Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the August 19th, 2026 regular meeting of the City of Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. And we all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call, please, Laurie.

Chairman Aton.

Here.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Here.

Secretary Faison. Here. Member Rice.

Here.

Member Garrod.

Here.

Member Graham.

Here.

Member McDaniel. Here. Alternate Member Seidler. Here. Alternate Member Troutman.

Here. Okay. We have a quorum. Next order of business is approval of the minutes of August 5th, 2026. Anyone have any comments or care to make a motion? Member Rice.

I would like to ask Eddie, quick, did you have a chance to go back and look at the minutes from the last ones we did about the discussion we had? Yes, sir. Did you put any commentation in there?

Kim read the minutes as they were taken verbatim from that meeting, and a little bit of extra context was added.

Okay. August 5th minutes? I'll make a motion to approve as written. Vice Chairman Scully made a motion. Second. And we have a second. Member McDaniel? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. City Attorney?

Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi-judicial item must complete and sign the 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 to the public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on an item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches, or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members, please disclose any ex parte communications or site visits at this time.

Thank you. Thank you. Next order of business is petitions and requests from the public present. Our one audience member chooses not to, so... I've had a request to move old business back behind new business. Does anyone have an issue with that? If not, seeing none. Member Rice? I didn't know if you wanted a motion on that. I don't know that we have to on reordering. And I don't see the – were we expecting the applicant on 9A, Eddie, or do you know?

The applicant has just arrived.

Ah. Okay, so let's go ahead and start while he's filling out his card. You want to proceed with 9A then?

Yes, sir. This is item 9A beginning on page 46, rezoning number 4, 2026, Shivers Residence at 527 Indian River Avenue. The applicant is requesting a rezoning for approximately 0.5 acres at 527 Indian River Avenue, located east of the intersection of Palmetto Street and Indian River Avenue. Brevard County Parcel ID number 223534 asterisk 2. The request is to change the property zoning from multifamily high density residential R3 to residential historic preservation RHP. The rezoning will bring the existing single family home into compliance with the property's use by changing the zoning from a multifamily district to a single family residential district. The property is located within the Wagers Subdivision, Platte Book 1, page 16, and is developed with a single-family residence. Historical records indicate the building was constructed between 1893 and 1899. The building first appeared on Sanborn fire insurance maps in 1899. Later documentation states 1905 as the approximate construction date. Historical records indicate the existing building is a private residence in an altered condition. The structure contains architecturally significant features such as a flat roof and second story polygonal balcony. However, it has been altered by the addition of wrought iron window grills, a deck addition, and a modern three-car garage. A historical structure form completed in 2012 concluded that the structure does not meet the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. Research revealed no significant historical associations. It is considered ineligible for listing in the National Register. The rezoning request of the property to RHP does not designate the property as historic or place it on any historic register. Historic designation is a separate process with its own eligibility requirements. The RHP is simply a zoning district with development standards. On page 53, I'll point the Commission to the section that describes the substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in the existing zoning. In 2010, the city adopted ordinance number 31-2010, which established the downtown mixed-use DMU zoning district for properties within the community redevelopment area, the CRA. However, section 59-1435.2 of the ordinance, page 15 of 49, specifically excludes the residential historic preservation district from the DMU zoning boundaries. Because the subject property is located within the RHP district, it retained its R3 zoning. The requested RHP zoning is consistent with the property's location and the surrounding zoning pattern. The property is currently developed with a single family residence which was constructed between 1893 and 1905. Single family residences are not a permitted use in the current R3 zoning district on the property. Nonconforming uses are not permitted to be extended, enlarged, or expanded, consistent with section 34-342. Single family residences are a permitted use in the requested RHP zoning district. The maximum density in the RHP zoning district is 5.8 units per acre, which yields a maximum of two residential units on the property. The existing R3 zoning district permits a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre, which yields a maximum of seven residential units. Historical records indicate the existing building is a private residence in an altered condition. The structure contains the significant architectural features described previously, and research revealed no historical associations. And last, I'll point the commission to page 56. Page 56 is the zoning map. On the left is the current, on the right is the proposed, And it's hard to see the dashed line is the boundary between the two zoning districts, the RHP and the R3, but that line would be moved to the north property boundary. On the right-hand side, you can see it on the north property boundary, whereas on the map on the left, the current zoning, the boundary is on the, the dashed line is on the south property boundary. And so this property would be rezoned from R3 to RHP. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we need to reflect in the minutes the nice description you gave of the residential structure is no more? Because it came down, what, yesterday or today, I think. So just so everyone's clear. Does anyone have any questions for staff before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, open the public hearing and Mr. Shivers.

Thank you, Chairman. William Shivers, 527 Indian River Avenue. My wife and I are the new owners of the property directly east of City Hall. We came under contract on the property in early March, and during our due diligence period, we recognized that it was zoned, in our mind, incorrectly as R3. Looking at it, knowing that it's never been anything other than a single-family residence, from the time that it was built. It was our belief that possibly when Bayview Condominiums was built and got an R3 zoning designation that possibly it also affected the parcel next to it. So our request is to bring it into what I would say compliance, which I think is what the staff report says. Right now it's noncompatible and always has been with an R3 because you cannot have a single family residence in an R3 zoning district, as you all know. So I can't really add anything other to the staff report, which I've read, but I will make myself available for any questions you might have. Member Rice.

Just for the record, in 1992 or 1993, the city did administrative rezoning because of the comp plan amendments that were required by the state of Florida. At the time, the house that you purchased, the land that you purchased, the condo, my house, and his house were all R3. R3. Okay. And during the administrative rezoning, mine and Mrs. Holder's got changed to RHP. Okay. I'm not sure why they didn't include yours, but they didn't.

Yeah.

It stayed R3 along with the real multifamily home there.

And if I could add, as you're aware through the zoning maps, starting with Mr. Ayton's property, going all the way down to the Indian River Avenue, this is the only single-family residence property that is zoned R3. Everything else along the river is RHP.

Because the other two got changed in the early 90s. I'm hoping we go three for three.

Let's put it that way. I apologize.

That's it. I just wanted to share that with you. You want to tell... the Commission what your plans are for the property?

Yes, so we have a final floor plan and exterior elevations for a new home. We're leaving detached garage, obviously. We also, just so you know, We're very conscious of the potential historic elements of the home, which was ruled not to be historic. But we have, with quite a bit of sweat, we have salvaged about 350 feet of old Merritt Island pine floor that was in the house. Didn't come off easy because it was installed with case-hard nails. But we've salvaged that. We're going to refinish that and use it somewhere in the residence, probably as a wall or a ceiling accent. There was two pieces of stained glass. that were buried behind about 100 coats of paint. And I had to just basically cut those out. I couldn't remove them, so I cut them out of the wall. And we're going to reuse those somewhere in the new home. And then also there was a stair null that my daughter fell in love with, so we salvaged that. So we retained the garage. We've improved that. We've painted the inside, put an epoxy floor down, insulated the roof, and then put an air conditioning unit in it. So that's my office when I'm on site now. But we are trying to bring some elements of the old residence forward But we're designing our dream home. It's two-story with a crow's nest observation deck up on a little third floor About 5,200 square feet under air and about 8,200 feet under roof so me and my wife and our old age was supposed to be downsizing and instead we're going the opposite direction. But the property is very, very unique in a sense. It's a beautiful piece of property. So we felt like we wanted to really do it justice by putting a home on it that would be in proportion and relative to the piece of property itself. We're hoping to break ground with the rezoning approval. We're hoping to break ground in October and hopefully celebrate Christmas dinner or Thanksgiving actually dinner in it by 2027. I was going to say, if you're going to try by 2026, you can't do it there.

Well, as a neighbor, welcome to the neighborhood. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, do we have any cards, Lori? No cards. All right. I'll bring it back to the board. And anyone care to have any additional items or make a motion? Member Rice.

I'll make a motion to approve rezoning number 4-2026. Second. Member Scully seconds.

All right. Roll call, please, Laurie.

Member Garrard. Yes. Vice Chairman Scully. Yes. Member Graham.

Yes.

Member McDaniel. Yes. Member Rice.

Yes.

Member Troutman.

Yes.

Chairman Ayton.

