking from just a pure signage that says no not no through trucks doesn't necessarily nobody's going to read the ordinance. So um that's that's my comments on it. Member Troutman. Um yeah. So my issue like I was saying with the weight um on the the truck compared to heavy truck, I I've seen where do or even uh even local uh law enforcement have pulled over vehicles, regular trucks dually right on the side of your door. It tells you what a gross vehicle weight is and what it it's possible, what it can haul and things like that. based off of that number is what DOT goes by. And if that number is within this range and you're down that road, they will issue a ticket based off of that gross vehicle um

thing. Now, it does state here, you know, um carrying goods, you know, that'll be dependent on the police officer at that time or DOT at that point, you know, when they pull someone over, are they carrying goods or not, right? Um, but I have, you know, been around I've not personally been pulled over for that, but it's I've we've been educated on that when I was in trucking that this is a thing that even as a local person driving a local truck if for some reason DOT sees that like they will just see that verbiage and not see that you're a company or doing this sometimes. So that's why I wanted to really hit on the heavy and the truck and how we really define that. Like I said, most most cities and states they they have a weight restriction or an axle restriction. Most of the cities and states say local roadways cannot be accessed by anything over 5,000 lbs. um you know they'll go into the artery roads and the collect roads and they'll say that these that's how they define what roads will allow for trucks you know local traffic yes like you know your Amazon things like that that's different but if you know it's kind of hard to try and put a sign out everywhere a new development comes up because then is it only there temporarily while that development there and then do you take it back down because there's really no through traffic there just only for that site development really you know those are things too that I think that we need to think about like are these you know part-time signs so to speak during during developments are these signs that you know okay this is something that is going to happen to this business periodically throughout you know every week do you have time zones for different

deliveries you know it. I've seen a lot of different ways that cities and and um states have navigated that, but it's Yeah. And then penalties, you know, what what penalties do you apply to that and how do you go after that? So, you said this was the easy one. Eddie member facing

once again um for for me the big thing is let's define the problem that we're trying to solve. So, what is the problem that we're trying to solve? And I believe when it came before us last time, there were um tractor trailers, I believe, going down surface streets, if I'm not mistaken, between Harrison and US1, and they weren't turning at, you know, on on our um corridor. Okay. And I believe that I believe that was the problem that we were trying to solve with tractor trailers turning that between Harrison uh excuse me not Harrison Hopkins and US1. Um so again so let's define the problem and then let's come up with a solution with for that problem. And for that solution we came up with was this. Let's keep those tractor trailers off of our surface streets between Hopkins and US1. Am I correct Ellie Eddie was that the situation that we were looking at?

There may have been several. The one that I was thinking of was the assisted living facility that's under construction uh just west of US1 and Parish Hospital Parish Medical Center. Um and the issue there was uh the neighbors to the west off of I believe it was Alabama Street in that neighborhood. Um they they were arguing that the construction trucks were using the local roads when the other side of the development fronts on US1 and has access to an arterial that would be more approp they felt would be more appropriate for uh Phil and and larger trucks versus using the local roads on the west side that runs through their subdivision. And so council wanted to uh find a way to restrict that activity and and um encourage or require that they use uh busier uh streets.

All right. Great. So So Eddie to to me Eddie from what you said there were two key points. Number one that this is generated from council. Council asked us to do this to to review this. So keeping that in mind there's that that caveat. And the next was again the actual use case that that that we're pinning this against that we ought to be kind of considering uh what has transpired and what has kind of kind of caused this. Um and so as as we continue to to talk about it, let's kind of use those use cases and and and that that genesis for this conversation.

