Regular City Council - November 14, 2023

City Council

Regular Meeting

November 14, 2023

 

The City Council of the City of Titusville, Florida met in regular session in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 555 South Washington Avenue, on Tuesday, November 14, 2023. 

 

Mayor Diesel called the City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Daniel E. Diesel, Vice-Mayor Joe C. Robinson, and City Council Members Herman A. Cole, Jr., Col USAF Retired, Jo Lynn Nelson, and Dr. Sarah Stoeckel. Also present were City Manager Scott Larese, City Attorney Richard Broome, and Assistant City Clerk Jolynn Donhoff, who completed the minutes of the meeting. 

 

Mayor Diesel requested a moment of silence. He then led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Assistant City Clerk Donhoff read the procedures for public comment and participation. 


xxx

MINUTES 

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve the minutes of the regular City Council meetings of September 26, 2023 (6:30 p.m.) and October 24, 2023 (5:30 p.m.), as submitted. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to table Ordinance No. 50-2023 - Wireless in the Right of Way to the regular City Council meeting on December 12, 2023 at 6:30 p.m.  Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

 

xxx

 

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS 

 

St. Johns River Water Management District Video - Osprey Nutrient Removal Upgrades - No action was requested. A video on the St. Johns River Water Management District and Osprey Nutrient Removal Upgrades was provided. 

 

xxx

 

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

 

North Brevard Library District Board - No action was requested. The North Brevard Library District Board's Semi-Annual written report was included in the Council agenda packet. 

 

xxx


PETITIONS AND REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC PRESENT (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) – 

 

Stan Johnston distributed information. He highlighted the information in an email he sent to the City earlier in the day. 

 

Toni Shifalo commented on an upcoming court hearing scheduled on the Speak Up Titusville Voter Referendum of 2022. 

 

xxx

 

CONSENT AGENDA

 

City Manager Larese read Consent Agenda Items A through L, as followed: 

 

  1. Resolution No. 30-2023, Amending Resolution No. 35-2010 Relating to the Registration Fee for Vacant Properties with Mortgages in Default - Approve the Resolution No. 30-2023 amending Resolution No. 35-2010 relating to the registration fee for vacant properties with mortgages in default.

 

  1. Acceptance of Award FY24 Bullet Proof Vest Grant - Accept the Bullet Proof Vest Grant Award in the amount of $12,150 and approve the associated budget amendment.

 

  1. Titusville Resort and Destination Low Impact Development (LID) Maintenance Covenants - Approve the Low Impact Development (LID) Maintenance Covenants for the Titusville Resort and Destination site plan.

 

  1. Right of Way Vacate (ROW) Vacation Application No. 3-2020 - Extension Request - Approve Resolution No. 31-2023 amending Resolution No. 41-2020 to extend the expiration date for the right of way vacation (ROW No. 3-2020 - Huntington Park) an additional three-hundred sixty-five (365) days.

 

  1. Task Order #MHTO002 for Blue Heron and Osprey Permit Renewals - Approve the award of Task Order # MHTO002 to Mead and Hunt in the amount of $108,848 to provide engineering consulting services including, but not limited to, the permit applications for the Osprey and Blue Heron facilities, Capacity Analysis Reports for both plants, Reclaimed water feasibility study for both plants, biosolids storage plans for both plants and operations and maintenance performance reports for both plants, and authorize the City Mayor to execute the Task Order.

 

  1. Award of Contract for Bid No. 23-B-051 for the Barna Elevated Storage Tank Demolition - Approve award of a contract for Bid No. 23-B-051 to Total Wrecking and Environmental of Buffalo, NY for the demolition of the Barna Elevated Storage Tank in the amount of $119,673 and authorize the City Mayor to execute the contract.

 

  1. Purchase of Equipment - Public Works - Approve the use of Florida Sheriff's Association Cooperative Purchasing Program, Contract # FSA23-VEH21.0 Heavy Trucks to purchase of 5 budgeted vehicles to Nextran Truck Center of Orlando, Florida in the total amount of $1,370,559.46 for the purchase of two (2) 18 Cubic Yard Dump Trucks with aluminum dump bodies, a 12 Cubic Yard Dump Truck with steel dump body, a Solid Waste Front End Loader and a Solid Waste Automated Sideloader. Additionally, approve associated budget amendments to increase financed amount to match actual purchase prices.

 

  1. Fire Department Budget Transfer Request - Approve request to transfer $2,500 from the Car Seat Donations Restricted Fund Balance Account into the Fire Department operating budget (001-0901-552-5201GF2104) to purchase needed supplies for the public education and child occupant protection programs. Purchase will include 36 child passenger seats. Approve the associated budget amendment.

 

  1. Brevard Emergency Management P25 one time upgrade invoice - Approve one-time payment for Brevard Emergency Management P25 upgrade in the amount of $137,436.50 and approve the associated budget amendment.

 

  1. Task Order for Construction Engineering Services for the Osprey Influent Screen Project - Approve the award of Task Order #CDMTO001 to CDM Smith, Inc. in the amount of $86,350 to provide engineering consulting services including, but not limited to, construction services for the replacement of the influent screen at the Osprey Wastewater Reclamation Facility, and authorize the City Mayor to execute the Task Order.

 

  1. Change Order - ARPA FY23 Slip Lining and Manhole/Lift Station Rehabilitation - Approve the change order #1 to Instituform Technologies, LLC of Chesterfield, MO for the installation of additional slip lining and the construction of manhole/lift station rehabilitations within 3 additional basins of the Osprey Water Reclamation Facility Service Area in the amount of $886,942.81, contract #CN23B035/LR. Additionally, authorize the City Manager to execute the change order and approve associated budget amendment.

 

  1. Legal Services of bond counsel, Rhonda Bond-Collins, Esq., of the Bryant, Miller, Olive Law Firm - Accept and approve the Engagement Letter from bond counsel Rhonda Bond-Collins, Esq., of the Bryant, Miller, Olive Law Firm and authorize the Mayor or City Manager to sign the Engagement Letter.

