Regular Minutes 1-25-2011.pdf - The City of Titusville, Florida

City Council
Regular Meeting
January 25, 2011
The City Council of the City of Titusville, Florida met in regular session on Tuesday,
January 25, 2011 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 555 South Washington Avenue,
Titusville, Florida.
xxx
Mayor Jim Tulley called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Mayor Jim
Tulley, Vice-Mayor Walt Johnson and Members Kathleen Burson, Martha Long, and
Rita Pritchett. Also present were City Manager Mark Ryan, City Attorney Dwight
Severs, and City Clerk Wanda Wells. Assistant City Clerk Jolynn Donhoff completed the
minutes.
xxx
Pastor Bruce Waugh of New Life Christian Fellowship Church gave the invocation.
Mayor Tulley followed by leading those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
He then read the procedures for public comment during the meeting.
xxx
Approval of Minutes – Mayor Tulley advised the request was to approve the minutes of
the Regular City Council Meeting on December 14, 2010.
Member Pritchett moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on
December 14, 2010, as submitted. Vice-Mayor Johnson seconded the motion and it
carried unanimously.
Special Recognitions & Presentations:
xxx
Employee of the Month - December 2010 – City Manager Ryan recognized Joe Land of
the Building Department as the City's Employee of the Month for December 2010. He
read from his nomination and presented him with a plaque and a gift.
xxx
Employee of the Month - January 2011 – This presentation was tentatively deferred to the
regular City Council meeting on February 22, 2011, as the employee could not attend this
meeting.
xxx

Titusville Police Athletic League - This presentation was tentatively deferred to the
regular City Council meeting on February 8, 2011 as the representative was not able to
attend this meeting.
xxx
Mayor's Monthly Award - Mayor Tulley acknowledged an original piece of artwork of a
landscape that was on display in the Council Chambers, which was painted by local artist
Rosemary Pearce and presented to the City Council on January 26, 2010. This was the
artwork that was portrayed on the original coffee mug used and presented to 2010
Mayor’s Award recipients.
This year (2011, a new piece of artwork of a sunrise photographed by Artist and
Titusville Art League Member Franci Kettman was voted as the work that would be
displayed on the Mayor’s Award coffee mug along with the City motto – Gateway to
Nature and Space. Mayor Tulley advised the new art work was the result of an art
competition that was recently sponsored by Parrish Medical Center. The artist, Francie
Kettman, and Parrish Medical Center Representative Natalie Sellers were present at the
meeting. Additionally, Mayor Tulley presented a framed copy of the new artwork to
Parrish Medical Center Representative Natalie Sellers.
Lastly, Mayor Tulley requested the public notify him of anyone they feel were deserving
of the Mayor’s Monthly Award as this month there were no nominations and no
recipient(s).
xxx
Letters of Appreciations - City Manager Ryan read the names of the following employees
who received letters of appreciation:
Police Department
Tony Bollinger
Michelle Glover
Todd Hutchinson
*Richard Irizarry
Mark Jennings
Zsolt “Z” Rimoczi
Jan Scofield
Mark Sypien
Stacey Woodward
Public Works
Frederick Dublin
Chief
Victim Advocate
Lieutenant
Officer
Officer
Officer
Detective
Officer
Administrative Secretary
Equipment Operator
xxx

Boards and Commissions:
Titusville Community Service Award Select Committee – City Manager Ryan advised
that Mayor Tulley appointed Brad Russell as Chairperson and Pastor Kevin Wright of
Faith City Church as the Clergy representative for the Titusville Community Service
Award Committee. City Council was requested to confirm their appointments.
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to confirm the appointments of Brad Russell as Chairperson
and Pastor Kevin Wright of Faith City Church as the Clergy representative. Member
Long seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
xxx
Planning and Zoning Commission – City Manager Ryan highlighted the request to
appoint three (3) regular members and one (1) alternate member to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for two-year terms that would expire on January 31, 2013. He
advised the terms of regular members George Fayson, Robert Massarelli, and Lorene
Shafer expired on January 31, 2011. City Manager Ryan reported that Members George
Fayson and Robert Massarelli expressed their willingness and desire to continue to serve
on this board and requested reappointment for two-year terms expiring on January 31,
2013. Ms. Lorene Shafer did not wish to be reappointed to this board.
Next, City Manager Ryan advised the term of Alternate Member John Chambers expired
on January 31, 2011 and that Mr. Chambers expressed his willingness and desire to
continue serving on this board either as a regular or alternate member. There was also one
additional application on file for Council’s consideration from Ms. Karen MacArthur
who expressed her willingness and desire to serve as a regular or alternate member on the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Tulley requested a letter be sent to Lorene Shafer for her years of service since she
did not wish to be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicant Karen MacArthur informed Council she had a schedule conflict and that she
could only attend one of the two bi-monthly meetings. Alternate Member Chambers
advised he was willing to serve as a Regular Member. Regular Member Massarelli also
commented on his desire to continue serving on the board.
Motion:
Member Long moved to appoint Alternate Member John Chambers and reappoint
Regular Members George Fayson and Robert Massarelli as regular members to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for two-year terms expiring on January 31, 2013, and
Karen MacArthur as an alternate member to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a
two-year term expiring on January 31, 2013. Vice-Mayor Johnson seconded the motion
and it carried unanimously.

xxx
Planning and Zoning Commission Semi-Annual Report - City Manager Ryan highlighted
the request to review and accept the semi-annual report from the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Vice-Chairman Shawn Williams gave a presentation that reviewed the cases filed for the
period from July to December 2010, which included more cases than the prior reporting
period from January to June 2010. He also advised the Planning and Zoning Commission
desired having more workshops on larger-issue items in order to collect more data and
subsequently provide more thorough recommendations to the City Council.
Member Long supported Vice-Chairman Williams’ request for more Planning and
Zoning workshops/meetings. Vice-Chairman Williams then commented on his fellow
board members’ experience and expertise.
Vice-Mayor Johnson requested staff improve the flow of information to the Planning and
Zoning Commission prior to meetings and work to accommodate this board with their
request for workshops when possible, especially on larger issues.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker commented in response to
the request by Vice-Chairman Williams for more workshops. She shared that staff was
working to accommodate this board with its requests. She also noted more
meetings/workshops would affect the departmental budget and that her department would
need to adjust its budget in advance.
Mayor Tulley commented on his prior experience on the Planning and Zoning
Commission and this Commission’s proactive purpose. He requested staff locate a paper
he wrote on the Planning and Zoning Commission taking a larger or more assertive role
in their recommendations. The paper was written prior to his leaving his position as a
member on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Additionally, Member Burson
requested a copy of the paper that Mayor Tulley described once it was located.
There was no formal acceptance of the Planning and Zoning Commission semi-annual
report.
xxx
Petitions And Requests From The Public Present (Open Forum) – Bart Morrision
requested staff to provide covers for hearing impairment devices or make sure such
devices that were provided at public meetings be checked for cleanliness prior to
meetings. He commented on the importance of Titusville as the capital City of Brevard
County and expressed concern regarding a recent newspaper article that noted Brevard
Community College (BCC) was proposing to consolidate a program(s) to its Viera

