Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call the September 2nd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. If we could all please rise 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,

Can we get a roll call, please?

Chairman Aton. Vice Chairman Scully.

Here.

Secretary Faison. Member Rice. Member Garrard. Member Graham.

Here.

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

Here. Thank you. We have a quorum. Next, we want to move on to approval of last meeting minutes for August 19th. Do we have a motion or any amendments?

I'd make a motion to approve them as written. All right. We have a motion from Member Traubman.

Second. We have a second. Thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. All right. So now we're moving to quasi-judicial.

Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi-judicial item must complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on that card. Cards are located on the table in the front of chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open to public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on an item will be able to 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, if you could please disclose any ex parte communications or site visits related to any of the items on the agenda at this time.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, now we're going to move into petitions and requests from the public present.

Let me pull my notes here. Good evening. My name is Stan Johnson, and I sent you an email August the 29th. That was my dad's birthday, and I guess some of you didn't get it maybe because I don't have your email address, but it was titled Happy Birthday, Dad, and it was about my dad, and he and I are very common. interests. We're both Navy veterans. We're both engineers. We both played tennis and played instruments and so forth. But anyhow, I'm here because I'm losing sleep. I'm losing a lot of sleep because what the city of Tysol is doing with the range, the range, which is illegal. They have illegal dams in a number of places. One of the places is the senior center. And that senior center has dams, two dams, that are collecting water from a watershed that's over 400 acres. And back in August of 2021, it was under construction, and what was happening was a startling event, is that the Bloody Mary Ditch was flooding, flooding its banks, and there was no rain. No rain. And I talked to some city workers who were there at the ditch, and they said they didn't know what was going on. So I went and looked for a dam. Somebody said there might be a dam at the senior center or a blockage, and I couldn't find anything. Couldn't find a dam, couldn't find anything. So I went home because I knew it has to be something there. I believe that the county constructed something And they didn't tell the city. So those dams were reduced. They were modified and so forth. But the flooding continues. The flooding continues at the location of Lane Avenue, where it crosses Lane Avenue. The water is much higher. This is a photo of one of the dams. It's a concrete dam. You won't be able to find it because it's behind fences. It's a concrete dam. It's about five feet high, and it's flooding. It's flooding. And the other one is right here, which I'd like you to pass out, which I've given to you guys in an email.

So some of you already have it.

And I had Mr. Mutter to explain to me that... Yeah. Uh, comment about it. So, uh, what we have is, is a flooding of, of houses of properties, uh, in, uh, in Baker subdivision and temple drive. And the cause of it is the city of Titusville. I'd like you to give me another, another minute to try to wrap this up.

Yeah.

I'll make a motion that we give Mr. Stan Johnson another minute.

All right, we'll give another minute, Stan. Pardon? One more minute. Okay. All right. So what's going on is that they are contributing the flooding and it's all illegal. It's taking a property. It's very illegal and it's illegal by city code. It's illegal by our constitution and so forth. And I'm asking the city to remove those ditches. And so are other people asking to remove the dams. which they call weirs. So you have a picture there, and you have admission of guilt by you see that there's a pump. It's on top of the dam in the spillway. And what they do is they operate that pump before and during the storm. That's an admission that they know there's a problem. Those dams are flooding property, big time. Big time. And we've had a number of photos and so forth and videos presented to council chambers back in 2012 what they did. Thank you.

Thank you, Stan. Do we have any other petitions or requests from the public present? Seeing none, we'll move into old business. We have no old business. I want to pass it over to staff for new business.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you. This is item 9A, beginning on page 9 of 91 of tonight's packet, rezoning number 2, 2026 Farmland. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of approximately seven and a half acres located at 1915 North Singleton Avenue, generally located east of North Singleton Avenue between Parrish Road to the north and Kirby Drive to the south. The request is to change the zoning from single family medium density R1B to general use GU. The applicant intends to use the property for agricultural pursuits or farming. Agricultural uses are not permitted in the current R1B zoning district, but are permitted with limitations in the requested GU zoning district as indicated by the letter L in the zoning use table. The subject property was annexed into the city in 2004 through ordinance number 31, 2004. At that time, the property was part of a larger 15 acre parcel that included the seven and a half acre parcel immediately to the north. At the same meeting, city council adopted ordinance number 35, 2004, which designated the property's future land use as low density residential. Ordinance number 31-2004 established the current R1B zoning and in Section 4 limited the entire 15-acre parcel to a maximum of 50 residential units. This limitation is more restrictive than the R1B zoning district's maximum density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which would otherwise allow up to 87 units on the 15-acre parcel. Because the 50 unit limitation applies to the entire 15 acre parcel, approval of the rezoning will negatively affect the development rights of the 7.5 acre property to the north. Staff was unsuccessful in contacting the current owner of the north parcel to discuss becoming a co-applicant and addressing the residential development entitlements for the entire 15 acre parcel. The property was created in 2020 by splitting it from the seven and a half acre parcel to the north. It was initially classified by Brevard County Property Appraisers Office as 9909, vacant residential land, single family, unplatted, which remained in place through 2025. The applicant purchased the property on January 29th, 2026, and submitted an agricultural classification application, a DR 482, The property appraiser staff approved the application in part and denied it in part on February 18th, 2026. Only 0.15 acres was approved for bee related uses and the property use classification was changed to 6730 bees honey farm. Florida law permits apiaries or bee farms on properties not classified as agricultural if using best management practices. Although property appraiser, The property appraiser's office currently classifies the property as a bee farm. Farming and other agricultural uses are not permitted under the current R1B zoning. The requested GU zoning would allow the proposed agricultural use subject to applicable limitations. I'll point the commission to a couple of sections throughout. The first is on page 15. On page 15 is a table that compares the R1B zoning district with the R1B zoning district as approved on the property. Excuse me. So the R1B zoning district allows a maximum density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which on a 15 acre piece of property would entitle someone to 87 units. When council adopted the limitation, it was to cap it at 50 units. So there's a reduced density down to 3.33 dwelling units per acre. The requested GU zoning district allows one dwelling unit per three acres and would yield five units on the 15 acre property. Again, the request is only for the seven and a half acre property, which is the south portion of the 15 acre overall site. The next section is page 18. A binding concept plan had been submitted with the application previously, and this staff report reflects some of the items that were brought to staff's attention as far as sections of the code that the proposed concept plan would not meet. The first is overhead power. The plan shows overhead power poles, whereas the code requires them to be installed underground. Parking, the proposed farm activities include inviting the public onto the property for volunteer farm labor opportunities and regular farmers markets, but a parking area had not been outlined. Access road openings. A gravel road is proposed internal to the site, but no concrete aprons were shown. RV for farm labor housing. The plan proposed using a recreational vehicle as housing for farm laborers. Section 20-58 prohibits using RVs as a living unit outside of an approved and licensed trailer park. And finally, solid waste. No method of solid waste was identified on the concept plan as far as a dumpster. The applicant has stated that four roll-off carts would be needed and potentially a small commercial dumpster in the future. On page 21, section 6, states whether the applicant has sufficiently protected adjacent land uses and zoning districts by adequate buffering and screening. The adjacent land uses are primarily single-family residences, which are expected to be negatively impacted by the rezoning. The proposed farm is likely to generate nuisances not typically found in single-family residential development, such as noise, odors, dust, truck and equipment traffic, and lighting. Further, the binding concept plan does not propose any landscape yards or landscape buffers typically required of new development. It is important to note that if the rezoning to GU is approved and a bonafide farm subsequently establishes at the property, then certain agricultural state exemptions may apply, which would limit the city's ability to address any resulting nuisances. The adjacent zoning districts include R1B and single family residential, RU111 in Brevard County's zoning code. Next on page 29, I'm sorry 22 number 7 is a substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in the existing zoning district. The property is currently undeveloped agricultural pursuits or farms are not a permitted use in the current R and B zoning district. While the property is owned primarily for single-family residential uses the development of a residential subdivision at the site Will require utility main extensions to provide water and sewer service to the lots The city's Public Works Department currently has no plans to extend the water or sewer mains in this area Therefore the developer would be responsible for the costs of such improvements On page 29 IS THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, AND GENERALLY THERE'S A POULTRY PASTURE TO THE NORTHEAST, PLANT NURSERY TO THE WEST, THE INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD IS SHOWN, AND SEVERAL STRUCTURES. And then prior to publishing tonight's agenda, our staff met with the applicant to describe the content and the concerns that were outlined. And the applicant submitted a rebuttal, which is on page 50 through page 59 of your agenda packet tonight. And with that, I know the applicant also has a... Good?

Yeah, we all lost visual of the packet.

Okay, we need some help with the AV with the laptops.

Is it just a refreshing? Thanks.

Thank you, Lori. Thank you, Lori. So with that, that concludes the presentation. Happy to answer any questions, or if not, I know the applicant has a presentation prepared for you as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Eddie. Does any members from the board have any questions for staff?

Yeah.

Member Seidler?

Thank you. Let me... Thank you. Thank you, Eddie. One of the questions I have is that these 15 units was divided, subdivided into 7.5 units and what happens if this is changed to agriculture, if we change the zoning, what happens to the other seven and a half and do the dwellings, all 50 dwellings get put on that? What happens, how do we divide that?

That's a good question. So the zoning ordinance that's currently on the seven and a half acre portion that's subject to this application applies to this property as well as the seven and a half acre property to the north. And council did not distinguish how to divide up those numbers. In the perfect world, you could say 25 units and 25 units. But we've had a recent scenario where something similar to this has happened. A lot was split and a certain unit number was provided by the zoning ordinance. and the property did not have an even number of uplands, if you will. One portion of the property was more developable than the other portion, so how to divide up that number was a question. In the most likely sense, it would require that the property owner to the north rezone their property before they can move forward with any type of development using those entitlements because the zoning ordinance applied to the 15-acre property. Since the agenda was published, I spoke with the property owners of the North and he let me know that he was going to consider whether to become a co-applicant and he did not respond. So he's not interested at this time in being a co-applicant on their request. But yes, it's possible that that property owner would have to either apply for a rezoning to accommodate whatever development proposal they're seeking or the city could administratively A recommendation to city council could be made that the city administratively rezone that north seven and a half acre property to make it clear that that property should be entitled to 25 units. I think that would help clarify that it is a clean break of 25 units for that north property and would allow them to move forward without having to apply for a rezoning.

Member Trotman. So when the property was split, is that reading that correctly, that they've split it seven and a half, seven and a half, and that was documented a certain way, but it wasn't ever platted? I guess that's where we're at right now. It's not platted, the two separate properties? No.

That sounds correct. So the property, the 15 acre property that included the North and the South seven and a half acre, two parcels, 15 acres total was annexed at the same time and was one property and that property was split. Um, the city used to have a lot split process that would have to come before public hearing. Um, and the city no longer has that. The city council directed us to remove that requirement for a lot split one, one lot to two. Um, So there's no approval process. You should record the new property boundaries with the property appraisers or with the clerk's office. So yes, it was one property at one time, 15 acres total when the property was annexed into the city in 2004 or 2006 and was subsequently split into two equal halves in 2020. Okay.

And then Help me understand a little bit, I guess maybe some like how other cities go about, I'm not saying that this is a zoo or anything of that nature, but how does other cities go about having something like this of like agriculture, live animals, you know, where they maybe get with a school and they bring them out and they, you know, it's all an ag thing. Have you seen other cities do anything like that and what they do to get around that or anything?

I know that those are operations that happen in other cities. I'm not familiar of how they play with zoning, what zoning districts they're allowed in.

No, I appreciate that. Thanks.

Member Graham.