 

Stan Johnston submitted public speaking cards on Consent Agenda Items B, E, F, and L. He was opposed to each of these agenda items for reasons he explained.

 


Motion

Member Nelson moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A through L, in accordance with the recommendations. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

 

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

          Member Stoeckel                    Yes

 

The motion carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

ORDINANCES – SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING AND RELATED ACTION

 

Ordinance No. 48-2023 - Florida Live Local Act Ordinance and Resolution No. 25-2023 – City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 48-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 29 “SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND OVERLAYS”, ARTICLE VIII “SPECIAL LAND USE STANDARDS” TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 166.04151, FLORIDA STATUTES, AS CREATED BY CHAPTER 2023-17, LAWS OF FLORIDA (LIVE LOCAL ACT OF 2023) BY CREATING DIVISION 4 “AFFORDABLE HOUSING”, TO INCLUDE SECTIONS 29-144 “PURPOSE”, 29-145 “DEFINITIONS”, 29-146 “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS” AND 29-147 “EXPEDITED REVIEW PROCESS”; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, EFFECTIVE DATE, SUNSET PROVISIONS, AND INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, for the second time by title only. 

 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the second reading and second public hearing of the ordinance, which proposed adopting definitions and standards related to developments that qualified under the State Live Local Act, Chapter 2023-19 Laws of Florida. This was a legislative item. Additionally, proposed Resolution No. 25-2023 may be approved with the adoption of the proposed ordinance. The proposed resolution included procedures related to developments that qualified under the State Live Local Act. 

 

On October 4, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) recommended approval of the proposed ordinance and resolution with request for the Commission to continue discussion for possible future recommendations; however, on November 8, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial on the proposed ordinance and resolution with the recommendation to City Council to assemble a sub-committee with a Planning and Zoning Commission Member, City Staff, Attorney, and citizens from the public to work together to revise the ordinance and resolution. The P&Z recommendation for denial was approved, 7-yes to 0-no.

 

A discussion of nearly 3-hours in length ensued. 

 

Community Development Director Brad Parrish began the discussion by highlighting provisions in the proposed ordinance that began on page 170 of the Council agenda packet. He discussed how staff was prepared to assist the development community and individuals, if an ordinance was not adopted, which was to follow provisions in a memo (page no. 178 of the agenda packet) that had been previously presented or discussed by the Council. Ultimately, staff desired having standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place, in order to apply the State’s new Live Local Act, perhaps including monitoring tools, review fees, etc. Without SOPs, staff would only have the State Law to rely upon with no guidelines for how to implement the State law to local projects. 

 

City Attorney Broome distributed and reviewed additional information. Council discussion ensued with staff on the following:

 

  • Mixed use projects
  • Concern for reducing the number of commercial properties
  • Without a local ordinance and only having an administrative memo to guide staff on the State Law’s implementation, this opened the possibility of staff having to negotiate with developers  
  • Developer disputes and various appeal processes would depend on the issues
  • The City Attorney’s opinion on provisions that should be set in local regulations
  • Preferences on whether to adopt an ordinance, use an administrative memo, do nothing, etc.

 

  • Whether other communities were adopting local ordinances, etc. (Examples: Boca, Winter Park, Melbourne, Brevard County, etc.)
  • Comparisons to other communities including some were “built-out”, while others were not
  • Developers proposing how their projects qualified
  • Penalties if a developer did not comply with regulations indicated would be determined on a case-by-case basis
  • Website notices to go above and beyond to notify the community
  • Compatibility concerns
  • Being cautious or careful with creating new definitions

 

  • Rent and utility costs
  • City map(s) indicating where industrial and commercial properties were located
  • Regional Commercial was the most intense. Tourist was primarily hotels. Would Council have any say on what could be developed in these areas, etc.
  • Mixed Use was the most difficult, based on the concept that not all components may be appropriate
  • Parks and playgrounds were allowed in Mixed Use
  • Whether other communities were in a panic to adopt local procedures

 

  • The risk if the Council decided to do nothing at the present time
  • Discussion of affordable housing projects being built on industrial property (Example – Vector Space property). Industrial properties may not be located near any services (accessibility concerns); however, parking was addressed in the new State Law
  • Federal funding or tax credits for developers to build affordable housing projects
  • Three types of tax credits and whether only one or all were tied to the public funding

 

Council discussed additional information with staff on the following:

 

  • Concern that public transportation may not be available in areas where projects were built
  • Concerns on items like buffer requirements and would these be required of projects. One example – a Live Local Act or affordable housing project built next to a concrete recycling business, etc.
  • Hypothetical scenarios were difficult to discuss
  • Having standard regulations in place
  • The City could not adopt any regulations that conflicted with State Law
  • Championing the questions arising from the new State Law during the next State Legislative session(s)
  • What could happen if the public was not happy with a local administrative interpretation
  • Other processes, such as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals could hear issues, such as if site plan were rejected, etc.
  • Concern for legal challenges
  • Reviewing other communities around the State that had adopted ordinances
  • Concern for potential legal challenges. To this, City Attorney read from the State’s Live Local Act

 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing. 

 

Kay St. Onge was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She read from a prepared statement that discussed democracy, reducing density, concerns for a current application submitted to the City under the State Live Local Act, requirements related to arterial roads, and her support of appointing a committee to review these matters.  

 

Toni Shifalo was neutral on the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She discussed her own neighborhood. Ms. Shifalo also supported affordable housing, but expressed concern that depending on where projects were built, they could isolate residents and put them an inconvenient distance away from access to public services or amenities, etc. For this reason, she desired holding a public workshop to further discuss.  

