Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the June 3rd meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. If everyone would stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please, Lori.

Chairman Natan.

Here.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Here.

Secretary Faison.

Here.

Member Rice.

Here.

Member Grodd.

Here.

Member Graham.

Here.

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

Here.

All right. Thank you. We have a quorum. Next order of business is approval of the minutes. Anyone have any comments or changes or care to make a motion?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Member Scully? Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. City Attorney?

Good evening. Quasi-judicial process and procedures. 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 on the table in the front of the chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation, and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments, and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined, and all photographs, sketches, or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members, please disclose any ex parte communications or site visits at this time.

I DID HAVE A COMMUNICATION ON ITEM 9A WITH COLE OLIVER, WHO IS ADVISING THE CITY, AND I ALSO SPOKE TO THE MAYOR ABOUT THAT ITEM TODAY AS WELL. IS THAT IT? ALL RIGHT. Petitions are requests from the public present. This is a section of the meeting that anyone in the public can speak for three minutes. You don't have to fill out a card on any item that's not on the agenda. If it's on the agenda, then please, you'll have an opportunity to comment at that point. Anyone seeing none? Item 8A, Eddie. I think you've got advisement on this.

Great. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, sir. This item begins on page 10 of 66 of tonight's packet. I did want to advise the Commission that our staff received an email on June 1st from the applicant's representative requesting a continuance of this item to the next P&Z meeting on June 17th in order to finalize the layout, and they will be submitting a revised concept plan.

My understanding is that in order to continue to the next meeting you would need to open the public hearing If you'd like me to read the summary and explanation I will if not we can save that until next meeting It probably makes sense just to keep it fresh if we're going to continue to the next meeting I will open the public hearing on item 8a See if there's any comments does anyone have anything I Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Do we need a motion to extend or anything, or move it, or anything, city attorney?

I believe you'll still need to hear any comment cards from the public, if any have been submitted.

Were there any cards?

No cards. Yeah, there are no cards.

There'll need to be a motion for continuance.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question before we get to a motion.

Okay.

Sure. I sent Eddie an email today, and hopefully what I'd like to ask the commission's consideration is that the applicant in the plan that's been submitted didn't include a traffic analysis report. There is none. Eddie confirmed there hasn't been one submitted. So question for staff, is a traffic report a requirement for submittal?

I don't believe that one is required for that application type. Um, but we can forward your email to the applicant so that they know that that's something that you would find useful in your consideration.

I appreciate that since they're requesting to continue it. So I would certainly like and look forward to seeing a traffic analysis. And as I mentioned, Eddie, the critical part of this is their driveways. alignment on Derry Road, and they need to really provide some documentation. And perhaps that's what they're doing, but if you would pass that on, that we can look at that before the next meeting, continue to the next meeting. Sure. Thank you.

All right. We've got a, well, I forget. We don't have a motion. We need a motion. I thought you were going to make the motion.

I'll make a motion. Do you want to continue to the next meeting, which will be the 17th?

That's my understanding what the applicant is requesting. Yes, sir. Okay.

I'll make a motion to continue it to the 17th.

I'll second that.

Okay. Motion is seconded by Member Graham. Roll call, please, Lori.

Member Garrard.

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Yes.

Member Graham.

Yes.

Member McDaniel. Yes. Member Rice. Yes. Secretary Faison. Yes. Chairman Natan.

Yes. All right, so item 9A, or 8A, I'm sorry, is continued. Item 9A, Eddie.