Yes. All right. Thank you very much.

Item 9B. Item 9B begins on page 99. This is data center's ordinance. On June 9th of this year, city council requested information related to data centers. specifically whether the city can prohibit their use. On May 7th, 2026, the governor signed Senate Bill 484, governing data centers, which went into effect July 1st, 2026. Section 163.326 Florida Statutes states that certain land uses, including facilities with substantial electric or other utility demands, such as data centers and other large load customers, as defined in Florida Statutes, may present unique planning, infrastructure, and compatibility considerations. The legislature intends that such considerations shall be addressed through local comprehensive planning and land development regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter. including provisions related to infrastructure capacity, land use compatibility, environmental impacts, and the efficient provision of public facilities and services. Local governments shall maintain the authority to exercise the powers and responsibilities for comprehensive planning and land development regulation granted by law with respect to large load customers. A large load customer may not be considered an electric substation for the purposes of that section. The law defines data centers as a facility that primarily contains electronic equipment used to process, store, and transmit digital information, which may be a freestanding structure or a facility within a larger structure which uses environmental control equipment to maintain the proper conditions for the operation of electronic equipment. The law further defines large-scale data centers as a single location with a data center onsite that has an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more. calculated as the highest average load over a 15-minute interval. This does not include a load aggregated across multiple locations owned by the same customer. However, it does include all customers or other entities that have entered into a co-location or similar agreement at a single location that otherwise meets the anticipated monthly peak load threshold. State law does not appear to limit a local jurisdiction's ability to regulate or prohibit data centers. The City Council considered whether to draft an ordinance defining and regulating the placement of data centers and establish performance standards and procedures for their approval or draft an ordinance explicitly prohibiting data centers. On July 14th of this year, City Council directed the staff to draft an ordinance explicitly prohibiting data centers from locating in the City of Titusville. The ordinance begins on page 101. I read the whereas clauses. Whereas under chapter 2026, 65 laws of Florida effective July 1st, Florida municipalities and counties retain full authority to regulate land development. Zoning and permitting for large-scale data centers often referred to as large load customers whereas section 163 326 Florida statutes provides that certain land uses including facilities with substantial electric or other utility demands Such as data centers and other large load customers may present unique planning infrastructure and compatibility considerations and provides that such considerations are to be addressed through local comprehensive planning and land development regulations whereas data centers and associated facilities may require significant electric demand, water supply, cooling infrastructure, water capacity, stormwater infrastructure, backup generation, fuel storage, fire protection, emergency response planning, security infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and related public facilities and services. Whereas data centers and associated facilities may present land use compatibility concerns due to impacts of noise, heat, and other impacts associated with these facilities, And whereas the City Council finds that data centers and associated facilities are incompatible with the City's present land development framework and with the orderly development of the City of Titusville, unless and until the City Council determines otherwise by subsequent ordinance. And whereas the City Council finds that prohibiting data centers and associated facilities within the incorporated limits of the City is necessary and appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to preserve the city's authority over local land use, development compatibility, infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts, and public facilities and services. And last, whereas the city council has determined that adoption of this ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of the city of Titusville and has conducted the necessary public hearings required for enactment. On page 102, You'll see that this is section 28-52 of the land development regulations and the underlying language at the bottom of the page is what's being added. So added to the list of prohibited uses would be data centers including large scale data centers in all of the zoning districts in the city and then renumbering the section, the subsequent section. And then last on page 102 through 103 is section three of the ordinance. which adds a definition for data centers. Data center means a facility that primarily contains electronic equipment used to process, store, and transmit digital information, and then continues on, as was said earlier, to describe the large-scale data centers. So with that, that is the ordinance in a nutshell. Thank you.

Member Faison. Nope. Almost. Oh, well, I'm just going by. It's all right. We're trapped.

Sorry. I had a situation like that where I was forgetting somebody's name earlier this week, so I can relate.

No, it pops up on my little screen here.

Just one question. I see there in K it does say additional use may be prohibited to properties. But what I'm getting at really is I just want to make sure that Anything that we as Titusville services that I see that I think this is what that's saying, right? The K is anything that's overlaying that Titusville kind of helps takes care of as far as water and things of that nature. Is that what that's going as far as like sometimes we have property come in, but they might not be zoned into our. town yet or might be just right on the outskirts of our town, but we're still servicing those properties. Is that what their intent on K is as well?

I think I understand. So what you're describing is property that is not within the city limits but is within the urban service area and does receive city utilities. That's a little different from the language in proposed subsection K, which you'll notice the language there is not underlined. That's existing language in the code today. What it's describing is that there are overlay districts which are Overlay districts are an additional zoning standard, but it applies to a certain geographical area or to certain conditions. One example is the Titusville shoreline overlay area, and so that's primarily over the shoreline. There's additional standards under the zoning code for that overlay, and so that's a little bit different. Properties that are not in the city limits are not... are not regulated by the city's land development code. They're still regulated by unincorporated Brevard County.

Okay, so then how would we, as Titusville, would look at where our infrastructure of things, of water and things like that goes out, but they're not part of our city limits? How do we look at that as far as this data center? So what I'm curious is, could a data center be right on the outside of the city limits, but they'd have to be provided services, I guess.

So this is specific to properties in the city limits. This doesn't address that concern specifically, but I understand what you're getting at. The utilities department may have a more a better response as to how do we keep tabs of of the utilities that are planned for properties that are outside the city limits. But that there's a great question that certainly if if there was a data center that was proposed outside of the city limits. If the property is adjacent to the existing city limits and are eligible for annexation, they would be required to at least apply for annexation into the city limits. But that's not always the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's actually in line with the same questions I had for Beth, and I think I only have three. The first question would be, are you familiar with what Brevard County does for data centers? Have they gone to a prohibitation? Do they still regulate them? And if you don't know, that's a fine answer as well. Sure, I do not know. The second question is that the intention of this, from what I've read and gathered by reading information on the prohibitation that many jurisdictions are going to do, is that there's a serious load on the electrical system. Conversely, there's an equal or more substantial load on the water systems. The water systems are provided by the municipalities, not the unincorporated county. So the question Mr. Troutman had, if I were trying to play the game pretty smart, I'd be going to the county. I'd seek my approval with the county and I would ask for water service from the city. who would in turn say, I need to annex. You need to agree to annex when it becomes ripened. I'd sit my data center up by a 95 north of town, and I wouldn't be prohibited. I would be developed, and then I would be incorporated when I got annexed as a nonconformity. There's nothing in the ordinances proposed that precludes that. I was going to ask our attorney whether since the The nexus of this is the demand on load vis-a-vis electricity, which is what you recited in the background, but there's nothing addressing water. So it would seem to me that if we want to prohibit something and we also want to prohibit the potential of it taking away another resource that's valuable and can be overwhelmed in the same context as electrical service, we'd want to include water service, and that way the utility service provider for the city would not be able to provide water to an applicant who would seek to have a data center. Now, if someone tried to say, I just need water for my pole barn in Mims, you might be able to get around that, but I doubt that. But when I first read this, the first The first objective I saw was if you really want to prohibit them, Mr. Troutman's question is right in line with that. What if somebody goes into the other jurisdiction and builds it and then we end up incorporating? And by law, eventually it could be that you have to incorporate it because you have to incorporate enclaves. So you'd be in a pickle. So I don't know if you can respond to that question, but could the water service be as prohibitive as the electrical service in the base of the justification for the ordinance that prohibits it in the city limits or services provided by city utilities?

I believe it's something that could be inserted in the whereas clause as far as an actual prohibition based on that. I think current code, anything that would use over, I think, is 10,000 gallons per day. I'm not sure if it's gallons per day, but there's a certain threshold where water permits then have to go before council, so that would be an additional requirement. that they'd have to jump through at that point.

Certainly, if there's something in there already that puts an alarm up and precludes someone from a staff level approving the issuance of water to a service area and creating that scenario, that's great. If that's something that then the city council could justify for no objective reason, perhaps a subjective reason, we just don't want it. I was thinking it might be a good precursor to write into this that the reason we're saying no is because you want too much water and that's for the service you're giving to this data center, which we prohibit, and we prohibit servicing you with that too, just as a kind of extra layer of protection from litigation someday. I don't know if that sounds right or possible, but Mr. Troutman's on the same line, so I'm going to go, he thought about this one.