 

Cole Oliver supported the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained; however, he did not think the proposed ordinance was ready for approval. His concern was for the mixed use definition, a proposed minimum of 20% and how it was calculated, etc. Mr. Cole thanked staff and expressed concern that these matters put citizens in a difficult position when no one had clear rules. Mr. Cole also supported the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to assemble a sub-committee with a Planning and Zoning Commission Member, City Staff, Attorney, and citizens from the public to work together to revise the ordinance and resolution. 

 

Stan Johnston was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He did not support having a community that grew to be as congested as Miami, Florida. He also discussed considering the source of the new State legislation, individuals wanting to maximize their profits, looking into these matters more closely, and improving the proposed ordinance.  

 

Next, an information packet (additional information) was distributed by Karyn Kulas for a large, self-designated, group of members of the public. Individuals belonging to the large group would use their time as individuals to review select sections of the information packet. Each individual’s public speaking and oath card also indicated a number of the group’s desired speaking order. Additionally, the concluding comments by nearly every individual of the group summarized the following request 

 

Deny the proposed ordinance and resolution as written, assemble a team to re-write both, add the public’s recommendations to the memorandum recommended by the group, and process all applications for such projects at meetings open and visible to the public (following the Florida Sunshine Law requirements) before the elected City Council and under the Consent Agenda section of the City Council agenda. 

 

Karyn Kulas was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She read from a prepared statement. She also reviewed the structure or outline of the information packet, as followed:

 

  • Exhibit 1 - Reasons to deny as written
  • Exhibit 2 – alternate solutions or drafts of the proposed ordinance, resolution, and memorandum
  • Exhibit 3 – Excerpt from Florida Statute 166.04151, subparagraph (7)
  • Exhibit 4 – Memorandum language vs. Florida Statute 166.04151, subparagraph (7) language

 

Ms. Kulas further commented on having read Florida Statutes and legal interpretations, examples from other cities, the importance of having clear implementation procedures to address vague areas of the requirements, concern for the economically disadvantaged, and her ultimate request was for Council to deny the proposed ordinance and resolution, assemble a team to rewrite both, consider all related projects at Council meetings etc.  

 

Sloan Rawl was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She read from a prepared statement that discussed meeting numerous government regulations and modeling after other communities in Tampa, Westin, and Hillsborough County. Ms. Rawl indicated her support of those municipal and county ordinances, with exceptions. 

 

Roger Liang was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He felt that affordable housing was a noble goal. He also discussed his concerns with the memo, being cautious to approve or allow blanket approvals, his desire to define mixed use, addressing terminology of “may or may not” and the approving authority of Live Local Act projects. 

 

Ann Bridges was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She did not support proposed Ordinance Section 29-146 or lines 61-175 lines for reasons she explained and concerning calculations, she did not support providing developers discretion. Ms. Bridges also discussed concerns on certificates of occupancy, requiring deed restrictions prior to approving permits or site plans, etc. 

 

Diane Frogge was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She read from a prepared statement that discussed not providing for an expedited review process and not providing for administrative approval. 

 

Alan Frogge waived his right to speak. 

 

Ron Voll was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He requested Council deny the proposed ordinance and resolution as written, assemble a team, add the public’s recommendations to the memorandum, and process all of the public’s applications for such projects at meetings that were open to the public (under Florida Sunshine Law requirements).  He advised that Council could consider applications under Consent Agenda. 

 

David Hamad was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He read from a prepared statement that discussed a reference to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, high density project requirements being located by arterial roads, developers using the State Live Local Act to avoid local development requirements, etc.  

 

Kristine Boland was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She felt a $200 staff review fee was inadequate. She advised that Tampa charged $2,000, plus an additional amount per acre. 

 

Luke Parson was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He felt the Live Local Act was vague. He also commented on variances and that municipal ordinances could not contradict State Law. 

 

Carlos Novela was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He read from a prepared statement. He desired projects to meet the requirements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Codes. 

 

Linda Crawford was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She discussed concerns on administrative approvals, following the Live Local Act, the memorandum could be amended to include citations from the Florida Statutes, etc. 

 

Glenda Rowe was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained.  She discussed being upset by a developer’s comments at a community meeting held at a hotel in May 2023, receiving mixed messages, developers only wanted to make money, concern for placing a high rise building next to particular property, the importance of taking all information into consideration, etc. 

 

Richard Price was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. Mr. Price felt appeal rights needed to be in the provisions. He also desired guarantees that projects met the intent of the State Live Local Act. For example, Winter Park had mechanisms to keep developers accountable. Mr. Price further commented on denying requests, limited use proposals, and if developers dedicated land for the use as a park, then he posed the question of who was responsible to maintain the park. 

 

Jaqueline Leader was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. Her concern was for when developers received economic incentives (was this ahead of time, etc.). If economic incentives were received ahead of time, she posed the questions of what happened if a project later fell out of compliance with the State Act, how were projects monitored for compliance over 30-years, etc. 

 

Lindsey Grizzle was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She read from a prepared statement that discussed her concerns on developers providing and maintaining proof of compliance of the Law over a long term period, using affidavits like Winter Park, and requiring developers to agree to an annual audit of their projects by a certified public accountant. Ms. Grizzle liked Winter Park’s rules or terminology on these matters. She desired having clear definitions or rules to cure issues on items like access points, etc. She also recommended listening to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) discussion. 

 

Frank Rowe was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained.  His concern was for immediately having 1,000 next door neighbors. He felt the State Act left the provisions in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code requirements vulnerable. He also questioned whether access points were regulated by the State Live Local Act or local ordinances. 

 

Glenn Bacala was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He desired consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, with the exception he desired reducing density requirements.  

 

Paul Leader was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He commented on considering personal input from the public, concerns for density, the proximity of projects in areas where airports were located, the Live Local Act seemed vague, etc. Additionally, he was commented on why the regulations excluded projects on water front properties. 

 

Avoiding legal challenges and whether the State Live Local Act was vague on purpose was briefly discussed. 