Member Rice. Well, the solution to that type of problem, okay, is that during, you know, every site plan goes through a preapp, okay, you actually have a person on your staff that has a PhD in traffic engineering. Okay, pretty smart guy. All right. If staff recognizes there's a problem, a specific problem to a specific site, that's the time to point it out to the developer and the engineer and say, "Hey guys, we have concerns about traffic." When you have clear access on US1, instead of going through Alabama and taking this road, you need to restrict your construction people from going on this local road. and you cover it under the notes and and things on on the plans. Okay, that's the way to handle it is very sightsp specific almost you know every site plan is sight specific everything we do is sight specific you know the grading the plumbing utilities everything is sight specific so adding something else that's very sight specific okay that's a concern let's address it okay that's the way to handle it don't blanket everybody

um to respond to that member Rice. Uh that that information is not currently required to be provided during the preapp um as far as what streets will be used for construction purposes. And so that was part of this ordinance was including that as part of the uh preapp requirements. It's on uh under section 4 beginning on page 3132. It's the uh new section 14.2.11 2.11 that says um proposed routes for heavy trucks utilized during construction for the purpose of reducing impacts on local streets. And so part of this ordinance would require that information at the preapp stage moving forward whereas it's not currently required.

I know what the ordinance says. I agree. I it says it says it all over the place on things. Okay. What I'm saying is staff during a preapp can recognize there's a problem and point it out that we're concerned about this. Okay, but there is no concern. Don't make an engineer put anything together. Okay, you guys can sit there and know that, hey, this front's a local road and this can be issues based on our experience. Okay, things happen all the time with experience from a staff level. Okay? And and that's the you don't just say let's make a regulation, you know, be proactive as staff. That's why you guys do what you do, okay? Be proactive. Recognize issues. Recognize if there's not enough water in a place. Recognize if there's an erosion control problem. That that's what you guys do for a living. Just continue that same philosophy. But now this has a heightened level. You don't need an ordinance to to do your job. You can do it today. Member Grant.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U in reference to Mr. Rice's point, I think that the ordinance is covering more than the typical site plan analyses that you would do. It's implying that I'm protected, that I'm not going to have trucks go down past the two signs that say no trucks. So, if this is more comprehensive than just conditional uses or site plan engineering plans, that's my first question. And this is more comprehensive, isn't it, than just site plan analysis. You don't have to get a topographic survey to uh show where my truck is going. If I've got a permitted use that I'm not going to have to go through a site plan analysis or I'm converting a house into a af or matters that don't generate that. I think this is a bigger ordinance than that, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by a bigger ordinance. The be the genesis of this was a problem. The problem was truck traffic in neighborhoods. You named the right place. That's the same place I was talking about. The problem is the city apparently can post no through trucks. I gave reference. I can name the four streets. They come from Titus Landing north. Every one of them have signs on east and west end and the large trucks drive past them. I asked I think before the enforcement of this if if the enforcement of this is limited to code enforcement, good luck because what are you going to do? You're going to have the code enforcement officer pull the truck driver over. They can't do that, I don't believe. And their civil procedures, you're going to go to a special magistrate hearing to make sure the guy doesn't go down the truck again. That law enforcement on the other hand is the way that problems are solved because the law enforcement has the right to impede your vehicle, stop it and say you can't go down the street or issue a citation. But this isn't for law enforcement. This is for code enforcement. Is that correct?

Well, I don't know. But in your description, you said that a driver could be cited. So that to me means a ticket. But a civil citation may it be, but it's not a moving violation.

And if the information is identified on the site plan as far as which streets are intended to be used for construction purposes, the site inspectors could be out of the site and watch which uh streets are being used by the trucks entering and exiting the the site. Um, which could become a complaint on that end as well through site development. I I fully comprehend how in a construction site over months of time and delivery of materials and the process development diverts trucks through the quickest possible. Just ask the truck driver that hauls fill. You want to drive an extra mile or do you want to drive extra less miles and people get hauling material to a site. They haul as many hauls as they can get in a day. So they go the quickest possible way they can get there. That's where the issue came from. This ordinance is bigger than just a site plan analysis and construction approved through a conditional use or site development plan analysis. This is applicable to my scenario on my street where one end of the street says no through trucks, the other end says no through trucks and here comes the through truck and I take my own self down to catch the truck driver and point up the sign and say don't come down the street. You know better than that. And that has worked successfully which goes back to the theme why write a ticket to somebody they may not have known they couldn't do it be it they can't read the the con the the condition of this is bigger than a construction site. It's for me as a citizen who doesn't want the truck or as I've said the school bus which are large vehicles that go down this street. Sometimes I wonder if that's really 25 miles an hour when they went by like a speeding bullet. Um, I don't see this ordinance effectively solving those other problems. Effectively means this isn't going to be a uniform law enforcement issue. This is