Thank you, sir. Item 9A, I'm going to pass out the revised ordinance before I start reading the summary. If not, it's an agenda star in case you want to view it virtually or electronically, I should say. But this item begins on page 46 of 66 of the agenda packet. On March 24th, 2026, in response to a request made by Mayor Connors, Council approved advisability for the city manager and staff to review the city's planned industrial development PID zoning regulations and ways to make the regulations more friendly or possible for aerospace industry and or businesses to be able to develop in the PID zoning district areas. The ordinance was drafted in part based on Titusville's proximity to the Kennedy Space Center, Patrick Space Force Base, Space Coast Regional Airport, and direct access to transportation facilities such as Interstate 95 and the FEC Railroad. The Titusville area supports a growing number of aerospace and defense-related industries. Council has determined it is desirable to amend the land development regulations to expand an industrial use to support aerospace and defense related manufacturing and certain associated uses related to the same. The ordinance expands the definition of light manufacturing to specifically include the aerospace industry in the M1, M2, M3, PID, and DMU zoning districts. The ordinance also eliminates the public hearing requirement for a child care facility in the PID zoning district under certain circumstances. Finally, the ordinance allows structured parking in the PID zoning as a primary use. On May 26th, 2026, the city council requested additional language pertaining to the aerospace industry in proximity to the airport. Enclosed for the commission's recommendation is an amended ordinance with a new subsection entitled 28210E, light manufacturing activities permitted in the PID. Like I said, I handed out the latest version of the ordinance. It's just a change to the language to make it more easy to read. If you would look at page 7 of that packet, again, this is available on Agenda Star if you don't, if you prefer to look at electronically as opposed to the hard copy. On page 7, we have the child care section, that's section 28.1.10, and you'll see the change here. In the table under PID zoning currently a child care facility requires a conditional use permit so public hearing process if you wanted to establish a standalone child care facility in the PID zoning district. This change would make it a limited use on the condition if you see the additional language in C1A it says a conditional use permit is not required when a child care facility is approved as part of an approved master plan. Now, the purpose of that is to streamline for these aerospace or defense activities that may have a child care component to it for their employees to not have to go for a second public hearing process. A master plan is already a public hearing process that would come before P&Z and Council. And if unchanged, this code section would require a conditional use permit on top of the master plan, so two public hearings. And so this would streamline or simplify that process for these types of uses. The next is on page eight. Page eight has section 28 154 related to parking structures and you'll see in the PID zoning district in that table. Currently, parking structures are not a permitted use. So a parking garage is not a permitted use in the PID. If a developer or applicant requested or submitted a site plan application for just a parking structure, we would not be able to approve it. It is not a permitted use currently. With approval of this ordinance it would make it a limited use and again with that similar condition that it be part of an unapproved master plan with the idea that again it would come before P&Z and council for public hearing if approved. And the purpose of allowing it as a limited as opposed to a permitted is to protect the city's industrial lands from becoming purchased for the purpose of solely of a parking structured parking as opposed to a parking structure that serves one of these intended users aerospace or defense. On page page 8 of 11. We went there already. Page 9 of 11 is section 28 dash to 10 light manufacturing. And in this table, you'll notice that there's no change to PID currently in the PID zoning district. Again, that's planned industrial development. Light manufacturing is a permitted use in this zoning district. However, on page 10, the following page, This ordinance adds an additional subsection E, which is intended to highlight and add some visibility to these specific industries, aerospace and defense, to provide a call out, specifically stating that south of State Road 405 and East of State Road 407 light manufacturing activities including but not limited to aerospace and defense related research and manufacturing such as the fabrication design development testing production assembly operation. processing, inspection, repair, maintenance, refurbishment, or integration of aircraft, spacecraft, satellites, missiles, rockets, unmanned aerial vehicles, defense systems, or related parts, components, subsystems, accessories, attachments, materials, and supporting equipment systems and tooling thereof are permitted. And so again, this is to emphasize that these uses are permitted, especially in this district. Um, this geographic location south of zeroed 405 and east of zeroed 407. And that's it for my summary. Happy to answer any questions. Um, we do have also for you in the agenda star packet two letters of support. We received those today. One is from the EDC, the Economic Development Council, in support of this ordinance. And another is from Tyco Airport Authority's Executive Director, Kevin Daugherty, again, also in support of this ordinance change. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Troutman.

Thank you. Real quick, Eddie, I passed out a document, a two-page document, to everyone on the council. Just a couple of definitions. Something that I've noticed here recently from some of our meetings, some definitions, it's either not called out, things of that nature. So I want to try and hone in a little bit on that. This is being a legislative and we have the choice to fix some of this right now so that later on we're not getting put in a situation where our code doesn't define that or not. So page one, there's two of them that are like phrases, actually. It's a combination of words. I recognize that later on now that I need to be a little bit broad there. But some of the definitions that might be very obvious to some people might come back later in a legal standpoint. But spacecraft, satellite, missiles, rockets. Either we add something. I'm asking if... when y'all are debating on this as far as adding either that we point out to FAA or DOD definitions when said terms that are not in our code reference or we add these terms to our code when we're creating this legislative action. That's all, thank you. Were you asking a question or? I'm sorry, this was more of a, I passed this out and I noticed some definitions that may, need to be directed to have a better understanding or added as in their deliberation. Sorry, it might not be more of a question, just more of a things I've noticed. Understood. Thank you. Thanks.

So as a city attorney, as a point of clarification, if this moves forward, could those definitions be included as a part of the recommendation on the motion?

It could be included as a recommendation, yes.

Okay, great. I think it's a good catch, Member Drummond.

Member Grant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions for Eddie. With the presentation with this light industrial, I noticed on page 9 of 11, the handout, which is on the... Computer as well It says under parents see standards for permitted uses with limitations in the light industrial services and warehousing in one district manufacturing ABC It says a conditional use permit shall not be required when the future land use designation is not industrial and So this is an industrial type of zoning under a planned industrial development. Would there be a scenario where you would not have industrial land use designated, where you would have a PID for industrial airspace? And then the secondary question is, if you didn't have industrial land use, you'd have to do a conditional use. But how do you do a conditional use THAT'S IN CONTRAST WITH YOUR LAND USE. IF THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF ZONING DISTRICT.