 

Sandra Clinger was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She indicated that density, height, and requiring land use and zoning changes were three topics pre-empted by the State Live Local Act. She did not support giving staff administrative approval authority, because she felt this could be subjective. Instead, Ms. Clinger indicated support of approving an ordinance. She also did not like the concept of variance requests and she supported Winter Park’s ordinance.  

 

Connie Milton was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She commented on the group’s Exhibit 3, Section 7, and an interpretation regarding a development receiving administrative approval, only “if” it met a local government’s regulations and multi-family development regulations. She felt staff left information out and approval should only occur if properties were already zoned multi-family, not commercial and industrial.  

 

The concept that no Florida courts had yet formally addressed any challenges to local or county governments was briefly discussed. There was an indication there were also interpretations to the related rules. 

 

Laura Ward waived her right to speak. 

 

Janet Bailey was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She commented on concerns for legal bullying and legal challenges. She also did not support tweaking the memorandum as the City went along with processing projects that indicated meeting the qualifications of the State’s Live Local Act

 

Member Nelson commented that adopting a local ordinance backed the City staff up, so that they were not alone (not put in a situation to negotiate with developers. Making certain development requirements clear for staff to be able to assist developers with their Live Local Act projects). 

 

Marie Bailey was unavailable to speak (not present).  

 

Alex Nutting was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He requested the City to take as much time as needed to make implementation policies or guidelines clear. He also requested placing the approval of these projects under the Consent Agenda.  

 

Megan Moscoso was against the proposed ordinance for reasons she explained. She read from a prepared statement that discussed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation and complying with local Codes as specified. She also desired formal consideration of Live Local Act projects to be conducted at open public meetings. She also did not support giving staff administrative authority to approve projects. Ms. Moscoso did not want the City or City Council to lose sight of projects built under the Live Local Act

 

John Rogers was against the proposed ordinance for reasons he explained. He discussed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. He did not feel enough information was available and that more time was needed to debate having something; however, it was better to have something rather than nothing. Additionally, he desired the staff’s reasons on questions he or others had and advised there was trust deficit between the public and the local government.  

 

In response to John Rogers’ question on height requirements, he and City Attorney Broome discussed Mr. Rogers’ questions. 

 

David Hamed already spoke (a second speaking card was submitted for this individual). When called, he did not stand-up or speak again. 

 

Elizabeth Parner did not indicate whether she supported the proposed ordinance, etc. She highlighted items important to her, being: 1. Having a list of publicly owned lands that may be appropriate. She advised this was completed in October and it was on the website per state law; 2. A particular estimate of 18.4%, which was below the 20% rule; and 3. Site plan(s) in review, compatibility, arterial roads, etc.  Additionally, Ms. Parner discussed questions on means to recoup costs, a major transit stop(s), and parking.  

 

As there were no additional persons that wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

 

Council discussion ensued on information and questions on proposed Ordinance No. 48-2023 - Florida Live Local Act Ordinance and Resolution No. 25-2023, as followed:

 

  • Staff’s concerns in response to the public’s comments during this hearing
  • Being careful not to pre-empt the State Live Local Act
  • A desire to adhere to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and/or Code requirements, if possible, on example requirements like major thoroughfare areas, etc.
  • Watching these matters closely, such as variances submitted to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. If there was a trend of variances being denied because properties were unique, what may happen then
  • What would happen if a Live Local Act project stopped or ceased to be able to continue; This was a concept being discussed amongst planning professionals statewide
  • What would happen if developers or projects lost their status as a Live Local Act project and addressing this in formal policy or protections  

 

  • Having robust annual procedures to track the compliance of projects over 30-years, etc.
  • Doing something now or soon rather than nothing. Whether the City could evolve its procedures with more time
  • The memorandum provided staff some structure and guidance; however, staff did not want to navigate Live Local Act projects by themselves (without direction from Council)
  • Staff supported the proposed ordinance and resolution to have some formal procedures in place to guide projects
  • Any amendments to the proposed ordinance would require legal advertising to the public and being heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission
  • The resolution only required one formal City Council meeting
  • The idea of assembling a formally organized committee to instead review these matters. Getting recommendations from such a committee would take weeks. The committee would also need to have a sunset date

 

  • An informally organized committee of individuals that were not subject to Florida Sunshine Laws was allowed to provide the City input on the City’s Tree Ordinance 
  • Comparison to other cities and their procedures
  • Having an approved ordinance in place created vested rights
  • Possible tabling of the proposed actions to allow residents to meet with developers and find a way to make it work
  • There was an application presently under review at the City. The developer was aware the City was trying to create an ordinance
  • The importance of stakeholder input
  • Concern that developers may only be concerned with complete the “affordable” component of their projects. Having protections in place was important
  • Council taking more time to make their individual analysis
  • The proposed resolution was the more or less procedural document that a particular Council Members might be interested in changing. It could be approved and amended at a later time
  • Amending the ordinance could require readvertising depending on content changes

 

Vice-Mayor Robinson and staff discussed his questions on navigating perceptions of creating an ordinance simultaneous or following the submittal of a developer’s application (still in review. Not clear if it was a complete application). The applicant was aware the City was developing an ordinance, etc.  

 

Vice-Mayor Robinson and staff also discussed what ideas or suggestions discussed thus far could be useful to incorporate into the proposed ordinance and/or resolution. This included: 

 

  1. Require a statement that required compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), etc.,
  2. Create a monitoring scheme or system to ensure that a project maintains consistent compliance with the State Live Local Act (Florida Statutes)
  3. Require appropriate review fee(s), and

 

Next, Vice-Mayor Robinson desired delaying the Council’s consideration of the proposed ordinance and resolution, in order to incorporate the aforementioned three ideas, etc.  

 

Mayor Diesel and staff discussed his questions on communicating with the community or stakeholders or public involved thus far. Staff could provide drafts to involved individuals as discussed. Community Development Director Parrish indicated there would be two versions of the proposed ordinance.  This was due to there was a question from a developer on mixed use and how it applied. Having an ordinance would provide everyone guidance. 