Chairman, I just wanted to point out real quick for the Commission that water supply is included in the third whereas clause on page 101. The whereas clause reads data centers and associated facilities may require significant electric demand, water supply, cooling infrastructure, and it continues on with other services that may be impacted.

So it still begs the question. I don't know how Titus was service water works, but did someone come to the city and fill out an application and ask for water service for property? And if you were doing it because it was the county approved data center, what would happen? Even though that's there, what would happen to the request for more than 10,000 gallons if they come to the city council and indicate I've got this approved project in the county, all I need is your water. I don't want to be in your city limits. I don't want to cloud up the title of my property with a nonconformity. Is the ordinance going to do that? Is it going to say, no, you cannot have water for that service?

Sure. So again, this ordinance is attempting to address property within the city limits in the current city zoning code. I understand that other concern. Generally, I understand the process if a property is outside the city limits, but inside the city's urban service area, they could apply for city water, but the city is not obligated to provide water, especially if it's a high demand user that would put the city's capacity at risk. If there's additional information that we can get from the utility department and provide that to you, either after the meeting or at the next meeting, that might be... It's really not me.

It's not me. What I'm asking is more direct. What process does Titusville have that an applicant with an approved development plan from the county in the unincorporated jurisdiction seeks to have water for the service for his business? And the answer was somewhere about you have to come to the city council and ask, and I understand that. And if the city council can arbitrarily or selectively say, no, we just don't want to give you water, that's good. If that's a difficult way to answer the question and possibly potentially litigated because the city really shouldn't just say, no, we're trying to give you public water. If this ordinance is strong enough the way it's written to have staff understand you cannot provide water to a high demand that's for a data center. The ordinance is that black and white. If it's not that black and white, I think it ought to be that black and white if you're really trying to prohibit data centers in the jurisdiction limits, city limits of Cytophil. Because isn't it actually the case that projects have come to the city through annexations? I mean, that's a correct answer, right? Yes, they have had projects from the county incorporate in the city, not just vacant land and only get approved by the city.

Existing projects approved by the county became incorporated in the city. It sounds like you may have a specific example in mind. Do you have one that you're thinking of?

Well, I think the planned development down by the... Causeway, that was a county-approved development that became annexed in the city. It was a DRI and it went away. I don't remember the name of it. River Center. It's now called the River Center DRI. It was a DRI. It was a county-approved project and then annexed in the city and now it's in the city limits.

That was a condition of annexation of that property that followed those DRI rules regardless of whether DRI was still there or not.

Right, but the project had to get water from the city. And a project of that magnitude would probably have to sign an annexation agreement when they got approval for water from the city to do the project development in the county jurisdiction. That's the way it's stepping stone. So in my opinion, when I read this, that was the first consideration I had was, is the city's water and sewer service... staff significantly aware that this ordinance is written would provide for them to say we cannot provide you water for our data center because data centers aren't allowed in the city limits and rhetorically the answer is but I'm not in the city limits. I will be in the city limits when I sign the annexation agreement that gives me my water and sewer because I have to do that.

That was going to lead to my second question. That's a natural flow.

If I could answer that piece real quick. Again, this ordinance does not address properties outside the city limits. This ordinance is from the direction from city council to prohibit data centers in any of the city's current zoning districts. And so the example that you're providing is if a property were still in unincorporated Brevard County, which this ordinance does not address. It sounds like you may want to recommend approval of the ordinance to prohibit them in any of the city zoning districts and on top of recommend to city council that they address the potential for that scenario for a data center to be located in unincorporated Brevard County and attempt to connect to the city's utility services, but that's separate from this ordinance.

Okay, let me try and capture my thought one more time. My purpose of raising this concern is that the way I see this, quite frankly, is that it's 100% potential Because we don't know what the county's rule is, so I'm going to assume that the county could approve development of a data center in the unincorporated county, having nothing to do with the city but one subject. I need water and I need sewer. This ordinance talks about that as a load-bearing consequence of such magnitude we should prohibit it. And the recital is, but it's only in the city limits. That wasn't ever the concern. The concern is the annexation leapfrog, development approval in one jurisdiction, and it becomes in the jurisdiction and actually got fostered there by the agreement that says, well, we'll give you water, but you have to agree to annex. So then it becomes a city property on annexation. And then you create a nonconformity you didn't intend to do. And I don't see something in this ordinance that says that will not happen. And since the potential to create through annexations a larger city limits is a natural order of things. It's really the city's interest to grow and it's conversely the county's interest to shrink because cities provide services and the service being provided is water and that's one of the biggest concerns I see is I see nothing that precludes that scenario. Am I being clear enough everybody understands my concern? I can't make it happen but I just think there ought to be something that ties that together because it's one of those cases and I again have to speak from experience that The rubber hits the road with the person in the staff's position that gets confronted with a request. And they don't really do zoning. That's not their job. They do water and sewer and connections and fees and agreements. Will they know to say no? If the answer is they have to say no if you want more than 10,000 gallons, and if a data center is going to use more than 10,000 gallons, and if I understand it correctly, that an applicant would then have to come to the city council and say, I need 100,000 gallons. What for a data center that's been approved by the county? When that occurs, what is the city council going to be able to say? Arbitrarily, no. I would hate to be the answer, well, we have to say yes because it's not in the city limits. But it will be when you get annexed because you have to annex because you're going to sign this agreement. I think the reason they say no is because the city doesn't have the capacity to do it. If that can be. But that's a slippery slope, I think. You can't just come up with some arbitrary reason that you don't give somebody potable water when they ask for it. if the cap is $10,000, and that would be substantial enough to demand that city council say, no, that makes sense to me.

Well, I think what I'm hearing Eddie say is that we can suggest the council that they direct staff to draft another ordinance specific to water outside the city limits. But I don't, yeah, it sounds like from Eddie and the city attorney that it's probably not in the this ordinance is the place to address it.

Oh, I didn't mean it. This isn't kind of trying to cobble this together at the dais here. I agree, but I would just warn everybody that that scenario seems quite potential, and I also am concerned that you leave a city council in some decision-making process that becomes difficult, let's just say. Maybe not impossible, but difficult. And I hope that makes sense to everybody. That's my two bits on it. Thank you, Eddie. Member Rice.

Well, I'm going to ask my original question, then I'm going to go back and address some of what he said. We're banning all data centers. Is that a correct statement? Yes, sir. What was the need to define a large data center? Why did we need to even define it? Because we're banning all data centers regardless of whether they use a lot of electricity or not.

My understanding is that comes straight from the state statute.

Okay, so it's just to be supported by what the state statute says.

Well, okay, go ahead, because I've got issues on that piece of it. It's way too broad.

It says large data centers.

Well, but then it also defines data centers as a building that houses electronic equipment.

Well, I agree. I mean, but the key word in this is that the primary contains, it's the primary structure. So if it's a small data center because you're, you know, you build widgets and you have a data center controlling all your computers and everything in your widget thing, That's a secondary use within your manufacturing. The way I read the very first line, data center means a facility that primarily contains electronic equipment. So that's the primary use.

I guess is facility the entire property, or if Blue Origin builds a building because they need halon fire suppression for their data equipment and it's in a separate building, is that a facility and is that banned? That's my issue with it. Okay.

Question, everybody move.

Well, yeah, and I also said on the economic development thing, and we don't want to sell Blue Origin, oh, you can't come here because you need to use fire suppression on your electronic, which is not the high... It's not the high current user or power user, and it's not the high water user. It just falls in a broad. It's a building that has electronic equipment.

Well, fire suppression, the demand for fire suppression, the demand for concurrency approval is water usage. Fire... usage is not calculated in that water usage for everyday use for a business. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying they would put it in a separate building because it needs halon fire suppression. You can't use water suppression.

As long as that building wasn't the primary structure, it was a secondary structure.

And that's my fine. It says facility. If facility means the entire property, that it's not the primary structure, function of the property, but if it's the primary function of that building, is that building banned? I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

I'll put it this way. It's sort of like building a house on a lot, you're not allowed to build just a garage without a principal structure. Okay? You can't do that. It's not allowed. But the garage, when you do build it, after the principal structure, is considered an accessory structure. And it has requirements that can only be 50% or whatever the requirement is for that zoning category of the square footage. I don't see that this is any different.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking the question. Is it left up to somebody's interpretation five years from now? Does the standalone building trigger this or not?

