0:00The primary agenda item was introduced by Eddie, who presented the rezoning request made by Larry Roads on behalf of 2300 Holdings LLC. The property, previously zoned Regional Commercial, was proposed to be rezoned to Community Commercial to allow for building trades and services use. The site had a history of being used for a fencing installation storage facility, and the current request aimed to align the property’s zoning with its intended use.

Member Moso questioned the limitations of Community Commercial compared to Regional Commercial, to which staff responded that Community Commercial zoning allows for less intense commercial uses. Concerns were also raised by Member Rogers regarding the compliance of the new application with distance requirements from intersections, especially since a previous storage facility application had been tabled for similar reasons. Staff reassured that the current application met all necessary requirements.

A discussion point was the prohibition of outdoor storage in Community Commercial zoning. Member Gad expressed concerns based on previous code violations by a former tenant related to outdoor storage. The applicant’s representative, Carla Nettles, confirmed that the new tenant was aware of and would comply with the prohibition. Member Fa emphasized the importance of recognizing the documented reasons for the rezoning.

Member Gad also proposed that the board consider reviewing the zoning text to simplify the process for similar uses, noting the frequent need for zoning changes could complicate matters unnecessarily. The public hearing allowed the applicant’s representative to present their case, reiterating the necessity of the rezoning to comply with the new tenant’s business needs. Member Rogers sought and received clarification that the new tenant’s operations would differ from the previous tenant.

After concluding the public hearing, the board returned to deliberations. A motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request was made and seconded, followed by a unanimous roll call vote in support of the rezoning item. The matter will now be forwarded to the city council for readings on August 27 and September 10.

17:59In another discussion, the board reviewed amendments to the city’s code of ordinances related to the duties and powers of the Titusville Environmental Resources Commission (TEC). The amendments aimed to maintain the city’s designation as a Tree City USA Community by establishing a tree board, implementing a tree care ordinance, allocating $2 per capita for urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day.

Concerns were raised about language changes in the ordinance and the perceived inconsistency between TEC’s authority to investigate environmental issues and the city council’s right to determine which projects TEC could review. It was clarified that the scrutinized language was existing and not new, and TEC’s role remained advisory, with the city council retaining ultimate authority. The possibility of amending the ordinance to remove the section reserving rights for the city council was discussed but ultimately recommended to be sent back to TEC for further review.

Further concerns were raised about instances where TEC’s recommendations were not acted upon by the city council. An example involved a request for stormwater outfall testing that the council had declined due to potential contamination concerns. This situation highlighted a disconnect between TEC’s recommendations and council actions, raising questions about the politicization of environmental investigations. Despite this, it was acknowledged that TEC could independently investigate relevant matters even if some recommendations did not align with council priorities.

32:42The public hearing segment saw no public comments, leading to its closure. A motion was made to recommend approval of a particular item to the city council, with Mr. Rogers dissenting due to concerns about the potential implications of the language used. Despite this, the report was unanimously approved to be sent to the city council as written.

The board also discussed a proposed amendment to the Planning and Zoning bylaws, which was unanimously approved. The necessity for public sign-up cards for speaking on agenda items was clarified, and it was noted that this requirement typically does not apply under “petitions and requests.”

In the public comments segment, an inquiry was made regarding the preservation of heritage trees during development, specifically addressing penalties for damage to such trees. The discussion noted that there are codes in place to address impacts on critical root zones and that penalties typically involve remediation through additional plantings.