 

Mayor Diesel commented on the importance of getting it done right. Other communities were solely going by the Live Local Act

 

Connie Milton was allowed to address the Council. She commented on the information packet distributed earlier in the meeting by the public. Her question was on Exhibit 4, Section 7(a) and Florida Statutes She desired a legal interpretation of the Statutes from the City Attorney regarding administrative approvals. 

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to table proposed Ordinance No. 48-2023 and Resolution No. 25-2023 to the regular City Council meeting on November 28, 2023 (6:30 p.m.). 

 

Mayor Diesel and the City Attorney asked whether Member Nelson intended to limit her motion to solely tabling the proposed ordinance and resolution to a subsequent future meeting or whether she desired including additional direction or receive more information in addition to tabling these items.

 

Member Nelson agreed the intent of her motion was to table the agenda item for the purpose of allowing Council more time before the next Council meeting to informally process or consider the information discussed and obtained at this meeting. 

 

Next, Member Nelson supported staff revising the drafts of the proposed ordinance and resolution to incorporate changes on at least three (3) items discussed earlier by staff, being: 

 

  1. Require a statement that required compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), etc.
  2. Create a monitoring scheme or system to ensure that a project maintains consistent compliance with the State Live Local Act (Florida Statutes)
  3. Require appropriate review fee(s)

 

Staff indicated there may be another version of the ordinance coming forward, too (indicated this might come from the community).  City Attorney Broome briefly highlighted the legislative adoption procedures. He also advised the Sunshine Law did not apply to private citizen discussions or citizens that were not formally appointed to a City board or committee. 

 

In addition, Member Nelson requested and supported staff identifying and adding any additional provisions to the proposed articles at their discretion and returning to the City Council. She indicated this was the full extent of her motion. 

 

Vice-Mayor Robinson seconded the motion. 

 

Member Cole desired voting on the proposed articles at the regular City Council meeting on November 28, 2023 (6:30 p.m.), as he did not want to delay these matters any further. 

 

 The roll call vote on the motion was:

 

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

          Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

 

The motion carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

It was 10:20 p.m. 

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the City Council meeting until 11:30 p.m. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

 

 

 

Mayor Diesel also called for a 10-minute break. The meeting resumed at 10:30 p.m.

 

xxx

 

Ordinance No. 50-2023 - Wireless in the Right of Way – It was noted that earlier in the meeting, the Council tabled Ordinance No. 50-2023 to the regular City Council meeting on December 12, 2023.

xxx

 

Ordinance No. 51-2023 - Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance – City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 51-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BY AMENDING CHAPTER 28 “ZONING” SECTION 28-351 “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT”; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, for the second time by title only. 

 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the second reading and the final public hearing of Ordinance No. 51-2023 Accessory Dwelling Unit. This was a legislative item. He advised that on October 18, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance as presented with the change to Section 28-351 C 1 (E) to have a minimum of 300 square feet and a maximum of 950 square feet, the 35% stays the same (Approved 7-0).

 

Community Development Director Parrish commented that since the last meeting, changes were made to the proposed ordinance that were requested by the Council. He highlighted this information, which began on page no. 282 of the Council agenda packet. 

 

Mayor Diesel opened the second and final public hearing. 

 

Stan Johnston was unavailable (not present). 

 

As there were no additional persons that wished to speak, the second and final public hearing was closed. 

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve Ordinance No. 51-2023 as written and provided in the Council meeting agenda packet, which inserted and included the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations and changes to the parking requirements that were requested by the Council during the first public hearing. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

 

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

         Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

 

The motion carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

Ordinance No. 55-2023 - to allow Assisted Living Facility in the Urban Village (UV) zoning district – City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 55-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AS A PERMITTED USE WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE URBAN VILLAGE (UV) ZONING DISTRICT BY AMENDING SECTIONS 28-54 “USE TABLE” AND 28-72 “ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY”; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE, for the first time by title only.

 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the first reading and the first public hearing of Ordinance No. 55-2023 to allow Assisted Living Facility in the Urban Village (UV) zoning district. This was a legislative item. City Manager Larese also advised that on November 8, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (Approved 7-0).

 

Community Development Director Parrish highlighted information, which began on page no. 304 of the Council agenda packet. 

 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed the purpose of the proposed legislative ordinance and the desire by one particular property in the Urban Village zoning district for the Council to adopt the ordinance. It was indicated this was the owner or representatives of the Titusville mall property, which was indicated to have three master plans altogether. One of the master plans would need to be amended, if the proposed ordinance was approved.  

 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed page no. 296 of the Council agenda packet that was indicated to outline the allowable uses in Urban Village (UV) zoning. 

 

Mayor Diesel opened the first of two required public hearings. 

 

Chelsea Anderson, an attorney speaking on behalf of Jesse Wright---a property owner having property in the Urban Village (UV) zoning district, discussed various requirements of the health care related industry. He client desired having an assisted living facility in the UV zoning district. 

 

Jesse Wright distributed information. He highlighted various points of information that discussed the approval of a master plan(s) for his project(s), status of redeveloping the old Titusville mall property, independent senior living, plans for apartments, researching the needs of the community, funding, demolition of old structures, waiting to receive certain permits, etc. 

 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on the differences between independent living facilities (ILFs) and assisted living facilities (ALFs). The indication was that an ALF was not a viewed as a medical facility and it was up to the Council to decide if the use was appropriate in UV zoning. There were also detailed requirements in the Code. Code requirements would be required at the master plan and site planning stages, per staff. 

 

Stan Johnston supported the proposed ordinance and the need of more assisted living facilities in the City. 

 

As there were no additional persons that wished to speak, the first public hearing was closed. 

 

This was the first reading and the first public hearing for Ordinance No. 55-2023. The second reading and final public hearing was scheduled for the regular meeting on November 28, 2023 at 6:30 p.m.