location. Additionally, Mr. Morrison challenged Council to keep the tax base here in
Titusville.
Mayor Tulley requested a copy of the newspaper article that Mr. Morrison referenced by
the next morning. City Manager Ryan clarified that BCC was relocating its law
enforcement academy from Melbourne to Viera in order to benefit all law enforcement
offices in Brevard County. City Manager Ryan would provide the newspaper article that
Mr. Morrison referenced following the meeting.
Consent Agenda –
xxx
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to hear Consent Agenda items A, B, H and I immediately
following Consent Agenda items C, D, E, F, and G.
Member Long requested Item E be included in Vice-Mayor Johnson’s motion.
Vice-Mayor Johnson agreed to amend his motion to hear Consent Agenda items A, B, E,
H and I immediately following Consent Agenda items C, D, F, and G. Member Long
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion:
Member Long moved to approve Consent Agenda Items C, D, F, and G in accordance
with recommendations. Member Pritchett seconded the motion. City Manager Ryan read
Consent Agenda items C, D, F and G as followed:
C. Acceptance of Donation to Harry T. Moore Social Services - To accept a
donation in the amount of $2,000.00 to the Harry T. Moore Social Services
Programs From RUSH Construction, Inc.
D. Area IV Wetlands Mitigation - Credit Reservation And Purchase Agreement -
Approve Area IV Wetlands Mitigation Credit Reservation And Purchase
Agreement In The Amount Of $86,400; And Authorize The Mayor To Execute
The Agreement.
F. Amendment 2 - CPH Engineers Contract - Approve Contract Amendment 2
With CPH Engineers To Provide Additional Construction Engineering And
Inspection Services For The Area IV Well Field Phase 1 Project. Approve
$85,000 Of Additional Funding To The Previously Approved Amount Of
$139,298.81, For A Total Of $224,298.81, And Authorize The Mayor To Execute
The Necessary Documents.
G. Authorization to Purchase Tractor for the Stormwater Division - Approve a
budget transfer for $1,500, and the purchase of a boom tractor with rotary mower

attachment for the Stormwater Division from Glade & Grove Supply Co. Inc. of
Bell Glade, FL for $71,500.
Mayor Tulley noted that Council was considering the approval of Consent Agenda Items C,
D, F, and G only. The motion carried unanimously.
xxx
Next, City Manager highlighted the remaining Consent Agenda Items Nos. A, B, E, H and I,
in alphabetical order as followed:
A. Purchase of Ammunition - Authorize the purchase of miscellaneous
ammunition and protection equipment from various vendors under State Contract
#680-050-10-01 for the following amounts: SRT Supply for $6,106.84; American
Body Armor for $1,663.55; Florida Bullet, Inc., for $9,765.64; and RUAG
Ammotec USA, Inc. for $1,634.70; for a total purchase amount of
$19,170.73.Bart Morrison asked for clarification on A – ammunition and that it
was coming from TPD’s budget. CM clarified. Mr. Morrison next commented on
buying ammunition from ‘Knight Armourment.
Mayor Tulley advised there was a speaking card submitted on this item.
Bart Morrison clarified the funding source of the ammunition purchase would be the
Titusville Police Department’s budget and that the item required City Council’s approval.
He also commented on obtaining reduced fees from local vendors for services and equipment
used by the City.
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to approve Consent Agenda Item A - Purchase of Ammunition,
in accordance with recommendations. Member Long seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
xxx
B. Mooring Field - BIGP, FIND and FBIP Grant Authorizations - Authorize the
Mayor to Sign Marina Mooring Field Related Boating Improvement Grant
Program (BIGP) Contract # 10213, Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND)
Project Agreement BV-10-104, Florida Boating Improvement Grant Program
(FBIP) Contract # 10233 and Amendment Number 6 To FBIP Grant Contract
#05120. Approve Budget Amendment in the amount of $313,400 for Mooring
Field Project.
Mayor Tulley advised there were person(s) that submitted a speaking card on the item.
Bart Morrison expressed his concern on dock renters who have boats at the Municipal
Marina showing proof of boat insurance in order to ensure the City had some financial

protection should issues arise. Dock Master Mark Leslie summarized the Marina required an
agreement and dockage insurance for boats or vessels docked at the Marina.
Motion:
Member Pritchett moved to approve Consent Agenda Item B - Mooring Field - BIGP, FIND
and FBIP Grant Authorizations, in accordance with recommendations. Vice-Mayor Johnson
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
xxx
E. Resolution No. 4-2011 - Amending Resolution No. 32-2010, Landscape
Enhancement Grant which established a Landscape Enhancement Grant, by
amending the properties eligible for grant consideration.
Member Long expressed concern about an update the Council received, which included
updating the focus area this resolution would target. It was her belief the resolution was
originally intended to dedicate dollars to an area south of the Community Redevelopment
Area (CRA) in an effort to enhance this region’s appearance. She did not support the item as
it was presently offered and commented on the public’s perception about the request.
Second, Member Long commented on approving landscape enhancements for publicly
owned property and could support such improvements if the City Manager approved them. In
addition, if there were any publicly owned properties that were previously excluded, but
needed improvements, they were to be brought to the City Council for approval at a future
meeting. Additionally, she advised that she took issue with a proposal that would include the
span of properties that bordered U.S. Highway 1 within the entire City limits (north to south
along U.S. Hwy. 1).
City Manager Ryan commented on recent communications received from property owners
that noticed the recent beautification enhancements in the downtown area and requested how
they could beautify their own properties if they were outside of the CRA/downtown. He
advised that in response to these inquiries, the revised resolution was proposed to “expand
the allowable area for this grant to include all of the U.S. 1 Corridor, including the
downtown”
Mayor Tulley commented on the trickiness of such proposals and the use of grant monies to
enhance publicly owned properties, which might take money away from commercial
property owners.
Member Long commented that grant money provided to private and/or commercial property
owners would improve those business’ property values, which in return would cause an
increase in ad valorem taxes – a benefit to the City. She also commented that there were
private property owners not on U.S. Highway 1 that could potentially benefit from the
landscape grant program.

Vice-Mayor Johnson commented that the property occupied by the Titusville Chamber of
Commerce was publicly owned and because this organization assisted area businesses, he
would like to see this organization benefit from the grant.
Member Pritchett supported Member Long’s comments and asked why little money had been
disbursed from the grant program. City Engineer Woody Rice commented that since
approximately July, twelve inquiries were received for grant money. Of these twelve, six
were outside of the original established boundaries and the others were in the downtown.
Another grant application from the Chamber of Commerce was excluded because it was
owned by the City.
Member Burson expressed her concern with the source of the landscape mitigation program
due to its funding was the result of the destruction of large diameter trees. For this reason,
she suggested not thinning stretching out the mitigation fund, but to plant trees elsewhere
other than on U.S Highway 1. She also supported doing studies and acquiring “sensitive
property” that could support new tree plantings for possible acquisitions of sensitive property
of our conservation lands. It should be supported to purchase lands with large trees that are
similar to lands that were destroyed for development. She advised that she was not
suggesting planting new trees on the properties because they already had plenty of trees.
Although she was not making a formal request for these things during the meeting, but rather
asking that the landscape grant program be funded in a different way. (Correction was made
by Member Burson at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
City Manager Ryan proposed a solution that addressed Council’s comments, which included
reinstating the original program territory limits provided in Resolution No. 32-2010 (Section
4 – Eligible Properties) and striking what were the suggested or revised territory limits. Also
under Section 4 – Eligible Properties, the following sentence would be modified as followed:
“Properties owned by the City, State or Federal agencies are excluded from eligibility for this
grant, unless otherwise approved by the City Council (not City Manager)”.
Motion:
Member Long moved to approve Resolution No. 4-2011 with the condition the resolution be
modified in Section 4 – Eligible Properties as followed: 1.) revert back to the original
language regarding the original territory description from Grace Street to Riveredge Drive;
and 2.) Change the wording of the sentence “Properties owned by the City, State or Federal
agencies are excluded from eligibility for this grant, unless otherwise approved by the City
Council” (not City Manager). Member Johnson seconded the motion.
The roll call was.
Member Pritchett
Vice-Mayor Johnson
Mayor Tulley
Member Long
Member Burson
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion carried unanimously.