a code enforcement issue. Well, is it though? 1734A says this section is created pursuant to authority granted under the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. That'd be great if it is. And that's what it says. That's the question I asked when I said it says it right there. 1734A. So it seems like they can an officer can write a citation for a traffic violation. That's what it says right now. You said 1734. What page was that? Uh page 30.

Thank you. And that's my thing is is, you know, we we tend to get involved in site plans and and engineering and all this. I I look at it more like if I'm a city council member and somebody says, "We got a problem. These dunk drunk dump trucks are running through my neighborhood or these beer delivery trucks are running through my neighborhood. Can you fix it?" and we go back and the answer is, "Oh, we don't have a way cuz they're not breaking any rule." If this is the rule to say, "Yeah, those heavy trucks shouldn't be there." When citizens identify there's a problem and we need to give the police department the teeth to do something about it, if this does that, because that doesn't exist in our code today, all for it. But if it's the bureaucracy of we need to identify problems before they exist and create them as part of site plan review and all that then that's I think a way overreach. That's my take and I I can't get an answer no fault necessary Eddie but is this doing that or not? Does something already exist that gives them the teeth to do that and this is dealing with the dump truck site plan stuff or is this a basic thing that it does there is no teeth and they need this to have the teeth? I don't know the answer. Um, I guess just to add to the discussion, so I think the no through truck zones that are being referenced by member Gar and his neighborhood, there's a provision in section 20-26 of the code that lets the city manager uh designate truck routes and regulate the parking of

vehicles of various sizes and weights and to place signs and markers necessary to um implement that. So, I assume that's where those came from. violations of that section are punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500 or um 60 days in jail, which I think would be a hard cell. Um or through the code process. So, we could either as a municipality instigate suit seeking that money or jail time in court or refer it to code for the normal code violation process. So that's what's currently in place for those, but we could either carry over that same language or add additional penalty language within uniform traffic here if that's what I'm sensing is the recommendation to tighten up the penalties for this ordinance if it moves forward. So, as pointed out, 1734 means that I can call law enforcement and point out if this is adopted as proposed, not the one that's existing today that has the signs that are posted that it didn't it it doesn't shake the world to call and say these trucks are using this when the signs are posted. I that's just it's I I think I'm at least my opinion I'm hearing others have that what good does an ordinance do if it's not going to do anything?

Yeah. And that's a problem. That's what's existing today, you know? I mean, yeah, they're trying to anticipate problems before they happen. this one. That's a difficult problem. But certainly citizens complaining and who they complain to, whether it's code enforcement or the it's the community development or their council member, but having some way to fix the problem if it's a valid problem. Seems like we might already be partway there. But um anyway, member Graham,

um I think the real simple solution here is all these uh construction projects go through a um a pre-construction meeting and if um the site or the building department says that um we would like you to use this particular traffic pattern, they would stamp it on the the drawings. It's red. I mean, it's not uncommon to get a set of drawings. It's got a few stamps on it. We want this, we want that. And the thing that will solve this problem is the superintendent has it, the owners have it, and the city inspectors have it. If they start veering from that and you have a site inspector say it's happening when they're doing the site and they're running dump trucks, alls he's got to do is mention it to the superintendent on that project and says it says right there, you can't do it. Can you stop them? If that superintendent thinks that his project's getting held up, he'll stop any dump truck from going that way. He'll stop concrete trucks if it's already stamped on there. So those are the people that need to control this. You can uh city staff meaning the building department the site if they see hey listen we got uh three no through truck zones over here. Can you please use this over here? And all they got to do is put it on there. The simple enforcement is just going to the superintendent of the project

member face. Yeah. So to Mr. Groat's point to that is that this is larger than just construction. You know, this is also restaurant deliveries. This is also, you know, any types of other trucks besides construction. And I I think that was what his point was. this is just larger than than than site plans. So, um yeah.