I have a couple other questions to follow up on what he was saying. For the city attorney, just because there's a property that may be eligible for annexation into the city of Titusville doesn't mean we have to annex it. Is that a correct statement? I believe so, yes.

Okay.

The next thing is, and I'm going to try to solve your problem, but I'm not sure legally we can do this. And I want to ask you this. What if we added to this ordinance that said, due to the magnitude of the usage of city utilities and services, data centers will not be provided for water, sewer, fire, police, whatever. We add to that as a city service, period, and put it in the ordinance if that's what we're trying to do.

My thing is I'm very comfortable and very for large-scale data centers. I just worry that somebody interprets a building on a piece of property that is an accessory structure that says, oh, well, that's a data center and that's banned in the city. And so I guess, Eddie, is it clear enough in the way that your department interprets this that of what data center, that definition data center means that it would have to be the primary facility on a parcel of land or a project or...

So data centers are a newer use, right? We're still trying to wrap our heads around what a data center is. The data center definition that's in the ordinance comes straight from state statute, which is on page 110 of 112. It says data centers means a facility that primarily contains electronic equipment used to process, store, and transmit digital information that which may be a freestanding structure or a facility within a larger structure, and it continues on.

But does this statute ban that definition of data centers, or is that the definition of data center, but then there's a separate definition that we use for a large-scale data center, which is what we're really banning?

No, I don't believe the statute bans additional or alternative definitions of a data center. We're just pointing out this is what was good enough for the state. And so I think most of us understand when we say a data center, we're not talking about a storage room with a few computers that are processing data. We're talking about a facility, a larger scale facility. So, again, the definition, because it is a newer use, is somewhat relatively broad. But to answer your question as far as does staff understand what this ordinance is attempting to get at with data centers, I would say yes.

Okay. I guess my point is that the definition of data center that we took from the statute was used to define a data center, but we're trying to ban large-scale data centers, not All data centers, or at least I think that's the intent, is that...

It is not. I'm sorry. Allow me to clarify. On page 102, this is, again, the list of uses that are prohibited in our zoning code, and the new language is J, data centers are banned, including large-scale data centers are prohibited in all zoning districts in the city of Titusville.

So there's two. There's a data center and a large-scale data center.

Yes, sir.

So data centers are allowed, but large-scale data centers are prohibited. Well, that's not what it says. That's what I'm asking. You've got two things, right? Large-scale data center and data center. What the chairman's talking about, the statutory definition is for data center.

Well, my point is the statutory definition is to define a data center, not to define what the intention of banned uses are. And so I think they maybe didn't pay as much attention to what determines something you want to ban as maybe we do.

Sure, sure. Where did large-scale data center come from instead of just corporate data centers or prohibition? Is there a difference?

I mean, all through our code, we say things like, you know, primary use. The primary use.

I think that's what we're after.

Put the word in there, even in parentheses, primary contains and quote, parentheses, primary use. And that sort of clarifies it.

Again, the definition includes the word primarily. These would be prohibited uses as a primary use or an accessory use because these uses are prohibited in our zoning code.

So you would ban accessory use of the data center? Yes, sir. So then that sort of lines up with what he's concerned with.

I mean, two weeks or four or six weeks ago, we passed something about the PID to encourage businesses, large businesses locating here. And this goes, if we're doing that, that flies in the face of, I mean, I monitor this closely, that we absolutely want to ban large-scale data centers, large uses of power, large uses of water. A data center for Blue Origin or whoever it might be, my company even, if I decided to locate it in a separate accessory building, put my servers out there just so they're protected and it reduces the cost of my Halon system. shouldn't ban me, should be an allowed use. I don't think that was the intent. Well, that's our job here, I think, is to catch this stuff.

One thing that it says, it defines the data center as a facility that primarily contains the electronic equipment used to process, store, and transmit digital information. Then it goes down and the law further defines a large-scale data center as a single location with a data center on site that has an anticipated monthly peak load and it gives the amount of 50 megawatts.

Which I'm perfectly fine with except we're casting a really wide net here because it says data centers and large scale data centers.

We're kind of working on multiple things. We're trying to define what a data center is. We're trying to, with Mr. Gerard and Mr. Troutman, brought up a very good point is if it is outside of our city limits and they ask for water, electricity, whatever have you, when you do that, you have to be annexed in. So then we're incorporating them in, which is, ideally, we are banning them, but we're bringing them in because they need water and electricity to function. I understand that. Blue Origin may need to have a building and to run their thing, but that is, again, it's not the primary building. It's an accessory building.

But Eddie just said that even if it's an accessory building, this bans it.

So yes, so I guess how do we, because there's several loopholes that we have here. We have, they can get annexed in to be a part of the city of Titusville when we're banning them. And then we have companies that have come in and do have electronic equipment and do have needs for water and cooling. And so how do we deal with that? Because they're already here. So we can't tell them they can't grow. We can't tell you you can't protect your electronic equipment and have proper fire suppression. We need to think about the reality is we have companies here already. And what do we do?

Yeah, I agree. So, Eddie, if I was to build a new manufacturing plant and I have a room dedicated and all my plans, I came into the building department, I didn't put computer room, I put data center. you would deny it, even though if I had just put, hey, this is my computer room, you wouldn't deny it.

Well, we wouldn't just outright deny it. We would ask the applicant to explain what the purpose of those servers are. Are they using it primarily to process data and transmit information to serve as a cloud, or is it to address the needs of the fire suppression equipment on site? I think that's separate from what's being discussed in this ordinance. I do want to make one statement and then maybe offer a solution to move this forward. Reading from page 100, again, this ordinance was drafted from the intent of city council. On July 14th, city council directed staff to draft an ordinance explicitly prohibiting data centers to be located in the city of Titusville. So that's the intent of this ordinance. And I understand that there's concern about the on-site equipment. If that's not necessarily being a data center in the sense of transmitting data, processing data on-site for no real use on-site, maybe one option would be to recommend approval of the ordinance with some additional clarification that on-site data storage for facilities or services on-site are not considered a data center that might help clarify that piece. And then I did want to address the other concern about the facilities that may be located in unincorporated Brevard County using city services. One option, well, one limitation is that this ordinance has been advertised. in such a way that it addresses the zoning districts within the city limits. And that concern, it falls outside of the scope of this ordinance, the title of the ordinance. What that means is that additional limitations can't be added to the ordinance. It can only be scaled back. And so my recommendation would be to recommend to city council to consider a subsequent ordinance to address that concern specifically. Thank you.

And that would wrap it all up in one big bundle right there. Kind of like progressive.

Well, I'm trying to figure out. I think just the addition of the word primarily at the right spot will fix it.

I just was thinking about primary use. I think what Eddie was saying is that you've got to move forward as it's written unless you tell everybody it's got to be rewritten a different way and come back again. Is that what you were trying to say?

No, in relationship to the annexation piece. I think adding or changing it, recommending that it be changed to say data... facilities that are their primary uses as a data center or something to that effect is kind of what we're trying to accomplish so that we're not taking, I mean, By this definition, even the cloud, I'm a geek, so this is kind of near and dear to what I live and breathe every day. I mean, we've got a single server that plugs into a regular 20-amp outlet that is a cloud server that provides plays to NFL teams. And it plugs in. It requires no water. And it plugs into a 20-amp outlet. But by nature of this, if we think that if you're delivering a cloud on the internet, it's a data center.

I think your point's right on. It's my concern about the water slipping through the cracks.