xxx
H. Resolution No. 5-2011 - Establishment of Economic Development Incentives -
Establishing guidelines for the reimbursement of permitting fees for projects with
an enhanced economic benefit to the City.
City Manager Ryan advised a revised copy of proposed Resolution No. 5-2011 was
distributed that provided for the following changes: expansion of the WHEREAS that
dealt with the public use of funds; provided for the business must establish five (5) or
more new jobs and new full time employees; provided for striking the words “unutilized
areas” on page 2; provided for the insertion of the words “Commercial Development”
under Section B, page 2; provided for striking of through the words “City Manager” and
inserting “City Council” under the requirements listed under Section 3 B; and provided
for striking through the phrase “Planning and Growth Management”. He also advised the
original language provided for the waiver of Planning and Zoning fees and this was
struck from Section 1B, and that staff would return after further study on this issue.
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to approve Resolution No. 5-2011 as recommended.
Member Long seconded the motion for discussion.
Member Long clarified the funding source of the proposed resolution would originate
from business tax receipts and not from funds set aside for economic development in the
FY 2010-2011 budget.
Member Burson commented on the proposed resolution’s criteria and requested the
resolution clarify language under Criteria No. A.1., which stated “The business must
establish five (5) or more new jobs or to employ five (5) or more new full-time
employees in the City”.
Discussion ensued on Criteria No. A. 1. Economic Development Director Matt Chesnut
hypothesized there could be a business that employed five workers according to a single
job description. If the business hired five new employees to do the same job description
then you would have added five new employees to perform the same work of the single
job description; however, the language of the proposed resolution covered both aspects
for whether five new employees were hired or five new job descriptions were created in
the City.
Mayor Tulley requested clarification that if a business created new job positions, but did
not fill them or held them as placeholders for future employees, how did the proposed
resolution benefit persons looking to be employed within businesses located in the City.
Economic Development Director Chesnut advised that when someone created a business
and if they requested an ad valorem tax abatement, the business was required to prove its

persons were employed. Mayor Tulley summarized the objective of the criteria, which
was to employ five new people.
Member Burson commented on the language of Criteria No. A. 1. and asked whether the
language could be revised to make it clearer. She explained persons would have to have a
job if they were employed. City Manager Ryan advised that staff could make this change.
Next, Member Burson commented on Criteria No. A. 2. and summarized that the
resolution did not outline enough criteria in order to reimburse potentially thousands of
dollars. City Manager Ryan noted the intent of the resolution was to provide a certain
amount of criteria, but also allow staff enough flexibility in order to attract businesses
seeking to benefit from the proposed resolution and with it new jobs or new employees.
Member Long requested whether it was possible to implement a period that allowed a
business to complete its expansion, or have its new jobs in place prior to a monetary
reimbursement of permitting fees. City Manager explained the resolution outlined some
portion of permitting fees would be reimbursed once a structure was considered “driedin”.
Concerning site plan review and planning fees and getting into construction – these
fees were estimated to be reduced almost by half.
Discussion ensued on the benefit of persons to build new buildings, return of certain fees,
attracting businesses, and the size of buildings, and Criteria 1. B. Concerning this criteria,
Member Long supported only industrial development or commercial development as part
of this criteria’s phrasing. It was noted the words “development or” could be struck from
the resolution – this was before the last word of the sentence in Criteria 1. B, which was
“redevelopment”.
Vice-Mayor Johnson commented on the proposed time mentioned by Member Long and
that new and/or expanding businesses seeking assistance from the resolution needed their
financial assistance up front. With respect to economic development in the City and the
current poor economy, he understood there would be no recourse if a qualifying business
failed who could have already taken advantage of the proposed resolution (hypothetical).
He recommended extending this resolution’s criteria to commercial developments due to
the current poor economy; however, he supported a sunset on the proposed resolution and
explained that commercial developments circulated money versus the others (industrial
development and commercial redevelopment) invited money from the outside.
Additionally, he commented on tax abatement requests and their structural matrixes that
required certain conditions to be met. Vice-Mayor Johnson requested Council or staff
might consider using these same types of matrixes for new project proposals.
Mayor Tulley commented on the importance of the resolution’s vague criteria was to
allow flexibility in order to broaden or attract project participants.
Member Burson supported striking the words ‘development or’ from Criteria 1. B and
instead approve the criteria to read, “The project must be considered industrial
development or commercial redevelopment.

Motion:
Member Long moved to approve Resolution No. 5-2011 with a change in language to
Criteria 1.B., striking through the words “commercial development or” and in its place
having it read “or commercial redevelopment”. Vice-Mayor Johnson seconded the
motion.
The roll call was:
Vice-Mayor Johnson
Mayor Tulley
Member Long
Member Burson
Member Pritchett
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion carried unanimously.
xxx
I. Economic Development Incentives - Staff received two requests for waiver of
zoning and/or construction related fees; one for Bristow Academy and the second
from Mr. Aldon Bookhardt.
City Manager Ryan highlighted the request from Bristow Academy. The company was
expanding its facilities, increasing the number of its full-time employees, increasing the
number of students who trained at its facility, etc. The total economic impact to the
community was anticipated to be $100,000,000, and the total capital improvements
would exceed $10,000,000 in value. To further assist with this project, City Manager
Ryan proposed to Council they grant a waiver of one-half of the site and utility
construction fees, which was estimated at $26,435.50 (one-half of the total cost for these
fees).
Motion:
Member Long moved to approve the granting of the waiver at one-half of the site and
utility construction fees for Bristow Academy estimated at $26,435.50 as recommended.
Member Pritchett seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
xxx
Regarding the second request from Mr. Aldon Bookhardt, Mayor Tulley verified clarified
Council would not consider this request at the meeting and that staff would return with
recommendations at a future meeting. He also verified clarified Mr. Bookhardt was
aware of this. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
xxx