IS YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ON PAGE 9 OF 11, SUBSECTION C1? YEAH. SO THAT'S EXISTING CODE LANGUAGE THAT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED. as part of this ordinance. Okay. But yes, that there would be an instance where if the, um, industrial, if the future land use designation on the property was industrial, then a conditional use permit would not be required. That's correct.

But if it's not industrial and it has a PID zoning, do you have a permitted use for these changed developments, aerospace industry, parking garages?

With this ordinance, we would be highlighting the fact that aerospace is included in light manufacturing. So this is the use that we would use.

Maybe my question is not clearly spoken. When I read A, a conditional use permit shall be required. when the future land use designation is not industrial. So in that sentence, you're envisioning that you would have an industrial type zoning district, PID for aerospace. It would not have industrial land use, and you would require a conditional use.

Well, subsection one is specific to M1. So that would be a piece of property that has the M1 zoning on it, but a different land use that doesn't have industrial future land use on the property. So if it had a commercial land use on it and it was owned to M1, then it would require a conditional use permit.

Okay. And that's where I'm focusing on. You would review a conditional use. You would ask the question, is this conforming to the future land use designation of industrial land? Under the conditional use, you would say yes or no. And if you said no, how would you review and approve a conditional use? If a person came and said, look, the land use is not industrial, you cannot support a development that's not industrial-oriented because of the land use. Granted, you could change the land use and get it to conform, but I just don't know why you would want to throw something that's inconsistent with the plan to a conditional use review in an M1 zoning district.

Morgan, that's not language. This is existing code language. Uh, that's not intended to be changed. So, uh, I'm not sure that, yeah, I'm not sure. Yeah.

The proposed changes to this ordinance opens the ordinance up for review. Correct. I'm seeing a sentence. The chairman, I mean, Mr Troutman pointed out, we might need some definitions. We can merge new definitions. But my question is, why would you have a person apply for a conditional use? When it gets to the review point, you would have to say you may have filed it, but you don't have industrial land use, so your M1 zoning is in conflict with the future land use, and your conditional use would have to be denied. It seems like a paper trail that leads to nowhere.

Sure. I don't have the background on how that code section was written or the intent behind it, but if your suggestion is to, as part of this ordinance, make an additional change to a section that's not intended to be amended, that can be part of the recommendation.

Just to see if it's a conflict that could be prevented, deleting it. It's kind of like draft on the documents. It's chicken soup in a cold. The other question I had in the case of the parking garage, so in the master plan you come in with a overall picture of proposed development and colors are red and commercial and manufacturing's blue and you do get some definition but you don't really get clear site plan analysis. So by having it be a permitted use not requiring a conditional use in that PID is the proposed change. if you wanted to put it into an existing PID, you would have to amend that PID. Correct?

Yes, sir.

Amending the PID would not be site specific. For example, industrial park, there's two lots, one's built, one's vacant. The vacant one wants to do a childcare integrated into, uh, the facility. Uh, but it wasn't in the master plan. So I'd amend the PID for one of two lots. And that can be really difficult if you have more than just one and two where you got 50% of the representation, you might be one of 10. And that's always difficult to get an amendment when you're not a collective whole of the property affected or you end up with is a conditional use by another name site specific one law. I want to do this. Here's my plan. I do it. And that's the reason I bring this up is that you have existing development that already has the zoning and in some cases in the industrial park area, there were this effects built out or partially built out. And so it becomes to me the same path. You're still calling the conditional use by another name by saying amend the PID and I have seen at least in some instances these PIDs get amended in a specific area rather than the entire PID.

Sure. And in that case where there's an existing master plan for an industrial park, it may make more sense for a specific property owner to apply just for the CUP rather than try to amend the master plan.

Well, that brings up the third question. So, in other words, you can only do the child care, which probably came to development recognition in today's world. Two parents work. They put the kid in the child care where they're nearest where they work. That's the whole intention of it. But that wasn't the way it was when I grew up, so to speak. This is a new realm of development where they integrate child cares. And that's always a debate, too. Do you want children cared for in an industrial park? Well, not when it's integrated in the building. It's a different thing. And so you're still getting a conditional use format. as opposed to maybe lightening this up a little bit more and say, who would you affect adversely with a childcare in an industrial park that's an aerospace industrial defense park? Whether or not you had it on the master plan or not. And I know this may seem laborious, but I've watched several things be a trace where someone has to go through three steps to get to a simple answer. We had that most recently and that's AF is looking into a similar circumstance about land use designations and getting variances from density. You might recall that this seems to me that it could be much more refined if you just said in a planned industrial park, it's an aerospace industry and a person wants to have an integrated childcare within that planned industrial, it seems like you're halfway there to making it a permitted use. Because you say if you master plan it, you don't have to come back and ask, right? But if you had an older one and you didn't master plan it, you gotta come and ask specifically on your site, which would be to amend the PID, but you're really doing like a conditional use. You're making a one site development request. And I don't particularly see that as beneficial. I see it as, Creating a conflict, but that's for consideration. That's the three questions. I had thank you.