I absolutely get we want the massive power requirements. We all hear, we all read about it, and we don't want it in the city, the massive power and the massive water requirements. The large-scale definition, I'm absolutely fine with. It covers that, even if it was an accessory building or something. It covers that. And I don't think that's a blocking thing to a company coming into town or for us companies that are already in town. It's this broad data center one is the challenge, I think. So, yeah, something where... I don't know. Whoever wants to make the motion, if you can find a way to incorporate it in there, that's my only concern. We're casting a net that can catch a lot of unintended things. I have a question. Member Graham.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eddie. Would you think that if we added basically a little playoff of the megawatts thing but used the 10,000 gallon a day and whatever their monthly is there, and the one for the city of Titusville, that you wouldn't have to reinvent yet another one? for buildings that are built outside of the city of Titusville and trying to get water through annexation that way. If it's already in the one for the city of Titusville, wouldn't that dictate for somebody trying to get it? If you say, listen, if you're using more than 10,000 gallons of water a day and you're a data center and you meet all these, it's irrelevant whether the county passed it as soon as they went after the water through annexation, you would think that they'd be turned down.

That's possible. I'm not familiar enough with the 10,000 if that is the actual limit, so I wouldn't recommend including that in your motion tonight. It's something to consider. However, that would then allow data centers that use less than that amount of water, and that wasn't council's direction when they directed staff to draft this ordinance. They wanted all data centers banned.

Would this be a question for Ashley? They're at engineering, utility engineering, to see what her thought process would be for that you could put in there that would be fair and adequate? That if they were to ask it, you know, two years from now, they built one and, you know, listen, we don't permit it in the city of Tidesville. We're not going to permit giving you the water even though you're not in the city of Tidesville.

So if I could just clarify, the ordinance section that we've been kind of talking around is Section 21-50 of City Code. Subsection 5 says that no one application for a water supply allocation permit shall exceed 10,000 gallons per day, except that City Council may authorize applications in excess of that limitation. That applies regardless of whether the property is in or out of the city. It's related to the water supply permit, which at which point if they were asking for such a permit pursuant to a utility services agreement, that limitation would still apply.

Let me be the devil's advocate again. Okay. When you apply to an unincorporated county for development approval, like the city, you fill out an application that asks a query of questions, and one of those is, how are you being provided water and sewer? Now, I don't know if Brevard County is doing what I would expect they do, but I expect they do, and that is that they have to have confirmation, like you do for right-of-way closings and other matters that require confirmation that the service provider is, in fact, prepared. concurrency is part of that. You have to know that you're concurrent with your supply and demand. So at some point, an applicant in an unincorporated development scenario starts by asking the question, may I do this under your rule? And I fill a form out that asks the question, how do I get water and sewer? If I'm an applicant for whatever that is, and at face value it's for water service, I come to the municipal supplier and I say, I want water service. I need 11,000 gallons. Oh, you'll have to go to the city council. Okay, I'm ready. I come to the city council. I need 11,000 gallons for my data center. And I say, well, we don't allow data centers, but I'm not in your jurisdiction. I just want your water. And I'm going to go around that 30 times. I'm going to keep saying, I understand you prohibit data centers, but I'm not in your jurisdiction. I just need 11,000 gallons, kind of like votes in Georgia. I need 11,000 gallons. When does the city council just get up and arbitrarily say, we don't give it to 11,000? How do you say no?

You would say no based off capacity allocation and saying that we don't have enough capacity to serve 11,000, and I think that's a less arbitrary means of accomplishing this than putting a stand-alone provision targeting one type of use as something that we don't ever allow water service for.

I'm 100% in line with that. We sat through a lot of presentation where we heard the Public Works Department being rhetorical responses to questions from the public in this commission about how much water does Titusville have? How many gallons do we get from Cocoa? How many gallons do we get from North Titusville? I never heard a response from the Public Works Department that we had a capacity problem in Titusville. They projected the capacity problem might happen in 2050. I sat through that meeting, and there was a capacity concern that we were lowering how much water we got from cocoa. We mix ourselves up with cocoa water and Titusville water, water from the north and water from the south, and we're trying to reduce our demand of cocoa water and increase our demand and increase our infrastructure to provide for that demand. But I never heard capacity questioned. So my rhetorical response question is, but I can say to you that the Public Works Department says that you have capacity for water for my 11,000 gallons. I'm just picking that number because it's close to 10,000. Because what if it was 50,000 or 100,000 gallons? is does the city have a capacity issue where they would say no? And I've never heard anything being presented that sounds like that would be, yeah, we'd have to say no, other than it just arbitrarily picked a number. I say 11's too much. I say 100,000's too much. And there's nothing defining that, except I'm requesting potable water for my development. I'm not in your jurisdiction. I am a data center. And I'm trying to remove the arbitrariness. I was going to do a somewhat, I know this is not going to be right for everybody who uses a background, but analogous is watching me be Eddie and living 20 years ago with the development of the prohibition to big boxes. Every local government in this country was all upset with Walmart coming through and putting the big box down. The American Planning Association worked feverishly to come up with standards of what is a big box or conversely, what's so bad about a big box or what is so good about a big box? The issue was it was really, really big. It had a lot of traffic. It came in and took businesses away from downtowns. et cetera, et cetera. It sounds pretty analogous to you're taking too much water, too much electricity, you're a great big thing, you're impacting us adversely, so we want to regulate you or prohibit you. And it's why I say it sure reminds me of what happened with the The development of rules, regulating big boxes, and how it's just went through the gyrations. And what I'm hoping to do is leave with an ordinance that does exactly what the city council intends to do, including not killing the fly with a cannon, catching all the fish with the net, and not allowing the scenario to occur where through the process that exists, you get a data center and it's someday in the city limits. I'm just, that's my concern. And I don't see anything right now that's going to say no to that. And so I'm just, I'm hoping that I'm completely wrong and that everything that's written is going to keep that from happening.

I think what we heard is whether you're right or wrong, we certainly, I think council will, you know, take it into consideration. But We can't fix it with this ordinance. So I think we can put that one to bed. Member Rice.

Well, in reading this even closer, on page 103B, I'm going to read it and think about it as I read it, and then I'm going to explain where this currently exists. A facility within a larger structure... which uses environmental control equipment to maintain the proper conditions of operating of electronic equipment, because that's the ore just above that. So I have a home theater room in my house. I have a special air conditioner because my electronic equipment heats that room up too much. By definition, I have a data center. That's how loose these definitions are. Because I, environmental control equipment, that's my AC unit. Electronic equipment, that's my home theater TV and projector and all those things and stereo systems that I have. And this is a larger structure, which is my house.

in your video is digital transmission information. So, yeah, it's, we gotta figure out what we're being, I understand what the city is trying to accomplish. It's a lack of understanding of what we're trying to be. I'm absolutely fine with if just large scale, if in, I'm fine with leaving the data center In there, it's actually the J clause that data centers, including large scale, if we just drop that and say large scale data centers are prohibited in all settings, we're good. Because there is a good definition for large scale data centers. That's the statutory part. Right, and that's the statutory part. But the fact that we added those four words or three words in front of large-scale data centers really messes this up.

Could the motion be to not? Because they already wrote it that way, right? So we have to either agree or disagree with how they wrote it? Or can we say, hey, take this out and do a motion of just large-scale data centers and go with that motion?

Sure, you can recommend approval of the ordinance with changes.

But the only problem I see in that, quite frankly, is that 50 megawatts is a lot of power. To me, 20 megawatts is a lot of power. So where do you draw the line with large scale? I mean, that's pretty large scale, 50 megawatts. So I would come in with my data center at 48 megawatts by this definition, and I'd be allowed that if we just take things out.

Well, I think Eddie had mentioned where we could add, where they come back with a second proposal of, what was it, terms? I forgot how you mentioned the first one.

So if there are additional things that need to be regulated beyond what's in the scope of what's been advertised for this ordinance, you'd recommend approval of the ordinance or recommend approval with changes, and then also make an additional recommendation to council to address that specific concern with data centers located in unincorporated Brevard County using city services. And then that would give city council some direction to give direction to staff to develop a second ordinance to address that scenario. Can we put that in the form of a motion?

It sounds like he just said what we've been talking about.

Yeah, I mean, it's fine. I understand Member Rice's issue that this large, maybe it's medium and large scale days. Part of what bothers me is there's at least one company I know in Brevard, somewhere in central Brevard, I don't even remember the name of it, but They operate and have been operating for 15 or 20 years a data center. It doesn't meet these requirements. It's a company that provides cloud services and off-premise computing to customers, and it's been there. Nobody cares about it. It doesn't abuse anything, but – We read all this stuff about these data centers from the hyperscalers that are getting built, and we don't want it in our community. I 100% get that. But there's a whole lot of data stuff going on out there that this can, you know, is catching inadvertently. I think inadvertently. I don't think it was council's intention to ban every piece of data equipment in the city of Titusville.