Eddie, is this a private farm or a commercial enterprise? I was trying to figure it out based on the applicant. Could you help me understand the differences between the two? No, just his application. It seems more commercialized, and then with the commercialization of it, from the access roads to the parking, there's no stormwater. I was just kind of confused if it's really more commercialized, why those items were not included.

I don't know that there's a clear definition between the two, but I'll let the applicant speak to their operations, and maybe that will help answer the question. Okay, and then...

On the farm, are we just talking about planting crops or was there animals, you know, cows, pigs, that type thing?

Again, the applicant's presentation to you tonight, we'll get into that.

Thank you.

Sure.

Member McDaniel.

Hi, Eddie. So in what way can this, if we approve it, GU, in what way can this affect the surrounding properties? Negatively, positively, neutral? Is it like?

So in our staff report, we identify that farming is not a use that's currently out in the area as far as the adjacent properties are single family homes that have been built since 1959 through the 90s. And then the properties to the west are undeveloped residential single family zoning. There's a potential for nuisances from a farm use. I know the applicant in his rebuttal addressed some of those, but one of our concerns is that there's no guarantee that if the rezoning is approved, that this applicant will remain the owner of the property. If the use is not introducing the nuisances to the neighborhood, there's no guarantee from the city. Once you approve a farm use, you're saying that farms can operate there regardless of their scale. Thank you.

Member Scheidler.

Thank you. I see on page 30 that there are two 40-foot shipping containers for chicken processing. So I'm assuming we have chickens. And if you look on page 29, we have some poultry. We have a poultry pasture and some other. So we have animals here. We have a barn equipment. I saw in your report that you did mention that there was a possibility that it would be negatively impacting the surrounding residential area. So that is in there, and I can't wait to hear your presentation, because I'm sure we'll have more questions. There was a meeting with the community Did we get feedback on that? I did not see it in here. Eddie, did you get any feedback on that?

Yes, we did receive it, and I can summarize it if that would be helpful. So that will be part of the applicant's presentation.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll move on to the application's presentation.

Thank you.

All right. So we have some letters and photos from the neighbors, history of the farm, because it has been a farm for over 25 years. It may not have been done properly, but the agriculture has been out there for over 20, 25 years.

If the clerk could get one as well, or the recording secretary.

Okay, so the first thing I wanted to show you guys here is the first two pages of this document. This is one of the requirements that we're required to have for our USDA loan to continue developing the farm, building out the barns, putting up fencing, all the agricultural facilities, right? We have requested these be signed as well as trying to get FPL to connect We have FPL overhead power on the property with the transformer out there as well We've been waiting about two months to actually connect that to the meter because of the current zoning or regulations for the city We have to go underground which is uh a dangerous um and a liable situation for us to go underground on the farm because of our crops and tilling and doing all the things that we do on the farm with with pasture um and row crops um so it would significantly put you know my employees um and equipment at risk um so we're we're requested to go overhead to connect our overhead meters And it's about 75 feet from, again, FPL's already over headlines that are already existing on the property. It's about 75 feet from that transformer. So we're requesting a waiver to be able to get that completed. But we have since been able to get any kind of confirmation from any development planning or anybody else to get those waivers in place to properly connect to power. So that's been... A little bit of an issue since we've been there. But I do want to go right ahead and talk about the history of that farm. The property, both my property and the property north of me, the total of 15 acres, has been farmed for over 25 years. There's been cattle on there, you guys, and horses. You've seen the photos there. Those are all from the neighbors in support of our objective here today. And then we have letters from our neighbors, and I have another one here on this documentation as well. um that show that our our local neighbors are all very interested in having the agriculture um our neighbor to the north uh that owns the other five uh seven and a half acres um he already had tried to apply to gu um and had gotten turned down about two years ago um i don't know staff i don't forget to leave that in their report Um, but the, they, he had, uh, jumped out of it. Um, Rogers didn't want to continue because it wasn't switching over to agriculture like he was requesting because there is no agriculture in the city of Ticeville. Um, so he ended up, I don't know if he didn't finish the paperwork or what have you, but he was too stressed to deal with the situation to go ahead and move forward like we are today. Um, but he is very interested in doing in the following step with what we are doing. So if we get approval here today or, you know, in this meeting or the next, he is very interested in following suit as well. So as far as that goes, I'll jump right in here. So the first two documents that you should have on the left-hand side are those documents that we have up here on the board. And that's the USDA document that's required for us to get the loans to continue building up the farm. THE NEXT DOCUMENT IS OUR CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS LEFT OUT OF STAFF'S REVIEW. WE HAD PROVIDED THAT TO THEM AND SAID THEY HAVE USED THE ONE THAT WAS ENTERED IN A WHILE AGO BUT HAS ALSO WAS WE ALREADY EMAILED THIS OVER AND THEY, I GUESS, DECIDED NOT TO PUT IT INTO THEIR REVIEW. BUT HERE'S THE CORRECT ONE. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND THIS IS THE OFFICIAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN. This shows that we show a 50-foot buffer, which is required for any GU facility. And then the other plan, but also this one, we do not intend to have any structures. This document here shows the pink outline on the PowerPoint. I know it's black and white on your guys' paper, so it's a little harder to see. That shows a 50-foot buffer all the way around the property. That second image kind of shows where our agricultural buildings are going to be, our pastures are going to be, our row crops are going to be. It is a mixed use of poultry, cattle, and horses on the property. And then we also plan to have sheep on there as well. But it's a small family farm. It is not a commercial farm. We do not intend to have any kind of commercial activity out there. It is a small farm. agricultural farm, like a micro farm is the better term for that. We don't do any more than two to 300 chicken and it's all raised on pasture. So they're constantly moving. There's no buildup of any manure or anything like that. We only plan to have five to six sheep. It's on seven and a half acres. That's more than enough room for six or seven sheep. And the same with cattle. We only have three cattle and they're miniatures. So miniatures take about, they only need about an acre and a half or a half acre to an acre per year is the recommended size for them. But rotating them with the chickens and the sheep, they are able to take care of the pasture in rotation, which also helps with the soil and permeability of the water in that area. Because that's also a big concern with a lot of the community, that there's a lot of flooding over there. Where the alternative, I think staff was interested in us doing, is putting 43 homes on the property, which is exactly opposite of what all of our neighbors want, as well as us. We do not want to do that because that's more unpermeable land, more driveways, more sidewalks, more foundations. Our farm really consists of very, very minimal, any kind of foundations. Our roads are gravel roads. There's no intention to have a cement or, I guess, a wash on the side of the roads. I'm not sure what that would be for on a farm. That's not necessary. We're just gravel roads, internal road. It's not a public access road. But yeah, so I don't know if you guys have any questions so far with this. I'm willing to take as much time as we need to go through these page by page, you know, if you guys need any, answer any questions here. Do we have any questions so far?

Member Graham? So when you say it's private and the egress, what are you doing for aprons? Because you've got employees that are staying there and they're going to be coming and going.

Right.

And you can't leave a gravel road straight onto a public roadway like that without protecting it.

So right now we have compact rock gravel going out to North Singleton Avenue. And that seems to be very capable of handling our traffic in and out. I don't see why that would be an issue there. We don't have heavy equipment or big trucks moving in and out of there. Again, it's a small farm, so it's not like a commercial operation where we're moving 10,000 chickens or hundreds of head of cattle. We just don't do that. So...

And then you've got people that will be staying there. What are you using for water? Are you using well water?

We already have a well and septic on the property. It's already been approved by the county. And then we intend to add another well at some point as well, too. And the city, that's a great point too. So I guess the original applicant that had transferred these properties, and then also it's kind of a misconception because it's not just the 15 acres. It was actually a larger sloth of about 350 acres that was annexed into the city at that time. It was the property across the street from North Singleton and then the 15 acres and I believe another property in town somewhere that totaled up to about 300 acres at that time. What the intent was was that they were trying to get the city to bring water and sewer to the property. And from my understanding, there's been two or three developers that have come to city council and planning and zoning to try to get water and sewage to connect to those properties. And the city has not been willing to pay for that. So I guess it's an exorbitant amount of money to bring power and sewage up to that for that type of housing development. So it's been pretty much unfeasible financially for the city to do that. So again, this is another reason where really the only usage that's capable here on the property is something that would be like agriculture or more of a community space kind of deal even.

So in this, you said you have cows and horses and sheep and pigs too as well?

No pigs. No, we don't do pigs.

And can the animals get within the 50-foot buffer zone that you got allocated there?

They can, which is a great point because I have two neighbors that are on the south side of me that are in the city of Titusville. When we first moved there, they were arguing between the two of them who gets to keep the water closer to their property because they wanted the horses closest to their house. which I thought was adorable. But yeah, so yeah, they can absolutely. It's pastured fencing, so they can go up to the properties, but they have no ability to go over to anybody's property. That's part of what we're trying to do with the loan. We're trying to get, right now there's barbed wire fencing, so the whole fence is perimeter fenced, but in order for us to get the whole thing fenced, we're trying to get loans in order to get that to a proper five-foot fence. fencing because it's just barbed wire right now and we would like to reinforce it and get it to a better standing and basically replace the fencing that's existing now. Member Seidler?

How are you keeping the chickens from going into the neighbor's yard?

So we clip their wings. It doesn't do anything. It's like cutting fingernails. So we clip their wings and that prevents them from flying over.

Okay, and the buffer zone, the 50-foot buffer zone, what exactly is the 50-foot buffer zone for then?

So the buffer zone is for structures that we don't have any mobile structures or permanent structures within that 50 foot buffer zone, right? Because that's like a general, that's a GU zoning restriction. So a lot of what agriculture is protected by is a lot of Florida statutes and green belt laws, which we already have with the DR 482. So we're already recognized as what the county and the state as agriculture. Um, the only port, uh, the only municipality that we're not is the city of Ticeville, um, which is not in line with the state, with the county and the state at the moment. Um, so that's why we're here doing this. We'd love to be zoned agriculture, but you guys don't have agriculture in your zoning. So, uh, which is another topic towards the end of this, what we'll talk about. But, um, I've been more than happy to go more into that. But, um, but yeah, so.

So when I look at your map, the one that you have up there and staff did provide it to us where, um, They made the mention of an RV.

Yeah, see, that's the problem. So they're using old documentation on their staff review that is not applicable. So there's no RV on that.

Where are you housing?

So the housing is not on there. So there's no RV on there. Right now, we're not doing any housing on there. It's all agricultural use buildings. We do intend to have a residence on the property at some point. Because we would like to stay on the property. But at the moment, we don't have anything on there that is like that. We have two offices on the property to be able to manage and watch the livestock. But we don't have any housing on the property at the moment. So, again, that was another misrepresentation on the staff review, unfortunately.

And on your map here, where are the roads coming in?

Um, the roads come in on the north and the south side of the property. Right now there's only one access point on the north, but we intend to have a second one. Um, because more of the public facing stuff that we would like to have more community involvement, like we're doing a corn mace and pumpkin patch. We've already started playing all the corn and the pumpkin. Um, so this fall, you know, we'd like to, you know, welcome you guys all out there. Um, yeah, but yeah, so we're, that's kind of like the area we'd like to build out of people park and build a, you know, they'll come out and enjoy the corn mace and pick some pumpkins.

And then I was looking at your pictures of the horses, and you said they've been on there for 50 years?

25 is what I mentioned. But those photos there are from, I believe, 2015 all the way to 2020 from the horses. And then there's like a Titusville MIMS Facebook page. Same thing there. People are posting all the photos that they had with all the cattle and horses that had been there on the property for years.

And you mentioned that they had these animals on there even though it wasn't zoned for them. Yeah. So they were doing it. What shall we say then?