I Yeah, I mean my take on is it you you brought up some good points, but they apply to Historical or you know, not necessarily grandfathered but amending something that was an already versus I think most of this was anticipating a new PID so Yeah, whether there's a recommendation that the old version applies or I don't know, or as far as that goes, but we'll see.

That's kind of why I was saying this. If you think about this in a broader approach, if the consideration is to facilitate child care facilities in working environments for an aerospace industry, and I have the zoning, why not just say you can do it? as opposed to saying, oh, well, you can do it if it's Sunday after the third Monday on Friday following Halloween. If it's that, you get to do it. And I see that. I've sat across and heard people complain at me about why do I have to do this? It's permitted. And I'm just trying to perhaps expand the idea to create what's really being intended, integration of child care facilities in these kind of zoning districts. If you want to make them permitted, permit them. whether you did it in a master plan, as long as it's integrated in the building. If you want a freestanding one, that I can also understand would be an amendment to the PD because you may not have considered what that activity was going to be, traffic volumes and times and all those things that we should consider. So for food for thought is, It seems like it would be better for the public, regulated by this, if the consideration was we wanna put childcare facilities integrated into a building in that zoning district, permit them, allow them.

So that red line would just change to be that childcare facility?

Yeah, I think it's in the table.

So if it was a permitted use from an oversight standpoint, I mean, the part I like about this is everybody gets a look at the child care approval becomes part of the approval of the master plan. Is that the same if you just blanket it as part of the PID, then the approval of the child care facility would just become part of it? the permitting process of the facility in the PID? Or how would that work?

Essentially, yes, sir. So that would allow a child care facility throughout the planned industrial development zoning district. And the challenge with that is then anyone who wants to start a child care business could purchase a piece of property that was originally intended to be industrial in nature, and establish a standalone childcare facility without the contingent of it being part of or serving a working environment, as was discussed earlier, the industrial use. And so having it approved as part of this master plan ties it to an industrial use and ensures that the childcare facility is related in some way, shape, or form to an industrial use. Got it.

Member Seidner.

Thank you. Can you tell me what specific projects have been prevented from locating in Titusville because of the current code?

I don't have that information. I don't know that there have been any specific denials.

Okay. So I jump in there. So I sat on the North robotic economic development zone board for its entirety and have recently been appointed to the Titusville economic development development zone, so I think the real answer is we don't know because the way the site selection process works for these kinds of projects, they look at all the reasons to not come here and because you're competing with other areas and other states. So you would never, we would never really know. The goal I think is to understand and I think based off of what I know about this ordinance And what the mayor was going for is to understand the impediments of those kind of companies coming here and kind of clean out as many of those impediments as we can. And I think that's the purpose of this. So understanding who didn't come, we probably will never know because they saw things like this that would potentially complicate their moving here. So they just give us a different rating on their site selection.

Is in your research and in your communicating with others about this, I guess another question I have is could the objective be accomplished by adding maybe specific aerospace related uses to the code rather than broadly expanding the definition of light manufacturing? Because we're changing light manufacturing in all of these zoning districts, and some of them are in residential neighborhoods, some of them are downtown, some of them are by the airport, and if we are changing the definition to be a broader definition, and I'm wondering can, instead of just changing the definition, can we add certain things that they actually require?

Eddie? So short answer is yes. Another way of looking at this would be to create a standalone use However, that could create some unintended consequences as well. That could be your recommendation tonight is that if you feel that that's the best path forward, but creating an additional use then could conflict with what we have currently in the code as far as light manufacturing, since some of them do overlap. And so this is just really a chance to bring some visibility to the aerospace industry within the existing use of light manufacturing.

And with the The definition that we're adding, it's quite an extensive list here that we, the interpretation seems very open, and I'm wondering, and when I'm reading this, does this ordinance reduce opportunities for public review, public input, for example, it doesn't come to planning and zoning, or city council doesn't have to review it because it's permitted In the plant industrial area, for example, you've got PID by the airport, but you also have it Closer to town and in residential areas. So if we change this definition and we have missiles rockets unmanned aerial vehicles defense systems components systems accessories attachments materials supporting equipment systems and tooling and and they want to put it in the middle of downtown and it's permitted because now we've included it in the PID and it bypasses us because it doesn't require a conditional use and it's approved. So I am wondering if we are trying to solve one problem kind of like we did with the trucks You know, we were trying to limit them use on certain roads and tell them to go somewhere, but we caused problems elsewhere. So by us making this definition quite broad, can that bring in, for example, other companies and other manufacturers that aren't aerospace, for example, but it falls under materials, supporting equipment, and they apply for that, where we're really trying to gear this towards aerospace. We're looking at childcare, we're looking at parking structures, we're anticipating that this is all aerospace, but there are companies and other uses that might fit into this definition that maybe we're not intending for them to be here, and are we creating something that will allow for, for like materials, hazardous waste, things of that nature. I know we didn't, none of this talks about any of that, but when we bring these things in, that is a concern, and this list is quite extensive. I'm just kind of thinking cautiously, either we define or we limit, or we're very specific, because the light industrial manufacturing is very broad.