Ordinances – Second Reading, Public Hearings & Related Action:
Ordinance No. 2-2011 - City Of Titusville RV, Boat, And Trailer Ordinance - Public
Hearing – City Attorney Severs read the following ordinance for the second time by title
only, as followed:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
SECTION 27-11 DEFINITIONS TO ELIMINATE MAXIMUM SIZE OF CAMPER
TRAILERS AND TO CREATE DEFINITIONS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
(RV) AND STABILIZED AREA; AMENDING SECTION 59-10 (a) BY RENAMING
THE TITLE TO “TRAILERS, MOBILE HOMES, BOATS AND RV’S”; BY
RENAMING RESIDENTIAL COACHES TO RV’S; AMENDING SECTION 59-35 (d)
(8) BY DELETING REQUIREMENT TO PLACE TRAILERS INSIDE A GARAGE OR
SCREENED FROM VIEW; AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES,
SECTION 20-58 “MISCELLANEOUS PARKING REGULATION” BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION (e) TO INCLUDE RV, BOAT AND TRAILER PARKING
RESTRICTIONS BY DELETING MAXIMUM SIZE FOR CARGO TRAILERS AND
BY AMENDING THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR PARKING ON PRIVATE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; AMENDING SUBSECTION (f) TO REPLACE SELF-
PROPELLED MOBILE HOME WITH RV; AMENDING SECTION 20-58 (g)
“PARKING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED” TO INCLUDE RV’S AND
BOAT’S AND SPECIFYING SPACE LAUNCHES AS AN EXCEPTION;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Manager Ryan advised that in June of 2009, a citizen requested City Council to
review the Code of Ordinances regarding the regulations for the storage of Recreational
Vehicles (RVs), boats, and trailers on residential property for the potential of making the
regulations more restrictive. City Council directed staff to hold a community meeting to
gain input from the community on the issue. The first community meeting was held on
September 29, 2009 with a consensus to make minor changes to the Code of Ordinances
to address inconsistencies. On October 27, 2009, Council directed staff to draft an
ordinance with the following minor changes to the Code of Ordinances:
1. Require the RV, boat, or trailer, if parked in the side yard, to be parked closest to
the residential structure, rather than the fence or the property line.
2. Allow property owners to install a stabilized surface of gravel instead of requiring
a concrete driveway.
3. Eliminate any requirements in the Home Occupation section of the Land
Development Regulations regarding trailer storage to provide consistency with
the Code of Ordinances.
4. Eliminate the size requirement for cargo trailers, as this is inconsistent with
allowing RV’s of any size.
5. Eliminate the 25-foot setback requirement for RVs, as many homes are now
constructed with setbacks less than 25 feet.

City Manager Ryan advised that an ordinance was drafted that accomplished the above
parameters. This draft ordinance was sent to all persons that expressed an interest in the
ordinance who provided an email or mailing address. A second Community Meeting was
held on August 19, 2010 whereby staff presented the draft ordinance for community
input. Overall, the community showed support for the draft ordinance with one (1) minor
addition:
1. Amend Section 20-58(g) to by replacing ‘space shuttle launches’ text with ‘space
launches’.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker advised the draft RV, Boat,
and Trailer Ordinance was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January
5, 2011 who as a result, unanimously recommended denial of the draft ordinance due to
several concerns (not specified). Due to the Commission’s concerns, she advised the
ordinance that was presented for first reading to City Council on January 11, 2011 was
different that the ordinance that was presented at the public hearing this evening.
Code Enforcement Manager Randy Woodruff highlighted three recent changes to the
proposed ordinance as followed:
• Section 27-11, the definition for “stabilized surface” was removed.
• Section 20-58(e) (3) regarded stabilized surfaces by adding the following
language: ‘The existing driveway may be expanded to accommodate the parking
of RV’s, boats, and trailers, provided that the expansion meets Section 39-32,
which may include gravel.’
• Section 20-58(g) - staff added the following language: ‘This ordinance shall take
effect on July 1, 2011’.
Mayor Tulley commented on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations.
Mayor Tulley opened the public hearing.
Martha Wensel did not support the proposed ordinance as it was currently written. She
expressed there were too many changes to the draft copy since the prior meeting.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker advised the changes in
question addressed inconsistencies pertaining to sections of the code and they did not
strengthen the regulations, but instead addressed RV parking next to the homes.
Ms. Wensel further commented on parking location criteria and she read from a prepared
statement.
Liz Lachovich did not support the proposed ordinance for the reason she did not feel its
current criteria for rock and gravel driveway expansions was acceptable. She expressed
that she supported the Orange County, Florida ordinance on this subject. Additionally,

Ms. Lachovich expressed concerns regarding recreational vehicle (RV) owners that
owned residential corner lots and these types of lots having two frontages. She requested
Council to deny the proposed ordinance and consider proposing an ordinance that
specifically addressed RV’s.
Bart Morrison commented that the largest issues were money and the ad valorem tax
base. He expressed that he witnessed vehicles and RV’s parked on residential lawns,
which in his opinion, reduced property values and was unattractive. He also expressed
that large boats and RV’s should be stored at storage businesses.
Member Pritchett requested how many code violations existed with RV’s and boats.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker would research the
information and report back; however, Ms. Barker offered the most common offenses
were derelict parked vehicles and subsequent plant growth under such vehicles, etc.
Additionally, Member Pritchett verified clarified whether RV’s could be addressed
separately in the code. Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker
advised that it could be addressed separately. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at
the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Mayor Tulley commented on the differences in vehicle trailers.
Member Burson commented that she believed the code changes were one sided and they
relaxed the restrictions versus tightening them.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker highlighted a previous
meeting with the community and a survey that expressed the community did not want any
changes to the relevant sections of the code. The proposed changes were based on the
prior community meeting. In addition, the proposed ordinance would address some code
inconsistencies that staff observed such as gravel, etc.
Member Long commented on the importance of curb appeal and she verified clarified the
areas of the code where inconsistencies were written. Planning and Growth Management
Director Courtney Barker advised the home occupation section regarding trailers to be in
the garage was one such section, which was inconsistent with other code sections for
trailers, boats, RV’s, and the storage of trailers. The two code sections referenced were
Code of Ordinances Section 20-58 Miscellaneous parking regulation and portion(s) of
Land Development Regulations Sections 59-10 and 59-35. (Correction was made by
Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Motion:
Member Long moved to deny Ordinance No. 2-2011. Member Burson seconded the
motion.
Member Pritchett commented on the heavy weight of RV’s and damage they could
possibly impose on underground utilities, property or equipment. Planning and Growth

Management Director Courtney Barker commented that surveys were necessary to
determine where underground equipment was located on the property.
Vice-Mayor Johnson commented that he was not sure the proposed ordinance would
improve curb appeal in the City.
Mayor Tulley commented that the City needed to improve its curb appeal. He did not
dislike all of the content of the proposed ordinance and desired assistance from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. He also commented on doing what was best for the
entire community versus being guided by a small percentage of the community.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker recommended a workshop
with the Planning and Zoning Commission with direction provided by Council. She
advised that RV’s and varying degrees of trailer ownership could be distinguished.
Member Burson requested staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the
heights of all trailers, boats, etc.
In addition, Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker requested a
leeway on time prior to reporting to Council. There was no indication this request was
unacceptable to the Council.
The roll call (to deny Ordinance No. 2-2011) was:
Mayor Tulley
Member Long
Member Burson
Member Pritchett
Vice-Mayor Johnson
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion carried unanimously.
xxx
Ordinance No. 3-2011 - Annual Update To The Capital Improvements Element 2010
Adoption – City Attorney Severs read the following ordinance for the second time by title
only, as followed:
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, BY AMENDING THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT BY UPDATING THE FIVE-YEAR
SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM; AMENDING THE
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT RELATING TO THE FIVE-YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.