Well, so the problem is that I think what we have.

Inappropriate use of property.

Well, maybe not because if they were zoned with the county, you guys would have never known. Am I incorrect? Yes. Because right now, this property was split back in 2017, and you guys are just now finding out that it was split. So to me, that tells me that staff is not doing what they're supposed to do or maybe should be doing some sort of annual review of the properties that you guys manage and handle.

I think it was split in 2004. Is that correct?

Yes. Original rezoning was 2004, but the actual split from 7 1⁄2 to 7 1⁄2, I believe it was 2017. So almost 10 years before you guys find out that that property was ever even split. So that ordinance of the whole 50 homes on the total 15 acres seems like that should have been done a long time ago before me presenting what I'm presenting now today, right? I don't think it should have been when I'm talking about rezoning that this is becoming an issue. To me, it just seems like that's a more of a mismanagement issue than it is for something I have to deal with when I'm trying to rezone, you know, versus something I should have taken care of back then.

But when you purchased the property, it was zoned R1B, correct?

Well, when I looked at the county records, it said it was agriculture, but it quickly switched over after I started asking questions. So the county had it agriculture, and then the city had it rezoned. I didn't even know I was in the city until the county told me, said, no, honey, you're part of the city of Titusville. Good luck.

And when did you find that out?

Uh, about two weeks after I went at that first document that I had with, uh, well, um, so Brevard County has their own, um, agricultural exemption documentation. Um, so I went to go fill that out and hand that into them and say, Hey, you know, I'm building all these buildings, putting up fencing, doing livestock, um, doing row crops and all these other things. Um, and they're like, Nope, we can't sign this. This isn't our property. So that's when I found out about two or three weeks after I bought property, you know,

Okay. Vernon, thank you.

Yep.

So you said when you bought it, you saw it was originally agriculture?

Yeah, the county had it logged as agriculture.

Was that logged on the property appraiser site and you were just clicking through or did you go to the county and talk to them before you bought the property?

On the website. Okay. But it quickly changed.

I do know that the website isn't always up to date and it's not the citizen's necessary responsibility of basing their buying off the website.

Right.

Make it as you wish. Any other questions?

we'll go continue on with the presentation. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. All right. So, um, kind of go into that, that last image there. So really it's, it's easier to look at the presentation. So like I said, it's black and white on your guys handout, but, um, the yellow areas are really where our, our ag buildings are. And the reason why I didn't put specific like blueprints down or, and just more make it like more general is because things will rotate. So a crop pasture may not always be, the crop pasture. I may run livestock over the crop, you know, to fertilize the land and do all the things there, turn it over, pull the weeds, you know, that kind of stuff. The chickens are great at doing that kind of deal. And same with cattle and horses and all that stuff. So those do change. The more consistent spots are going to be where the yellow areas are. We're plan to have an agricultural building closer to the road, and then our greenhouse to the north side. We also have a nonprofit organization that has two refrigeration containers there for food donation. So they're refrigeration containers that are used for food banks and food pantries that can store several thousand pounds of food on the property. I'm actually one of the board members of that nonprofit. So we do quite a bit with like churches and food banks and food pantries and that kind of stuff to support our local agriculture and people that are in need as well. And then the other yellow, which would be to the northeast, is all of our chicken processing facilities. So like everywhere where we clean eggs, we wash produce. We make secondary products from the eggs. We've got dehydrators, freeze dryers, packaging, all that fun stuff. That's all in those areas. And then our USDA office, because eventually we want to have a USDA eggshell processing permit. So that would allow us to also be able to sell to like local grocery stores and that kind of, right now we use a food or poultry permit through FDACS, which allows us to sell to the end consumer. So directly to restaurants, directly to homeowners, but nothing, we can't do anything like retail. So we would like to eventually be able to do to retail. Um, it's not a big part of our business. It's, it's actually easier for a do retail, but you know, we would like to be able to have that ability if we want to. So, um, but yeah, so that's another building there. It's for that. Um, and then the farthest yellow, which is actually in the pasture on the very first far South there. Um, that is for like our, it's all of our shelter, uh, for like cattle and, and sheep and that kind of stuff. But again, we don't even have the cattle and sheep out there right now yet. Um, and this are, you know, just future, uh, where we plan on having everything at. Access roads to the compact gravel, two main gates, west side of the property on North Singleton. Premier fence is already installed around the property. Proposed future farm housing, additional agricultural buildings are shown in conceptual plan. Anything that is for residential obviously would be something that we'd be permitting. All other agricultural buildings are typically not permitted, other permit exempt. But do you still have to follow strict guidelines for 50 foot offsets from other property lines, things like that. Is a low intensity regenerative operation. It does not propose intense commercial agriculture, feed lots, or industrial scale processing. That's absolutely something we don't do. And the undersigned, affirmed, and the layout of this conceptual plan is designed so that no poultry houses, mobile coops, stables, barns used for animals or similar structures will be placed within 50 feet of any property line in full compliance with Titusville LDR section 28-61C1 for agricultural pursuit in GU zoning district. Movable elements will be managed to maintain the setback at all times. So yeah, that completes that one. Okay, so this is the fun part.

So I'm going to move on to explanation of operations. We kind of went into some of this stuff.

Oh, this is our DR42, and I was just reading from that page there. And then, okay, explanation of operations. We're an organic, sustainable farm. Moving from Loxahatchee, we've already been in operation for over eight years. So this isn't our first rodeo. There you go. No pun there. West Palm Beach, we have been in operation since 2017. As a bona fide farm through the state and counties, our farm outputs are herbs, citrus, fruit, vegetable, eggs, and fruit. We use low-density, sustainable pasture practices to maintain a healthy environment for both animals and the community. Our livestock include two horses, about 100 to 300 poultry, and I got 200 in there, but it's just about 300, three to four miniature cattle, and six sheep. We plant crops, fruit trees with the pasture animals to provide shade, buffer, and nutrient support for both animals and plants. For our pastures and crop areas, we use rotational grazing to maintain healthy soil development as we increase the topsoil and depth of beneficial biodiversity of the land. our waste management. For the past eight years, we have never used more than two standard trash cans for our operation. And that includes just once a week pickup. This includes agricultural activities, day-to-day operations. As we explained, we could potentially request a smaller dumpster if necessary, but that would be beyond the foreseeable future. Rinsing and cleaning produce eggs has very little water use since we use bubbler washers for the produce and we have roll-away egg connections. collections. We also follow all requirements regulations to maintain our live shark poultry operation permit regulated by the FDAC's Florida Department of Agriculture Consumer Services, which also include the need for food permit. We, in the future, we would like to work with USDA eggshell processing as I mentioned. And these are guidelines for handling food safely, facility management, and we currently use less than 120 gallons per week. to wash, rinse, and package our produce eggs, which has a negligible impact on any kind of septic system or any surrounding systems. Like I said, it is not a commercial farm. Traffic concerns. The average expected daily visitors on the farm is projected to be less than 10 people. We don't typically have people come out on the farm. We do deliveries. We do stuff where we go out to the restaurants. That's the typical day-to-day operation. We go out and deliver twice a week. We don't have, it's not a Publix or Sprouts or anything like that. We don't have people just coming in and out of the farm. That's just not how it operates. And you don't want that either because that can cause issues on the farm. You have livestock get out. People start to do things that aren't necessary. So that's just not a small farm operation. Parking is located on the southwest corner. The farmer previously mentioned staff meetings. This will not have impact on any local transportation. So you have to site plan for concept for parking location. I did have that back on this one. So there's a pink area on that one photo, on the second photo there. That's labeled parking. That's where we anticipate having parking at. Again, if we have people coming in, that's really typically where there's another little spot for parking on the north side. So we'd like to do crops there and figure we'd be able to get people in and out that way as well. So again, very minimal traffic in and off the property. We do not have regular heavy equipment, large truck deliveries at any time, high value, low volume farm operation that does not need regular large inputs. We do not use operate heavy machinery for our day to day farm operations. We all follow local noise ordinances during all farm activities. is our farm does not participate in the heavy truck loads or heavy deliveries of trucks. This is small scale livestock farm again. The proposed farm will be less traffic than current zoning density that has been mentioned multiple times. the staff with the 43.5 homes. Again, the amount of traffic that that would have versus what we're doing is completely negligible. And then light pollution and noise and all the other stuff. And then not to mention the drainage issues that that area is having to begin with. The more driveways and sidewalks and foundations are just gonna create more of that problem. Um, uh, almost exclusively causing by high density concentrated animal, uh, not micro scale pastures. Uh, those are not no odors from our farm as we use pasture practices. Um, there is no dust, there's no dirt on our farm. It's all pastures. Um, that prevents any odors. Um, and again, we're moving everything all the time. And another point that like, we do have people come out on the farm. We want people to come out. We don't want smells. We don't want it to be a nasty place. That's just silly. You don't go to a restaurant and they don't, I mean, you go to a restaurant and they have a dirty bathroom, tend to not want to be like, okay, how's the kitchen look, right? So we don't intend to have anything like that at our farm. We keep things clean. We keep things neat and well-maintained. That's also important for the health of the animals and for our crops. Low density farming does not create any nuisance noise, dust, pastures, grass equals no dirt, no dust. Our odor, this is an extreme opinion by staff that has no basis of documentation to back the opinion. There's no nuisance lighting used in these farm practices. We don't have lights on our farm. We don't do that. We'll be attracting mosquitoes and bugs on the farm if we have lights out there. We don't do that. So there's definitely no light pollution. And again, we don't use heavy equipment. There's nothing for us to do there. Health and safety would be a positive impact by creating an organic product that have high health values, improve welfare of the community. Studies of interactions with livestock have also been proven to improve mental health for veterans, adults, children, and people with disabilities. So that's another big part of this community, right? That we're going to be able to have that impact and be able to provide those kinds of things too. Because we want to be able to invite the community out to be a part of our farm. We're not building a farm just for ourselves. We'd like people to take part of this as well. Our farm would reduce potential noise, light pollution from the current zoning, the 4.3.5 residential units per the R1B. Those units would create more noise, more pollution from heavy chemical, lawn fertilizers, auto runoff, more flooding issues for surrounding local residents because of more roads, sidewalks, general house foundations. Okay, so this was a staff comment that we had gotten. Rezoning does not meet criteria described in 34-40, the land development regulations. This recommendation is based on findings listed by the staff. Information evidence presents in accordance with the city charter, city Titusville Code Ordinance and Land Regulations, section 34-40 of the Code Adopted and Comprehensive Plan, provision chapter 163 and 166 Florida Statute. So the staff recommendation and denial on the request does not meet the criteria description of this. That conclusion does not identify which specification of criteria allegedly unsatisfied. For the record, the city should specify each subsequent of section 34-4 and claim to be unmet and the factual basis for each. UNDER CHAPTER 163 AND 166 FOR STATUTE, CITY COUNCIL DECISION ON REZONING IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF VALID AND WOULD BE UNPELLED IF SUPPORTED BY THE COMMITMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE RECORD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY WEIGH IN EVIDENCE DIFFERENTIAL AND STILL ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 34-40. OF COURSE, THAT JUST MEANS THAT YOU GUYS CAN VOTE OVER WHAT THE STAFF WROTE. The record demonstrates that GU rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals to preserve agricultural land and support local food production. That's Florida statutes and that falls under that 163 and 166. It is more compatible with surrounding rural agricultural uses than residential zoning and reduces conflict by aligning zoning with the property's actual use as a bona fide farm, which it currently is under DR 482. So we already are a bona fide farm. So we are really looking here just to bring things in line with the county and the state. It serves the general welfare by providing local food, jobs, agritourism, and community benefits. Places less demand on public facilities than future residential development. Conforms to the state purpose of GU districts. And all five of those bullet points are part of the 163 and 166 that staff had mentioned that we had missed on that. So I just wanted to reiterate that. The 163 and 166, we actually did meet all those codes. And this further goes down that, I won't go into all these, but here's the Florida Statutes, Chapter 163. And this, again, it just highlights from those sections the importance of agriculture in the state and the counties. And it goes over the 163. So, again, Florida Statute, Chapter 1. I have a question for you, sir.