Yeah, I think based off of my research that some of those items were brought up, and that's the reason the south of 405 was put in. That eliminates downtown mall areas, the bulk of the major residential areas by that. And that area, my business is in that area, so I'm very, very familiar with what's going on down there. There's a massive Lockheed facility going next to me. The Eckler's Warehouse was converted to Blue Origin for a factory there. There's a new development going in the back of the industrial park that's in E.P., I think, or something like that, that's a very large building, Astro Tech, you know, Astro pack all of those companies are there and there's a lot of development around the airport and I think you know that's why the airports in and also why you know that it's one of the places and one of the few places in the area that have enough development area to support a large factory which is I think really what this aerospace is going for it's not a Downtown's not suitable for those kinds of places, but it's it's excluded anyway the way they've drafted the ordinance so I think that's really the goal of this is to Get those kind of companies But it also has a huge benefit and it gets it inside the city limits and inside our tax base Versus going out on Space Center property or somewhere like that that it helps us from the job standpoint But it doesn't help the property tax base

One other question we heard many meetings ago the bleach plant by us expanding this light manufacturing Would that enable something where we all voted no for would that? would they qualify in the PID at the airport based on this definition and

Well, that application is not before you tonight, so I wouldn't want to speak specifically to that, but would bleach processing be considered aerospace or defense? I don't know that necessarily they would, but that was not considered as part of drafting this ordinance.

But when we change the definition of light manufacturing... to include all of these things in addition to, and because when you, let's see, it says here that the city's planned industrial development zoning regulations and ways to make the regulations more friendly or possible. for aerospace industry and or businesses to be able to develop in the PIT zoning district areas. This is not specific just to aerospace. This is and or businesses. So when we are expanding the definition, we need to be thinking about what the and ors are.

So are we expanding the definition or clarifying the definition?

The definition of light manufacturing in the latest version of the ordinance that was provided tonight by hard copy and in the agenda star is on page nine and the definition is specifically subsection B and the definition is not proposed to be modified. However, in subsection C, sorry, E on page 10, there's a new standard for light manufacturing activities permitted in the PID. So if a user were to propose a light manufacturing activity and their zoning was PID, these standards would apply. Let's say south of state road four or five and east of state road four or seven light manufacturing activities, including but not limited to, and then it goes into the aerospace and defense and affiliated, um, businesses and related activities. So no, to answer the question, the definition is not changing, but this is the aerospace and defense is being added in the language of the condition in subsection E light manufacturing activities permitted in PID.

Right, because that's the way I read it, is if you look at the definition of light manufacturing, it doesn't say that those items that we're now including are excluded. I think you could make a very good case that in most cases those are light manufacturing items. This is clarifying and calling out for, again, kind of clearing away those potential impediments of arguing over is it light manufacturing or is it not that, you're clearly calling out that they are permitted in that area. Not to say that somebody may not come in a different light manufacturing zoning district that wants to do one of these things and say they are doing light manufacturing because everyone is a matter of the discussion of is it light manufacturing, is it not, just because it is such a broad kind of category. So that's my take on it anyway. Member Rice.

Yeah, you know, I want to follow up with the same thing. It sounds like what we're trying to do is be competitive in the marketplace for these businesses as well and to relocate for economic benefits, employment benefits, tax-based benefits. It's a very competitive marketplace. So my problem with the way it's written is that you're only doing it for new businesses master plans and PIDs, new. I would open it up to all of them that are inside those limits of 405 and 407. But I would limit that child care in the structure clause and say, providing those items are allowed in this, providing their accessory uses to the principal use, which is aerospace. And it would open it up to all PIDs that are in that target area. Because if I have a defense contractor or aerospace contractor that says, hey, I want to go into the existing PID. Well, now it's not the same. They're not playing by the same number, by the same rules that someone doing a new PID would play by. So they're at a disadvantage. Why would we do that? So let's open it up. Let's make it more advantageous for all of our PIDs, existing or new. That's my take.

I think we're just trying to be competitive. I think that accessory, adding that accessory term, handles.

Handles the child care and the structure. It's an accessory used to the principal use, which is aerospace.

And that's why we opened it up. Yeah, without that, it is a concern, I think.