City Manager Ryan advised that Florida Statutes Chapter 163 required every local
government to annually update its Capital Improvements Element (CIE) by December 1st
of each year. The CIE Update included the financially feasible Five Year Capital
Improvements Schedule (Program) and any updated goals, objectives, and policies. The
data and analysis included a level of service analysis, revenue projections, and
descriptions of the capital projects needed to meet level of service standards within the
five-year planning period.
The Annual CIE Update was only required by statute to be adopted by the local
government, unlike other text amendments, which would require a transmittal of
proposed amendments to the Department of Community Affairs for review, an
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, and then adoption of the
amendments. In addition, the Annual CIE Update only required one public hearing;
however, this item was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 5,
2011.
Mayor Tulley opened the public hearing. Bart Morrison, who submitted a speaking card,
declined to speak. With no other persons wishing to speak, Mayor Tulley closed the
public hearing.
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No. 3-2011 - Annual Update to the
Capital Improvements Element 2010 Adoption as recommended. Member Long seconded
the motion.
The roll call was:
Member Long
Member Burson
Member Pritchett
Vice-Mayor Johnson
Mayor Tulley
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion carried unanimously.
xxx
(The cable television broadcast of the meeting was lost for several minutes due to bad
weather)
The meeting recessed at approximately 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
xxx

Mayor Tulley read the quasi-judicial rules of procedure as they related to the following
Public Hearing agenda item:
Barna Avenue and Harrison Street Developers Agreement and Conditional Use Permit -
City Manager Ryan highlighted the request to approve The Developers Agreement and
Conditional Use Permit for the property located at the intersection of Barna Avenue and
Harrison Street. He advised the applicant, Rogers Haydon, on behalf of CSC Properties
LLC was requesting a developer’s agreement to redevelop a property located at Barna
Avenue and Harrison Street for commercial uses. Per Code Section 59-816 of the City’s
Land Development Regulations, the City could enter into a development agreement with
the legal owners of a property within the City limits, pursuant to Section 163.3220 of the
Florida Statutes.
City Manager Ryan advised a developer’s agreement was usually requested when an
applicant wished to develop a project that may need variances for the City’s code to be
feasible or more easily completed and designed. In addition to variances in the City’s
code related to development of the property, the applicant was also requesting a
conditional use be approved for a convenience store with gas pumps at the
aforementioned location.
Mayor Tulley opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Rogers Haydon, spoke on behalf of his application. He commented that
CSC Properties had a contract to purchase the property at the corner of Barna Avenue
and Harrison Street. He also shared information that he summarized was not included in
the public record including property contract information that was pending due to
whether the development application was approved by Council, working with staff was
enjoyable, other working relationships, one citizen’s prior concerns or questions about
the tentative convenience store or conditional use permit included in the proposed
developer’s agreement, aesthetics of the area, work plans for the subject site, use of
outparcels, permitting flexibility to the project as permitted in order to draw business to
the project, investment in the proposed project, landscaping enhancement plans, etc.
(The cable television broadcast of the meeting was reinstated at 9:40 p.m.)
Member Burson and Mayor Tulley verified clarified the project’s parking requirements
would be met. Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker who
highlighted Section 3.3.59 of the Development Agreement explained the requirements.
(Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Member Long verified clarified the requirements for the application’s variance requests
including landscaping, road access, and set back requirements proposed that were
proposed in Development Application No. 1-2011. Planning Department Manager Art
Interiano and Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker outlined the
requirements. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)

Mayor Tulley verified clarified information pertaining to the property’s public right-ofway
and current building(s) on the proposed project’s site. The applicant, Rogers
Haydon, responded accordingly. Mr. Haydon also noted Exhibit E was part of
Development Agreement Application No. 1-2011 and its purpose related to the site’s
buffer plan. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Mayor Tulley and Member Long also verified clarified that the applicant’s preference
was to keep the former Goodings Supermarket building erect. Because of this intention,
Member Long requested the applicant consider leasing this building to a skate park
operator or similar business. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22,
2011 meeting.)
In response to Mayor Tulley’s request, City Clerk Wells advised the three additional
persons that submitted speaking cards no longer wished to speak. One of these persons
had left the meeting.
Mayor Tulley closed the public hearing.
Vice-Mayor Johnson supported the Developer’s Agreement for Barna Avenue and
Harrison Street and Conditional Use Permit.
Mayor Tulley clarified whether the application was supposed to be treated like a variance
approval and whether a hardship must be proven to exist. City Attorney Severs
referenced and read a section of the code. He also advised the applicant had provided
evidence for the variance request that was estimated to enhance the property, etc. In
response to this, Mayor Tulley requested clarification if the enhancements went beyond
the landscaping. The applicant, Mr. Haydon, advised the most tangible enhancement was
landscaping, but other provisions were met to foster a strong out-parcel program or
enhancement of the corner property.
Mayor Tulley clarified information on relocating drive paths when the out parcels were
created. Mr. Haydon summarized the internal flow of traffic would not be restricted and
out parcels would be given internal access as well. An extra access from Harrison Street
would benefit the user of that side of the property and this access would provide
flexibility to the project.
Mayor Tulley struggled with not knowing what might occur at the subject site in the long
term. He also expressed concern with the method in which the proposed CUP request
within the application may be approved, citizenry comment, final approval of the CUP in
the future by staff if the initial request was approved by Council at this meeting, etc. In
response to these remarks, the applicant, Mr. Haydon, commented that the CUP request
was advertised in conjunction with the developer’s agreement application, one citizen’s

questions were addressed prior to the public hearing, and citizens were provided an
opportunity to attend the public hearing at this meeting, but none spoke in opposition.
Mayor Tulley verified clarified if Council were to approve the proposed developer’s
agreement, which included a CUP request, the final approval would be approved by staff
as an administrative process of applying the code. City Attorney Severs confirmed this
procedure. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Vice-Mayor Johnson commented on the earlier remarks regarding enhancing the existing
building, which he noted was vacant for a number of years. Regarding the CUP request
within the application, it was included in case there was a future desire to include a
convenience store with gas pumps at the site.
Member Burson expressed concern that there was no guarantee who might occupy the
old supermarket building. She also clarified the variance procedure and the impervious
area of certain out parcel(s) would not be increased beyond what was anticipated.
Member Burson also commented on set back requirements and site vegetation.
When asked, Mr. Haydon (the applicant) advised his initial interest in moving forward
with his project was due to the desire by Dollar General to open a location at the subject
site.
Member Long verified clarified the provisions proposed in the development agreement
application would follow the property if it was sold. She asked about the CUP provision
and whether Council’s approval would be required in the future if modifications under
the current application were requested. City Attorney Severs summarized that as long as
the Development Agreement was in effect, the CUP would be effective no matter who
owned the property for the specified period; however, and non-compliance with the code
would require a variance. For this reason, if Council was concerned, City Attorney Severs
suggested any new variance request(s) come back to Council for approval. (Correction
was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Member Pritchett verified clarified a Dollar General Store was estimated to open at the
site. She commented on the company’s financial success and hoped this store would
attract additional businesses to the area. (Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the
March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Motion:
Member Long moved to approve the Barna Avenue and Harrison Street Developers
Agreement and Conditional Use Permit as recommended, but with one added condition:
any variance needed beyond this point would come back to the City Council for their
approval. Vice-Mayor Johnson seconded the motion.
Mayor Tulley requested clarification if Council was being requested to approve the CUP
or turn authorization of its approval over to staff at a future date. City Attorney Severs