 

xxx

 

City Attorney Broome read and reviewed the Quasi-judicial Rules of Procedure

 

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, Greg Nelson – Rehearing – At the regular City Council meeting on October 10, 2023, Council approved a motion to rescind the denial of Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 5-2022 and related Ordinance Nos. 17-2023 and 18-2023. This was the final public hearing on SSA Application No. 5-2022 and the related ordinances.  

 

City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances aloud and by title only. 

 

Ordinance No. 17-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60-1988, WHICH ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON A 3.31+/- ACRE PORTION OF  A PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF INTERSTATE 95 AND STATE ROAD 406 (GARDEN STREET) INTERCHANGE, HAVING BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 21-35-31-AT-1-14 and 21-35-31-AT-16-1, FROM CONSERVATION FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

 

Ordinance No. 18-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 27-1997 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (OR) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) ZONING DISTRICT ON A 3.31+/- ACRE PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF INTERSTATE 95 AND STATE ROAD 406 (GARDEN STREET) INTERCHANGE, TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA (BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 21-35-31-AT-1-14 and 21-35-31-AT-16-1; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

 

The land use amendment was a legislative item and the rezoning was a quasi-judicial item.

 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request and the history of the requested actions that were provided in the Council agenda packet. He advised that the Applicant, Kimberly Rezanka, on behalf of the property owner, Gregory J. Nelson, was requesting a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) with rezoning on approximately 3.31 acres of land located southeast of the I-95 and State Road 406 (Garden Street) interchange. The request was to change the City of Titusville Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation from Conservation to Commercial High Intensity and rezone the same portion of the property from the Open Space and Recreation (OR) zoning district to the Regional Commercial (RC).

 

On March 28, 2023, the City Council denied the Comprehensive Plan land use amendment proposed in SSA No. 5-2022 and the accompanying land use and rezoning ordinances.

 

On September 26, 2023, in accordance with Section 70.51(17)(a), Florida Statutes, the City Council approved a Conditional Mediated Settlement Agreement wherein the Council agreed to consider rescinding the denials and scheduling a hearing to reconsider the land use and rezoning request.

 

On October 10, 2023, the City Council granted the rescission and scheduled a second reading and public hearing of SSA Application No. 5-2022, and the related rezoning request, for November 14, 2023. The Settlement Agreement contained the following conditions:

 

  1. The Applicant is to provide lidar topography from Brevard County with water flow data for the Property and surrounding area.

 

  1. The Council will review the "bubble plan" attached to the Agreement as Ex. "A" and will consider approving SSA 5-2022 and the associated rezoning request, with the condition that stormwater drainage improvements will be completed on the Applicant's Property as shown on the "bubble plan" to accept offsite stormwater improvements from Lots 3-10, Fairglen Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 130, Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, that flows onto the Applicants Property and which will be rerouted along Applicant's east Property line to the Fairglen outfall. Further, said improvements intended to prevent any flooding impacts from the proposed development, must be approved and permitted by the City, if consistent with City Codes, and must be constructed by the Developer of Applicant's Property, and operating prior to any vertical or non-stormwater construction work on the Property.

 

  1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, clearing, grading, filling, and any other work necessary to complete the roadway and stormwater improvements shown on the "bubble plan" shall be allowed, including alteration to the lake for access to both parcels owned by the Applicant only to the extent necessary to provide the stormwater improvements and roadway in proximity to Fairglen Subdivision, subject to the permitting requirements of all state and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction.

 

Findings and Recommendations from the Report to Council in the Council agenda packet of November 14, 2023 included:

 

  • The portion of the property subject to this request contains wetlands and a water body that is less than 5 acres.  To address Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element Strategy 1.6.3.2, the applicant submitted an environmental report and an email from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) stating that various portions of the onsite wetlands may be scored Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) scores of 3,4 and 6.

 

  • The Applicant has submitted a conceptual plan, "bubble plan" intended to address drainage concerns that were raised at the March 28, 2023, hearing.

 

  • Consider approval of the comprehensive plan future land use map amendment from the Conservation Land Use to the Commercial High Intensity Land Use category on the portion of the overall property as illustrated and described in the land use ordinance and as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and more specifically with Conservation Element Strategy 1.6.3.2.

 

  • Approve the rezoning with concept plan from the Open Space and Recreation (OR) to the Regional Commercial (RC) zoning district on the portion of the overall property as described in the rezoning ordinance as consistent with the Commercial High Intensity Future Land Use category of the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria described in 34-40 of the Land Development Regulations. Any approval should be subject to the conditions set forth in the "Conditional Mediated Settlement Agreement".

 

City Manager Larese further advised the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, considered this request on March 8, 2023 and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan future land use map amendment from the Conservation Land Use to the Commercial High Intensity Land Use category on the portion of the overall property as illustrated and described in the land use ordinance and as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and more specifically with Conservation Element Strategy 1.6.3.2. (Approved 7-0) and recommended approval on the rezoning from Open Space and Recreation (OR) to the Regional Commercial (RC) zoning district on the portion of the overall property as described in the rezoning ordinance and as consistent with the Commercial High Intensity Future Land Use category of the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria described in 34-40 of the Land Development Regulations. (Approved 7-0).

 

Community Development Director Parrish reviewed information from the staff report that began on page 324 of the Council agenda packet. He indicated this hearing was in essence was a “do-over” and staff had since updated their analysis on the requested actions. The difference at this public hearing was that the applicant’s concept plan addressed stormwater runoff or drainage. He also advised that the project was not yet at the site planning stages. 

 

Community Development Director Parrish continued by highlighting information on the staff report. One main question was whether the requested land use change was appropriate. He further reviewed staff’s findings that began on page no. 333 of the Council agenda packet. 

 

Mayor Diesel opened the (new) public hearing. 