So, the question I have now that being the case, so here we are looking at at making sure that trucks stay on what type of roadways are we looking at arterial roads? Are we looking at corridors? Where should they stay? Uh if we're looking for example at the language on page 32, the new the new proposed section 14.2.11 says reducing impacts on local streets. So that would leave collector and arterial streets. Collector and arterial. Okay. Thank you.

This was the easy one. Yeah, thanks for jinxing the Eddie. Um, yeah. No, my I I'll just reiterate I think member FAC's right is is this is a bigger thing. I I I think if we address the bigger I don't know that it doesn't take care of the construction side of things. Um and and that would be my sense is is you know it it seemed like what the city attorney read. We give the city and the staff the ability to create no through truck zones. the the the uh exemptions seem reasonable that were listed in in the red line. Um, and kind of just focus on that without all of the site plan and the development uh language and the technical manuals and and all of that seem to to over complicate this. It's like cuz frankly if a drunk dump truck driver if after the project starts they change where they're getting their fill from he may change his route and it it was never even anticipated at the time of the sight zones. But if he's going through a no truck zone he needs to get get cited and and so the ability for the city to establish no through truck zones and the ability for the city to enforce the no through truck zones. It seems like that's what the ordinance needs to do. Do we anyone care to address this with a motion one way or the other?

Boy, the lights are just lighting up here. Member Gar,

to get it off the center of the track here, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the request as provided, the ordinances as provided. I'm making the motion because I'm satisfied with your assistance that it's not useless that law enforcement, which means a certified truck driver who can't read the sign that says no trucks. I think he should get a citation and he should risk points on his license and he should be told one more of those and you're going to lose your license to drive the truck at all. That's my opinion. If you can't read the sign, then you know you're not do what else aren't you doing if you can't read the sign? So it it law enforcement makes me more comfortable that if you have a problem that exists, not a construction site, not a site development plan, and all those other matters are also part of this ordinance, but just the lay person citizen who sees a sign and who do you call when someone violates a regulatory sign on the street? Typically, they would call law enforcement. They wouldn't call a community development department. So that that's the purpose of my motion is that I think it satisfies the the the requirement to police trucks that are shortcutting known preferred routes of roads capable of handling larger vehicles arterial and collector roads and prohibiting them from being on local streets.

I second. We have a motion and a second comments before we call vote. Member Rice. So, are you saying your motion is approving the ordinance as written? You made some comments, I'm sorry, that had some pageation. I mean, I'm just asking the question. Is your motion as written? As written, as provided currently with the exception of the changing the c the code references that were misnumbered. Say it again. Your cleanup items. Cleaning up the ordinance as you pointed out that had the wrong citation numbers. cleaning it up but not substantively changing anything that's in here right now. So not adding the site development stuff or adding the site.

This currently has a site development in it in it right and this regulates that activity right where stamps on plans and notes and conditions of the plan can be policed through the process you mentioned call the superintendent call the engineer that goes on within this proposed draft ordinance. Correct. the site plan analysis, the topographic surveys and all that stuff and including the new red line underlines that's going to require new information on those site plans. Yes, this is required.

If you recommend adopting the ordinance as proposed tonight, it will include changes to what's required during a pre-application meeting to include information about which routes heavy trucks will utilize during construction for the purpose of reducing impacts on local streets. and from a site plan, uh, engineering plan, construction permitting process. This allows staff to work with the developer, the construction companies to identify the correct routes and conversely advise them not to use local streets. This will do that. But in a larger picture, it's also because law enforcement is in it, it provides what is a problem I witness, which is it's not related to a construction site. it's related to activities take place daily.