Right.

Member Graham?

Yeah, I got a couple of questions. We currently have a couple of daycare style in a charter school in that industrial area. How was it they were able to be in that area if it's such a big issue at this point in time?

I don't have specific information on those properties or those businesses specifically. I don't know if they were part of a planned industrial development, if their zoning is PID. They may not be zoned PID. Or there may be a specific section of the code that allows them in certain cases. I'm not sure.

Yep. Both of those are literally... a third of a mile to a half a mile apart right there on Grissom Boulevard, basically. The other one is offshoot off of it. That was called the DAC facility way back in the day. Another question that I had was just a little bit out of the scope, but what about cafeterias slash restaurants? A lot of big facilities have their own restaurant or cafeteria on board. Are they going to be permitted in the same area along with child care? Because that's a model for a lot of big companies.

That's a good question. That's not specifically included in this ordinance, but that could be an additional recommendation is to add a an additional caveat for restaurants. That's right.

And last but not least, James brought up a good point, but in reading what your definition is, we're back to, uh, uh, I think it's page nine, 28 to 10 be the definition. It seemed like, um, it, it covered a very broad topic cause I, like you, I looked it up and initially aerospace is a pretty broad term. Um, it basically covers, uh, astronautics and aeronautics and so you have to keep breaking it down and it looks like in this definition that you guys have currently if it applies throughout the the places that they would be able to be added to it covers a lot of those definition issues you brought up if you were looking at it from the page that you sent us

Member Gerrard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Note, I just received a text message from our old chairman who says there's no volume on the spectrum broadcast of tonight's meeting. I don't know if that's something the audiovisual people can address, but that's the breaking news, so to speak. But I did have another question, if I may. Sure. The discussion the members are having about easing things up was the same discussion I was having earlier, which is if you are going to integrate a child care in an existing building, why make someone amend the PUD?

What's an application fee to amend a PD?

This ballpark.

Approximately $2,000. All because you want to put on the first floor of your existing building a child care facility for your employees. But in 1980, when they did that PID, no one thought about child care in an industrial park because it wasn't the way it was done in those days. So that's the same line I was making is that things like integration in existing buildings, whether it's in the PD or not, they're accessory and incidental to the principal use. It should be allowed and not make somebody go through $2,000 worth of filing just to say it's OK to add a list of a change in use. That's where I was headed. The second question I have is focused on the idea of this PID and the geographic restriction, and that's an overlay zone. That's the intention of this, that you've got a zoning district that allows a number of uses, including aerospace uses, which under this proposed change would allow an expansion of uses favoring expanding the uses with child cares and parking garages and other matters in addressing this. But it's being done in an overlay that's only geographically between those point of references, 405, 407. So you couldn't do it anywhere. You could only do it in this overlay zone. that's kind of favorable I have might even suggest you could consider defining what it is you're doing is an overlay zone that focuses on you have these rules everywhere but over here in this location there's a different set of rules it's an overlay district that has additional benefits to making it quicker to develop easier to develop favorable for economic development so it might be something to focus on like draft on the page is just call it an overlay district. It might remove confusion on the public's behalf. Is this in that zoning district? No, it's a special area that has to be that zoning district somewhere, not all places. As the chairman mentioned in downtown, you wouldn't have the right location. So I think that would eliminate the concern myself. May help the public understand it better, not that I think that people that have multi-million dollars businesses are going to be unknowledgeable to read the rule, but maybe it would help to call it an overlay district. Thank you. Thank you.

Seeing no more questions, we'll open the public hearing. Do we have any cards?

Rick Smith.

2645 Smoky Lane, adjacent to the property being developed on Dairy Road and US 1, the 711. I don't stand for or against. However, I am for or against, depending on what the plan is. Will there or will there not be gasoline sold there?

I think you're speaking on 8A. We're on item 9A. So that one was tabled until the meeting on the 17th of June. Okay. Can you tell me, is there going to be gasoline sold there? We don't know. We tabled it. So that will all be covered in the intro to that. So I don't know that any of us have the answer to that. Okay.

If it helped up, Mr. Chairman, the staff mentioned that the applicant is working on revising the site plan to submit it, and maybe if you contacted staff, they can make that site plan available to you, which probably answers your question. Okay.

Yeah, I was just curious. It should be easy to tell whether there's gas pumps or not. Yeah, because we're on wells out there, and of course, having gasoline is a concern. When was that pushed off, Dale? That's 17th.

It'll be two weeks from today.

Okay.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Any additional cards, Lori?

No more cards.

All right. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Member Rice.

Yeah, I'm ready to make a motion. I move for approval of ordinance. What's the number of this ordinance, Eddie?

Yeah, X2026.

It's item 9A. It currently doesn't have an ordinance number.

Don't you find the irony? It's an X ordinance. Okay.