summarized the request included Council to approve a conditional use for a gasoline
station subject to staff’s final review to ensure compliance with code provisions
administratively. Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker added that
distinguishing the request for a CUP, which was outlined within the proposed developer’s
agreement, was done in order to properly notice and call attention to this component of
this developer’s agreement application.
The roll call was:
Member Burson
Member Pritchett
Vice-Mayor Johnson
Mayor Tulley
Member Long
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion carried unanimously.
xxx
(The cable television was lost for a second time during the meeting due to bad weather)
Stipulated Settlement Agreement for DCA 10-1ER (CPA 2010-1) – City Manager Ryan
advised that on November 24, 2009, City Council approved the transmittal of
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2010-01 to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA). This amendment included text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan’s
goals, objectives, and policies that addressed the recommendations of the Evaluation and
Appraisal Report. The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) evaluated how successful
the Comprehensive Plan was in addressing major land use planning issues. State law
required that every seven years, cities and counties complete an EAR for their
comprehensive plans. The purpose of this planning process was to update the
Comprehensive Plan and to assess our progress in implementing the Plan. The City’s
current EAR report was adopted on October 14, 2008. EAR recommendations were the
basis to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations from the EAR were
implemented through the EAR based Comprehensive Plan amendments and would
address the new future ten-year planning period.
City Manager Ryan advised the State’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
reviewed the proposed amendments and issued an Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) report. Some of the policies under Objective 1.6 of the Conservation
Elements, which was part of the transmittal package, were identified as the ones that
needed to be amended. During the transmittal phase, the City included policies that
required 30 and 50-foot buffers for wetland protection with exceptions to be established
in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). This was written such that the City had the
ability to clearly spell out the specific requirements, acceptable activities, exemption, and
variance procedure.

City Manager Ryan advised that on June 8, 2010, City Council adopted Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CPA) 2010-01 by Ordinance 5-2010. In this adoption package, the
City withdrew the buffer policies and in its place provided policies to direct density and
intensity away from wetlands. The City also added other policies to be consistent with the
state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over wetland protection.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2010-01 adoption package was sent to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on August 9, 2010. Following, the City
received a letter from DCA stating that the policies in the Conservation Element in
Section 6 of Ordinance No. 5-2010 were not in compliance, but found the text
amendments in the remaining sections of said ordinance to be in compliance. DCA filed
for an administrative hearing and then provided the City with an opportunity to resolve
the dispute.
Next, City Manager Ryan advised that staff and DCA had taken part in numerous
discussions to resolve this issue and avoid the expense of litigation. A settlement
agreement language was reached and the City on November 9, 2010 approved the
Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The City Council on December 14, 2010 choose not to
adopt the specific remedial language into their Comprehensive Plan and directed staff to
renegotiate with DCA using policies as presented in document F of the agenda packet.
This document was forwarded to DCA, who reviewed and suggested minor changes,
which were acceptable to City staff. DCA executed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement
and has sent the document back to the City for City Council to do the same.
It was originally reported to staff by DCA that the City would need to address the EAR
issue regarding Conservation Land Use as part of our Stipulated Settlement Agreement,
thus making the strategy to simply rescinding the wetland policies and return to the pre-
EAR language only not applicable. Since then, DCA notified the City that rescinding
policies would be an appropriate strategy. Therefore, staff provided another document
(Conservation Element with rescission option), that was to be presented to City Council
with the option to return back to the old wetland policies as adopted prior to the EAR
based amendments. This option was different from the language in the Stipulated
Settlement Agreement in that it would not address the mapping issue of conservation
areas on the Future Land Use Map that have been improperly designated.
(The cable television broadcast of the meeting was reinstated for a second time at
approximately 10:20 p.m.)
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker commented on addressing
the EAR, evaluating the City’s entire comprehensive plan, mapping issues related to
wetlands, which were to be addressed within the EAR based comprehensive plan
amendments, etc. She also highlighted maps within the agenda packet with Council and
several prior land use amendment application examples that were found to have
discrepancies in their property’s mappings with respect to wetlands, conservation land
use boundaries, etc. as followed:

1. The Willow Creek Commercial project
2. Harrison Street and Park Avenue project
3. The Tire Kingdom property
4. State Road 50 and Barna Avenue project
Planning and Growth Management Director Barker summarized the types of
discrepancies she noted in the four prior sample land use amendment applications were
addressed accordingly and considered by Council. She also summarized the reason
conservation land use was placed on wetlands, in a scenario where impacts were
proposed to wetlands, required Council’s consideration through the vehicle form of a
land use amendment application. Additionally, Planning and Growth Management
Director Barker advised that due to mapping errors, the majority of land use amendment
applications served to correct the maps rather than to discuss impacts.
Regarding to the conservation land use mapping issues, since staff and Council began
processing land use amendments, or since approximately 2005, only one was denied.
Regarding the City’s conservation land use policies found in the conservation element,
the policies primarily protected listed wildlife species and their habitats through specified
processes or land acquisition. The City’s conservation land use policies also protected
wetlands. If properties did not have habitat for listed wildlife species or wetlands, staff
generally considered the land permissible for development so long as all applicable
regulations were met.
Planning and Growth Management Director Barker continued and highlighted process
and provisions for listed wildlife species and habitat and wetland delineations as they
were proposed in Conservation Element policy objective 1.6.7. She then highlighted a
page in the agenda packet titled Public Purpose and Rationale Basis, which she
summarized described every land use regulation or policy needed to have a public
purpose and a rational basis for it. She also discouraged referencing a mapping error
approximately twenty years old as a reason to limit the use of a person’s property. The
intention of policy objective 1.6.7 was to provide a reasonable expectation to property
owners that the conservation land use would be amended to coincide with the
environmental condition of subject properties, which was similar to policies that were
currently used and guided by Florida Statutes, the public hearing process, etc.
Planning and Growth Management Director Barker continued and advised that the initial
proposed policies were presented to the Titusville 2020 Committee in July of 2009.
Following numerous subsequent meetings with the Titusville 2020 Committee and the
citizens who attended, the proposed policies grew from one paragraph to three paragraphs
in length. This was due to concerns that were addressed throughout the policy’s
development process. In addition, the same provisions were approved in the Future Land
Use Element, which was reviewed and adopted with the EAR based amendments. The
steps leading up to the policies’ approval required being reviewed and were approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, too. Subsequently, the
proposed policies were approved by the Department of Community Affairs.