So, so my view of going back over what I heard that some of the members earlier in the had concerns with is the over complication of the site plan and the site review process in collecting and reviewing and all that information as well as potentially requiring additional pieces. Whereas my view is that if we just stick with the meat and potatoes of the no truck zones and eliminate this the site review places, they still if the city establishes there's a no through truck zone and anybody construction related or not violates it, they've got the teeth to do it. I would I agree that you don't want to over complicate this and I agree that it's over complicated if you start adjusting topographic survey information and all the costly effects. I I agree. However, without this, is there any legitimacy that you can stamp a construction plan or call a superintendent up and say, "Your truck's going down that local street. You got to stop." If I'm the superintendent, I'm going to say, "Whose arm is going to stop me?" Well, if there's a cop there, he's going to stop.

If this ordinance as proposed doesn't provide for that, which is codified in this to be in the site plan or the construction engineering plans or etc. If this doesn't get adopted that way, can staff stamp a set of plans I bring in. I'm going to construct a hotel on US1 and you stamp the plan to say no through trucks on local streets. And I call the superintendent up as you pointed out and I say, "Look, Ted, you you can't be having those trucks down the local streets. You don't understand. We have to do it this way. It's it's a lot more expensive for us to bring those trucks down Harrison to US1 and back to Sycamore to get to the west side of Titusville High School for the construction projects. We're going to keep using these local streets." Do you have a rule in effect now that without posting that says no through trucks, although that doesn't seem to work? Uh, is there any rule in effect now that would let the superintendent say, "Oh, yeah. I'll stop doing it because you stamped my plans. Don't go down local streets." Without a code, it's a useless stamp. It's a useless condition. It's uninforceable. Or is it?

Correct. We don't currently have that uh codified. And so, this would give us the teeth. So, if we were just friendly people and truck drivers did read signs and they didn't shortcut construction routes to u do a faster pace. Without this, you can't stop that. Friendly people might be able to call the superintendent up and say, "Look, Ted, don't do that." But unfriendly people might say, "Go jump in a lake. I'm not going to stop what I'm doing. It's time is money and distance is money."

So, maybe I missed this or misinterpreting this. Is is this a two-part thing? One, it eliminates the ability to or or creates the ability to create the no through truck zones and the teeth to enforce that, but it also gives the building department the ability to establish effectively no through truck zones construction related that aren't posted as no through truck zones. That's my question. I I think that's that's how I see it. Okay. Well, I want to see is that what the intention of staff was to to to create no through truck zones for that were construction related without them being posted.

So again, when we have a a pre-application meeting with with someone who's proposing a development, uh right now we have no standard that says that they have to tell us which routes their heavy trucks are going to be utilizing uh to bring equipment or fill onto the site. And the proposed language that's added to the pre-application requirements is to add 14.2.11 on page 32 at the bottom that says they would now need to provide proposed routes for heavy trucks utilized during construction for the purpose of reducing impacts on local streets. So it doesn't necessarily say it it would prohibit them from utilizing local streets. It's reducing the impact. So, it is still open in case there are no other alternative routes, but it shows the intent is to reduce the impact of those temporary heavy trucks for during the construction phase utilizing local streets. And that information is not currently required. So, there's no way for staff to negotiate or coordinate without that in the code currently or in the tech manuals.

So, it is a two-part thing. Okay. question.