It's an X ordinance. It's not space. Yeah.

No, I can just call it X ordinance. Um, you can call it the air by title, the aerospace and light manufacturing ordinance.

Item nine, a move for approval of the aerospace, uh, and defense ordinance, um, with the following changes under page seven, the childcare, I would say, in the red portion of A. A conditional use permit is not required when a child care facility is approved as part of an approved or existing PID or master plan when it is an accessory used to the principal use. I would likewise change the same statement under the parking structure with the same verbiage that may be approved to existing PID or master plan when it is an accessory used to the principal use. And then I don't have a problem accepting the definitions as submitted to the board. I guess on page two of our handout, I'll include that as part of the motion.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Member Graham.

Is there any way, Member Rice, to add the thing with the cafeteria so we don't have to go back and revisit this at some other time?

Is that an item, Eddie, that would normally require CUP? Or how would an employee cafeteria be handled typically?

I can't think of a recent example, but let me just look in the use table real quick to see if restaurants are permitted in the PID. I don't believe that they are.

So I guess, again, this is a place that the accessory use term may come in handy because it's not an open to the public. I don't think that's the intention, but.

Restaurants are permitted with limitations and conditional use permit in the PID zoning district. The standards for limitations for PID state in the PID zoning district, restaurants must be accessory to permitted uses within the district except as permitted in D standards for conditional uses.

So we're good already?

Correct.

Okay.

You're talking about the item that's in 2B of 28210? accessory restaurant and or accessory restaurant to exceed more than 25% of the gross floor area of the principal building or if no building is on site such supporting uses shall be no larger than 3,000 square feet except by conditional use. Is that what you're referring to?

I didn't see that. Where are you reading that?

You're looking at the one under downtown mixed use. Okay. I think he's actually looking at a different code section that we didn't get a copy of, would be my guess.

That's correct, sir. So I was looking at the land development regulations on municode.com. for our current standards for a restaurant restaurants and caterers specifically in section 28 167 restaurants and caterers are permitted in the PID zoning district on a limited or conditional use permit basis and it states the condition the limitation of it is that it must be accessory to a permitted use within the district so that would accomplish what you're asking for is would a restaurant of food court or cafeteria be permitted? Yes, it is permitted with that limitation as long as it's associated with a permitted use in the PID zoning district.

Thank you for the clarification.

Member Grodd.

I'll make a second to Member Rice's motion. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any additional comments or questions before I call the vote? Member Rice, did you have something or not? Are you just ready for the vote? No, no, I'm sorry. Okay.

Could I just ask for clarification? The motion included incorporating the definitions that were provided by Member Charman?

Yeah, page two, yes.

On page two? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Question. Member Charman? Yeah.

Would you want those definitions, or would you want it to just locate to DOD and FAA definitions?

I think that'll ultimately be what they do with it, but you did a great job of pointing out which one applies to what, so I commend you for that. You got a new role, the definition provider of the city. All right, roll call, please, Lori.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Secretary Faison.

Yes.

Member Rice.

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Yes.

Member Garag. Yes. Member McDaniel. Yes. Chairman Naton.

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Back to the agenda. I think we are at the point where we do the second petitions and requests from the public present. Mr. Johnston.

My name is Stan Johnson. I sent you an email today before 5 o'clock. But first of all, I want to thank especially the hard work that you did and the struggle that you were under in the conditional use permit for the project that is on the river. That was a That was especially a good effort by Mr. Faison, Mr. Gerard, as I think many people were impressed that you stuck with it and to find out what was going on. So thank you for that. What I sent you an email is about two items. Did she pass it around?

Yeah, we've got it.

So I don't have much time left, but the subject is the dishonesty and nonsense by what the city has done is they have a sustainability report that is false. And it was admitted to be false, and it was amended, and then the amendment was taken away. So that's one thing I have a problem about, and it has to do with a very simple thing, and that is that Water flows downhill. And as an engineer, that's what I say. And people, it seems to me, my way of feeling about it is people aren't really listening. And the city of Titusville has not inspected or cleaned the large ditches, canals, and so forth that have lead water to the St. Johns River. And that's something that the city is supposed to have had done, even though it's not on the city's property. So the other thing has to do with the survey. And it so happens I have a survey that's got red lines on it, a number of red lines on it. And I have sheet number four of SNJ plans that has about over 40 red lines of errors that continue. And on this particular subject of SNJ Oaks is that the survey was discovered by Brad Parrish to have a serious error of three feet in the width of the right-of-way of Elizabeth Avenue. And yet the survey has gone to the State Board of Surveyors, And they also voided the survey yet. The city did not avoid it. So So what I'm saying is that The plans. Sketch plant. And the preliminary plan are all voided. Because the survey is way off. Uh, so, um, uh, I'm concerned about that. And I'm asking for, uh, Tom, Tom, uh, a body to do something about it. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions? Thank you. So, uh, may I add one? May I have 15 seconds? Sure. Okay. 15 seconds is, is it okay? I wrote on, on that email that I sent you. I said that, uh, um, uh, please be advised that I challenge any Florida PE to dispute any of my below findings. That's all. Thank you. Thank you for the 15 seconds.