Thank you. How many jobs?

We anticipate to have three to four full-time employees and maybe one or two part-time.

Are you... Are you residing on this farm?

Not at the moment. We plan to.

So do you plan on building a dwelling?

Yes. And then that would all be regular zoning. So the Florida statutes protect agriculture for agricultural use buildings only. But as soon as you go to live in something, that's where you have to do normal zoning and regular permit process, all the rest of that stuff.

Okay. Member Trotman?

I have a question for you on the plan that you've submitted right now. You're asking for dwelling in the future. Right. But you're submitting this as a concept plan, master plan?

Right now it's a concept plan. We're still trying to get over this hurdle so we can get the paperwork filed for getting the loans and getting those things done and be able to make a little bit of money farming. before we can move into doing anything residential at this time. Eddie, question for you.

Is this a binding concept? Is a concept plan a binding, like this drawing? So, like, say in the future, if something were to happen, this were to move forward by chance, and they wanted to come back and did this, a residential home on this. How does that play out? I'm kind of curious on that.

Sure. So this would be page 17 of the agenda. The second paragraph under limitations in GU zoning and binding concept plan. It says the applicant submitted a concept plan with the request, which is considered binding consistent with section 34-39 submittals, which states a conceptual plan voluntarily submitted will be deemed binding on an applicant, assigns heirs and successors in title or possession of the lot, tract or parcel of land. REQUESTS TO MODIFY THE CONCEPT PLAN OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED USE MAY BE EXECUTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN CASES WHERE THE MODIFICATION IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR MODIFICATION IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES MANUAL SECTION 633 MODIFICATIONS CLASSIFICATION TABLE. SO IN SHORT, IT IS BINDING. they're proposing a new use that would typically be a major change and the concept plan would have to come before planning and zoning yet again but I did want to back up and state that the concept plan that is on page you give me just a minute there's a lot to this agenda packet tonight page 29 is the concept plan that was originally submitted and what the staff report is based off of The applicant mentioned that they didn't see the revised, that they had submitted a revised concept plan and that it had not been submitted in the agenda packet. And I did want to clarify that it was starting on page 50 is the rebuttal and the new concept plan that was shown is in your packet on page 54. So what the applicant intends to do is remove the number of items that are on the concept plan in order to grant them additional flexibility. However, the applicant requested that this application be expedited. It was originally scheduled to come before P&Z on October 21st, and we were able to expedite it to tonight. And in doing so, we were not able to revise the staff report based on the three new concept plans that were submitted on pages 50 through 59. So I believe that is their intent is to abandon the original concept plan on page 20, was it 22? and instead go with those new concept plans between pages 50 and 59.

And so if they go forward with the concept plans that they have on 50 through 59, where I'm showing on page 58, the one that he shows in the demonstration right here, that doesn't show for a future land use of a residential. So that would be a major change that he would have to come before us again or whatever the process is again. to get a section of that land, then try to get a section of that land to be residential?

That's possible. There may be some Florida state exemptions that apply, but if not, then yes, that would be a major modification that would require a revision to the concept plan.

Okay. And then question, this might be for legal. Has this property ever been classified as agriculture land as per 193.461?

Currently, as of this year, 0.15 acres is classified for apiary bees by the property appraiser's website, which is 2% of the property.

Okay, was it agriculture previously county-wise before it got annexed into the city?

I'm not sure about that information, but as far as the applicability of Chapter 193, whatever the current designation by the property appraiser would be what controls.

Okay, the reason why I ask is under, you know, The Greenbelt tax classification, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the local government may not adopt or enforce any ordinance regulation. Like if a land is classified as agricultural land, I'm trying to figure out if it was classified as agricultural land at some point, and if it was, and if the city came in, like got annexed to the city and then they changed it to zoning, does this law, I guess, state that, no, at that time they couldn't because I guess it's saying that, They may not adopt or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy that prohibits, restricts, regulates, or otherwise limits an agritourism activity on that land. I guess I'm trying to figure out if that was ever the case. And then, again, in annexed. And then they zoned it for residential, but did they have the right to zone it for residential if it was at like a Greenbelt tax class?

So are you looking at Florida statute 570.85 that you're reading from?

I guess this would be from his document from 193.461, the land classified as agriculture land. And that would be under the, where is it at here? agriculture classification.

So I think regardless of which statute we're talking about, any of the preemptions contained in chapters 823, 570, or 163 don't apply to zoning or rezoning. They're activity-specific preemptions. So at any time, whether the whole property or none of the property is designated under 193 as agriculture, zoning is still within the authority of the city.

Gotcha. And, Member Troutman, I have additional information that might be helpful to that point. I reached out to the Brevard County Property Appraiser's Office and received some correspondence about some history specific to the property, and they explained that in 2020, the parcel was created as a result of a split and was assigned the property use classification vacant residential land, single family, unplatted. This classification remained in effect through 2025. In 2026, the property use classification was updated to 6730, which is Bees Honey Farm. And that's from Mr. John Sassala, the agricultural classification analyst at Brevard County Property Appraisers Office.

Okay. No, I appreciate it. I was just trying to get some clarification, I guess, on that and make sure that something wasn't slipped off. we're not missing something from a while back that should have never been restricted, I guess. I was just trying to understand that a little bit. But I appreciate it. Thank you.

Yeah, and I've also reached out to John Salas as well. I have not heard back from him, but I've been trying to get the records of both my property and the property north because before the split, the parcel number was the property north to me. as one parcel number. So I've been trying to find out, you know, if it was ever DR 482 or 428 on either one of those properties. So I'm just kind of waiting to hear back on that. But, you know, it has been used as agriculture for, so like I said, whatever the neighbors have been telling me so far has been over 25 years. So there was cattle and then there was horses and then there was cattle prior to that. So it has been used as agriculture, so.

I'll just add it. I like the idea. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea. I think where there's quite a bit of hiccup at is with the animal side of things. If it was just farming or something like that, I think it's a little bit more palatable. But when you start throwing agriculture in there and you have houses and single-family homes right next to it, I grew up on 20 acres in Oklahoma. Cows get out of fences. They do. That's why we eat so many cows. So there might be some hesitation because of situations of that nature. I can't not be ignorant to that because I've been around it. That would be where I would say that. Personally, for me, that's like where probably some of the road bumps are. Okay.

Yeah, and so there's a little bit of misconception of how much is residential around us. So there is residential on the east side and the south side. Everything else is either conservation or agriculture everywhere else. So that was one of the things that I had mentioned here. So facts about the property. There is an existing well, barn, septic, mobile office on site. The property has been used for agriculture over 25 years for horse and cattle, per the adjoining neighbor to the north as well. This has been confirmed by neighbors both to the south and to the east of the property. Development has always been infeasible by the city. The city will not connect water sewer lines to either properties. City records indicate multiple attempts to request water and sewer, which were all denied. Other similar land near the farm. So this is a list of all the parcels. This is the this document here. All right, so that one there to the right, that lists all the properties that are either mixed agriculture use, have cattle on them, or are conservation easements. These are all within 1,400 feet, 1,200 feet. So these are all right there. But on the staff's report, they conveniently cut off the stuff to the west and to the north of the property.

Yeah, no, no, no. No, yeah, I know that the area there is pretty... It's very rural. Rural.

Yeah. Literally, my property is the most north than you can be in the city of Ticeville, without a question. Right. Like I said, I...

I like the idea. I like the idea that there might be some kind of ag that people within the city could come and visit and see animals and stuff like that and be around that and learn that and the gardening, the farming, sustainability. I implore you for all that because those are things that hit home for me. But when you start thinking about a city and the people around it, then you have to start thinking of a lot more larger ordeal. And it's like I'm trying to grasp my mind around how would we make this work because I would like to see something like this.

Well, I think your main concern there with animals getting out, I think that's a pretty easy solution. So we don't use large cattle and I don't use goats. I've had my share of goats and large cattle. I'm good. Yeah. So for here we're using miniature Highlanders. I don't know if you guys seen those things on social media, the big fluffy things. They're about this tall. They, they have short little legs. They don't jump very high F at all. Um, I have seen a cow clear four foot fence, but we're also doing a five foot fence around the entire perimeter cause also have great Pyrenees. Um, and they're known to climb and run and do all the other things. So I have to have a five foot fence and the chickens as well. Even with clip wings, I could still, you know, they could get up to a four foot fence, So those are the kind of measures that we take to prevent that. And again, it's one of those things that's like, I think that that concern is definitely there. We don't want to be a nuisance. We want to be able to provide an ability for the community to come out and interact with the agriculture and farming and to be able to have that biodiversity. So for us to mismanage or do any of that kind of stuff would negatively affect what we're doing. And I don't want to do that, obviously, right? So I think that kind of things can definitely be easily addressed. But we have to get through this part so I can get the loans to get it done.

And I understand that 100%. But I guess where I'm trying to get at is, like, I know that you're trying to get this done.

Right.

And... You know trying to get a lot of buy-in on it like Sometimes some things take just a little time I think Regrouping back with staff and stuff like that. That's just my personal opinion just like really refine this But we've been to three meetings and the people that wrote this report.

We're not at any of those meetings So we don't know what that's I guess Meetings, what meetings? I've had three staff meetings. The only one of them were the people that wrote this report there.

So who's, I guess, who's writing the report then?

That's erroneous at this point.

Doesn't matter. So we have a report for us, but this is what it is. These are just my observations. And like I said, I... like the idea of it, so.

Yeah, so, and then, so the other part of like, and this kind of goes into that next section here, is the sustainability for the community. So City of Titusville has enacted a sustainable action plan. And on page 45, it talks about pilot an agricultural program on public land. But then it also talks about amending zoning codes to permit urban agricultural uses. So where are we with that? And what, I mean, this falls perfectly in line with that. So I'm not understanding where, you know, we'd have any hiccup there. If we're going to rezone things to bring into the city, those are going to be the same things that you're going to have in the city. And we do have farms in the city kind of like scope that are part of the county. But they're, you know, somehow they're grandfathered in and didn't get, you know, pulled into the city. So it's not like I'm the only farm in the city. Yeah.

Yeah, actually a quick question. So I know that there's a farm up north by Dixie Road or area somewhere up there. They do blackberries and stuff like that. Right. Are you familiar with that location by any chance?

Not that specific location, but I did want to clarify because the statement was made earlier. that the city does not have an agricultural zoning. And that's correct as far as a zoning district having the name agricultural, but we do have the general use zoning district that the applicant is requesting that does allow agricultural pursuits.

With restraints? I'm sorry? With restraints.

Oh, with limitations?

Yeah, limitations. Sorry, not restraints, but yeah, same thing.

Yeah, there's only one line in that code. It just says general use agriculture pursuits, and then everything else is left blank. So there's not a lot of information in that section. So it does say limitations, but there's no specification to any limitations. Okay. But again, we still would always follow zoning requirements like setbacks and things like that. And then anything that's non-agriculture, like residential buildings, which to that point is why I wanted to bring back to that. I don't know if I had mentioned that. You had asked about the future of putting a house on there. So our conceptual plan does have residential in there. It's in the verbiage. It's not on the actual photo. So in the verbiage there, there's a section... hop right back there. I'm just going to jump right back and then we'll keep going. Sorry, guys.