Just to reiterate myself, the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate no through trucks, not limited to construction activity authorized by permitting, but no through trucks because of local streets aren't preferred. This is doing that as it's written. It's doing two parts. One is for the citizen that sees the truck and I get somebody to post signs through the process and now it says no three trucks. I can call the TPD and TPD can come police it. Period. On a construction site in addition to that police enforcement, the construction plan is held kind of in

I get that now. I did not get that before. And that way the relationship that the development community has with the community development department is all expressed during pre-applications and site plan analyses. And the stamp on the site plan as you mentioned or the footnote or the red line or the signature when it says no through trucks. What you're what's compromised if you violate that is the plan. All of a sudden the site gets shut down. That that usually gets somebody's attention pretty quick. If the code enforcement comes out and says this has got to stop. You're coming down these local streets. in violation of the plan.

But that's not what they have written here. Currently, you you're adding a whole new dimension to the application process with the um for construction. If it's just as simple as uh another entity creating the no through truck zones wherever they are and then on every single drawing that comes out if if there is a uh a roadway or an access that says no through trucks you cannot use that unless you have an special exemption. But what we're voting on right now is way it's written. And way it's written is you're you're basically increasing the cost for people doing development construction for something that you want to carry through for whether it's deliveries or something else. So to me this needs to be denied and then we can deny it with maybe a couple changes. But if you just accept it and then think that the changes are going to be it's kind of like the previous one. I I think that uh you're going to be flipping a coin whether that's going to be right or wrong.

Member Grod I I I understand from the perspective of development for development purposes regulated through development regulations. I understand that point of view. I understand Mr. Rice's point of view that you're raising the cost of construction because you're raising the cost of an engineer to sign off another page on a plan. The problem that created the ordinance in Mr. Face's comment, where did this all come from? That problem was part of this ordinance's solution. That problem was you had a perception from the public at a night meeting that they said all those trucks are going to come through our street. I can remember the people standing here and doing that. And you could see the map and know that was a potential if not a absolute because truck drivers reduce trip. They they don't want to drive one mile farther than they need to. And that's where the problem began. Utilization of the shortest route possible regardless of whether it's posted or not posted. having a site plan held in uh captivity that the community development department in a completely autonomous process than law enforcement takes this and calls up the superintendent and says you can't have those trucks out here. So we need to get that fixed and that takes place for the errant delivery truck for the semi that shortcuts the residential neighborhoods. This ordinance protects that by allowing somebody citizen like myself to call the law enforcement and say these big trucks are coming down my street and the city ordinance says you have to police that. If it means they post a sign in order to identify it, so be it. But on a construction site, I don't believe the intention was to make a construction site during that construction process at an added expense, go post all the local streets

that are being shortcuted with no truck, no through trucks. That's where the site plan, red stamp, call the superintendent comes into play that I see the ordinance saying and that's why I recommended approval of it as written. Member Rice.

Okay, Eddie, I do hear you. Okay. I I I do know that it the one site that you mentioned, okay, was probably a pain. Okay, I recognize that. So, I'm going to offer a friendly amendment and this is the only way I can support this ordinance. Okay, my friendly amendment is that we strike all technical manual references in this ordinance, but put in the ordinance that during construction activity, the city reserves the right to restrict access if deemed to be necessary to reduce impacts to local streets. Okay. So that's my friendly amendment

if it serves the purpose and if that if and I I understand that language that would serve the purpose because this alternative purpose the site plan and the construction engineering plan the red stamp and call the superintendent that would also do that. Would would you agree counselor? Can you rephrase that please?

Mr. Rice's friendly amendment is reducing the written standards to a much simpler, easier to understand where if you've you can reread it. But if it's done that way, once you've done that in the ordinance, then the site plan gets stamped. The approval is constituted with you can't do this and you can't do that. The enforcement isn't going to be to call law enforcement. It's going to be to call the community development department. The Friendly amendment posed was to remove all references to the technical manual though. Correct. What was that? Say it again, please. Was the suggestion that all references be removed to the technical manual and only this provision had it.

Okay. Simplifying it. Okay. I'll read it again. But the reason I'm I made this motion is because one thing you said you said you were looking at inspectors to enforce this new regulation. Okay. And inspectors, there's only like two in the entire city for every for all site plans. Okay. So, it's something that is different, but they're the ones that are going to see the problem first. I agree with that. They're going to see the problem on local street first. This language gives them the authority to point it out and restrict access to that place. That's the basis of this amendment. Yeah.

