The Board of Adjustments and Appeals (BAA) of the City of Titusville, Florida, met in regular session in Council Chambers, on Wednesday, June 29, 2022.

                                                                          XXX

Chairman Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked the assembly to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

XXX

Present were Chairman Thomas Taylor, Vice-Chairman Kristin Smith-Rodriguez, Member Richard Wheelus, Member Gina Beckles and Alternate Member Jonathan Van Zyll De Jong.  Also, in attendance were Planning Manager Brad Parrish, City Attorney Richard Broome and Development Specialist Kim Amick.  It was determined that a quorum was present.

XXX

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez made a motion to approve the minutes for April 27, 2022.  Member Wheelus seconded.  All in attendance voted to approve the minutes.

XXX

Chairman Taylor confirmed the quasi-judicial procedures verifying that all persons wishing to speak before the board has signed an oath card.

XXX

Brad Parrish confirmed that all agenda items had been properly advertised.

Chairman Taylor called for members’ statements, if they had visited any of the sites.

XXX

Consent Agenda Items

None

XXX

Old Business

None

XXX

New Business

Variance 14-2022 – 4655 South Street

Brad Parrish reviewed the staff report and explained what the applicant was requesting.

Jennifer Wolfe, 4113 N. Swan Street, Covington, GA, spoke in favor.

Discussion followed.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated there should be a change to the Code to address this issue because as people are driving into a shared parking lot to identify where they are trying to go it is 100% reasonable that they have a sign in the parking lot, on the south side in the parking lot it is 100% reasonable as well as on their actual frontage.  She personally agrees with it and thinks it should be granted but it violates the code therefore she thinks it should not be granted but she thinks the code needs to be amended to address this very issue.

Member Wheelus made a motion with regard to Variance 14-2022, 4655 South Street, requesting a variance to Section 32-10(a), to approve one additional wall sign on the south elevation of the building in addition to the primary wall sign on the west so you would have location A, west elevation and location C, south elevation.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez seconded.

Brad asked Member Wheelus to identify a basis for his motion to approve.

Member Wheelus stated the special condition associated with the internal access driveway is shared by three other businesses.

Roll call was as follows:

Chairman Taylor                                             Yes

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   Yes

Member Beckles                                             Yes

Member Wheelus                                            Yes

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong             Yes

Motion passed.

Variance 16-2022 – 2525 Garden Street

Brad Parrish reviewed the staff report and explained what the applicant was requesting.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated does the Code address a primary right-of-way versus a secondary right-of-way, is Garden Street more important than Holiday Lane in this scenario.

Brad stated he does not recall seeing something that says that you are allowed to have two wall signs and one is more important than the other.  He thinks to a business owner it would be more important to have that wall sign facing the arterial road.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated she would maintain the basic reading of the statute says you are entitled to one wall sign which says to her you could put your wall sign on any wall and then it says if you happen to have a secondary right-of-way then it must be on that right-of-way so to her they could put their wall sign on the east side by just reading the statute without a variance and then also without a variance they can put their secondary sign required on the right-of-way on Garden Street.  She stated that is how she reads the plain language of that code so if there is something else in the code or somewhere else in the code that she is missing that defines it then she would like to know.

Brad stated a property that would only be facing one right-of-way, like the previous case, they are entitled to only one wall sign so what you are saying here, based on what you are reading, is they could possibly put that sign anywhere, on any façade of their building.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated as she is reading the code section, it just says “except as authorized by the section each separately licensed business shall be allowed one wall sign”.  It does not say where that wall sign needs to go so if this code is what they are following and it does not require the wall sign to be on any particular side or part of the building, then they could put it wherever but the code is very clear if they do have a second right-of-way then the signage must be on a right-of-way so if you have two right-of-way, she would say you only have to put a sign on one right-of-way according to a plain reading of this code.

Brad stated he reads it that if you say the second sign has to face a public right-of-way then it kind of implies that the first one should be facing one too.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated she agrees it is implied but it is not expressed so if they are taking notes on changes to the code, she would write that one down too.

Joe Couturier, 110 Woods South, Merritt Island, FL, spoke in favor.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated she does not believe a variance is required.

City Attorney Broom stated staff has interpreted the code to require one and have recommended approval and they have asked for the approval so certainly based on that you could approve the request for the variance and advise council or recommend that they look at that section of the code to clarify.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez made a motion to approve Variance 16-2022 regarding 2525 Garden Street a variance to LDR Section 32-10(a) regarding placement of a second wall sign.  She stated although she thinks the expressed reading of the code does not require a variance to the extent that it is interpreted as such she would site that the literal interpretation of those provisions of that ordinance would deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights as the other properties do.

Member Wheelus seconded.

Roll call was as follows:

Member Beckles                                             Yes

Member Wheelus                                            Yes

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong             Yes

Chairman Taylor                                             Yes

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   Yes

Motion passed.

Variance 17-2022 – 2535 Merry Lane

Brad Parrish reviewed the staff report and explained what the applicant was requesting.

John Morris 4001 Ainsley Avenue, Orlando, FL, spoke in favor.

Discussion followed.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez made a motion to grant in part Variance 17-2022 at 2535 Merry Lane regarding the variance to Section 30-332 specifically the side yard landscape buffer, which for clarification, also removes vegetation requirements.

Brad stated so your motion is to grant the applicant’s request to have no buffer on those side yards.   He stated staff had recommended reducing it down to five feet.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez made a motion to grant in part Variance 17-2022 at 2535 Merry Lane regarding the LDR Section 30-332 to eliminate the side landscape buffer.

Member Wheelus seconded.

Brad asked for a basis for the motion.

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties.   She stated to clarify in light of the properties that are on it even though they are in that zoning they are a little bit different.  She stated there are also special conditions and circumstances peculiar to that land in light of the zoning of the surrounding area.

Chairman Taylor asked if the second still held.

Member Wheelus stated yes.

Roll call was as follows:

Member Wheelus                                            Yes

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong                         Yes

Chairman Taylor                                             Yes

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   Yes

Member Beckles                                             Yes

Motion passed.

Discussion followed.

Member Wheelus made a motion to Variance 17-2022 at 2535 Merry Lane a variance to Section 30-332, 20-foot front yard and rear yard landscape buffers to be eliminated under the following condition:

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez seconded.

Roll call was as follows:

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   Yes

Member Beckles                                             Yes

Member Wheelus                                            Yes

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong             Yes

Chairman Taylor                                             Yes

Motion passed.

XXX

Petitions and Request from the Public 

XXX

Reports

City Staff – Brad stated there are three applications for the July meeting.

City Attorney – None.

Chairman – None.

Members – Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated when the Annual Report is going to be submitted to council that staff remind them of the hot topics that they want to consider and spend more time talking about what suggestions they have at that meeting and add that to the agenda.

Adjournment was at 7:37 p.m.