Um, member grant. You have your light on.

All right. It's getting ready to ask for reports. I thought you had a report. City staff, do you have any reports?

Just one quick announcement that the June 23rd city council meeting is canceled, and that's typical for council. They usually take a recess the second meeting of June, so nothing out of the ordinary, but just wanted to make that announcement.

Does that create a recess for us or not?

It could. Would you like to take the second meeting in June off?

I think we just tabled something to the second meeting in June. City attorney? No report. I have nothing other than commend Vice Chairman Scully. I was absent last meeting. Trial by fire. He did a great job on my YouTube review of his performance. So I appreciate that, and I feel much better about taking more time off now.

Any members? Member Grodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eddie, I don't know if other members have the same problem I have, but that's using the proposed ordinance change tonight where the tables come for visibility purposes, obviously. That's kind of bad. Useless to review it, but more importantly, it's the way it's demonstrated on the access to the internet view, your agenda share. When you go to the agenda share, you look at the table As soon as you scroll down from the header where you have the zoning districts, you're lost. And I don't know about the other members, but you may as well not send that to me because I can't follow it. And what I think you can probably afford doing, and I'm not the Excel spreadsheet expert, but I think you can make the header report to each of the pages so that you can see everything on one page view. And if that can be accomplished, I know it'll be as well. It was with the draft on the forms. Thank you.

Anyone else have anything? Member Rice.

It would be nice if we had a little summary. of the things that come in front of us, but how City Council acted on them, just a summary that they approved this ordinance with these changes. I'm just more curious about keeping a record of the job that we do and what recommendations have been accepted and which ones have not been accepted. I mean, is that something we could possibly do?

This city posts the summary of actions from each meeting on, I believe it's Facebook and on the website, so you could see the next day quickly what actions were taken.

Could you just maybe add that summary in our packet so we have it?

Or it's usually only an item or two that goes from week to week if Even during this report section, if you wanted to just kind of say something that says, you know, the item you considered on June 3rd, the city council acted on it.

I don't want to create a lot of work for you by any means. Okay, if it's just something simple that we can do or if you just point me in the right direction personally, if I'm the only one with a problem, just tell me where I need to go and I'll go look at it myself.

Sure, and we can look into providing that. It's just I don't want the commission to feel like you've done a bad job if council doesn't vote the same way that you do. We won't feel that. There's a different subset. There's a different role that you provide here. You're providing the planning and zoning perspective, whereas council, as the elected officials, are considering all perspectives. And so... If you received a summary of action that said that council didn't go along with your recommendation, you mentioned how good of a job you're doing. That doesn't reflect poorly on your job performance. You're still evaluating the applications thoroughly.

Again, we have a very narrow scope at this level where they have a very broad scope. They have to consider staff levels, you know. How you pay for things and actions that are taking place and what effects does that politically, socially, those are all things that they must consider when they're acting on something. So I don't by any means trying to compare their actions. I just want to see and maybe I'll learn something of the direction as a group from city council of the policies that they want to steer the community to. That's really why I would like to have that information.

Thanks. I do have one other thing. We've been doing such a good or you've been doing such a good job of the little preview image. And then for the item that was tabled tonight when reviewing it, it wasn't there. At the beginning of the report. So figured it out. But if by the time this comes before us again, if when that's corrected in the packet that that format is adhered to, it was extremely helpful when it was there. Thank you.

You prompted my mind to a memory. Back some months ago, I mentioned along the same line that it would help me, certainly may help others, that when the staff's presentation is given, the first page describes what we're about to see. And then at the end of several hundred pages, you see a map of where this is going to be.

Yeah, well, they actually did that for a couple reports.

And then it stopped.

And it's not – well, I don't know that it stopped. It's just not in this one.

The CUP staff report was – I'm sorry –

a previous format from, uh, since it was a, an application that had been heard by PNZ previously prepared prior to in the future that can be repaginated so that the picture of where the location is would follow the initial reading of what this is, the staff report, and then a map that says where it is as opposed to going through, all of the pages almost to the end to find, oh, it's down here on 407. It helped me a lot. And then I have to make an announcement, and that's what puzzled me about the 17th. I will not be present for the meeting on the 17th. I hope you get a traffic analysis, and I know it's invaluable hands here that can take care of looking at it to make sure it's a good project for traffic movement.

Yeah, I'm sure the applicant, before and understands our issues.

But I will not be here on the 17th. I apologize.

No need. It's summertime. We all need it. All right. Seeing no additional comments, we'll stand adjourned.