Is to do exactly that. So what I said, I'll read what I said. My friendly amendment is that we strike all access from the technical manual um to referencing of the technical procedure manual. Strike all of them, but we add the following recommendation. During construction activity, the city reserves the right to restrict access on local streets if deemed to be necessary uh to reduce impacts to that local street. My my comment on that is it goes beyond I I was going to go down the road of city's got criteria of what those impacts are that they just posted as part of every construction project but this gives the city the flexibility to kind of do whatever is necessary to protect the streets and the safety of the public which I think is good but uh it's a friendly amendment it's up to the motioner and the

secondary and I I I I stipulate the friendly amendment. I think that's going to do it. I think it simplifies it. If it's enforceable, again, it's enforceable in that case through the community development department through the construction area. It's not going to be called the city police in there. It would be an inspector. It may be it may be Eddie who gets the call from somebody who says, "You got to tell those guys quit using my street." But member facing, you seconded. Do you accept? I will I will maintain my second. Okay. Any more comments before we call the RO? Seeing none, to get this moving. How about it, Lori? Secretary Fen, yes. Member McDaniel, yes. Member Grod, yes.

Member Scully, yes. Member Rice, yes. Member Graham, yes. Chairman Eton, yes. All right. Nobody say item C is easy, so we can get out of here. uh election of officers. Who is who who who manages this? Do you manage it, Eddie, or does city attorney manage it or the chair manages it?

Oh, great. That's not the answer I was looking for. All right. Uh I believe we have an opening for vice chair um that we need to fill. So with that, I will open the floor for nominations. Member Rice. Yeah, I'd like to nominate member Scully for vice chair. Okay, member Scully has been nominated. Member FA and I was going to nominate Mr. Gar. Accept that. Uh, and member Grod has been nominated. And member Graham, do you have

I'd like to second what he's for Mr. scholar. Okay. Um, member Rice, you're you're like still Okay.

Okay. Uh, so we got a a nomination and a second uh for member Scully and a nomination for member Gar. Um my only comment would be is this is a backup for me and the goal is to not have um vacations and I think certainly think member Grod would do a great job. My only concern is he and I like to vacation at the same time of year. So um and and I certainly do feel an obligation to um make sure that we've got the meeting chaired. So uh that's my only comment. Uh, with that I close the nomination. Um, or do I need a motion to close the nomination? City attorney,

I believe you can close. So, the problem with elections is that Robert's rules of order are very unclear and mostly say that each body should make its own written procedures and we haven't. So, there's kind of some broad default rules, but I believe you can close without a motion. Okay. Uh, close the nomination. Uh, since we don't have any procedures. We don't have any procedures on how we vote for the two nominees. Uh, but I guess we'll do a roll call for well, member Grod, you

I can make it a lot easier. I'll try to quote Lyndon Johnson again. I will not accept nor will I however it goes for his I'm not coming back. Okay. I appreciate the the the the the recognition, but I agree with you. I think Mr. Scully is going to do a fine job. Okay. Uh, member facing, do you care to withdraw your nomination? I will withdraw my nomination and cast my lot to Mr. Scully. Okay. So, with that, uh, roll call, please, for member Scully as vice chair. Member McDaniel, yes. Member Grod, yes. Member Rice, yes. Member Graham, yes. Secretary Fen, yes. Member Scully, yes.

Chairman Eton, yes. Okay, we got that one done in record time here. Uh, second petitions and requests from public present when I see no public present. So, we'll skip that one. Uh, city staff report. No report, sir. Thank you. City attorney, no report. I have nothing. Any of the members have any reports? Member Graham, your lights on. Oopsie. Oh, no. Now you turn your your microphone off before you Oops. Uh, all right. With that, we will adjourn. Thank you.