 

Kim Rezanka, an attorney on behalf of Small Scale Amendment Application No. 5-2022, distributed and reviewed this information with the Council, including information on the proposal, the historical pattern or evidence of water flow (drainage) on her client’s property, and how it would be handled and discussed by other project representatives at this meeting (hearing). Ms. Rezanka also commented on a letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), the planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) recommendations, receiving approximately 16 various letters of support from the community, a picture or map of the property, a vision concept plan, wetland information and related scores and findings, etc. In short, she requested the Council’s approval of her applicant’s request with the conditions proposed in the staff report.  

 

Rodney Honeycutt, a professional engineer on behalf of Small Scale Amendment Application (SSA) No. 5-2022, distributed and reviewed information with the Council, including details specific to the project’s or site’s engineering details, setbacks in or from the zoning areas, the City’s Code requirements, changing the project’s plans, history of the project and prior meetings with staff, etc. 

 

Mr. Honeycutt continued. He highlighted information on the flood plain, his client’s proposal was to take water off a portion of Fairglen and route it toward a proposed road going to the south on the property, with the goal to get all the water to the south indicating this would help the Fairglen Subdivision. Mr. Honeycutt also discussed a related provision in the mediation agreement, a   Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) map created by Brevard County and articles to assist with addressing concerns of neighbors in the Fairglen Subdivision.  

 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on an exhibit on page no. 350 of the Council agenda packet (Exhibit 5). If Council were to approve the applicant’s request at this hearing, this page (exhibit) was part of the approval and it would stay or be attached to the subject site, unless the Council were to consider and approve subsequent amendments in the future. 

 

xxx

  

It was 11:28 p.m.

 

Motion:

Member Cole moved to extend the meeting to midnight. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

The public hearing on Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022 and the related proposed Ordinance Nos. 17-2023 and 18-2023 continued. 

 

David Parkerson of Atlantic Environmental and on behalf of Small Scale Amendment Application (SSA) No. 5-2022 discussed information on the pond, purchasing wetland mitigation credits, etc.   He advised the project had not received a permit yet from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).  

 

Community Development Director Parrish and Mr. Parkerson briefly discussed his questions on Mr. Parkerson’s or project representatives’ communications with the SJRWMD.  

 

Stan Johnston expressed concerns on the proposed stormwater drainage plan or plan concerning the flow of water for the project was not sustainable. 

 

Scott Charron thanked the Council for addressing concerns about flooding in the area of the subject property by the Fairglen Subdivision. He advised that a sign was recently installed in or near his neighborhood that indicated the road may flood. One concern was whether the sign or the potential of flooding could negatively affect property values. Mr. Charron also commented that a nearby swamp was full with stormwater runoff and it was not draining well. Additionally, Mr. Charron was concerned for fill dirt that may be brought onto the applicant’s project site. According to Mr. Charron, the Fairglen neighborhood did not have an issue with flooding until approximately seven years ago. 

 

Kim Rezanka, an attorney on behalf of Small Scale Amendment Application No. 5-2022, offered rebuttal remarks. She indicated the subject property could not be developed without the proposed formalities and conditions of approval for which the applicant was seeking from the Council.  To this, she thanked the Council and she requested the Council’s approval of her applicant’s request with the conditions proposed in the staff report.  

 

With no additional persons that wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

 

Member Nelson commented briefly on her prior relationship with the property owner or applicant, Greg Nelson. She advised that there was not a conflict of interest on her voting on the proposed land use amendment (Ordinance No. 17-2023) as it was legislative; however, she advised that she would not vote on the proposed rezoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 18-2023) due to it was quasi-judicial and she wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety.   

 

City Attorney highlighted the rules of Florida Statutes 286.012; however, if the pending official act was related to a quasi-judicial proceeding, then a member could abstain from voting to ensure a fair proceeding that was free from potential bias or prejudice. 

 

Motion:

Member Stoeckel moved to approve Ordinance No. 17-2023 as recommended. Vice-Mayor Robinson seconded the motion and the roll call vote was: 

 

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

          Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

 

The motion carried unanimously. 

 

Motion:

Member Stoeckel moved to approve Ordinance No. 18-2023 as recommended and with the conditions set forth in the Conditional Mediated Settlement Agreement, the Concept Plan (“bubble plan”), and as set forth in the staff report. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was: 

 

         Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Abstained from voting

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

 

The motion carried, four (4) yes to zero (0) no. 

 

xxx

 

ORDINANCES-FIRST READING

 

Comprehensive Plan Small Scale Amendment (SSA) No. 7-2023 TRG Self Storage with Annexation – City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances for the first time and by title only, as followed:

 

Ordinance No. 52-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 7, CHAPTER 63-2001, LAWS OF FLORIDA, SPECIAL ACTS OF 1963, BY ANNEXING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH STREET (STATE ROAD 405) AND EAST OF INTERSTATE-95 HAVING PARCEL ID NUMBERS: 22-35-19-AV-*-33.01, 22-35-19-AV-*-34.01, AND 22-35-19-AV-*-63 TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This was a legislative item.

 

Ordinance No. 53-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60-1988, WHICH ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 8.93+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH STREET (STATE ROAD 405) AND EAST OF INTERSTATE-95, HAVING BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBERS: 22-35-19-AV-*-33.01, 22-35-19-AV-*-34.01, AND 22-35-19-AV-*-63, FROM INDUSTRIAL (BREVARD COUNTY) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE INDUSTRIAL (CITY OF TITUSVILLE) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This was a legislative item.

 

Ordinance No. 54-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5-1993 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE IU INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (BREVARD COUNTY) AND IU-1 INDUSTRIAL HEAVY (BREVARD COUNTY) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSING (M-1) ZONING DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 8.93+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH STREET (STATE ROAD 405) AND EAST OF INTERSTATE-95, HAVING BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBERS: 22-35-19-AV-*-33.01, 22-35-19-AV-*-34.01, AND 22-35-19-AV-*-63; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This was a quasi-judicial item.

 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the first reading of ordinances for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA 7-2023) with Rezoning and Annexation. The second reading and public hearing was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on November 28, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. 