You might want to just show some consistency in that a little bit so that nobody gets confused in that.

Again, we don't have a blueprint or anything yet. We're not there yet, right? It would be kind of... it'd be naive for me to put something together like that now and then get myself pigeonholed, you know, and saying, okay, now this is exactly where the house has to be. Right. So, um, but in this writing here, it does state, I can't write it from there. Um, before you go on, I just want to make a comment.

I want to echo a lot of what Mr. Troutman said. I think this is a neat concept and all that. Um, but I do think you just said it yourself of, um, You haven't nailed anything down yet, which I totally understand, but it's kind of hard for us as a board to really make a decision on something when you don't even have a firm concept of what you're doing. I think we're all in agreement it's a cool concept and we want to see it succeed, but I kind of want to echo Mr. Troutman. I'd love to see you go back with staff and kind of nail some of these things down and come back to us. What kind of detail would you like to see on it? I've just heard a lot of inconsistencies from your presentation of one minute you said this is just for us, there will be no community, and a couple minutes later you're like we want the community involved and all that, which I would love to see as well. So I've just seen a few inconsistencies. Myself, I just want to see you just dot the I's, cross the T's on everything. Right.

So the property is owned by us, right? But it's a business still. It's agriculture. It's a business. So we're still going to have people on the farm. So I don't know if that clears that up a little bit there. So on that page, it says yellow section, agricultural buildings. It's the central east agricultural building section. It says ag storage, well, office, and future farm housing area. So that's why I've defined that there. And again, you know, for me to give you house plans and do all that stuff at this time is I don't think is appropriate. So that's kind of detail that you're looking for. I don't I don't think that's no, I'm not there yet.

It's just that when you write for I'm sorry. It's just when you present a concept plan, it is binding. It says it in the verbiage that it becomes binding. And I want to make sure that you're aware of that so you don't get bound to a thing that you would like to have opened up. for later.

I'm pretty comfortable with the way it's laid out right now because it is more general than it is like specific to like, this is where each cornerstone is going to be. Um, it just kind of gives like a layout of like, Hey, these are where that, cause if you come out to my farm, a lot of stuff's already there. It's already there. We already have stuff in place. Again, we're an operating farm. By the county and state, we are a legitimate DR-482 farm, bona fide farm. We're literally here just trying to make sure you guys don't have any legal issues or anything like that going forward because there's a lot of state protections and laws that protect what I'm doing versus if I'm being held up to not be able to connect my power or getting my USDA paperwork not signed. That becomes a legal issue at that point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Eddie, or illegal, I'm sorry. We've had a situation before where somebody was annexed in or was going to become annexed in and they were trying to get water kind of thing. Even though we denied the annexation, they're not denied water or something. They go back to the county and they request that, I believe. Isn't that what was I believe it was stated in the situation we just had recently in a couple of meetings ago.

I believe the application you're speaking of was a single family home that wanted city utilities, wanted city water and city sewer. And the code requires that in order to petition the city to request those services that you apply for annexation. It's a little bit different from this request because the property is in the city limits and they're not asking for city utilities.

Okay, so it's not like they can't request to have services, not like that situation from the annex, all right. A little different.

So, and that kind of brings us to the next point here too, where, you know, I get a lot of the stuff is trying to do legal dodgeball and trying to prevent all this stuff. Well, there's attorney general opinions on this agricultural matters. So there's three main points here. I'm not going to read through each one of these, but rezoning to GU aligns local rules with state laws and reduces legal exposure. If the city keeps parcel residential while you operate as a farm, neighboring complaints, nuisance complaints, right to farm act, that's a direct violation of that Florida statute. Attempts to regulate agritourism, preventing me from being able to get things done or like being able to put up a barn or agricultural building, that's direct violation with the 57.85. And then possible Barrett-Hair claims if regulation severely diminishes value. especially in light of agricultural 2026 stance on agricultural ag restrictions. Did I interrupt you on that? Go ahead.

Well, you've mentioned a couple times that there is maybe some legal actions going on that you're already farming.

No, no, I'm not. There's nothing.

Because of Brevard or the county that you're considered a farm or you're considered agriculture?

Yes. A bona fide farm at the moment. That's correct. Yep.

But they're not the city.

Right.

Right. So for here, you are.

State supersedes city and county.

Pardon me?

State supersedes county and city.

Is that true? To the extent a conflict exists, yes, but I don't know if there's been any demonstration that a conflict exists at this time.

What would the conflict be?

So I know there's kind of a lot of statutes flying around here. There's preemptions in three different Florida statute chapters dealing with agritourism or farming activities, but essentially the BIG PICTURE WITH ALL THREE OF THEM AND MOST OF THEM TRACK ALONG THE SAME LANGUAGE IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE STATE ARE PREEMPTED FROM DUPLICATING REGULATIONS ON ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OR OTHER RULES ADOPTED UNDER CHAPTER 120 OF THE FLOOR STATUTES BY DACS. only on portions of the property that are designated AG by the property appraiser. In this case, the 0.15 acres that's designated for bees. And as far as conflict under that section, if you look in Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5B, which is what deals with apiary stuff, there aren't any outlined best management practices, really the only restrictions in there as to apiary practice is certain locations of managed honeybee colonies so to the extent city ordinance is conflicted with that you might run into preemption issues but nothing else we've discussed here tonight would be okay right and then uh clarify too that uh by january next year we'll we should be roughly about 100 percent agricultural with the county so all right member graham um

I echo pretty much what several people here are thinking. I mean, I applaud everything you're doing. I think it's great. I think it's great for the community. I question two things. Maybe the location. You know, if it was the property west, you know, you've got a street buffer, it might be a little bit more palatable that way. As far as a conceptual plan, from what I see, it's more or less a business. You've got parking and everything else. I know you haven't been to the building department or the planning department, but I'm sure they're going to have some difference of opinions on your access going into your property site because you've got people coming and going. They've got to deal with their safety.

Right.

I agree with several of the members here. Your conceptual plans maybe might need to be tightened up. I don't think anybody here is asking for detailed floor plans and that type of item, but it might have to be tightened up for some of us to... um maybe get a little bit more uh comfortable with this you know i worry that we're going to create you know we keep talking about the property owner to the north

um but you know how is that going to affect his property and what he may or may not be able to do with that you know especially that's right i talked about that at the beginning too about him wanting to do exactly what we're doing here today um but got frustrated and fed up with it because he got forced into doing general use versus going agricultural residential so i got then he had tried to get annexed out before that because he was frustrated with the city so And so this is before I think anybody else was here. So I tried to explain that to him. I was like, it's a different people.

No, I get you. And, you know, even if you had the total 15 acres, where it's the whole block, where you're not, hey, we just drew a line in the sand and this whole block here, potentially it might be a little bit more palatable as well. Right. We know that we're not creating an inconvenience or a problem for another person.

Right. But also, is that my responsibility or should that have been done when the property was split?

I got you. But it's not our responsibility that you bought a property that was not conforming.

Correct. But it shouldn't hinder me. But, you know, the lack thereof. Right. I got you. Somebody's mistake is not somebody else's emergency. So.

That's kind of what we're rolling into here.

But I appreciate the comment on it. What I would like to see is that if you guys have something that you want to see more details on stuff, then detail that, right? Give me what you would look for, and I'll be happy to correct those areas of concern. But right now, I think it's been pretty vague about will we see more detail. I haven't really been able to address that. And I was able to address the cattle thing pretty quickly, things like that. But if you have things that you're asking for, more detail for, I would request that you provide those type of comments. I'm more than happy to provide my email and all the other stuff so you can send me that stuff, what you would like to see. Again, I'm here to work with you. I don't think it's something that I'm here on the behalf of the community and us to be able to work together synergy-wise. Again, we're already zoned, and then by January, the whole property is going to be a bona fide farm. It's only partial now, but it will be the whole thing by January. You know, unfortunately, we didn't buy the property December 31st. The rest of the whole thing would be if we weren't going to be talking about .45.

How in January does that occur?

Because that's when the appraisal comes out to do the appraisal of the property for the current zoning or current usage of the property.

So the property appraisal.

took place in January this year. So we were leasing the property in December and we had the bees on there, but we were in the process of purchasing and didn't close on the property until February. So because we didn't have our chickens, horses, all the other stuff on the property January 1st, we were not able to utilize that. We were harvesting the blackberries on the farm, but they didn't recognize the blackberries for some reason, even though that was half of the property.

So, but the property is zoned RV1?

With the city. That's totally different. It's two different zoning. So city zone is one thing, but county and state for tax exemptions and things like that are two separate things.

How does that work?

Eddie, can you share anything on this for us?

Yeah, so the city controls the land use designation and zoning designation. Those are entirely city land use controls that we are able to assign or change on any property within our municipal boundaries. Tax classifications are handled by the property appraiser. So the property appraiser can either designate property as agricultural or non-agricultural under Chapter 193. So they're distinct concepts. Whatever the underlying zoning is is controlled by the city, and the property appraiser annually determines if the property or a portion of the property is agricultural or non-agricultural.

And that's for taxing purposes only, correct?

Correct.

So, um, and I got, I got two more pages here that would like go over, just kind of clarify some more stuff here. Um, but that, yeah, that's our DR 42, which, you know, puts us into the green belt laws.

Um, let's see here. One more.

All right, so general use zoning district matches the district purpose of the site. Reality is DR section 283321A statute. The GU is created for areas where urban services are not presently available and intended to retain such land pending the proper timing of economic provision public services. Staff acknowledges that water sewage and reclaimed water are unavailable without main extensions. The city has no plans to fund and has previously refused residential development under R1B. Therefore, no practical feasible other than GU is appropriate designation for this property. Agricultural classification history and state preemption. The property carries a BCPAO agricultural classification 6730B honey farm. And it has documented history of agricultural use of horses and cattle for more than 25 years. Florida Statute 163.61, I'm sorry, 3162, Agricultural Land and Practices and 823.14, Right to Farm Act, strictly limit local governments and authorities to prohibit, restrict, or regulate bona fide farm operations on agricultural classified land when those activities are governed by state, BMP, and federal standards. which is what he just mentioned there too. Speculative claims of noise, odor, dust, pests, light, inherent nuisances are preempted or unsupported by low-intensity pasture-based operations. This is kind of going over some of the stuff here that they talked about earlier. Policy 1.1, compatibility and cooperative impacts. Policy 1.1.4.4 requires consideration of existing or proposed uses of low stock density pasture farm with poultry bees, limited livestock and produce generates substantial less traffic, chemical runoff, impermeable surfaces and residential scale pollution that the theoretically 43 dwelling plus units would possibly under the R1B. Surrounding context includes the vacant residential zone land without city utilities, non-unhabitable structure to the north, and existing agricultural land further to the north as well. The proposed use is compatible. Consistency with the city goals. Again, we talked about we have a sustainability plan here. It falls right in line with that. And that was enacted in 2023. The northern property owner is willing to pursue the compatible agricultural use. The existing structure there is already classified as unsuitable for occupancy. Now, the rezoning is consistent with low-density residential future land use via the land use zoning matrix, fulfills the purpose of GU district, and is the only realistic path forward given the absence of the urban services. Without the services, you can't have the houses there anyway. So I don't know why we're even, we should just be just sending it over to GU regardless of whether I'm here or not, I think, because there's no other use for it there at this time. Go ahead.