So what's that big data center right there on Grissom too? When you pull in, you just turn in off of four or five. You turn on Grissom, isn't there a big data center right when you turn in almost across from the police department or was there? They had about 250 employees. We did some service work there. I thought it was a big data center.

I'm not familiar with a data center in Titusville, but it's possible. One thing to address that concern about the smaller scale is maybe recommend approval of the ordinance and recommend that city council consider an exemption for data centers of a certain size. That way they're not... If it's the concern about, like you said, the hyperscalers that are doing this at a much larger scale and using much more utilities, maybe a certain square footage of the building or size of the property might be more appropriate. But to recommend approval of the ordinance with an additional exemption that data centers of a certain size do not apply.

But Mr. Chairman, your concern and what Eddie just recited is, I think, kind of parallel because instead of trying to further define small data centers, why not just prohibit large data centers by the statutory language? It seems like the whole thing got concerning about data centers use in the language rather than just large data centers. That's what it sounds like to me.

Well, doesn't it say large data centers? Do we have a place in Titusville within the city limits that there's an ability to put a large-scale data center?

I mean, I don't think they have the water capacity.

We're trying to, well, and then the water capacity is, I realized when staff just read that we have a 10,000 gallon thing and your example of 11,000 gallons, but that ordinance or statute that he read gave the city council the ability to still approve it. It didn't say it had to be denied. It's up to their discretion. So if they're trying to be annexed in and they meet all the requirements we have, the concurrences are met, what do they have that gives them the ability to say no? Because we are given time and time again, well, I meet this criteria, I meet this criteria, I meet this criteria. Yes, it's 10,000 gallons. However, you have the ability to approve it because you have the water, you have whatever it is, is that 1,000 gallons And does it protect us?

I want to share something. I'm probably not remembering my own history correctly. I had a water system for my home in Kissimmee. I lived in it. The city embraced providing water Irrigation water. What it meant is you paid for the gallon on an irrigation meter, same water I was drinking in my house, frankly, but you didn't pay for the sewer three times out. That's how the city of, well, because some utility authority regulated it. I like lawns. I am not a conservative person when it comes to lawns. I grew up in a sand spur infested yard, so I swore I was going to have nice lawns. I water my lawn more than I should. My irrigation watered 8,000 gallons in one month just to put 10,000 gallons in perspective. When I added the 2,000 gallons to my home, I'm all of a sudden 10,000 gallons, and I'm just a poor schmo with a wife and a cat using 10,000 gallons. That's how little 10,000 gallons really is. There's probably large homes in Titusville that are popping 10,000 gallons doing the same thing, irrigating lawns and pools and everything else. So why I was concerned if 10,000 is a cap, And it sounds like a lot. That was a day.

That was a day.

It's 10,000 a day, not a month. Okay. Then I correct myself. That'd be pretty hard to use 10,000 in a month, not a day. If that's a sufficient warrant to say no, that 10,000 is the limit, and we say no because you're a data center requesting it, and some other 10,000 gallon per day comes in and they say, well, you're not a data center, so it's okay. Both are in the unincorporated county. Both are getting water from the city. One gets told yes. One gets told no. Is that going to be easy to win as opposed to specifically saying we don't provide municipal water? for users that by definition are using that order for a data center, a large data center.

In the interest of time, we know we cannot do this issue tonight. Can we discuss that issue when staff brings an ordinance

That's why I thought his motion was going to become pretty quick.

It was what we were trying to do. So I think what we can do is craft it so that it addresses the broadness issue and recommend that. I mean, I'll make the phone calls if necessary on the economic development side so that council's understanding what the implications of the way it's drafted is. While we're here, there are three data centers in Brevard County that that's their sole purpose of delivering co-location services. I can almost they are not for hyperscalers and I almost guarantee they are. do not fall within the definition of a large-scale data center.

But there are three existing ones, none in the city limits of Titusville.

Oh, yeah, yeah, no. But these are not in the city of Titusville, so it's Melbourne's problems instead of ours.

But we could make the motion with the alterations of saying, hey, that part that you were saying in the beginning, data centers, only banning the motion could be banning large-scale data centers. And then the motion additional to the outside sources.

Intended for use by hyperscalers. There's... you know, stuff out there that'll, you know, I absolutely think we want that. Whether we want to let them re-look at the large-scale data center definition and get more guidance on that. But, yeah, I'm all for a motion. Just got to narrow it down a little bit. We still need to open a public hearing. Do we have any cards on this, Lori?

No, sir.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing then. Anybody care to take a stab at something here?

Good job. Could you repeat yourself?

Well, I don't think I'm supposed to make it, so somebody has to do it.

I make a motion what Eddie said. If I understood Eddie's consolidation of 45 minutes of talk was to recommend to the city council that the ordinance as drafted be changed to protect the intention of the ordinance to prohibit large data centers by clarifying the inclusion of data center with that and at the same time precluding unincorporated properties seeking water service from the city, wherein they're not in the city limits, but they're just asking for water, that that would capture the prohibitation of providing water for a large data center by definition of the statute. which would be additional to the 10,000 gallons. Unless that proves out, when they go back to write it, that it's solid enough on what it's got. That's the only reason I'm concerned. If it's solid enough on 10,000, the current one, that doesn't need to be done. But that would be my motion to do.

One's a direction and one's a modification of motion.

I would recommend doing this as two motions, one being a motion to approve the ordinance with the conditions clarifying the definition of data center you guys want encompassed in it, and then second, another motion recommending the city council that they direct staff to draft an ordinance addressing the annexation issue. Perfect. That's my motion.

Okay. The first motion. Let's go one at a time as we're supposed to.

Which is much better presented than mine.

Do we have a second for the first motion, which is to approve with the modifications discussed to limit the scope of what a data center is? I would second that. Member Trautman seconds. Any discussion before roll call? Lori, roll call, please.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Troutman?

Yes.

Member Rice?

No.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Garrard?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Chairman Aton?

Yes. And just for the record, I'm voting no because I think the definition of data center is too loose, period. And if we don't tighten it up, We're gonna lose the opportunity to have real business here somewhere. But if we leave it too loose, then we may have big data centers too. So I mean, there's a fine line and we're not there yet.

Just so I clarify, I was assuming I was voting that that was going to get narrowed and addressed as part of the motion.

Exactly.

I think we're all in alignment here. Second motion, Member Garad.

I'll make the second motion for the language that was mentioned to write another ordinance that addresses the annexation.

Okay. We have a second? Yeah, I would second that. Member Chapman? Roll call, please.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Garrard?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

Member Chapman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Rice? Yes. Member Graham?

Yes.

Chairman Natan?

Yes.

So we still have to deal with item 8A under all business, which we pushed, rearranged on the agenda. So do you want to take that?

Yes, sir. Item 8A is on page 8. During the May 6, 2026 regular planning and zoning commission meeting, the commission recommended that city council direct staff to remove the maximum density standards from the zoning districts and allow the comprehensive plan to regulate density. On July 14th, 2026, City Council did not approve the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and instead directed staff to align the maximum density standards in the zoning districts with those in the city's comprehensive plan. Enclosed is the comprehensive plan future land use element policy 1.21.1 regarding residential densities in the future land use categories. Also enclosed are the zoning district standards with residential densities. Staff is requesting further direction from P&Z on this item. As was mentioned, page 10 is the comp plan policy, which outlines the densities in each of the future land use categories, and they're highlighted. And then pages 11 through 45 are each of the zoning districts and their development standards, which include a density standard in addition to the density standard that applies in the comp plan. So again, big picture, when you're looking at one piece of property, every property in the city has a future land use designation, and that could be low density residential, conservation, industrial, and it also has a zoning district. And so right now, where you might have high density residential is 15 dwelling units per acre, If you go to the R3 zoning district, which is on page, there's R2. R3 is on page 24. The maximum density is 15 dwelling units per acre. So in that case, the density in the comp plan and then the zoning district match. The difficulty comes where some zoning districts, multiple zoning districts are permitted in the same land use category. So low density residential, again going back to page 10, The future land use designation on a piece of property might be low-density residential, which allows five dwelling units per acre, but there are several zoning districts, like GU, general use, that has a density of one unit per three acres, or the R1B zoning district that allows, I think it's 5.8. So there's... there's not an easy way to mesh those densities and council, at least to this point, does not seem in favor of removing the densities from the zoning districts. I'll also note that it's perfectly acceptable to say that if council's not willing, not interested in doing that at this time, that maybe this is not the time to do this and your recommendation could be to not move forward with this item. Thank you.