Motion:
At 10:27 p.m., Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.
Member Pritchett seconded the motion and it carried with Member Burson in objection.
Mayor Tulley opened the public hearing.
Pete Pearson distributed information to Council and advised a formal wetland delineation
was conducted previously on his property located in Windover. He advised many things
were addressed and completed in order for him and his wife to protect their interest in
their property. Mr. Pearson also described 44 units were once projected to be built on the
property they purchased approximately six years ago, which he advised was annexed and
a rezoning application was subsequently denied, so their project was reduced to allowing
three home sites, which thus reduced the value of their property. For these reasons and
due to the reason that Council terms began and ended, he requested Council to work with
staff diligently to resolve the wetland or EAR related matters.
Mayor Tulley requested clarification on the matters that Mr. Pearson described. Planning
and Growth Management Director Barker advised the conservation land use on the
Pearson’s property was based on the National Wetland Inventory Map. The wetland
delineation submitted by the Pearson’s with their previous land use application was much
different from what the conservation boundaries were on their property. In response to
this, Mayor Tulley requested why it was not updated when the Pearson’s submitted their
previous land use application. Ms. Barker’s response was because Council denied the
Pearson’s land use application.
Mayor Tulley requested City Manager Ryan to provide the City Council minutes from
the meeting where Mr. Pearson’s rezoning application or land use amendment was
denied.
Lynn Pearson distributed a packet of information to Council. She commented on being a
resident of the Windover community since 1978 and how she came to own her property.
She referred to the packet and an image from a 1988 map from the U.S. Interior
Department of Fish and Wildlife that she said was used for the first Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. She referred to another image in the packet and advised its images
displayed what the map looked like in the 1990’s. A copy of a formal wetland delineation
by St. Johns Water Management District (SJWMD) was received by the Pearsons in 2005
was included in the packet. Ms. Pearson advised back then, they did the informal, but
some said it was not good enough. Five flags were moved, she advised, and then they
received the formal.
Next, Ms. Pearson highlighted the last page in the packet, which she stated showed the
City’s current zoning map for her property, which did not look like what was originally
drawn by the National Wetland Inventory/Fish and Wild Life mainly because the city
staff had the actual wetland delineation on the property for Summer Hill. Allegedly,
when the city staff were digitizing the maps it was easier to draw the sweep, not the crisscross.
Following this occurrence, Ms. Pearson advised came debate about what was

considered a permanent line on the Pearson’s property and their efforts to correct these
issues with the previous elected City Council.
Next, Ms. Pearson referred to an instrument she referred to as 080208GM that was dated
March 24 or 25 and April 4, 2008, which she summarized indicated it was okay for the
City to change the lines of the wetland and the conservation given ground truthing. Per
Ms. Pearson, this instrument highlighted the word permanent and this word did not mean
the lines on the City map could not be changed, but (referencing the instrument) was used
to “merely to distinguish open space and recreation (OR) from certain or other
classifications that were used as temporary or holding classifications” until ground
truthing could be completed; in other words, ground truthing by St. Johns Water
Management District representatives of an actual property was expected in order to
determine the exact location of certain vegetation, soils, wetland lines, etc. Thus, per Ms.
Pearson, ground truthing would be the true delineation and method to determine where
the conservation lines would be on her property.
Motion:
Member Burson moved to allow Ms. Pearson to two additional minutes to speak.
Member Long seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Lynn Pearson commented on additional documents that she distributed to Council. She
also referenced a prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment response exhibit (No. B) That
she read to Council, which noted, “the application of a no net loss of wetlands approach
to the Land Development Regulations (LDR’s). This action allows for field verification
by the City and other regulatory agencies of the actual boundaries of wetlands. This site
specific data can be applied to environmental sensitive review and mitigation
requirements”.
In conclusion, Ms. Pearson advised that she and Mr. Pearson have historical data, a
formal wetland delineation and property with uplands that should be available to be used.
The issue she has been working to resolve was that the City map showed her property had
approximately three acres of uplands, but in contrast, she advised it is approximately 6.2
acres of uplands. She held up and referenced two other maps one she advised was the
Brevard County Wetland Inventory map and the other the National Wetland Inventory
Map from approximately the 1990’s.
Per Mayor Tulley’s request for clarification, Ms. Pearson summarized that she was
requesting the formal wetland delineation lines that were determined by the St. Johns
Water Management District (SJWMD) be used to define Conservation areas and Open
Space and Recreation (OR).
Sandra Clinger commented on a prior conditional use permit application that was
approved for the Pearson’s property. She next requested Council not adopt the Stipulated
Settlement Agreement, rescind the proposed conservation wetland policies, and go back
to the pre-EAR or prior 2008 wetland policy language of the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Clinger expressed that proposed policy 1.6.7.1 was not written clearly in her opinion
and contained some confusion as to which of two maps referenced in the policy depicted
ground truth properties. She also read from a prepared statement that summarized
portions of the proposed policies and her concerns regarding staff and the public’s
interpretation of regulations, and the importance of writing policies clearly as to avoid
requiring legal interpretation, etc. Ms. Clinger emphasized the importance of wetlandupland
connections and that numerous agencies supported this type of critical connection
relationship links; otherwise, without uplands, wetlands could loose their basic
operational functions if only wetlands were preserved, etc. For these reasons, Ms. Clinger
recommended hiring biological experts to provide analysis and oversight for natural
resource issues.
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to allow Ms. Clinger to speak for an additional ninety
seconds. Member Pritchett seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Ms. Clinger requested Council carefully consider the importance of uplands and
evaluating how much of these remained in conservation areas, in order to preserve the
functionality of wetland systems. She summarized that not since 1991 had an
environmental study occurred and there were other methods to address EAR issues. In
closing comments, Ms. Clinger requested Council not approve the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement, rescind the proposed conservation element policies and revert back to the
prior policies from 2008, conduct environmental assessments of sensitive lands and
report back with the information, hold workshops, and contract or hire biological experts
to guide these matters prior to land development, etc.
Per Member Long’s request, Ms. Clinger highlighted her background and education.
Vice-Mayor Johnson commented on finding a balance between property owner’s rights
and wetlands. He verified clarified Ms. Clinger submitted a citizens’ proposal in 2006
that focused on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and included implementing 150’ foot
native vegetation buffers within policy 4.5.4. Ms. Clinger advised that her opinions
might have changed since 2006 due to her obtaining new research on the issues.
(Correction was made by Mayor Tulley at the March 22, 2011 meeting.)
Laura Ward commented on amended results from the recent Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting on this item and her email submission of information to Mayor
Tulley within the prior two days regarding alternative methods to address the wetland
delineation issue, mapping needs, policy revision, and protective measures for uplands.
Mayor Tulley commented that he did not review the information from Ms. Ward as of yet
due to numerous emails that he consistently received.
Ms. Ward then read from a prepared statement that summarized initial work completed
by staff to meet the vision of the community, decisions by the previously seated Council,
compensating for uplands, the current City Council’s priorities, protecting the City’s
natural resources, loss of economic resources, attracting business to the area, etc. She

