January 26, 2022

  1. Minutes

Board of Adjustments and Appeals                                                            

Regular Meeting

January 26, 2022

 

The Board of Adjustments and Appeals (BAA) of the City of Titusville, Florida, met in regular session in Council Chambers, on Wednesday, January 26, 2022.

                                                                          XXX

 

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

XXX

 Present were Vice-Chairman Kristin Smith-Rodriguez, Member Margaret Van Deven, Member Richard Wheelus, Alternate Member Jonathan Van Zyll De Jong and Alternate Member David Mandernack, virtually.  Also, in attendance were Planner Navael Fontus, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea Farrell and Development Specialist Kim Amick.  It was determined that a quorum was present.

 

XXX

 

Member Wheelus made a motion to approve the minutes for December 2, 2021.  Member Van Deven seconded.  All in attendance voted to approve the minutes.

XXX

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

XXX

Navael Fontus confirmed that all agenda items had been properly advertised.

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez called for members’ statements, if they had visited any of the sites.

 Member Wheelus stated he had visited numerous sites but not recently.

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated would the visits prevent you from making a fair and impartial decision.

 Member Wheelus stated no.

XXX

 Consent Agenda Items

None 

XXX

Old Business

XXX

 New Business

 Variance 1-2022 (3720 Kite Street)

 Navael Fontus reviewed the staff report and explained what the applicant was requesting.

 Mr. Fontus stated in the interest of time, since the fifth board member has to leave at 7:00 p.m., he is going to skip ahead to the analysis and skip the criteria of the BAA.

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated that was fine.

 Discussion followed.

 Russell Barnhill, 3720 Kite Street, Titusville, Florida, spoke in favor.

 Discussion followed.

 Member Wheelus made a motion to approve Variance 1-2022, 3720 Kite Street, reducing the rear yard setback to 9 feet.

 Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong seconded.

 Roll call was as follows:

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   No

Member Van Deven                                       No

Member Wheelus                                            No

Alternate Member Mandernack                      No

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong             Yes

 Motion did not pass.

 Assistant City Attorney Farrell asked to please state the basis for the denial for the record.

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated just her or all the members who voted for denial.

 Assistant City Attorney Farrell stated at least one or all four if you choose to, but there needs to be a basis on the record.

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez stated her denial of the variance is based upon not having circumstances unique to this particular land.

 Member Wheelus stated the variance requested was not the minimum variance that would make possible use of the land.

 Variance 2-2022 (4005 Le June Avenue)

 Navael Fontus reviewed the staff report and explained what the applicant was requesting.

 Discussion followed.

 Kelly Egbert, 3181 Skyway Circle, Melbourne, Florida, spoke in favor.

 Member Van Devan made a motion to approve Variance 2-2022 at 4005 Le June Avenue for the room addition.

 Alternate Member Mandernack seconded.

 Roll call was as follows:

 Member Van Deven                                       Yes

Member Wheelus                                            Yes

Alternate Member Mandernack                      Yes

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong             Yes

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   Yes

 Motion passed.

Variance 3-2022 (709 Wager Avenue)

Navael Fontus reviewed the staff report and explained what the applicant was requesting.

 Discussion followed.

 Thomas Davis, 3342 Saint Vincent Lane, Clermont, Florida spoke in favor.

 Member Wheelus made a motion to approve Variance 3-2022, 709 Wager Street, reducing the front yard width by 5 feet in conjunction with the lot split as proposed.

 Member Van Deven seconded.

 Roll call was as follows:

 Member Wheelus                                            Yes

Alternate Member Mandernack                      Yes

Alternate Member Van Zyll De Jong             Yes

Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez                   Yes

Member Van Deven                                       Yes

 Motion passed.

XXX

Petitions and Request from the Public Present

XXX

Reports

 Vice-Chairman Smith-Rodriguez requested a motion to approve the Semi-Annual Report.

 Member Van Deven made a motion to approve the Semi-Annual Report.  Member Wheelus seconded.  All in attendance voted to approve the Semi-Annual Report.

 City Attorney – None.

 Chairman – None.

 City Staff – Mr. Fontus stated there are three items on the agenda for the February meeting.

 Members - Member Wheelus stated it is likely he will not be at the next meeting.

 Member Wheelus stated in the disclosures at the beginning of the meeting, they are asked the questions, have you visited the site or contacted the public. He stated lumping visiting the site and having contact with the public, it gives it a negative flavor because he has visited nearly every site in town at one time or another.   He stated he thinks it would be in their own best interest if they were to familiarize themselves with each site just to verify the physical configurations of the request.  He stated he was greatly surprised when he went by the cell tower variance request from last month, how tight it was packed into a neighborhood.  He believes they would have had a different discussion.

 Assistant City Attorney Farrell stated, two things, the board membership is intended to be diverse with different backgrounds especially in the building trade and land use type expertise so it is somewhat presumed there may be varying levels of knowledge about these types of things.  She stated your expertise is appreciated and well known when you were appointed for your experience with working with the City as a former Building Official.  She stated you are not currently engaged in any work for a development which would create a conflict and that is one of the things they would look for.  She stated with respect to the statement of whether you have visited any of the sites or spoken with any members of the public it is specifically regarding the item to be reviewed so the question is in the frame of upon notification of the item being applied for a variance did you go and do additional research as a judge of the particular item.  She stated you may have passed by all of the sites in your travels around town but that is not necessarily an answer to the question, the question is specific to whether you are investigating the application and agenda items before you.  She stated if you do go to a site with respect to an application coming before you, then your answer would be appropriate to say yes what you are looking at and for and if the other board members have not had the same opportunity to go drive by and do a visual inspection of the site it is important for them to know if other board members have done such and because you may perceive something that the applicant needs to know that you have gone and investigated the site and that is the purpose of asking that question.  She stated it needs to be on the record what type of investigation or conversations you may have had so the applicant can respond to each member who may have those particular pieces of information that the other may not.

 Member Wheelus stated, to clarify, there is nothing inappropriate with visiting the site.

 Assistant City Attorney Farrell stated it is not inappropriate but the procedure requires that the applicant know who visited and what they may have talked about with others so they can respond to anything you may have learned that may be biased by only partial information that you may have gained through that investigative process.   She stated it is for the purpose of the applicant to be able to correspond with the members investigation.

 Adjournment was at 7:03 p.m.