Member Rice.

Real quick, just one housekeeping thing on page 10 on the table that you provided. It has little asterisks down there, one, two, three, four. Number three is not on that chart. If it is, I just don't see it. I don't know where it belongs.

I don't see it either.

Okay. So that was the first thing. That's housekeeping. I went through... and put all the zoning on this little chart and tried to find out where the densities were and the FARs were and where they were. And we're all over the place. And I think that's the point of what we're trying to clean up. So I'm an engineer. I'm not a planner, okay? But my understanding of the comp plan... and zoning, okay, the comp plan has the maximum density that you're allowed. The zoning may limit it. That doesn't allow you to get to the maximum. Is that a correct statement?

That's correct. That's how it currently works.

Okay. But you're not allowed to go over what the comp plan. You can be under what the comp plan says for each land use.

That's right. The land development regulations which establish the zoning districts and their development standards do not override the comprehensive plan.

So I'm going to go to – I didn't take my – okay. Okay. There's a lot in here, like you have, especially in the UMU and RMU, you have things in there that has a lot coverage for, say, single family home in the, I think it's UMU, okay? And it says the lot has to be 4,000 square feet. But the density for that category is 15. So if you'd taken 15 units per acre, if you took one acre and divided it by 15, the house would be so small you wouldn't be able to do that. So there's a lot of inconsistencies with the numbers by themselves within this table. The discrepancies I found were like at UMU, which is mixed use. The density was correct, but the far is allowed is one, but you limit it and you unmute to 0.2. Okay? But it's the only category for urban mixed use that fits into that thing. So one place you're saying it's one, but yet in the zoning it says 0.2, which is technically okay. You're allowed to restrict it, but it doesn't make a lot of sense why you would do that.

Sure. As part of that last conversation, we talked about how Having densities and having that further restricted in the zoning is not something that's typical. Brevard County relies on the future land use designation, the comp plan, to guide the density, and the zoning provides the development standards like the lot width, lot areas, and I think that's the direction that Member Garrard was moving in with this direction was to remove those densities from the zoning districts in order to remove those inconsistencies.

But then you would need a lot more land use... categories because of the restrictions. It's sort of like the 5.8 Basically, the R1B at 5.8 is really predicated because of the lot size. It's the lot requirement that's driving that 5.8. It's not the actual density in the comp plan. It's because the minimum lot is 75 by 100 or whatever it is in that category. That's what's driving those densities, not the comp plan. And that's why it's 5.8 in the zoning category and, what is it, for medium to 10 in the comp plan. So you can't just, I guess you could do away with it as long as all these were under. There's only a few that are over. And let the lot size dictate.

And council's direction was not to do that at this time. So we're bringing this back before you for additional clarification if there's any other direction that we should be taking with this.

Well, if the council doesn't want to do it now, then why are we even considering anything? They pretty much have spoken and said we don't want to tackle this right now.

Well, they didn't necessarily say that. So again, going back to the intro, council didn't approve that recommendation, but directed staff to align the maximum density standards in the zoning districts with the city's comprehensive plan.

Okay.

So we're here to ask for guidance on how to accomplish that, or if it's not the direction of the commission to move forward with such an endeavor, then that's perfectly acceptable as well.

So if, and this is a question... Remember, Rice, if there's those where you took the lesser of, you would have to go, and the lesser was the current zoning because of lot size and those kinds of things, you would have to go back and amend. If we said we're going to align them in that particular district, the better alignment decision was made to be the zoning decision versus the comp plan when you'd have to go back and amend the comp plan to meet the criteria of they're aligned?

So to change the comp plan density, the densities in the comp plan in that one section, section 1.21.1 of the future land use element, to match the more restrictive densities in the zoning districts. That could potentially cause some nonconformities because there are developments that may have been able to utilize that additional density that now would be restricted. You don't want to say Burt J. Harris.

That's what happens. Mr. Chairman, I would hope to clarify this and maybe I can make this, as you said earlier, a little less time consuming. This initiative is was introduced by staff was on my discussion. Let me take this back to the egg instead of the chicken. There was a request for rezoning Indian River City and the Indian River City property went through a brief discussion of which this residential vacant lot was zoned in some year when Titus did its zoning, and it got its land use, and it was commercially developable, but it wasn't residentially developable. Some members weren't on. I don't believe you were, but you were there. So, during the discussion... It was the meeting before he became... During the discussion, as a prior administrator facing these kinds of problems, a staff member, I speak from that experience. What occurred that night that kind of worked me up? was that wherein the applicant request is heard by us as a quasi-judicial discussion to change the land use and change the zoning under a recommendation to an elected body who is the final decision maker of the request to allow this man to have built his home in which the support of staff was already witnessed in the staff report, The recommendation of this commission was unanimous to change the land use and change the zoning. The lot conformed to the requested zoning and width requirement and area requirement. But, as the word was used in the discussion presented by staff, but the applicant would just have to go to the Board of Adjustment and get a variance from density. And I question, why would you subordinate the final decision of a future land use and a zoning change to the elected body, to an appointed body who really controls with their thumb the same analogy as I can block the sun, my little bitty thumb can block the sun. It's a powerful thumb. It really doesn't block the thumb, but it looks like it does. So my concern was, why would you go through all of this? I even think I questioned, so there's another application fee? And it's subjective. Will the Board of Adjustments support you after I just went through the application fee for a comp plan amendment, the application fee for a rezoning, the three months it took to get it ripened. Now I go to the Board of Adjustment, and for good reason. I didn't see a hardship. You knew it wasn't conforming. It's your problem. And say no. And that's what started this. What I thought that night was going to be the direction, which when I watched, and I'm sorry to say it, when I watched the presentation to city council, they never got to the point of where did it start. And they lost that point as tonight we were going in the same direction. This could be accomplished a different way. The way that it would be accomplished is they need to create a non-conforming policy requirement and a non-conforming protection for density wherein the property's description existed before you adopted the rule and it's just as quote-unquote grandfathered in for its dimensional substandard width as it is for its dimensional substandard area as it is for dimensional density substandard. That's one fix. The other fix, as staff reported and city council didn't support, was you've already got the control of density in your comprehensive plan. You don't really get to develop the maximum density of a comprehensive plan because you start with the development site. Mr. Rice, I don't need to preach that. And when you get done, you're never, ever going to get that big. And what's really interesting to me is if I come in with a planned development zoning, I'm probably not going to incorporate density in my zoning standard under my PUD. I'm just going to go with area. And my comprehensive plan set my density. I've shown you my master plan. I've taken out my roads and my retention. And what's left is less than the comprehensive plan. So density, as staff reported, is not necessarily necessary in zoning district standards because of that. And when you take the microcosm request, one lot, one poor person's ownership, and he's okay, okay, okay, okay, but not okay, down to a density issue. And to give you further examples of that, I went through and looked at the misalignment. And I myself would not say this is about the comprehensive plan. That wasn't the intention, my intention in the motion at the time. It's not about the charts and tables and all the graphics. That's really good stuff. It's simply about why would you have a regulation on density that captures that problem and prohibits the solution being what should be a natural path. change the land use, change the zoning, I meet the standards, I can build my home. Except, but, density. And now you go to the Board of Adjustment for variance. I'm fundamentally, that doesn't work in my schedule of things. That's just not right. So that's why I wanted it to be removed from density. But where conflicts exist, for example, perfect world conditions, The time where you spoke about the density of one of the land uses was exactly what the zoning was. So if you have an acre of land, you have 43,560 square feet. And if you have a 10,000 square foot lot, which you're required to have in one of the zoning districts, you get 4.356 DU per acre, which is 43,560 when I used to fail math by moving the zero over. So when you go to, for example, R1B, and this is a question for our legal counsel because I've had the question before. If I show a density and my comprehensive plan limits me to 10 units per acre, and no matter how tight I squeeze my development plan, I'm 10.1. Am I consistent with the comprehensive plan?