Just to update you on that, if somebody's got a property that is zoned currently and they're a developer, and in this particular case, there is some stuff there as far as water and sewer, but in the case of the water, it's a flow issue. Right. So we have a local restaurant that was on city well, our well water. And whenever he renovated it and turned it into Victorio's, they paid to bring the water up the street and and. Once they were done and completed, they got city water. It's just part of it. Right, right. So anybody else that has these neighboring properties as owners or developers, if they so that they want that and the zoning meets what they're trying to do, it's not uncommon for them to bring that line up the street. They just have to pay for it.

Right. So the city would never pay for it is what you're stating.

The city doesn't have to pay for the development. I'm talking about the person that has the property. They have to pay for the development.

Right. And there's no way the city would ever pay for it financially to bring the city or whatever up there?

Not normally unless they desire a need or some kind of emergency situation, they would do it.

Okay. Perfect. The city council indicated support for creating agricultural use opportunities in Titusville. The northern property owner is willing to pursue this as well. The alignment with adaptive sustainability went over that. Which community has it really tied? I don't know if farm demonstrates all these in that SAP. Regenerative practices that build soil, capture carbon, support biodiversity, reduce resilience on external inputs. We would never need it. And oh, I don't know if I mentioned this either. So you mentioned about not having like goals and all the setup for these plans. One of the things that we're looking forward to doing too is making that property a forever farm so it can never be developed. That usually typically means that it has to stay and remain agriculture for over 100 years. So... So that's really important. So no one can develop it. And we want to make sure that that stays like that. We're already losing enough agriculture in the state of Florida. I don't know if you guys are familiar with it. We used to be one of the largest dairy producers in the entire country. We have not been since the 90s. And we have lost over 80% of our farmers over the last 20 years due to development. So it's been an issue across the state. I came from Palm Beach County and it's the county and the state or the county and municipalities have been selling off for what's supposed to be agricultural land for 50, 80 years. They've been selling that off to developers in exchange for wetlands that aren't farmable. So to do my part in that aspect, I'm planning on making this a forever farm as well to make sure that they can't be developed in the future. So the community will continue to be able to enjoy that side of things as well. So.

Thank you. I have more of an observation and a comment in your report. You say here that the animals kept on the farm have less noise than a residential cat or dog. Yes. 300 chickens are definitely a lot noisier than a cat or a dog.

So you would think so, but they're actually not. I've had six chickens, and guess what they do?

Right. Well, that's a rooster.

All hours of the day.

And you are bordered by 20 homes here. Right. So that's not a cat and that's not a dog.

And I can tell you this right now. Every one of my neighbors that border my farm are 100% for what we're doing. Are they here? Yes, I actually do have two of my neighbors here. So they're here. And you guys have the letters that I've been receiving as well. There's several Facebook posts now about all this happening as well. So I can invite 50 people, but maybe four or five people actually show up. So... And this is only the hearing one, right? So I think most of the people wanted to show up for the one on the 22nd for the actual vote. So not to say that you guys are not important. You are very important.

I think your idea is wonderful. And I think when I'm looking at your property key items here, that you have two 40-foot shipping containers for... Chicken processing facilities that are already built. You have another two 40-foot shipping containers. One is an office. One is for storage poultry processing. That's already built. You have a poultry barn that is 60 feet by 36 feet. That's already built, and you're disassembling and rebuilding it. You have an office building, which is 10 by 20. I'm sure it's not 10 inches by 20 feet.

Is that from the document provided by staff, or was that our document?

This is on page 30. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, that document is not accurate, unfortunately, so it's misleading.

So currently then, according to what you've submitted, there's nothing on there but a 50-foot?

No, so there is shipping containers on there now because we built those at the old farm, knowing that we were leasing that property at that time, so we knew eventually we were going to move. So we didn't put permanent structures. We did everything mobile.

Okay, and the concept that I'm gathering from you is you are actually moving all of these structures around the 7.5 acres and...

So the chicken coops and like the mobile livestock stuff, yes. But for the most part, I think the containers and stuff are going to stay where they are. It could be like the containers aren't meant to be a fixed structure. So if, you know, five years from now we decide to move things a little bit like 20 feet one way because we need to, you know, have another little spot for baby chickens or whatever, you know, that makes that feasible for us to do that. Yeah.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Seeing none. Yeah, I think I got everything. Oh, this was our community meeting engagement meeting. So and then again, we've been walking around talking with neighbors and kind of informing everybody about what's happening. Again, the The sentiment has been actually amazing. You know, I was always nervous that I might have like one or two that are going to be like, oh, absolutely not. Right. The biggest concerns were, you know, are you guys going to have hogs out there? You know, because people are familiar with commercial farming. Right. That's not us. We are not commercial farming. I haven't done that since day one. And I'm not about to do that tomorrow or in 10, 20 years, 30 years, 100 years. It's just not it's not suitable. You know, again, you'd have to be out somewhere super rural to do stuff like that. And it's bad practice anyway. I don't know. Member McDaniel?

Yes. Mr. Dunlap, you've mentioned quite a few times that you have support from your neighbors. Approximately, what is the length of time that the neighbors have lived in that community or in the area that you're- I think those houses were built in the 50s.

Most of them, because I have gotten a lot of comments about like, oh yeah, we remember when there used to be cattle back here. I've gotten all sorts of stories about cattle and things that I'm not going to mention here. But I've gotten all the stories and all the things that people have talked about since early 2000s. Some of these people have grown up in these homes, and they're second generation in the homes. But that's a pretty majority of that area in general. That demographic is people that have lived in these homes for 15 to 20 years. I mean, there's exceptions, of course, like there's rentals and things like that. But it's a very tight-knit community. and have been for generations in that area in general. But yeah, and the other side of this too is, you know, this property is so far north and we're so far, like we literally are the furthest, other than that property right north, I mean, the other seven and a half acres, we're the farthest north that you can possibly be. So we're almost in hymns. And half of my neighbors are part of the county, not part of the city. So everything on the east side of me is all part of the county. The only neighbors that are actually in the city are the ones that are south. I mean, excluding that vacant property that's over there on that side as well. There's nobody there. It's wetlands over there, too. And then just on the other side, it's all conservation easement. So I mentioned I'd bring up the meeting, the community engagement meeting that we had. Thank you. So I kind of combined the actual meeting and then the... are walking around talking with community members because there wasn't a whole lot of people that showed up because we already had the conversations with people just walking around talking to our neighbors right um so most of the meeting notes i got a couple of different ones here everyone was excited to have a farm near existing farm to be active again. This property has always been used for agriculture for, again, that was the comment just told to me over and over and over again, 20 to 25 years.

Excuse me for just a second. I just wanted to add for the committee or commission members that the document is in your agenda star in case you wanted to read along with the comments. In the agenda star on the desktop, if you need help, I can, or Lori's coming around now. She can help you get to it. But that document is in the agenda star.

Yeah. Everyone find it? Lori's saving the day again.

All right. So I think I read off the first two. So jumping into the third one, they don't want more development in the area. That was very clear. Nobody wants the homes there. The idea that there's going to be 43 homes on the property, everyone was just kind of like, absolutely not. We're not going to go for it. So that was very, very apparent. Nobody wanted it. And then because there's so much drainage issues in that area specifically, like when you go east of Kirby, It was one of the questions that got brought up by one lady. I didn't catch her name, but she was there, and I got her and his neighbor off Kirby Street, more than 500 feet from the farm, but she did ask about this question about impacts to existing flooding issues, and this was addressed by explaining the pastures help absorb water. and positively impact existing water issues in the area. I mean, it's definitely going to have an impact. There's study after study of how properly managed pastures help absorb and retain the water and be able to funnel it down into the aquifer versus letting it wash out. because our fruit root systems are larger, our trees, because we're going to be planting a bunch of trees and buffers and bushes and things around the property as well. So that's going to be another impact for absorption of the water. So we're going to have a positive impact in that area for the flooding. Question about pavement roadways, not permeable. Again, that was the same thing, because we're not going to have any... non-permeable surfaces other than like if we decide to build a home, that'd probably be one of the only few spots where we're actually gonna have permeable land. So it'd be very, very minimal in that area. So we were able to address that. All drivable surfaces will only be permeable packed earth or general farm surfaces. More comments about not wanting development on the land. addressed by farming. Again, we're like, yeah, we're farming. We're not developing. Neighbors will advocate for sustainability and organic grow food. This is 100% how we farm. So that's how we've been farming and how we will continue to farm. sustainable and organic practices. We also did a walk around the neighborhood within 500 feet of farm houses to house to introduce ourselves and discuss the farm. There were no issues that were unable or unwilling to address. In summary, all the neighbors were excited to know that we were continuing the farm reparations on the existing farm land and are willing to advocate for us if necessary. So as you can see, I've already gotten letters and documentation from them as well. And then that last Here's a photo of the farm, the horses on the farm. Again, this, we're back from like 15, I think all the way back to 2015. And then here's two letters from my neighbors. There's pretty extensive letters here. But same thing, that everyone's happy to have us doing poultry and chicken and everything else, or poultry and horses and livestock on the farm.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant before we open the public hearing?

Is this letter, did we get a copy of that letter there?

It's in the packet. It's not that, again, the staff report is missing a lot of this kind of thing, so.

To clarify, I don't believe that that letter was provided to staff to put in the agenda packet.

Okay. I received, we got the two here and then the pictures.

Yeah, those were additional. I got those on the way here. Those are the only two that I didn't have.

That one's more lengthy. I was just curious to see what the neighbor said. Yep. Thank you.

Yep, absolutely. Thank you. Yeah. All right, so can I get a vote yes today?

We good?

We got to hear from public comments or cards first. All right, thank you. Do we have any cards, Lori?

No, sir.

All right. Then we will bring it back to the dais here and make a decision. Does anyone have any further questions for the applicant or staff or anything like that?

Mr. Troutman? Applicant to staff. I apologize. Question to staff. What kind of information would be binding or better to have, I guess, from the neighbor from the north as far as concurrency with wanting to do what they're wanting to do? I know right now it's just verbal and hearsay. With it not being platted separate plots, right? It's still platted as the 15 acres? I'm trying to make sure that the neighbor to the north retains his rights and things of that nature. If things were to go a positive route for this gentleman, what kind of thing would have to be in there for that individual to be protected as far as verbiage?

I think I heard your question is, are they unplatted, both seven and a half acre parcels?

Yeah, is it platted as the 15 acres? I know they subdivided it, but when they subdivide, does that mean that that 7.5 that he has now is platted as 7.5? Because you're saying right now anything that we try to do for zoning is going to affect the neighborhood in the north. That tells me that that property is bound to them still.

so both seven and a half portions the south which is the subject of this application and the north seven and a half acres uh do not have plats recorded on them plats would be dividing the property up carving it into lots uh with right-of-ways and easements for utilities and things like that so no there are no plats on either property

Is that something that needs to be done for them to be able to do what they need to do on their own property? Is the subdivision, is that good enough, I guess? Or is it needing to be a platted property and then go through that process?

Is your question, would they need to... rezone or could they just submit a plat? Speaking for the property owner to the north, the seven and a half acres, if the zoning ordinance that governs the total 15 acres is invalidated by a change to the south seven and a half acres, could the applicant submit a plat under the current zoning ordinance? And I think the answer is no. There would need to be a rezoning action or an administrative rezoning by council on that north 7.5 acres to clarify the remaining entitlements.

So if we were to push a motion forward of approval, then that property would get the GU as well added to their property? No. No. It would just stay to the 7.5 acres? It would.

It would not affect the property boundary, so the property area would remain the same for the north property and the south property. What would happen is the zoning on the south property would be changed to GU. The zoning on the north property would remain R1B, but have limitations that are not able to be applied because it's no longer 15 acres. And so we would need some clarification either by an administrative rezoning on council's part or an application for rezoning from that property owner in order to rezone to whichever district they prefer or to the R1B remain the same zoning and just remove any of the mentions to a 50-unit cap. Because the 15-unit cap that was adopted by council in 2004 was specific to the 15 acres.