 

As an alternative, the City could request that the applicant propose a more intense zoning district without a concept plan. Public hearings would need to be advertised for a revised request.

 

On November 8, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommended the following:

 

  • Approval of the annexation, the amending of the comprehensive plan future land use map to Industrial, and the rezoning from Brevard county IU-1 Industrial Heavy to the city’s Light Industrial and Warehousing M-1 zoning district. Annexation – Approved 5 yes, 2 no;      
  • Amend Comprehensive Future Land Use Map – Approved 7-0;   
  • Rezoning – Approved 6 yes, 1 no. Member Rogers and Member Moscoso voted no because of adding more Commercial and Industrial to the city and the impact it has on the Live Local Act status and also losing Heavy Industrial that might bring in more jobs than what is proposed.

 

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He advised the requested actions were not sustainable for reasons he explained. He also felt land use applications were not being reviewed properly. 

 

This was the first reading of proposed Ordinance Nos. 52-2023, 53-2023, and 54-2023. The second reading and public hearing(s) was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on November 28, 2023 at 6:30 p.m.

 

xxx

 

OLD BUSINESS – None. 

 

xxx

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Brooks Landing, Phase 1 - Re-Plat - Approve the re-plat for Brooks Landing, Phase 1 Subdivision – City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. On November 8, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-0.

 

City Manager Larese advised that the Brooks Landing Phase 1 Final Plat was approved on July 25, 2023 and subsequently recorded. Brooks Landing was an 81-lot single-family home subdivision located north of Jay Jay Road and west of Hammock Road. The overall Brooks Landing subdivision consisted of 143-lots on approximately 71.99 acres. The Final Plat for Phase 2 would be submitted in the near future.


After the Final Plat was recorded, scrivener’s errors and omissions were found by the County’s mapping department. Certain tracts and the entrance road were not correctly shown on the original Final Plat; therefore, a re-plat was required per Florida Statutes.


The final plat was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the preliminary plat and final plat requirements described in Chapter 34, Article III, Division "Plat" of the City’s Code. Staff had reviewed the final plat for consistency with the Planned Development (PD) zoning approval, Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations and recommended approval. Staff had also reviewed the covenants, performance bonds and easement and recommended acceptance.

 

Mayor Diesel confirmed the request was quasi-judicial. He then opened the public hearing. 

 

David Stimmel, a representative of the Brooks Landing, Phase 1 Subdivision, was available to answer questions.  

 

Stan Johnston commented generally on concerns for fraud and corruption. 

 

As there were no additional persons that wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

 

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve the re-plat for the Brooks Landing, Phase 1 Subdivision as recommended. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and the roll call vote was: 

 

          Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

 

The motion carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

PETITIONS AND REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC PRESENT (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) – None. 

xxx

 

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS

 

Mayor's Report - Mayor Diesel submitted his written report.

 

xxx

 

Mayor Diesel requested the Council’s consideration of allowing him to present two individual proclamations at upcoming Council meetings.   The first concerned the Titusville High Terriers football team.

 

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve Mayor Diesel presenting a proclamation to the Titusville High School Terriers Football Team to recognize a major recent victory won by the team. The indication was this proclamation would be presented at the regular City Council meeting for special recognitions and presentations on January 23, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

The second proclamation concerned recognizing National Homeless Persons Memorial Day.

 

Stan Johnston indicated his support of the proposed proclamation (indicated by clapping).  

 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Mayor Diesel presenting a proclamation to the Brevard County Homeless Coalition proclaiming December 21, 2023, as National Homeless Persons Memorial Day. This Proclamation would be presented at the regular City Council meeting of December 12, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

 

xxx

 

Mayor Diesel commented on an email he received that discussed an inquiry to allow art to be sold in the City Hall lobby. He could not support the idea, due to price tags would be affixed to the art (indicating an individual desired making a profit on art on display in a public building). The answer was no; the City could not support the inquiry. 

 

xxx

Council Reports - 

 

Vice-Mayor Robinson commented on his and the City Manager’s attendance at the Veteran’s Day Ceremony. 

xxx

Member Stoeckel commented on her attendance at a recent Planning Day conference. 

 

Second, Member Stoeckel commended staff on successfully hosting the Space Coast League of Cities monthly meeting at a local restaurant. She also reviewed being pleased with how Titusville’s City Council got along with each other and enjoyed a professional and positive dynamic.

 

xxx

 

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

 

City Manager's Report - City Manager Larese submitted his written report, as provided in the Council agenda packet. The Council’s consideration was requested on two action items. 

 

xxx

 

Item 1 - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Special Meeting Dates - Staff was requesting Council hold its annual CDBG Special Meeting in January 2024 to hear Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from agencies requesting CDBG funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024.

 

Motion:

Council authorized scheduling a special City Council meeting on Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 5:30 p.m., for the purpose of holding the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) meeting to hear Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from agencies requesting CDBG funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. 

xxx

 

Item 2 - School Board-City Council Collaborative Joint Work Session – Included in the Council agenda packet was a letter from the Chairman of the Brevard Public School Board inviting the City to participate in a collaborative joint work session to cover a wide range of topics of interest to both the School Board and City. Council’s consideration was requested whether the Council desired participating in these work sessions. 

 

Council did not take action on a request from the Chairperson of the Brevard County School Board to hold a joint work session, for the purpose described in the Council agenda packet. 

 

xxx

 

The remaining items on the City Manager’s Report were informational only, as followed:

 

  • North Brevard Library Board To Be Declared Inactive
  • City Council Outside Agency Appointments 

 

xxx

 

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT – 

 

Status of the U.S. Dollar LIBOR based instruments Settlements – City Attorney Broome advised the Council of the status of this litigation and to acknowledge that no further action was required. Additionally, the City would not need to file an additional proof of claim, since there was no additional or supplemental information to submit.

 

No action was requested or taken by the Council.  

 

xxx

 

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned early the next morning at 12:13 a.m.