equested the Council make their priorities clear, rescind the adoption of the proposed
conservation wetland policies, and start over, in order to make the policies better, etc.
Rodney Honeycutt commented on Conservation Element policy objective 1.6.17 that
addressed the location of the conservation lines. He advised that he understood the
conservation community’s point of view to protect both uplands and wetlands; however,
he supported the current processing method of mitigating these concerns by the
appropriate agency(s) determining the conservation wetland boundaries and those they
were addressed during the City’s development review processes, etc. Buffers, he stated,
would be handled at a different time during a future Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Mayor Tulley summarized what the options were including to approve the current
proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement and then approve the proposed policies in line
with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement or revert to the prior approved conservation
element policies and return to the EAR process, which included preparing an ordinance to
rescind or undo all that had occurred.
Mayor Tulley outlined his own questions that focused on the current maps being used to
determine land use and conservation boundaries including the National Wetland
Inventory Map that was staff reportedly uploaded into Geographical Information System
(GIS), having updated information or maps from Fish & Wildlife, verifying the public
hearing process was required anytime a boundary line was changed on the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM), landward extent (boundary) definition and methodologies, relocation
of policies by staff, ground truthing, internal procedures currently used that were very
similar to policy objective 1.6.7 which provided property owners could provide evidence
to align with wetland delineation, etc.
Vice-Mayor Johnson commented on the issues in his opinion could be resolved by
ground truthing, which could serve to correct any conservation boundary mapping errors.
He also commented on interpretation of policies argued by a small group of individuals,
policy language, working with the business community who he felt were exhausted by
these issues, sending the right message to business, property owners and citizens in
Titusville, etc.
Member Pritchett commented on biologists or like experts determining wetland and
conservation lines for individuals with various sized properties. She supported the
proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement and related policies and requested that if staff
were to prepare the subsequent ordinance, under criteria, to include language as to when
the City would contract environmental or biology expert professionals to determine
wetland delineation and conservation environmental assessments.
Member Long commented on protecting the function of wetlands and their relationship
with stormwater management, drinking water, etc.
Ms. Barker summarized that staff desired the proposed policies be written into the
Comprehensive Plan, so when a conservation land use amendment application was

eceived, Council could consider approval of adjusting the lines to match the conditions
of individual properties. Mayor Tulley noted property owners or their representatives
would be guided by these policies if they were spelled out and included in the
Comprehensive Plan.
xxx
It was almost 11:30 p.m. City Manager Ryan advised there was one additional item on
the agenda that he desired Council’s consideration. This was the purchase of the former
City Fire Station located at 4660 Sisson Road. He proposed hearing all of the remaining
agenda items on February 1, 2011.
Motion:
At 11:30 pm, Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to extend the meeting thirty minutes. Member
Pritchett seconded the motion. The motion carried with Member Burson in objection.
Mayor Tulley closed the public hearing for the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
xxx
Member Long commented on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations.
Motion:
Member Long moved for the City Manager or staff to prepare a rescission ordinance and
requested staff to form a workshop with Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Member Long’s motion died for a lack of a second.
Vice-Mayor Johnson summarized two points that he expressed were the issues at this
meeting including 1.) He supported Policy 1.6.7 that served to proactively address
individual properties and 2.) The business community did not like option E, which he
expressed they felt was unclear, so they went with option F.
Motion:
Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to approve the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for DCA
10-1ER (CPA 2010-1) EAR Based Amendments. Member Pritchett seconded the motion.
Member Burson requested Council consider what conservation areas remained in an area
that she referenced on a map. She desired a rescission ordinance and workshops, in order
to ensure upland-wetland connections in the area she described would be protected. She
supported biological assessments and holding a workshop to determine what conservation
areas should be maintained before possibly being lost. Member Burson supported making
balanced changes based on data, wetland delineations, etc.

Mayor Tulley summarized the request at this meeting did not focus on wetland
protection, but delineation. He and Member Burson engaged in discussion as to what was
being requested at the meeting and what needed to be addressed following the meeting.
Mayor Tulley did not support all of the language proposed in the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement and desired further input by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He did not
support the request given that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not approve it,
after reading the policies several times there was room for clarity improvements, and
finally, the proposed policies included some steps that were already being used, etc.
Vice-Mayor Johnson commented that the request tonight was straightforward and
involved ground-truthing, examining properties and putting “the lines” where they were
supposed to be.
The roll call was:
Member Burson
Member Pritchett
Vice-Mayor Johnson
Mayor Tulley
Member Long
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
The motion to approve the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for DCA 10-1ER (CPA
2010-1) EAR Based Amendments failed, 3-2.
Motion:
Member Long moved to authorize staff to prepare a rescission ordinance to return to the
old wetland policies as adopted prior to the Evaluation & Appraisal Report (EAR) based
amendments. Member Burson seconded the motion. The motion carried with Vice-Mayor
Johnson in objection.
New Business:
xxx
Purchase of Former City Fire Station located at 4660 Sisson Road – City Manager Ryan
advised that in April of 2007, Mr. Nicholas Damiano, Sr. purchased the former City Fire
Station located at 4660 Sisson Road for the purchase price of $200,000 in “as is”
condition. In August of 2007, the City informed Mr. Damiano that a state environmental
audit had concluded that a petroleum assessment subsequent to a 1991 fuel spill was
required and that further remediation efforts were needed. In November of 2010, Mr.
Damiano expressed concern over the progress of the remediation efforts and requested
the City purchase the property back from him. Council directed staff to work with Mr.
Damiano to rectify the problem.

On December 9, 2010, staff met with Mr. Damiano and offered to “unwind” the terms of
the original sale and refund the purchase price of $200,000 plus closing costs of
$2,643.50 and pro-rated utility and property tax fees of $949.26 dating from the time of
Mr. Damiano’s November 2010 request to Council. The total amount offered in the
City’s letter to Mr. Damaino, dated January 4, 2011, was $203,592.76 and was contingent
upon City Council approval. On January 19, 2010, the City Manager was informed that
Mr. Damaino accepted the City’s proposal to unwind the sale as detailed in its January 4 th
letter.
Motion:
Member Burson moved to approve the purchase of the former City Fire Station located at
4660 Sisson Road, as requested. Vice-Mayor Johnson seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
City Attorney Severs verified whether Member Burson wished to include approving the
corresponding budget amendment for the purchase in the motion presently on the floor.
Member Burson agreed to amend the motion to include approving the related budget
amendment. Vice-Mayor Johnson’s second held. The motion carried unanimously.
xxx
City Council would hear the unfinished agenda items on February 1, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in
Council Chambers, which included:
• Ordinance No. 4-2011 – Adoption of Ordinance Regulating Pain Clinics, Pain
Management Clinics, and Cash Only Pharmacies
• Amendment to the January 13, 2009 CRA And City Loan Agreement to Include
Additional Projects for the Downtown
• Petitions and Requests from the Public Present (Open Forum):
• Mayor James H. Tulley, Jr. Report
• Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization – Mayor Jim Tulley And
Council Member Kathleen Burson
• Space Coast Economic Development Commission – Council Member Kathleen
Burson
• Student Advisory Council Meeting - Council Member Rita Pritchett
• North Brevard Parks & Recreation - Council Member Rita Pritchett
• Titusville Area Chamber Of Commerce - Vice-Mayor Walt Johnson
• City Manager’s Report
• City Attorney’s Report
xxx
Motion:
At 11:56 p.m., Vice-Mayor Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting. Member Pritchett
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

______________________________
James H. Tulley, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Wanda F. Wells, City Clerk