All right. Okay. Thank you.

If the property owner to the north got rezoned to you, he'd be super happy. So if he had to do that and he didn't have to do anything, you guys just did it automatically because of what I'm doing, I guarantee he would be celebrating.

Any other questions, comments, motions, thoughts, comments?

Yeah, so, I mean, thoughts, you know, of course, I think we're all on board as far as, like, that we like this idea. This is something that would be, I think, beneficial for the community and things of that nature. I'm curious of what kind of specifics would we maybe possibly want to see. Like, I know that we want to make sure that the neighbor to the north would want to make sure that he stays, he has his rights still available to him to do what he wants to do on his property. I mean, personally, I'd like to see some kind of ag zoning or something that we could have some more definition on. And what does that look like? Is it a two acre to seven acre property? You know, I don't, we don't have a zoning thing that really kind of calls out what that, um, parameters are for ag. Um, I have 1.9 acres. Would that allow me to have ag? There would need to be parameters, I think. Do we have those kind of parameters? Because we don't have an ag zoning right now. I'm just trying to thumb through some stuff here. Like I said, I think we're all like we like this idea. I'm just trying to figure out how... How are we getting across the finish line?

Staff, what's your thoughts? Do you have your light on?

Just to address that, the general use zoning district is the only zoning district that permits agricultural pursuits. It has a minimum lot area of three acres. And for agricultural pursuits, as we mentioned, it's a permitted use with limitations. And that limitation... is in section 2861 and it reads in the general use zoning district buildings or structures used for dairy barns hog pens poultry houses and stables shall be no closer than 50 feet from any property line

So I'd ask for you, sir, what would you do to make sure that the poultry barns aren't 50 feet? What would you do to show if anybody were to come by and look at your property, they would be able to differentiate that clearly?

We can have a standard 50-foot ruler ready to go when someone wants to come take a look. No. But it is in the concept plan, and that's why we updated that to address that. that we show that there's the... Again, it's grayed out on your guys' area, but there is one of those photos that is pinked out for 50 feet all the way around.

No, I saw that buffer.

It shows a buffer.

I just didn't know if there was something that you were going to put like...

um tree lines or something yeah so and again that's why i didn't want to get super detailed because i don't want to pigeonhole us to like oh you have to have a fruit tree or no it has to be shrubs you know that kind of stuff right um but what our intent is is around that property line because in the pastures we do what's called paleo pasture um so we run poultry with the fruit trees and the shrubs and all the rest of that as well because it provides the shade and and nutrient value like if the fruits drop off the tree that's what chickens are eating that right Livestock's eating that. So it's beneficial both ways. And the chickens are grabbing nitrogen and all the other stuff. So we use those practices in that pasture as well. So we can't have them in the middle of the pasture. So they end up being on either shoulder of the pastures to create a buffer. I just don't want to get too detailed on it because it's like, okay, well, I still need the loan so I can go get all those things to put it up. Right. It's kind of the cart before the horse at the moment.

I'm just trying to like with the rules that are in place that are 50 feet, you know, it specifically calls out poultry barns. You are doing poultry. So I'm just trying to make sure that – something's in place that, you know, can be designated to show that those buildings or those structures stay outside that 50.

And that's what we intend to do. Again, we don't want to make any of our neighbors upset. We want to have them over and be able to have that community engagement stuff, right? So, yeah, no intent of trying to make anybody upset.

He does have a setback in compliance certification, part of his, on page 59. And it does... State that he will keep every any similar structures or barns coupes stables house mobile or whatever have you with within 50 feet of Will be placed within 50 feet of any property line. I'm sure Must have meant will not be placed within 50 feet and in full compliance with Titusville LDR section So he has that in there as well and With general use in agriculture, once we go GU, what are the limitations for agriculture?

That's the only one that's in that scenario.

Are you asking about the limitations, how it's a permitted use with limitations in GU?

Yes.

Okay, the limitation is in the general use zoning district, buildings or structures used for dairy barns, hog pens, poultry houses, and stables shall be no closer than 50 feet from any property line.

That's the only thing in GU, so then we can have, so once we do GU and then he goes to agricultural, basically the city is limited on the amount of, what we can say and what we cannot say in terms of what's permitted. It's, we have very limited say.

At that point, if the general use is approved in a bonafide farm is operating on the seven and a half acre property, uh, several state Florida state statute exemptions would apply that would preempt, uh, the city zoning code.

Okay.

Member Graham. Um, Regardless of what takes place here, just remember the folks over at staff, Eddie and them, if there's a path forward, they can help show you a path forward. I mean, they're good people. I mean, it's not an animostic thing. It's just you've got some loose ends here that I think maybe need to be tightened up. in order for a lot of people to be a little bit more comfortable with it. And I think you got a lot of people rooting for you because I think all of us here really believe in what you're doing. And everything that you said is pretty much correct. But I think there's just a few loose ends in order to push it over the finish line. So that being said... Do I need to make a motion to?

Feel free to.

I think that I'm going to have to make the motion of deny. However, I hope that you bring back a little bit better conceptual plan and maybe your neighbor to the north and that we can revisit this at another time.

We do have another meeting scheduled on the 8th. This is the first reading of it, so I don't even know if we're supposed to have a vote today. But we do have another planning and zoning meeting on the 8th. So if you can specify specifically what you want to have to tie up those loose ends, we can have that provided by next week, next Wednesday.

Was this the first reading? Vice Chair, just to clarify the process for everyone so we're on the same page. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is a recommending body to City Council. A rezoning request is only heard by Planning and Zoning for one meeting, and the recommendation is made to City Council. The following two meetings that are scheduled are listed on page 12. The City Council first reading is on September 8th, and the City Council public hearing is on September 22nd. So at the first ordinance reading, City Council typically doesn't discuss the application. They're more so reading the ordinance title out loud for public records. And finally, the public hearing September 22nd is when the discussion will be had before City Council.

Okay, so I misspoke on that one. I think it goes straight to City Council then.

So does this gentleman have the option to maybe make changes come back because these dates are already in place as far as re-advertising or anything like that if they choose to go that route?

The application has been advertised. So what that means is the applicant would have to withdraw their request or they could continue moving forward with city council with whatever recommendation this board makes.

question for you Eddie I know you mentioned earlier that this kind of got fast-tracked for some understandable reasons and I think you said the original date was supposed to be later this month or maybe next month. Would it be any beneficial for us to maybe continue with that date and let the applicant and staff kind of work some of these things out and you know we've got a lot of information tonight that you guys didn't have. We saw two different plans and my personal thought it might just be more beneficial for everyone to get back at the table and kind of Fixes loose ends. I don't know if that would be the right answer the wrong answer, but is that a possibility for you guys?

It's possible. It would be up to the applicant what that would require is a new legal advertisement, which is a new fee, right? Because we'd have to re advertise the application for those later hearing dates And I know the applicant also did not want later hearing dates So they may want to push forward with the currently advertised dates understood.

Thank you. Um I know there's a motion on the floor. Is that something you would be interested in rather than potentially getting denied tonight?

One more clarification. A denial is a recommendation to City Council of denial. It doesn't stop the application from moving forward to City Council for a final decision. So just to clarify that point.

Okay. Then remove what I said. But we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second from anybody?

Can I just ask a question here? Yes, ma'am. So you do have the opportunity to present at City Council. So if... Larry, you were mentioning have the Northern property have the owner there present and say, yes, I'm for this or no, I'm against it. Or do you have that opportunity to bring them to that meeting? with City Council, is that my understanding? And then they can move forward on that additional information with you there.

Yeah, if you guys are able to pinpoint what it is that you want addressed, then I can definitely make commentation at City Council. So if you deny it today, right, based on subjects of knowing what you want detailed-wise, then I can address them at the City Council. But right now, I'm not sure if anybody...

I know right now for what I see right now is the aprons. We need to figure that out as far as entryways in and out of this property. Yes, you have entryways, but they... We need you to get with staff and figure out, does an apron need to be put here or not? That's definitely something that anybody would have to go through. Even on my property, I want to add a dirt road on my property just so I can traverse to the back acre. That's something that I have to go through. I have to see about having an apron put on so that I can have that road. So there's things like that that definitely need to be drawn out and agreed upon, and And those things so that that concept plan is like this is where these things are going to be at. So that's that's one good point there.

But but I do know under, you know, the agricultural statutes, things that were those kind of requirements would typically be in play for commercial business. Yes, that would be applicable, but not necessarily for agriculture. I understand, but I have a residential property, and I still have that looked at. The agriculture gets a little bit more exemptions on those things because it's as costly as it is to run a farm. Having all those commercial requirements, things like that, that's why the state has those statutes to prevent all that.

So I just don't know, I guess, as far as it being city now, that technically there should be aprons and things like that. I mean, I know that there's not a... a walk path through there, sidewalk and things of that nature, but I guess inform me a little bit on that, like having the aprons in the driveways.

I'm not sure what your question is. Are aprons required?

OUT THERE, YEAH?

YES, APRONS WOULD BE REQUIRED. AND EVEN IF THAT WEREN'T DETAILED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHEN THEY PROVIDE A SITE PLAN, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE QUESTION IS, AGRICULTURAL, TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THEY EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN SITE IMPROVEMENTS? I'M NOT SURE. THEY'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL. And then potentially those exemptions would, like I said, preempt the city from applying certain regulations.

And then that won't take place until January when it gets. Right. Yeah.

So the whole property will be agriculture on January 1st.

Right. Right. I think having that is where you're going to have a lot of ease at. The cart before the horse a little bit, but that would ease some of these things for you. I understand the priority of the USDA loans, trying to get that and help. I've been down that road too, trying to figure that out. It takes timing. That's where I'm at with it.

Yeah, and we've been at this since March. I think it was when we started this process, February, March. All right, we still have a motion on the floor.

Yeah, I'd have to second that motion right now. I think we need to get back with staff and figure some of these fine details out.

All right, we have a motion from Member Graham and a second from Member Troutman. Can we have a roll call, Lori?

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes. Member Graham?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Troutman?

Yes. Thank you for your presentation and your time tonight. We wish you the best of luck at City Council.

And one last note, it may behoove you to schedule a meeting with staff or planning to iron out a couple of these little hiccups with aprons and a few other items. That way, whenever they ask the questions at city council, you could say, listen, I got an answer to that. yay or nay but yeah we've we've had three of those already and we're still getting misinformation and not being asked the proper questions or doing those kinds of things so it's been a little tough so i got you and and i i feel you i've been working four years on one and with all the different things but you're getting a few things narrowed down if if when you go into the meeting with an open mind with these questions at least you can get them answered for you

Absolutely, and I'm willing to work, but again, you know, if I'm not, like, great, you talked about the easement. You know, if there's other things that need to be addressed, those need to be brought up, you know, so that way we can properly address those during City Council.

And just a reminder, again, that's September 8th for the first reading at City Council and September 22nd for the public hearing for this item. Thank you. Thanks, staff.

We're going to move on to 9B now.