Staff or the attorney or both?

So if I'm 9.999 pure gold, I'm okay. That is correct. Now, if I'm a zoning administrator and I don't find any rule in the book that says there's the close enough for government margin of error... I'm going to go to the R1B and say, okay, R1B, I got an acre of land. It's 43,560 square feet. I have 5.8 units per acre density set by the zoning district, R1B. Now, if I put a 7,500 square foot lot and I divide it into 43,560, I'm 5.808 DU per acre. Is that conforming to the zoning district? Or do I have to go to the Board of Adjustment and get a variance of 0.808 square feet? DU, excuse me. And I think the answer is going to be the same as the previous answer. You'll have to get a variance. And I can go down page 18 out of 112, 6.7 DU. That fits. That's in a different zoning district. RMH 1, page 26 out of 112, do the division. It's 8.712 DUs per acre and a limitation of 6.0. There's a real big conflict. That's a substantial conflict. But when you think about one lot, that doesn't even make sense. But if you are a developer and employ Mr. Rice to do your calculations, he's going to show you the master plan in which the zoning district is going to be that density in my master plan. This is a staff question now. I come in with the pre-development. We talk. I show you my master plan under that zoning, and I extract out the rights of way and the retention, and my net density is going to be within compliance, even though any one lot might be oversized to that in density. My lot, but not my master plan in a straight standard zoning district, proving the subdivision plat process. Our code uses gross, not net. Thank you. So for the little guy down in Indian River City, thumb blocks the sun, he gets to go to the Board of Adjustment for another filing fee to get permission to build a homestead. But the big developer, easy peasy. Everything works when you talk about the big picture. Density on a one lot by lot basis is a conflict waiting to happen. I just mentioned a couple. I can go down to RMH2, page 28 of 112. It comes up to 10.89 DUs for an acre, 4,000 square foot lots, 43,560, but you can only have eight units per acre. So every mobile home subdivision that's out there begins by nonconformity. inconsistency, all those N words. That was my intention. The city council, I watched the meeting, had I believe reservations about taking some standard away like it's bad. I don't think it's bad. It's more typically been done by other places removing it because the comp plan does it. When you have the big developer picture and you say we do gross as a quick answer, that is what everybody does. people like Eddie in my prior life. But one little lot, a poor little guy, and he's got to go to the Board of Adjustment, didn't seem right to me. I hope it seems not so right to others. And it could be remedied maybe easier than dealing with this density by simply putting the protection to the nonconformity that existed for this guy's width and area. Everything else fit. But I would say that would be the solution that maybe doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, that you create a nonconformity in which that man's application laid the zoning over his existing ownership. And I would submit he was nonconforming before the zoning came. And if there's a protection afforded to density that his nonconformity is protected from, solves the same problem. Different way.

You want to put that in a motion as a recommendation to council to have staff?

Does your lot of record, or I call it a lot of record, does a lot of record grandfather lot standards on this guy's scenario, he got caught by the density. It was one of several zoning standards. He exhibited a plan. He said, I'll meet the setbacks. I'll meet the height. I'll meet the size of the house. My lot is this wide. It conforms. My lot is this large. It conforms. It was the density that tripped him up. Can you tell me how the nonconforming lot world rule in Titusville works for that conflict?

Sure. So I'll share. After we had that conversation with the applicant, the nonconforming section was reviewed and it was determined that a variance would not be needed for the density in that case. So, in order to prevent that from happening again in the future, I think to your point, recommending to council to modify the non-conforming section to specifically say density, because I think that's where the issue was, is it didn't specifically say it, but it was implied in the development standards, that that might help clarify some things.

I myself would say that would fix it. It follows what city council didn't want to remove the density, and it protects the scenario that just really wasn't fair to what I watched that night. So if that would be a motion, I would make the motion that that's the motion. Have a second.

Eddie, you're saying a lot tonight. Second. Anyone care to second that or discuss it? We have a motion, but we don't have a second. I'll second it. Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion before roll call? Member Rice.

I just want to go over some other things that I saw real quick before we vote. Under SMU, you had a density, but you didn't have a FAR. there but yet you're allowed commercial resident I mean you're allowed commercial uses I didn't see a far in there for that I did not see it under you urban village afar In fact, I'm not even sure where urban village fits into here. Okay.

So FAR is the FAR for both the urban mixed use and the shoreline mixed use are governed by the comp plan since they're not in the zoning district standards. And both of them are 1.0 FAR.

Okay.

And that's on page 10.

All right. And then... RMH1 has a density of 6, but yet the comp plan says for low-density residential, it's only allowed to be 5, so that needs to be adjusted. And then there's another FAR for public slash semi-public. I noticed that the comp plan says 0.2, but hospital medical is 0.5. I'm assuming hospital medical is a semi-public use, or is it commercial?

So I'll have to look at the compatibility matrix, if you could give me just a second.

Where was that matrix? I couldn't find it. And then my question on the motion, if you just clearly read, I wasn't here in May when you had all the discussion. Could you just clearly state what the motion is so I make sure I understand it?

That's what I wanted.

I'll try to restate it so it's clarified. Okay. My motion is to have staff recommend to, recommendation of city council that staff revise the nonconformity protections. I don't know if it's called lot of record or grandfather clause, but that's what it is. And rewrite it so that density is protected to nonconforming lots. That simply means the lot existed before the rule came.

Okay. Going back to the matrix, the matrix is available in This is Chapter 27 of the Land Development Regulations General Provisions, Article 3, Future Land Use Matrix. It's also identified as Section 27-21. 27-21? Yes, sir. And Hospital Medical Zoning District is permitted in several of the future land use categories. There's Commercial High Intensity, Commercial Low Intensity, PSP, and US-1. And there may be additional if I slide over. Okay. It doesn't look like it. So those four future land use designations. Okay. I'm sorry. Those four, yes, those four future land use designations would permit the hospital medical zoning on them. All right. Thank you.

My clarification help you?

And still second? Still second. Okay. That was my question. Okay. I'll bring one more thing up, but let's go ahead and do a roll call on the motion that's on the table.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Garod? Yes. Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Troutman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Chairman Aton?

Yes. So my following question was, remember, Rice, what do you want to call discrepancies or the things that you illustrated? Do you want to make a motion that we, just like this, we ask council to have staff analyze for discrepancies and bring something back to correct?

Well, I think I need to do a little better job at my homework with the table. And do the math on every one of these zoning districts to see where everything shakes out.

Well, but, I mean, they can do that, too, if the council directs them to. But I'd like to know the answer.

Okay.

So, either way. Okay, so then maybe in a future meeting, if you find that you want to bring it, that we can. Okay. Okay. With that we are to the second petitions and requests from public present We're still a no for our audience member. I guess so on to reports city staff No report, sir. Thank you. City attorney? No report. Thank you. I have nothing. Any of the members have anything? Member Carras?

I do. If any members are so interested, I think you may have missed the early reservation pricing, but the Florida Chapter American Planning Association, and they'll have a... Planning Commissioner Workshop, usually scheduled in the beginning of it. It takes place at the Intercontinental Plaza Hotel in Miami, October 13th through the 15th. And in cooperation with the recommendation of FAPA, I'm taking the train, my wife and I are taking the train from Orlando down to Miami, then Uber over to the hotel and then return like kind and not have a car and not use gas. Well, I have electric cars. And wave at our future cocoa station location. Actually, I would highly, if you have nothing better to do in October, it's a nice time to be there. The conference is... FAPA's conferences are probably some of the best in the country. I say that with great sincerity. You can go to other states' planning associations, probably California and Florida are the top two, and I would say the conferences in Florida are probably at the same level as a national conference. In fact, they tend to repeat themselves because Florida's kind of on the edge of the... of the future. So I'd certainly welcome, if you're all interested, maybe get the train at 1140, leaves and gets to Miami at 3, go from the train, check in, ready to go.

Let us know what they think about data centers. Remember Rice? Okay. All right. Seeing no additional lights, we will adjourn.