Thank you chair. Um, just quote quick, cause I haven't been at planning zoning for awhile. My name is Tabitha Armstrong. I'm generally the board liaison for board of adjustments and appeals. I'm a planner in the office with Eddie. So just hi guys. Nice to be back here. Um, we'll start with CUP two dash 2026 beginning on page 62 of your agenda packet. There is a site plan shown on page 71. This CUP is a request to allow warehousing at 1018 and 1020 Orange Street. The 0.33 acre property is zoned light industrial services and warehousing, or M1, and has a downtown mixed-use future land use designation. Warehousing is permitted in the M1 zoning district with limitations. However, because the future land use designation is not industrial and LDR Section 28-222 requires approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing to use the existing building for the indoor storage of gaming equipment, and according to the applicant, approximately 400,000 improvements have already been made to the property, primarily to meet the tenant's build-to-suit requirements. Staff reviewed the request against the conditional use criteria outlined in Section 34-76, and the use would remain entirely within the existing building with no building expansion, outdoor storage or display, or changes to the existing parking, loading, access, or circulation. The applicant has proposed operating hours of Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the use is not anticipated to generate significant traffic, utility demand, or nuisance impacts. Now the site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, office, manufacturing, and industrial uses, and staff do find that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding development, and based on these findings, staff are recommending approval of CUP 2-2026. And with that, that's all our staff have. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Member Seidler.

Thank you. What is gaming equipment? Could you please tell me what that is?

I believe the applicant can give a little more description, but these are, I think, the gamings that were in the gas stations, the little kind of like lotto play, put your money in. So it's gambling? Yeah, but these have been pulled from those establishments and are in storage with the commission. But again, the applicant might be able to provide a little additional details on that.

Did this property come in front of us maybe a year or so ago for something else?

There was a right-of-way vacate that was sought and then some variances, but this is just for the CEP for that warehousing.

Yeah, it was. Okay. I was like, this sounds familiar. Okay. Mr. Moyer? Hey, Tappalo. How are you?

Hey, good evening. Yeah, Bruce Moy with MBB Engineering representing the applicant. Yes, this is the third time we've been here for this property. So now it's to the point where he bought the building, he's fixed it all up, he's ready to lease it out. And when he went to get his occupational license, they found out that the land use isn't compatible with the zoning for this type of use, specific use for storage. So what the proposal is, is he's going to lease to the state. The state's going to take their gaming equipment, store it there. They're not going to have active use of it. It's just for storage only. All the storage will be inside the building. The property looks 100 times better than it ever did in a long time. And so we're here to ask for your approval to go ahead and have this conditional use to have this very low impact use on this property.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

So you said it was for storing it, but then it was for use. So can you explain that?

It's a conditional use for the zoning that it's in because the land use is not compatible with the zoning for just this use, for the use of storage. So you're just going to store the gaming equipment there?

Correct. The conditional use permit for ED&I is for the use of warehousing and storage. So the use of storage of the property is what needs the conditional use permit.

It's a little unusual. I mean, usually you see storage in industrial zoning everywhere, but because it's specific in your code that because the land use is mixed use, that the only way to have this use in industrial is to get a conditional use for it. So it's... I guess we could have gone for a land use change, but it's just as easy to get a conditional use. Member Graham? So this building's been there for a while, correct?

Oh, it's been there a long time, yeah. And it's been M1 zoning?

Yeah, I believe it was an auto repair. Auto repair, that's correct. Auto repair for a long time, and he bought it a couple years ago and fixed it all up, and now he wants to use it for storage.

Yeah, I have warehousing and M1 zoning myself. It's very low impact. Just almost nobody there unless we decide to go get something out of there. Yes, sir.

Any other questions for the applicant? Member McDaniel?

Yes. I may have missed it, and I apologize. So if it's voted on that we approve this, What is it going to be used for? Like storage units?

No, no, no. It's going to be one-tenant storage for the state of Florida. Oh, okay.

I knew I missed something. Okay, I just want to make sure because I see it says applicant has invested roughly $400,000 in improvements.

They have. It needed a lot of work. It needed a roof. It needed a lot of work.

All right, and then I seen gaming storage. I'm like, oh, okay, what's really happening here? Okay, thank you.

She thought titles was going to get pretty fun. Any other questions? All right, seeing none, I assume there's no cards, Lori?

No cards.

All right, perfect. Then we'll bring it back to the board. Anyone care to make a motion? Actually, just one question real quick.

Is there any security requirements for that?

None outlined in our code.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone care to make a motion?

Member Troutman? Yeah, I'd make a motion to approve this as written. Sorry, I'm not on that page, but for this ordinance to be approved, yeah.

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please?

I just want to clarify real quick. Is the motion that is presented and seconded a motion to approve conditional use permit number 2-2026?

Yeah, sorry. So the conditional permit number 2-2026-1018 and 1020 Orange Street for approval for conditional use permit.

Thank you. And the second stands? And I will second. It stands.

Thank you both. Can we get a roll call, please, Lori?

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Troutman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes. Member McDaniel?

Yes.

Thank you. All right. That was easy. Let's go to nine C. All right.

We'll keep you chugging right along on page 80 of your packet. This is for live work units. It's in the OP zoning district. So this is an ordinance that's following city council direction from October of 2025 to allow live work units within the office professional or OP zoning district live work units allow commercial and residential uses within the same building with the residential component secondary to the primary workplace use. Currently, these uses are not permitted in OP, even though the district allows both offices and detached single-family homes separately. The proposed ordinance would amend the use table and applicable use standards to allow live-work units in the OP. And if you'd like to just see that section on page 84 of your packet, you can see how the table there, the only changes proposed are adding that P onto the table for the OP zoning.

Any questions for staff?

Member Troutman. Where is this primarily, like, I guess, trying to hit at, right? Is, like, downtown area? Is this what we're trying to do, like, kind of build something where people can live down there and have things, or anywhere in the city, I guess?

I think it's really captured in the whereas clauses of the ordinance on page 82. There's three whereas clauses. It's actually the second one. It says the current land development regulations... permit live work units within downtown mixed use zoning district only. So they're currently allowed in the downtown. Whereas the office professional OP zoning district permits an office use or a detached single family home, but does not permit a mixture of office and residential uses in the same structure. So in downtown, you're allowed to mix uses in OP. You're

this ordinance is attempting to fix that by allowing op to have mixed live work units okay thank you for that clarification can you tell me where op is predominantly in the city it's surrounded around the city you'll see it focused on some all on garden street um south park uh they're the office professional so it's like a lower impact commercial um zoning district smaller than the neighborhood commercial. Some of them along Hopkins, um, there's scattered about, but there's some clusters, you know, in that garden street and South Park have.

There's someone Harrison too. Um, they still got to maintain, um, the code requirements for, you know, fire that egress and all that other stuff. Correct. Yeah. Just for clarification. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, there's no one in the public to comment. So anyone care to make a motion? Member McDaniel?

All right. I will make a motion to approve the ordinance as written.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please?

Member Seidler? Yes. Yes. Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Troutman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes. Thank you.

All right.

We'll move to 9D.

Vice Chair, I just want to make sure we're ready to move on to 9D. Does anyone, do we need to take a recess since we've been at this for a while? If we're good, we'll roll right on through.

I think we'll roll through unless you need one.

All right. This is item 9D, ordinance amending the parking standards for mini warehouse begins on page 87. The staff recommends the city council amend the minimum parking requirements for mini warehouse. Section 28-214 requires one parking space for each of the 25 storage cubicles and two spaces for the manager's quarters. The staff believes this requirement is excessive and may contribute to detrimental effects on the natural environment and impose disproportionate burdens on property owners. The city's parking standards for warehouse will apply if the ordinance is adopted. This is a staff-initiated ordinance based on City Council's May 26, 2020 directive to review the land development regulations to encourage redevelopment. The changes shown on Page 90. The little smatterings of red up top are more or less correcting the English, improving the language, but the real changes in subsection D1 and you see G is stricken through. And so that would relay the, for a mini warehouse, the parking requirement would fall back to the warehousing requirement in the transportation technical manual. And one additional flexibility with that is that if parking requirements are in the technical manual, then the applicant could receive a DRC waiver if they needed some additional flexibility, which prevents them from having to go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Both of them are public hearings, but it's a little more involved for a variance as opposed to a DRC waiver. So it gives some flexibility, and we've noticed that self-storage facilities tend to have seem to seem to be over parked and that takes away from trees from wetlands. Um, and so we're trying to prevent that in the future by minimizing the amount of parking that's required.

Awesome. Thank you. Any questions for staff? I'm Graham.

How does this, um, relate to how it's done in the County? Is it a little bit closer to their requirement?

I don't have that information tonight. Member Shiler?

So warehousing versus storage. Warehousing, and you said that the warehousing parking standards in Section 9.16 will apply after we just delete this, so that will be for the five spaces for the first 5,000, and then what is it, two? Or one space for each additional 10,000 square feet? Correct. Okay. Is there a difference between warehousing and storage warehousing? You seem to come in like the gentleman who was just here. You put in the equipment and you don't have traffic. When you have storage, you do have traffic. Is that enough?

Parking? So again, because it's going to be in the technical manual, if an applicant finds that they need more parking than what the code currently allows, which the code also has an additional, you can go 125% above the parking that's set out in the code. If you need to go even beyond that, then you would have to request a DRC waiver. And so it gives them that flexibility. If the specific project tends to require that, that parking. Um, in the past for many warehouse, we haven't received a lot of requests for, for fewer parking spaces or I'm sorry for more parking spaces. Um, and so this is just a response to what we've heard from developers and applicants in the past.

Didn't we just pass a mini warehouse down on 50 the four story one?

I'm not sure which facility that is.

I don't know. I wasn't here for that one. I just know that we had an applicant recently that for a storage facility, and it was four stories, how would that impact?

So I think you're talking about the facility on South Street, is that?

I think down on Highway 1 across from the apartment complex. Yeah, across from the apartment complex. Oh, okay.

Yep. sought the variance, that's correct. They sought the variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from that limitation. And this is striking that limitation so that applicants moving forward don't have to seek a variance. But if they do still need additional parking, they could seek that DRC waiver.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll open and close the public hearing.

I would say, you know, we've had talks about what we can do to try and help individuals out. And this is one of those other situations that it helps individuals down where they don't have to go all the way down to get a variance to. you know, get their process moved. And I think this is just one aspect of the community here. We had, you know, we have more conversations with aspects of the community individually, but not as a business, right? Personally, like, I think this is the same one-on-one, you know. We're trying to figure, you know, get the verbiage to where that process is a little easier when it comes to something like that. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's what some of the verbiage that we've had on the council here before is trying to figure out some of those, how we fix some of this in here, and I think this kind of helps with that.

Yeah, I think it's a good language. Anyone care to make a motion? No, please. No, please.

So I'd make a motion to recommend approval on this ordinance amending the parking standards for many warehouses to approve it.

All right, we have a motion to approve from Robert Troutman. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a second from Member McDaniel. Can we get a roll call, please?

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Troutman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes.

Awesome, thank you. So we will move on to petitions and requests from the public present. Seeing none, we move to reports. Staff?

Hi. just because I think a little more people might watch these planning and zoning hearings. With the Board of Adjustment, we are in need of two alternate members on our board. So if anybody watching tonight is interested in serving on the board, similar to planning and zoning, it would be our Board of Adjustments. Applications are available online, or you can come to City Hall to the clerk's office to apply. That is all. Thank you.

but no jumping ship. Don't get any ideas.

You're going to go over to BAA and leave us. I was going to say that's where I started at.

That's right.

And we miss you.

I just wanted to follow up with the remaining dates for these items that were heard because I don't think I announced them. For these two ordinances, the OP... live work units and OP and the parking standards and mini warehouse are both scheduled for city council on September 8th and 22nd. And then that CUP that you recommended approval on was scheduled for September 22nd for that public hearing. And that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone, attorneys? No report. Thank you. Any members? Labor Day coming up. Everyone be safe, have fun, and we'll adjourn this meeting. Great job, Vice Chair. Thank you.